Re: [projectvrm] Why Kids Sext (Atlantic) VRM opportunity

[Brian Behlendorf < >]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, John Havens wrote:
> I was horrified on multiple levels. Top concerns for me were the fact 
> that boys pressure girl 14 or 15 times with requests for sexts than 
> after girls relent and send them, the boys send them to all tier friends 
> and call the girls whores.
[...]
> -VRM gets a really meaningful context. What data is more personal than 
> naked selfies? So teach kids, the most tech savvy of any of us, to set 
> up clouds and control who gets to see what. The "killing" of data would 
> be a huge benefit here - a kid sees her photo where she didn't want it, 
> and blam. Photos gone before the "prank" takes hold. The definition of 
> "consent" is given tech parameters that allow genuine control.

I think it would be a big mistake to implicate VRM as a new form of 
Digital Rights Management for content.  What those boys are doing is 
horrifying, but for the same reason there's no way tech could (nor should 
be able) to keep someone from copying and sharing music against the wishes 
of the author, or journalist from leaking government documents, there 
isn't a technology solution to this problem.  DRM has never been what VRM 
was about; and VRM-style networks like the Respect Network still depend 
upon parties adhering to the contracts they sign with each other regarding 
when to share data and when to delete.  Boys like this aren't going to 
care that the TOS they clicked through forbids them from sharing.  If 
anything, VRM-y personal clouds would make it more difficult for victims 
to seek a quick removal and redress, because authority over data is 
decentralized.

Brian