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

[John Havens < >]

Thanks, Brian. Helpful.

I had hoped that if one consenting girl had sent a picture to one consenting 
boy via a RN format this could help these types of situations. 

> On Oct 19, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Brian Behlendorf 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>> 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