Oops, I forgot to include the link to the full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/business/cbs-to-offer-web-subscription-service.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
On 10/19/2014 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
|