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

["Mitch Ratcliffe" < >]

+1 
         However, if you just want a record that the receiving party agreed
not to share, and then the sender       sent the item, that's doable.

This is the first step on a long path to a distributed system of
attribution, as well as permission-management, that can flip the
supply-demand equation to the advantage of the individual. 

-----Original Message-----
From: M a r y H o d d e r 
[mailto:
 ]
 
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:57 PM
To: John Havens
Cc: Brian Behlendorf; 

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

If there were Consent Receipts for sharing, then what you are asking for,
John, would work, as the lack of provable consent could be shown.. that the
shared item wasn't consented for 3rd party sharing.

But that's a step beyond what Consent Receipts are looking to do now, in
memorializing a transaction between a vendor and an individual. 

Individual to individual sharing consents could be done.. but it's another
layer.. and then there would have to be agreement.

That is different than DRM for objects shared.. and I do agree with Brian
that DRM is the wrong approach.

However, if you just want a record that the receiving party agreed not to
share, and then the sender sent the item, that's doable.

Then if the receiving party shared, people could asses: is this fair use?
did they violate the agreement? did they have notice that they weren't
allowed to share and did it anyway?


On Oct 19, 2014, at 6:28 PM, John Havens wrote:

> 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