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

[Doc Searls < >]

+1 to what Mary says, Brian says, and the DRM-less thrust of what John is 
trying to get rolling.

To me what it kinda comes down to is manners. Mechanisms for those online are 
still very few and new.

Doc

On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:56 AM, M a r y H o d d e r 
<
 >
 wrote:

> 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
>