SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
South Korea is in the grip of a "spycam" epidemic with covert footage of sex, nudity, and urination posted online in what amounts to a "social death penalty" for thousands of female victims.
The footage may be taken surreptitiously by boyfriends or captured on covert devices as small as car keys. Daily camera checks are now part of life for cleaners in many public toilets.
The spy camera phenomenon has reached such epidemic proportions in tech-savvy South Korea that tens of thousands of women have taken to the streets to march for action.
Srsly?
Previously: South Koreans Protest Spy Cam Pornography
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'Spycam' Epidemic Seizes South Korea's Women
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
* m2 stares at the monitor... it looks like a hamburger...
m2 - that's a bad sign
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @08:39PM (41 children)
Even then, violating people's privacy is bad.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @09:02PM (25 children)
What you're doing here is virtue signalling.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @09:03PM (3 children)
What you're doing here is being retarded.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @09:15PM (2 children)
What you're doing here is being butthurt.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday October 22 2018, @09:21PM (1 child)
Covert footage online or it didn't happen.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:56AM
changed the subject, ftfy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 22 2018, @09:21PM (20 children)
I don't know about virtue signaling, but you seem to be excusing the conduct one expects of dogs. Dogs run about sniffing each other's asses, and genitalia. Dogs can't pass each other, without looking and sniffing at each other's organs. And, here, we have men engaging in similar conduct.
Being a man gives you no right, or excuse, for invading the privacy of other people. It can be excused in animals, but not in men.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @09:30PM (6 children)
There literally nothing here that supports what you say seems to be happening. You're mind is just making things up, which is a very common mistake, and which is why people feel the need to add all sorts of unnecessary qualifications to their statements.
In a nudist community, this wouldn't happen, because sharing a naked photo of someone would have zero power.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 22 2018, @09:34PM (5 children)
Of course, Korea is not a nudist community, but you knew that didn't you?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @09:40PM (4 children)
What's your point?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 22 2018, @09:52PM (3 children)
I don't think that anyone is real sure what the point is. Why don't you pick one?
a. you're a piss poor troll
b. you're just plain stupid
c. you're crazier than our Mud Duck Crawford
You might offer some other options, but we probably won't accept them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @10:18PM
d. All of the above
(Score: 2, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday October 22 2018, @10:29PM
While your expectation (sounds more like a "decree") that "every men" should conform to your standard of "don't do as the dogs do"**, nudists, North Korea and the whole humanity included... is different from stupid trolling exactly how?
Only because it's a sincerely belief that you hold? This doesn't necessarily make it less stupid.
In you place, I'd zip up that hole, your authoritarian streak is dangling outside in a disgraceful display.
I'll stop short in saying you should or must do it, I don't expect everybody to conform to my moral/esthetic values.
---
And before you give the false dichotomy a try (yes, I know is tempting)
Yes, I agree that the right to privacy must apply to all humans and there is a responsibility derived from it that also applies to all humans. But these two have no relation with the behavior of the dogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @07:52PM
My, aren't "we" plural. You aren't "we", you're singular. Note the total lack of plurality. You speak for yourself only.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 22 2018, @09:34PM
Oh, come ooonnn, don't be such a snowflake. No harm caused, women are free to do the same in return!
(large grin)
On a serious note, this has to be the non-sequitur of the year. I mean, how else you can call: 'Dogs are doing it therefore the humans' right to privacy should not be infringed'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by NPC-131072 on Tuesday October 23 2018, @12:45AM (5 children)
Transwomen aren't men. Transphobe!
(Score: 2, Funny) by NPC-131073 on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:06AM (4 children)
Men are men and women are women.
Men aren't women.
All women are capable of childbirth.
No men are capable of childbirth.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:01AM (2 children)
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sequential-hermaphrodotism-sex-changing-animals [allthatsinteresting.com]
Don't read it all at once, prevent that precious little brain from burning out.
(Score: 0, Informative) by NPC-131073 on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:16AM (1 child)
People aren't animals.
Transsexuals are mentally ill.
#MAGA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @09:18PM
So what, are they vegetables? Could explain the #MAGA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @06:05AM
> All women are capable of childbirth.
And females who are infertile are not women, but crones?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:03AM
You seem to be equating "man" and "criminal". Perhaps you should get yourself checked out -- there's a reason this is called "projecting".
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:29AM
#SniffMeToo ?
(Score: 1) by Blymie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:43AM (3 children)
Woha... that's rather sexist, yes?
How do you know some of this isn't women? If being seeing naked is a social death sentence for women, I can very well imagine that a female rival might want to harm another in this way.
Or -- do you suggest woman are perfect creatures, which dole out zero harm on others?
Reasons a woman might do this, via jealousy / hatred:
- believes another woman is 'stuffing her bra', hates her, and wants to 'out' her
- may have a different sexual orientation, and want a peak herself
- hates the other woman, and wants to destroy her socially
- knows the other woman has a birth mark / looks imperfect naked -- and wants to use that to destroy her
I've seen women that were supposedly friends, end up doing such things to each other!
But of course, only men would use cameras like this right?
By the way, I know the parent poster may have been caught up in this mode of sexist reply (eg, it was men!), because they were responding to parent posts / articles framed in such a context. But still, I believe this needed to be said...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:54PM (2 children)
We've all seen women do horrible things, sure. But - why don't you figure the odds for us? How many women are doing this, versus the number of guys who simply get a thrill from peeking where the chicks don't want them peeking? I'll definitely say the number is greater than 50 to 1, quite probably greater than 100 to 1, and potentially greater than 500 to 1 that men are doing it. Other people might see the odds differently, but I seriously doubt that anyone is going to offer less than ten to one odds.
(Score: 1) by Blymie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:09PM
Here's the deal. Men and women are not equal.
Women and men deserve equal rights, but it is fine to say "Women are interested in shoes", or "Women/Men are better at $x".
Why? Because *averages*. Insurance companies do this all the time. They stipulate that women ARE safer drivers, due to the stats. Yet this is legal, and certainly correct because averages are just that.
And averages are what our automatic, built in human pattern matching systems are based upon. We see typical behaviour that can be associated with an identifying feature (sex, colour, race, etc).. and then by default our brains map that behaviour to ALL of that same feature.
It makes sense -- for, it is a survival mechanism. If you're a squirrel, you don't wait around to see if the next cat is friendly. You see a cat walking/running towards you, you *run* -- because it makes sense to do so, even if you've only seen one cat do "bad things", eg a specific behaviour.
Back away from all of that, and one must realise that discrimination doesn't come from understanding averages, or from knowing that stereotypical behavior exists, and is real. No, discimination is when you take that pattern, that typical behaviour and ASSUME that it means the same for all of that identifying feature.
Having breasts doesn't mean you aren't capable of doing well in, say, science -- but it is indeed an indicator of the fact that people with breasts tend to do poorly in science.
So when you try to hire someone? You interview the PERSON. When you speak about someone, you must speak about the INDIVIDUAL. This is what makes for equality. Not "this is typical behaviour", but "DESPITE typical behaviour, this INDIVIDUAL may not match that behaviour".
So when you start saying things like "But maybe only 1 out of 100!", you're actually being prejudice and sexist by doing so. Because sexism/*ism comes when assuming that NO person of group $x does thing $y, because of averages"
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:49PM
I think there's a pretty decent chance that there are some women involved in this practice, though most likely for profit. It would be far easier for a female to set up a spycam in a public restroom than a man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday October 22 2018, @10:14PM (14 children)
It is not an either/or.
Both of these things are true:
It should not be a "social death penalty" for someone to discover that you sometimes remove your clothing or that you engage in urination.
Violating people's privacy is also, coincidentally, a bad thing.
Look, here is the thing: If film came out via which people learned that I sometimes engage in sex (I am a parent; wouldn't they already know?) or that I pee sometimes (I am not dead from uric acid poisoning; wouldn't they already know?) this would not be a "social death penalty" for me, because I am not all that social to begin with, and because I would pity (not "be terrorized by") the people who believed that there is any "shame" in such normal activities. I would be disturbed by someone's wanting to invade my privacy, sure, but I wouldn't be significantly socially impaired by it.
But if you are a part of a culture where people learning that another person will from time to time pee or have sex is a "social death penalty", I think that in that case problem number ONE is that your culture is seriously screwed up, and a lesser problem is that someone is invading people's privacy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @12:39AM (13 children)
"this would not be a "social death penalty" for me, because I am not all that social to begin with,"
IE: it wouldn't be a social death penalty for you since you're already in a social coma for life? Sadly it affects the common individual far more often.
Look at it another way. Given the nature of the biz, you're sure to find legit AVs involving paid individuals to act like they're falling for these pranks. From a business standpoint it's just a LOT safer for the people making the video to have the "Actors" on board with and compensated. So given that shit happens, there's little way for a real victim of these kinds of cruel "pranks" to prove their innocence. They have no one to sue since they don't know who did it to them and they can rant until the cows come home that they're innocent with at least most people going "Yeah right. *I* believe you." ie: Social death penalty.
It's not that people don't know people pee or have sex. They just automatically assume and refuse to believe otherwise that if you're caught on film doing those things, you're a willing participant and thus you're someone they should NOT be hanging out with before people jump to the same conclusion about you by association.
You can complain all you want to the contrary but sadly that's how society works.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:07AM (1 child)
The fact that people impose social penalties on the victims who have already been penalized here is a bad thing.
The people that impose those social penalties, who make it so that such an incident "affects the common individual" in a damaging way, are acting in a (common but) unreasonable, hurtful, and damaging way in response to video showing someone in a personal situation doing something ordinary such as using toilet facilities or having sex.
Their acts (shaming, shunning, or similar) are not only harmful but hypocritical, as they already knew or should have known that most people either participate in these ordinary tasks or aspire to. Yet upon the undesired release of a video demonstrating someone performing them, they consider it to be is evidence of the subject doing something wrong--as if they themselves would not be revealed to eliminate wastes and/or procreate should a similar video be published featuring themselves.
The wrong here is done by the one violating the privacy of others without regard to its import or impact. It's decidedly messed up that that should need to be pointed out, but throughout this thread it's evident that that fact isn't obvious to nearly as many as it should be.
The idea that this happens anywhere, much less is happening in a widespread way to a large group of victims, is, as I said, a cultural problem, and probably a larger problem than the invasion of privacy itself, as bad as that invasion of privacy is. If you yourself do that, or would, shame on you.
Now. "Looking at it another way" and considering the existence of similar videos made with actors:
BEFORE: Undesired video release is not evidence of wrongdoing by subject . Jerks who "shame" subject are a plague on society.
AFTER YOUR INSIGHT: Undesired video release is not evidence of wrongdoing by subject . Jerks who "shame" subject are a plague on society.
That is how the society in question works, yes. That's why I point out that that's a problem.
It's how society works in many cultures, but it is not how societies must work as a rule. If compassion and empathy are considered more important than they currently are in such cultures, the problem will be largely remedied.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @06:49AM
> Jerks who "shame" subject are a plague on society.
Thanks for putting it well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:48AM (10 children)
Should you get a scarlet letter even if you did get paid to change clothes in front of a camera?
How can anyone abandon a friend for making a product most of us consume?
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:02AM (9 children)
Don't worry, millennials will change these harmful perceptions of porn work and break the stigma. After all, sex work will end up being the career of choice for millennials and their descendants after many jobs are automated right out of existence. #NewNormal
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:31AM (1 child)
Naah, millennials will fap to Miku [wikipedia.org] porn.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @03:04AM
Poor millennials will fap to Miku with their Oculus Fapbooks. The upper crust millennials (atrophied "middle class") will be able to afford street whores, all of whom will be cosplayers. It will help that supply will wildly exceed demand. The richest millennials will engage in hedonistic pleasures and extreme sexual torture with their personal harems of millennial debt slaves.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:39AM (6 children)
Nope. Sex bots will leave almost no room for sex workers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:56AM (5 children)
There might be a market for disposable sex slaves for the rich. Mistreating humans and making them cry is so much more fun than breaking a robot. A 0.1 percenter could lay waste to hundreds of women and/or men (and children?), teasing them with offers of becoming a live-in concubine before throwing them back out onto the street where they will shoot up super-heroin and beg for scraps.
If you are right, I guess that leaves gladiatorial combat and experimental medical subjects. A secure digital streaming service could be able to relay live video to customers across the planet, with gambling done with cryptocurrencies. And there's a nearly infinite amount of drug combinations that could be tested out on "willing" participants.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @05:10AM (2 children)
I think we have discovered the identity of our my mysterious troll ;)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @05:46AM (1 child)
Nah, no trolling here. It's just the future we're all barreling into at full speed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @09:29AM
Well perhaps but it did remind me of the sicko troll fantasies that get posted here from time to time hence the comment. No sure if this is a whoosh or I was going off in too much of a tangent...
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday October 23 2018, @04:47PM (1 child)
I also really liked Altered Carbon : P
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @07:15PM
I've been saying variations on the same thing for years before that aired. But Altered Carbon does illustrate the point nicely, even if the premise requires a "black swan", namely the "stacks" (mind uploading). Maybe mind uploading can work in that way, but it seems like it would require many decades of development.
The idea that we can continue to create enough new kinds of jobs in the face of rampant automation is laughable. Maybe automation won't wipe out every driver (armored cars, luxury chauffeurs), or every food service job (you could keep one or two employees at your McDonald's, and teppanyaki chefs could be considered performers, etc.). But it will eventually eliminate enough low-skilled positions to cause major problems. We could provide make-work government jobs or universal basic income in response, but I still see many people turning to sex work, and perhaps drug dealing if we still have a Drug War on (I think it will be ended... giving a junkie their government allowance of heroin allows you to keep tabs on them).
Of course, sex workers will also be competing with automated sex bots, VR, etc. But a human sex worker (or slave) could be considered a novelty, like ice cream. As human labor becomes devalued, so will human lives. Perhaps income inequality will continue to increase, as the rich can just offshore their assets in response to tax threats (gotta pay for that UBI somehow). The rich will continue to support a lot of jobs, but some of them will be degrading. If you are worth almost nothing and there are many people who can take your place, you will be willing to do almost anything.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]