SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the look-for-people-in-trench-coats dept.
The BBC reports on a woman who was sent pictures of a penis via Apple AirDrop.
The victim received two pictures of an unknown man's penis on her phone via Apple's Airdrop sharing function.
Lorraine Crighton-Smith, 34, said she felt "violated" and reported it to the British Transport Police (BTP).
Supt Gill Murray said this particular crime was new to her force and urged people to report any other incidents.
Ms Crighton-Smith, who was travelling on a train in south London, told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme: "I had Airdrop switched on because I had been using it previously to send photos to another iPhone user - and a picture appeared on the screen of a man's penis, which I was quite shocked by.
The article later describes how to make sure that AirDrop is set to only allow pictured from known contacts.
Is this a major privacy issue or is it simply a case of a misconfigured device?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @03:39PM
It would be a privacy issue if the penis image was sent without the permission of the man the penis belonged to. Or if even the penis was photographed without the man knowing about it. It would also be a privacy issue if someone got private data off the woman's phone. But from sending an image to her, I don't see a privacy issue with this any more than I see a privacy issue with unsolicited email.
If AirDrop is configured by default to accept photos by anyone, that's still an issue, but not a privacy issue. Otherwise it's just a misconfigured device (and possibly an usability issue if misconfiguring the device by accident is too easy and non-obvious, or if correctly configuring the device is too hard).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 18 2015, @03:47PM
I'm in the "slightly disagree" category with your argument.
Imagine you have a mail slot at your home. Nominally it's for receiving things of interest to you. Advertisers dumping shit in there is annoying, but tolerated. But if a stranger dumped lewd photos in your mail slot, you'd maybe ask questions like "What if my child got home first?" or something similar. It's not pleasant, it's not really the intended purpose of the feature, and it's not nominally considered acceptable behavior in the public space.
The mere availability of security measures isn't adequate protection for a product millions have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday August 18 2015, @04:06PM
Your comparison isn't quite right as the device and system was used as it was meant to be used. It would be more like someone sending her a letter with a photograph of a penis and not including a return address on the letter. Sure, it's probably unwanted, but that controls itself as it costs extra money. In this case it isn't controlled by the money aspect, if someone already owns the device it doesn't cost them extra to send those nude photos. I actually wouldn't be surprised, if it was a stunt by someone she knew. Think immature prank. Sure, it could be some random phone flashing thing, but who really cares at that point? I've seen worse from random pop-up advertisements on the internet . . . the difference is that 99% of people don't call the police when that happens.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 18 2015, @04:17PM
I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I can accept it as a valid viewpoint.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:01AM
I don't think AirDrop was designed or intended to be used to sending unsolicited dick pics.
Flashing is the correct analogy. For reasons too complex to get in to our society sees unexpectedly revealing your genitals to another human being in public to be unacceptable. This is no different, other than the chance of being caught is much lower.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday August 18 2015, @05:22PM
In Canada just recently, anti-abortion extremists were mailing out brochures with graphic images of aborted late-term fetuses. Since there was nothing enclosing them, you literally did not know what you were handling until you'd already seen the images.
Such is the case here: From a non-contact, a thumbnail *should* appear at the same time it asks if you want to accept it (it may auto-accept if it's a known contact, or between two of your own devices), but by which point it's already too late to say no. Although good from a UX standpoint, it's bad from a "do I get a choice not to see the contents" point of view.
There's not really a good way around this without reducing the default UX for intended use cases... change it to a text-only "accept pictures from user X (not in your contacts)?", blur the thumbnail, reduce thumbnail size... there's probably no right answer, and once again it's the 0.01% of the population who are fucking useless assholes that ruin it for the rest of us.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 18 2015, @05:32PM
If it helps, sociopaths make up a full 3% of the population, not just 0.01%. There's plenty around.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:16PM
Maybe first read the post you reply to (emphasis by me):
A privacy issue is a very specific type of issue. If a pickpocket steals your money, that's also clearly an issue, and not acceptable, but it's not a privacy issue. It may, however, turn out to be a privacy issue if the briefcase he stole did not just contain money, but also personal data (like your driving license, or some paper where you wrote down your passwords).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:55PM
...and how does it impact your position if someone turned up, left an unlocked and open briefcase beside yours, and it contained photographs of a penis that you looked at?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:15AM
Impact my position? I'm sorry, I don't understand you.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:27PM
The point he was making was that if someone looks in your mail slot and spies on you THAT is a privacy issue, someone dropping something in your mail slot cannot ever be a privacy issue (except a camera I guess) due to the definition of the word. He was not saying there was not an issue, just that it has nothing to do with privacy.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:42PM
Okay. Noted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @07:28PM
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:32AM
No one said it was pleasant. The assertion was that it was not a privacy issue. It appears someone intentionally caused her discomfort and likely violated public indecency laws. That certainly makes it an issue worth addressing. However, no one's privacy was violated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday August 18 2015, @04:00PM
Privacy:
1) the state of being free from unwanted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs
2) freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny, secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure of one’s personal data or information
By 2) it's not a privacy issue but by the more general 1) it is, since surprise dicks on your phone is definitely intruding into a device normally seen as private.
I admit that we've been very focused on the more specific second meaning of late, though.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday August 18 2015, @04:13PM
Your smartphone is not private in any way. It's one of the *least* private things in our lives. Anyone can call/text/email/tweet/etc you at any time. We use it to view webpages and apps like Facebook where just about anything can pop up on our screens. You cannot seriously argue that there is any reasonable expectation of being about to 100% control what you receive on anything connected to the open internet.
The first definition is talking about people walking in while you are relaxing in your house or something along those lines. It has nothing to do with getting a phone call at home by a telemarketer or by getting sent dick pics.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 18 2015, @04:40PM
It definitely wasn't intrusion as the system was left open by her and it is an open system. The "disturbance in one's private life or affairs" could possibly be applied, but that would be a much tougher case in court.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @07:20PM
I kinda see your argument, but this is quickly dissolving into splitting hairs. If I leave my front door ajar it doesn't mean you should piss in my living room. I suppose the thing that needs to be worked out is the acceptable social etiquette around such things. 17 years ago someone left their AOL account signed on at a school computer I was using. Likewise there was no etiquette at the time for such incidents, but switching him from unlimited plan to hourly billing would have be a total dick move.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @11:07PM
The only hairs being split are being split by you, to support your argument. The device was left wide open: just like a mailbox, if she didn't want stuff put it in, don't leave it open.
Here's where you say "But if I open my mouth..." no, that's irrelevant. We're not talking about mouths, pockets, or front doors. What would be closer to the position would be someone jumping around shouting "Hey, I'm here for you to talk to and give me absolutely any photos!" and then complaining when someone hands over photos you don't want.
It's not a front door.
It's not a pocket.
It's not a mouth.
It is a device that has been left open for the delivery of images and automatically accepts them. She understood the behaviour when she turned it on, she understood that it was on and didn't turn it off.
Quit splitting hairs.
She knew precisely what she was doing. Her failure to turn it off is her responsibility.
Now, if you want to argue that the sharing of lewd images without permission is unacceptable, I concur, but the person who is the subject of the privacy issue - the man with that particular penis - almost certainly gave his permission for those images to be transmitted, and she accepted them by having her phone turned on.
Don't want stuff put on your phone? Don't have your phone available for access. Just ask anybody who stores cookies on your computer, spams your email inbox, turns in your driveway, sends out advertising material, or has headlights that shine in your open window while driving by.