Sleazebags use middle school girl's Facebook pics to promote porn sites.

Some stories hit a little too close to home; this one happened right in my oldest daughter's school. Apparently some scumbags are using innocent Facebook photos of everyday girls as links to porn sites. The really creepy part is that they aren't even using sexually suggestive photos, just ordinary pics the girls have posted.

I just thank God that my kids aren't of Facebook, although my wife does have an account.

Facebook photos of local girls allegedly posted to porn-promoting website

Police are investigating reports that photos of several girls from Montgomery County middle schools have allegedly been posted to a website that promotes pornography.

On Thursday, a small group of girls from Keith Valley Middle School in the Hatboro-Horsham School District reported to school officials that their Facebook pictures had been uploaded to a website without their permission.

The pictures, which were originally posted to the girls’ own social media pages, were not lewd or in any way pornographic, said Assistant Superintendent John Nodecker.

School officials reported the matter to police.

In addition to Hatboro-Horsham, police are investigating a similar incident in Upper Dublin schools where parents informed them that Facebook photos of eight to 10 girls in the same circle of friends have appeared on a site next to links to pornographic material, according to the Associated Press.

Phillyburbs.com

I don't know what good having the police investigate this will do. While its definitely sleazy, I somehow doubt that any laws were broken here. Maybe they will be able to intimidate the site owners into removing the pics but, I highly doubt there are any laws they can use to prosecute these scumbags.

Probably the best option is for parents to pursue civil action against the website for unauthorized use of their pics, although this may prove ineffective if the site is owned in some foreign country or they can't track down the real people responsible in the mess that is cyberspace.

This looks to me to be another case of the law needing to catch up with technology. Using innocent pics of pre-pubescent girls to promote porn is definitely an attempt to appeal to the pedo set and an outrageous invasion into the privacy of these poor girls.

You know... I'm thinking to the courses I've just taken in Photography and related things. It covered basic legal issues such as copyright and how it applies to photographers. You don't have to be commercial and a 5 year old with a Walmart digital toy has the same technical protections as the Wedding photographer using his $7k cameras.

If the girls took those photographs, they own those photographs and nothing changes that. It's automatic copyright and well established precedent and law. Suing the site, if it's based in the US, would be a slam dunk and easy shot given the obvious and outrageous copyright violation. It's precisely the same thing copyrights are sued over all the time. The photo issue just happens to be all but cut and dry when proof of origin is so clear and unquestionable.

Just my two cents...and not legal advice or anything

And YET, everyone will CONTINUE TO USE FACEBOOK despite all of the NEGATIVES and RISKS involved!!!!

Everyone KNOWS the ENDLESS NIGHTMARE POSSIBILITIES and RISKS of using that CRAP-BOOK nonsense, YET... they WONT stop using it...

...and this type of garbage will continue...

...on and on and on...

...because dumb folks will continue using it.

Dummies.

The problem here is that i believe whenever you post a photo on to a social media site such as facebook you had agreed in the terms and conditions to hand over copyright ownership to that site. The media site may have given permission for it to be used elsewhere, including porn sites, and you have no comeback.

If they try that with my child...

There would be no need for a lawsuit.

Just Saying.

I'm fairly certain there's a law about using a child's image in a sexually suggestive manner. I vaguely recall reading something where a guy was charged with child pornography for having pictures of a kid that while clothed was in sexual positions.

Originally posted by sayzaar
The problem here is that i believe whenever you post a photo on to a social media site such as facebook you had agreed in the terms and conditions to hand over copyright ownership to that site. The media site may have given permission for it to be used elsewhere, including porn sites, and you have no comeback.

Not true, not true and not true...they can also choose to securitize their pics and most people will not even see their pics. Stupid people just don't know how to use it correctly. That's not Facebook's fault...dim.

reply to post by FortAnthem

This looks to me to be another case of the law needing to catch up with technology. Using innocent pics of pre-pubescent girls to promote porn is definitely an attempt to appeal to the pedo set and an outrageous invasion into the privacy of these poor girls.

Who says the law isn't taking full advantage of all available technology? We don't even know what the highest branches of the law are capable of. But either way, I'll be terrified when the law and technology become synonymous.

Case in point:



PLURALITY - in this show, scientists have managed to link DNA with a full profile, resulting in an evolution of technology requiring a DNA scan to do ANYTHING beside wiping your rear. All manner of random surfaces have this technology embedded...touch a railing and you've left a digital footprint available to any and all authorities. Touch a window - SMILE! You've been spotted.

Imagine if this is what technology becomes. Say goodbye to freedom and hello to Big Brother.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

reply to post by ldyserenity


Yeah blaming Facebook is silly. It's like blaming Comcast. The real blame lies with the douches who used the pictures. As far as invasion of privacy, well... nothing is private on the Internet. I'm no fan of Facebook but the hate it gets here seems over the top at times.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Yeah blaming Facebook is silly. It's like blaming Comcast. The real blame lies with the douches who used the pictures. As far as invasion of privacy, well... nothing is private on the Internet. I'm no fan of Facebook but the hate it gets here seems over the top at times.

Yes but it's only public if you set your profile public. I am not even searchable, so nobody can even find me on facebook...people would do well to really read the privacy and security settings summary to learn how to avoid this thing. I explained to my kids they were only able to get theirs with strict privacy settings...so only family and kids can even request them or even find them.

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, including how you can control what information other people may share with applications, read our Data Use Policy and Platform Page.)
When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

That is from facebook TC page. If it's posted on facebook, they can give it to anyone, sell it to anyone. I remember reading a story about a family going over seas on vacation, and seeing a family photo posted on facebook used in a bilboard ad there.

Originally posted by sayzaar
The problem here is that i believe whenever you post a photo on to a social media site such as facebook you had agreed in the terms and conditions to hand over copyright ownership to that site. The media site may have given permission for it to be used elsewhere, including porn sites, and you have no comeback.

Actually, that is 100% and absolutely untrue. I understand Facebook has some language in there that's confusing on the issue, but the law as we were just taught it in the college courses was not unclear at all. You have the rights to your own work, without exception and without issue.

You may be giving Facebook permission, within terms and conditions, to use your photographs that you've made public. I seem to recall that coming up a couple years ago...and you COULD well sign 'away' permission to them. That is something I'd check if I actually posted more than 1 standard pic to the account only my kid even uses for the games they do. lol.... My pics and material for family goes on a small, private little website behind Http password protection. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely stronger than the system I see at Facebook for anything someone doesn't want all over the net.

reply to post by FortAnthem


I feel really bad for these girls and their families. That said, if they didn't put their pictures on the internet none of it could have happened.It is my opinion that anything you put on the net is going to be read, seen, or possibly even used by people you probably don't even know- and possibly for nefarious purposes. Kids are notorious for "friending" people they don't even know, and also "friending" people they THINK they know who are in reality someone else entirely. The potential for bad stuff to result is immeasurable!

Facebook owns it if you post it on their servers and it is legally binding.

I don't know if any of you remember thaT mom who made a fake profile to mess with some girl. The girl killed herself and the US attorney charged the mom with fraud because she violated the FB TOS.

There is another thread on ATS about the FBI using likes as evidence.

That TOS isn't a joke.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Its good to see that the parents have some recourse under civil law to go after these scumbags. Its just a shame that there isn't some type of criminal law they can use against sleazebags who do crap like this.

Pa does have an invasion of privacy law that protects against others taking sexually explicit pics or using pics to gratify sexual desires but, since the pics involved here don't seem to be sexually explicit in any way, I think they may have a hard time using this law against them.

2010 Pennsylvania Code
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 75 - Other Offenses
7507.1 - Invasion of privacy.

§ 7507.1. Invasion of privacy.
(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d),
a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for
the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any
person, knowingly does any of the following:
(1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically
depicts, films or otherwise records another person without
that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a
state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that
person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts,
films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate
parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person
without that person's knowledge and consent and which
intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by
normal public observation.
(3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in
violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded
telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any
other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.
(a.1) Separate violations.--A separate violation of this
section shall occur:
(1) for each victim of an offense under subsection (a)
under the same or similar circumstances pursuant to one
scheme or course of conduct whether at the same or different
times; or

justia

Somehow I think the way they used perfectly innocent pics of the girls for their site will allow them to skirt around this law. Add to that the fact that the girls themselves posted the pics to Facebook and the scumbags didn't take the pics themselves and I think the state will have a tough time making a case against these guys.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Perhaps this would be a good project for Anonymous to look into. I understand they have a special thing about child porn in any form and they don't see the finer points of technicalities as we all know by watching.. They hunt it and anyone they can get the info on who is involved with it. This seems tacky enough to at least get some interest perhaps? After all... Anony is everywhere. Even around here, to see some avatars. Ya never know.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The fact that law enforcement takes full advantage of new tech isn't in question here. They often rush new stuff into use before assessing the legal ramifications and end up having their cases dumped because they think they don't need warrants to use the new tech to invade people's privacy (at least, that's what happens when the system works right).

When I say the law needs to catch up with new tech, I don't mean law enforcememt, I mean the laws themselves need to catch up. The problem is new tech is coming out every day that lets people intrude into the lives of others in unthought of new ways and there are no laws on the books to govern the use of such new tech or the old laws are applied incorrectly by law enforcement only to shield themselves from scrutiny.

The internet is still widely unregulated and people can use it for whatever they please. Remedies for internet misuse often have to be through the civil courts which can be slow and costly for the victims to make use of. Many don't bother because of all the time and expense involved.

The laws need to catch up with 21st century tech so they can regulate how new tech can be used by citizens and codify some behaviors that should be unacceptable such as using children in any way to promote porn.

We can't just hope the civil courts will discourage such behavior. If sleazy behavior is profitable enough, the websites that did this to those poor girls may write it off as the cost of doing busines and just move on to another group of girls pics from another school or state. If actions like this carried the possibility of jail time, then they might actually think twice before doing crap like this.

reply to post by FortAnthem


or tell their kids to quit putting pictures online, that would go a long way in avoiding such things from happening. you know when an idiot jumps off a bridge, they don't normally expect anyone to tear down the bridge.