Teenagers send each other naked pics...

[AgentJean]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
You people must realize, if everyone started voting at age 18, there would be a big shift in our legislature. Instead most of you site back and relax, let the government run itself off of a minority of liberals and ultracons, then complain when the crap hits the fan.

The next presidential election I am asking for an anandtech effect.

I vote.


The guy I voted for in November lost.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Seriously, they HAD to make this decision. Think about it, guys. What if the bank emailed your social security number from one branch to another. Would that not make you uneasy? It should. And for the same reason that child pornography being transmitted unsecurely also should.

But I forgot this is ATOT and open sexuality must be defended at all costs. Rock on. You guys can have your ultimate revenge tonight by getting really wasted and passing out at your friends house and waking up just as powerless as you are today.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Seriously, they HAD to make this decision. Think about it, guys. What if the bank emailed your social security number from one branch to another. Would that not make you uneasy? It should. And for the same reason that child pornography being transmitted unsecurely also should.

But I forgot this is ATOT and open sexuality must be defended at all costs. Rock on. You guys can have your ultimate revenge tonight by getting really wasted and passing out at your friends house and waking up just as powerless as you are today.

Yes, because two people taking pictures of each other for private use is exactly like businesses selling your personal information. :roll: Punishing these kids just to set an example is absurd. You think this hasn't happened before? Kids fvck. Kids have cameras and camcorders. THIS SH1T HAPPENS. Punishing them will change nothing except for the absolutely paranoid, schizophrenic kids who, amazingly, are more easily persuaded by scare tactics than by their own libidos (hard to imagine isn't it?).

Edit: I would mind if they sentenced the kids to some community service. But labeling them SEX OFFENDERS means destroying their lives.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Seriously, they HAD to make this decision. Think about it, guys. What if the bank emailed your social security number from one branch to another. Would that not make you uneasy? It should. And for the same reason that child pornography being transmitted unsecurely also should.

But I forgot this is ATOT and open sexuality must be defended at all costs. Rock on. You guys can have your ultimate revenge tonight by getting really wasted and passing out at your friends house and waking up just as powerless as you are today.

You are missing the point. According to the age of consent laws in florida these two were legal. They are considered consenting adults. Yet, what they are charged for is distributing child pornography of each other. These laws are to protect children, not to unnecessarily try to use the law against these kids. They did nothing wrong. The state is just acting nutty.

 

[GeekDrew]

Christ... situations like this are why I am against more restrictions on sex offenders. I know a couple of sex offenders that I would love nothing more than to see rot in prison. That said, I know quite a few "sex offenders" that have done things as trivial as this, but now have to cope with the disastrous effects of being labeled a sex offender.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

The next presidential election I am asking for an anandtech effect.

No offense, but I don't think they'll take the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a valid write in candidate.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Christ... situations like this are why I am against more restrictions on sex offenders. I know a couple of sex offenders that I would love nothing more than to see rot in prison. That said, I know quite a few "sex offenders" that have done things as trivial as this, but now have to cope with the disastrous effects of being labeled a sex offender.

yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 17. he served 3 years in prison for it.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Christ... situations like this are why I am against more restrictions on sex offenders. I know a couple of sex offenders that I would love nothing more than to see rot in prison. That said, I know quite a few "sex offenders" that have done things as trivial as this, but now have to cope with the disastrous effects of being labeled a sex offender.

yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 17. he served 3 years in prison for it.

Kid couldn't wait one year for his girlfriend to get over the statutory limit?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
You people must realize, if everyone started voting at age 18, there would be a big shift in our legislature. Instead most of you site back and relax, let the government run itself off of a minority of liberals and ultracons, then complain when the crap hits the fan.

The next presidential election I am asking for an anandtech effect.

you need an anandtech effect in the meaningful primaries, not just the general elections.

 

[randay]

see, the problem is that noone ever took these two kids aside and had sex with another adult in front of them. if theyd have been taught the proper way to have sex then none of this would have happened! i blame it on bad parenting!

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: chambersc
Hmm, interesting route that justice took. I like it.

Sarcasm detector engaged.

- M4H

I dunno... look at his siggy

Right on. He's a self-righteous college child who wants to be a lawyer.

 

[amicold]

Can you get charged with that? I remember when I got charged with endangering the welfare of a minor, but I was the minor, and the judge laughed and dismissed that because it was ridiculous. (Don't ask, nothing serious)

Edit: I hope this goes to the State Supreme Court. Ha, this is absurd if I ever saw it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link to full opinion

Wow... that's the biggest crock of legalistic BS I've ever read. At least the dissenting opinion showed some level of intelligence. The majority should IMO be investigated for conflicts of interest with prosecution/state interests.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 17. he served 3 years in prison for it.

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 16. he served 3 years in prison for it.

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 15. he served 3 years in prison for it.

See how this goes? The line has to be drawn somewhere and if you're going to have a line you need to enforce it.

Seriously, you guys think this way? Eh, it's okay cause she was ALMOST legal. Or, 17 SHOULD be legal so it's okay.

 

[jdoggg12]

Meh... 1/2 your age + 7 should be law. haha

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 17. he served 3 years in prison for it.

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 16. he served 3 years in prison for it.

Originally posted by: Citrix
yip, my friends son got hammered by crap like this and all he did was bang his girlfriend when he was 19 and she was 15. he served 3 years in prison for it.

See how this goes? The line has to be drawn somewhere and if you're going to have a line you need to enforce it.

Seriously, you guys think this way? Eh, it's okay cause she was ALMOST legal. Or, 17 SHOULD be legal so it's okay.

Argue the issue not your agenda please. Both the article and the decision reflect the fact that the sex was legal because it was a minor with a minor of similar age. It was soley because they documented it that they were punished.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
WOooooooooooooooo gooooooo justice system...

why old people shouldn't be in control of the system

Apparently a 16 & 17 year old had consenting sex in florida and took naked pictures of each other... now they are guilty of child pornography.

Why because the internet is not safe and it potentially could be hacked...

You have to read the quotes... how they talk about computers and the internet makes me die.

Basically they are screwing over these kids, psychologically damaging them ... to protect them ... from themselves.

Sex and The Internet are the evil
/thread

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Seriously, they HAD to make this decision. Think about it, guys. What if the bank emailed your social security number from one branch to another. Would that not make you uneasy? It should. And for the same reason that child pornography being transmitted unsecurely also should.

But I forgot this is ATOT and open sexuality must be defended at all costs. Rock on. You guys can have your ultimate revenge tonight by getting really wasted and passing out at your friends house and waking up just as powerless as you are today.

Yes, because two people taking pictures of each other for private use is exactly like businesses selling your personal information. :roll: Punishing these kids just to set an example is absurd. You think this hasn't happened before? Kids fvck. Kids have cameras and camcorders. THIS SH1T HAPPENS. Punishing them will change nothing except for the absolutely paranoid, schizophrenic kids who, amazingly, are more easily persuaded by scare tactics than by their own libidos (hard to imagine isn't it?).

Edit: I would mind if they sentenced the kids to some community service. But labeling them SEX OFFENDERS means destroying their lives.

Try again, genius. They aren't in trouble for having sex, they're in trouble for the unsecured transmission of the naked pictures.

Seriously, did you read anything other than the subject of this thread before forming your opinion? You're the same one who's going to go into work tomorrow or recess or whatever and tell all your friends that people got busted for having sex and most will believe you and mention it to some of their friends and the great circle of ignorance will roll on.

 

[jdoggg12]

People need to butt the f*ck out of other peoples business... these 2 were obviously consentual. These laws are to prevent older people from harming these younger kids, but to punish them for it is ridiculous. There is NO SECURE way to transmit something like this. Purses get stolen, computers get hacked, photos companies leak negatives....

/the fact that the court is being PRO-active about filing charges before the pictures got out is ridiculous. If the boy sent the pics out, then yes - nail him. But he hadn't yet done that.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Try again, genius. They aren't in trouble for having sex, they're in trouble for the unsecured transmission of the naked pictures.

Seriously, did you read anything other than the subject of this thread before forming your opinion? You're the same one who's going to go into work tomorrow or recess or whatever and tell all your friends that people got busted for having sex and most will believe you and mention it to some of their friends and the great circle of ignorance will roll on.

So, would you be ok with this prosecution if instead of sending it by email, they sent it by postage mail? How is sending it by email any less secure than regular mail?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Seriously, they HAD to make this decision. Think about it, guys. What if the bank emailed your social security number from one branch to another. Would that not make you uneasy? It should. And for the same reason that child pornography being transmitted unsecurely also should.

But I forgot this is ATOT and open sexuality must be defended at all costs. Rock on. You guys can have your ultimate revenge tonight by getting really wasted and passing out at your friends house and waking up just as powerless as you are today.

Yes, because two people taking pictures of each other for private use is exactly like businesses selling your personal information. :roll: Punishing these kids just to set an example is absurd. You think this hasn't happened before? Kids fvck. Kids have cameras and camcorders. THIS SH1T HAPPENS. Punishing them will change nothing except for the absolutely paranoid, schizophrenic kids who, amazingly, are more easily persuaded by scare tactics than by their own libidos (hard to imagine isn't it?).

Edit: I would mind if they sentenced the kids to some community service. But labeling them SEX OFFENDERS means destroying their lives.

Try again, genius. They aren't in trouble for having sex, they're in trouble for the unsecured transmission of the naked pictures.

Seriously, did you read anything other than the subject of this thread before forming your opinion? You're the same one who's going to go into work tomorrow or recess or whatever and tell all your friends that people got busted for having sex and most will believe you and mention it to some of their friends and the great circle of ignorance will roll on.

Did you even bother to read the decision? The judges decided that although the act itself was legal, the documentation of the act was illegal solely because of what COULD HAVE happened with said documentation. And the basis of that COULD HAVE was not the unsecured transmission, but because they were IMMATURE minors who (in their honors esteemed opinion) should have known that they were too immature ever to keep the pictures to themselves and therefore had no right to expectation of privacy.
The emailing had nothing to do with it. It was the documentation itself.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
There is NO SECURE way to transmit something like this.

Password protected FTP server, PGP Email, SSL, password protected zip file....

 

[SampSon]

See how this goes? The line has to be drawn somewhere and if you're going to have a line you need to enforce it.

Seriously, you guys think this way? Eh, it's okay cause she was ALMOST legal. Or, 17 SHOULD be legal so it's okay.

Do you EVER make a post that doesn't scream "I"M A SELF-RIGHTEOUS DOUCHE AND I KNOW HOW YOU SHOULD LIVE YOUR LIFE"?

You're arguing two different points and then cut other users down for making the same types of arguments you do. Way to be....

 

[jdoggg12]

I think it's funny how the courts can try minors as adults, b/c they are capable of making adult decisuions, but these 2 on the cusp of being 'legal' adults are treated as being too naieve to know what they were doing.... "they were IMMATURE minors who (in their honors esteemed opinion) should have known that they were too immature ever to keep the pictures to themselves and therefore had no right to expectation of privacy"

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
There is NO SECURE way to transmit something like this.

Password protected FTP server, PGP Email, SSL, password protected zip file....

All of which CAN be hacked... i know its pretty obvious that it wont for something like this, i was being sarcastic against the court/argument that email isnt secure. i feel email is one of the most secure ways

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
There is NO SECURE way to transmit something like this.

Password protected FTP server, PGP Email, SSL, password protected zip file....

All of those can get hacked. Pretty much there are no guarantees in life of not having something stolen. You think that the judges would've been a-ok with the transmission of the pictures had they been transferred on a protected FTP server?