Comment on South Korea police say 120,000 home cameras hacked for 'sexploitation' footage
Vodulas@beehaw.org 12 hours agoi’ll go out on a limb here and say that records from the lobby don’t make very good “sexploitation” material
The article only states that a gynecologist’s office camera was hacked, not that the footage was used. It sucks, but I can guarantee they put that in there for shock value.
Later it states 1193 videos were made from 133,000 cameras that were hacked, so while nobody but the people with the data can say for sure, it is quite possible it was just a lobby camera.
the article is about camera hacks, not cameras hidden by some peeping tom
Yes, but your argument is that people should have gone elsewhere. People are just giving you pretty reasonable explanations as to why they might not have simply gone to another doctor. Nobody is saying “This is exactly what happened.”
“some” might not, but again, there is no indication these were purposely hidden cameras, so lot of them should.
There is no indication that it was a visible camera in the exam room either. You just made that assumption.
The article says nothing about the circumstances, so everything said is speculation. Assuming the camera was visible and in the exam room is just that, an assumption. Just as you made that assumption, others gave reasons why that may not be true.
You can justify victim blaming all you want, but the fact of the matter is the blame lies solely on the perpetrator. If they did not do the bad deed, then the victim would not be a victim.
You can, and should, have situational awareness, but that is something that comes with experience and practice. Not everyone can prepare for every situation.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
ok, that’s fair point. i will admit i have originally reacted just to copied lede without reading the details, i did not really expect that remark to turn into such discussion.
and that argument stays. if the camera was in fact visible in the exam room (speculation indeed), then walking away would be the only reasonable reaction. i assume that some first line gynecologist don’t perform some critical emergency procedures (and even if so, they would be just fraction of their services) that would really not allow you to wait and go elsewhere. sooner or later, someone should notice and raise an alarm.
of course it is an assumption. i am reacting within some parameters outside of which this discussion does not make sense.
advocating common sense is not victim blaming. playing a victim card is not going to help you when something bad happens to you. lemmy.zip/post/54116147/23096002
and one should assume that at least some of the women who were patients there had one. it only takes one person to raise an alarm in situation like that.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 4 hours ago
You say that, but you also said this in your original statement, which is classic victim blaming:
They did not deserve this. You can say you are advocating for common sense, but the first thing you said was that they deserved to be harmed.
I’ve seen this comment, and I do not find it persuasive. For the first part, how do you know it is a sketchy neighborhood? You could easily walk into a situation you have no way to know is a bad situation through no fault of your own. What if you are there to take pictures in the neighborhood? There are a ton of reasons someone could find themselves in that situation. If you get robbed, the blame still falls on the perpetrator. The person did not deserve to be robbed.
The car analogy does not have anything to do with this situation. You would be walking into a space where you knew you were likely to get hurt, vs this situation where you expect to NOT be hurt.
And if that were the case, I would assume that detail would at least be mentioned in the article since that could be it’s own story. Honestly it would be a better way to frame this article. All of the little details point to this not being the case and they just mentioned the gynecologist for engagement bait.