It seems that anyone who puts any information on Facebook should
consider it public information until advised otherwise!

==============================================================

Facebook porn hijack: Internet users warned

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/21/dlfaceporn119.xml


Internet users have been warned about posting details online after a
young woman found hackers had advertised her as a desperate porn
star.
Becky Spraggs, 22, discovered pictures from her Facebook profile had
been placed alongside explicit sex images with the message "I want to
be used and abused".

The website profile on the site FetLife said she would "do anything"
to become a porn actress and invited fans to call the mobile number of
her manager to "see more" of her.

The number belongs to Becky's ex-partner Paul Farrow, 32, the father
of her three children, who was inundated with 50 calls a week from
sleazy web users.
They have no idea who posted the pictures - all innocent shots of
Becky around her house on June 28. She said: "It's devastating. I feel
in shock that someone could do something like this to me. They have
put up things about me that are totally untrue.

"I can't believe someone can destroy someone else's character like
that."

The four real pictures of Becky were simply copied from her Facebook
profile which she has had for a year.

Becky has 167 Facebook friends but her profile can be viewed by nearly
three million members of her 'London' network.

She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them. "I'm
really frightened by the thought of it. People don't realise what they
expose themselves to when they go on Facebook."

Becky was on holiday with her fiance Will Mitchell, 22, when her ex-
partner Paul phoned to tell her about the website.

She said: "My ex called me to tell me. He'd been getting about 50
calls a week. He had to call his service provider and got all
international calls blocked because he was paying for them.

"Thankfully my fiance has taken it well, but it did spoil the holiday.
I was shocked and confused and revolted."

The members-only website FetLife describes itself as the Facebook for
people with fetishes - publishing "kink for kinksters".

The police said the matter had nothing to do with them and referred
Becky to the Internet Watch Foundation, which only deals with
complaints via email and said it would not help because the law has
not been broken.

A spokeswoman for internet watchdog the Information Commissioner's
Office, said: "Many young people are posting content online without
thinking about the electronic footprint they leave behind.

"We have to help people wise up to every aspect of the internet age
they're living in - it may be fun but unfortunately it is not the safe
space many think it is."

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed
 wrote:

>It seems that anyone who puts any information on Facebook should
>consider it public information until advised otherwise!
>
>==============================================================
>
>Facebook porn hijack: Internet users warned

Surely that should read "Total idiots warned".

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/21/dlfaceporn119.xml
>
>Becky Spraggs, 22, discovered pictures from her Facebook profile had
>been placed alongside explicit sex images with the message "I want to
>be used and abused".
>
>The website profile on the site FetLife said she would "do anything"
>to become a porn actress and invited fans to call the mobile number of
>her manager to "see more" of her.
>
>The number belongs to Becky's ex-partner Paul Farrow, 32, the father
>of her three children, who was inundated with 50 calls a week from
>sleazy web users.

Hmmmm... 50 (per week) x £30 monthly subscription to a site. Her
'manager' could be on a nice little earner.

>They have no idea who posted the pictures 

A request, via court order if necessary, would require the (presumably
US-based) website to hand over the logs they have on who did it. 

>She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
>bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them. "I'm
>really frightened by the thought of it. People don't realise what they
>expose themselves to when they go on Facebook."

Most people don't put pics of their kids online, especially in the
bath. Especially when such images which are potentially illegal simply
to own in the UK.

>The police said the matter had nothing to do with them and referred
>Becky to the Internet Watch Foundation, which only deals with
>complaints via email and said it would not help because the law has
>not been broken.

Since when does the IWF decide when a law has been broken? I'm not
saying it has here (though I personally would consider it a good
probability it has), but last time I checked it was courts that
decided that kind of thing.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Ed
 wrote:

>It seems that anyone who puts any information on Facebook should
>consider it public information until advised otherwise!

Well duh!  Who'd have thought that putting information on a PUBLIC
website on the internet (which is PUBLIC) would make it PUBLIC
information and PUBLICly accessible?  Answer: anyone with more than
two functioning brain cells.

>==============================================================
>
>Facebook porn hijack: Internet users warned
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/21/dlfaceporn119.xml
>
>
>Internet users have been warned about posting details online after a
>young woman found hackers had advertised her as a desperate porn
>star.
>Becky Spraggs, 22, discovered pictures from her Facebook profile had
>been placed alongside explicit sex images with the message "I want to
>be used and abused".
>
>The website profile on the site FetLife said she would "do anything"
>to become a porn actress and invited fans to call the mobile number of
>her manager to "see more" of her.

<snip>

>She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
>bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them.

Yeah, they probably did.  So don't put pictures of your kids on a
PUBLIC website if you don't want members of the PUBLIC to see them,
you stupid bint!

>"I'm really frightened by the thought of it. People don't realise what they
>expose themselves to when they go on Facebook."

No, idiots might not realise, but anyone of average intelligence or
above would.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 18:05:25, middlelight@googlemail.com wrote in 
uk.media.tv.misc :
>
>>She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
>>bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them.
>
>Yeah, they probably did.  So don't put pictures of your kids on a
>PUBLIC website if you don't want members of the PUBLIC to see them,
>you stupid bint!

Rather harsh, surely?

ISTM that's like saying 'don't buy electronic goods if you don't want 
people to steal them'?

It surely isn't desirable to allow fear of others irresponsible/criminal 
behaviour to dictate our actions?
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:51:28 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 18:05:25, middlelight@googlemail.com wrote in 
>uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>>>She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
>>>bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them.
>>
>>Yeah, they probably did.  So don't put pictures of your kids on a
>>PUBLIC website if you don't want members of the PUBLIC to see them,
>>you stupid bint!
>
>Rather harsh, surely?
>
>ISTM that's like saying 'don't buy electronic goods if you don't want 
>people to steal them'?

It's more like 'don't put your electronic goods in a public park used
by millions of other people if you don't want people to steal them'.

>It surely isn't desirable to allow fear of others irresponsible/criminal 
>behaviour to dictate our actions?

Sure, but that doesn't mean ignore certain realities about the world.
Ie, that some people are bad.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:51:28 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 18:05:25, middlelight@googlemail.com wrote in 
>uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>>>She said: "I feel totally exposed. I've got pictures of my kids in the
>>>bath and the prverts that did the prn site would have seen them.
>>
>>Yeah, they probably did.  So don't put pictures of your kids on a
>>PUBLIC website if you don't want members of the PUBLIC to see them,
>>you stupid bint!
>
>Rather harsh, surely?
>
>ISTM that's like saying 'don't buy electronic goods if you don't want 
>people to steal them'?

Not at all.  Why would you put a picture on a public forum if you
didn't want people to look at it?  It's like me complaining that
people are reading this post.  I've posted it in public, so I accept
that anyone can read it.  If I wanted it kept private, I'd have
emailed it to you.

>It surely isn't desirable to allow fear of others irresponsible/criminal 
>behaviour to dictate our actions?

But we're not talking about criminal behaviour.  She complained that
"perverts" might have seen pictures of her kids.  Well, that's quite
true.  Perverts are members of the public, just like anyone else.
Nobody hacked into some private online photo album to look at these
images.  She posted them publicly.  If she was worried about who might
see them, she shouldn't have done that.  That's all I'm saying.