Search the Help Forum
|
I am being harassed on Flickr
|
|
Hi, I need help. In the past 3 days, someone has found my photostream and once they started leaving disturbing "foot fetish/sexually suggestive" comments I blocked them. Then the person made another Flickr account to Flickrmail me ~7 times that day. They told me how sexy I was, how they want to be my friend, and that they want to learn English. I thought "Bullsh*t", and I blocked that account. Then they made another account and Flickrmailed me several times. I blocked that one. Then they made YET ANOTHER account. At this time I flagged his Flickrmails for abuse, then blocked him AGAIN-- I must've sent about 5-7 complaints to The Management. I haven't heard back. Now this guy has made ANOTHER account and posted a comment today. I blocked him YET AGAIN.
How do I stop this? I don't want to have to block this person EVERY DAY from now. It's annoying and it's uncomfortable and it's frustrating, and frankly, I totally hate being hounded.
Anyone know what to do?
Posted at 3:01PM, 25 April 2007 PDT
(
permalink
)
|
|
|
I hear ya, I'm really sorry you're having to deal with this. I've reported people to Management as well and NOTHING is done about it.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I've found that flickr staff will responded the fastest to the "report abuse button." I don't know if they send a notification to your flickrmail, but they will send an acknowlegement e-mail to your account that you have listed. So maybe, check your spam folders in case flickr's response landed there.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Eudaemonian, I'm sorry that we haven't gotten back to you in a timely manner. We've been reviewing the case and instances such as these it's a bit of a quandry, given that we can't block individuals at the IP level.
In the short term, you could change your settings so that only only contacts can comment on your photos. You can perform a batch operation on your existing photos as well. Unfortunately, this won't stop them from being able to send you FlickrMail.
I would ask that if they contact you again, you leave the comment in place and not block the member before you submit an abuse report.
We do take every report of abuse very seriously and do our best to respond in a timely manner.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 : Thank you, I will do that. He hasn't been commenting that much compared to Flickrmailing me. Maybe an option to be implemented would be that only contacts can Flickrmail me (or anyone)? I haven't been able to find that type of filter...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe an option to be implemented would be that only contacts can Flickrmail me (or anyone)? I haven't been able to find that type of filter...
I'll definitely share this with the team.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
best of luck! try not to let them deter you.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
He struck again with yet another Flickr account: [link removed -- staff]
I've left the comment if it helps detect who this person is. Most people go away the first couple of times you tell them to stop, but this guy just doesn't get it. He just left the above comment not too long ago. It's the 3rd time today he tried to communicate with me.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks... we'll see what we can do. You should consider restricting comments to contacts for the meantime.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I did restrict commenting to only contacts, but that choice only exists for new uploads, not under "global". There is no global restriction of commenting on all photos to contacts only... But at least he can't comment on anything new. But it seems like the two comments he posted now has disappeared.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but that choice only exists for new uploads, not under "global". There is no global restriction of commenting on all photos to contacts only.
Actually, you can change the permissions for photos that you've already uploaded, though given the number of photos in your account, you might consider starting with your newer photos.
Go to Organizr and drag the photos that you want to change from the Findr strip into the work area. Click on the "Permissions" tab and then "Who can see see, comment and tag?". When the window pops up, select "More Options" -- from there you can change the level of permissions for your existing photos.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This is an Achilles Heel in Flickr- the ability to keep creating new accounts- which takes five minutes each- after old ones have been blocked for harassment. Regrettably, these discussions are exactly what the creeps like this want to see. Sorry for your problems Euda.
Perhaps, the only way to combat this very annoying loophole, is to make it much more difficult to create an account in general on Flickr. The easier it is to create an account, the easier to harass and stalk.
Of course, making it much more difficult to create an account, will most assuredly have some effect on corporate finances, though.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You have my sympathies, Eudaemonian. I hope this this stops soon. I wonder whether it would be feasible for Flickr to change things so that people can be blocked at the IP level. Not being much of a techie, I don't know whether the technology will allow this.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This is awful, Eudaemonian... perhaps we flickr members should stand up for social decency - and your human rights - and fight back? I'm a new member and don't really know the ropes but would it be effective if you reveal his latest account name to us and we bombard him with unpleasant reminders of his responsibilities as a human being? Er, that said, the idiot will probably get off on it... it was just a thought... I really detest my gender at times like these! You have our support, E, let us find a way to resolve this - and stop it happening again... come on flickr management, there must be some clever technical thing you can do... ?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, as per these Forums, the problem of harassment has not abated, and seems to be getting worse. Too many (whatever that number) victims posting here, is not going to look good for Flickr. The true question is, are Flickr members entitled to protection against such devious behavior?
[edited for typo]
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Spouter Inn edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Technology allows IP blocking, but the problem with blocking at the IP level is that it affects shared computers as well - schools, universities, libraries, workplaces, Internet cafes, etc.
So, yeah, you may get rid of the pest (who'll immediately just find another terminal) - but you also block a stack of other innocent users at the same time...
And, mrredhatman, a campaign of organised targeting of such miscreants via nasty comments is, while certainly appealing for the first second or two, getting pretty darned close to harassment in itself - which is precisely what we'd all like to stop...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm a new member and don't really know the ropes but would it be effective if you reveal his latest account name to us and we bombard him with unpleasant reminders of his responsibilities as a human being?
Not so much. What Dr. Keats said.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Spouter said:
The true question is, are Flickr members entitled to protection against such devious behavior?
That implies that you think Flickr can provide protection over and above what is already being done.
What do you think they should do?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Could the new account review system not disable things like Flickr Mail and the ability to leave comments / faves until they had been reviewed and passed.
You could also only enable these things once X number of photos had been uploaded and minimal information had been made in the profile.
So rather than making it harder to make new accounts, just have a few more hurdles people have to get through to be able to communicate with other members.
I then came up with the problem that would unnecessarily restrict a lot of innocent people for longer than before, especially existing members' friends and families. To get round this couldn't there be an option for the existing member to activate them as a trusted member or something like that?
Tricky though - hope it gets sorted soon Eudaemonian.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
NeilZone Some restrictions do apply. A new fee account can only send a limited number of flickrmails, for example.
It is a fine line between hindering the vast majority of users to target what is undoubtedly unacceptable behaviour by a small minority. Not an easy balance to achieve.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A couple of ideas sprang to mind on this ...
1) Send a confirmation email to an address at the time of Flickr account creation that requires reply or clicking on a link within that email to confirm the email address is valid. If that account is registered as abusive, the email address associated with it is flagged as abusive also and prevented from being used to register for new Flickr accounts. It doesn't stop the person from creating new email accounts but adds a lengthy hurdle that wouldn't affect normal users. Particularly nasty abuse could also be reported to the email provider who should also deal with such matters.
2) Record the IP address used at the time of account creation. Flag the IP address as potentially abusive. If more accounts are created from the same address also subsequently deemed to be abusive, take the matter to the providing ISP, or if your lucky, the company or school that the IP originates from.
Perhaps too much work for every case, but in something as persistent and insidious as this, I think well worth the trouble.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
SORRY! Mr Keats and Heather are, of course, perfectly correct in their responses to my daft suggestion. I live in Africa and we tend to take a more direct approach to dealing with social misfits who step out of line. I sometimes forget that I'm in a forum inhabited mostly by people liviing in the First World who, like myself, subscribe to the far more appealing political and social system of democracy, freedom of speech and, increasingly worryingly, political correctness. So, no chance of lining up Eudaemonian's sexual harasser against the wall and, er, giving him a firm finger-flick on the nose, is there? Sorry, I'm not helping... but, come on, Heather, with all of the new technology available to the First World, surely there must be a way of protecting your members from online sexual harassment?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey, I've suggested similar stuff myself in the past... but have since been convinced of the error of my ways ('cos, like, you'll wind getting your own account deleted instead of the dickhead you're trying to get rid of)!
Neil Zone and goneforawander have both offered good ideas, but as iansand pointed out - it's hard to implement a method that protects against the eejits without making life harder for the nice people..
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The problem with stopping flickr mail from new users is that sometimes you want an initial contact via flickrmail rather than giving out your real email address.
Also anyone thinking about annoying someone via email or an online forum will set up accounts via proxies..
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Michael:
"That implies that you think Flickr can provide protection over and above what is already being done. What do you think they should do?"
Like you- I am no techie. All I know is that more and more people complain in this Forum about harassment all the time. At some point, something is going to have to be done to check the ability to create new accounts so simply. That, or the problem will get worse and worse.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
At the risk of infuriating The Spouter Inn by disagreeing with him, what are the percentages? Babies. Bathwater. How many new accounts are not used for harassment? I have no idea, but before we get too excited it seems to be something worth investigating.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm really not sure I have seen as many threads on harassment as I have on, say, the desire for non members to comment on pictures - ie without creating an account at all.
To solve one makes the other much easier.
Regardless, I'm not sure I've seen all that many threads on harassment at all, actually. Questions about another user's behaviour that blocking has cured, sure, but this is a different issue. This is repeated account creation to circumvent the block. I don't remember the last time I saw one of these threads. But I wouldn't want to be harassed myself and accused of repeated insults to suggest that was not a correct statement. So I'll settle for 'my perception of the amount of harassment threads is different'
I like the 'blocking the linked email' bit, actually. Setting up a free email account (as well as a new Yahoo ID) is a significant extra hurdle, which would not affect new users. Seems to have minimal issues as a (certainly a temporary) solution. But I do think that anyone who has gone to the extra hurdle of creating 3 or more Yahoo id's to try and continue contact will perhaps even go this extra mile. Seems like they may not be plugged in right if "LEAVE ME ALONE" doesn't get through...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What portion of the harassment complaints involve account shifting? Some sites do impose a two or three day delay on joining before posting, I suppose that stops people who just want to stick their oar into a current 'hot-topic' but it isn't going to stop the dedicated stalker or harasser, they'll just set up accounts in advance of the campaign.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Regardless, I'm not sure I've seen all that many threads on harassment at all, actually."
That's right!! Sorry I brought it up. No problem with just a few members being harassed- right?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No. Not at all. But if it is only a few, it is not necessarily worth changing the site architecture for, or unduly hampering new, non-stalking, customers, is it?
If it is a small problem, then perhaps dealing with this manually is better. If it becomes a larger problem, then deal with it in a more automated manner.
It certainly isn't 'more and more people complaining all the time'.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather wrote:
"Eudaemonian, I'm sorry that we haven't gotten back to you in a timely manner. We've been reviewing the case and instances such as these it's a bit of a quandry, given that we can't block individuals at the IP level."
Instances such as these means there are more cases of this sort in Flickr. No one would downplay the seriousness of this, if he were the victim of harassment himself.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It is terrible, it is horrible, it must be stopped, flickr must shut down until there is no possiblity of it happening again.
Sheesh. Of course it is nasty when it happens to someone. We hope that flickr are able to detect the user responsible and pass the information to law enforcement. That I think is the proper response.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
/gets sucked in.
Geez. No-one suggested that this was an isolated case, and no-one at all suggested that it wasn't serious. I (and others) are just suggesting that it is perhaps not as widespread as 'some others' are suggesting. Whilst not, at any point, implying, suggesting or inferring that this was an isolated case.
This is an unusual case, however (certainly for the forums; one wonders how many are dealt with purely behind the scenes) in that repeated account creation has occurred to continue the harassment.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's certainly unusual in that the multiple new accounts are being used to target one user in particular - but the trojan-spreading "photo package" f-wit has been doing the multiple accounts bit for quite a while now...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Instances such as these means there are more cases of this sort in Flickr.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
GEEZ. No-one argued with that!
'Unusual' does not mean 'unique'. In exactly the same way as 'more' doesn't mean 'hundreds' or 'many'.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Instances such as these means there are more cases of this sort in Flickr.
Yes, but very, very, very few. Knock on wood we've got a great community of people here.
In any community, be it online or off, there are one or two bad apples who take joy in making the lives of others difficult. This doesn't mean that we aren't continually changing the tools we have and those for the community to create the experience they desire on Flickr. An example in point: Block was once something called Ignore.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ heather:
Then, I defer to you, and am happy to learn the problem is not as extensive as I thought.
[edited for typo]
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What gets all these guys off is attention. The party is reading this thread and beaming with pride at the uproar and your fear and inability to stop them.
Theres nothing to stop. They are cowards hiding behind anonimity of the web. With each post their feeling of insignificance diminishes. Its sad someones life could be so empty and pathetic. We should feel empapthy but fact is...to cure a troll, never feed them.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We've got a great community, yes, but there are still people out there that are abusing the system. I'm really bothered by the fact that I've reported a picture TWICE to the "report abuse" link and still nothing has been done.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this won't stop them from being able to send you FlickrMail.
Is there a way to allow only friends to flickrmail you?
Rosie O donald can? right?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm really bothered by the fact that I've reported a picture TWICE to the "report abuse" link and still nothing has been done.
Given that we can't share activity that takes place on 3rd party account, I can't confirm whethe or not anything has been done. We do take every report of abuse very seriously and review against our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines for action that should be taken.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
OMSEL SAYS: Theres nothing to stop. They are cowards hiding behind anonimity of the web. With each post their feeling of insignificance diminishes. Its sad someones life could be so empty and pathetic. We should feel empapthy but fact is...to cure a troll, never feed them.
I'm inclined to agree with this assertion. Perhaps we should stop getting into a froth. While we are all hugely sympathetic towards and supportive of Eudaemonian, perhaps each post is simply feeding the "troll" a tasty morsel which boosts his feeling of "self-importance"... if this is indeed a reasonably isolated incident on what is largely a top-quality site dedicated to providing a global community of photographers a showcase for their work and various streams of communication to discuss the merits thereof, then perhaps it is best for now that we entrust Heather and her colleagues to commit to finding a solution to the problem and get on with what this site should be about... if the problem grows and persists, then the situation should be reviewed... with any luck, the "troll" and likeminded sickos might move on to any number of lowest common denominator sites where abuse is more readily embraced and even encouraged... I for one choose now to return to the true heart and soul of flickr which, in my book, is a fantastic tool for photographers to use.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's been my experience that people won't harrass you if they don't know how you look, your gender, etc. By showing yourself in a public and basically easily accessible site, you've left yourself open to this. You wouldn't leave your home's door open to allow it to be robbed-but that's what happened here.
I would suggest moving all personal shots to a private folder and leaving only innocuous, no facial or sensuals in public(and there are a couple of sensual ones in there-giving bait to any a-hole that takes it).
You have to consider that the internet is not a home-anyone can use anything any time and it's up to oneself to stay safe. Trust no one.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's been my experience that people won't mug you if you keep yourself locked in a room with 6-foot thick concrete walls and no windows. Anyone who doesn't deserves to be robbed, and really, any idiot policeman who tries to arrest the robbers is doing an injustice because it's always the victim's fault.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yep. high skirts are out. low collar blouses, heels, bright lipstick. It all just screams "attack me", doesn't it? In fact they've pretty much got that sort of affront to a woman's modesty all sewn up in the middle east, don't they? Women get to wear their own personal traveling tents. Otherwise men would be understandably forced to attack them, their will sapped by the power of some bare shoulder or leg.
A creep's a creep, no matter how public or sheltered you are. In fact, someone with this person's level of continuing commitment to harrassment, is seriously troubling. and that's no one's fault or responsibility but his own.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The point is, knowing there are creeps out there shouldn't be a surprise. No need to get sarcastic. I am wondering why you locked yourself in a room with concrete walls though. Unlike that snide remark, I have had experience in this area because of the work I do.
The first message received should have been a clue to remove or privatize anything having to do with the poster. Why give them the opportunity to be a creep over and over?
And yea, I wouldn't walk into a biker bar with a high skirt, low blouse and bright lipstick and expect to not be ogled or mayber harrassed. You're a guy, I take it....
His actions are his own and yes, he obviously has some serious problem, but feeding it by thinking 'banning' a name and keeping everything still in the public eye isn't a really smart move.
Protection, protection, protection. Let the creeps find their jollies somewhere else.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
louann108 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
that's so.. "victim" of you. So if this guy was at your workplace, you'd just pack up and quit? Or the park by your house, this guy is always loitering there, harrassing you. You'd stop going, instead trudge to the park across town? The local pub where you know everyone, you'd give it up if this guy were there?
Some people choose to live their lives, and live them the way they want, as opposed to having their choices dictated by the actions of others. It isn't surprising that there are creeps online, and I don't think that was ever this person's complaint. What's surprising is that your first instinct is to pack up your tent and leave, instead of doing what you can to force the person doing the wrong thing to leave.
It is the internet. It's your internet. You can stand up for yourself, or you can run and hide. Darn shame if it's that last one.
[PS: your concept of common sense and protection isn't what I disagree with, just the degree. Certainly posting your name, address, phone, favorite haunts, etc, is not bright. That's usually more a problem for MySpace than here, tho.]
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, I wouldn't quit. I just wouldn't allow the problem to continue based on my own ability to take action against it. Not leave things as they are then complain nothing's changing.
Standing up for yourself includes taking the necessary steps to protect yourself and if your host can't, then you have to.
The OP has sensual photos in a public forum. why? some creepo gets his jollies and the photos are still there. why?
Send HIM packing. And the way to do that is not feed the bear. You don't feed a bear then complain when he eats your food. Simple
This site does not have the capacity to ban an IP because of harrassment. This fact is good to know. What's bad about is that the OP and anyone else does have to really think about what to post and not have the freedom of expression many of us seek. Creeps shouldn't win and if the forum can change it so they don't, that's great. But until it does, self-protection is the only way to ensure a-holes don't ruin the day for us.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
louann108 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
"You don't feed a bear then complain when he eats your food. Simple."
that sounds uncomfortably close to "She was asking for it."
Her photo page is her "personal space". You're asking her to alter her behavior, to act in a way that isn't inviting or stimulating, or creatively free (all things that Flickr is supposed to be used for) in an attempt to alter the unwanted and deviant behavior of an online stalker.
Let's just say that again. "Online Stalker". In the real world when that occurs? You don't move away, you get a restraining order. If that doesn't work, you find another way. If you have to change in any way the kind of life you want to live, then you've lost, and he's won.
This is not her fault. period. Your down-home bear-honey spin doesn't do much to sweeten the bitter sentiment to the contrary.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's not her personal space if it's marked 'public'. That's a no-brainer.
This isn't the real world, it's the internet, where momma's sweet son hides and plays stalker. You can't get a restraining order here. Don't compare apples and oranges. The internet forces people to be pro-active with their work. If they aren't, they're open to this kind of idiocy.
It's not anyone's fault but the 'stalker-harrasser'. But, yes, feeding the bear applies with the internet if steps aren't taken to prevent it.
I'll let you in on something. I did erotica for years. Had a private site. And some of that stuff I had on a public site much like this one. A fellow came up to me, in real life, and said he'd seen 'those photos'. How? By right-clicking an innocuous little photo I'd posted on another forum. I removed them from the public forum-no more problem.
I don't know those people from Adam, why would I share that stuff with them?
Changing how you post, what you post is not the same as changing a lifestyle-you're making this like it's real life and it's not. Are you aware that anyone could find out who you are with the right proggie? If you sign onto anything with a real name or even a real email, you're open to anything that comes along.
No one said this was her fault. But her peace of mind and security has to come from her, not from anyone else. Flickr can't do it, you can't do it and I can't do it. So, should we just throw tomatoes at the creeps and hope they run like hell?
He's already won, he has her paranoid. He knows Flickr won't ban his IP, so he can do what he wants when he wants. Who in their right mind wants that to continue?
It's not changing a behavior to make the more personal submissions private only. It's a precaution against the very 'crime' she's experiencing. Post away, show whatever, just know who you're showing it to. There's still freedom in that, but it's a protected freedom. There was no way of knowing anyone would be so sicko, but now that there is(and knowing Flickr can't ban IP's at least would make me think twice about what to post or say now), steps can be taken to keep the sicko out. No one performs when there's no audience. He'll go away when there's no one to harrass.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"He's already won, he has her paranoid."
No, he's already won because he has you paranoid. She's standing up for herself. To each their own.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How does a person who is bothering someone else have me paranoid? First off, I would assume you're a guy and haven't had to deal with this crap....second, I'd assume you're not all that old. Newsflash: People think they can get away with more because of the assumed anonymity the internet tends to give. For all anyone, including the OP knows, this person is an upstanding citizen that might even know her IRL. I doubt it, though. For all I know, you're some shy little guy that wouldn't speak to a waitress above a whisper.
People get brave behind their monitors and they get really stupid too and cause problems like this one. It's unfortunate, but a fact of the worldwide web. Standing up for oneself isn't just asking for help-it's protecting oneself before the asking becomes necessary. You're just not getting that at all. Bet you don't have virus protection on your PC either because it's 'just paranoid' to do so, like locking your doors before going to bed or going out....
How is she standing up for herself? I haven't seen that, actually. The seductive photos were still there after the thread started. Was the Flickrmail changed to allow only contacts? Commentary limited in any way?(Don't even know if that's an option here, actually)
She asked for help that can't be provided. So, if steps were taken, what were they that would prevent anyone from going creepo on her or anyone else here? He'll continue, either until a way is found to get rid of him or he finds another game to play.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow! You must not read the forums much if you think the searcher is a shy little guy that whispers.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Interesting. The OP's name is used elsewhere(lots of elsewheres) with more personal info; age, location, photo, blogs.....*sigh*
Anyone could find this person. Anyone.
Well, I said 'assuming', as in, eh, don't know. But unless you know him in real life, would you know for sure he wasn't? Do you know for sure my av is me? Nope.... ;)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
louann108 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Its kinda ironic to hear words of protect me to the company who led the way in providing instant, anomomous user id's. And if this same company demanded your DNA to get an id you would be howling about invasion of privacy.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
With regard to Walwyn's earlier comment re other sites not allowing new accounts to post / mail for a few days, maybe Flickr could consider not allowing accounts to post / mail until they've actually been reviewed? If you can't mail / post until you've uploaded five images and been reviewed, it'll stop a lot of spammers / stalkers / trolls - or at least slow 'em down a fair whack.
Applied to Eudaemonian's problem, once the turd's been blackballed for bothering her, he's then got to establish a new account, upload images, and wait for review before doing it again - a process that'll take around one to two weeks. Stops the whole bizzo of getting back online with a new account within an hour or so. Same goes for commercial spammers.
Sure, all the good and decent newbies will be affected too, but not being able to post / mail to the general population for a week or so won't kill 'em; so long as Flickr still allows new accounts to send Help requests in case of problems - and so long as it's clearly spelt out as part of the sign-up process...
(And, of course, such a system would have to wait until once the current review crisis is sorted, and accounts are reviewed more quickly....).
Thoughts?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good idea Dr. and really newbies won't be affected too much as theres nothing to interact about until you have a bunch of pics to do it with.
Some sites don't even allow making an account with a Yahoo or MSN mail account...not sure that would work too well here though.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
all the good and decent newbies will be affected too, but not being able to post / mail to the general population for a week or so won't kill 'em;
And what about people like my mother, who doesn't have a digital camera, has no digital photos at all... and will never upload a photo to Flickr, but has an account so she can see my 'family only' photos? She can't Flickrmail or comment on my photos because she'll never be reviewed?
And what about the person who Flickrmailed me because she wanted to license some of my photos for a magazine? She had no photos in her account either.
I don't think you can put a blanket ban on using Flickrmail or making comments on those people whose accounts haven't been reviewed. There are probably hundreds of thousands of account holders in that situation.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
New free accounts are already restricted to 10 flickrmails until they are approved (or some other milestone - not sure what it is)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
moot alert. Apparently soon new account reviews will occur in a matter of hours, not days or weeks.
Just because there's no solution, just because creeps will be creeps. Is no reason to stop trying, and asking, and defying. louann, I think that's my main point. Your choice. or Her choice.
Neither will affect the decisions a creep makes. To think you have some control over a stalker/predator, or could alter his behavior by altering your own, is the height of naivety.
And unless you've been around since, or even know the meaning of the words Arpanet, Gopher, Jughead, Veronica, Quantum-LInk, or Tycho-BBS? Then you can't lecture me on how the internet works.
j vignali: thanks for that, I got a good laugh from that.
but in quiet, whispered tones.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Louann108 - I like your take on this issue. Good luck trying to discuss it in a rational manner here. Hang in there!
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And what about the person who Flickrmailed me because she wanted to license some of my photos for a magazine? She had no photos in her account either.
That was one of my original points, and we also have relations who will never post pictures too. Setting a review criteria would harm a lot of legitimate users, putting a 24hr delay on mail/posting usage would be less restrictive but could be useful as it would impose a cooling off period.
In cases of abuse I'm pretty sure that ISPs pull the users account. Most IPs can be traced unless a truely anonymous proxy is being used, but if someone is creating multiple email accounts they'll slip up.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Searcher: your welcome
@ Brenda: I'm like your mother, I don't have a digital camera. All my pics are from an old 35 mm slr. When I get my film developed I just have them put it on a cd.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
javanali edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Searcher: I agree, no one should just stop asking, trying or defying and cowtowing to the lowest forms of life. But it's been made clear that, in this case, format and policy changes would be next to impossible from the admin position; that's when a proactive position comes into play.
As I mentioned, the OP is all over the net with the same name, personal info, including hometown, age, etc. That, to me, is not being proactive. I have at least 3 nicks on the net; some sites require a 'real name' to register-I make one up. Had I not been a Yahoo user from ages ago, this nick wouldn't be used either. Even with my past avocation, I haven't had creeps stalk me-they simply can't without a great deal of effort.
There are some who still use the web the way they did 20 years ago-not thinking that any schmoe now can do the same, hence, a level of security-mindedness is lax. I was one of them; thankfully I have friends in high IT places who knocked some sense into me. :-)
What is the protocol for even signing up as a newbie in Flickr if one is not a Yahoo user? In the case of having an account only to share with family, as Brenda pointed out, isn't there a way to just give the space URL out without viewers having to log in?
Asking such a huge website to change their protocol for the maybe 1% unsavories we want to avoid and thereby inconveniencing so many isn't really fair or realisitic; making a few minor changes in our own setups, thus personalizing our allotted space seems a bit more reasonable and unencumbering to the community at large.
As for the creep in the OP's case, she could find out his ISP or IP and report his behavior there-depending on his server's terms of service, he could be shut down. Perhaps admin could help there.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ louann:
"There are some who still use the web the way they did 20 years ago-not thinking that any schmoe now can do the same, hence, a level of security-mindedness is lax."
Yes- that is a very perceptive insight.
Perhaps, one should not treat a site like Flickr the way one treats a bank or investment site (to name just a few), which are supposedly full of safeguards. In the latter, real time information is necessary for purposes of identification. In sites like Flickr, the first rule of thumb is anonimity- not allowing any breach into something personal. It is as you write:
"By showing yourself in a public and basically easily accessible site, you've left yourself open to this."
That may be a strong statement to have to swallow, but it will keep the creeps away.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"By showing yourself in a public and basically easily accessible site, you've left yourself open to this."
So it's time to don a digital burka, then? Take responsibility for forcing the men to stalk, since they just can't help themselves with the sight of you?
louann, for all of your talk about being savvier than the average net user (I can't seem to win, if I'm a neophyte I'm naive, if I'm an old-timer I'm out of touch. Wait, I can't remember which one you've assumed me to be anymore.) you're attitude is really kind of old fashioned.
It's not a bad attitude to have, don't get me wrong. Your safety is absolutely your responsibility, and you'll certainly be safer than most this way. But for some, just because the internet isn't a safe place, isn't enough of a reason to hide from it.
If this guy was in the world, there is also not necessarily anything a person, or the police, could do about it. They could similarly skirt the rules and laws and be untouchable.
Unfortunately, once someone is fixated on you, it's all a fantasy anyway. A person could hide all of their public images and it just. wouldn't. matter.
So how sucky would that be? You have to hide, alter your lifestyle, and he still gets to be a creep and stalk you?
In other words, what if the digital burka turns him on?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Searcher - So, because Louann has a different opinion from yours, you turn her into a woman who suggests "a digital burka?"
You are basically tearing apart every word she says, leaving her no room for even having an intelligent opinion; which, in fact, she does.
It just happens to be different than yours, and therefore it seems, fodder for your sarcasm. Once again, the point somebody is making is almost ignored so that the person responding can sound superior. Ugh.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Brenda....if mom wants to comment on your pics she probably has your phone number ;)
Perhaps we have worked ourselves into a paranoia frenzy and "we the people" are the ones who made anonimity possible on the web. I doubt many use their real name anywhere and theres a downside to everything.
It doesn't seem rational being worried about some wierdo sending mails...just block them. Theres a zillion other sites more viable for a stalker type than a photosite of regular, decent people. If the goal was real world action.... If someone was truely a danger they certainly wouldn't give a heads up via mail. Probably more risk going to a mall and being followed.
This system can't be set in any way to give total personal protection by its very nature. Most users are snapshooters with their folios full of pics inside their house, all their friends and relatives, workplaces, street signs. They don't think in terms of accumulated information, most only see the single picture. People go out in their gardens and shoot a flower then geotag the thing....mize well put your home address on your profile.
It would be interesting to hear an FBI profiler's take on internet stalkers. My guess is they are nerdy little people standing outside the mainstream and about as dangerous as a mosquito, about that annoying too. Another breed of animal like a virus maker looking to gain nothing but feelings of self importance. Could be a victim of a harsh critque maybe.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"So it's time to don a digital burka, then?"
But, on sites like this, don't we all wear the beekeeper's outfit? Really, who is sufficiently masochistic to publicly display his real name, his real address, the members of his family, etc. on a site like this? All of us here are deeply concealed by layers of anonymous camophloge- by thickly woven burka threads, if you will.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well. It's not like I didn't argue an almost perfectly inverted argument when it came to this topic and posting pics of kids online (which I'm kind of shocked no one's thrown in my face yet, it's no fun if I get to call myself a hypocrite first, is it?) But I dunno. Just feels like something different when it's about a person's personal images of themselves. It isn't that there aren't risks, it's just that those risks are weighed, and judged not strong enough to stop.
spouter: it's pretty analogous to the real world, isn't it? You don't walk around with a sandwich board full of personal info, but you do walk around. In jeans, tshirts, swimsuits, etc. The online equivalent shouldn't be discouraged, at least not by the lurkers. I just don't feel they should be given that power.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"But, on sites like this, don't we all wear the beekeeper's outfit? Really, who is sufficiently masochistic to publicly display his real name, his real address, the members of his family, etc. on a site like this? All of us here are deeply concealed by layers of anonymous camophloge- by thickly woven burka threads, if you will."
Not all. Brenda is presumably using her full name. The OP uses the same nick all over the net and has included her hometown, age and some info in blogs, in addition to self-portraits.
Mr. Argumentative above posts his kids, so he says.(If he's posting their names and hometown, he just blew his own counter-points from word one) Actually, I'd go so far as to say his arguments don't hold water anyway as he's not using his name, etc. He's hiding behind a nick and an avatar that has nothing to do with his real self, then makes the suggestion that I'm hiding from the internet....yo! I'm right here, belong to about 8 different forums at last count, have 2 websites and never encountered this kind of problem.
Methinks some people just like to argue and when they find someone that actually can voice an opinion and/or suggestion with a modicum of sense behind it, they pounce....sorta like a stalker LOL
My point from the first was, when the means aren't there to give you protection, then it behooves you to find other means and utilize them.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Which was the point of the original post, I'd have thought... an attempt to find other means...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wait, are you talking about me? when did I get kids? I'm really confused now.
As it is, as an example of choice, I had to make several choices here in Flickr land. I tried the anonymous route, but then kept sending people here from the real world. The artwork got to be bigger than I expected, blogged, sold in galleries, etc. So I had to add my name to everything. Now if you google "Derek Chatwood" it's hard to miss me. Or read my Flickr profile. Hardly hiding. Risk, reward, choice. The artwork has been stolen occasionally, but again, risk, reward, etc. I get more out of who can see the stuff than who may steal it, so I continue.
In reverse of the topic of this forum post, I knew someone from the real world, who chose to use Flickr to stalk me. I try to be honest here, and often post personal artwork and writing and photos here. The temptation to censor myself, to protect myself from the rare person who I couldn't control, is constant. Not letting that rare person win is a strong reason to continue.
I only ever argue with people I think are wrong. It isn't a game or a war or a hobby. These forums are for helping people, and when some people step up and say unhelpful things, I tend to speak up. If you're ever right, I'll let you know about that, too.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 @ Brenda....if mom wants to comment on your pics she probably has your phone number ;)
Yes, she does. She also lives on the other side of the world from me. But that's really beside the point. The point I was making is that there are lots of people out there that use Flickr to view their family or friends' photos and don't upload any photos themselves. I think it would be bad business practice for Flickr to restrict their ability to comment/contact people on Flickr just because they don't have any photos.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it would be bad business practice for Flickr to restrict their ability to comment/contact people on Flickr just because they don't have any photos.
why not merely restrict people's ability to comment/flickrmail people who don't have them on their contact list? i.e. if you have no photos, you can't comment/flickrmail me, but if I add you as a contact, you can do so to your heart's content, whether you have photos or not? that would solve the "my mum just wants to comment on my pictures" problem.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think the comments can be restricted to contacts now, but not the flickrmail. That's the early idea from the poster that Heather/staff said she'd run around the office. It makes a lot of sense to me, to have that boolean/choice for flickrmail.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, yeah.. the whole "no posts / mail until account review" bit was basically suggested as a raw idea; lots of scope for development, and lots of aspects - as Brenda pointed out - that would need viable workarounds...
And, of course, just a suggestion - not actually happening!
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is this so blindingly obvious noone else has suggested it or perhaps I missed it...
The basic problem is how to stop the harassers without penalising everyone...
Like Brenda Anderson say's her mom probably wan't to leave comments...
We already have guest passes
What occurs to me is the abiloity to restrict comments on photo's or to block flickr mail from new accounts..
If you could set flickr mail to
Only family/friends/contacts but extend this to for instance
no members not yet reviewed... no members who's account is less than 1 month old.. etc.
Brenda can add her mom as a contact... or issue a guest pass...
Most people won't bother implementing it UNTIL they get harasseed ... which is fine... Eudamonian isn't complaining someone harassed her once... she's complaining she can't stop this person just endlessly creating new accounts...
If she could block comments and flickr mail from accounts <1 month the idiot will just get bored...
As someone said the email and IP used to register can be used... Im not saying everytime but when one person is consistently doing this and harassing people then its time to take some action in the ground and contact whomever is providing the internet access.
If its for instance a school (just one example) then most schools are going to deal with this... if they don't then block their whole IP block... but I really don't see that happening in most places...
I think most schools/workplaces etc. would be more than happy to be provided this information...
Its just my opinion but I can't see why most of the idiots setting out to harass people would wait a month...they are instant gratification types...
The same thing could be applied to favorites...
So if someone is faving hunreds of pictures of 12 yr old girls..
The obvious to me answer seems to be just to give the members the ability to implement this block???If and when they need to???
If your mom joins then you can invite her ???
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Searcher said: "came to this topic and posting pics of kids online (which I'm kind of shocked no one's thrown in my face yet, it's no fun if I get to call myself a hypocrite first, is it?) "
I misunderstood the statement.
" only ever argue with people I think are wrong. It isn't a game or a war or a hobby. These forums are for helping people, and when some people step up and say unhelpful things, I tend to speak up. If you're ever right, I'll let you know about that, too."
Thanks, but I don't need or seek your stamp of approval. What I've done works for me and as such, I suggested it. Except for answering you, my statements were to help. All I saw from you were 'you're wrong!' commentary without actually trying to help the lady. That is being argumentative for argument's sake.
I never claimed to be so 'internet savvy', but I do take precautions and listen to people who know more than I regarding matters such as this.
At the risk of sounding sexist, you have probably never had to deal with something similar.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
First off, I would assume you're a guy and haven't had to deal with this crap....
At the risk of sounding sexist, you have probably never had to deal with something similar.
@louann: indeed, it does sound sexist.
we all sympathize with Eudaemonian. however, one doesn't have to be a woman to be a victim of online harassment (if you need specifics of serious harassment that have nothing to do with gender, I'd be happy to provide), or to appreciate the odiousness of this situation.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop playing the gender card here, thanks.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree with Dbthayer. I only know of two people that were super-harassed on flickr thus far; both of them men. One had to go so far as to make his entire account private to just his contacts because of the non-stop harassment from somebody who just kept creating new accounts to get to him.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I did say 'at the risk'...statistics show women to be more harassed, but that doesn't mean they aren't just as bad or worse- someone who stalks, etc. is a creep, gender neutral...so, if I offended, I'm sorry. More to the point, it would seem the reply should have stated that he may never have been in the situation as it stands(fetishist remarks, etc).
"The artwork has been stolen occasionally, but again, risk, reward, etc. I get more out of who can see the stuff than who may steal it, so I continue." But, they're taking money away from you, if you're trying to sell it.
No one should be stealing, either and if it's being done, there are ways to prevent that as well. Copyright signatures, watermarks, dpi settings, sizing, save-for-web would all prevent that. I find stealing almost as bad as harassment. We put so much of ourselves into the work we do, some of us sell it-no one has the right to steal even one piece of it! What if someone tried to pass if off as their own?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"What if someone tried to pass it off as their own?"
In fact, that's been done quite often, as previously noted in the Forums - websites lifting images from Flickr without attribution (or payment), magazines doing the same, other users lifting images and posting them as their own.
Hey, I even saw a user yesterday (who's posted in another thread) who's got two standard Microsoft Windows desktop backgrounds posted in his photostream, presumably as his own (there's nothing to suggest otherwise) - no names, to protect the guilty, but shit; how recognisable are they? Yet, someone's uploaded them...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And yet, copy an article word for word from those places and you face lawsuits charging plagiarism.
If mine have ever been lifted, I don't know, but on at least other art sites and my own website, I make sure the submissions are not worth taking. 72 dpi and making them less than 800x600 gives a thief a box of colorful squares should they attempt to enlarge it even a 1/4 inch more than what appears on their monitor. Plus, most times, there's a copyright mark with my professional name on them.
I have to admit that with Flickr, I've been lax, but that's gonna change real quick!
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I haven't read through this discussion-- and it looks good-- but after 4 days of harassment and me kicking up a sh*tstorm, he's gotten the ten-ton clue and left me alone, taking his most recent comments about "being my friend" with him. So whatever happened to chase him off, thank you.
Actually, I was thinking of this question a bit ago, i.e. what if someone figures out a way to keep making free accounts on Flickr in order to e-mail harass certain people? Will we get a choice to NOT be spammed? Well I guess this experience answered the question.... so I'm *really* digging the "keep track of e-mail" option as well as the option to only receive e-mails from contacts, friends, and/or family.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, I was thinking of this question a bit ago, i.e. what if someone figures out a way to keep making free accounts on Flickr in order to e-mail harass certain people? Will we get a choice to NOT be spammed?
See my suggestion above?
I think it would be useful to be able to only accept mail or commetns from someone with more than 10 photo's and/or membership > 1 month etc.
Not that everyone would have to use it but its something you could turn on as a first defense...
Obviously adding someone to contacts or friends would then negate this... if your mom wants to see your photo's no prob just add her as a friend or heck family why not :D
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, Steve, if you take a look at my fourth post, you'll see that the basic idea had occurred...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually you gave me the basic idea..... the objections to not allowing n00bs to post etc. are understandable...
So I figure.. just allow people to not allow N00bs to mail/tag ....
I think basically your idea is good as are several others.... but many have objections.... for various reasons so I figure the easiest thing is allow individual member to decide if they wanna implement this on their account... and even implement it one week and change thier minds the next...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, "opt-in" is definitely the way to go, rather than implementing it across the board and making people opt out...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've recently been harassed too and had to delete my old account
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread was closed automatically due of a lack of responses over the last month.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads