From ‘Facebook photo ends up on porn, dating site’, 30 April 2012, article by Irene Tham, ST
HOUSEWIFE Jules Rahim was shocked when a friend tipped her off last Wednesday that her photo was featured on a pornographic website. That was not the only unauthorised use of the picture of her in a bikini, which she had posted on her Facebook account three years ago.
Last Tuesday, another friend told her that the photo had also popped up on a dating site called sgGirls.com. It was accompanied by a caption which listed a telephone number to call and how much it cost to chat.
‘It’s embarrassing,’ said the mother of four children, aged one to 10. ‘People I know may think wrongly of me.’ Ms Rahim, 32, has filed two police reports – one about the porn site and the other about the dating site.
The Straits Times understands that at least two other Singaporean women have also discovered that their Facebook pictures have surfaced on these two websites. The three are victims of what is known as ‘photo-jacking’ – the act of stealing pictures from social media like Facebook and Twitter and exploiting them for use on, say, porn sites.
Tipping off a friend that her photo is being used in a porn site is an awkward admission of guilt that one surfs porn. If I were the victim, I wouldn’t know if I should thank him or give him a funny look. Worse things could happen if you’re a celebrity though; your pic may be photoshopped and superimposed over actual porn actors. Or you could be used as bait for ‘click-jacking’ pranks such as the Facebook ‘Fiona Xie sex video’ link which doesn’t lead you anywhere other than spreading the message to all your friends that you want to see Fiona Xie naked. Disappointment AND embarrassment.
Internet privacy has been a problem since the late nineties, when a similar site to Sggirls known as JCGirls featured candid shots of girls in public (Harmless or has it invaded privacy?19 Oct 1999, ST) . Though there wasn’t any intention to shame or outrage the modesty of schoolgirls, nor did the creators sell soiled panties on the side, it was an unspoken fact that this site was drawing a specific audience, mainly men in the ‘old enough to be your father’ demographic. When you let ‘netizens’ take over, it’s like giving a psychotic clown an lifetime’s supply of pies. I would rather have my face on a porn ad than being caught by some busybody Stomper in an embarrassing situation taken out of context. Getting Face-Stomped (tagged and linked in both sites) is the worst fate that could befall decent human beings. It’s like getting gang-raped by Alien and Predator, with the resultant offspring gnawing its way slowly out of your insides with the aid of a laser-guided cannon throughout the incubation. But then again, males in general don’t have much of an issue being ‘photojacked’ in sex ads. In fact, if you tag our faces with a ‘I GREW 2 INCHES in a WEEK’, it may even be taken as a compliment.
You don’t have to be in a sultry bikini pose to get spotted by porn marketeers. Even wearing a seemingly innocent Minnie Mouse hat could have you mistaken by paedophiles for a Lolita prostitute in an online sex ring. If you’re not cute, nor have the body to flaunt, you could also get targeted if someone has a bone to pick with you; an ex-lover, a jealous colleague, or a complete stranger who simply doesn’t like what you put on your Facebook wall. Or you end up as a random target for someone who needed a convenient scapegoat.
You may also misuse photos as fronts for bad behaviour. In 2007, a couple of brats created wearemean.blogspot.com, a now defunct site that mocked people caught unawares in public. Interestingly, it’s not so much their snapping of random passers-by and commenting on their ugliness or dress sense that’s illegal (people currently do that all the time on STOMP), but impersonating other people on their blog using their photographs without permission. If you’re cowardly enough, you could troll Facebook discussions logged in as somebody else. Sometimes, even your own spouse can’t be trusted when it comes to online misrepresentation.
Vicious rumours could also get you recognised for all the wrong reasons, as what the ‘mystery woman’ angle created by the media led to, with wild guesses and snapshots of innocent parties being tossed about in forums. Ironically, in the attempt to protect a key player in a scandalous tryst, this has resulted in several other people, minding their own business and having absolutely nothing to do with the case, becoming unnecessarily involved and suspect. Putting our reputations on the line online is the price we have to pay for the benefits of social networking, and privacy controls alone may not be guarantee that you’re safe from harm. Even people not on Facebook get caught in ‘friendly fire’, as long as people snap, post and comment, without even having to tag you in the process. Facebook narcissists are free to exhibit and pose in whatever they want, but if you decide to wear a Playboy bunny suit, intimate lingerie or lie on the beach nude for your FB profile pic, then you should expect to draw the wrong kind of attention. I’m not sure whether it’s a good idea provoking the culprits and going public as what Ms Rahim has done here though. It has already sparked plenty of interest in the lady herself, no thanks to ST releasing a ‘porn-worthy’ image of her with face digitally masked, and in this climate of scandal, a censored face means instant fame/notoriety as one the top 10 search hits on Google trends Singapore.
No 8 on the charts 30 April 2012, same day as article
Filed under: 1990s, 2012, Advertisements, Bloggers, Justice system/Lawsuits, Kids, Local actors, Nudity, Sex Tagged: | Advertisements, bloggers, facebook, justice system, Kids, Local actors, Nudity, porn, pornography, prostitution, Sex
