Woman wins legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing her photos online

[MADem]

7. This is very specific, and very limited. Even at that, she's "out there" like it or not.

I don't keep a thing on my phone that I wouldn't let my dear departed great granny see. Of course, I don't have a wild, naked, ooh-la-la life either, but even if I did, I don't think I'd wander around with naughty photos on my phone. That's just me, though. I'm pretty sure I'm not the norm in that regard.

The British aren't always the same as the rest of the world when it comes to this kind of stuff, either. They do tend towards the "good order and discipline" end of the spectrum. They're the ones with one of the best video surveillance systems in the world in their major cities.

I simply find that this thing is unenforceable--right now, the file may have her name on it, but someone who already has it could take it, copy it, and change the name to something more generic, and then file sharers would quickly become "less traceable" and we're off to the races all over again:

Lawyers acting on behalf of AMP went to court to try and get an injunction forbidding anyone from helping to disseminate the files. Judges are often reluctant to issue injunctions against information that has become so available it is impossible to stop – as was seen from last year’s rows over Twitter where injunctions were routinely flouted.

In this case AMP’s lawyers argued that because their client was not a celebrity, the number of people sharing the photographs of her were small and that they were mainly based in Britain and the EU. They added that their identities were largely traceable and could therefore be served with the injunction.

I figure that anything that goes out over the "airwaves" (wireless, telephone, what-have-you) has the potential to be seen by someone, and I behave accordingly. Hacking has gotten so common, and theft is always a problem as well--it's impossible to have "pure privacy" when you're communicating with others in this fashion.