11 July 2008

Mixed stuff: fonts, photos, games, anniversaries

When is a good time to use the "Impact" font? How about... never!

Last week a friend of mine put on sale some stuff on an auction website (kind of local ebay, this is his the main activity of his small business) and when creating the page he had to choose a few style elements, the font being one of them.
He selected the Impact font, thinking that such a name probably stands for a font that will catch attention from the readers. But being a Linux user, without the Microsoft Core Fonts installed (Impact is part of MS Core Fonts), he didn't saw how the font really looks, all he saw was a harmless san-serif fall-back option. And made it red, no less.

Only after I showed him a screenshot of the site in action he understood and changed it to something sane. Look below at a sample "lorem ipsum" text to see how unreadable it was:


With this still fresh in my mind, one can understand my probably exaggerated reaction when I saw Impact used on a Fedora related proof of concept website and complained about it.

From here I can draw a couple of conclusions:
  • Who named the font Impact had an effective idea, even the fonts is hard to read beyond very short labels (probably it can be used on buttons), a lor of users fall for its name
  • It is not a good idea to use such "fancy" on websites intended for a large audience, even less when your audience is mostly Linux users: there is a huge chance they will not have the font installed and don't see the page as intended. Stay with the basics, they are nice enough


This is an interesting reason to use the bus to go from work to home (Bucharest, the 300 bus line):

The photo is not that great, being made with my 2.5 years old phone (I didn't had the guts to reach my backpack and take out the SLR with really big lenses), but think it was taken wile standing and with the phone at the height where you are normally using it for writing text (and imagine what could I do with just a bit of effort).

Walking guy

A couple of days ago I posted a small animation (made with Inkscape and GIMP) of a little guy walking. I am not completely happy with the result (and I still have a lot of other graphics to do for that project), I added the other walk directions:


Tomorrow, 12 July, is an important birthday. I am really sorry I will not give any gift. I didn't forgot. And I have god ideas, good enough (I think) to top last year's gift. It is only a delivery problem.

PS: It is not my fault if someone has not updated the feed address and carry posts that are not announcements in the Romanian language and has to endure what is perceived as offtopic crap :p


  1. 'upskirt'? On the fedora planet? Bloody hell mate, that's not cool.

  2. This is the most distressingly bizzare thing I've yet seen in 2008. Christ.

  3. And then what's "cool" to post?

  4. Wow, no matter how interesting this post might have been, you lost me at the "upskirt" pic. Next time, show some class, and consider that you're representing the community before you post stuff like this.

  5. I agree with the previous posters - this is not cool. First, I don't think a planet-syndicated blog is a place to be posting racy pictures to begin with -- but I really think the "upskirt" thing is offensive on top of this. Did you ask this woman if was OK to take this? To post it to a Web site?

    Again, not cool.

  6. Regardless of syndication, which is a completely different issue, you do nod need approval for publishing a photo of someone which is not recognizable.

  7. Presumably it's not illegal in Romania (though it is in Australia, thankfully, and many other places), but I'm curious why you 'didn't have the guts' to pull out your SLR when, according to you, you were doing nothing wrong?

  8. What I meant was: it is not illegal in USA (start by reading about "Model release" on Wikipedia).

    And you don't want to be noticed as otherwise your "candid" photo is no more candid.

  9. Nicu,

    It's not that it is so much a legal question as it is a moral one. Obviously you understand that she would not like it, so you used your camera phone. Should that not have been a clue that it wasn't "right"?

    Can you imagine being her? How would you feel about this? Angry, I would suspect.

    That is why many people are upset here. To do this says "I don't care about morals", and that reflects badly on you and, more importantly, on the community in general. Many people are working very hard to get Linux and all it's distros accepted by the mainstream. Stupid things like taking/posting this picture looks bad on *ALL* of us.

    Please, remove it. At least, move it to a private collection.


  10. I'm with digimer - please move that photo to a private collection. Surely you would understand why it would be offensive if I took a picture of the bulge in your pants and put it in a general-interest blog? Yes, you probably have some young, immature male readers who enjoy looking at women as sexual objects regardless of the context, but you also have both male and female readers to whom your juvenile behavior is simply offensive. Please remove it.

  11. Oh come on guys, what a picture has to do with *GNU/Linux* and all the crap you wrote. Nicu made a joke, she will *NEVER* *EVER* know this picture has been taken.

    Don't mix stuff just for the sake of criticize, you make a fool of yourselves.

  12. Hilarious!

    The point is that this reflects on the entire open source community, like it or not, and saying 'ha ha, how awesome is it that we can take photos up women's skirts on the bus and they won't ever know!' is a very bad look for all of us.

    Hence why the more reasonable people among us are attempting to point out that this behaviour is not only socially unacceptable pretty much anywhere, but also specifically within the open source community, which already has an extremely bad reputation in regards to women.

    Cheerfully, as I mentioned above, this is already illegal in Australia, and according to Wikipedia, going to become illegal in quite a few other places.

  13. Oh, come on guys. If she didn't want her legs to be seen, she would have taken a long skirt. I mean, there's nothing wrong with posting such a photo in a blog, though it is somewhat questionable to mix it with linux stuff :-D

    When I saw this in my feed reader, I just smiled and went on. And being such thing illegal is rather odd. I mean, it's just legs - if it were some picture that could affect public opinion of the said person (like erotic photo), then it would make sense to require consent. But posting a photo, taken by mobile phone, of a woman sitting in a bus' legs is not amoral and it should not be illegal either.

  14. Martin,

    Women's bodies are not public property, and wearing a skirt is not an invitation to be photographed and published on the Internet.

  15. Woop, woop. Here comes the Planet Police.

    Geez, everyone. It's a pair of legs. Get over it.

  16. So if we don't want you to treat us like objects, we need to cover all parts of our bodies at all times?

  17. You've discovered the fastest way to identify the leftest facists - congratulations.

    She has nice legs. Anybody that considers that "up skirt" is a overly sensitive twit.

    That it may be illegal in Australia speaks more of the facism there than anything.

  18. "facists"; You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

    From Ye 'Ole Wikipedia:
    "Fascism in practise opposed both socialism and communism, but on the other side it also opposed capitalism and classical liberalism. Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third Way between these fields. Sir Oswald Mosley leader of the British Union of Fascists for example, chose to self-describe his position as "hard centre" on the political spectrum."

    However, I have to say I have seen an attempt by many on the right to redefine fascism as anything left of center, so there ya go.

  19. Heard in the gym:
    Big sweating dude: Hey man - what's up?
    Beefed up tattoo guy: Oh my god. I just walked in and the new girl at the counter was totally checking me out. Can you believe it? I was liek, soooo offended I swear - right after I get my manicure I am calling her mother, okay? Women are such pigs. I'm so glad that I have you, Rolfo.

  20. So, Mr Anonymous, I guess you won't mind me taking sneaky photos up your mother, sister or daughter's dresses? And then sniggering about it on the interwebs with all the other hideous social cripples?

    This is indefensible. Stop it.

  21. kake pugh, I don't see a difference between showing her legs publicly in bus and the same picture of her legs being seen in web. It is in no way amoral and in no way offensive.

    It would be however totaly different, if he tried to do a sneaky picture - which this is not, meaning that there was clearly made no effort to take a photo of "places" that are not seen from ordinary sitting or standing position.

    No, people are not objects, but I don't see a reason to ask for permission to publish random picture of anyone taken in public places, unless you might harm that person by publishing it (e.g. by gimping the photo or adding some rude commentary to it).

  22. First of all Nicu did nothing wrong neither from the legal point view or the moral point of view. He photographed in public a nice pair of legs and he added the photo onto he's PERSONAL blog, keeping the girls face anonymous. Moreover for the "closed minded" guys/girls how cant draw a line between something funny such an upskirt photo and GNU/Linux please be careful what kind of cigars are you smoking.

  23. And people wonder why there are so few women in Linux and Open Source.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

  25. Okay, so I thought this picture was a tad immature, but I also think there is such a thing as freedom of expression yada yada yada.

  26. Oh, come on!

    That are just a pair of legs...What's wrong with that? What kind of twisted morality thinks that a pair of legs are ugly?

    In Spain it's not illegal to take photos of people in *public places*

    I do not say that stalking is a good practice, but this is just a photo. Programmers are people too, with their virtues and vices, motivations and so over. What's the difference between saying "No legs should be posted here" and "If you watch utubes our almighty god will make you burn in hell"? In my place this is called censorship.

    You don't like it, you don't watch it. We are not talking about hard pr0n or pictures of dying children, just a pair of legs...

  27. What's the difference with this kind of photo? http://www.flickr.com/photos/22418467@N02/2533050752/ Would everybody yell about this one too? Probably not as it appears to be more "artistic" maybe.

    Anyway it's not like if he tries to take photos of panties... What a long list of comments for almost nothing! Next time Nicu, just take your DSLR to take it, make it looks a bit arty, and people will just praise you instead ;)

  28. I can't believe this...

    What the hell is going on. This is ridicules. Why is this such a big issue. You're all acting like a bunch of immature kids who've never seen a womans legs!
    1. If I had to gimp every picture I took so that the people that did not give their consent are not in it, I'd never take a picture again.
    2. If she's that bothered by people seeing her legs, yes where pants or something.
    3. Taking a picture of a womans legs is not the same as "Woman are just object"
    4. It's not even a "sexual" picture.
    5. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this post.
    6. I wonder how many picture there of me in photoalbums of people I don't know....
    7. Yes it was my sister, mother, girlfriend I would be OK with this.
    8. Yes if it was me I would be OK with this. (I would be flattered actually)
    9. I can go on for hours but it's just not going to help.

    Maybe the problem with Opensource communities has more to do with the fact that people in general just can't get allong. People are just to busy thinking that their culture/belief/law is the right way and the only way. As borders between countries are softening the reasons they existed are becoming more clear to me.

    Most of all, to all the people that complained about the post: Get a life and start worrying on stuff that matters.

  29. The biggest question here is permission and how it relates to morality.

    - The artsy pictures are fine because the woman in it knows the pictures she is in.

    - Porn is fine when the people in it are in it willingly.

    - Saying "she should have worn pants" is not much different than saying that a woman who dresses nicely and then gets raped "had it coming". (No, I am not saying what Nicu did is nearly as bad, but the thinking pattern matches). Do you think we should all wear burkas if we want to be left alone? Where is the self control of men in this?

    - "Upskirt" should be a pretty big indication of why some people object to this. This isn't just legs, nor is it mentioned that way. If it was, Nicu would have said "Legs" over the picture. His intent is clear.

    - This is exactly why few women are in open source. As an example, I got into a talk about programming languages, and within two replies people were making sexual comments about me. People treat us like objects, so you have to try and understand why we are a little more "sensitive" to the topic.

    This is all a question of intent and permission. Nicu's intent was obviously sexual, and she obviously never gave her permission and Nicu knew she probably wouldn't, hence his comment about his camera.

    Do you guys not understand simple respect? There is a very, very big difference between a few people seeing something once on a bus versus having it saved on a picture and made available all over the world.

    Somehow, I doubt this message will change anything. Somehow, I don't think there will be an increase in the number of women in IT, for the same reason.


  30. Lets just prohibit pictures in general...
    That would make us all happy!
    @Digimer: "You have not made any new point. All of the point 1-9 still stand."

    It's not about permission it's not about intent! It's about the discussion in general.

  31. "Lets just prohibit pictures in general..."

    Did you read my messages, or just skim them enough to see that I disagreed with the picture and started your comment?

    I am fine with porn.
    I am fine with "sexy" pictures.
    So long as the subject is aware of the picture, agreed to be in it and is old enough to give consent I am fine with anything. I don't care, it's their business.

    I am *not* fine with suggestive pictures taken without the subject's knowledge or consent.

    Why is this such a leftist/fascist/feminist idea? How do you not see the lack of respect for this woman? How do you define respect, if respect doesn't even go so far as asking permission?

    This is not a picture "of just legs", this is a woman, a person, who is being shown on the internet in a suggestive manner without knowing or permission.

    I am honestly astounded that you can see nothing wrong with this!

    As someone else asked; what if this was your mother, sister or daughter? Would you *really* not care? Not even a bit? If not, then we are so far apart on this that there is nothing more to say to one another.

  32. nicu: you said that "
    What I meant was: it is not illegal in USA (start by reading about "Model release" on Wikipedia)."

    wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt) states:
    "Upskirt images have also been a driving force behind a wave of state, local, and Federal legislation that began around the year 2000, shortly after the introduction and subsequent widespread proliferation of camera phones."

    This clearly indicates that there are laws municipal, state, and federal in the US that prohibit such secret, voyeuristic uses of cell phone cameras. Indeed, the "Video Voyeurism Prevention Act" was signed into law in 2004 (according to http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Bills%20Signed%20into%20Law--12-2004.pdf). I'm sure you can find more coverage of it, but http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/11/tech/main616694.shtml has a summary).

    The objection that women are being objectified is clearly supported by the comments on this blog talking about the woman as a "pair of legs" and is rather disgusting. Knock it the heck off, m'kay?

  33. Talking about the legality of posting the picture or saying it's "just a pair of legs" is missing the point entirely.

    Taking a covert photo of a woman's legs and posting it on the Internet to gawk over with other people is disrespectful to the woman in question.

    Posting said picture is disrespectful to all women as it implies that it's acceptable behaviour to treat women in this way.

    This isn't a men's magazine. It's a community. Do you want women to be part of this community, or do you want it to be an exclusive "all men" club? If the former, why are you acting like the latter?

    There have been comments here to the effect of "get a life and stop complaining". The fact is, women are a minority exactly because of incidents like this one that make any potential female contributors feel unwelcome and outcast. The community will not change unless we complain and unless we make it known that this kind of exclusionary behaviour is unacceptable.

    Digi, thank you for taking the time and the effort to try to convince others of what's so wrong here. Frankly, it's appalling that you should even need to explain in the first place.

  34. It *is* just a pair of legs and the woman who owns them isn't an object. Would that picture be fine, if he took a photo of long skirt or trousers worn on the same woman? If she didn't want her *legs* to be seen in a public place like the bus, she would have taken long skirt, trousers, or whatever else that covers it. And since there are no problems with taking photos of bottom body parts of women in long skirts or trousers, I don't see a problem here either.

    Yeah, nicu's comment *suggested* sexual context, but it's nothing like ripe, or harassing, it's just a *tease*. Open your eyes. She went with short skirt into public but didn't want others to see her panties - that's why she sat with crossed legs. What's the difference if you look at the same woman in bus or in blog? Nicu didn't take a picture you could not see if you were riding the bus.

    And what's the talk about women not being in IT, and talking about programming => let's make a joke about his sexuality? It's the same in math and in physics and it's definitely not a result of any scientist taking what you call dirty pictures :-p

    That's how people see us - devoted to our work/hobby and, probably thus, unable to make proper social contacts (mostly) with "normal" people. Watch IT Crowd or The Big Bang Theory series, and I think you get what I mean.

    Anyway, this is my last comment here, I don't want to force my opinions on anyone, and if I continued it could start looking that way... Just get over it already, there's nothing worth a flamewar. Also I don't feel like I have more to say in that matter.

    Anyway, nicu, the walking guy is cute, though it seems (subjectively) to me like if he walked slower sideways (to the left/right) than to the front/bottom. Perhaps if you made the hands/legs motion less assymetric (the front hand seems to be mostly behind his back, while the back hand seems mostly in front of him), it would be better ;-)

  35. @Martin: that animation speed does not matter, the animated GIF is only a preview. It is made for someone which will use it in a web based game (PNGs animated with JavaScript)

    I could improve a bit this animation (as said, I am not perfectly happy with it), but I have a lot of other graphics to make for that game and not enough time.

  36. "What's the difference if you look at the same woman in bus or in blog?"

    On the bus, you are seen for a short time by a few people. On the internet, your picture is seen by many, many more for a very long time.

    Perhaps I can not explain in words why this troubles women. Perhaps it is something you can only understand living as a woman in the world in general, but especially in the IT world or other male-dominated world.

    You may not see this as objectification of this woman, but to most women, this is exactly what it is. If you do not care to believe me or the other women who try to explain why this is so, that what more can be said? We must just be lying, apparently.



  37. Martin, if he had asked her permission to take photos of her legs, what do you think he would have said? I think she would have said "no", don't you? Do you think she would have worn a short skirt if she knew that a pervert on the bus would have taken photos of her legs? I don't think she would have, either. That's why it's disrespectful.

    My primary concern is the kind of impact that this sort of thing has on the community, though. I suggest you read the "HOWTO encourage women in Linux" and educate yourself about how what you might think is completely harmless, actually has a huge alienating effect toward female contributors and helps reinforce the male-dominated culture that we have.

  38. Hmmm, hysteria on both sides it seems.

    Let's face it, taking a photo of a stranger on a bus (even if this isn't an "upskirt" in the traditional sense of it) does mark you out as a bit of a pervert I'm afraid. But to accuse him of "thinking like a rapist", as Digimer did an in earlier comment, is way over the top an incredibly offensive, at least as I see it.

    Anyway, an interesting counterpoint. A female friend of mine has recently been on holiday, and put the pictures up on Facebook. One of them, tagged "hot builders working next door", shows two bronzed muscular men, each wearing only a pair of shorts and boots. In the comments, two other girls have attested to the attractiveness of these gentlemen, and that the first girl was "lucky to have that view when [she was] by the pool"

    Now I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the guys' permission wasn't sought before taking the photo, or before putting it on Facebook. There is an awful lot more skin on view than in this picture, and unlike this case, their faces are shown too.

    I'm curious as to the opinion of Digimer et al as to whether this is okay, or whether it's "degrading objectification" too...

  39. It tells quite a lot of the self image of a woman, who thinks that a woman dressed and sitting like in the photo is somehow lowering herself. Or that a completely normal photo taken of her in the same situation is somehow lowering her. Such thinking is very disrespectful against her.

    This also isn't an upskirt photo. Calling it such was unthoughtful of Nicu, and may be the real reason for many of the negative reactions here. Nicu may or may not be disrespectful against women in his life, but you can't judge that based on this photo. Choosing to use word 'upskirt' may indicate that he is disrespectful, or just juvenile or using words sloppily - you can't really tell.

    Large part of men admire female beauty, while at the same time respecting women. I'm like this myself. I pay attention to beautiful women, but I really try to be considerate. Not looking so bad myself, women (from all walks of life - highly educated professionals and academics too) also often pay attention to me. I don't mind, because they are mostly being considerate. Perhaps what we need is on the other hand to be respectful and considerate to each other, and on the other not to start throwing stones immediately when someone sees us differently than we would like to. Being respectful definitely means that skills are appreciated equally, regardless of if they belong to a man or a woman - this is an area, where many men should do better.

    @ Simon Howard: it's quite revealing that while the photo shows the whole body of the woman (except the head), you see nothing but her legs...

  40. You accused me of:

    "But to accuse him of "thinking like a rapist", as Digimer did an in earlier comment, is way over the top an incredibly offensive, at least as I see it."

    Where I actually said:

    "Saying "she should have worn pants" is not much different than saying that a woman who dresses nicely and then gets raped "had it coming". (No, I am not saying what Nicu did is nearly as bad, but the thinking pattern matches)."

    I was making the comparison that both are a form of placing the blame of the "victim" instead of on the perpetrator. I went out of my way to say they were not comparable in levels of offense.

    As for the woman taking the picture of the men, I find that equally bad.

    Treating *anyone* as objects without their consent is wrong. That said, it happens against women a *lot* more often.


  41. One of the anonymous posters wrote: "Don't mix stuff just for the sake of criticize, you make a fool of yourselves."

    You miss the point. It seems that the people in nicu's like (his parents, friends, whoever) have failed to teach him proper, polite and respectful behavior towards other people. It is unfortunate that it falls upon perfect strangers to teach him, but it is a lesson that grown-up people do need to learn.

  42. So, I got here from advogato and if I understand it correctly. A human male took a picture of a womans legs on the bus and people are upset. I've never seen a bunch of people so averse to seeing a picture of a womans legs. Do a search on google for legs.. you might be even more offended with the "racy" pictures.

  43. Well, I believe all this comments are exagerate.

    The picture is really an innocent one. If Nicu didn't called it an "upskirt" (thing that it is not) the whole thing would have passed completely unobserved.

    It's just a pair of legs and Nicu didn't try to photograph anything that the girl wanted to keep hidden.

    So, just stop accusing Nicu of being a "pervert".

    The real perversion here is trying to see "the devil" in every human action.

    It hurts enough living so near to the Vatican, I can't stand all this moralism (read hypocrisy) on the net too.

  44. redwolfb14,

    If you had *read* our comments, you would have seen that the concern has never been about it being a picture of women's legs. Our concern is that HER PERMISSION WAS NOT ASKED.

    Nicu knew that she wouldn't like it, and mentioned as much when explaining why he took the picture using his camera.


    "hypocrisy" is saying one thing and doing another. I don't see how people complaining about this is, itself, hypocritical. Now, if someone like me who is complaining had suggestive pictures of men taken without their knowledge and posted on our blogs, *that* would be hypocritical.


  45. Digimer,

    the hypocrisy here is trying to make Nicu an horrible, immoral, dirty man and putting him on a cross just because he made an innocent picture, as if we all are absolutely perfect and pure creatures.

    In your case, I don't know if you put any naked man online, but I know that you showed off some parts of your body (in your Mermaid pictures, for example).

    I could find that being a very very bad behaviour, and consider you as bad as Nicu!

  46. Federico,

    His picture is not innocent, and he knows it. Otherwise he would have used his "SLR" to take the picture or have asked the girl first.

    My picture is fine because *I* put it up there and it is *of me*.

    Do you not see the difference?

  47. Digimer,

    I see perfectly the difference, but you don't.

    The difference is that I accept the fact that other people may have different opinion from mine, you don't.

    I talked about your picture not to say it is the same thing Nicu did, but to point out that potentially every picture on the net showing some skin could be considered offensive by someone.

    You have no rights to come here and treat Nicu as a monster, because, I could do the same to you just because I could not like girls showing her belly button!

    Just imagine if I come to you saying

    "Hey! What's that immoral picture you put on the net? Don't you know that only bitches shows their body to everyone? And all of you that likes it are just perverts"

    Well, that's exactly what you are doing here.

  48. Federico,
    The difference is that I accept the fact that other people may have different opinion from mine, you don't.

    Attacking the man. Putting words into her mouth. Invalid argument.

    I talked about your picture not to say it is the same thing Nicu did, but to point out that potentially every picture on the net showing some skin could be considered offensive by someone.

    Irrelevant. Just because something else might be offensive to someone else somewhere else has no bearing on whether this image in this blog is offensive.

    You have no rights to come here and treat Nicu as a monster, because, I could do the same to you just because I could not like girls showing her belly button!

    You have a perfect right to campaign against belly-buttons if you wish. The two situations are not comparable, however.

    1. This is not a private blog; it's a blog associated with a Linux community. Therefore it needs to be held to higher standards than a private blog, because what is said here reflects on the Linux community as a whole. Driving women away from Linux should not be a goal of the Linux community.

    2. As Digimer pointed out, it isn't just the content of the picture that is the problem; the problem is that it was a covert photograph taken without the woman's permission. Not only that, but it was a photograph taken by a man who was thinking about what was under the woman's skirt, rather than just her legs, otherwise he would not have called it an "upskirt" photo. If he'd said "hey, look at those sexy legs", it wouldn't have been quite so offensive. There is a difference between taking artistic photographs of beautiful things (including beautiful people) and taking photographs with the intent of turning a woman into a sex object rather than a human being.

  49. If every unidentifiable individual that has ever featured on a photo posted on a planet blog had to be asked first, we probably wouldn't have a lot of photographic content. What's next? We have to ask permission to quote someone?

    The fact of the matter is that you are pulling your personal values over the whole community and you have no right to do that.

    You can point it out that you are offended, and we can hope (but not demand) that Nicu will think twice another time ("censuring, not censoring") - but don't for a second pretend that your person alone represent the 'community standards', 'proper behavior' or that woman somewhere in Romania who you only know by the shape of her legs. Who are you to decide what is and isn't in her or our interest? For all you know she could be an exhibitionist transvestite.

  50. Anders,

    This isn't a question of someone in the background of a picture; this is a picture *of* this woman taken in a sexual context.

    The complaints here about this picture have been very specific from the beginning. However, all the defenders of this picture have made points around the complaint, never addressing the issues we raise. So let me be very, very specific.

    This picture is offensive because it was taken of a specific person explicitly with a sexual overtone and without her permission and then published on an open, public blog on the Internet.

    Is this specific enough?

    As for censorship versus censuring, you are exactly right. That is why no one here has said this is illegal. It is also why my comments have focused on the morality of this issue.

    Nicu knew it would upset her, so he took the picture discreetly.

    And THAT is why there is a problem. It is taught in grade school that doing things that you know would upset someone, even if they don't find out, is wrong and uncivil. The fact that it is done by a member of a community, and in this case posted in the context of this community, DOES look bad for the community as a whole. Doubly so when so many people support Nicu in this.

    If Nicu wants to admire legs of women, fine. Just please do it with pictures where the woman agreed to be in the picture. Many, many magazines have pictures like this. Heck, scan one and post it here. You won't find nearly the reaction you have seen thus far.


  51. Digimer,

    (Who are talking about backgrounds and foregrounds? I was talking about unidentifiable persons, which the women on the photograph decidedly is. So I'll disregard the first paragraph in your reply.)

    You are so obsessed with your whole victim-perpetrator frame-of-mind that you fail to see that the issues you have raised has been addressed repeatedly. Restating your complaint does not change anything.

    The central pillar of your argument is that 'Nicu knew it would upset her'. I'm sorry, but what do you know about that? Are you psychic? Is he? All he stated was that he 'didn't have the guts' to take the picture indiscreetly.

    Maybe he saw someone looking like you on a nearby seat and didn't want cause a fuss with that person. Maybe his own morals made him feel embarrassed about his childish act. In any case, you have no information indicating whether or not the photo would upset the woman and consequently your whole argument falls apart.

    As for no one saying that Nicu's photo is illegal, that is simply untrue. daniels suggested the act was illegal in Australia (Is he a lawyer? A judge?). You yourself likened Nicu to a rapist.

  52. No Digimer, you are not being specific. You are trying to make yourself appear to be, but you really aren't. You say:

    "...it was taken of a specific person explicitly with a sexual overtone and without her permission..."

    This is typical vague politician-style speak. If the photo makes you think sexual thoughts, why don't you just say so. If it doesn't, what's the problem? If you think that the photo makes others think sexual thoughts, then let them speak for themselves, as they are the experts on their own thoughts.

    You don't make sense, if you say that this photo is sexual in the way that it's inproper for a general audience, and at the same time say that the woman in the bus, as seen by the other passangers, wasn't inproperly sexual. You can't just pick what suits your agenda.

    You say:

    "If you had *read* our comments, you would have seen that the concern has never been about it being a picture of women's legs. Our concern is that HER PERMISSION WAS NOT ASKED."

    but on the other hand you say:

    "His picture is not innocent, and he knows it."


    "This isn't a question of someone in the background of a picture; this is a picture *of* this woman taken in a sexual context."

    You can't contradict yourself like this and be taken seriously. Again, you act like a (bad type of) politician - saying whatever happens to suit to the situation at hand.

    Its strange that although you say "the concern has never been about it being a picture of women's legs. Our concern is that HER PERMISSION WAS NOT ASKED", you are not saying anything about the other person in the photo, who is shown exactly the same way, the only difference being that her legs are not visible. Why aren't you at all worried that her permission was not asked?. Your mind seems to be filled with legs...

    You say "His picture is not innocent, and he knows it. Otherwise he would have used his "SLR" to take the picture or have asked the girl first." Most people probably wouldn't want to be noticed, when they take a photo of a stranger - not because the photo isn't innocent, but because you don't want to make another person to feel uncomfortable by pointing at him/her with camera - or anything else. A friend of mine, who is a professional photographer, once said that he seldom asks permission when he takes photos of people in public places (photos to be sold are another matter). He said that he gets better photos that way. I have read of distinguished photographers who go around "shooting" people openly at close, without asking anyone for permission.

    All that said, the text gives the photo a context, which understandably makes many people feel uncomfortable. Because of that, publishing the story on an aggregated blog wasn't so good idea in my opinion.

    Perhaps this problem is part of the phenomenon of the world becoming more and more sexualized. Some people are drawn to it, and some people reject it. Minds of people in both groups may be filled with sexuality, and both groups may degrade the quality of their lives - and ours. I don't know what the solution to oversexualization is, but I know that it's not creating two categories of sexuality, good and bad (the bad being what makes us feel uncomfortable), and then organizing ourselves to attack the "bad". We must go deeper to ourselves than that.

  53. @andreas feder: This is stupid and petty, and you know it. Murder is also illegal in Australia, as is assault. I'm not a lawyer or judge, but that's what I can tell you, anyway.

    Your entire comment is reductio ad absurdum and pedantry to a ludicrous extreme.

    Could you say that there's some possible criteria which might make nicubunu's post and photo less unacceptable? Yes. Is there some ridiculously small amount of uncertainty around? Yes.

    However, we're talking about the real world and social interactions in particular, and these rely on majority-rule, unspoken rules, nuance, and a great deal of illogical nonsense. If you're unhappy about this, good for you, but kindly butt the fuck out of discussions that deal with it.

    To anyone reasonable who's got this far in the comments: sorry, sorry, sorry. Please don't let this dissuade you from participating in the open source community, though it's understandable if it does. Unfortunately, Sturgeon's Law ('90% of everything is shit') has yet to be proven wrong in almost any context.

  54. No one has focused on this AFAICT, but even though it's perfectly legal to snap a photo of stuff you see in public, the laws surrounding *publishing* such a photo, especially when it depicts a private individual, are significantly stricter.

  55. daniels:
    You can try to insult me and you can call me a 'pedantic' but you can't produce even a hint of circumstantial evidence that all the bullshit you are letting out has one trace of truth to it. Good for you, sad for the rest of us. You'll probably be able to get some horrible hacks included in open source software.

    Of course murder is illegal. Of course assault is illegal. Of course voyeurism is illegal. You stating that Nicu's photo is an instance of any of those, however, is going way out of your bounds. And there is absolutely nothing 'pedantic' about pointing that out. (If you don't agree I'd like to challenge you to sue Nicu - if you win, I'll pay you double the case cost - if you loose or don't accept the challenge, I simply am utterly unable to take you serious: you're all talk and no walk).

    With regards to majority-rule and everything else you are trying to claim property of, plenty of people here have stated that a photo of a pair of legs is lame but not wrong - so you can go 'butt fuck' yourself, thank you very much - talk about being offensive!

    I would like to offer an apology to all those in open source who have to deal with narrow-minded, disparaging hypocrites every day.

  56. Somebody posted this polite explanation to the asshat tool that took the photo (and the idiots that defend him), which to the rest of us would be insulting to even have to be told:

    Women's bodies are not public property, and wearing a skirt is not an invitation to be photographed and published on the Internet.

    Based on the continuing discussion, it is clear that this response was too polite. You idiots seem to have trouble understanding such a polite explanation.

    Therefore, if you ever see some dickhead taking an unsolicited upskirt photo of a woman on the bus with her shopping, don't argue with him. Just use whatever solid, heavy object is handy to bash his teeth in.

  57. Such a brave threat, anonymous.

  58. Such a brave threat, anonymous.

    That's right dickhead. I'm everywhere.

    Maybe I'll be the guy sitting across from you on the bus. Maybe I'm the bus driver. Maybe I'm the brother of the girl you're trying to take a photo of.


  59. Dipshit.

    Oh, yeeaah. You're so c000l.

  60. You're so c000l.

    Actually, I'm just a low-life sad scum who can't stand up to the flames :((

  61. Actually, I'm just a low-life sad scum who can't stand up to the flames :((

    Don't worry - I figured so much.

  62. Да они упоротые!

  63. ZOMG. What a bunch of immature kids...

    So, what is a difference between showing your legs in public and having them photographed and published on a blog? Just a single one please? She cannot be identified, as the upper half of her body is not on the picture, so there is no legal issue here.

    What if i`d be photographing a monument or some other object, and she would be walking right in front of the camera? Should i run after her and ask her for permission? Photoshop her our? Or maybe delete the pic immediately as its not mine anymore and i cannot publish it if i want to?

    You are just a bunch of immature hypocrites. Some of the objecters seem to be fetishist about woman`s legs, i reckon. Get over it and get a life...

    Linux doesn`t get many women, because so many of you are either geeky and immature or sex-crazed fetishist...

  64. Would anyone care if it had been the arms of a man, the legs of an elk, or the petals of a flower?

    Why get all sexist about it?

  65. What a crowd of juvenile perverts - if you guys get any more indignantly righteous you'll come in your pants !

    Nice legs, Nicu, well appreciated.

    Oh yeah, I posted anonymous 'cos I couldn't be bothered to log in. Get upset, or call me wingrun21 or something equally meaningless if you must.

  66. wow ... kinda obvious from these comments who has had a girlfriend before and who hasn't (and who probly never will). after all, if you'd had a girlfriend before, you'd immediately grok what's wrong with this photo because you'd know that you'd go nuts if you saw someone "upskirting" your own girlfriend. but surely *any* normal, well-adjusted member of society can figure it out even without having had a girlfriend before. it's a sick, sad, desperate and perverted thing to go out and do.

    there is no question that this is wrong, and the inability to see that reveals a deep lack of respect for women, and a wealth of inexperience with them.

    to all the social retards and virgins who are defending this ... you will always be lonely while you view the world in this way.

  67. I have lived in Singapore and other countries with a different world view that what we have in Europe. I have learned to tolerate other peoples lack of tolerance.

    Myself never had any problem with a Nordic open source advocate named Linus Torvalds. Some quotes from Linus lately:
    - "PS. And to get wider distribution for this message: Digg users - you're
    all a bunch of Wanking Walruses. And you can quote me on that."
    - "I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
    that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
    point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them."

    I am a married man. I could not care less whether that women was my wife as long as she can not be easily identified. I am more concerned about the security cameras that always film us.

  68. @Nicu:
    others have posed a question to the reader: what would you think, if the girl in the photo was your sister or your girlfriend?

    but id' rather ask directly to YOU:
    had the girl been YOUR girlfriend, would you still have shot her and published the photo (under a sexually suggestive title) on a frequently visited community blog for everyone to see?

    i think you wouldnt... not without her consent, not if you were interested in *not breaking* with her as soon as she discovers that she hadnt got that little respect from you, that is
    unless you don't have a girlfriend - that would explain a lot...

    what's more sad, in the eyes of people "from outside", this makes the linux community look like it's made of asocial teen geeks not too unlike (computer addiction apart) those who find self gratification in shooting themselves with their cellphones while sexually harassing teachers or fellow school girls...

    in the unfortunate case people from outside the community develops this kind of perception, the credibility of FOSS developers and FOSS projects would be seriously damaged
    hardly any serious professional would attempt to contribute to something if it required working with "a bunch of immature guys"
    hardly any potential end user (perhaps unaware of sw coding but well aware of the matter of his profession and of the problems he has to solve in life) would trust what some l33t people write, as reliable, well engineered and suitable for his needs...

    Sometimes programming skill is not enough...

    i cant agree more

  69. Yeah, because a dudes ability to pickup chicks is the only proper measure of his character, right?

    Some people have more important things to do than oblige strangers on the bus ...

    If everyone were so obsessed with pretending societal conformance as you are and didn't allow themselves a moment of harmless play every now and then to make their otherwise busy lives bearable, you would all probably be writing your flames on a typewriter.

    Apart from all you deluded puritans, no one got hurt and no one will be hurt.

  70. Digimer has laid out a rational and valid set of arguments so far - it's not about the content but the context of the photo, objectification is produced precisely by the anonymity of the act (on the part of both the photographer, who "snuck" the picture, and the subject, who is now "just" a body), and this isn't about hating sexuality in general. If this issue were to be contested solely through rational consideration, she'd have won it by now. That's obviously not getting through to the guys who keep arguing against her. In a non-logical move, therefore, I'm simply lending the weight of one more guy's voice to her side. Nicely done, Digimer.

  71. This comment has been removed by the author.

  72. JeFF:
    Frankly, the only ones referring to the women in the photograph as "just a body" is you puritans.

    Everybody else is capable of telling the difference "a woman" and "a photograph depicting a woman". We learned around the age of 2 or so.

  73. @ Anonymous 9:15AM July 19, 2008:

    As far as the "only ones" saying "just a body," I give to you Martin (who said it's just legs and explicitly contrasted that to a person with an identity), Anders Feder (who said it's just legs), Adrian Joian (who said it's just legs, belonging to an anonymous girl), sr xavi (who said it's just a pair of legs). Feel free to continue reading down the comments to find more defenders of the photo who insist that it's just legs, not an identifiable woman (and therefore, in many of their opinions, not someone who can be harmed by this action).

    As far as puritanism, check digimer's post wherein she OKs porn and artistic nudity.

    While I appreciate the nod to Magritte - that's one of my favorite pieces of art (I even have a printout of this http://www.flickr.com/photos/ranjit/248734/ hanging in my office) - your reference to the difference between a woman and a photo of a woman is a non sequitur.

  74. @ JeFF Stumpo

    I think you know as well as I do, that those comments about "legs" you refer to, are meant to express frustration at those claiming to oppose objectification, and at the same time judging the photo as if there was nothing else than a pair of legs in it. Their minds objectified the woman instantly. Their minds are tainted, and they know it inside themselves - thats what's causing the anger, which is projected towards others. The body of the woman is innocent. I don't know if the woman is. The photo is also innocent, but the one who took it might not be. Can't you see that its not really the photo that's bothering you (unless you are a pervert), its the text accompanying it.

  75. @ Anonymous:

    Of course the posters expressed frustration. It is the manner in which they expressed their frustration (it's just legs) that is revealing. You keep putting this on those who say it is objectification - once again, go back and read. You'll find that the initial posts by the "against" crowd deal with objectification in a general sense - consent of the photographed, the concept of "upskirt," etc. It is the "hey, this photo is all right" crowd that first notes, and reduces to, legs.

    We'll just have to disagree on the "their minds are tainted" bit. That's like saying only racists see racism. Or, put another way, your logic equally flies the other way. All those posting "pro" are obviously tainted and secretly angry at themselves for being sexist, so they project it onto the other side.

    So if the photo bothers someone, that person must either be a puritan or a pervert? There's a pretty big space between those two - you might want to pick one for the sake of coherency. Or am I now addressing a new Anonymous?

    As I noted in my original post - it IS the context of the photo that bothers me. The manner in which it was taken, the caption assigned to it, and the disturbing defenses of the whole posted here. The context includes the photo, and I reiterate that whatever point you seem to be trying to make by saying it's not really the photo has already been made by the side I'm defending.

  76. Congratulations Nicu, you're all over the internet now as a creepy voyeur (look that up) with the mental development of a 15-year-old. Nice to have when you're contemplating a new direction in your IT career, and your prospective employers are googling you.

    If we can't get through to you (and some of your thicker commenters) on the sexual politics of it, maybe the fact that it's childish and unprofessional might have some resonance with you. Maybe.

    Have a nice day.

    Helen in Australia

  77. JeFF:
    You name a number of commenters who discuss the fact that 'only legs' are visible on the photo. The fact that only a portion of the world is visible does not imply that the rest of the world does not exist. That is so obvious that anyone who is unable to appreciate it must suffer from some form of retardation.

    Again, the only one talking about the woman (and not the photo) as only body is you.

    I don't see anyone disputing that Nicu's act was childish and unprofessional.

  78. @ Anonymous:

    At first I thought that your personal attacks (referring to me as puritan, perverted, and retarded) were either

    A) due to poor or nonexistent training in argumentation (which is understandable and forgivable)

    B) the underhanded but time-honored method of insulting one's opponent to put said opponent off guard (let's face it, even Cicero used ad hominem)

    It's dawning on me, however, that you really do see the world in these simplistic/extreme terms. Given your arguments against my position, and in particular your comment to Helen that you don't see anyone disputing the childishness of nicu's act, when in fact such examples are present, I realize that you have taken a position and cannot help but ignore evidence to the contrary. That implications exist behind the surface of any given statement appears to be beyond you, unless such implications match up with some extreme position (e.g. puritan/perverted) you have invented.

    I am done with you.

  79. JeFF:
    I'm not suggesting you are retarded. I'm suggesting that someone holding the position that a comment about a picture is the same as a comment about the subject of a picture without additional reasoning is.

    You may personally very well possess such reasoning. But as long as you don't present that reasoning, your position in the discussion here may be likened to that of someone who retarded, just as some people here have likened Nicu's position to that of a rapist.

    Not trying to make you sympathize, just pointing out that those attacks were aimed at your position, not your person.

  80. You are one pathetic loser. Get some therapy you sick pervert, before you start stalking women.

  81. Well, let's put it this way, nicu: Even if you have a great deal of people evidently agreeing with you that this is just a harmless photo of an attractive woman in a public setting, you will invariably find yourself explaining that to an HR person in a suit should you seek a job with a firm that reads blogs.

    For what it's worth, it's a truly sad state of society when men defend an act that any woman would suffer years of humiliation for. "Oh," they scoff, "we can't recognize her, what's the big deal?" Ah, but if she read this blog post, she knows, and she will be wary of every camera phone and every bus for the rest of her life. No harm as long as it's online? Tell that to Megan Meier.

  82. came here from the linuxhater's website, looks like you your voyeur pic are spreading, nice view of linux your spreading. Also damn childish (and quite sick - what the hell where you thinking?) taking pics like that, and then post them online.
    Other people here have argued far better than I what's wrong with this picture and the context it's been taken and published, so I leave it there.

  83. There's a lot of back and forth going on in this thread that risk missing the most immediate point.

    To me, it doesn't matter if Nicu has a right to be a creep in a public forum.

    It also doesn't matter if Digimer has a right to impose personal standards of behaviour on a community (presupposing, for a moment, that Anders Feder was accurately characterizing her argument)

    What I care most about is the fact that the Fedora community is a truly public, open community. Nicu has, himself, described it as an open community of friendly people.

    I believe it's a community that values sharp, interesting members - I don't believe we can ever have too many.

    Regardless of whether or not you find the behaviour acceptable and regardless of whether or not you're threatened by criticism of the behaviour -- this sort of activity is not welcoming. It is, by its very nature, exclusionary. Worse, it's not functionally exclusionary. Not everyone who sees this blog post is going to be incensed. Not everyone who sees it will feel a little icky, or unwanted, or actively persecuted.

    This post does, however, randomly exclude potential and actual members of our community for no reason, whatsoever. That is not friendly. It's not open. It's a little cruel, very selfish, and utterly unacceptable.

    We can argue about the theoretical points (who has the right to do what, whether this discussion is censoring or simply encouraging censuring, where the line between harassment and bad taste is drawn, and such) until this turns into a slashdot thread. In the end, the only thing that really matters is the affect this sort of behaviour has on our community.

    Necu may well be a nice guy. He may well be a valuable member of the community. Despite all that, he assumed that everyone participating in his very public forum is like him, with his tastes, and his attitudes. He didn't do this in a subtle or accidental way. He posted a photo which, taken out of context, would otherwise probably seem utterly innocent - and purposely cast it in a creepy, exclusionary light.

    This action looks calculated. It obviously alienated a number of people. It's still sitting out on his very public blog, without any statement indicating any degree of shame. There's no "sorry folks, I had a lapse in judgement - I intend to hold myself to a higher standard in the future".

    Instead, we get this bizarre response.

    Nicu, do you seriously not understand how antisocial your behaviour makes you look?

  84. nicu, could you make a poll? something along the lines:

    1. That's absolutely wrong, take it off immediately, you creepy pervert!
    2. That's wrong, but that's your own problem, move it out from this public blog to your private library.
    3. Couldn't care more, waste of time to argue about it.
    4. Nice pic, but be more careful about where you post it and how you word it.
    5. Awesome pic, dude, keep 'em coming!

  85. Cheers to Perinteger. You have got it exactly right.

    If your argument is based entirely on who has the RIGHT to post arbitrary photos of arbitrary body parts and who has the RIGHT to expect what degree of privacy in what kind of public space, then all you are arguing is that this photo is not a direct violation of anyone's rights.

    A WHOLE 'NOTHER ARGUMENT arises if you want to go and claim that your blog is community-oriented and open. You can't just fall back on a legalistic defense of why you're allowed to do what you did.

    You have to make an effort to NOT make it look like "Linux blog" is just code for "Men's interests blog". You have to consider the feelings of your audience EVEN WHEN you have the right not to do so. This is the difference between "not a criminal" and "a decent person."

  86. Disgusting. And not a single sign of understanding, no excuse, no action editing this post.

    I don't want to be on your team. I don't want to be associated with a group where you are a member of, where I always have to fear to be backstabbed by one of your actions.

  87. Jesus. To the people whinging, eat a bag of cement and harden the fuck up. In the grand scheme of things in the Linux community, a picture entitled 'upskirt' is not a big worry.

    There is a big difference from nicu taking the snap and hosting it on his blog to websites that exploit thousands of women in the same way, and sell these photos off to paying members.

    If you want to crucify someone for the victimization of women, go for the pornography sites that promote themes such as rape and voyeurism.

    I wonder how many people actually are disgusted by this, and how many people are saying they're disgusted by it because the majority seems to be swaying that way, whilst downloading the picture?

    Oh, and any male here who said that he wouldn't look if he saw that sitting across the bus from you, is a liar. Any guy who said he had no fantasy what so ever, even in passing, is a liar.

  88. Typical Romanian stuff.
    Is this how you show you're a "man"?

    Had you been with a buddy, would you have high-fived him when after getting off the bus, only to return home to your empty-bed and jack off to this picture?

    On the other hand, I can't take this as being too offensive, after all you're a programmer, you probably haven't touched a real girl in ages. And your mom doesn't count.

    Mersi ca ajuti reputatia romanilor, baiete!

  89. @Myrth: yes, I can make a pool but I don't think it would be of any use, it would only make people with extreme views (one or another) to start campaigns of recruiting voters for their side (one or another).

    But I guess if I am really evil I can do it, that would generate even more linkage and, you know, completely not intended, the reactions to this post were a huge source of PR.

  90. @nicu: "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."
    - Brendan Behan

  91. Nicu, I use linux and like it but not the community because I see lot of sexism in many LUG group (your photo is example) and it keep women like me away.

    Because you are Fedora developer people will think it become ok to be famous by behaving like you because you make another cartoon instead of saying sorry.

    Your blog says its a window to your sucky life and that is true. Your sexist behaving is bad because you say "All the materials included on this page are free to use, but if you find them useful,....". Do that mean you will post women pictures without permission and women must keep silent and not protest ?

  92. If a woman is wearing very revealing clothes such as mini-skirt, or open decolte, that means she is proud of her sex appeal and enjoys showing it to strangers.

    And there's little difference between it being in the bus, on the street or on the blog.

    On the blog it is even less dangerous, because there will not be sick perverts that might get a wrong signal from this woman and remember her face and/or follow the woman.

    I'm sure that nicu's motives were innocent desire to share his delight with a shining beauty he has encountered, and that made his day a bit brighter.

    If your morals make you see this in a dark perverted way, please do not forget that they are your own thoughts and conclusions, do not portray it as a whole community opinion and do not force your morals on other people.

    If in your mind enjoying woman's beauty is degrading, you have a problem.

    Just unsubscribe. Live and let live.

  93. Monica:
    You're an excellent example of the hypocrisy you people represent.

    "Typical Romanian stuff.
    Is this how you show you're a "man"?

    Fedora: We don't take pictures of legs. Racism though, we encourage.

  94. Perinteger:
    You start out complaining that there's "a lot of back and forth going on in this thread" and then goes on to add even more going back and forth.

    The point you keep failing to justify is why is people who are offended by a harmless photo of human legs more valuable to the Fedora community than people who are offended by your puritanism?.

  95. @Monica,

    I've been staying quiet, because I made my point and left it up to people to decide if they agree with it or not. Your words though were so disgusting that I feel compelled to distance myself and other people arguing against this "upskirt" picture from them.

    In so few words you attack a nation of people based on one member, you insult and further stigmatize the programmer profession and generally make yourself look the close-minded fool.

    I still think Nicu's picture is wrong for the reasons I stated before, but what you wrote just now is at least as bad, if not much worse. At least Nicu and his band of supporters are "admiring" a woman, if in a wrong way, where your words are just plain despicable.


  96. a chicks legs in a mini-skirt!?!? preposterous, I'm appalled! Come to Ubuntu, we got Vida Guerra wall papers. But seriously, I've done a lot more to females without asking permission, they usually like it.

    Can't wait to replies to that one. lol.

    PS. Women are not a minority, I've heard it's like 3 times more of yall. sheesh.

  97. From the sound of it, Carlos have had plenty of girlfriends, so he must clearly be the wisest one of us, if we are to follow the Nicu-dont-understand-because-he-has-never-been-with-a-women line of argumentation. I guess that settles the matter, blokes - beer's on you.

  98. hey carlos what u do 2 dem ladies man? >:]

  99. Personally I too could never see a good reason to use Impact as a font. Nonetheless, the design industry in where I live is pretty much determined by the market. Whatever the client wants is whatever he gets. Impact in red is a non issue to them who would readily distort a photo out of its aspect ratio just to fill that small space to the right there.

  100. I am not stigmatizing an entire country of people based on one person, unfortunately I know that country of people.

    I am Romanian, grew up there and when I was younger I used to love going back to visit. Now I've been avoiding it for years, one of the main reasons being that I got sick of the groping on public transportation, inappropriate touching and overall uneasiness I felt walking alone after dark.

    Imagine, if you will, walking on the street, a bunch of guys walking in the opposite way, they part ways, you think it's because they want to let you pass through, but instead you get on hand, from each side, on one of your boobs. Or you take the train to go see your grandparents and some guy starts putting his hand on your chest, to "read" the logo on your shirt. I have countless examples like that, but I won't go on.

    Now, I've traveled a bit, and I know that countries differ. There is certainly more catcalling and staring and vulgar comments than where I live in may places I've seen. However, I've never seen it as bad as in Bucharest. Maybe I need to travel more.

    Now, I grew up there, my parents are both programmers, and I always thought, and have been taught that the people who use public transportation to prove their manliness were a different kind of people than the ones I grew up with.
    So when I see this, I tend to overreact, as it seems that instead of the jerks becoming ok-guys, the ok people are becoming jerks.

    Now, the picture itself does not even bother me that much, in a different context, it would have been just a bit of harmless fun. I don't see it as intruding. It's just the title (which, at first I thought was just bad English, seeing how it's not an actual upskirt) and the way it was posted, like some sort of trophy.

    Anyway, it's sad. And I'm not apologizing. I wish I had a reason to apologize, but it is typical Romanian stuff. If you don't believe me, be a girl, go there, and take the bus a couple of times. I recommend rush hour.

  101. And I think I need to stop starting sentences with "Now, ..."

    p.s. you didn't notice how you didn't understand the last line of my first post?

  102. It may be rude to take/post such a picture but:

    "Women's bodies are not public property, and wearing a skirt is not an invitation to be photographed and published on the Internet."

    is wrong. They are not public property, truism of truisms, but she is publicly displaying it, hence making it accessible for other's eyes and cameras, and there is no moral principle saying that private property in a public place may not be seen. If you let us see it, you let us capture it, period. If you don't want to be seen, use a different skirt.

    Now, calling your attention to it, or touching you is an altogether different thing. All I'm saying is that, if you publicly display something, do not complain when someone takes a picture of it.

  103. There are really people here defending taking and publishing unwanted pictures.

    I am shocked.

    Luckily in most countries this is not allowed.

    Unlucky that such laws are needed and you can't trust in people's common sense and morale compass, as proven here.

  104. monica, you seem to be the one who "got it right". As you said, the problem is not the photo itself but the text around. I am also quite shocked to hear what is happening to women in Romania - I've never experiened such stuff here in Czech Republic (even in a fully stuffed bus/train where you are lucky when you stand on one leg which even isn't yours). Anyway, I don't find the text as offensive as you are, probably because of my lack of the experience that you have, but agree that it was not wise to comment it this way.

    Thanks for your comment anyway, it gave me more insight to the core of the problem :-)

  105. Monica,

    you're an ugly girl, aren't you?

  106. @HeWhoWas
    [who says porn is worse]

    In civilized countries, women making porn are paid for their work, and they know exactly what will happen to it. It is consensual.

    who says "I've done a lot more to females without asking permission, they usually like it."

    I think that line says it all: "they like it"

    Wow. So what open source conferences should I watch for you at?

  107. @Anon,

    Asking if Monica is ugly is bloody childish.


    I realize you may have problems in Romania, but it's never an excuse to generalize an entire people by how some act. We never notice the majority who leave us alone.

    I know how frustrating men can be, and how scary then can be, too. I've been stuck on a flight with an old man who kept touching me, I've had a guy follow me out of the subway and keep blocking me from leaving the platform "because he liked my hair", I've had a guy ask me on the street at night if he could "put his {penis} in my {vagina}", ... I could go on easily. Hell, I had to leave my last job because the lead tech treated me like garbage because I was a woman and my (male) supervisor "didn't see a problem with it".

    So maybe I should hate men?

    Truth is, most are very nice. My b/f is very respectful of women. Everyone at my new job treats me as an equal. *Most* people I meet in the subway or on the street are nice.

    You have to be careful not to let the (relatively) few bad apples ruin your view of an entire group.


  108. I seriously have no idea what all the fuss and flame is about. I'm just posting this to let you know, nicu, that we world hasn't gone insane, and it's just the most vocal minority who are posting here I appreciate your lighthearted tone of posting and those indeed are a good pair of legs I only wish more people here could realise the relative importance of the thing they choose to fight for so fiercely, and instead of trying to help society by fruitlessly punishing what they deem immoral, spend their precious energy on more constructive and positive efforts.

  109. Digi,

    yeah, it is, now what?
    By the way, from your answer it is clear that you think that she is ugly...

  110. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and I say so is immoral intent with regards to this photo. Many here should ask themselves what really causes them to spew out so much hate.

  111. @ Rudd-O and others saying that if one wears a skirt in public, one ought to expect photos of this sort to be taken:

    I'll try approaching this using your line of logic - what someone wearing certain clothing ought to expect based on that clothing. I'll also say ahead of time that I find this line of thought somewhat faulty, but I'm hoping to meet you on your own terms.

    What is the purpose of a skirt? It certainly shows off one's legs, or at least part of them. However, as a piece of clothing, it is also intended to *cover* a certain of one's body.

    To caption the photo "upskirt" implicitly acknowledges that what is being shown was *not* intended by the photographed. While you might assume that the woman in the photo wanted her legs to be seen, it should be no great leap (in your line of reasoning) to determine that she explicitly did not want anything under her skirt to be seen. She did not enter a public place wearing only panties. She did not ride the bus with her legs spread wide while wearing the skirt. She was wearing clothing designed to reveal a certain amount of skin, and the photographer took liberties beyond that tacit public agreement.

  112. You're all huge fucking losers.

  113. Martin wrote:
    > I am also quite shocked to hear what is
    >happening to women in Romania

    It is not that bad, of course it may happen (as it may happen to have your wallet or cellphone stolen or something) but not as often as Monica makes it look.

  114. stop being a dick.
    I'm sure you'll try to respond with some indignant bullshit about how it's not illegal or how she was asking for it by not wearing a burka.
    If you do feel such a reaction coming on: stop, think and realise that you are still being a dick.
    then stop being a dick.
    just stop.

  115. Anonymous:
    As soon as you stop calling people dicks.

  116. I object to that photo. I am male. Enough said.

  117. I love that photo. I am female. Enough said.

  118. You shouldn't have labelled it "upskirt". As it isn't, by the conventional "porn" definition. Then none of this would have happened.

    Though you really should try to stay on topic for planet posts.

  119. muahahaha.

    If u americans was not that affraid of sex u would even photo this girl without asking.

    But because u Americans are so damn proud you get this kind of pictures that make lots of other americans angry.

    I am from sweden and we see this everyday and dont even takes notice about it. So got damn to the blogger GET A LIFE! and to the people getting upset well. Get upset about something that is more important!!

  120. Male or female I really doubt that this is the point. I know women who would laugh at that photo and don't ever think about it as an offense. I think that the problem it's about sensibility of everyone. Maybe posting this on planet was inappropriate but I see every time offtopic posts going pretty much unobserved. I don't consider it offensive but I can understand that someone does. But all the moralism that went in this discussion made me feel relly bad. I don't think that we need so much moralism..I experience it everyday on my skin in all the mainstream medias and that's more than enough for me!

  121. LOL friend told me someone posted my legs on the net. I hope you guys like em but if you feel disturbed y'know dont look!

    p.s. next time use your camera sweetie :>

  122. Found this on LinuxHaters. Digimer is absolutely correct.

    If the photo was of a friend and it HAPPENED (by chance) to contain a lady with revealed legs - it would be fine.

    That isn't the case here. Nicu went out of his way to take this picture. He even had the audacity to crudely label it. This is wrong. I'm male and even I know this. I don't think it is even okay for girls to take pictures of guys they find cute either.

    The argument on this board seems to be something derived from the open source mindset: what he can see is fine for him to share.

    Habving the ability to capture information doesn't immediately grant you the right to distribute it.

    I find it funny how Anonymous is trying to change the subject and misreading what Digimer is saying. She didn't call anyone a rapist.

    Taking a photograph of something implies you want to reproduce it and reproduce it elsewhere. Do you really have that permission?

    You need permission from the focal point of your picture. If I take a picture of a friend in a public place, you do not need permission from nearby people. Those are not your focal point. You are not trying to bring attention to them.

    Tell me why it is wrong for me to take open source software and incorporate it into lots of closed source software, distribute it and make lots of money from it? Well? If it IS wrong, then there is hypocrisy here.


  123. @Improfane,

    I appreciate that you agree with my argument, and you explanation of the "focal point" is spot on. I wish I had the creativity to have made that argument earlier.

    What I don't get is how you tie this to the greater open source community? As with Monica, you are painting a community with a wide brush because of a few bad apples. I make my living off open source. I write an open source program (modest though it is), and if anything it has taught me the value of IP rights.

    Many years ago when I was an MS kid (started with MS-DOS 3.3), I thought nothing of copying programs from friends. It wasn't until I understood the power of the GPL and how it allowed for FOSS to grow that I understood how important it was to respect the rights of all software developers.

    Ever since, I have ensured that all my clients who use commercial software fully and properly license their software. If they desire not to, they either find an open source equivalent or they find another support tech.

    Please, everyone, stop throwing out groups based on the unfortunate actions of some.


  124. Digimer, I am trying to illustrate that there is a connection between two ideas:

    "The argument on this board seems to be something derived from the open source mindset: what he can see is fine for him to share."

    - People think it's okay to put pictures of people they can see (open source code) and therefore have the right to distribute it in anyway they like
    - You need the permission from the person in order to distribute it (closed source or get permission from an open source developer)

    I may have took the example too far and I apologise for that. I have no beef with open source, it seemed an effective way to communicate. There is a real hypocrisy in some of the above arguments my posters. In the same way you used a rape victim being at fault for rape, it was an extreme example. It gets the point across at the expense of logic.

    To be honest, I'm surprised it is *you* who confront me with my comments, you're definitely a strong character.



  125. I find it funny how Anonymous is trying to change the subject and misreading what Digimer is saying. She didn't call anyone a rapist.

    And who said she did? She likened Nicu's 'thinking pattern' to that of a rapist and that's a fact.

  126. This really is sleazy and indefensible. Methinks I just lost any and all respect for 'Nicu.'

  127. She didn't liken the thinking pattern of a rapist to Nicu. She showed that the same argument that some people here are using is not applicable to a rapist.

    Dressing in a certain way doesn't grant anyone around you rights over you.

    My argument doesn't attack the open source community, it attacks a hypocrisy. Open source is readily available - anyone can see the code itself. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you have the right to use it in any way you like.

  128. @improfane: yep, you have to share it, totally agree, good call.

  129. Get some gender politics. Sniggering about being able to sneak a photo of a girl's legs on the bus then mobbing the people who politely point out how inappropriate it is? That's wrong on about 25 levels and 8 dimensions.

    As a Linux user I don't want to be associated with the juvenile sexism of the original post, but the flat-out misogyny of some of the people trying to defend the OP is what really disturbs me.


    You -did- ask her for her licensing terms along with that photo you took in secret, right?

  131. ok... i think this thread exhausted itself long time ago, everybody said whatever it is possible to say on the topic, and everybody will stay with their opinion in any case. now it's just redundant reiterations of the same shit.

  132. you don't understand why taking that picture (and even worse, posting it) was wrong, do you? basically because you completely disregard the feelings of the other person when you did that.
    let me try to illustrate that from the point of view of a male (me):
    i'm a moderately good looking guy. I know that because of the effect that I produce in the women that surround me. I go to the gym and I'm fit and also I'm very considerate with women and other people in general. What if I had access to your girlfriend/fiancee (even wife) and I decided that I wanted her for myself? with patience and enough time I could get her to like me and eventually dump you. Now, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like that, do you? at least most men don't.
    consider this other scenario: I'm the boyfriend of that girl in the picture, and I see your post. furthermore, suppose that I have access to you. rest assured that I would go and beat the crap out of you.
    and that is why you don't do that kind of things.

  133. I like the photo. It is a beautiful moment captured in time. I wish I had been on the bus. Would it have been more acceptable to paint this portrait in order to share the moment with others?

    Where does permission enter into the topic. You appear in public as you wish others to see you.

    And shame on the last psycho that wanted to beat the "crap" out of anyone that may or may not have looked at his girl friend's legs ... and happened to have a camera handy.

    What would Rodney King do if no one witnessed his tragic moment.

    We should all act and behave as if we were on "candid" camera ... perhaps even "pretend" my/your/our God might even be watching.

    Thanks for the photo and for the glimpse of madness in the minds of others!

  134. would you encourage a creep who is covertly trying to take a picture of your girlfriend's up skirt? you are so Avant-garde dude!!

  135. @ Anonymous 9:51PM July 24, 2008:

    You do realize that your reaction treats women as objects as well, yes? The hypothetical woman in the situation you described is no more than a way to show your power over the other guy.

    Now, if you want to say that a free-thinking woman will not choose to stay with a guy who exploits her, we might have something...

  136. yes!! you would be treating that women as an object,but that was not the point!! the point was to show what could happen if you ignore the other persons involved. in the hypothetical case, nicu (or the guys defending him for instance) and his girlfriend. do you see the difference?

  137. OK, now what you were getting at. Thanks for clarifying...

  138. Get some gender politics. Sniggering about being able to sneak a photo of a girl's legs on the bus then mobbing the people who politely point out how inappropriate it is? That's wrong on about 25 levels and 8 dimensions.

    Ohh, look, you can make up sentences with numbers in them. Fucking brilliant, mate. Your asshole is about three hundred and eighty seven million yards too big in seventy five different dimensions spanning nine hundred and twenty six million sectors of the universe. How's that for factoids, retardo shithead. Try arguing for the crap you are letting out instead of assigning it fucking numbers, you stupid moron.

  139. News at 11:00! Chastity Belts are popular again! Please make sure your girlfriend (or boyfriend) has one on in public! Cameras are everywhere and are here to stay, and someone might just think of you as a sex object. (should one be so lucky)

    Hey, how about taking pictures of ugly people from the knees down. It may be less artsy-fartsy but perhaps more gender politically correct! It seems there are enough ugly people to be found, given the comments on display here.

    The lady with the skirt has the right to appear as she wishes, and somebody "at the right place at the right time" "moved" by the vision has the right to discreetly or indiscreetly capture the moment in public as well.

    I would suppose, the next step in censorship is to ASSUME the picture WAS taken for sexual gratification and put this creep in prison. Perhaps the censors can also ASSUME this girl is a MINOR and hang the creep for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

    My experience has led me to believe that there is a bit of the STRIPPER in all of us, just some of us look good enough to shamelessly display ourselves in public.

    I think the flameful comments here are based on a false sense of chivalry angrily displayed to hide the real relationship insecurities of both males and females alike. That, and most people want "permission" or "payment" for approval of just about anything as it would pertain to themselves or loved ones, or even the unidentifiable.

  140. cheer up buddy!!
    at least you've learned why people in public spaces look at you with contempt and you have also learned that you might get your ass kicked if you keep that attitude. now is simple a matter of exercising your sense of self-preservation as it seems that it is impossible to make you understand what respect for others is.

  141. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Social taboos can be withstood at this expense for the sake of freedom. Physical harm can be absolutely identified as different from the alleged and perceived "intellectual or emotional" harm or complete "lack of respect" that others wish may wish to brutally enforce when they have no legal recourse. I know where I sit on this proverbial fence of censorship of freedom and hopefully voice a sense of intelligent rhetoric that may sway others unsure why this photo was NOT an abusive act. Nor the text, however inaccurate / misleading / suggestive represents anything else that warrants ridicule or an overreaction to this topic.

    BTW: What kind of person really thinks threats of physical rebuke in a written web forum has any possible effect? Other than a potentially amusing/entertaining flamefest or a big WOT (Waste O' Time)? Those that mandate "Believe what I believe" or else we'll beat the snot out of you only works in public schools. Free society scorns violence more than most might think! God may have created all men and women, but Samuel Colt made them equal. No one should suffer a beating as a prerequisite to responding with deadly force. Take your talk of violence and walk. We know where you stand on "respect for others". Eloquence is not found in fists! Learn to express yourself more creatively, or leave the public writings behind.

  142. Eloquence is not found in fists!

    You're no more likely to eloquently abuse the passive voice than to eloquently use your fists (no matter how big a fan of Yoda you happen to be).

    Riddle me this: Why do so many in this thread confuse civility with censorship and self-absorbtion with personal freedoms?

    Damn, there I go responding to anonymous again, even though she's always such an ass. You'd think I'd learn.

  143. Here ya go!

    There once was a camel named Clyde
    That had a girlfriend he would hide
    to keep as his own
    from others that don't
    share the same views of why it is only a pair of thighs.

    No Disrespect. Just Admiration.
    You and I do NOT own the VISIBLE world --- It is best shared!

    Do or Do Not --- There is no Try!
    --- Yoda!

  144. Antagonism. def:

    Damn, there I go responding to anonymous again, even though she's always such an ass.

    What a poor choice in words to choose for an opponent in defense of a woman. Please, don't tell me you like the phrase "smack my b&^C* down". Lest that be a gay turn of phrase.

  145. Look ... I promise to go away now ...

    Sorry in advance.

    If I walk out into public with my a hole in my shorts and someone takes a candid picture of my big OLE balls and submits it for the whole world to see! I would either be PROUD or I would fix my shorts!

  146. Note to self:
    Don't fault the photographer!
    Look somewhere inside for the problem!

  147. Why do so many in this thread confuse civility with censorship and self-absorbtion with personal freedoms?


    In one sentence, you just summed up the broken view of the world held by most linux dweebs and open source fundies.

    Their reality consists only of themselves and what they think the rest of the world owes them. It is an infantile view of the world that lets this douche see no problem with what he has done.

  148. @thecodewitch,

    Where does this assumption that OSS coders take everything they see? I've made my living off of open source for several years now. On top of that, my personal project is an open source program. I've given talks to the open source community (two more coming in August).

    In all my time, it has been the open source people who respect licenses the most. Back before I worked in closed source software support for over five years. There it seemed *everyone* ran software they hadn't properly licensed. This almost never happens in open source communities so far as I can tell.

    I think a lot of closed source programmers get angry when an open source program reinvents their wheel by writing a program that provides similar function. Maybe *that* is the source of this idea that we think we can take what we like?

    In fact, computer technology and just about everything else in society comes from other people's ideas that we try to make better. In the closed vs. open world, this means re-writing programs from scratch using code and licenses from a different political model. After that, it's up to the market and users to decide which offers better service, support and such. It's simply a survival of the fittest.

    If and when someone takes code that isn't theirs, there is always the courts to resolve these issue. However, it seems to me that lately the courts have been protecting open source programs from closed source people who felt *THEY* could take what they wanted without following the license. Linksys, for example, and many others.


  149. God damn! Let the guy alone, he was just having a little bit of fun on the Internet. Guy or girl, get over it, all guys like to see up skirts whether or not they believe it is appropriate behavior. You could have sent him an email and recommended that he remove it instead of trying to repeatedly bashing him.

    It's always easy to stand up for what is popular and supported by the majority. If one is supporting the majority he should at least try not to be a complete dick about it.

    Also, just because people might defend freedoms and rights for self-absorbed selfish reasons, does not mean that they do not have philosophical/moral support for their positions.Furthermore, censorship IS often an issue, when people think that the inappropriate should be screened. Just because the tools of a certain censor are not absolute, does not mean they are not implemented. Sometimes its worth arguing.

  150. If there was nothing wrong with taking photos up strange women's skirts in public, he wouldn't have used his cameraphone. This guy KNEW that she wouldn't appreciate having pictures taken of her, which is why he didn't have the guts to pull out his camera. There's a reason why he did it as inconspicuously as he could.

    Who cares what "guys" (read: a small percentage of guys who make the rest of our gender look like troglodytes) want -- a woman's body is not public property, regardless of whether she's sitting on public property. They shouldn't have to run around in burkhas just to avoid being sexualized by perverts with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. This has nothing to do with censorship. If the woman agreed to let him take her photo and post it on the internet, it would be totally OKAY. But he didn't, and he didn't because he knew he wouldn't get permission. And maybe, because he gets off on the idea of violating her wishes more than he does actually looking at her legs.

  151. Hahahahahahahaha. Wow.
    So many judgemental people.
    What ever happened to live and let live?

    You've dropped by someone's personal blog, which just *happens* to be RSS Aggregated in a linux community, getting angry and hurt over a picture taken in a public place, and then BLAMING THE ENTIRE FOSS COMMUNITY over the actions of a single computer programmer from romania that just happens to be involved with a buggy bleeding-edge linux distro that nobody in their right mind would ever run on production environments.

    Wow. Bravo.

    So much hipocracy on this stupid little dirtball. Just felt like I should add a little more.

  152. Same anon as the last one...
    I just went browsing around the rest of the blog. There's plenty of photos of girls and such. I actually find some of the comics more offensive than the photography.

  153. I can't see anything..?? :-)

  154. No wonder your life is "sucky"; you clearly deserve it behaving like that.