Internet Vigilantes (1 Viewer)

[babydoll_]

http://japundit.com/archives/2005/06/30/808/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_poop_girl

to summarise the story, a woman was carrying her dog on a train in korea, and it pooped all over the train. people offered her tissues and told her to clean it up, but she wiped the dog and walked off. a person took a photo of her and posted it on the internet. people started harrassing her and she ended up quitting her job out of shame.

keeping in mind that internet usage is much more widespread in korea, do you think what they did was justified?

i understand why people would be angry, but posting her photo and lynch mobbing her is going a bit too far

and lets change the story a bit for australia. say someone vomited on a train and refused to clean it up. a person on the camera conveniently has a camera. how would you react?

is it even legal to post a photo like that on the net, anyway?

 

[withoutaface]

There's no justice like swift, vigilante justice.

 

[davin]

first of all, there was no lynch mob. she wasn't killed, or lynched, so thats hyperbole there.
second, the analogy doesn't work, considering bringing a pet onto a train and failing to be responsible for it is different from being sick and the effects that that would have.
Whats the outrage here? That she did something that was basicly avoiding responsibility, and its unfair because she couldn't do so annonymously, but had people call her on it, and so now she's embarassed she's caught for it

 

[gman03]

I am against people who are not responsible for there action. They should die.

I don't think it is illegal to post her pic on the web (unless this is used in dating services etc.) However the publictise of her personal info may be illegal.

Besides, if someone else's dog pooed on her face, what would she do if she has a camera ready in her hand AND she has blogging habit on the net?

IMO she deserves the humiliation, but not the invasion of privacy.. fair enough?

 

[0o0]

heres a similar story i read last year

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/340923p-291030c.html

as for this korean bitch, she got what she deserved.

 

[SashatheMan]

hahah , who would clean up dog shit? i sure dont when my dogs shit all over peoples property.

 

[Orange Juice]

same here, when my pet elephant does it shit i dont bother. its never ending cycle, let the flies do their thing

 

[mr EaZy]

No. The subject of photographs must give written permission for the photographer to use her image/name/biography/contact details.

Well that's by Australian media rules. Not sure about Korea's.

one thing that would concern me is: what if the photos misrepresented the person...

say a site showed a video of some kids celebrating a birthday party like clapping their hands and cheering for joy- and then a terrorist attack happened here... and then the video was made public as if it had just happened- wouldnt that incriminate the children involved as being insensitive?

Or what about a mother on a leaky boat shows her baby to a flying chopper with a camcorder- and some prime minister got hold of the video and thought the mother was throwing her kids overboard- wouldnt that be just as stupid?

the thing is - you just cant trust photos you see online

that korean photo guy didnt show the specific dog performing the specific act or the korean woman responding in a specific way-

our understanding comes from the only reported witness which happens to be the viligante

 

[ogmzergrush]

Is it just me or does she appear to have exceptionally long fingers?