Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Taiwan sex scandal video tops search engine hits in America

By eastwest in News
Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 01:29:13 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

This is a strange story showing the global nature of the Internet. Accoding to this Lycos report, "Chu Mei-Feng" has become the number one search term in Lycos, an search engine for mainly English sites in America. Chu was the main character of a sex scandal in Taiwan, and her sex acts were recorded in video without her knowledge. This video has been very popular in Taiwan and East Asia, but through the Internet they are spreading like wild fire and have reached the West.

A local affair in a small island, reported mainly in Chinese media, now drawing world wide attention, across language and culture boundaries, is something unthinkable before the age of the Internet.


Chu is a Taiwan, Republic of China politican whose sex acts were recorded on video without her knowledge, around September 2001. Chu were betrayed by her roommate, who set up hidden cameras in her bedroom. After the scandal broke out, the video spread throughout Taiwan, via CD copying or the Internet, despite the government's efforts to crack down.

Chu Mei-Feng is a young and beautiful female politican. She started as a news reporter and became well-known with one in-depth report on Taipei's gay population (using hidden cameras). With her visibility she entered politics, first elected to the Taipei City legislature. She was effectively representing Taipei citizens and enjoyed high approval rates and support. She became the girlfriend of the mayor of Hsinchu City, who brought her into the Hsinchu City government as the head of the Culture Bureau. The Hsinchu mayor gave her a house in a high-class, highly-secure, gated neighborhood outside Taipei. However, after one year their relationship cooled, and Chu became depressed (but still lived alone in the house). She needed friends and one woman who claimed to be a "spirital advisor" befriended Chu. Soon they became best friends and this "advisor" moved into Chu's house. Chu gave her full access to the house and her bank accounts.

After a period of time, however, the relation between Chu and her roommate went south. The roommate had withdrawn money from accounts without Chu's approval, and they argued over this. Some reports indicate Chu's roommate had fallen in love with the Hsinchu Mayor (unverified) and there seemed to develop a complex triangular relationship. In any case Chu's desire was unfulfilled, so she might have brought other men to her house in the night to do you-know-what. The roommate knew this and set up hidden cameras to record Chu's "bedside manner" in full detail, unknown to Chu. One "volume" was eventually released by the roommate to the public, and there were rumors of additional "volumes". The total number is unknown at this time.

Near the end of year of 2001, there was a national legislature election and Chu ran in the city of Taichung. Chu represented a party which is pro-national-unification, and separatists (against China) wanted to use whatever attacks they could to bring Chu down. It is not clear if Chu's roommate had tried to provide the sex video to Chu's opponents. Anyway rumors circulated about Chu's private life, sex with men, etc., which seriously damaged Chu's image, despite her denial. The rumors contained the component that there was video proof. Chu was not elected. After the election, however, the Chu sex video really began to spread. It appeared Chu's roommate has tried to sell the video to several magazines for millions of (New Taiwan) dollars but was unsuccessful. But she relased (at least) one video to the public anyway.

Chu was devastated. She went into hiding and there was fear that she might commit suicide. Everyone on the street is looking for a copy of the video, and Chu eventually admitted she was the woman in the video. Then the question became how the video was acquired, and by whom. Only three people had keys to the house, Chu, the roommate, and Chu's boy friend, the Hsinchu mayor, The roommate tried to flee Taiwan but was arrested in the airport. She later admitted responsibility. A police search of Chu's house and office in the Hsinchu City government found they were all wired with hidden cameras. The police is still investigating who else was involved, including possibly the (now former) Hsinchu mayor, or other politicians.

In the Legislature Yuan (ROC's equivalent of Congress) government officials were answering questions from legislators and women's rights advocates promising maximum efforts to halt the distribution of this video, while in the next room legislators' aids were busily making copies with CD Writers (designated for legislative business use) for their local supporters' enjoyment. The police raided CD factories and searched markets in Taiwan to look for whoever is selling this video on CD, while company officials give free copies of such CDs to employees as awards for good job performance.

While the interest has begun to fade in Taiwan and the government is prosecuting Chu's roommate, now in jail, the video CDs were copied in Southeast Asia and appearing in Mainland China, and the story is widely reported in Chinese media in Asia. News reports indicate Malaysian police were arresting people for selling Chu Mei-Feng CDs. CDs titled "Taiwan Female Legislator Real Sex Video" appeared in the streets in southeastern Chinese costal cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou (Canton), while the Chengdu City government in southwestern China organized special police forces to halt selling of such CDs in markets.

The most amazing thing, however, are searches to Chu Mei-Feng in Lycos (also in the top Weblog searches), a mainly English site covering the North American part of the Internet. At this time Chu Mei-Feng has become the number one search term for several days in a row. This indicates the interests in her video have crossed language or culture barriers and reached America. Wonder what will Chu think about this, after her recent loss in the Legislature Yuan elections and now her reputation in ruins, that she may become an international phenonemon? (More detailed story of Chu can be found here)

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Lycos report
o top Weblog searches
o here
o Also by eastwest


Display: Sort:
Taiwan sex scandal video tops search engine hits in America | 58 comments (48 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Small Island? (4.50 / 6) (#1)
by medham on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 06:56:57 AM EST

Formosa is about 36,000 square kilometers, captain.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

So does anyone have a link? (3.00 / 14) (#2)
by haakon on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 08:18:19 AM EST

To this Video?

Disgusting. (3.66 / 3) (#29)
by Mr. Piccolo on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 11:33:18 PM EST

A woman's life was ruined because of this, and all you can say is "Does anyone have a link to this video?"

You sicken me.

The BBC would like to apologise for the following comment.


[ Parent ]
Disgusting? (4.50 / 2) (#35)
by whatwasthatagain on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 04:10:59 AM EST

Why yes! Definitely. So is the fact that a piece of "news" from a remote corner of the world receives so much publicity.

CMIIW, but I *do* see a vast majority of people performing a quick search on their fav. search engine as soon as they hit upon this piece in the news. Only if Mom isn't around, of course. Just what can one say in defense of a civilization where individuals "value" their privacy while callously violating others'?

For the record, I DID search for the video - on Google and Lycos - but just to see if it was easily accessible. The first page of search results were about *news articles* related to the scandal; the video itself did not appear. Mercifully.


--

With profound apologies to whomsoever this sig originally belonged.
[ Parent ]

In defence (4.00 / 1) (#56)
by haakon on Tue Jan 29, 2002 at 01:34:34 AM EST

I certainly don't get my jollies from watching a Politician being betrayed by a suposed friend. I was more interested in if the "Puroported Video" did actualy exist.

For all I know the orginal story may have been someone spreading lie's and inuendo to try and make some money off the checkbook journalism that happens in this world.

[ Parent ]
A link (4.50 / 2) (#53)
by ucblockhead on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 10:52:59 PM EST

If you want to watch a woman have sex, why not go watch someone who wants to be watched.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
A note about them (none / 0) (#57)
by Miniluv on Fri Feb 08, 2002 at 02:42:59 AM EST

As an avid porn consumer, I must say that Vivid puts out some of the best DVDs on the market.

By all reports they're also a pretty damn good company to work for as "talent". Well, that's compared to the other options anyhow.


Some things are holy, and the sauna is one of them
[ Parent ]

just d/l it from a p2p app.. (3.00 / 1) (#54)
by juju2112 on Mon Jan 28, 2002 at 02:13:55 AM EST

I did a search on Morpheus and was able to get it pretty easily. Just search the regular file-sharing networks and you're probably sure to find it.

[ Parent ]
Time to fire up morphius (2.42 / 7) (#3)
by delmoi on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 08:28:00 AM EST

Unless anyone here has a link :)
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
On Morpheus (3.00 / 4) (#32)
by mumble on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 12:23:37 AM EST

Yup. I just fired up Morpheus and searched for videos with "chu" in the title. I got 60 hits, some of which are exactly what we are looking for.

So now you know.

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]

that's hilarious (3.57 / 7) (#6)
by Pink Daisy on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 10:44:06 AM EST

My old roommate's girlfriend was telling me about this recently. He was visiting, after moving to New York early last September. Anyway, we got to discussing politicians. He commented on how dumb George W. is; I commented on Mel Lastman, mayor of Toronto who welcomed the Hell's Angels to the city, and our prime minister Jean Chretien. So she had to top that; a difficult job at best. She did it, though:

"Back in Taiwan, we have a legislator who..."

I laughed very hard, even though she had only half the detail you've got there.

Watching the video (4.45 / 20) (#8)
by ucblockhead on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 11:13:02 AM EST

People might want to consider that watching a video such as this with an unwilling star is not ethically the same as watching a run of the mill porn video. It is called "invasion of privacy", and anyone who complains about government or corporate invasions of privacy needs to think long and hard about why they think they might have the right to invade this woman's privacy.

If you watch the tape, you are as guilty of privacy invasion as the people who posted it in the first place, and you are also committing a worse privacy invasion than anything any of the PC spyware vendors have. You are committing the digital equivalent of standing in the neighbor's bushes and staring in their window as they have sex.


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

If I didn't do it someone else would (3.57 / 7) (#9)
by greenrd on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 11:28:03 AM EST

Here's a story which doesn't sound relevant at first, but might be. (This didn't actually happen, but it was basically a joke told by Mark Thomas, who is a British political comedian).

Mark Thomas: How can you sleep at night selling arms to repressive regimes?

Arms dealer: Hey, if I didn't do it, someone else would, so what difference does it make?

Mark Thomas: [swift left hook to the arms' dealers jaw]

Arms dealer: [looks dazed and shocked]

Mark Thomas: Hey, if I hadn't done it, someone else would have, so what difference does it make?

----------

Question: Is the case of watching this video morally more like the arms dealer's actions or more like Mark Thomas' actions - or neither? (Or is Mark right, and neither excuse is really a valid excuse?)

Personally, I don't see how, if thousands of people have already seen it, one more person makes any difference to anyone. But I tend to think of morality in a more consequentialist way ("what are the consequences?") rather than a deontological way ("thou shalt not EVER do x!"), even though I realise consequentialism often doesn't seem to make sense.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

one person (4.54 / 11) (#11)
by ucblockhead on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 11:57:29 AM EST

Personally, I don't see how, if thousands of people have already seen it, one more person makes any difference to anyone.
Because that is the justification that every one of those thousands of people make. Because if none of those people used the justification, no privacy would be invaded.

Really, that argument is the same as Microsoft saying "Well, every other company collects personal data, so why shouldn't we?".

It's also like saying "well, millions of people shoplift, why shouldn't I?"

The trouble with only thinking in a "consequentialist way" in terms of things like this is that it excuses any action that is "public". It means that any action that "the public" takes has no moral consequence. In the extreme example, if a mob goes and lynches someone, can you excuse your own participation in that mob under the theory that even if you hadn't participated, it would have happened anyway?
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

A form of mob mentality? (3.50 / 2) (#13)
by kostya on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 02:17:00 PM EST

Isn't this the excuse used by looters and members of rioting mobs? "Everyone was doing it?" Now granted, you are not arguing diminshed capacity, but the argument is eerily similar. If out of this great mob I am one person, what does it then matter what I do? Thinking like that is mildly dangerous and often quite defeatist.

I find it very surprising that this is how you judge moral/ethical situations. Why do you post consipiracy stories? Are you trying to alert people? If so, why? Out of the millions of people who don't care in the least, what does it matter what you think or post? Why even bother since your actions will have no measurable consequence?

Interesting.

I don't recognize the terms you used (i.e. "deontological"), but what if this was someone you knew? Aren't you just hiding behind anonymity--i.e. this woman doesn't know me or my actions, therefore what I do cannot be harming her? But what if she was your neighbor or a family member? Someone you knew or cared about? How would you feel about thousands of anonymous people watching your friend at her expense then?

I agree with ucblockhead--watching this is just a plain violation of this woman's privacy and identity. I'm not sure your consequential way of looking at things is a universally useful or valid way of weighing moral situations.



----
Veritas otium parit. --Terence
[ Parent ]
FWI: It's ethics jargon (4.00 / 2) (#16)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 02:29:32 PM EST

The philosophy of ethics has its own unique jargon, some of which is counter intuitive to what one might think words mean.

In this sense, people who subscribe to deontologcal theories of morality hold that actions are right or wrong in and of themselves. This view is opposed to the view of consequentialists that hold that actions are only right or wrong in light of their consequences.

Both views are contradicted by Christianity, despite most Evangelicals being deontologists of the Divine Command sort. In the ancient Christian world view, morality is one of agency, not of actions. Of course versions of Christianity that leave out theosis usually miss just how important this is to making Christianity coherent.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

Clarify? (none / 0) (#19)
by MTremodian on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 03:27:52 PM EST

In the ancient Christian world view, morality is one of agency, not of actions. Of course versions of Christianity that leave out theosis usually miss just how important this is to making Christianity coherent.
What exactly does this mean? Thanks fo fixin mah ig-no-rans...


...speed overcomes the fear of death.
[ Parent ]

What is the question that ethicists ask? (4.85 / 7) (#20)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 03:59:01 PM EST

What is "good"?

A deontologist says that some actions are "good" and some actions are "bad" based on properties inherent to the actions.

A consequentialists says that some actions are "good" and some are "bad" based on the outcome of the actions.

In either case, good is defined as something that is a property of an action (either the action itself or the consequences of the action).

In ancient Christianity, there was (and is) a very simple definition of "good". God is good and God is not an action, but a person. In fact, per Christianity we humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, we inheret the goodness of God to the extent that we are like God. The difference between me (and you) and God, is that in many ways I (and you) have fallen short (sin, amartria in Greek means to fall short of the mark) of my true nature. The process of aligning my will with the will of God is known as theosis.

Saint Gregory the Theologian put it thus: God became man so that we might become God. This is not to be interpreted in a panthestic or polytheistic manner. Saint Gregory meant not that I can become God in an equivalency sense, but rather than I can (through the grace of God) become once again the image and likeness of God.

My actions while sometimes being either tools to help me attain theosis or obstacles that bring me down are only the magnified reflections of that which already resides in my heart. Sin begins not with action, but with contemplation of action. The contemplation comes from what is in my heart. If evil resides in my heart, I then think evil thoughts and sooner or later act on those thoughts .

Hence, the Old Testament "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" should not be construed as a list of actions that are evil or good in and of themselves, nor should they construed as actions that are good or evil because of their consequences. Rather the Old Testament is a guide to help people learn to train their hearts, expanding role of the conscience and narrowing the compulsion toward sin. As the New Testament later states, the Mosaic Law was a school teacher designed to bring Israel to the point of maturity where it could accept the Christ. Hence, we are trees and our fruit (our actions) are the consequences of our roots (our hearts).

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

wow (3.00 / 1) (#27)
by fhotg on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 09:38:33 PM EST

Thanks for this interesting piece.
You are saying an action is bad (=sin), because it transpires from the wrong (=evil) state of mind/heart/body. A bad action in a certain sense has bad consequences for you, because it is an obtacle in the way to the good (theosis).

From what I understand, its the first time that my home-grown ethics have something in common with something labelled 'christian'.

Where do you find out about "ancient Christianity" ?
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

Close (4.00 / 2) (#31)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 12:01:36 AM EST

The only thing I would change is to state that evil is purely negative: the absence of good.

An action is bad (evil, sinful) because it does not transpire from our true nature (the image and likeness of God), but from our fallen nature that results from our mortality.

For more on ancient Christianity, visit your local Orthodox Church. Another good source is the writings of the early Church Fathers such as Saint Clement of Rome, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Irenæus of Lyons. The source par excellence is the Philokalia (The Love of What is Beautiful) which has just recently been translated into English in five volumes.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

Also (none / 0) (#39)
by Pac on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 10:36:17 AM EST

You may well start with Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". His analisys of the early church debates and problems are helpful when trying to understand why some early Father text suddenly starts digressing about what the Trinity is or is not.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
the problem with this (none / 0) (#45)
by crayz on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 03:07:06 PM EST

This seems to legitmize killing in God's name. If I can believe that God hates abortion doctors, then I can believe that blowing up an abortion clinic is a perfectly moral act. It's like complete moral relativity: anything is allowed in God's name.

It doesn't help that the Bible seems to accept rape, slavery, incest, etc.

[ Parent ]
It is not a bug, it is a feature (none / 0) (#46)
by Pac on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 03:35:53 PM EST

By some interpretations it is indeed perfectly sane and good to kill in God's name, specially if you are killing "infidels" or "sinners".

If I remember it well, the (re)conquest of Israel when the Jews came back from Egypt were fought in the name and with the help of Yaveeh. When the Christians finnaly secured their religion as the oficial Roman Empire religion, they were not even a bit tolerant with the many "Pagan" religions of the day. Then you have the Crusades, the many Inquisitions (Catholic and Protestant), etc.

And to this day, as you wisely said, many religious groups will not only forgive violence against so-called sinners, they will actively justify and even call for this kind of violence.

There remains the problem of identifying God's will. But then again, another feature is that anyone can claim to know God's will by direct aprehension without possibility of argument.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
revisionism! (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 04:12:12 PM EST

If I remember it well, the (re)conquest of Israel when the Jews came back from Egypt were fought in the name and with the help of Yaveeh.
Read some of the ancient Christian commentaries on this to find out how these events ought to be interpretted. I'd especially those of Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

Let's just start with the observation that precious few archeological digs have been able to verify the blood-soaked conquest described in the books of Exodus, Joshua and Judges.

When the Christians finnaly secured their religion as the oficial Roman Empire religion, they were not even a bit tolerant with the many "Pagan" religions of the day.
This is a pretty revisionistic reading of history. Paganism thrived in the Holy Roman Empire up until the Frankish conquest of Rome in the west and the fall of Holy Roman Empire to the Turks in the east. In fact, the Holy Roman Empire outlawed the practice of witch burning. It took the advent of dark ages of the medievel era in the west to revive the custom. The east never revived it, although the practice of burning heretics did extend to Orthodox Russia after the westernizing reforms of many of the Tsars.
Then you have the Crusades, the many Inquisitions (Catholic and Protestant), etc.
The Protestant and Catholic movements are two sides of the same coin. Given the Catholic sack of Orthodox Constantinople as part of the third crusade, one might suspect that the Crusades were actually motivated by something other than pious motives.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

Gibbon, the revisionist (none / 0) (#49)
by Pac on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 04:37:41 PM EST

I quote from an "Decline and Fall" (Penguin, abridged version, sorry, that is what I have in hand now) editor's note :

"Of the momentous happenings of the age of Theodosius, which are recounted in detail in the original, none exceeded in importance the final triumph of the ortodox group among the Christians and the final effective destruction of paganism"..."The heretical sects were prohibited from meeting; their leaders were subject to heavy fines"..."and it was followed in the provinces by the seizure or destruction of all pagan temples..."

Theodosius reigned up to 398 AD, and was the last Emperor to rule alone the two halfs of the Empire (the division occurred well before his time, but luck had it that he was almost forced to rule both esat and west, specially because of the Goth invasion). Anyway, that was before the fall of the West or the East.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 05:15:40 PM EST

none exceeded in importance the final triumph of the ortodox group among the Christians and the final effective destruction of paganism
Opinion, not fact and leaves the question of why there was such rampant Paganism throughout the empire after Theodosius I.
The heretical sects were prohibited from meeting; their leaders were subject to heavy fines
Heretical sects? Is this about Paganism or about Christianity?
and it was followed in the provinces by the seizure or destruction of all pagan temples...
Which were frequently (not always) hotbeds of political resistance to the Empire. Just as the split over the council of Chalcedon was largely (not entirely) due to the "monophysite" Churches wanting complete independance of Constantinople, so too the destruction of pagan temples was more of a political act than a religious act. This occurred well before the the idea of seperation between the Church and State.

And regardless of the destruction of temples, Paganism very much played a significant role in the culture of the Eastern Roman empire right up until the final fall of Constantinople.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

Pagan influences (none / 0) (#51)
by Pac on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 05:25:22 PM EST

"Opinion, not fact"

Sorry, I cut parts of the text. Theodosius formally asked the Senate to choose "whether the worship of Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the Romans". Under a Christian Emperor, you can well guess the answer. The destruction of temples followed.

But more important than that, I think, is that the church had to adapt its form when, following the Emperor's will, multitudes of former pagans enrolled. The worship of saints and relics, the religious dates, many if not most were directly adapted from pagan rites.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
hmm. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 03:48:34 PM EST

This seems to legitmize killing in God's name. If I can believe that God hates abortion doctors, then I can believe that blowing up an abortion clinic is a perfectly moral act. It's like complete moral relativity: anything is allowed in God's name.
Put this way, every ethical theory has this same problem. In essence what is happening is one is expanding the definition of good to the point of blowing up abortion clinics. The same can be done on deontological grounds (saving innocent lives is always a "good") and on consequentialist grounds (the consequence of saving lives by blowing up an abortion clinic is more "good" than the "evil" of the blowing up of the clinic).

The key to why this is erroneous thinking lies in the tautology of defining a "good" God that hates. Orthodox Christianity answers this charge in its apophatic theology. Divorcing the ethical theory of ancient Christians from the rest of Christian theology ends in the type of moral absurdity you point out.

Consider this: the Orthodox Church considers it always sin to kill someone. In some cases, killing someone (such as in self defence or in the defense of someone else) might be the lesser of two evils. In such a case, however, killing is still an evil and must be repented of. The ideal is absolute non-violence. To the extent that our hearts direct us to fall short of this ideal is the extent that we fall short of being the image of God.

It doesn't help that the Bible seems to accept rape, slavery, incest, etc.
Only if one doesn't know how to read the Bible in the same fashion that the Christian Church did in antiquity. The people closest to the apostles read the Bible in a very different fashion than most people in the west today. The notion that the Holy Ban of Joshua the Conqueror was a literal command to be obeyed literally and that the book of Joshua portrayed a real history of the Israelite conquest of Palestine would have been foreign to the apostolic fathers of the Church.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

ancient christianity (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Jonathan Walther on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 02:16:34 AM EST

The best place to find out is to read the New Testament. You know, "use the source Luke".

Jacques Ellul's book "Anarchy and Christianity" gives a pretty good summary of first century Christianity.

Eusebius : The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, published by Penguin books in translation from the original Latin.

Eusebius himself demonstrates that original ancient Christianity had died by his time; he may not be the best source. He sided with the state and proclaimed emperor Constantine as the second coming of Moses. But he was as close to the events as anyone else outside the Bible we're able to read today; Eusebius was a bishop in Palestine in the 4th century.


(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
You are Jonathan Walther (1.42 / 7) (#36)
by delmoi on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 06:32:41 AM EST

Therefore, you suck
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Privacy (4.66 / 3) (#21)
by ucblockhead on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 04:31:45 PM EST

The interesting question (in the original, not your post) is, what is the "consequence" in a privacy violation. If, for instance, if I see you naked[1], and you don't know I saw you naked, has their been a consequence? What is the negative, me seeing you naked or you knowing that I saw you naked?

Or put in a way that hits closer to home for most here, is it a privacy violation if a big company tracks your video rentals, and sales that data to other people, but you don't know.

In my opinion, privacy violation does not depend on the victim knowing. Given that, there is a consequence for each person who views that video. In doing so, you add an additional privacy intrusion.

[1] Presumes you don't intentionally display yourself naked.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

"If a tree falls in the woods..." (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by crayz on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 05:44:38 PM EST

I dunno. In a case like this, my view is that if none of us know this lady or will ever come into contact with her, then it doesn't really matter.

It's sort of like, a lot of people here post extremely personal things in their diaries. And they have no problem with you or me or a hundred other people here reading those diaries. But say I went to one of the "I hate my roommate" diaries and found who the roommate was and e-mailed the URL to him/her. *Then* that person would probably feel their privacy had been violated, even though the diary was completely public.

I realize the situations aren't totally the same(the lady obviously didn't intend her sexual activities to be seen by anyone), and this isn't a very rigorous argument, but for now I guess I'm in the "it doesn't make a sound" camp.

[ Parent ]
the thing is (none / 0) (#23)
by spacejack on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 05:55:18 PM EST

That tree story is a crock. Every action has consequences.

[ Parent ]
but the problem is (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 08:28:14 PM EST

We have no way of knowing the consequences. Consequentialism means that the end always justifies the means. I emphatically reject that notion. The end cannot justify the means.

Deontological views also have problems of their own.

Which is why I think that the two views of right and wrong are somewhat complimentary and not mutually exclusive.

Not to mention that I hold to an agent view of morality and not a act view of morality.

C'est la vie. I'm off to the bookstore.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

You are absolutly right (3.25 / 4) (#14)
by delmoi on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 02:23:38 PM EST

But curiosity trumps ethics, at least for me.

And yeh, what the roomate did was terrible, but me watching this woman's unwiting video isn't going to have any effect on her life.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Who Cares! (4.00 / 2) (#17)
by Sattwic on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 02:43:59 PM EST

Who nowadays cares about Morality?
Privacy in the digital age is all about your name, address, age and your e-mail.. and how to protect that from marauding cookies, spyware and such.
People talk about privacy to stop spam, or sucessfully masquerade as somebody great on chatrooms... its about convenience.

When it comes to realy privacy issues, like this...
curiosity and lust take over..

I am gonna take a look too..
the best way to resist temptation to to give in to it!

[ Parent ]
i don't like your analogies (4.33 / 3) (#25)
by mikpos on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 07:07:05 PM EST

If you watch the tape, you are as guilty of privacy invasion as the people who posted it in the first place, and you are also committing a worse privacy invasion than anything any of the PC spyware vendors have.
I would say the roommate would be the equivalent of the PC spyware vendors. The public would more be the equivalent of the people who buy data from the PC spyware vendors. Not that that makes it any more ethical :)

You are committing the digital equivalent of standing in the neighbor's bushes and staring in their window as they have sex.
Well except you're not trampling anyone's bush (pun not intended). To be completely pedantic, the best analogy is that it's the digital equivalent of getting a copy of an analogue video taken by a hidden camera that a roommate set up to catch a politician having sex :P

The other point is that we're not talking about your neighbour here. This was all hashed to death over the tabloid photos of Princess Di's tumble in the car. No one cared about Princess Di, so I wouldn't expect anyone to care about someone he's never even heard of before. Sure, maybe they'll dump a few hundred tonnes of flowers at her doorstep, but they won't actually care about her.

[ Parent ]

The World unites for... (3.40 / 5) (#15)
by Guy Ginn on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 02:29:26 PM EST

A local affair in a small island, reported mainly in Chinese media, now drawing world wide attention, across language and culture boundaries, is something unthinkable before the age of the Internet.

Ahh, the glory of the Internet- unifying the world in the quest for sex and scandal. We are truly in an age on enlightenment.

On the hopeful side, they always say porn drives technology. Maybe someday the top search will be about a debate of philosophy. Ok, maybe the 37th ranked search.

Access to bank accounts? (3.33 / 3) (#24)
by keenan on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 06:39:27 PM EST

"Chu gave her full access to the house and her bank accounts."

I just couldn't imagine giving access to my bank account to anyone (except with someone with whom I was in a multi-year committed relationship). I'm pretty sure if someone asked for access, it'd set alarms off in my head in a second. To me, it just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. Do people do this a lot?

Keenan

Access to bank accounts: normal in China (3.66 / 3) (#43)
by Jonathan Walther on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 01:47:52 PM EST

I've seen middle class Chinese girls tend to get very very close to each other, without a lesbian relationship *necessarily* happening. (although it may). The thing with the bank accounts is par for the course. Nothing out of the ordinary there, for that part of the world.

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
Do us a favor (4.33 / 3) (#30)
by Faux Pseudo on Sat Jan 26, 2002 at 11:52:36 PM EST

Can you do us a favor and create a nice little story like this of the Enron debacle?
I have avoided most of it because there was so much conjecture and rumors that it is nigh impossible to know what is going on. But a nice concise write up like this would be a boon to the net.

GUI's are like dipers. Everyone growes out of them.
good idea (3.00 / 1) (#37)
by kraft on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 08:13:21 AM EST

Actually this is a pretty good idea, IMO. I also thought this article was to-the-point without loosing too much detail.

Can someone tell of a site which has similar write-ups about, say:

- enron (as suggested)
- israel-palestine conflict
- historical events
- how stuff works
- biographies

It's the style of writing (short, direct) that I like more than the contents itself.

I do read the paper, but the problem is that if you don't follow a case from the beginning, you will loose out on lots of details later. I try to follow the israel-palestine conflict, but I know I wont really 'get it' because I just read about this weeks retaliation which was a retaliation for last weeks retaliation. The picture is lost. A summarized article might either explain what I need to know or make me want read up on the entire matter.





--
a signature has the format "dash-dash-newline-text". dammit.
[ Parent ]
I am shocked that K5ers want to watch it (4.80 / 5) (#40)
by clark9000 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 12:57:16 PM EST

This should probably be posted in the thread, but the thread has gotten on to the abstract discussion of whether the "just one more" argument for doing something wrong is justified. Whatever.

I am incredibly shocked, disappointed and depressed that otherwise enlightened K5ers would watch the video. The only way I can think about this is to put myself in her shoes. The simple fact is, Chu Mei-Feng doesn't want you to see it. She has done nothing wrong. She is the victim of a fucked up crime committed by her roommate. She never wanted anyone to see it, and if I were in her shoes, I would feel personally wronged by every single individual who purposefully watched the video.

Who cares if you will never be punished for watching it? Who cares if you are "tempted"? Come on people. This is just clearly a case where it's time to stand up for what's right, where you actually have the power to do so.

Don't watch the video, even though you could. You will have done what's right, and you can say to yourself, The world is a little better because I had a little respect for a fellow citizen of the world.

[Dismounts high horse.]
_____
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.

-- E. Dickinson
You are wrong (1.75 / 4) (#42)
by Jonathan Walther on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 01:41:42 PM EST

Actually, by the moral standards of much of the world, Chu Mei-feng DID do something wrong: she committed adultery. This invasion of her privacy and subsequent loss of election seems like an appropriate punishment. As an exhibitionist myself, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. So they release a video and everyone saw her jumblies. So what?

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
Not an appropriate punishment (4.00 / 2) (#44)
by clark9000 on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 02:21:55 PM EST

From the story, it doesn't say she was married. But even assuming she did commit adultery by some standard, although it is considered wrong by the morals standards of much of the world, it is not considered a "punishable" offence much of the world. It is often grounds for divorce, which may or may not be punishment depending on the situation. Generally we leave it up to the victim of the adultery to decide what recourse he or she wishes within the law. Then it is usually up to the electorate, in the case of an elected official, whether to keep the person in power.

Moreover, at least in the US legal system, if evidence of a crime is collected in an illegal manner, the evidence is considered inadmissible.

If you're an exhibitionist, more power to you. You should have the right to distribute as many videos of yourself as you like. But surely you can respect the wishes of someone who would prefer not to have her jumblies on display?
_____
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.

-- E. Dickinson
[ Parent ]
yeah, watch someone who WANTS you to be watching (2.00 / 2) (#52)
by turmeric on Sun Jan 27, 2002 at 08:20:08 PM EST

it is common courtesy.

[ Parent ]
Miss Korea (3.00 / 1) (#55)
by KWillets on Mon Jan 28, 2002 at 05:02:31 PM EST

A few years ago there were cd's running around Seoul of one of the recent Miss Korea's having sex with her boyfriend. Her career was ruined and she ended up leaving the country. I don't think the case was reported much in the media, unlike this one.

There seems to be a cottage industry in Asia of associates, managers, superiors, etc. getting people into bed and then blackmailing them in various ways.

The banality of immorality (none / 0) (#58)
by Miniluv on Fri Feb 08, 2002 at 02:57:05 AM EST

To all of you who've posted that you're going to watch because one more viewer does nothing further to this womans life, or that curiosity trumps ethics, I say this: Welcome to the slippery slope leading to a complete lack of morals.

Strong words, yes. Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. Show me how you can uphold a moral existence while casually disobeying rather basic tenets of common morality. Obviously, this doesn't apply to those of you who have no objections to peeking in your neighbors window whilst they frollick like woodland creatures without a care in the world.

However, if you wouldn't normally peek in the aforementioned window, please explain why this is a different circumstance. Concisely state the moral difference between watching this purportedly pretty Asian lady engage in sex acts recorded unbeknownst to her and peeking in her window, also unbeknownst to her.

I challenge thus because I'm quite sure there is no difference. Either way there is no consequence to your actions, so from that perspective they are equal acts. I suppose one could say that they are both equally acceptable then, since they have no consequences, except that you wouldn't do one, but will do the other. Why is that?

Is it perhaps the lack of risk inherent in downloading random sex tapes from the web? Does that change the consequentalist viewpoint? What is it about the Internet that changes peoples perspectives on right and wrong such that they'll watch things on their computer screen that they wouldn't on their television, let alone through their window (or the window of their neighbor).

For explanation of the title of my comment, see the reviews of this excellent piece examining the nature of evil and it's rather ordinary beginnings. See if you don't have the seeds of a Hitler, Himmler....or Eichmann in you.

Some things are holy, and the sauna is one of them

Taiwan sex scandal video tops search engine hits in America | 58 comments (48 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!