An iPhone application named BeautyMeter, approved by Apple, has been reported by Wired.com to contain child pornography. The application allows users to upload pictures of themselves and have them rated by other iPhone users in a rating system similar to hotornot.com.
BeautyMeter demonstrates the flaws in Apple's safeguards that now allow nudity on their applications for those 18 years or older, using developer maintained servers. The image in question shows a girl from the United States, aged just 15 years old taking a picture of herself standing in the reflection of a mirror, almost completely naked. The image has been edited and censored by wired.com to prevent distribution of child pornography.
Once aware of the problem, Apple removed the application from its AppStore but not before nearly 5,000 users rated the image. The application was removed because of the image, stating that the application was in violation of the terms in the iPhone developer program.
BeautyMeter takes users iPhone device ID number when installed, allowing the developers to trace the owner of the content. Users can be banned or tracked down by their device ID.
BeautyMeters web site, hosted at funnymals.com, states in its terms and conditions that "you may not place any insults, obscene statements, or pornographic material on this site or any other materials which may offend human dignity" and "we don't review each uploaded photo exclusively but from time to time we will clean up."
This case demonstrates Apple's inability to control adult content after the application has been approved. Apple can not protect against the content if it is not present during the approval stage.
It looks like the little attention whore got the attention she wanted.
It's still illegal despite her intentions.
So she paid for this application and didn't even bothered to look at their features, terms and conditions?
It's in their website.
And yet, they've posted this article, branded it "child porn" (which is WRONGO period), and Neowin is reposting it here.
Um, when did WIRED stop even trying to be a credible journalistic source. I know Neowin is just a blog, but honestly, does even the main stream media bother to check sources anymore?!!!
Still illegal, still stupid but clearly not attention whoring (except to the original recipient). Obviously I'm not saying that *is* what happened, just a possible scenario, so I find it unreasonable for anyone to jump to conclusions about her and her motives.
I find it hard to believe she just decided to do this without any external influences from friends at such a young age, but then, I didn't have the internet until I was 18 and I did have parents who would have gone crazy at me.
then wouldnt it have been seen in the reflection that she wasnt holding an iPhone?
It's sad to see that the headlines title is directly related to the iPhone, but oh well... it DID arrive on an iPhone. I believe people will think exactly like us on this one, so I don't really mind
yeah, its stupid to think Apple should be responsible for this stuff. if you have beef take it up with the guys who run the app. if they aren't actively peddling child porn i dont think they should have to go out of their way to filter every picture. if they get complaints or are suspicious take the individual pic down. i dont see the big deal.
Whilst that is true, Apple does spend a ridiculous amount of time approving applications (I only got a Tweetie update last night, which took two weeks and included a small fi
but any application that loads data from the internet can one day become an application that would have been rejected.
I can submit a "rate this flower" application but if after it's released I replace all the flower pictures with something else (say porn or even hate propaganda). It's impossible for Apple to monitor this (they would have to check EVERY app at least once a day etc etc)
+1
There is no such thing as 4chan.
You weren't at that age?
Not like this exact same thing isn't happening to adults of all ages. It's hardly a phenomenon among kids.
More like you couldn't have done it when you were at that age simply because the technology didn't exist or wasn't too friendly to use. Back then it was easier to transfer porn of bitmap images over floppy than it was to download something from the internet.
Yeah, I hear that. I was masturbating like a spider monkey when I was 15. Then 16 hit and I was still masturbating with great vigor. However, at 17... after sex, all I could think about was the next time. Never was I dumb enough to send a ****-shot with my face. If a girl asks, don't take the pic in the mirror... and make her send first.
Isn't a better, more ACCURATE designation for "stupid teenagers/dumb almost adults" JAILBAIT?!
A 15 year old is NOT a child in the pedobear sense of the word. She is jailbait.
Im not sure if you are serious or not...
unless 15 is or above the age of consent in that country. i think 16 is the age of consent in parts of Canada.
It's not the age of consent though, it's the pornography age. In the UK, the AOC is 16 (or 15), but the porn age is 18.
It's "stupid teenager" jailbait pix.
Can't we focus our attention and police officers on REAL dangerous child molesters and pedophiles and not on stupid teenager antics?
It's "stupid teenager" jailbait pix.
Can't we focus our attention and police officers on REAL dangerous child molesters and pedophiles and not on stupid teenager antics?
You keep telling yourself that when the police come a knocking at your door and arrest you for child porn offences
Since when half naked girl photo is a porn??
Excuse me? Where does me trying to get everyone ACCURATE and making sure our legal and moral perspective is clear somehow equate to me being a child pornographer?!!
Being a man of education and intelligence, I don't feel I need to be a murderer on death row or a victim of a capital crime to discuss the pros and cons of the death penalty in an open discussion forum, for example.
Only here in the US of A. Oh, and Muslim fundamentalist countries...ahem.
It's "stupid teenager" jailbait pix.
Can't we focus our attention and police officers on REAL dangerous child molesters and pedophiles and not on stupid teenager antics?
Exactly!
seriously? that should be par for the course.
/its the interwebs, after all.
about a hundred or two ago it was normal for grown men to marry 14year olds, why because most girls are fully developed by that age. Where did 18 become the age of consent?
In a post Victorian morality, for some reason the US started extending childhood to a new category called "teenager". This gray area between childhood and adulthood never existed before. It was always defined by puberty.
In fact until 100 years ago you HAD to marry as soon as you hit puberty, because women DIED around 24ish. And life expectancy was so bad, women had to have kids as soon as they could, and as many as they could, since many of them would die too.
There was rarely any divorce because DEATH ended relationships. If you were one of the "lucky" ones to live into your 60's or so, you were guaranteed to have buried 3 or 4 spouses along the way, etc.
All of this has happened in the past 100 years...changing the very definition of "child." Very curious on so many levels.
Manipulation of their victims is how most paedophiles get their kicks and remain undetected. The age of consent laws are designed to protect young people from such things, as well as, in part, themselves and their own risk taking.
Obviously everyone varies in their development, I'm sure that there are plenty of 14 year olds with better judgement than many 21 year olds .. but the law has to try and fit everyone. I think there could be more common sense used when applying it.
But you are right that maturity varies widely. And now that our species does not HAVE to procreate so "forcefully" (as less children are needed overall AND we are living MUCH longer lives), this sort of discussion is necessary.
But just for clarity, here's the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Law enforcement is having the same problem we as a society are, mixing "jailbaiters" in the same term as child molesters, and yet, psychologically and socialogically, they are two completely distinct behavioral phenomena.
To add that pic was of a nude girl not sex there is a difference again stupid America is as stupid America does. Case in point in my town a photographer had a gallery for her work. She was arrested and charged, personal property taken, and gallery closed down because of child pornography. What was this horrid thing. One of her photos was of her son naked with a cowboy hat on and a gun/gun belt done in black and white. As a parent may such scenes happen when kids are like 2-5. Eventually the charges were dropped but if she were in Alabama who knows.
Oh see also the Elton John incident which I would link the article and photo but in some states they may be that very kind of stupid I am talking about and give this site some BS.
Last edited by XChrome on 02 Jul 2009 - 01:26
Likewise, in the case you mentioned pornography != art. There is a huge difference between the two. Pornography depicts a sexual act purely for sexual purposes, which the pictures on the wired article in no way does. It could be considered more artistic and a self-portrait before it is considered pornography.
Likewise, the definition of pornography is not the same everywhere. For example, I've seen people let their 10 year old go nude on a huge public beach in Europe and nobody really cares (as it is commonplace there)...while this would be considered heretical in the US. As you said in the gallery example, that sort of thing would never happen in most of the world. It sounds more like what would happen in Saudi Arabia or some other really non-secular conservative country.
Likewise, in the case you mentioned pornography != art. There is a huge difference between the two. Pornography depicts a sexual act purely for sexual purposes, which the pictures on the wired article in no way does. It could be considered more artistic and a self-portrait before it is considered pornography.
Likewise, the definition of pornography is not the same everywhere. For example, I've seen people let their 10 year old go nude on a huge public beach in Europe and nobody really cares (as it is commonplace there)...while this would be considered heretical in the US. As you said in the gallery example, that sort of thing would never happen in most of the world. It sounds more like what would happen in Saudi Arabia or some other really non-secular conservative country.
Actually there are many Nudist in the USA. And many public beaches for them especially in Florida and Cali. In fact where I live a river and falls area it is common to find nudist running around because there is not statue saying you cant on federal land and most will post little notices just in case someone wonders into the area. But yeah thank you so much puratians for messing up the place ;-)
She shouldn't of done it, but hey what's done is done. Build a bridge and get over it, or in the case of that application if you still have it, rate her, and move on.
This brings us to a rather amusing way of looking at the female form: a topless 5-year-old at the beach isn't child porn, because she hasn't yet begun developing breasts, but a topless 15-year-old IS child porn, because she has. This is ironic, because the development of breasts is part of the process of turning into an adult.
In other words, breasts are the single most un-childlike features of a teenage girl, and are entirely associated with adulthood, and it's completely illogical to call developed breasts 'child porn'.
But that's just my two cents. When it comes down to it, these laws are usually fuelled by obsessively protective parents who are terrified of the thought that their kids may have had an orgasm.
This brings us to a rather amusing way of looking at the female form: a topless 5-year-old at the beach isn't child porn, because she hasn't yet begun developing breasts, but a topless 15-year-old IS child porn, because she has. This is ironic, because the development of breasts is part of the process of turning into an adult.
In other words, breasts are the single most un-childlike features of a teenage girl, and are entirely associated with adulthood, and it's completely illogical to call developed breasts 'child porn'.
But that's just my two cents. When it comes down to it, these laws are usually fuelled by obsessively protective parents who are terrified of the thought that their kids may have had an orgasm.
+1
like i said before where did 18 become the age of consent for girls
This is JAILBAIT, pure and simple.
Now Apple approved an app that is capable of accessing and displaying such objectionable content and everybody turns 180° and scolds them.
I'm not even gonna guess how many hypocrite whiners have tried to find the original photograph to secretly fap to it.
Also, what about those people who active "inspected" the image enough to vote for it, what happens to them?
I doubt anyone would be prosecuted, but isn't it possible that police could go after these people?
I also can't see how putting black bars on 3 locations of a picture of a underage person removes the provocative nature of the photo itself and makes it just a regular picture
Wierd, But you should probably be giving the wrath to whats inside a mirror when you look into it. You already assumed an apocalypse and wrath are something of a justified nature since your assuming your beliefs are somehow distant to what is wrong less than that which you would judge. Get over yourself .....
I thought the article meant that on the .ipw itself there was child porn. It's like saying "Virus on limewire found", or "uTorrent responsible for illegal downloads". Not Apples problem surely?
Much ado about nothing as per.
I thought the article meant that on the .ipw itself there was child porn. It's like saying "Virus on limewire found", or "uTorrent responsible for illegal downloads". Not Apples problem surely?
Much ado about nothing as per.
Well Apple are taking a line that there will be nothing available on the iphone that could corrupt minds. I don't think the developers of Utorrent or Limewire are saying the same thing.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.