Implied Consent vs Explicit Consent

Implied consent is the fact that she knew what she was doing the whole time at the scene of the bar and continued to dance and prance as she wanted. As I quote “through her actions, she gave implied consent” and “she was playing into the camera”. First of all, when the course of action dawned upon her, she could have got up and left prior to being filmed on camera. She was asked and even though she implied “no”, there was evidence seen by the Jury that her actions throughout the filmed tape was that, she obviously did not have a problem with it even after saying “no”. Further to address this situation, the whole scene that she was in did not make sense at all. If she was not looking to be those kind of situations, she should of not been out there with a half-tube top or whatever she was wearing and not been dancing around a bar with alcohol beverages in mind. I guess the whole situation did not play into her defense, but did that give “Girls Gone Wild” filming crew to pull her top off? Probably not, but as others have mentioned, if you don’t want to be misrepresented or have unfortunate things happen to you as an adult female, simply cover up your body to a position where you are comfortable with allowing your observable parts to be observed.

A similar example that is similar to this happened quite a few superbowls ago with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. They were doing the half-time show where they were performing Justin’s song “Rock Your Body” with lyrics that end in “I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song”. And guess what, that moment is still being debated as it was Justin’s intention all along to pull her top off. We obviously know Janet did not give consent as she defended herself after the show went off-air. A fact remains that the public does not know is one of the producers claimed “When we did the original rehearsal, there was conversation about a fake skirt she would wear, and that Justin would actually pull open the skirt and take off the skirt. In rehearsal, they actually tried to rip open the skirt, which kind of went with the lyrics of the song. The production team then discussed another option, which led to the costume tearing, although the outfit was intended to stay in place. I believe Janet knew what they producers were trying to do at the half-time show but did not know to what extent it was going to happen. She could have declined wearing such a costume where here tops were measly covered by decoration. Or she could of flat out denied wanting to be in the half time show. In the end, CBS forced Janet Jackson to release a video apology stating “it was an accident” and the “whole thing went wrong in the end” and that the intended reveal “was the red lace bra”. In the end, she knew what she was getting herself into, it was implied consent when they rehearsed different endings on how the show should end, but it did not end the way she thought.

Implied consent is morally acceptable when a couple or married couple decides to have sex with each other. This implied consent states the obvious that the couples want to further their relationship by such actions. Whereas to obtain explicit consent is if a guy or girl goes to a bar on a Friday night looking for a one night hookup, and they end up in someone’s bedroom, usually it’s the female counter-part that would need to express explicit consent. We have seen in the past this has led to “rape” cases such as Kobe Bryant’s alleged hook up, which ended up destroying his marriage once it became public.

The problem of implied vs explicit consent applied to ethical hacking can be very tricky. The fine line between what you can do are stated and governed by state and federal laws. The thing is, these laws are very gray at the moment. The public perception of such laws can be misrepresented or misunderstood. For instance, a person could be taking photographs of a bank by looking out the window of his own property. That is allowed, but it would be against the law to use those pictures that he’s taken from his own property and camera to then plan to rob the bank. An ethical hacker would make use of this concept with explicit consent if they were to run penetration testing/wifi-attacks on a school network or neighbors WPA network. The problem is how far the ethical hacker would go under his/her own implied consent. What is explicitly written on paper vs one’s own implied judgment can go very far. What happens if I had explicit consent to show my neighbor that I can hack into his unprotected WEP network and start torrenting/downloading illegal music/video files and he will be prosecuted for that? If the neighbor claims that I did it, I could clearly say, no he gave me permission to hack his network and do so. I did not sign up on his broadband services, so I should not be prosecuted in anyway. Like this example would be a gray area to explore at. Ethical hackers need to understand and use their own best judgment of character when they are performing anything that can bring legal litigations and possible prosecutions.