Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Mizhara on 24 Sep 2014, 06:26
-
ABC article. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882)
[spoiler]A threat against actress Emma Watson in response to a gender equality speech she made at the United Nations now appears to have been a viral marketing stunt.
The Harry Potter star and UN women's ambassador delivered an impassioned speech at the launch of the UN's HeForShe campaign, which calls for men to support women in striving for gender equality.
External Link: Shane L tweets in response to #shutdown4chan
Users of the online community 4chan, which previously leaked private nude photos of female celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, created a thread linking to a webpage called "EmmaYouAreNext.com".
The page showed a photo of Watson with a clock which was assumed to be counting down to the time nude photos of her would be posted.
Social media users rallied behind Watson in condemning the threats and blaming 4chan users for the website.
But it now appears to have been a marketing stunt by an organisation called Rantic, which aims to shut down 4chan.
The redirected page now shows a message to US president Barack Obama and calls on people to support the calls to shut down the site.
"We have been hired by celebrity publicists to bring this disgusting issue to attention," the statement said.
"The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet need to be censored."
The #shutdown4chan hashtag gained some momentum on Twitter, but some users raised concerns that it aimed to eclipse conversation about Watson's gender equality speech.
Watson's speech, made in New York on Saturday, spoke of the importance of gender equality for both men and women.
Men, I would like to give this opportunity to extend your formal invitation.
Gender equality is your issue, too.
To date, I've seen my father's role as a parent being valued less by society.
I've seen young men suffering from illness, unable to ask for help for fear it will make them less of a man.
I've seen men fragile and insecure by what constitutes male success.
Men don't have the benefits of equality, either.
...
I want men to take up this mantle so their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human, too and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves.
Watson has not yet responded publicly to the news that the threats were a hoax.
[/spoiler]
Is this really an acceptable way of "calling attention" to something?
There are speculations that Rantic Media may actually be a 4chan thing too, which says some fairly scary things about how easily the media itself is made to parrot falsehoods, but there's no confirmation of that yet.
-
Someone did something stupid on 4chan?
-
Well, the official story right now is that someone did something stupid to blame on 4chan, but we'll see I guess.
-
There are potentially more sinister motives behind false threats.
/puts on tinfoil hat/
The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet need to be censored.
This to me indicates a desire for something more than pursuing the criminal theft and distribution of intellectual property without the permission of the property owner (photos are owned by the photographer).
Convincing the American public that censorship is needed maybe the intended goal.
/removes tinfoil hat/
-
Well, while it is a bit :tinfoilhat: it's not entirely unreasonable to consider it. We've been seeing way too many attempts at gaining a frightening level of control over the internet the last decade with next to no oversight in the name of everything from "dem terrists!" to protection of intellectual property.
The more I read the news, the more I start getting flashes of everything from Mirror's Edge to Shadowrun. Although, dragons would be farkin' ossum.
-
http://www.rantic.com/ (http://www.rantic.com/)
"Brad Cockingham (Founder & CEO)"
(Edit: one hopes that if the Illuminati is on some kind of mass memetic engineering campaign, they'd do us the kindness of at least not making it look like some joke someone threw together over a lazy Sunday afternoon.)
-
4chan would be a weak vector to do anything, as most citizens don't even know what it is.
-
Their motives are not to draw attention on something, or rather it's not their final purpose. They might be stirring shit as they seem to originate from a group (SocialVevo) specialized in generating buzz and clicks on social networks, as well as brokering of likes and followers on the same social networks.
The fine art to turn hot debates into money.
@ Silas : 4chan seems to be gaining a lot of notoriety recently, I have seen it for the first times mentioned several times in public news outlets.
-
4chan would be a weak vector to do anything, as most citizens don't even know what it is.
This. As usual, it will return to being nothing but an internet punchline very soon, just like /b/.
-
Well, the official story right now is that someone did something stupid to blame on 4chan, but we'll see I guess.
This, really. I'm on that imageboard frequently. 4chan doesn't "do" anything. But it does make a convenient scapegoat.
EDIT: Also, to say "4chan celebrity nude leaks" implies some sort of super secret coordinated organized effort to hack all these celebs' iphone cloud accounts. Like the site was literally "behind" it. Some guy hacks icloud, finds gold, posts it on the internet... nothing more to it than that.
Jennifer Lawrence is as hot as I thought she'd be, though.
The thing to remember here is that these are young women doing things that young women do. They're not special unique paragons of fucking preteen girl rolemodel virtue. They're twentysomethings who drink and sext with hot twentysomething boys. There's an inordinate amount of interest in this because they're rich and famous. They're damn near fetishized because of their status as celebrities. Which is retarded. But if they weren't leaked on 4chan first, it would've been reddit. Then most of you still wouldn't know what 4chan is.
>implying most of you suddenly know what 4chan is
kek
-
The fact that they are celebrities doesn't make it any less of a violation.
-
The fact that they are celebrities doesn't make it any less of a violation.
Right... because I said it did?
Fact is I have zero sympathy for them. They took these pictures for their paramours. Their paramours could just as well have leaked them as soon as the relationship goes south. Most of them probably would have. These aren't the first famous titties we've seen, Jace. With notable exceptions like Kim Kardashian or Madonna who release their own for publicity and attention, how many of them were exposed by hackers? Now how many were sold to tabloids by jilted ex-boyfriends? I don't have the numbers because I can't be arsed, but the ratio leans far in favor of butthurt exes than leet hax0rz.
EDIT: Which is to say, it's their own fault. They took a risk when they took the pictures and transmitted them electronically. There are nudes of me on the interwebs, but you know what? None of them have my face in them. Now I'm not famous, so I'm not a target for hackers to wanna expose the junk in my trunk, but any one of these women could've taken that very simple precaution.
And don't get me started on poor McKayla Maroney and her underage nudes that she took of herself for a boy. The fact that she's not up on child pornography charges is bullshit.
-
I'm not making any claims about 4chan. As I said in my earlier post, it will go back to being an internet punchline just like /b/.
The difference between someone grabbing it from a cloud or phone is that it is stolen, rather than something you were intentionally given. There is a big difference there. Are the boyfriends assholes for spreading something they were given? Yes. But someone who steals this sort of photo and disseminates it should be charged with a sex crime in my opinion. To say it is the woman's fault is the same mentality that blames rape victims, in my opinion.
But we are far enough apart on this a further discussion will not be productive.
-
And the jilted ex shouldn't? Is such a person not also spreading these images against the will of the woman in question?
Copypasta from 4chan:
Nudes Leak pasta
You're all literally rapists.
You're violating these women by viewing and sharing their private photos without their consent. A big part of what defines the act of rape is the lack of consent and there is clearly a lack of consent here. The images are even more appealing to you because there is an aspect of "forbidden fruit" due to the nature of the nude photographs being stole and originating from celebrities, which basically means that you're being aroused because their non-consent turns you on. This is a form of sexual assault. You don't see it as such because you have been blinded by rape culture.
If I were to punch you in the face, you'd be in pain. If I were to shoot you in the torso, you'd be in more pain. Both actions cause you pain, but one more than the other; the lesser act of assault is not negated simply because you could be a victim of a greater act of assault. Likewise, the act of sharing and viewing these nude photographs is still a violation of these victims/women regardless of whether greater forms of sexual assault exist. If you sick individuals have a conscience, you will cease viewing and sharing these stolen photos because you are currently no different than a common rapist.
Source: Ph.D in clinical psychology.
Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that legislation is now being pursued to make the act of stealing and sharing nude photographs without the consent of the other party a punishable sexual assault crime that can either be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the severity of the crime. I'd be careful if I were you, future law breakers.
Nudes Leak pasta 2
STOP. STOP NOW.
These celebs didn't have their photos "leaked". Nice play there, dickheads, but the correct word is "stolen and disseminated".
It's bad enough for these girls that their private lives were ripped from their grasp and put on display for the world to see. Now they have to deal with their body parts being judged by ruthless neckbreads who hide behind the veil of anonymity like complete pussies. How do you think they feel about this? It's a violation of their bodies. It is RAPE. Every time you look at these images, you are RAPING the women who they belong to.
STOP. STOP IT. Let us commence...
You imply, Jace, that it's somehow less wrong for a lover given these materials freely by the victim to do what this hacker did in spreading these nudes about for all to see. I argue that it's just as wrong, if not moreso, because of the explicit and implicit trusts violated by the jilted lover. They commit the same wrong, and so are equally guilty, but one is personal - making it worse.
And unlike with an actual rape, where a person is 100% non-consenting to the violation of their body, these photo leaks are quite the victim's own fault for consenting to and participating in the production of the materials to begin with. Even an actress sunbathing topless on some French nude beach photographed without her knowledge or consent put herself on public display knowing the risk of paparazzi exists. She could very well have sunned herself on a private estate with high walls, or on the roof of her malibu mansion or the like rather than put her boobs in display for thousands of people in a public venue and then cry foul about TMZ airing or SUN Magazine printing censored images while the uncensored images wind up littered across the web.
They don't care when they're doing it to begin with, so I don't care when they're all mad about it biting them in the ass.
-
Your comparison is absurd. One is a public beach. The other was a private cloud account. Nothing alike. But again, we are too far apart for this to go anywhere. This very discussion has been had an absurd amount of times on the internet since the whole ordeal started and it never ends. Suffice to say, if the authorities were ever able to track down the person who initially stole the images and spread them (which I know they will not), I think that person should henceforth be a registered sex offender.
-
The comparison isn't absurd at all.
In one case, we have a woman with pictures of her nudity being spread without her consent.
In the other case, we have a woman with pictures of her nudity being spread without her consent.
The reason why discussions like this rarely go anywhere is people hunker down on their moral views and refuse to suffer the inclusion of any semblance of logic.
And just so I'm not accused of being passive aggressive, yes, I am saying that is what you're doing, but I'm also saying that it is a very common behavior of people in general.
-
One is public. One is private. I mean, really. It doesn't get anymore black and white than that.
-
So you are saying, then, that it is okay to publish nude photos of a woman without her consent because she happened to be nude in public?
-
So you are saying, then, that it is okay to publish nude photos of a woman without her consent because she happened to be nude in public?
It may be an asshole thing to do, but there is nothing illegal about it.
-
So it's not tantamount to rape, as has been so heavily implied regarding the celeb photo leaks, because it isn't illegal, despite being essentially the same act (i.e., the dissemination of nude images without the consent of the photographed party).
Interesting.
EDIT: Let there be no mistake, here. I am not saying that it is right to spread these photos. It's wrong. On a number of levels. I'm only saying I have no sympathy for them because they knowingly and willingly participated in generating the photos. I also have no sympathy for the woman on the nude beach because she was nude in public knowing that she's a person paparazzi would kill or die to get a picture of in general, let alone a nude one.
That does not, however, make it right.
-
So it's not tantamount to rape, as has been so heavily implied regarding the celeb photo leaks, because it isn't illegal, despite being essentially the same act (i.e., the dissemination of nude images without the consent of the photographed party).
Interesting.
First of all, I never said it was tantamount to rape. I said it was a sex crime. There is a difference in severity that should be noted.
Nope, as I clearly stated it is not the same act. You are aware of this and are intentionally avoiding it. Take a piss in your home, then go do it in public. See if it is the same act. Hint: it's not. Public versus private is a fundamental distinction that you have to be aware of but are attempting to ignore.
Edit: I'm going to bow out of the discussion as I attempted to do several posts ago. There is no point in continuing it. We can each have our own opinions, but in the end it is a political matter.
-
Pissing in my home versus pissing in an alley are different, yes.
Posting the pictures I let you take of my doing it without my consent or stealing pictures I let someone else take of my doing it, in either venue, and posting them without my consent are the same thing - posting pictures of me pissing without my consent.
Are we debating different points?
-
Pissing in my home versus pissing in an alley are different, yes.
Posting the pictures I let you take of my doing it without my consent or stealing pictures I let someone else take of my doing it, in either venue, and posting them without my consent are the same thing - posting pictures of me pissing without my consent.
Are we debating different points?
No, you just are ignoring the relevance of the 'steal' part of the whole situation. It is very relevant to the severity and categorization of what occurred.
Edit: I'm off to bed. As I said earlier, this sort of topic only has political final answers (who has the political power to enforce their views on it) and I was already burned out on the topic long ago when this all first broke in the news, so cheerio.
-
stealing pictures I let someone else take
Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam. Unless Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.
So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.
-
Came to thread expecting news of Voldemort's imminent return. Left disappointed by more 4chan rubbish/shenanigans.
-
stealing pictures I let someone else take
Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam. Unless Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.
So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.
Is that so? There needn't be any contract, verbal or otherwise, regarding the use of the images? That is, Adam doesn't have to be okay with Beth publishing the images on the internet or elsewhere at all?
If that's how the law works, that's pretty fucked imo... but just more reason not to be doing it.
-
Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.
Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive there's the need for consent.
-
stealing pictures I let someone else take
Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam. Unless Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.
So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.
Is that so? There needn't be any contract, verbal or otherwise, regarding the use of the images? That is, Adam doesn't have to be okay with Beth publishing the images on the internet or elsewhere at all?
If that's how the law works, that's pretty fucked imo... but just more reason not to be doing it.
That is my understanding, based on articles concerning a monkey taking its own photo (https://www.google.com/search?q=ape+takes+photo&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS442US442&oq=ape+takes+photo&aqs=chrome..69i57.2303j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=monkey+takes+photo) (monkey selfie).
Technically, in most cases, whoever makes the actual work gets the copyright. That is, if you hand your camera to a stranger to take your photo, technically that stranger holds the copyright on the photo, though no one ever enforces this.
Image ownership is actually a major issue given the ubiquity of cameras and the rapidity with which people share those images.
Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.
Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive there's the need for consent.
Is that law or the publisher w/ legal team covering their own ass?
A law requiring it is different than a company legal team recommending such a consent form be signed so that John Doe relinquishes any possible liability the publisher may have. In addition, such a law is almost unenforceable at this juncture - go to a club, take a selfie having fun (people in background), post it to blog - no consent forms signed by the other club goers I am guessing (either with you or the club).
-
Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.
Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive there's the need for consent.
Is that law or the publisher w/ legal team covering their own ass?
A law requiring it is different than a company legal team recommending such a consent form be signed so that John Doe relinquishes any possible liability the publisher may have. In addition, such a law is almost unenforceable at this juncture - go to a club, take a selfie having fun (people in background), post it to blog - no consent forms signed by the other club goers I am guessing (either with you or the club).
It's a little from column A and a little from column B. In reality, at least in Australia, the legal situation isn't as black and white as either you or I have tried to summarise it as.
This gives a bit of an overview which helps to get an appreciation for how individual circumstance and precedent works in tandem with common law rulings:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/
To address the specific hypothetical you raised:
Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam. Unless Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.
Under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) ownership isn't the issue - it's about circumstance. If Adam could reasonably expect privacy to be afforded and hasn't given specific consent otherwise, if Beth then goes and posts it all over news or social media she might be expected to at least have a case to answer. Interestingly, it would probably be a criminal case rather than a civil one - at least to my reading of it.
Whether she was found guilty of any wrongdoing would be a matter for the courts and the lawyers to hash out.
-
Jennifer Lawrence is as hot as I thought she'd be, though.
Fact is I have zero sympathy for them.
[...]
EDIT: Which is to say, it's their own fault. They took a risk when they took the pictures and transmitted them electronically. There are nudes of me on the interwebs, but you know what? None of them have my face in them. Now I'm not famous, so I'm not a target for hackers to wanna expose the junk in my trunk, but any one of these women could've taken that very simple precaution.
Spanking it pretty hard to someone you feel zero sympathy for, Havo? Most people go for a cuddle afterwards, not straight to the short skirt defense.
kek.
-
EDIT: Which is to say, it's their own fault. They took a risk when they took the pictures and transmitted them electronically. There are nudes of me on the interwebs, but you know what? None of them have my face in them. Now I'm not famous, so I'm not a target for hackers to wanna expose the junk in my trunk, but any one of these women could've taken that very simple precaution.
And don't get me started on poor McKayla Maroney and her underage nudes that she took of herself for a boy. The fact that she's not up on child pornography charges is bullshit.
*blinks*
I'd struggle not to feel sorry for them, tbh. Simply because I wouldn't like my personal shit stolen, either. I'm not sure the content of that personal shit, or their celebrity status, makes a difference to the principle of the thing.
A lot of people do - friends in real life do - and I have to admit that way of thinking bemuses me. When expressing I empathised, because I wouldn't like it happening to me, it was suggested that it *wouldn't* happen to me - because these people are rich and famous. So what? So they somehow deserve it? That just sounds like sour grapes, tbh. No, I'm not as rich, successful or attractive as these women. So I should wish them ill or something? At the end of the day they're still just people, and have done no harm to me personally.
Ok, yes, it is on the internet. By way of the apple cloud syncing the photos from their phone. Supposedly a secure service.
My banking details are also on the internet. By way of online banking. Also, supposedly a secure service.
If someone hacked into my banking site, I would blame the bank for not living up to the guarantees of security they have offered me, and I would blame the hacker for doing something criminal. I'd be a bit irked if someone said it was my fault, because don't I know nothing on the internet is secure, or what can I expect with something being online.
And yes, you would probably expect (and hope) a bank to have more security than apple's cloud. But it's down to the company to provide a secure service and protect your data, to whatever degree that is required.
So Apple are at fault for their security vulnerabilities, as far as I can see. The hacker is at fault for doing something both legally wrong and ethically dubious. And there's something skeevy, invasive and a bit off about their being such a demand for celebrities personal pics in the first place; though I'm not entirely surprised as that's the sort of shit tabloid rags manufacture to sell their pap shots. And the cult of celebrity in our culture. Etc.
But yeah. Those pictures were meant for the individuals concerned, not the entire internet. We are not entitled to them simply because they're celebrities, and the idea that we are is as gross as rifling through someones drawers and sniffing their knickers.
And yes, revenge porn is just as gross and weird. And perhaps comes from a similar place. This ex deserves it because she upset/hurt/betrayed/rejected me. These celebrities deserve it because they're rich and famous, and shouldn't be taking naked pictures for their personal use anyways (for some reason?).
Quite liked Penn's comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPzwVust5UE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPzwVust5UE)
Additionally, one of them - Elizabeth something or other? Said that those photos were for her husband, and she'd deleted them. Which doesn't mean they can't be recovered, just that someone was going to some effort to get them, whatever precautions she had taken. Further, I can't see the moral outrage angle some people have taken - of loose young women taking naughty photos and therefore they deserve it somehow for being so slutty and scandalous in the first place - being particularly relevant to a married couple. Likewise, a lot (most?) of these people are actresses conducting fairly long term relationships due to conflicting schedules, locations etc. So I can understand why taking and sending nudie pictures, phone sex, etc with their partner might be viable to keep things going.
Don't think any of that means they deserve what they got or had it coming.
Re: McKayla Maroney - why would she be up on child pornography charges? As well as that being the kind of text book example of the letter of the law (dissemination of underage material) being against the spirit of a law (protecting minors) ( i.e two people sharing pictures of themselves who happen to be underage, is not the same context as child pornography or an adult exploiting a minor, although both scenarios involve viewing underage material) she wasn't the one disseminating them all over the internet. That would be the hacker who obtained it, and then the people who have continued to host it on reddit etc.
And yes, someone could be in trouble for viewing it.
But that's hardly McKayla Maroney's fault.
-
I don't think you can compare bank services and nude photos. One of them is sort of important to keep your life running, the other is personal gratification of some sort. One of them you need, period. The other is rather bloody optional. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing that anything and everything you upload these days is at risk, and the very second you share anything with someone else it might just be plastered all over the internet the next day. If you undock in Eve, you consented to suicide ganks and horrible horrible things. When you take nude photos of yourself and upload them anywhere you bloody well accepted the risk that they just might get into the wrong hands.
It's an active choice on their part to take that risk and thus I have, like Havo, zero sympathy for them. The guys who struck gold and unleashed The Fappening are weaponsgrade douchebottles, but that doesn't make the act of uploading this shit to a cloud service any less utterly fucking retarded. Just taking the pictures in the first place means you're accepting the risk that someone else might get their hands on them.
I don't feel sorry for them for a second, as they could have done exactly the same I've done. Not take fucking naked pictures and transmitting them online.
-
I don't think you can compare bank services and nude photos. One of them is sort of important to keep your life running, the other is personal gratification of some sort. One of them you need, period. The other is rather bloody optional. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing that anything and everything you upload these days is at risk, and the very second you share anything with someone else it might just be plastered all over the internet the next day. If you undock in Eve, you consented to suicide ganks and horrible horrible things. When you take nude photos of yourself and upload them anywhere you bloody well accepted the risk that they just might get into the wrong hands.
It's an active choice on their part to take that risk and thus I have, like Havo, zero sympathy for them. The guys who struck gold and unleashed The Fappening are weaponsgrade douchebottles, but that doesn't make the act of uploading this shit to a cloud service any less utterly fucking retarded. Just taking the pictures in the first place means you're accepting the risk that someone else might get their hands on them.
I don't feel sorry for them for a second, as they could have done exactly the same I've done. Not take fucking naked pictures and transmitting them online.
I'm not sure the content of that personal shit, or their celebrity status, makes a difference to the principle of the thing.
As I stated, I'm not saying online banking and nude photos are the same things. What I am saying is the underlying principle is the same in both; in that something has been illegally obtained - i.e stolen via hacking - from an individual. It doesn't matter if it's bank statements or nude photos - or anything else, for that matter, for that principle to be the same.
The item changing, or the relative security of the platform changing, does not change that principle as far as I can see.
Nor does the identity of the individual(s) concerned.
(Though as an unrelated aside, I don't think private individuals need, period, online banking. Mostly it's just much more convenient than using high street banks or cheque books like we used to do).
-
Given that banks are shutting down rural services all across the western world, online banking is pretty much required for a lot of people. Anyway, that's a sidetrack. The point is, they made the conscious choice of taking those pictures then practically publishing them. If I take naked pictures, put them somewhere online and they end up on a message board, I've got no one but myself to blame.
-
If I take naked pictures, put them somewhere online and they end up on a message board, I've got no one but myself to blame.
Well, that depends.
If you take naked pictures of yourself and upload them freely and publicly onto a fairly niche group somewhere online (or even your MySpace or Facebook) for whatever reason, and that then finds it's way onto reddit or 4chan for wider dissemination, then it's unfortunate. I'd still feel slightly sorry for you, if your naked body had been singled out as a humiliating meme for the wider internet to laugh at, for example, but I'd concede no real crime had been committed there.
(well, apart from possible copyright issue, but it's a fairly common thing to share and host images without permission)
If you take a naked picture of yourself with your phone, and it syncs your data with the apple cloud, then someone hacks into that service and steals your data, then disseminates it on image and message boards, then you have got someone else to blame. Foremost, the person illegally obtaining your personal data.
Oh edit: Given that banks are shutting down rural services all across the western world, online banking is pretty much required for a lot of people. Anyway, that's a sidetrack.
I think that's a valid point in your sidetrack :) And I expect its something that will become less of a convenience and more of a necessity for everyone as time goes on. Thing is though, a lot of the people disenfranchised, tend to be older people affected; such as phasing out of chequebooks, who tend to be a demographic (though certainly not all) who won't use online banking precisely because they don't trust anything 'on the internet'. My folks, while not elderly, are getting on a bit in years and live in a rural area - they use the internet, but wouldn't trust their bank stuffs being online, so they end up driving a fair way out of their way to a bank instead. :| )
-
You don't need online banking to survive.
It is a service that is offered and there is an expectation of safety. Whether that expectation is reasonable or not is another story, but what is completely irrelevant is that perception of safety.
Data ia data is data. If a service is offered wherein my Data is stored elsewhere and I am told that it is safe (because of course you are going to be told that) it doesn't matter what that actual data is, whether it be my mothers recipes, my online banking information, or pictures of myself nude, having that data stolen is still at worst theft and at minimum a massive invasion of my privacy and a precursor to fraud or other crimes (such as harrassment).
So yeah, I feel for these people when this sort of shit happens just as I feel for someone who has their banking information or their identity stolen. Someone has invaded their privacy, gained access to their 1's and 0's that they thought were private, and is using that information to either enrich themselves or make their lives hell.
-
Sorry no but that's just too naive. It doesn't matter where it's uploaded to. What matters is a) You uploaded it. Sorry, you dun fucked up. It's out there now and it's your fault and b) You took the damn things in the first place.
Of course it's illegal and of course whoever did it is a douche, but you made it happen when you did seriously stupid shit to start with. Trust any service, no matter which service (particularly free service) to keep your images and data safe? You're a bloody idiot and need to be downgraded to two cans and a string until you've stopped saying and doing stupid shit.
Rule one: If you upload it, it's no longer under your control. You have no one else to blame. You don't leave the keys in your car and your house unlocked. You don't use your password and login info on public terminals. You don't upload naked pictures and expect them to stay hidden. Unless of course you either intend for them to get stolen or have suffered severe braindamage.
Zero sympathy, they practically did it to themselves.
@Tib, you don't need anything to survive except shelter from the elements and the capacity to hollow out a bear to sleep in through winter by that logic. The point there is that in the modern world, banking is required to get your pay, your bills paid etc etc. It's not doable without banking services. There is absolutely nothing that requires you to upload your nudes or lose out on a job, a place to live etc.
-
My point isn't about that, Miz. You missed the point.
My point is that it doesn't matter how IMPORTANT the data is, because data is just data. You ought to feel bad because someone had their shit stolen, not modifying how bad you feel based on whether you feel that shit was important enough.
Someone stole these photos because of attitudes like Havo's and yours, where they somehow deserve it because they're "famous", as if their nudes which were taken in their private time are somehow part of the public interest. You don't get to say "serves them right" for their nudes but then somehow think that their other data is not also up for grabs.
Also, I would love to live in a world where everyone understands that data uploaded to the cloud is NOT SAFE, but we do not live in that world. Cloud services trumpet how safe they are.. where they even tell you that this is where things are being saved. I would be willing to bet most of these people have options turned on in their phones that cause them to save their photos to the cloud, because most people do. They aren't even aware of it, because these services are considered to be 'opt-out' rather than 'opt-in'.
-
I think you're misunderstanding this. It's not about whether it was important enough. It's not about anyone deserving it "because they're famous". It's about them being too fucking stupid to be allowed to own anything more technologically advanced than a toast iron. I don't care if they're celebrities or average joe and jane. I don't care if it's nude pictures or bank statements. I really don't.
They took the pictures in the first place. They uploaded(!) them.
Zero sympathies. They left their house unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Of course there'll be some asshole out there that will steal their shit.
I would love to live in a world without these people, but I don't. That's why I don't do utterly stupid shit like this.
-
words
..so did you look at those pics, or not?
Had a good ol' wank afterwards?
Was it required to get your pay, bills paid, keep your job and place to live etc.?
-
Today I learned:
If I steal from a house with an open door it isn't theft.
If I publish photos without consent because I have them it isn't violation of privacy/ownership rights.
People who upload photos or leave things insecure deserve what is coming to them.
Just wondering but how far does the 'take it because it is there and they aren't protecting it exactly to my specifications' does the logic of key individuals in this thread go?
-
words
..so did you look at those pics, or not?
Had a good ol' wank afterwards?
Was it required to get your pay, bills paid, keep your job and place to live etc.?
Ah, got no arguments so you try to invent something about the one you disagree with. As it happens, I did not in fact look at the pics. By all descriptions when The Fappening happened, it was merely ordinary nude pictures which is largely a very American thing to get incredibly excited about. I prefer my porn to be pornographic, thank you. There's no need to invent stuff to make me look bad, I keep all that stuff publicly available and well published.
Today I learned:
If I steal from a house with an open door it isn't theft.
If I publish photos without consent because I have them it isn't violation of privacy/ownership rights.
People who upload photos or leave things insecure deserve what is coming to them.
Just wondering but how far does the 'take it because it is there and they aren't protecting it exactly to my specifications' does the logic of key individuals in this thread go?
You learned nothing. If you steal from a house with an open door, it's theft but it's the owner's fucking fault nonetheless. Try arguing with an insurance company about that. If you publish photos without consent, it's violation of privacy and ownership rights but you bloody gave the photos out to the public to start with, so it's your fucking fault. Yes, if you don't take measures to keep your stuff safe, you're as much to blame as any thief.
A thief is a thief and should be treated as such, but if you let the thief in yourself, you're both at fault and I have no sympathy for either of you.
-
You don't sign a moral contract with an insurer, you sign a legal and financial agreement. The comparison you made is as empty as you claimed the bank comparison to be earlier. You might argue that we as individuals don't sign a moral contract with one another, at which point we have little to say to each other as civilized human beings.
Your sympathy, as high as you seem to value it, is not asked for nor is it required. The recognition of immoral acts as being what they are, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is.
That people fall victim to their ignorance is punishment enough, but education is required on two fronts. Firstly, educating those who use certain technologies in best practice and personal safety. Secondly in educating people to not abuse the ignorance of others for personal gain (financial, gratification etc) as a general activity.
Finally, when education fails, without punishment of wrong doing for those who abuse the naive, only the naive suffer. Standards must be enforced, individuals should be held accountable and your 'sympathy' or mine holds no value in the equation. The victim has already been held accountable by the transgression, punishment of the offender will not diminish the impact of the transgression. However, punishment of the offender raises awareness of the fact that these actions are immoral at their core, and may assist as a useful case study for future, more effective, education of all involved and observing.
-
My responses were on the subject of having sympathy towards these idiots that uploaded their stuff. You may not have asked for it, but a lot of people in this thread have. Nowhere have I said the thieves shouldn't face their own consequences. I don't care about moral vs legal agreements and contracts, it is just a very simple fact that if you don't lock your door you're just as much to blame as the guy going through it. Same with these pictures, if you upload them you're just as much to blame as the guy yoinking them off the servers.
-
Borderline sociopathy alive and well among Eve players.
No one is surprised.
:D
-
My responses were on the subject of having sympathy towards these idiots that uploaded their stuff. You may not have asked for it, but a lot of people in this thread have. Nowhere have I said the thieves shouldn't face their own consequences. I don't care about moral vs legal agreements and contracts, it is just a very simple fact that if you don't lock your door you're just as much to blame as the guy going through it. Same with these pictures, if you upload them you're just as much to blame as the guy yoinking them off the servers.
As much as I find such planar outlooks amusing, I can't help but be dismayed at the conflation between acceptance of an event, and culpability of an event. After all, by the same logic one could argue that if one doesn't run a battery of chemical tests on the water one drinks, they are equally to blame when one finds cyanide in there (if one has a chance before keeling over). Saying that, we're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how fallacious.
-
Sorry no but that's just too naive. It doesn't matter where it's uploaded to. What matters is a) You uploaded it. Sorry, you dun fucked up. It's out there now and it's your fault and b) You took the damn things in the first place.
Unsure how making a distinction between uploading things to a publicly viewable place, and having them stored where they'd have to be hacked to be accessible, is "too naive". Of course, not as easily, but the latter can be accessed as the former if someone is willing to put the effort into it. I don't think I implied otherwise. But one is freely accessible. The other has to be illegally accessed i.e stolen.
With stealing, you tend to blame the thief, rather than the person who had things stolen for not storing them in a secure enough safe.
Rule one: If you upload it, it's no longer under your control. You have no one else to blame. You don't leave the keys in your car and your house unlocked. You don't use your password and login info on public terminals. You don't upload naked pictures and expect them to stay hidden. Unless of course you either intend for them to get stolen or have suffered severe braindamage.
I think leaving the keys in your car and your house unlocked is a flawed analogy. While the cloud evidently can (and was) hacked into, there were still security measures in place, however ineffective. Or it wouldn't have needed hacking. The analogy would be more like not using the most advanced security system - sensitive car alarms, central locking etc. An old cheap car is going to have crappier locks and be easier to brake into. That doesn't make it your fault if someone broke into it. Is there more you could have done and less risks you could've taken? Yes. But the fault is still squarely on the criminal, rather than the victim. Likewise with a house; leaving it unlocked is not what this was. It's just the locks were ineffective to keep people out who were determined to break in. You would still, presumably, blame the people for robbing the house, rather than the owners for not having better locks and alarms or - more accurately - trusting that the house was secure under the word of the letting agent or landlord (in this case, apple).
Edit: been informed that a better analogy would be an employee of the letting agent inspecting your house and stealing your things, given the hacker was likely someone working on the data center apple uses. Can't speak for the veracity of that theory, just relaying.
-
Fair point, but that's the limitation on analogy in general. They're never quite entirely applicable, but close enough for the argument's sake. My point still remains as far as I can see, as anything ever uploaded to the internet is from that point not in your control. The thief is a thief and needs to be dealt with as such, obviously. If it hadn't been uploaded to begin with though, there'd been nothing to steal. Uploading shit you want to keep private is flat out stupid. It's an incredibly stupid move that eliminates any sympathy I could have had for these people because they should bloody well know better.
Don't want something circulated? Don't upload it. It's really that easy.
The good thing here is that this event juuuust might have opened a few eyes on matters of online privacy and basic security. Those that still can't wrap their heads around the fact that the internet requires a certain level of basic critical thinking to use safely... well, they're beyond help.
-
So, if I understand correctly, some people are laughing at or having no sympathy for individuals that got fucked by their ignorance in some matters ?
-
Well, I'm not laughing at them, but nor do I have sympathy for them, no. Take nude pictures of yourself, risky. Share them with others, you've practically given them away already. Upload them to the internet? Welcome to some message board. Self-inflicted injury like this does not gain my sympathy, especially in this day and age. Ignorance isn't a good excuse when they should have known better.
-
I sense the victim blaming is strong in this thread.
Seek the wise words of Alfred Pennyworth!
Young Bruce Wayne:
"...if only I hadn't.."
Alfred:
"It wasn't your fault. It was him, and him alone."
Victim blaming is a ridiculous slippery slope, because you can -always- rationalize a way to assign blame to the victim after the fact, no matter how crazy it eventually sounds.
-
You're not doing them any favors by victimizing them. They're adult men and women and I'm pretty sure they can handle themselves.
-
I've been resisting all day but I just can't anymore. "If only they hadn't been wearing that skirt"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You're not doing them any favors by victimizing them. They're adult men and women and I'm pretty sure they can handle themselves.
Excuse me?
Getting your private personal life hacked by a piece of shit and shared to a million pathetic internet lowlifes for masturbation fodder is not victimizing.
It was a crime, and it's not their fault. They were victims of a crime. It's pretty much that simple.
-
You know, the only ones who ever seem to bring that sort of thing up seems to be the SJWs. If you have to invent problems and victims, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be doing empowerment, not victimization. I recommend reading this: An open letter to Emma Watson. (http://naughtynerdess.tumblr.com/post/98184739316/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson)
It's not entirely on this topic, but the gist of it applies.
@Silas: Yes it was a crime, no one's disputing this. The fact is though, it came about because they made a series of really stupid decisions. Hiding behind the "victim blaming" excuse does not magically make that go away. Their "private personal life" does not belong on the internet under someone else's control, the same way my "private personal life" does not belong out in public unless I'm damn sure I'm willing to share it.
-
You know, the only ones who ever seem to bring that sort of thing up seems to be the SJWs. If you have to invent problems and victims, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be doing empowerment, not victimization. I recommend reading this: An open letter to Emma Watson. (http://naughtynerdess.tumblr.com/post/98184739316/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson)
It's not entirely on this topic, but the gist of it applies.
@Silas: Yes it was a crime, no one's disputing this. The fact is though, it came about because they made a series of really stupid decisions. Hiding behind the "victim blaming" excuse does not magically make that go away. Their "private personal life" does not belong on the internet under someone else's control, the same way my "private personal life" does not belong out in public unless I'm damn sure I'm willing to share it.
It's like it's going straight over your head.
-
It's like it's going straight over your head.
It's the same way for us.
-
Victim blaming is a slippery slope argument, because you can, by that stupid logic, ALWAYS find fault with the victim of a crime. You can always find a point where they 'did something' that caused their victimization, or their rape, or their robbery, or their murder.
She shouldn't have worn that skirt
She shouldn't have gotten drunk
She shouldn't have taken a private photo, she should have known apple's cloud security inside and out
Those people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima should have moved, they knew cities would be targets.
Why even have a legal system? Shit's always the victim's fault for not being adequately prepared for being violated.
-
Victim blaming is a slippery slope argument, because you can, by that stupid logic, ALWAYS find fault with the victim of a crime. You can always find a point where they 'did something' that caused their victimization, or their rape, or their robbery, or their murder.
She shouldn't have worn that skirt
She shouldn't have gotten drunk
She shouldn't have taken a private photo, she should have known apple's cloud security inside and out
Those people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima should have moved, they knew cities would be targets.
Why even have a legal system? Shit's always the victim's fault for not being adequately prepared for being violated.
This is a bit of a stretch - and I say that as someone who passionately hates victim blaming, although mostly in the context of sexual assault and rape. The reason being that in cases of sexual assault and rape, victim blaming is used to silence and intimidate victims and allows those who assault them to keep doing it with minimal consequence. And it puts the onus on women to avoid being assaulted rather than on men to stop assaulting them.
So yeah. Victim blaming is terrible.
And going completely in that direction with this situation - hacked photos, etc - feels really ugly.
But this also feels different.
Blaming victims for doing things like not automatically assuming that a man will try to rape them is bad. But what do you do with a person who tells you, straight up, that he/she/it is going to hurt you? Yes, it's still his/her fault for hurting you, but at some point there should be some degree of responsibility for not walking into an obvious, vulnerable situation with a violent psychopath, right?
The internet is that violent psychopath. Or, more specifically, it is populated by them and puts anything and everything within their reach.
And victim blaming in the context of sexual assault is used to put the onus on women to avoid it rather than on men to stop doing it (broad generalization). And that's the opposite of what we need to be doing.
But in this case? We can't really put the onus on the sociopaths of the world to stop being sociopaths. Avoiding being a target is pretty much your only effective option. Yes, we absolutely should address the culture that treats women as objects and their bodies as property.
But we can't root out every single monster with a keyboard.
So this sucks. Because it feels like victim-blaming, and I fucking hate that. But it also doesn't really seem like there is a viable alternative. I can certainly still sympathize with the victims - they likely expected that those pictures would be secure and have been rudely informed that they were wrong.
But the only way to keep this from happening is to never take/post those pictures. Because the internet is a violent psychopath.
Fuck.
-
... victim blaming is used to silence and intimidate victims and allows those who assault them to keep doing it with minimal consequence. And it puts the onus on women to avoid being assaulted rather than on men to stop assaulting them.
This perfectly describes the environment of the recent situation. So yes, it absolutely is victim blaming.
-
No, you can't (i.e.: you can't say every crime is every victim's fault by any stretch of logic).
She can wear whatever skirt she wants.
She can drink whatever she wants (if she's of age to be drinking).
She can take whatever pictures she wants - but she'd damned well better know that if she transmits it over the internet or shares it with anyone else, it is very likely it's going to end up seen by people she had no intention of seeing it.
Nobody is saying it wasn't wrong to hack iCloud. Nobody is saying it's not wrong for an ex to share pictures shared in confidence. What we're saying is:
A:) This isn't the same thing as rape at all.
and
B:) You pays your money and you takes your chances.
This isnt the 90's where people thought their AOL email accounts were Fort Knox. This stuff happens all the time, and people keep doing it. It's SO FUCKING TERRIBLE when it happens to a celebrity though. Fuck them - they're nothing but people doing the same shit everybody else does and suffering the same consequence that everybody else suffers.
Except Maroney. Teens all over the US are getting charged with CP for taking nudes of themselves and sending it to boys via cellphone. She's special for being a gold medalist, though.
I don't see how they're deserving of any sympathy any other woman whose nudes leak without their consent isn't deserving of.
Further, victim blaming IS the right thing to do, here. They have a share of the responsibility for this because they willingly took the pictures and put them on the internet.
That woman with the short skirt who gets raped? She did not willingly remove any article of clothing and put a penis inside of herself. She has no blame or responsibility for having been assaulted.
-
@Vic: Everything you said I agree with. Every single word.
@Jace: If you see someone trying to silence the people who took and uploaded those pictures anywhere, feel free to let me know. There haven't been any in this thread nor where I've seen this debate elsewhere.
-
Havo I'm pretty sure none of those women consented to their private sexual images being put on 4chan.
In fact my understanding is many of them weren't even 'shared' with anyone else at all, just automatically synced with the icloud service.
There are reasonable arguments to be made within the context of using safe judgement with regards to the decisions we make in life, but they more often than not run straight into blame.
It always pisses me off that the 'debate' always immediately shifts from something simple like 'don't rape people' to 'what was she wearing?'
It's the same awful argument logic when another young unarmed kid gets shot (was he a good student? Did he smoke weed? Was he dressed too black to not be shot?)
-
Where the fuck are you hanging out where the debate shifts to something like that? I never see that other than in SJW tumblrs where they make up strawmen by the dozens.
-
Further, victim blaming IS the right thing to do, here.
This is why the discussion is pointless and the topic is a political one. There is no debating with this attitude - it just needs to be fought legally and politically.
-
Where the fuck are you hanging out where the debate shifts to something like that? I never see that other than in SJW tumblrs where they make up strawmen by the dozens.
http://youtu.be/HxQnBR8OO_U?t=52s
"What did she expect to happen?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/montana-judge-rape-victim_n_4811890.html
Montana Judge Admits Fault For Blaming Rape Victim In State Supreme Court Filing
And the always classy Serena Williams
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/serena-williams-steubenville-rape-victim_n_3462519.html
Serena Williams: Steubenville Rape Victim 'Shouldn't Have Put Herself In That Position'
That took about 30 seconds on google
-
And you consider these representative of anything but a minority of fuckwits? It's like me using Fox News as an example of all America stands for or /v/ as representative of the entire internet. You gotta look further than the crazies to see the hundreds of thousands that make up for the one idiot, Silas.
-
And you consider these representative of anything but a minority of fuckwits? It's like me using Fox News as an example of all America stands for or /v/ as representative of the entire internet. You gotta look further than the crazies to see the hundreds of thousands that make up for the one idiot, Silas.
Fox News is the most popular cable news channel by a huge margin, with millions of daily viewers.
Judges are elected by popular vote
Sports celebrities are idolized by millions
-
I didn't ask if it was popular or not. Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo was popular. Do you consider it representative of the US population? Do you think those Judges won on a platform of victim blaming, or did they get voted in for other things? Sports Celebrities are popular and idolized because of smart aleck off-the-cuff remarks?
They don't represent any majority in any way when they make these utterly stupid comments and I'm pretty sure you know that.
-
In fact my understanding is many of them weren't even 'shared' with anyone else at all, just automatically synced with the icloud service.
I have a bridge I been trying to sell for months, it's in NY, I could really use the cash right now.
Judges being elected by popular vote, yes, that's true - they're in these little parts at the bottom of the ballot that nobody reads, nobody knows who they are, they just push the button that fills in all their favorite party's people.
John Q. American has no clue who they're voting onto a bench.
-
I didn't ask if it was popular or not. Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo was popular. Do you consider it representative of the US population? Do you think those Judges won on a platform of victim blaming, or did they get voted in for other things? Sports Celebrities are popular and idolized because of smart aleck off-the-cuff remarks?
They don't represent any majority in any way when they make these utterly stupid comments and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Popularity is often a yardstick for shared values and general interest, so yes when many millions of people watch Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty or Fox News it says something about our culture and our values.
So when you can say those things fairly often on something popular and not get fired, it means there is a sizable population that supports and agrees with those views.
See Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Fortunately (for me as a minority), much of the sexual discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc is tied to demographics; As our country is getting younger and less white it is also getting more liberal and less homophobic, sexist, etc.
-
I'd agree if those ridiculous comments were the main thrust of their platforms (be they athletes, celebrities, political figures, whatever) but it's not. The world-star athlete and the celebrity is popular because of their performances, music, movies, whatever. Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty are funny to laugh at and say "Thank god we're not like that, eh?" and so on.
They're really not representative of the population in any real way. There's no need to create a huge wall of enemies when you can just focus on the minority of fuckwits that actually think that way.
-
Fortunately (for me as a minority), much of the sexual discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc is tied to demographics; As our country is getting younger and less white it is also getting more liberal and less homophobic, sexist, etc.
I'm black. I think the liberalization of America in the last decade has been in spite of racial demographic shifting rather than because of. I can tell you from experience the black and hispanic populations are even more homophobic than whites. Blacks are less religiously conservative, imo, where fiscal conservatism is still largely a white thing.
-
I'd agree if those ridiculous comments were the main thrust of their platforms (be they athletes, celebrities, political figures, whatever) but it's not. The world-star athlete and the celebrity is popular because of their performances, music, movies, whatever. Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty are funny to laugh at and say "Thank god we're not like that, eh?" and so on.
They're really not representative of the population in any real way. There's no need to create a huge wall of enemies when you can just focus on the minority of fuckwits that actually think that way.
I was staying away from politicians because low hanging fruit. There's a parade of foot-in-mouth syndrome on both sides with quite popular elected officials poorly discussing just about any issue you like, non apologetically.
from the famous "legitimate rape" to any other number of lovely statements.
-
Fortunately (for me as a minority), much of the sexual discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc is tied to demographics; As our country is getting younger and less white it is also getting more liberal and less homophobic, sexist, etc.
I'm black. I think the liberalization of America in the last decade has been in spite of racial demographic shifting rather than because of. I can tell you from experience the black and hispanic populations are even more homophobic than whites. Blacks are less religiously conservative, imo, where fiscal conservatism is still largely a white thing.
Good point I should have separated some of those:
More about the lion's share of the old white men dying and taking with them a lot of the popular views of the 1950s, and along with that their unquestioned control as the center of the american universe.
Correct about black/hispanic homophobia, though. Probably more of a generational thing than racial.
My Abuela is super racist against other hispanics (that she considers lower), it's hilarious. I'd be upset but she's 87....
-
The acronym SJW is, ironically for it's enthusiastic verbal proponents, a massive straw man.
-
Many studies have shown that homophobia declines significantly when looking at younger generations, as well as many other bigoted views. They will not go away completely in our lifetimes, but older generations dying off will certainly improve the situation.
-
Fuck them - they're nothing but people doing the same shit everybody else does and suffering the same consequence that everybody else suffers.
Well, agreed. I'm not sympathizing because they're special celebrity snowflakes therefore deserving of more sympathy. But because they're also people doing the same shit everybody else does and suffering the same consequences. Conceivably, I could see myself, as just another person, getting hacked or having data stolen. The consequences for that could be sucky.
I don't see how they're deserving of any sympathy any other woman whose nudes leak without their consent isn't deserving of.
Well, no. Revenge porn is fucking awful. Awful in a different way (often it's not that something was hacked or stolen, more that someone you once trusted enough to take those photos is now using them against you as a weapon once the relationship has finished) but I would absolutely sympathize with them. I wasn't aware it was a binary choice.
Quote from: Silas
In fact my understanding is many of them weren't even 'shared' with anyone else at all, just automatically synced with the icloud service.
I have a bridge I been trying to sell for months, it's in NY, I could really use the cash right now.
...Eh? That's been my understanding as well, as pretty much every story I'd read about it depicted events that way.
What do you think happened instead...?
-
Quote from: Silas
In fact my understanding is many of them weren't even 'shared' with anyone else at all, just automatically synced with the icloud service.
I have a bridge I been trying to sell for months, it's in NY, I could really use the cash right now.
...Eh? That's been my understanding as well, as pretty much every story I'd read about it depicted events that way.
What do you think happened instead...?
Other people seem to think that what is going on is that these women and men have been defacto sending out their photos to literally everyone who has seen them on the internet I think?
-
Quote from: Silas
In fact my understanding is many of them weren't even 'shared' with anyone else at all, just automatically synced with the icloud service.
I have a bridge I been trying to sell for months, it's in NY, I could really use the cash right now.
...Eh? That's been my understanding as well, as pretty much every story I'd read about it depicted events that way.
What do you think happened instead...?
What woman in the history of cell phone cameras has ever taken nudes of herself where sending them to a paramour (or in some cases, a random idiot they're chatting with via kik or tinder or whatever other means of meeting people) wasn't involved? They can claim whatever they like to try and recover their "good girl" images, everybody knows it's bullshit. Nobody just takes a bunch of nudes of themselves with their cell phone cameras, just to be doing it. Or do all of these women happen to have some sort of nympho-narcissistic mental disorder that causes them, specifically, to do something nobody does? And they all have the same mental illness? Maybe it's specific to celebrity women, is that it?
At least one person other than the woman pictured saw every one of those photographs before they were spread all over the internet. That person would be the person the photographs (and in at least one case, video) was taken for.
Are you guys going to tell me you believe that Bill Clinton didn't inhale when he smoked that weed? You probably still believe he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, either, right?
Give me a fuckin' break!
-
@Havohej
Ok, but whatever the intent they had for taking their personal photos (which seems fairly irrelevant to me tbh), the apple cloud still automatically sync'd it to their phones, no...?
I don't get the argument at all. There's no intent to share it with the entire internet to be gleaned from a service backing your data up.
There's no intent to share it with the entire internet if you wanted to show a specific person, either.
(That was how I understood Silas was using 'shared' here, though maybe there could be clarification).
-
You know, this doesn't add much to the discussion, but if someone stole nude photos of me and posted them online, with millions of internet dwellers fapping to them, I think I'm be more bemused and flattered than angry and hurt.
These - with the exception of any under-age ones - are just pictures. It's like no one ever expects that someone might have boobs or a dick until they take their clothes off. Newsflash: aside from deformity or disease, human bodies are pretty similar.
I'm not saying it's not a bad thing to do, I just think that I, personally, wouldn't consider it the end of the world.
-
@Havohej
Ok, but whatever the intent they had for taking their personal photos (which seems fairly irrelevant to me tbh), the apple cloud still automatically sync'd it to their phones, no...?
I don't get the argument at all. There's no intent to share it with the entire internet to be gleaned from a service backing your data up.
There's no intent to share it with the entire internet if you wanted to show a specific person, either.
(That was how I understood Silas was using 'shared' here, though maybe there could be clarification).
I don't have an apple product (Samsung master race), but I know google cloud has a box you check to not automatically back everything up. I have to assume apple offers the same privacy protections.
So we're clear - neither I, nor Miz, nor anyone else in the thread so far has said or even intentionally implied that stealing and posting the pictures was "okay" or a "correct thing to do". It was wrong. It was a crime.
What I'm saying is that I have no sympathy for anyone this happens to, celeb or not, because common sense dictates that if something is transmitted over the internet at all, be it through cloud backup or SMS messaging a picture to another cell phone user, it's going to go places you have no intention of it going because :the internet:.
-
@Havohej
Ok, but whatever the intent they had for taking their personal photos (which seems fairly irrelevant to me tbh), the apple cloud still automatically sync'd it to their phones, no...?
I don't get the argument at all. There's no intent to share it with the entire internet to be gleaned from a service backing your data up.
There's no intent to share it with the entire internet if you wanted to show a specific person, either.
(That was how I understood Silas was using 'shared' here, though maybe there could be clarification).
I don't have an apple product (Samsung master race), but I know google cloud has a box you check to not automatically back everything up. I have to assume apple offers the same privacy protections.
So we're clear - neither I, nor Miz, nor anyone else in the thread so far has said or even intentionally implied that stealing and posting the pictures was "okay" or a "correct thing to do". It was wrong. It was a crime.
What I'm saying is that I have no sympathy for anyone this happens to, celeb or not, because common sense dictates that if something is transmitted over the internet at all, be it through cloud backup or SMS messaging a picture to another cell phone user, it's going to go places you have no intention of it going because :the internet:.
Buried in menus, automatically ticked on by default, with no indication that it exists to someone who isn't familiar with what, exactly, cloud infrastructure is. The only indication I get on my iPhone that it's on at all is that I haven't connected it to wifi in the last several months and hence it bitches at me that it hasn't been able to connect to its backup server.
Your sympathy ought not be related to the technical skill of the victim.
-
You know, this doesn't add much to the discussion, but if someone stole nude photos of me and posted them online, with millions of internet dwellers fapping to them, I think I'm be more bemused and flattered than angry and hurt.
These - with the exception of any under-age ones - are just pictures. It's like no one ever expects that someone might have boobs or a dick until they take their clothes off. Newsflash: aside from deformity or disease, human bodies are pretty similar.
I'm not saying it's not a bad thing to do, I just think that I, personally, wouldn't consider it the end of the world.
Don't see why you can't add it as a point of view on things, though :)
I think the main issue for me is one of consent and context. They're personal photos, so not intended for wide distribution. So the context of the nude photos becomes something intended for one thing, being used to - well. Maybe it was a photo you intended, as Hav suggests, for a significant other. Maybe there was some kind of meaning or romantic context there. And then the general public is fapping over them - kind of makes it a bit gross and tawdry after that.
I think as well, given we have so much freely available porn on the interwebs, part of the attraction *is* they aren't supposed to be seeing that photos, the illicit and voyeuristic aspect to it. As well as curiosity on celebrities, manufactured by celebrity culture.
Third thing that circles round my head (like a drain) is the idea of a nudity taboo as yes - we are all (pretty much) all the same under our clothes, an there's nothing new under the sun there. We're also mostly conditioned to hide it away as something shameful, though. Someone being completely comfortable in their body to be publicly nude is great. But usually, they've also decided the context to do that.
I'd feel utterly freaked out, myself, but then I value my privacy fairly highly and am definitely not free of insecure body issues. I'd agree with you in principle about body taboos, though.
So we're clear - neither I, nor Miz, nor anyone else in the thread so far has said or even intentionally implied that stealing and posting the pictures was "okay" or a "correct thing to do". It was wrong. It was a crime.
What I'm saying is that I have no sympathy for anyone this happens to, celeb or not, because common sense dictates that if something is transmitted over the internet at all, be it through cloud backup or SMS messaging a picture to another cell phone user, it's going to go places you have no intention of it going because :the internet:.
Alright, I am not intending to mischaracterize your arguments; more to understand them. I read you said victim blaming was the right thing to do here, and Miz was commenting the people who had their data stolen (i.e the victims) were equally at fault as the people taking them. And that they practically did it to themselves.
(apologies, I am paraphrasing here, as I haven't gone back and found the appropriate quotes. Might go back and edit them in, so I'm sure not putting words in mouth
Further, victim blaming IS the right thing to do, here. They have a share of the responsibility for this because they willingly took the pictures and put them on the internet.
Same with these pictures, if you upload them you're just as much to blame as the guy yoinking them off the servers.
Zero sympathy, they practically did it to themselves.
)
I would see that as undermining the idea that stealing the pictures was wrong and a crime, if you're blaming the victims for that crime, saying they were equally at fault, or they practically did it to themselves. You've both acknowledged, yes, that it is wrong and a crime - but not left much the criminal can be blamed for. The weight of blame appears to be directed elsewhere.
It is a different thing to suggest being careful with your data and due diligence on the internet is advisable. (and not necessarily arguable with, as it's sound advice).
-
Buried in menus, automatically ticked on by default, with no indication that it exists to someone who isn't familiar with what, exactly, cloud infrastructure is. The only indication I get on my iPhone that it's on at all is that I haven't connected it to wifi in the last several months and hence it bitches at me that it hasn't been able to connect to its backup server.
Your sympathy ought not be related to the technical skill of the victim.
It isn't. My sympathy doesn't exist. They took pictures or allowed pictures to be taken (not all of the pictures are selfies. Yes, I've seen them all.) with cell phones, and they got out. I'm supposed to feel sorry for what, exactly?
-
You've both acknowledged, yes, that it is wrong and a crime - but not left much the criminal can be blamed for.
The criminal can be and is being blamed for stealing and disseminating images and videos they had no legal authorization to do so with.
Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely any significant resources will be employed to identify and arrest the culprit.
-
Well, I'm not laughing at them, but nor do I have sympathy for them, no. Take nude pictures of yourself, risky. Share them with others, you've practically given them away already. Upload them to the internet? Welcome to some message board. Self-inflicted injury like this does not gain my sympathy, especially in this day and age. Ignorance isn't a good excuse when they should have known better.
Social darwninism heh ? That's something I came to seriously despise in Eve. And I was definitely not at the wrong end of the stick. But i'm a moral stuck up righteous prick anyway, so... I tend to think that most people these days do not have an ounce of self discipline. vOv
But i'm the first one to despise the masses for being ignorant in some matters while being actually very cultured in stuff like celebs and that kind of shit. Though I also know that not everybody is an internet or computer geek, even in our time and age and generation, far from it, and that no, they don't know better and shouldn't have.
I may hold a different position when it will be about the next generation for who they ALL were raised in a technological network environment. But not us.
-
But in this case? We can't really put the onus on the sociopaths of the world to stop being sociopaths. Avoiding being a target is pretty much your only effective option. Yes, we absolutely should address the culture that treats women as objects and their bodies as property.
They are not sociopaths. A sociopath is not by definition someone that will on purpose look to ruin your life and expose nude photos of you on the internet. It may help, but I call those people sadists, or whatever.
And I don't see at all why it would apply for rapists and not those people. Both have a problem and doing harm to society and individuals, even if not on the same scale. Though for celebs, i'm not even sure it's comparable.
So, we can't put the onus on assholes to stop being assholes, but we can put the onus on rapists to stop being rapists ? What kind of logic is that ?
That woman with the short skirt who gets raped? She did not willingly remove any article of clothing and put a penis inside of herself. She has no blame or responsibility for having been assaulted.
The woman that gets her nude pics stolen has no blame or responsibility for having been hacked. Except she put her pics at high risk on a place it was expected something like that to happen.
The woman that gets raped has no blame or responsibility for having been raped. Except she choose to wear a short skirt and expose herself to sexual temptation, increasing the odds to attract someone with sexual issues.
I don't see the difference, except on a matter of degree of violence. Care to explain again ?
-
@Jace: If you see someone trying to silence the people who took and uploaded those pictures anywhere, feel free to let me know. There haven't been any in this thread nor where I've seen this debate elsewhere.
I have seen it in this thread done by most people defending the "no sympathy for them" side. Consciously or unconsciously, call it whatever you want, you did it.
While you agree that it was a crime, you make every attempt to say that they do not deserve sympathy (and so, that they deserved what they got). If that is not trying to silence them our of their "victimization" as you call it, I don't know what it is.
You know, this doesn't add much to the discussion, but if someone stole nude photos of me and posted them online, with millions of internet dwellers fapping to them, I think I'm be more bemused and flattered than angry and hurt.
These - with the exception of any under-age ones - are just pictures. It's like no one ever expects that someone might have boobs or a dick until they take their clothes off. Newsflash: aside from deformity or disease, human bodies are pretty similar.
I'm not saying it's not a bad thing to do, I just think that I, personally, wouldn't consider it the end of the world.
Heh, that's true, and it clearly shows to me that we still live in a stuck up binary sexual society where for males it would be "lolwut have you seen my junk ?" while for females it is more "dat slut/whore/insert sexual slur".
It is true that in their place I would tend more to think that as even flattering, even if highly embarrassing. But the main issue is that they perfectly know what people will think, not necessarily "omagad they have seen me naked".
Considering where post modernism is going right now, I only see those as transitional issues. If one day we get a true genre equality added to the fact that we ARE going into a total pervasive of a surveillance society where everyone knows everything about everyone, most of our problems could be fixed, or at least, changed. When everyone knows everything about everyone, they is not anymore huge outrages, silly fantasms on celebs, dirty secrets, etc, since you know that everyone is doing it anyway. Which leads to the question of surveillance being a nasty thing and all... Yes, unless you start to introduce the concept of sousveillance, where not only authorities can monitor you everywhere, but every citizen can monitor authorities as well, and that's what is already starting to happen. Barely, but it will, i'm pretty confident in it.
But that's another issue somehow.
-
... victim blaming is used to silence and intimidate victims and allows those who assault them to keep doing it with minimal consequence. And it puts the onus on women to avoid being assaulted rather than on men to stop assaulting them.
This perfectly describes the environment of the recent situation. So yes, it absolutely is victim blaming.
I guess the distinction that I make is that in the case of rape, the problem is widespread and cultural. In order to get the hundreds of thousands of annual rapes that occur in the US, you need a shitload of men and women to commit rape. This is a cultural problem, and the solution will be a cultural one.
The phone hacking, on the other hand, was commited by a handful of people (I think the estimates I've seen have been few dozen dedicated guys). This is less of a cultural issue (although it has its roots there) and therefore I think it has to be treated differently.
On the issue of rape, victim blaming is used to distract from the real issue - a culture which encourages or at a minimum permits rape.
To a certain degree, this is absolutely happening here: rather than addressing a culture which treats women's bodies as property/commodities, we're just telling the women to hide.
On the other hand, the perpetrators of this particular crime are a small handful of dedicated assholes, rather than just being any random guy. In that regard I think it's different enough to warrant both approaches.
@ Miz:
It may seem unbelievable, but there's a FUCKING RIDICULOUS portion of the US population, both male and female, that will do what Silas described, blaming women for putting themselves in a position to get raped rather than blaming men for committing rape. I'll get depressed if I start digging up sources right now, but they are there. It is insane, it is terrifying, and it is quite real. I am very thankful to be male in this fucked up country.
-
Allright then. I'll just have to jot down another thing that's frankly unbelievable from a Scandinavian viewpoint. You guys are weird.
-
It's unbelievable from any rational viewpoint. But if you're raised hearing it and never question it? It sticks. You hear your parents say it, you hear people on TV say it, you never stop to think "WOW, THAT'S FUCKED UP." Instead, it just becomes ingrained and accepted.
That actually describes a lot of the shit that's wrong with my beloved country...
-
The woman that gets her nude pics stolen has no blame or responsibility for having been hacked. Except she put her pics at high risk on a place it was expected something like that to happen.
The woman that gets raped has no blame or responsibility for having been raped. Except she choose to wear a short skirt and expose herself to sexual temptation, increasing the odds to attract someone with sexual issues.
I don't see the difference, except on a matter of degree of violence. Care to explain again ?
I'll try.
The violation here, the one everybody's so "oh those poor girls" about, is that unintended people are seeing their nudity. "Every time you look at these pictures, you're literally raping these women" etc.
The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. She is not to blame in any way.
These celebs put their nudity on the internet by uploading their nudity to the internet.
-
@Jace: If you see someone trying to silence the people who took and uploaded those pictures anywhere, feel free to let me know. There haven't been any in this thread nor where I've seen this debate elsewhere.
I have seen it in this thread done by most people defending the "no sympathy for them" side. Consciously or unconsciously, call it whatever you want, you did it.
While you agree that it was a crime, you make every attempt to say that they do not deserve sympathy (and so, that they deserved what they got). If that is not trying to silence them our of their "victimization" as you call it, I don't know what it is.
You've got that wrong. They were stolen from. They are victims of theft. By all means, get the authorities involved, hopefully catch and punish the hacker(s). But don't come out crying about how violated you feel - you put nudes of yourself on the internet! Instead, they should've put on their big girl panties and said "Hah, uh, yeah... well, this is embarassing. I took some sexy pics and/or silly vids with my boobs swinging around for my boyfriend/fiance/husband/drinking buddy/personal trainer/whoever-the-fuck-I-wanted to, and there you have it... Awkward! If you have any information regarding who may have actually hacked our account, please contact this number."
-
I think we are none of us in a position to dismiss the psychological and emotional impact of having your most private and intimate moments made public to every single person you know and millions of people you don't. Your parents, relatives, family, friends, and enemies.
I've never understood 'celebrity worship' myself... having a real detestment for both celebrity culture (putting people up on pedestals) and also invading their privacy to feed a salacious public. As much disdain as I have for whatever x stupid celebrity is doing, I have 10x disdain for every person buying a checkout line celebrity gossip magazine.
Havo I don't think your argument about them 'sharing' really works though; the internet is a part of all of our lives and we have a reasonable expectation that some of our information is secure.
If your bank account were to get randomly hacked and you lose your entire life savings, would you have no sympathy for yourself for storing your money in such a location?
-
FDIC Insured. Analogy doesn't work.
If, however, somebody hacked AOL and exposed my cybersex chatlogs from the 90's when cybersex was a thing, that'd be embarassing. It also wouldn't be the end of the world.
-
FDIC Insured. Analogy doesn't work.
If, however, somebody hacked AOL and exposed my cybersex chatlogs from the 90's when cybersex was a thing, that'd be embarassing. It also wouldn't be the end of the world.
Well how about someone hacks your email credentials and does the full suite of identity theft protocols on you? Generating debt in your name, signing up for all sorts of awful things, billing you, etc, making your life miserable for years, unable to get financing for new purchases and wrecking your credit. You'd consider this 'your fault' for using internet email?
-
FDIC Insured. Analogy doesn't work.
If, however, somebody hacked AOL and exposed my cybersex chatlogs from the 90's when cybersex was a thing, that'd be embarassing. It also wouldn't be the end of the world.
Well how about someone hacks your email credentials and does the full suite of identity theft protocols on you? Generating debt in your name, signing up for all sorts of awful things, billing you, etc, making your life miserable for years, unable to get financing for new purchases and wrecking your credit. You'd consider this 'your fault' for using internet email?
It's going to be a different matter for celebrities as opposed to ordinary people. None of these women are going to see their careers or lives ruined by this.
The girl next door who has her webcam hacked and pictures distributed to everyone at her high school? Now we're in the neighborhood of life-ruining shit between the personal humiliation and the bullying that'll go with it.
One the one hand, these women are celebrities and that made them targets. On the other hand, these women are celebrities and that will largely insulate them from the worst of the effects.
-
FDIC Insured. Analogy doesn't work.
If, however, somebody hacked AOL and exposed my cybersex chatlogs from the 90's when cybersex was a thing, that'd be embarassing. It also wouldn't be the end of the world.
Well how about someone hacks your email credentials and does the full suite of identity theft protocols on you? Generating debt in your name, signing up for all sorts of awful things, billing you, etc, making your life miserable for years, unable to get financing for new purchases and wrecking your credit. You'd consider this 'your fault' for using internet email?
I'd consider it my fault for having my SSN and other pertinent information transmitted over non-secure media (i.e.: email, rather than trusted and verified https sites like CCP's account page for example), yes. And I would still expect the feds to do their job and sort it out.
-
FDIC Insured. Analogy doesn't work.
If, however, somebody hacked AOL and exposed my cybersex chatlogs from the 90's when cybersex was a thing, that'd be embarassing. It also wouldn't be the end of the world.
Well how about someone hacks your email credentials and does the full suite of identity theft protocols on you? Generating debt in your name, signing up for all sorts of awful things, billing you, etc, making your life miserable for years, unable to get financing for new purchases and wrecking your credit. You'd consider this 'your fault' for using internet email?
I'd consider it my fault for having my SSN and other pertinent information transmitted over non-secure media (i.e.: email, rather than trusted and verified https sites like CCP's account page for example), yes. And I would still expect the feds to do their job and sort it out.
EDIT: And Vik's right with the post above mine - this isn't career or life-damaging in the least, for any of them. Hell, Kim Kardashian even followed The Fappening with a new round of her own attention whoring to try and ride the wave of increased interest the Fappening victims are seeing.
That's an aside, of course.
-
But don't come out crying about how violated you feel - you put nudes of yourself on the internet! Instead, they should've put on their big girl panties and said "Hah, uh, yeah... well, this is embarassing. I took some sexy pics and/or silly vids with my boobs swinging around for my boyfriend/fiance/husband/drinking buddy/personal trainer/whoever-the-fuck-I-wanted to, and there you have it... Awkward! If you have any information regarding who may have actually hacked our account, please contact this number."
But...it is legitimately, a violation. Hacking personal data from an account is an invasion of privacy, stealing your personal data is theft.
What that personal data contains is relatively immaterial to that violation and crime having occurred.
Not sure why they should have to justify having taken naked photos in the first place - or any photos - as whoops, how embarrassing, my bad, I was caught out.
It's no one's business why they're there or why they were taken, or what they are photos of. It's personal stuff.
And yes, that personal data was synced from their phones with the apple icloud. So it went onto the internet. But it needed hacking to become public.
Really not understanding the importance of the fact these photos were nudes as to why they should be apportioned so much blame for someone stealing their stuff. As far as I knew, taking a nude photo wasn't a crime. Hacking someones data though, is. They just don't seem like comparable things in terms of blame to me.
It's going to be a different matter for celebrities as opposed to ordinary people. None of these women are going to see their careers or lives ruined by this.
The girl next door who has her webcam hacked and pictures distributed to everyone at her high school? Now we're in the neighborhood of life-ruining shit between the personal humiliation and the bullying that'll go with it.
One the one hand, these women are celebrities and that made them targets. On the other hand, these women are celebrities and that will largely insulate them from the worst of the effects
The effects may end up being different - though a gross invasion of privacy for both. But the underlying principle regarding apportion of blame remains exactly the same, in my eyes.
It isn't the celebrities fault someone hacked her stuff. It isn't the girl next door's fault someone hacked her stuff. The fault is with the person who hacked them.
-
Not sure why they should have to justify
I haven't said anyone should justify anything. Saying "Oh, welp, I took some pictures." isn't a justification. It's an acknowledgement of fact. You don't have to justify anything that isn't wrong.
-
alright, let me put it another way. I haven't understood why the default appropriate response should be embarrassment, rather than anger, when someone didn't do anything wrong.
-
I may have misrepresented my opinion, then.
I don't think they should even be embarrassed about this. What I was trying to communicate is that an acknowledgement of the pictures existing and expression of embarrassment would have been more appropriate than the typical "Oh it's so shocking/horrifying/mortifying/terrible/shameful."
Be mad about it, be indignant about it, flip the bird at some paparazzi, whatever. But don't act like a rape victim, because they were not, in fact, raped.
-
The woman that gets her nude pics stolen has no blame or responsibility for having been hacked. Except she put her pics at high risk on a place it was expected something like that to happen.
The woman that gets raped has no blame or responsibility for having been raped. Except she choose to wear a short skirt and expose herself to sexual temptation, increasing the odds to attract someone with sexual issues.
I don't see the difference, except on a matter of degree of violence. Care to explain again ?
I'll try.
The violation here, the one everybody's so "oh those poor girls" about, is that unintended people are seeing their nudity. "Every time you look at these pictures, you're literally raping these women" etc.
Whoa, nobody said here that people are literally raping these women by looking at their pics...
The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. She is not to blame in any way.
These celebs put their nudity on the internet by uploading their nudity to the internet.
There is a fallacy in that analogy I think.
The more correct way to tell it would be
- The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. The rape victim put up a skirt that attracted the rapist.
- The celebs did not published the pics on the internet. The celebs used the internet to privately share / stock their pics, which attracted the hacker.
-
The woman that gets her nude pics stolen has no blame or responsibility for having been hacked. Except she put her pics at high risk on a place it was expected something like that to happen.
The woman that gets raped has no blame or responsibility for having been raped. Except she choose to wear a short skirt and expose herself to sexual temptation, increasing the odds to attract someone with sexual issues.
I don't see the difference, except on a matter of degree of violence. Care to explain again ?
I'll try.
The violation here, the one everybody's so "oh those poor girls" about, is that unintended people are seeing their nudity. "Every time you look at these pictures, you're literally raping these women" etc.
Whoa, nobody said here that people are literally raping these women by looking at their pics...
The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. She is not to blame in any way.
These celebs put their nudity on the internet by uploading their nudity to the internet.
There is a fallacy in that analogy I think.
The more correct way to tell it would be
- The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. The rape victim put up a skirt that attracted the rapist.
- The celebs did not published the pics on the internet. The celebs used the internet to privately share / stock their pics, which attracted the hacker.
(http://themissouritorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tumblr_mqm0qbH01O1r3vs52o1_500_zps75ee3d85.gif)
-
A young woman in the internet age must:
Check for webcams in changing rooms of clothes shops. Or only ever buy clothes online.
Check for webcams/two-way mirrors in toilets of nightclubs. Or never go to nightclubs.
Check for webcams at the gym, in the changing rooms and showers. Or never go to the gym.
Check for cameras in the shower in a rented apartment or hotel room.
Be alert for UAVs with webcams. Or never sunbathe topless in their own fenced garden/roof.
Be aware of how much light is falling on them at all times, to guard against those cameras with the IR function that "sees through clothes". Or only ever wear thick woolen sweaters and other clothes of that nature.
Never use an escalator, because of "upskirt" photographers. Or never wear a skirt.
Ensure that there are no sightlines from her house to any public land up to 1000m away (or whatever the practical limit of telephoto lenses is).
Keep the curtains closed at all times, and never stand between the light source and the curtains.
Ensure that any sexual partners do not have a cameraphone, before any activity commences.
Ensure that any cameraphones that exist, are secured away and are unreachable, before any activity with a sexual partner commences.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no opportunity to get up during the night and obtain a cameraphone.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no webcams in their residence or other place where activity may occur.
Or only conduct sexual activity in a secured location that is known to have been swept clear of surveillance devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details and possible settings of all cameraphones and other camera devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details of Google Glass and other future smart eye-wear.
Never use a hotmail, gmail, apple, or other account that is a frequent target of hacking.
Never take a picture of oneself, with an electronic camera, for any reason. Taking pictures for discussing things with a doctor can be accomplished with a Polaroid instamatic, so the physical picture can remain in the custody of the owner, and not enter an unsecured environment.
Never take physical pictures of oneself, to give to a romantic partner who is away on military service. All physical pictures must remain in the custody of the owner.
And guess what, if you do any of those, you get called a paranoid joyless bitch who doesn't have any fun in her life.
-
The woman that gets her nude pics stolen has no blame or responsibility for having been hacked. Except she put her pics at high risk on a place it was expected something like that to happen.
The woman that gets raped has no blame or responsibility for having been raped. Except she choose to wear a short skirt and expose herself to sexual temptation, increasing the odds to attract someone with sexual issues.
I don't see the difference, except on a matter of degree of violence. Care to explain again ?
I'll try.
The violation here, the one everybody's so "oh those poor girls" about, is that unintended people are seeing their nudity. "Every time you look at these pictures, you're literally raping these women" etc.
Whoa, nobody said here that people are literally raping these women by looking at their pics...
The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. She is not to blame in any way.
These celebs put their nudity on the internet by uploading their nudity to the internet.
There is a fallacy in that analogy I think.
The more correct way to tell it would be
- The rape victim did not put the penis inside of herself. The rape victim put up a skirt that attracted the rapist.
- The celebs did not published the pics on the internet. The celebs used the internet to privately share / stock their pics, which attracted the hacker.
(http://themissouritorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tumblr_mqm0qbH01O1r3vs52o1_500_zps75ee3d85.gif)
Well, sorry, I just don't understand, don't comprehend your logic and the point you are trying to make... :s
-
A young woman in the internet age must:
Check for webcams in changing rooms of clothes shops. Or only ever buy clothes online.
Check for webcams/two-way mirrors in toilets of nightclubs. Or never go to nightclubs.
Check for webcams at the gym, in the changing rooms and showers. Or never go to the gym.
Check for cameras in the shower in a rented apartment or hotel room.
Be alert for UAVs with webcams. Or never sunbathe topless in their own fenced garden/roof.
Be aware of how much light is falling on them at all times, to guard against those cameras with the IR function that "sees through clothes". Or only ever wear thick woolen sweaters and other clothes of that nature.
Never use an escalator, because of "upskirt" photographers. Or never wear a skirt.
Ensure that there are no sightlines from her house to any public land up to 1000m away (or whatever the practical limit of telephoto lenses is).
Keep the curtains closed at all times, and never stand between the light source and the curtains.
Ensure that any sexual partners do not have a cameraphone, before any activity commences.
Ensure that any cameraphones that exist, are secured away and are unreachable, before any activity with a sexual partner commences.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no opportunity to get up during the night and obtain a cameraphone.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no webcams in their residence or other place where activity may occur.
Or only conduct sexual activity in a secured location that is known to have been swept clear of surveillance devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details and possible settings of all cameraphones and other camera devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details of Google Glass and other future smart eye-wear.
Never use a hotmail, gmail, apple, or other account that is a frequent target of hacking.
Never take a picture of oneself, with an electronic camera, for any reason. Taking pictures for discussing things with a doctor can be accomplished with a Polaroid instamatic, so the physical picture can remain in the custody of the owner, and not enter an unsecured environment.
Never take physical pictures of oneself, to give to a romantic partner who is away on military service. All physical pictures must remain in the custody of the owner.
And guess what, if you do any of those, you get called a paranoid joyless bitch who doesn't have any fun in her life.
I take it you are trying to be sarcastic?
Or do you mean this literally?
-
[spoiler]A young woman in the internet age must:
Check for webcams in changing rooms of clothes shops. Or only ever buy clothes online.
Check for webcams/two-way mirrors in toilets of nightclubs. Or never go to nightclubs.
Check for webcams at the gym, in the changing rooms and showers. Or never go to the gym.
Check for cameras in the shower in a rented apartment or hotel room.
Be alert for UAVs with webcams. Or never sunbathe topless in their own fenced garden/roof.
Be aware of how much light is falling on them at all times, to guard against those cameras with the IR function that "sees through clothes". Or only ever wear thick woolen sweaters and other clothes of that nature.
Never use an escalator, because of "upskirt" photographers. Or never wear a skirt.
Ensure that there are no sightlines from her house to any public land up to 1000m away (or whatever the practical limit of telephoto lenses is).
Keep the curtains closed at all times, and never stand between the light source and the curtains.
Ensure that any sexual partners do not have a cameraphone, before any activity commences.
Ensure that any cameraphones that exist, are secured away and are unreachable, before any activity with a sexual partner commences.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no opportunity to get up during the night and obtain a cameraphone.
Ensure that any sexual partner has no webcams in their residence or other place where activity may occur.
Or only conduct sexual activity in a secured location that is known to have been swept clear of surveillance devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details and possible settings of all cameraphones and other camera devices.
Be fully aware of all technical details of Google Glass and other future smart eye-wear.
Never use a hotmail, gmail, apple, or other account that is a frequent target of hacking.
Never take a picture of oneself, with an electronic camera, for any reason. Taking pictures for discussing things with a doctor can be accomplished with a Polaroid instamatic, so the physical picture can remain in the custody of the owner, and not enter an unsecured environment.
Never take physical pictures of oneself, to give to a romantic partner who is away on military service. All physical pictures must remain in the custody of the owner.
And guess what, if you do any of those, you get called a paranoid joyless bitch who doesn't have any fun in her life.
[/spoiler]
I take it you are trying to be sarcastic?
Or do you mean this literally?
No sarcasm.
That's what the internet is teaching young women. To be afraid of miniature electronics, and suspicious of people who use miniature electronics.
-
Women, men, transanything, children, the elderly, whoever the hell you are. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to have the most basic of rudimentary knowledge of safeguarding your privacy. Step one, don't upload your nekkid pictures.
-
Women, men, transanything, children, the elderly, whoever the hell you are. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to have the most basic of rudimentary knowledge of safeguarding your privacy. Step one, don't upload your nekkid pictures.
And liek I said, you'll get called frigid, joyless, fun-hating, anti-social, a party-pooper, a bitch, and much more.
Because, you know, like, you're dumped for not being fun, gonna go out with Becky instead. Sux 2 B U, lol.
-
You people have the weirdest fucking social circles.
-
You people have the weirdest fucking social circles.
well, maybe it's different in Norway.
But in Scotland, and the UK, and other parts of the world, what I wrote happens. It's part of a wider culture.
Like all the stuff when you're a teenager in school, when there's a lot of gossip and such, and things occurring on dates, at parties, and so on and so forth. Exaggerations and tall tales abound.
Anyway, when you're 13-14 or so, and interested in dating, but not really feeling interested in sex, you might get called "frigid" if you say you're not wanting to have sex.
If you go on a lot of dates, but don't sleep with anyone, you might get called a "cocktease".
If you're the last virgin in your year, then you might get called various names.
If, when you do decide you'd like to have sex, and you're not aroused by your partners clumsy fumblings, then again, you might get called "frigid".
If you actually say "i'm not enjoying this, would you mind stopping?" then again, there's names that you might get called.
In all of these things, the impression is created that it is your fault. It is Your Fault that you don't want to have sex, aren't turned on by clumsy ineptness, and your fault for not enjoying things.
And the idea that things are Your Fault is reinforced by events that may occur later in life.
Not wanting sex? then why are you wearing that? why are you dancing ? why are you wearing perfume ? It's Your Fault.
Not enjoying things? it's your fault again. Don't even think about saying "would you mind stopping?". That's your fault. You're supposed to enjoy it, or at least, say "could we try a different position?".
that whole culture is what'll make not taking nudie pics of yourself difficult.
If you don't, you'll get called names, and it's Your Fault for not being "Normal".
-
*EDIT*
Mizhara perhaps it would be helpful for you to talk to more women about some of these issues and ask their opinions; it might change your assumptions on a few things, especially with regards to sexuality, harassment, and perceptions of conduct.
-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-over-two-way-mirrors-looking-1908048
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pub-quiz-hosts-sacked-over-2111468
"Acceptable" culture in supposedly one of Scotland's friendliest cities.
now, those people were punished for doing that. But, the fact that they did it in the first place, and didn't see anything wrong with it, and were only punished because by and large, they made a big song and dance about it all, self promotion and all that, doesn't that tell you something ?
Anyway, I'm not saying that the skies are full of people's RC planes with webcams in them, but when actual printed magazines mention such planes with webcams, and how you could use them to "spy on sunbathing honeys", then, you have to be aware that RC planes with webcams are at least a possibility.
Perception of things. Like terrorism. Doesn't happen often, but there's a lot of news stories about it when it does. Same thing. Only takes one story about someone using a miniature camera to make people aware that people use miniature cameras to do that sort of thing.
And the big victim blaming culture makes everything worse.
-
Women, men, transanything, children, the elderly, whoever the hell you are. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to have the most basic of rudimentary knowledge of safeguarding your privacy. Step one, don't upload your nekkid pictures.
And liek I said, you'll get called frigid, joyless, fun-hating, anti-social, a party-pooper, a bitch, and much more.
Because, you know, like, you're dumped for not being fun, gonna go out with Becky instead. Sux 2 B U, lol.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this seems to possess a bit of an entitled attitude. You should be free from coercion and free to make whatever choices you desire, so long as they don't coerce someone else, but I don't think anyone has the right to demand that others like them. Or, for that matter, demand that someone have sex with them, or be their friend, or be around them.
I mean, I've been dumped. It sucks. Might have had something to do with being an overweight nerd at the time. Maybe I wasn't fun enough. If I were the type to say that she should have looked past that to my shining inner qualities (presuming I have any), I would be lining myself up nicely for the firing squad of women's advocates who instantly leap on any "nice guy" who "feels entitled to friendship or sex". Fortunately, I don't think that I'm entitled to the company of others.
I've been called plenty of names, too, many of which would earn my post a trip to the catacombs. Doesn't mean I'm entitled to others liking me or saying nice things about me. I've lost friends because I didn't want to do the dangerous and stupid shit they were doing. Doesn't mean I deserve friends.
Everything's a trade-off, and I don't get to demand that my wants and likes get to dictate what other's wants and likes should be. If someone gets mad because I don't want to be in their car as they drive 35 miles over the speed limit on a wet road (actual example), well, they're mad, and they may call me a sissy, but I can't tell them to like me anyway. If this ends up with me having no friends, well, I can seek out more common-sense companions, or I can learn to live alone.
-
I dunno about you folks, but I'm just going to stay out of actual human interactions and keep looking at furry pregnant macro jumbo-jet porn.
-
I dunno about you folks, but I'm just going to stay out of actual human interactions and keep looking at furry pregnant macro jumbo-jet porn.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130616232527-nasa-super-guppy-story-top.jpg)
To each his own I suppose. I prefer skinny, furless jet-fighter porn.
(http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Orange-f-16.jpg)
-
I dunno about you folks, but I'm just going to stay out of actual human interactions and keep looking at furry pregnant macro jumbo-jet porn.
:eek:
-
@Lou
I've now got 30+ pictures of my girlfriend/fiancee on my phone in varying states of undress. She'd refused for over 6 months - I didn't tell her I was going to leave her or whatever. And my phone is set to NOT automatically backup my photos to google cloud OR dropbox (both of which are on my android phone). So the pictures are safe, now that they exist, for the viewing pleasure of myself alone. And she was at no risk or pressure of "I'll go somewhere else lol" when she was not comfortable with posing for them.
Any girl who's pressured that way by a guy needs to not be dealing with that shithead to begin with, so... Good?
-
I dunno about you folks, but I'm just going to stay out of actual human interactions and keep looking at furry pregnant macro jumbo-jet porn.
http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/04//gala7.jpg (http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/04//gala7.jpg)
*Nature Documentary Narration*
And here... We see the birth... Of a ground support... combat aircraft. A beautiful sight. And one day... When it has fought its way to adolescence... it will enter a scrap heap chrysalis... and emerge as a part of the adult of the species.
-
Women, men, transanything, children, the elderly, whoever the hell you are. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to have the most basic of rudimentary knowledge of safeguarding your privacy. Step one, don't upload your nekkid pictures.
And liek I said, you'll get called frigid, joyless, fun-hating, anti-social, a party-pooper, a bitch, and much more.
Because, you know, like, you're dumped for not being fun, gonna go out with Becky instead. Sux 2 B U, lol.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this seems to possess a bit of an entitled attitude. You should be free from coercion and free to make whatever choices you desire, so long as they don't coerce someone else, but I don't think anyone has the right to demand that others like them. Or, for that matter, demand that someone have sex with them, or be their friend, or be around them.
I mean, I've been dumped. It sucks. Might have had something to do with being an overweight nerd at the time. Maybe I wasn't fun enough. If I were the type to say that she should have looked past that to my shining inner qualities (presuming I have any), I would be lining myself up nicely for the firing squad of women's advocates who instantly leap on any "nice guy" who "feels entitled to friendship or sex". Fortunately, I don't think that I'm entitled to the company of others.
I've been called plenty of names, too, many of which would earn my post a trip to the catacombs. Doesn't mean I'm entitled to others liking me or saying nice things about me. I've lost friends because I didn't want to do the dangerous and stupid shit they were doing. Doesn't mean I deserve friends.
Everything's a trade-off, and I don't get to demand that my wants and likes get to dictate what other's wants and likes should be. If someone gets mad because I don't want to be in their car as they drive 35 miles over the speed limit on a wet road (actual example), well, they're mad, and they may call me a sissy, but I can't tell them to like me anyway. If this ends up with me having no friends, well, I can seek out more common-sense companions, or I can learn to live alone.
I am not sure the problem is forcing people to like you but just reacting to the general behavior generated by the weight of traditions, culture and ignorance. Which is, eventually, more about respect and decency.
Values that are almost like dirty words those days.