I work IT at a small business and I got to discussing this. It turns out that roughly the same number of both men and women where I work downloaded them. This should come as no surprise if you've ever seen gossip mags of course.omega 616 said:
Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place? Y/N?
- Thread starter otakon17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
From what i read picture from iphones are automatically saved on the iCloud. So if the phone didnt have that stupid feature then her photos would be safe on her phone. They also said that the iCloud had crappy security protection also. They need a law that any company that is storing personal details of customers needs to have a minimum protection level on it. I dont want this next bit to sound like victim blaming, because its not meant to be, but being that she is famous i think under those situations she should maybe be careful what she saves. Its not her fault, but being famous makes her a larger target than a normal girl working in a supermarket.
my feelings on the whole thing are a little muddled. What these women do with their own bodies is their own business suggesting we have any right to judge what another human being does with their own body is idiotic it's the same as telling a Ferrari collector what he should be doing with his cars. dude, they belong to another person you can't tell him what to do with them.
On the other hand. Hollywood has made itself a nice cottage industry of selling us sex without the sex. Kate upton is a swimsuit model she takes topless photos all the time but with sand or her hands or something covering the nipples, how many photographers and their production crews have seen the chick naked? enough that I could give two shits about her naked body appearing online. and honestly what exactly is the difference between a hacker digging through your icloud drive or a TMZ photographer sneaking through the bushes? one seems to be illegal while the other makes a very comfortable living. the people decrying this as an invasion of privacy are the same people who go buy people magazine and watch entertainment tonight. we have a cult of the celebrity in this country. I went to the grocery store today and the magazine rack just full of "who's she sleeping with now?" "you'll never believe who we caught having a quiet getaway in a 'love motel'!!!!" by my way of thinking there is more honesty in just blasting nudes across the internet haphazardly than stalking these people for a "legitimate" publication and monetizing someone else's personal life. not that I think hackers are particularly good but I just see the two as kind of equally disgusting.
and I mean aside from probably Jennifer Lawrence almost all these women will see an uptick in their career as a result of these. doesn't make it right but I didn't know who half of them were myself. so I dunno tend to kinda think "meh who gives a crap I can understand being bothered when your friends and family see it but some random internet jackholes i don't see how it really truly affects your life that much.
On the other hand. Hollywood has made itself a nice cottage industry of selling us sex without the sex. Kate upton is a swimsuit model she takes topless photos all the time but with sand or her hands or something covering the nipples, how many photographers and their production crews have seen the chick naked? enough that I could give two shits about her naked body appearing online. and honestly what exactly is the difference between a hacker digging through your icloud drive or a TMZ photographer sneaking through the bushes? one seems to be illegal while the other makes a very comfortable living. the people decrying this as an invasion of privacy are the same people who go buy people magazine and watch entertainment tonight. we have a cult of the celebrity in this country. I went to the grocery store today and the magazine rack just full of "who's she sleeping with now?" "you'll never believe who we caught having a quiet getaway in a 'love motel'!!!!" by my way of thinking there is more honesty in just blasting nudes across the internet haphazardly than stalking these people for a "legitimate" publication and monetizing someone else's personal life. not that I think hackers are particularly good but I just see the two as kind of equally disgusting.
and I mean aside from probably Jennifer Lawrence almost all these women will see an uptick in their career as a result of these. doesn't make it right but I didn't know who half of them were myself. so I dunno tend to kinda think "meh who gives a crap I can understand being bothered when your friends and family see it but some random internet jackholes i don't see how it really truly affects your life that much.
Well, why don't you tell me what you *really* think while you're at it?Spot1990 said:
In an ideal world the positive effects of this would have been explained to the women beforehand and their consent gained. But these women are indebted to the very forces that are hurt by this, and they most likely would have not been willing to bite the hands that feed them, as their reaction to the released photos indicates.
It's a lot like the Edward Snowden leaks. In an ideal world Snowden could have just asked the American government for permission to release the information, but as we all know the American government would have concluded by that request that this must be the most naive fool in the history of humanity and either fired him or locked him up. So Snowden did what was best for THE PEOPLE although it opposed powerful forces in the world.
These released photos have no negative impact on the personal lives of these women. I respect these women more NOW due to the positive effects that the photos have on the fans of these women, although of course the releaser of the photos gets most of the credit. If your argument is that "well now these women will fear taking naked photos of themselves" why fear it? It's already helped people and more of them would just help people more. If these women actually care about the well being of people dominated by the glamour industry then they can take part in destroying that industry by releasing non-glamoured images of themselves.
The "negative" effect on the women is their loss of value to the glamour industry. Sports Illustrated, Hollywood, Maxim are all hurt by these images so these women will suffer a lessening of their value to these forces as a result. Noone in their right mind should mind that at all.
I can't help you if you simply view the situation in a very different way from how I do. I've explained my position.
What I really like is for our two views on this matter to be put to the test. So IF, let's say, what I want happens and more images of this type are released, then a couple years later we can more clearly experience what the effects of the releases were. And if it's true that, let's say, Sports Illustrated, Hollywood, and Maxim are making more profit than ever while everyone is running around sexually assaulting female celebrities then I'll stand corrected.
But that's not what's going to happen. These images will result in an increase of respect for the women involved and a decrease of interest (and therefore profitability) in agents of the glamour industry.
These releases, just like the Snowden releases, have benefited *the people*, despite your current inability to see that.
Of course not. In this day and age, it's imprudent for ANYONE to take nudes, for a celebrity to take them is foolish at the least.
Their nude pictures are not yours. The personal info Apple keeps for you is yours. It is Apples responsibility to keep our info secret, and we have a right to be angry when our info is taken from them. None of these women signed up for this, Apple knows full well what they are signing up for when they take peoples info. If someone came into your house and stole your tv then would it be your fault for having a tv?Pyrian said:
Your question does not have any sense. If she wanted to take nude pictures of herself, it is her choice, and that is it. "Prudent" does not apply here. To be quite honest, I think people is giving this "scandal" more credit that it deserves. Whatever someone does in his private life it is his or her choice, many people act as if they have never seen even themselves naked.
Yup you're right my analogy was actually pretty poor. I guess what I meant to say was that folk keep saying it was locked up safe and secure which is an utter fallacy, nothing stored online or in the cloud is truly safe that is why your analogy is also very wrong as well. Safety deposit boxes for the most part are incredibly safe given they are usually stored within the vaults of a bank and the logistics of some one person actually breaking in to one is beyond even the most brazen or stupid of criminals.
Like I said it's not her fault for taking the pictures in the first place but it is her fault believing that they would be in anyway secure the second they had ANY contact with the internet but beyond that it isn't her fault that someone did hack in too whatever service was storing them. The thing here is though that when it comes to blame no matter hoow lax the security systems in place are or were no one will blame the provider and will always blame the person that broke in in the first place. The truly ironic thing is that they probably would have been far far safer if they had just remained on her phone or as a hard copy (e.g a polaroid) stored somewhere in her house or for that matter stored in a safety deposit box.
No it was not. And not just because she's a celebrity, but because I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to be putting nudes of themselves onto devices that can connect and upload to the internet. If you REALLY want to take nudes of yourself, do it the old fashioned way, with a camera that that can't directly upload them to the internet. If I did this, my career would be ruined. She should just be happy that seeing actors/actresses is not that uncommon and that this won't hurt her career.
Oh don't worry, I'll save you the trouble.giles said:
Let's say that I have a gold coin. I take the gold coin to a bank, and rent a safe deposit box in their vault. I then place the gold coin in the safe deposit box, and then leave the coin in the trust of the bank. Now we all know that banks hold valuable things such as my gold coin, and that makes them a target for thieves. We also know that banks occasionally are broken into, and those valuable things are stolen. Despite this knowledge, I choose to keep my gold coin in the bank because I trust that the bank has appropriate measures to stop thieves.
I have taken a risk assessment, and decided that I will leave my gold coin in an institution that is already a target because that institution has promised me a reasonable amount of security for my gold coin. In the same way, these women stored their photos and data on the cloud because Apple offered a reasonable amount security. It's easy to look in hindsight and say that they made the wrong choice. But leaks this massive are rare, and with the information that was previously available, it was reasonable for the layman to assume that the cloud had acceptable measures of security.
Risk assessment isn't something that people should have to do when storing photographs. This isn't war, we aren't talking about top secret maps or documents. We aren't analyzing the movements of troops, trying to learn from commander's mistakes. We're looking at people stored photographs on a server they were promised was secure, then fell victim to a creep. Risk or not, this is in no way their fault, just as it isn't the fault of anyone who stores anything in a bank that's robbed.
There. Was that grown-up enough for you?
...You're honestly comparing plastering nude photos of a woman all over the internet to a man revealing that the United States government is spying on its citizens?briankoontz said:
Not everyone is tech savy enough to know that nothing you involve with the internet is private. I know better than to do something like that unless I would one day be ok with it getting leaked. Jennifer Lawrence probably had no clue this could ever happen. Frankly I don't think its a big deal and I think pretty much everyone that this has happened to has gone about it the wrong way. These pictures will exist eternally now. They will never go away. Best to either embrace it and act like you don't care or just ignore it. Crusading against it or trying to prevent it will just spread it more.
The other option, having the gold coin somewhere other than a bank, leaves the coin in a place where it is not actually protected by anything other than the fact that you normally wouldn't store it there. Bad analogy either way, because a gold coin has more than fleeting personal value and there is no option to "not having the gold coin".alandavidson said:
Having a nude photo of yourself only holds so much "value". You're basically only doing it on a whim. If you are a celebrity you have to weigh that whim against potentially damaging your career.
Like I said I agree this isn't her fault. However, I completely disagree with your first point: Risk assessment is something you should be doing when storing photographs if they are potentially damaging to your career.
A celebrity simply shouldn't rely on the safety of public IT services (especially not fucking Apple). IT security is basically a question of reward vs effort. No system is perfectly safe, the only point is if it's worth the cost of breaching it. This is obvious, really: it's why big celebs live in huge mansions with security and fences, because living in a normal house with an unlocked wooden door really isn't a good idea if you're a lucrative target for robbery or kidnapping.
I think this victim blaming stuff is good, anyone trying to say a woman dressed to ask for it when they are raped is an awful person for example, but I think it gets in the way of solid advice when taken too far. I'm hoping people learn from this and delete any nude selfies they have and stop creating them. Snapchat is not safe, your hard drive is not safe, your phones storage is not safe pointing this out is not victim blaming it's trying to help people. It's so dangerous to have them and once they are on the internet there's no getting rid of them.
Is it victim blaming to tell children not to get in cars with strangers? Is it victim blaming to say women shouldn't take drinks from out of the hands of strangers at the bar? I had a guy try to mug my friend and I on New Years day(he was unarmed and tiny lol lol) would it be victim blaming to say maybe being in that bad area of town at four in the morning after the nearby pubs shut for the night wasn't a good idea?
When does victim blaming get in the way of good preventative measures?
Is it victim blaming to tell children not to get in cars with strangers? Is it victim blaming to say women shouldn't take drinks from out of the hands of strangers at the bar? I had a guy try to mug my friend and I on New Years day(he was unarmed and tiny lol lol) would it be victim blaming to say maybe being in that bad area of town at four in the morning after the nearby pubs shut for the night wasn't a good idea?
When does victim blaming get in the way of good preventative measures?
IMHO this word is a pretty shitty choice for the whole debacle and generally shit like this. Sorry dude i quoted, this isnt aimed at you.Ruisu said:
Leak implies someone fucked up and left a memory stick in a cafe, or the imformation just fell out of its container and someone found it.
When someone breaks the container to take something that isnt a leak in the container, someone smashed it. It feels more prudent to call them thefts.
"Damn my money leaked from my house" is the same damn thing and its really weird. It implies no one intentionally forced their way in to take it with a purpose, it makes it sound almost accidental. It wasnt. Some guy wanted to wank over some pictures of someone he saw on TV and employed hacking skills so that he and others could wank collectively over the same image of someone who didnt wish to be wanked over.
Sounds a bit more unpleasant when written like that.
In general, if you take private but exposed footage of yourself that you don't wish others to see, you're quite foolish.
Saying that no ones privacy deserves to be invaded like what has been done.
Saying that no ones privacy deserves to be invaded like what has been done.
Yeah no. She is absolutely within her rights to have taken naked pictures and she should absolutely have the right to expect that any cloud services used are secure.
Houses get broken into all the time. Windows are a known vulnerability. Windows are a convenience, not a necessity in the days of artificial lighting/climate control. Or everyone can have bars over their windows for extra security. Most people don't, and most people wouldn't make the argument that they should have done if their house was burgled.
Or to put it another way, I, and millions others, use online banking and buy things online using credit and debit cards. I know that this involves risks. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to do it or that I'm wrong to expect that my information is safe.
There is a clear hierarchy of responsibility here. At the top is the hacker, who did something highly illegal and immoral. Some way below that is cloud service for not being more secure. JL or any of the other celebrities don't feature in the hierarchy at all, assuming their passwords weren't 123456 or the name of their cat (and even then they're way below the hacker).
Houses get broken into all the time. Windows are a known vulnerability. Windows are a convenience, not a necessity in the days of artificial lighting/climate control. Or everyone can have bars over their windows for extra security. Most people don't, and most people wouldn't make the argument that they should have done if their house was burgled.
Or to put it another way, I, and millions others, use online banking and buy things online using credit and debit cards. I know that this involves risks. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to do it or that I'm wrong to expect that my information is safe.
There is a clear hierarchy of responsibility here. At the top is the hacker, who did something highly illegal and immoral. Some way below that is cloud service for not being more secure. JL or any of the other celebrities don't feature in the hierarchy at all, assuming their passwords weren't 123456 or the name of their cat (and even then they're way below the hacker).