Why espousing proper, basic internet security is not the same as "blaming the victim"

Recommended Videos

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
In regards to "the fappening" (and other similar scenarios), many long-time netizens have said "well... don't post compromising photos of yourself online." Quite often, these people immediately get swarmed by SJWs insisting that they're heathens incapable of even basic empathy and what they're doing accounts to nothing more than blaming the victim. Personally, I hate to see this happen, as I think the argument has merit; discounting it out of hand without even a moment's consideration is ridiculous.

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

A more apt comparison to the spread of nude photos, however, is drunk driving and crashing... or an unexpected pregnancy. These are events you had control leading up to, and still chose to partake in. Society, to varying degrees, has sympathy for the driver or hapless parents, but ultimately holds them accountable for their own poor decisions. A drunk driver hitting someone is still going to pay for it. Perhaps the claim could be made that peer pressure led to some number of nude selfies, but ultimately the responsibility for those photos lies with the person who took them.

Secondly, we are taught from a very young age to examine and weigh the consequences of our actions before we take them. Probably the largest difference between children and adults is the abstract thinking required to weigh the pros and cons of potential outcomes of a given scenario. Part of it is brain development, part of it is simply life experience. Regardless, young people often struggle to realize the full implications of what nude photos could do to their careers and/or lives... and, additionally, how difficult it is to "remove photos from the internet" (ask Beyonce's publicist!). I would argue that education about these dangers is the proper solution, rather than a half-hearted attempt at censorship and a hilarious attempt by the media to guilt trip people for invading the privacy of celebrities (despite doing it on a daily basis, and often making their livelihoods on the deed). Education - properly teaching people just how damaging explicit photos can be, allowing them to better grasp the potential risks associated with them.

Any children raised in the 80s or 90s with any connection to technology can tell you - privacy was important, both for your immediate personal safety and for your future well-being. "Don't tell anyone your name, age, or location. Don't agree to meet anyone you've only talked to online." These were *basic* tenants of the internet age - because we (and our parents, who guided us) realized, even in the internet's infancy, that the world is full of creepy motherfuckers, and avoiding falling into their path is entirely doable with a little bit of personal security. "Don't take nude pictures of yourself and post them online" falls in the same category of basic internet security, and anyone seriously concerned about the potential outcome of that action will stay way the hell away from it. If someone is truly ignorant of basic internet security, they can be taught; "don't reveal who you are to people you don't know, don't post nude pictures of yourself. The internet is full of weirdos, always has been, and likely always will be. Protect yourself and practice truly basic internet security." It's not unreasonable to expect this of any rational adult, and is just generally good common sense.

In conclusion, when someone says "just don't do it, then" the implications aren't that a nude selfie poster is a dirty whore for being comfortable enough to send nude photos... rather, the implication is that this particular problem is completely within their power to avoid, and if they're at all uncomfortable with the possibility of those pictures going viral, they should refrain.

Naked pictures can be a fun way to spice things up, but (personally) I never reciprocate because I'm not okay with the risks involved. Much in the same way I avoid sex without condoms or drinking then driving, I don't send nude pictures of myself, even to someone I trust, because even the chances of something happening to those photos is too great. Again, I'm in no way supporting those who upload these pictures (for fake internet points or real life money), as they're scumbags on par with the invasive celeb-obsessed media, but I am saying there's a nearly 100% guaranteed way to never allow that to happen. And that guarantee can't be said about rape, robbery or sexual harassment... because those are never in your control. Don't you have enough shit to worry about in your life without stressing out about nude pictures you yourself made and spread around? Don't do it to yourself.

TL:DR: if you don't want your nudes to go viral, the "basic" solution is not to take them. If you still take them, do so with the understanding of the risks... and know once they hit the net, there's not a goddamn thing you can do to stop them. A hypocritical media guilt-trip isn't going to stop shit.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully some of you will be a little less quick to say "omg don't blame the victim!!!!11!!111" next time. We're empathetic, but we're also security-minded. We expect other adults to be able to make decisions like adults. It's sad that dozens of celebs had their photos leaked; intense embarrassment, fear, anger and other feelings must have run rampant in the days/weeks following the leaks, and those feelings aren't fun. We understand that... and we also understand it could have been completely avoided. To aid in the prevention of future similar SNAFUs, spread the word; educate those who are ignorant of basic internet security, and make it plainly obvious their lives or careers can be massively impacted by those pictures going viral.

If they still do it? Well... they're fucking adults. They chose that path. Just like a drunk driver or a horny guy who forgot his condom. Now they have to live with the consequences.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
AuronFtw said:
The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.
As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.
 

kyp275

New member
Mar 27, 2012
190
0
0
Not The Bees said:
I understand what you're trying to say,t here are inherent risks to all behaviour. Taking photos of yourself nude is one of them However, and this is the biggest however, it's still a huge invasion of privacy and the feelings it invokes is not one of "oh that was stupid, I should have worn a condom when I had sex." To use your analogy. It is more akin to, "I wanted to share something personal with someone I loved deeply, and someone took that from me."
Agreed, but I feel there's an important detail (at least to me) that was not mentioned. To me, it's not so much that nude photos should or shouldn't be taken, that's a personal choice and not anyone else's business. However, what CAN be objectively criticized in many cases, is the method of storage.

For example, let's say someone has a life-long passion of collecting... valuable stamps and coins. Now, there are a myriad of methods for that person to securely store his collections - a secured deposit box in a bank vault somewhere, perhaps a secured/hidden safe built into his house, or a regular safe you can buy at Walmart on sale for $50, or maybe just a binder on the kitchen table.

Now the issue is that some people have the perception that the "safe" their using (cloud storage, phone, what have you) is the vault in Fort Knox, when in reality it's at best a Walmart special out on their front lawn, freely open to anyone to take a crack at it.

Basically, take all the pictures you want, share them with whomever you want, but at the same time if the security/confidentiality of those pictures(or for that matter anything of value to you) is important to you, then you should take appropriate steps in ensuring the security of those items.


So instead of only thinking of "basic internet security," try to think of it more along the lines of just an empathetic response to someone who feels something that we would probably all feel if we were in their shoes. Whether they did something silly because they're young doesn't matter, we can still pat them on the back and say we're sorry and that it was wrong that someone leaked those photos. It's just a basic human response.
I don't think that was what he was trying to say. It's not that you shouldn't empathize and console those who were wronged, but rather that it shouldn't be the ONLY thing allowed, where all you can do is console them and not tell them that leaving their valuables on the kitchen table wasn't the greatest idea.


thaluikhain said:
As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.
You too missed his point. Rape/violent crimes etc. visited upon you isn't something you can reasonably prevent. Someone leaking your nude pictures however, CAN be easily prevented, and the methods to accomplish that are sound advices that should be given.

If I stored a $4000 tractor mower out in my backyard and it gets stolen, that's not my fault - I was simply storing my own property on what I thought was a secured enough location. Someone telling me "Heya, you know an open backyard really isn't the best place to store valuable equipment. You may want to put it in a locked shed or something " would not be "victim blaming".
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
If it can happen to major financial institutions I don't see how anyone else's information is supposed to be safe. There simply isn't a real solution to the internet storage issue that is unhackable yet.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10...-in-major-assault/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
kyp275 said:
If I stored a $4000 tractor mower out in my backyard and it gets stolen, that's not my fault - I was simply storing my own property on what I thought was a secured enough location. Someone telling me "Heya, you know an open backyard really isn't the best place to store valuable equipment. You may want to put it in a locked shed or something " would not be "victim blaming".
But what if you did put your tractor in a locked shed and someone broke the lock off before stealing it? Would it be appropriate for someone to give "advice" then? You do know that these pictures were hacked right? Someone didn't just right click and then copied the images. They by passed the security of the site the pictures were on to get to them.
 

kyp275

New member
Mar 27, 2012
190
0
0
mecegirl said:
It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.
I disagree, primarily because I have little confidence for so-called internet security already. Case in point, a typical point-and-shoot camera would've provided all the security you'd need against hackers - and you'd take much higher quality pictures as a bonus!

Not The Bees said:
That's not the point I'm trying to make at all. I never said anything like people shouldn't take nude pictures - in fact I said that they should take all the pictures they want.

Neither was I saying that it's possible to guarantee 100% security on anything, that would be impossible.

What I WAS saying, is that people should take informed and practical steps to secure things they consider to be valuable, and pointing out what those steps may be is NOT victim blaming.
 

kyp275

New member
Mar 27, 2012
190
0
0
mecegirl said:
But what if you did put your tractor in a locked shed and someone broke the lock off before stealing it? Would it be appropriate for someone to give "advice" then? You do know that these pictures were hacked right? Someone didn't just right click and then copied the images. They by passed the security of the site the pictures were on to get to them.
Absolutely. Perhaps I should consider using a bolt cutter resistant lock, or maybe a light/alarm system is in order. It all depends on the context and totality of the circumstances.

As to the other part of your post, I believe I addressed those points in my response to your other post.

Not The Bees said:
But that's never how it comes across though, is it? It comes down to:
"She should have known better!" "It's her own fault because I never would have used that company." "If these people weren't so stupid, this never would happen!"
And that is unfortunate, but I think both mine and the OP's point is that there CAN be useful suggestions made, and that often times gets lumped in with the actual victim blaming.

And the suggestion that they shouldn't have left them on the kitchen counter was a bit of an odd metaphor, if you don't mind me saying.
That was just what came to my mind at the time, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mountain of random stuff I've currently left on my kitchen table! :p

Pluvia said:
So tl;dr is it's your fault for taking photos of yourself and storing them privately because if someone else steals them it's your fault you never stored them better.

Somehow not victim blaming..
Well Bees, there you go, took all of zero post after yours before I get accused of victim blaming ;)

Pluvia, please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
kyp275 said:
mecegirl said:
It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.
I disagree, primarily because I have little confidence for so-called internet security already. Case in point, a typical point-and-shoot camera would've provided all the security you'd need against hackers - and you'd take much higher quality pictures as a bonus!
What does your confidence have to do with anything? The title the thread is "Why espousing proper, basic internet security is not the same as "blaming the victim"". Well, then tough shit. Those women did use basic internet security. So what's the problem? You can't expect them to just not use the internet. Even with your other reply to me, you do know that there are ways to cut even bolt cutter resistant locks right? Banks are getting hacked...banks. I'm pretty sure that they had tighter security than the Cloud. But no one is gonna tell the people who got their bank accounts hacked to stuff their money under their mattresses. Or tell them that they can never order things from the internet again, and one's financial information is a lot more valuable than nude pictures.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
What it comes down to is that people will see in this what they want to see.

Some say that saying that crime was preventable in several ways is victim blaming. Others will say that it's actually doing society a favor by creating a scenario where further victims can be avoided or at very least make it harder for future perp to commit crime.

To put it in example.

You own a gold necklace with big stone, family heirloom that you rarely wear. You can

1) Leave it lying on the table
2) Put it in box in the drawer
3) Put it in strongbox in back of the closet
4) Put it in bank safe with certificate of safe content

In every case it's illegal to steal that necklace but it's not really the same. It's upon the owner of valuable thing to create a scenario that that person sees as good compromise of inconvenience, expenses and security and the first step in making a informed decision is to be informed.

My best guess is that those celebrities weren't informed and never really cared to inform themselves to make informed decisions. I could speculate further about the reasons for such behavior and I do have some hypothesis but I think i dug deep enough hole for myself with this post already.

captcha: she sells
Well, i bet quite a few of them are kicking themselves that they didn't...
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
If people give their information to banks what did they expect to happen? How many times do banks have to be hacked before people learn the lesson.
 

seris

New member
Oct 14, 2013
132
0
0
thaluikhain said:
AuronFtw said:
The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.
As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.
when it all boils down to it, it is their fault for taking the nude photographs in the first place. if they had not taken them then this would not have happened. she may be a victim but she is still responsible for her own mistakes.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Netrigan said:
If people give their information to banks what did they expect to happen? How many times do banks have to be hacked before people learn the lesson.
Good point. If a bank has a history of security leaks people should stop using that bank. What's more, people should make every effort to vet the bank they are going to choose to work with instead of just assuming it is secure. It is a great parallel to storing your sensitive information - you should be choosy of how you store that information, taking a good look at pros and cons and, if it is important to you, avoid storage methods that have a higher leak risk, such as any internet storage solution.

Perfect example. I agree that people should be far more proactive in defending their sensitive information, just as people should be highly proactive in choosing what financial institutions they choose to work with.