Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offence

[aGameOfThrones]

Jennifer Lawrence has spoken for the first time about the nude celebrity photo scandal that saw dozens of her naked pictures released online, saying that having her private images hacked amounted to a “sex crime”.

The Hunger Games star accused all those who looked at the pictures, including people close to her, of committing a “sexual offence,” saying: “It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime. It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting.

“Just because I’m a public figure, just because I’m an actress, does not mean that I asked for this.

“It does not mean that it comes with the territory. It’s my body, and it should be my choice, and the fact that it is not my choice is absolutely disgusting. I can’t believe that we even live in that kind of world.

“Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offence. You should cower with shame.

“Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

In an interview for the November issue of Vanity Fair, Lawrence called for a change in the law to allow websites which published photographs without the consent of their subjects to be prosecuted.

“The law needs to be changed, and we need to change,” she said. “That’s why these websites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it. It’s so beyond me.

“I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11146476/Jennifer-Lawrence-stolen-nude-photographs-were-sex-crime.html

[dannno]

Pretty selfish attitude.

[William Tell]

Pretty selfish attitude.

Says the sex offender:p

[thoughtomator]

Maybe I'm just too conservative, but I don't see the point to taking naked pictures of oneself for something other than medical purposes.

[William Tell]

Maybe I'm just too conservative, but I don't see the point to taking naked pictures of oneself for something other than medical purposes.
Same here. I feel bad for Jeniffer though, she is pretty, people should not be mean:(

I have not seen the pictures.

[ZENemy]

lol

I especially like when the lemmings take political and social advice from these celeb...cretins.

[ZENemy]

Same here. I feel bad for Jeniffer though, she is pretty, people should not be mean:(

I have not seen the pictures.

People should not be mean because she is pretty?


I feel about as bad for her as I would for a guy with a 2 foot Mohawk at a rap concert that gets upset when people clown on him.

[William Tell]

People should not be mean because she is pretty?

Yes, people should not be mean because she is pretty.

[pcosmar]

Maybe I'm just too conservative, but I don't see the point to taking naked pictures of oneself for something other than medical purposes.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exhibitionist

ex·hi·bi·tion·ism
1. The act or practice of deliberately behaving so as to attract attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism

Exhibitionism is the act of exposing in a public or semi-public context those parts of one's body that are not normally exposed – for example, the breasts, genitals or buttocks. The practice may arise from a desire or compulsion to expose themselves in such a manner to groups of friends or acquaintances, or to strangers for their amusement or sexual satisfaction or to shock the bystander

Defined,, to help you understand.
An actor/actress is by very definition an exhibitionist, even if not overtly sexual.
They still seek attention.

[ZENemy]

Yes, people should not be mean because she is pretty.

Only ugly people should be ridiculed for making a conscious decision to upload naked pictures of themselves?

[William Tell]

Only ugly people should be ridiculed for making a conscious decision to upload naked pictures of themselves?

Taking the pictures was silly, I stated that.

[thoughtomator]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exhibitionist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism


Defined,, to help you understand.
An actor/actress is by very definition an exhibitionist, even if not overtly sexual.
They still seek attention.

Well, then - an exhibitionist can hardly complain about the exhibition without being a screaming hypocrite, can she?

[ctiger2]

I agree with her but she also needs to take responsibility as well. No nude pics, no nude pics revealed.

[pcosmar]

Well, then - an exhibitionist can hardly complain about the exhibition without being a screaming hypocrite, can she?

Nope.
and the Exhibitionist/Voyeur is a symbiotic relationship.

[69360]

Sorry but this is 2014. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything electronic anymore. None.

Don't take or send pictures of anything you wouldn't want the whole world to see.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, people should not be mean because she is pretty.

lol!

[William Tell]

I feel about as bad for her as I would for a guy with a 2 foot Mohawk at a rap concert that gets upset when people clown on him.

I would not feel to sorry for the guy with the Mohawk, he probably would not care though.

[jonhowe]

Well, then - an exhibitionist can hardly complain about the exhibition without being a screaming hypocrite, can she?

Sharing an image with 1 other person (as was the intent of these celebrities) is not exhibitionism.

I'd love to see Jennifer Lawrence naked, sure, but I'm not going to do so without her consent. These photos were, and should continue to be, private.

[cajuncocoa]

I guess it's only a sex offense to Jenny if she's not getting paid for it.

Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence: 'I am open to nude movie scenes' (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a371000/hunger-games-jennifer-lawrence-i-am-open-to-nude-movie-scenes.html#~oS1V9HlF0ITLZ6#ixzz3FU3nXSaX)


There's a word for that.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with her but she also needs to take responsibility as well. No nude pics, no nude pics revealed.

No, she will not be taking any responsibility. It's everyone who saw the pictures fault. :rolleyes:

[aGameOfThrones]

Sharing an image with 1 other person (as was the intent of these celebrities) is not exhibitionism.

I'd love to see Jennifer Lawrence naked, sure, but I'm not going to do so without her consent. These photos were, and should continue to be, private.


Google("legally") scans your emails for ilegal photos, and the government says that using third party services(iCloud) exempts them from some legal restrictions

[thoughtomator]

When she becomes a campaigner against omnipresent surveillance and other offenses to privacy, I'll revise my extremely low opinion of her.

[JK/SEA]

she's a dumbass...

[Brian4Liberty]

She was involved in posing and taking pics, so responsibility starts, and almost ends there.

But if we want to look at other players involved, perhaps the second most culpable party is Apple. It was not widely known that someone could take a picture or video with an iPhone, and then delete it, but it would still be loaded and saved on an Apple server somewhere. Not everyone knew that. Most people didn't know that. What remedies and penalties (criminal or civil) are involved in that? I have no idea.

Let's go one step further. We have hackers involved, who hacked her account and stole private property. This is a common crime. How is hacking prosecuted? What are the penalties? This is not new territory.

Her attempts at blaming websites with user content or the people who saw the pictures is ludicrous. "We must criminalize the whole world because there are naked pictures of me on the internet!" - Actress at the center of the universe, where everything revolves around her.

[Brian4Liberty]

From the full article:


The article was accompanied by a photo-shoot by the renowned fashion photographer Patrick Demarchelier, and shows her posing topless with parts of her breasts exposed.

In one, chosen as its cover picture by Vanity Fair, she is seen emerging apparently topless from a swimming pool.

[Christian Liberty]

I guess it's only a sex offense to Jenny if she's not getting paid for it.

Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence: 'I am open to nude movie scenes' (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a371000/hunger-games-jennifer-lawrence-i-am-open-to-nude-movie-scenes.html#~oS1V9HlF0ITLZ6#ixzz3FU3nXSaX)


There's a word for that.

Whore?

[cajuncocoa]

"So far, I haven't found a film I'd love to be naked in, but I certainly never look at an actress naked in a movie and judge her," she (Jennifer Lawrence) told Glamour (http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/).

"It's a human body, which is a beautiful thing, right? So stay tuned..."Hypocrite.

[jonhowe]

Whore?

Are all actresses who appear nude whores?

[Christian Liberty]

Hypocrite.



Kind of reminds me of people who don't like big government except when its banning something they don't like;)

[dannno]

Are all actresses who appear nude whores?

In a sense, yes, but a bigger question is whether we should look down on whores at all.

Some people are born very smart and cultivate their intelligence. Not everybody is intelligent and intelligence has value, so they can support themselves with their intelligence. Some people are born very strong and cultivate their athleticism and strength and not everybody is strong, strength and athleticism are in demand. They can making a living supporting themselves using their strength. Some people are born pretty and cultivate their looks and not everybody is pretty, beauty is in demand. They can make a living supporting themselves using their beauty. I don't see a problem.

[cajuncocoa]

Are all actresses who appear nude whores?
I think FF was (correctly) responding to the statement I made:

I guess it's only a sex offense to Jenny if she's not getting paid for it. .... There's a word for that.

[Christian Liberty]

I think FF was (correctly) responding to the statement I made:

I guess it's only a sex offense to Jenny if she's not getting paid for it. .... There's a word for that.

Yes, you are correct. The morality of it is a different issue entirely.

[pessimist]

Don't libertarians supposedly advocate personal privacy?

I don't see how a person (regardless of their social status- their celebrity should be irrelevant) doesn't have the right to do whatever they want to do with their own devices in the privacy of their own home? Just because she had nude photos of herself doesn't mean that she is an 'exhibitionist' or wanted them to be plastered all over the internet. How is she a 'whore' for taking private photos? This isn't Madonna or Courtney Love or Paris Hilton or some porn star here.

And no, I honestly did not look at them.

[jllundqu]

No sympathy at all. You take naked pics and put them on 'the cloud'.... sorry, but you asked for it.

I did enjoy the pics, too... Thanks reddit!

[kahless]

Sorry but this is 2014. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything electronic anymore. None.

Don't take or send pictures of anything you wouldn't want the whole world to see.

The day and age does not matter. There is an expectation of privacy in your own home however this goes beyond the home out of her own ignorance.

Some pre-internet age comparisons come to mind. If she had someone paint a nude portrait of her in her home and ships it to her boyfriend. The delivery staff at some point in the transport exposes the painting in a public square before putting it on the train.

She takes Polaroids of herself in her home, then took the pictures and put them in a draw in front of her house on the road. Some scumbag walking buy opens the draw sees the photos, makes copies and posts them in the public square. Again, not right but stupid on her part for taking that risk.

Another one, she takes Polaroids of herself to be developed at Photomat. Then some customer or store employee sees the photos in the bin, makes copies and places them in the public area for everyone to see.

Just like in the old days the fault lies with her ignorance and those that broke privacy. It is a bit of a stretch for her to blame those who looked at the photos.

[dannno]

Don't libertarians supposedly advocate personal privacy?

Absolutely, but she put the photos into the public domain...whether on purpose or by accident. It's her responsibility to ensure her privacy by keeping her property private. Now, if she signed a contract with the person she gave to the photos to and they released them then they would have to abide by the stipulations of the contract... but if the second party releases the photos into public domain, they're in public domain and you can't blame any third party for their distribution, only the second party under the contract.




And no, I honestly did not look at them.

I looked, and they're spectacular.

[thoughtomator]

hey, speaking of sex crimes, isn't Lawrence currently carrying on an adulterous relationship?

[pessimist]

Absolutely, but she put the photos into the public domain...whether on purpose or by accident. It's her responsibility to ensure her privacy by keeping her property private. Now, if she signed a contract with the person she gave to the photos to and they released them then they would have to abide by the stipulations of the contract... but if the second party releases the photos into public domain, they're in public domain and you can't blame any third party for their distribution, only the second party under the contract.




I looked, and they're spectacular.


What do you mean they were in the 'public domain'? Are you saying your personal information stored in your iCloud account, gmail, etc, should be available to the public? If someone guesses your gmail password and then exposes all your personal info online, is that entirely your fault? Would you not feel personally violated, humiliated, and enraged?

And how the hell is she a exhibitionist for taking photos that weren't meant for the public eyes? I am baffled by this thread on a so-called 'libertarian' forum. Those photos were none of anyone business other than her and the person(s) they were for. People have a right to privacy.

[pessimist]

hey, speaking of sex crimes, isn't Lawrence currently carrying on an adulterous relationship?

I had no idea about the 'adulterous' relationship, but if true- how is that any of your business? Moreover, how the hell is that a 'sex crime'?

Are you sure you folks are libertarian?

[dannno]

What do you mean they were in the 'public domain'? Are you saying your personal information stored in your iCloud account, gmail, etc, should be available to the public? If someone guesses your gmail password and then exposes all your personal info online, is that entirely your fault? Would you not feel personally violated, humiliated, and enraged?

If you store your personal information on servers that are accessible to others then it MAY end up in the public domain, if somebody were to say hack the servers, etc., which is illegal.

If you have naked pictures of yourself, I don't recommend storing them anywhere with the exception of a disk or thumb drive with strong encryption if you are worried about them getting out.

If somebody guessed my gmail password and released all my information, I could certainly try and hold the person liable who attacked my account and I could hold somebody liable for trying to use something like a personal credit card to buy something or using my social security number to signup for something, but I can't hold somebody liable who simply views the information or photographs contained in there.



And how the hell is she a exhibitionist for taking photos that weren't meant for the public eyes?

pcosmar was making the point that she is by nature an exhibitionist being that she is a celebrity. Celebrities, by nature are exhibitionists whether they de-robe or not.




I am baffled by this thread on a so-called 'libertarian' forum. Those photos were none of anyone business other than her and the person(s) they were for. People have right to privacy.

Libertarianism is about personal responsibility, not a national photograph police force that goes around creating tyranny by kidnapping innocent people who have a celebrity photograph on their computer.

She has a right to privacy, and she lost the right as soon as she entrusted her photos to somebody besides herself - that doesn't mean that a hacker couldn't be prosecuted for the crime of hacking her photographs, or that she can't sue a second party who contracted with her to keep the photos safe, what it means is that once the photos are in public domain she lost her right to privacy- be more careful- assess the risks of taking a nude photograph of yourself in the first place - make sure it remains secure - be careful who you contract with to keep your things secure.

[dannno]

People have a right to privacy.

Libertarians despise government laws that create what is called "moral hazard"

If government were given the task of using law enforcement to ensure that everybody's stuff of all nature remained private, even when the person made that stuff accessible to the public, it would create a huge moral hazard because instead of depending on securing their own property, they would depend on government to do it for them by enforcing tyrannical privacy laws against third parties... So a person with nude photographs would do very little if anything to protect their property from getting out and instead depend on government to enforce the laws by throwing people in jail who gained access to their things.

Personal responsibility works better, it causes people to secure their own property and government can only intervene when there is actual property theft, intrusion or enforcing contractual obligations.

[aGameOfThrones]

No sympathy at all. You take naked pics and put them on 'the cloud'.... sorry, but you asked for it.

I did enjoy the pics, too... Thanks reddit!



which ones? there are so many.... :D

[ZENemy]

The right to privacy is nothing without personal responsibility. Rights mean noting without the labor to back them up.


I have many things in my "cloud" I would not like to get out so I have taken the proper steps to make sure this information is safe. Its as safe as can be given modern technology and only took a few hours to research and setup. If I am going to trust my privacy to a 3rd party...well that's my bed, Ill sleep in it.

[pessimist]

If you store your personal information on servers that are accessible to others then it MAY end up in the public domain, if somebody were to say hack the servers, etc., which is illegal.

If you store any of your personal belongings in your vehicle which are accessible to others then they MAY end up in a pawn shop if someone were to say break into your car and steal everything in it, which is illegal.


If you have naked pictures of yourself, I don't recommend storing them anywhere with the exception of a disk or thumb drive with strong encryption if you are worried about them getting out.

If you're worried about being seen naked, I don't recommend undressing anywhere near a window, as some peeping tom or a drone could see.

Most of these celebs (or people in general) probably had no idea what 'icloud' was. If they DID they probably would have taken the precautions necessary.


If somebody guessed my gmail password and released all my information, I could certainly try and hold the person liable who attacked my account and I could hold somebody liable for trying to use something like a personal credit card to buy something or using my social security number to signup for something, but I can't hold somebody liable who simply views the information or photographs contained in there.

You wouldn't mind if the internet was able to view all your personal emails, phone numbers, addresses of family, friends, etc.? You wouldn't CARE that all these people had access? Forgive my skepticism, but I find that hard to believe.


pcosmar was making the point that she is by nature an exhibitionist being that she is a celebrity. Celebrities, by nature are exhibitionists whether they de-robe or not.

She is an actor. They're not all histrionic attention-seeking exhibitionists. Kim Kardashian is a 'celebrity'. Meryl Streep is an actor.

Would you call Robert De Niro, Ed Norton, and Sean Penn 'exhibitionists'? Or does that only apply to attractive women who earn their living acting?


Libertarianism is about personal responsibility

Well, I certainly see a lot of anger about rights being taking away.


She has a right to privacy, and she lost the right as soon as she entrusted her photos to somebody besides herself

You have right to your own thoughts, but you lost the right as soon as you entrusted them to somebody else besides yourself. "You're fired", "You're suspended", "You're being charged with a thought crime".

I think boundaries are the real issue here. If people learned to respect others personal boundaries and space and individuality things like this wouldn't be such a problem.

[aGameOfThrones]

on another note, 83million households and businesses got some of their info stolen from chase servers.

[CaptainAmerica]

I can understand her frustration because her privacy was breached, but she is calling for an ignorant blanket law that would punish everyone basically for anything such as a tumblr displaying Avengers pictures.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

she said it herself, just because she's a celebrity doesn't mean her naked body is any more special than anybody else. no didn't see the photographs because I don't care about celebrities.

[Brian4Liberty]

Absolutely, but she put the photos into the public domain...whether on purpose or by accident.

She did not put them into the public domain in any way. They ended up in the public view via the actions of a hacker who stole them.

[Brian4Liberty]

on another note, 83million households and businesses got some of their info stolen from chase servers.

"...some animals are more equal than others."

Celebrities are more important than mundanes. And if it can be combined with a political issue, all the better to the Ministry of Truth.

"War on women! Hillary 2016!"

[dannno]

If you store any of your personal belongings in your vehicle which are accessible to others then they MAY end up in a pawn shop if someone were to say break into your car and steal everything in it, which is illegal.



If you're worried about being seen naked, I don't recommend undressing anywhere near a window, as some peeping tom or a drone could see.

Most of these celebs (or people in general) probably had no idea what 'icloud' was. If they DID they probably would have taken the precautions necessary.



You wouldn't mind if the internet was able to view all your personal emails, phone numbers, addresses of family, friends, etc.? You wouldn't CARE that all these people had access? Forgive my skepticism, but I find that hard to believe.



She is an actor. They're not all histrionic attention-seeking exhibitionists. Kim Kardashian is a 'celebrity'. Meryl Streep is an actor.

Would you call Robert De Niro, Ed Norton, and Sean Penn 'exhibitionists'? Or does that only apply to attractive women who earn their living acting?



Well, I certainly see a lot of anger about rights being taking away.



You have right to your own thoughts, but you lost the right as soon as you entrusted them to somebody else besides yourself. "You're fired", "You're suspended", "You're being charged with a thought crime".

I think boundaries are the real issue here. If people learned to respect others personal boundaries and space and individuality things like this wouldn't be such a problem.

You've completely missed the point - I store that information on servers knowing that it could be made public, but I would only want to prosecute the thief, not everybody who saw a picture of my dog and I on a camping trip. The fact is I make personal information public all the time, I signup for things and have to give out my phone number and email address, but I only give my social security number to companies I trust that use secure servers. I trust that other companies will not share my information, but it isn't a guarantee unless it is in their terms. I realize the risk it carries, I take the risk sometimes.

Of course people should respect boundaries and stuff, but you can't make a law against people sharing information without inflicting massive tyranny. You can make laws against theft and you can enforce contractual agreements. You CAN have privacy, but it's up to the individual. If those celebrities were so worried about their naked pictures getting out, they should have taken the time to learn about the technology they were using and realize there was a risk. It's not the government's responsibility to protect everybody from everything.

And yes, male actors are also exhibitionists:


ex·hi·bi·tion·ist
noun
noun: exhibitionist; plural noun: exhibitionists

1.
a person who behaves in an extravagant way in order to attract attention.

[thoughtomator]

I had no idea about the 'adulterous' relationship, but if true- how is that any of your business? Moreover, how the hell is that a 'sex crime'?

Are you sure you folks are libertarian?

For the slow crowd, I was pointing out the raging hypocrisy of declaring a brand new "sex crime" while she's committing a millennia-old, well-established sex crime.

[dannno]

She did not put them into the public domain in any way. They ended up in the public view via the actions of a hacker who stole them.

She put them on a server that was able to be hacked, that is a risk. I'm not saying don't prosecute the hacker, I'm saying don't prosecute all of the people who saw the information once the hacker made it public domain. Don't put your nude photos in a place where they can be stolen. Lock them in a safe, or burn them if you are so concerned.

[Christian Liberty]

She did not put them into the public domain in any way. They ended up in the public view via the actions of a hacker who stole them.

Even if so, I think its really hard to argue that merely looking is a crime (and no, I didn't either.) Stealing them, yeah, you could say that's a crime, but not just looking.

[Brian4Liberty]

She put them on a server that was able to be hacked, that is a risk. I'm not saying don't prosecute the hacker, I'm saying don't prosecute all of the people who saw the information once the hacker made it public domain.

Agree that blaming the internet and people on the internet is ridiculous.

But... "public domain" is a legal term, and those photos are not "public domain". There are out in the public, like the proverbial horse that is out of the barn.

So this case is like a Comedy Central show. Are they public domain? No. Are they removed from Youtube at the request of the holder of the rights? Yes.

Are people who view a Comedy Central show on the internet committing a crime? No. Should they be? No.

[Brian4Liberty]

Even if so, I think its really hard to argue that merely looking is a crime (and no, I didn't either.) Stealing them, yeah, you could say that's a crime, but not just looking.

Yes, she is completely wrong to advocate that people simply on the internet were guilty of anything.

Who is suggesting than other that J-Law?

[dannno]

Agree that blaming the internet and people on the internet is ridiculous.

But... "public domain" is a legal term, and those photos are not "public domain". There are out in the public, like the proverbial horse that is out of the barn.

So this case is like a Comedy Central show. Are they public domain? No. Are they removed from Youtube at the request of the holder of the rights? Yes.

Are people who view a Comedy Central show on the internet committing a crime? No. Should they be? No.

You're talkin to someone who doesn't believe in IP.

[dannno]

Yes, she is completely wrong to advocate that people simply on the internet were guilty of anything.

Who is suggesting than other that J-Law?

pessimist, maybe...they haven't clearly stated their position.

[acptulsa]

Don't libertarians supposedly advocate personal privacy?

We've already established beyond a reasonable doubt that she's tossing the word 'privacy' around like it means something, but what she's really whining about is the fact that people are looking at pics of her without paying for the privilege. Having fun beating that dead horse?

So, what are you advocating (other than the blatantly silly notion that a couple of off-the-cuff remarks by danno proves all libertarians are hypocrites)? That the gubbermint fix this for us? Would that be the same government that insisted on the very 'back door' that these people used to get access to these image files...?

[TheCount]

I guess it's only a sex offense to Jenny if she's not getting paid for it.

Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence: 'I am open to nude movie scenes' (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a371000/hunger-games-jennifer-lawrence-i-am-open-to-nude-movie-scenes.html#~oS1V9HlF0ITLZ6#ixzz3FU3nXSaX)


There's a word for that.


Consent?

[pessimist]

So, what are you advocating (other than the blatantly silly notion that a couple of off-the-cuff remarks by danno proves all libertarians are hypocrites)? That the gubbermint fix this for us? Would that be the same government that insisted on the very 'back door' that these people used to get access to these image files...?


The only thing I am advocating here is a right for individual privacy. I have no interest in this 'story', I didn't even click the link to the article to be honest. I don't agree with the 'sex crime' remark either, some PR person or lawyer probably put her up to saying that.

I was reacting to the remarks in this thread, which I find to be somewhat ironic coming from a libertarian forum.



but what she's really whining about is the fact that people are looking at pics of her without paying for the privilege.


How do you know this? Because she is famous and attractive? I would probably agree with you if she was a playboy bunny or something, but she is an Oscar winning actor who carries herself with a certain level of class and 'girl-next-door' charm while in public.

Did it ever occur to anyone that these celebrities genuinely feel violated by having their PRIVATE photos revealed to the public by hackers?

Again these were PRIVATE photos not meant for public consumption. Complete violation of privacy. Their level of attractiveness or celebrity should be irrelevant.

[dannno]

The only thing I am advocating here a right for individual privacy. I have no interest in this 'story', I didn't even click the link to article to be honest. I don't agree with the 'sex crime' remark either, some PR person or lawyer probably put her up to saying that.

I was reacting to the remarks in this thread, which I find to be somewhat ironic coming from a libertarian forum.





How do you know this? Because she is famous and attractive? I would probably agree with you if she was playboy bunny or something, but she is an Oscar winning actor who carries herself with a certain level of class and 'girl-next-door' charm while in public.

Did it ever occur to anyone that these celebrities genuinely feel violated by having their PRIVATE photos revealed to the public by hackers?

Again these were PRIVATE photos not meant for public consumption. Complete violation of privacy. Their level of attractiveness or celebrity should be irrelevant.

Nobody here said that it should be legal for hackers to steal photos from celebrities, in fact you quote my post a long time ago that said it should be illegal. What exactly are you complaining about? Do you think the government should take it upon itself to completely eradicate all personal information from the internet? Or is this just going to be for celebrity nude photos?

[kahless]

She put them on a server that was able to be hacked, that is a risk. I'm not saying don't prosecute the hacker, I'm saying don't prosecute all of the people who saw the information once the hacker made it public domain. Don't put your nude photos in a place where they can be stolen. Lock them in a safe, or burn them if you are so concerned.

It is like I was saying earlier if this was pre-internet and she was shipping a nude portrait or pictures of herself that she was storing at the local hardware store and either the shipping clerk or hardware store clerk did the not guard well and copies ended up being posted in the public square. No one would even consider talking about prosecuting those who saw the pictures in the public square.

[pessimist]

You've completely missed the point - I store that information on servers knowing that it could be made public, but I would only want to prosecute the thief, not everybody who saw a picture of my dog and I on a camping trip. The fact is I make personal information public all the time, I signup for things and have to give out my phone number and email address, but I only give my social security number to companies I trust that use secure servers. I trust that other companies will not share my information, but it isn't a guarantee unless it is in their terms. I realize the risk it carries, I take the risk sometimes.

Of course people should respect boundaries and stuff, but you can't make a law against people sharing information without inflicting massive tyranny. You can make laws against theft and you can enforce contractual agreements. You CAN have privacy, but it's up to the individual. If those celebrities were so worried about their naked pictures getting out, they should have taken the time to learn about the technology they were using and realize there was a risk. It's not the government's responsibility to protect everybody from everything.

And yes, male actors are also exhibitionists:


What if everyone passed around photos of your penis around the office, or were reading your sexually explicit emails to that tranny you were having an affair with, or know about that weird rash on your ball sack?

EVERYTHING in your house, on your private property could become apart of the 'public' if someone breaks in and steals it.



And yes, male actors are also exhibitionists

An exhibitionist is that repulsive chick off Girls or Madonna or James Franco. Not every freaking actor, actress, musician, or 'celebrity' is an exhibitionist.

[pessimist]

Nobody here said that it should be legal for hackers to steal photos from celebrities, in fact you quote my post a long time ago that said it should be illegal. What exactly are you complaining about? Do you think the government should take it upon itself to completely eradicate all personal information from the internet? Or is this just going to be for celebrity nude photos?


My complaint is the attitude of "well, that slut got what she deserved for being such a whore and an idiot".

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

How do you know this? Because she is famous and attractive? I would probably agree with you if she was a playboy bunny or something, but she is an Oscar winning actor who carries herself with a certain level of class and 'girl-next-door' charm while in public.


if you call celebrity clowns caked in enough makeup to cover a city block attractive

[dannno]

What if everyone passed around photos of your penis around the office, or were reading your sexually explicit emails to that tranny you were having an affair with, or know about that weird rash on your ball sack?

EVERYTHING in your house, on your private property could become apart of the 'public' if someone breaks in and steals it.


Yes, coming into my house and stealing my shit should be illegal, hackers stealing photographs should be illegal, that's exactly what I'm saying, where have I said anything to the contrary??







An exhibitionist is that repulsive chick off Girls or Madonna or James Franco. Not every freaking actor, actress, musician, or 'celebrity' is an exhibitionist.

Hey I like Lena Dunham... not the hottest girl ever by any means but she's still sexy and has a great personality... but yes, every actor and actress is an exhibitionist, did you not read the definition? Not all exhibitionism is sexual in nature.

[dannno]

My complaint is the attitude of "well, that slut got what she deserved for being such a whore and an idiot".

I thought my attitude was more along the lines of, "hey, she is hot, I like whores"

[thajuggla]

If you store any of your personal belongings in your vehicle which are accessible to others then they MAY end up in a pawn shop if someone were to say break into your car and steal everything in it, which is illegal.


So we should prosecute the person who walked by and decided not to stop the burglar from breaking into said car for theft?

[dannno]

So we should prosecute the person who walked by and decided not to stop the burglar from breaking into said car for theft?

No, you gotta prosecute the people who go into the pawn shop and look at the stolen goods!!

[kahless]

No, you gotta prosecute the people who go into the pawn shop and look at the stolen goods!!

There needs be a law!

[aGameOfThrones]

There needs be a law!

celebrity hate crime

[pessimist]

So we should prosecute the person who walked by and decided not to stop the burglar from breaking into said car for theft?

I never said that or even insinuated such a thing.

[pessimist]

No, you gotta prosecute the people who go into the pawn shop and look at the stolen goods!!

When the hell did I even suggest that? I mean, is that even what Jennifer Lawrence is proposing? "perpetuating an offence" doesn't translate to locking everyone up for viewing stolen pictures to me.


EDIT: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoOofHE8sS3jw3ykjgn4nDXO61z_RZ0 icWrVxFcTYHR4T4TWna

Apparently not, Jules. Apparently not.

EDIT II: The above was referencing my inability to type coherently.

[pessimist]

Yes, coming into my house and stealing my shit should be illegal, hackers stealing photographs should be illegal, that's exactly what I'm saying, where have I said anything to the contrary??

No you didn't, but there was a hint of victim blaming and a complete disregard for privacy in your posts. You see nothing unethical in viewing things that a person doesn't want to be viewed?


Hey I like Lena Dunham... not the hottest girl ever by any means but she's still sexy and has a great personality...

Great personality? Good god, I find her nauseating on every level, but to each his own.


but yes, every actor and actress is an exhibitionist, did you not read the definition?

lol this is ridiculous.

[chudrockz]

I hereby declare the OP to be a sex criminal! I would not even have known about the photos were it not for this thread on this forum!

And hell yes I looked. Very respectable.

[aGameOfThrones]

This is Like Crazy to think that the guy whose House at The End of The Street Could be The Devil you Know that showed The Beaver that gave Joy and a Winter's Bone to The Hateful Eight is certainly not First Class, but is there a Silver Lining Playbook to the Hunger Games her pictures give? Her outrage is Catching Fire for an American who got Hustle and plans to bring the Apocalypse. I bet she wished these were Days of Futures Past. Mockingjay...


I just wasted my time doing that.

[dannno]

Great personality? Good god, I find her nauseating on every level, but to each his own.


Oh, come on..how can you not love Hannah Horvath?

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-09/enhanced/webdr06/30/13/anigif_enhanced-buzz-10673-1380562535-34.gif

http://31.media.tumblr.com/0eb3717ff135917c9b794caeb3d8f749/tumblr_mtvsjpUYJq1qmwicro1_500.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4d4cc7971e6b0cdeeb745fa0eda1270f/tumblr_mhojs44pFs1rz87eio1_1280.png

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/3/4/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-26253-1362437619-15.gif

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-09/enhanced/webdr06/30/13/anigif_enhanced-buzz-6981-1380562392-32.gif

http://www.mayanrocks.com/blog/girls-hannahsdiary1.gif

(Talking to her parents..)
http://theadventoftheantihero.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/favorite-quotes-hbos-girls-large-msg-136199056214.jpg

[willwash]

If you don't like your millions of dollars, your legions of fans and your youth, I will happily take them. Otherwise, shut up.

[LibForestPaul]

The pictures were taken without authorization. Those responsible should be imprisoned. Those who perpetrate it (4chan, reddit) should be sued. Only she has the right to disseminate those photos. No different if they were on her computer or in her home.

[dannno]

Those who perpetrate it (4chan, reddit) should be sued. Only she has the right to disseminate those photos. No different if they were on her computer or in her home.

Yes, she should sue for full damages... a whopping $0

I can see why she is pissed tho, I just went back and looked at her series cause I haven't seen them in a while and realized she was the one with all those great money shots :D

[Mani]

My complaint is the attitude of "well, that slut got what she deserved for being such a whore and an idiot".



I did get the vibe from this thread of, "You put your photos on the icloud, so it's practically public domain, you're an idiot slut. Nice ta-ta's."


Of course it's ridiculous to talk about blaming the internet or the people that looked up her photos or creating some insane law to stop that. But besides this celebrity, there are a ton of people that have a reasonable expectation of privacy that if they take a private photo on their phone or laptop, they would not expect their photos to be exposed because Apple stored them on an icloud. I'm sure a huge chunk of those people don't even realize the photos are even STORED on the icloud.

Not everyone is aware of the risks of an icloud or even understands it. It might seem like a simple concept to us, but to others it may be VERY ABSTRACT and they don't understand.

FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, they clicked a PRIVATE photo on their phone...They plugged their phone into their computer to save the picture and that's as far as they understand. Somehow it was transferred to an icloud with a risk of getting exposed, but they are oblivious to that process.

That's not being an exhibitionist or floating their picture around the internet...OR SENDING IT TO ANYONE.

[Christian Liberty]

The pictures were taken without authorization. Those responsible should be imprisoned. Those who perpetrate it (4chan, reddit) should be sued. Only she has the right to disseminate those photos. No different if they were on her computer or in her home.

What about someone who just looks at them but doesn't spread it?

I don't believe in imprisonment as punishment. I accept that it may sometimes be required to assist with the enforcement of punishment, or to protect people from a violent person who nobody would associate with otherwise, but I don't think it should be used to punish. The original hackers should be forced to pay restitution (I don't know what the right amount for something like this should be, but it should be restitution, not prison.) I'm not certain what you can do about people spreading it, if anything.

[aGameOfThrones]

I did get the vibe from this thread of, "You put your photos on the icloud, so it's practically public domain, you're an idiot slut. Nice ta-ta's."


Of course it's ridiculous to talk about blaming the internet or the people that looked up her photos or creating some insane law to stop that. But besides this celebrity, there are a ton of people that have a reasonable expectation of privacy that if they take a private photo on their phone or laptop, they would not expect their photos to be exposed because Apple stored them on an icloud. I'm sure a huge chunk of those people don't even realize the photos are even STORED on the icloud.

Not everyone is aware of the risks of an icloud or even understands it. It might seem like a simple concept to us, but to others it may be VERY ABSTRACT and they don't understand.

FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, they clicked a PRIVATE photo on their phone...They plugged their phone into their computer to save the picture and that's as far as they understand. Somehow it was transferred to an icloud with a risk of getting exposed, but they are oblivious to that process.

That's not being an exhibitionist or floating their picture around the internet...OR SENDING IT TO ANYONE.

You have to manually activate iCloud on your phone and PC. That's why the only naked pictures I have on the Cloud is of my pets. BTW, they don't care.

[Christian Liberty]

My complaint is the attitude of "well, that slut got what she deserved for being such a whore and an idiot".

The only reason I used the word whore was because I was reading Cajun's mind;) To me, it doesn't really matter what she "deserved" or otherwise here. I don't think she "deserved" for this to happen, whatever that means. But I don't see how anyone violated her rights except for the original hackers.

[2young2vote]

Are they legally still her photos once they are uploaded to iCloud?

[RonPaulMall]

If you don't like your millions of dollars, your legions of fans and your youth, I will happily take them. Otherwise, shut up.

According to Jennifer Lawrence, nobody would trade the seven figure payday she'll earn from The Hunger Games franchise for having to call their dad and tell him there are a couple pictures of her boobs on the internet.

I don’t care how much money I get for The Hunger Games, I promise you, anybody given the choice of that kind of money or having to make a phone call to tell your dad that something like that has happened, it’s not worth it.


Hard to feel sorry for her after that interview. Not right what happened, but she sounds like a total idiot.

[kahless]

The pictures were taken without authorization. Those responsible should be imprisoned. Those who perpetrate it (4chan, reddit) should be sued. Only she has the right to disseminate those photos. No different if they were on her computer or in her home.

That is like saying if someone steals your nude photographs from your home and pins them up on the bulletin board at the local supermarket that you have a right to sue the store owner. That is outrageous. Those who steal the private property of others should be prosecuted but not those who happen to see the stolen property displayed publicly.

If a member of these forums links to these pictures and the admin does not moderate them until tomorrow morning do you really think they should be sued. If it comes to that forums like this and others you mentioned would not be able to survive and would be sued out of existence. The forums would end up being moderator approved posts only just so they don't get sued.

[aGameOfThrones]

That is like saying if someone steals your nude photographs from your home and pins them up on the bulletin board at the local supermarket that you have a right to sue the store owner. That is outrageous. Those who steal the private property of others should be prosecuted but not those who happen to see the stolen property displayed publicly.

If a member of these forums links to these pictures and the admin does not moderate them until tomorrow morning do you really think they should be sued. If it comes to that forums like this and others you mentioned would not be able to survive and would be sued out of existence. The forums would end up being moderator approved posts only just so they don't get sued.


That's exactly why they are thinking of suing Google for $100million.

[euphemia]

You all are focusing too narrowly on this issue. Internet crime is internet crime whether it happens to Jennifer Lawrence or someone else. It makes no difference whether it is a photo (and what married couple doesn't do that?) or credit card information.

I've always said don't put anything on the Internet you don't want the world to see. But a crime is no less a crime because it was a photo account and not a credit card or the Pentagon.

[kahless]

You all are focusing too narrowly on this issue. Internet crime is internet crime whether it happens to Jennifer Lawrence or someone else. It makes no difference whether it is a photo (and what married couple doesn't do that?) or credit card information.

I've always said don't put anything on the Internet you don't want the world to see. But a crime is no less a crime because it was a photo account and not a credit card or the Pentagon.

Is anyone really debating against prosecuting those whom stole the property?

Viewing stolen property is not a crime. If you pass by stolen property in the street that is not a crime. If someone stole nude photos out of your home and posted them on the bulletin board in the local supermarket, the customers viewing them are not criminals. Just as if some clown in these forums embedded the images in posts here that does not make the other forum members whom viewed them criminals.

[TheCount]

Viewing stolen property is not a crime. If you pass by stolen property in the street that is not a crime. If someone stole nude photos out of your home and posted them on the bulletin board in the local supermarket, the customers viewing them are not criminals. Just as if some clown in these forums embedded the images in posts here that does not make the other forum members whom viewed them criminals.

Unless you're 16.

Then, magically, crime.

[kahless]

That's exactly why they are thinking of suing Google for $100million.

You can see where this is heading. I think the days of forums like this are numbered and those that do survive the manner that we use them will be quite different. Just add a few more incidents like this with idiot celebrities continuing to make comments like this blaming the viewers into the sympathetic ears of an ignorant public.

In no time we will see politicians proposing legislation and the Zuckerbergs using it to their benefit to kill any Facebook competition from private forums. Give it time and we will see the the Randy's internet drivers license come up again, government issued forum licenses and mandated Facebook accounts for most forums tied to the license of course.

[Mani]

You have to manually activate iCloud on your phone and PC. That's why the only naked pictures I have on the Cloud is of my pets. BTW, they don't care.



I disagree. He looks embarrassed.

http://data1.whicdn.com/images/20688600/thumb.jpg

[acptulsa]

How do you know this? Because she is famous and attractive?

How do you not know it? Have you got cajuncocoa on ignore? Couldn't be because you're arguing so hard you're not paying attention...

So why put the lady on ignore? Or do you just ignore all Cowboys fans as a matter of habit...?

[pessimist]

Is anyone really debating against prosecuting those whom stole the property?

Viewing stolen property is not a crime. If you pass by stolen property in the street that is not a crime. If someone stole nude photos out of your home and posted them on the bulletin board in the local supermarket, the customers viewing them are not criminals. Just as if some clown in these forums embedded the images in posts here that does not make the other forum members whom viewed them criminals.

From the OP:


“Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offence. You should cower with shame.

“Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

How is she wrong here?

The fact is, people in this thread were condoning criminal behavior (lock those guys up, but let us see the stolen goods first) because…

a: they apparently enjoy jerking off to the stolen unauthorized photos that weren’t meant for their eyes.
b: she is an attractive homewrecking exhibitionist slut who is just acting all pissy because she isn’t getting any compensation.

I don’t see anyone in this thread who said or even implied that the people who viewed those photos, despite their questionable character, should be arrested- that is just hysterics and would be impossible to do.

However a website knowingly publishing them is another story.

[acptulsa]

How is she wrong here?

She's acting like she's mortified about her privacy even though she has publicly said she'd strip for the highest bidder in a minute. And some of us feel this is a good place to discuss 'The Cloud', its drawbacks, and its government-mandated 'back doors' like adults. And it is, when we aren't having words stuck in our mouths and being accused of masturbation by childish progtards.

[pessimist]

She's acting like she's mortified about her privacy even though she has publicly said she'd strip for the highest bidder in a minute. And some of us feel this is a good place to discuss 'The Cloud', its drawbacks, and its government-mandated 'back doors' like adults. And it is, when we aren't having words stuck in our mouths and being accused of masturbation by childish progtards.


I am in full agreement here. I would never store my data in the cloud.

[dannno]

According to Jennifer Lawrence, nobody would trade the seven figure payday she'll earn from The Hunger Games franchise for having to call their dad and tell him there are a couple pictures of her boobs on the internet.

I don’t care how much money I get for The Hunger Games, I promise you, anybody given the choice of that kind of money or having to make a phone call to tell your dad that something like that has happened, it’s not worth it.


Hard to feel sorry for her after that interview. Not right what happened, but she sounds like a total idiot.

lol, as I said, they aren't just a couple pictures of her boobs... It was more like she had to explain to her dad why she had such a big grin on her face that was completely covered in jizz.

[dannno]

However a website knowingly publishing them is another story.

What if you download a torrent and upload a portion to some people?

[cajuncocoa]

She's acting like she's mortified about her privacy even though she has publicly said she'd strip for the highest bidder in a minute. And some of us feel this is a good place to discuss 'The Cloud', its drawbacks, and its government-mandated 'back doors' like adults. And it is, when we aren't having words stuck in our mouths and being accused of masturbation by childish progtards.
That explains it for me.

[kahless]

“Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offence. You should cower with shame.

“Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

How is she wrong here?


On one hand I agree with her that it is pretty crappy to view them but "perpetuating a sexual offence" could be interpreted as something worthy of criminal and/or civil charges. If you see nude pictures posted at the local supermarket's bulletin board and you take a look one would not say the people are committing sexual offenses for viewing them.

Even if that is not her interpretation of the phrase, when a public figure makes a statement like that there is usually something more sinister behind it if not by her ammunition for others. Like for example going after the store - forum owners and the their customers, rather than those whom perpetuated the theft or those whom she intrusted who failed to safe guard her information.

A member in this public forum here could just as easily embedded those photos in a post in this thread and when you return to follow-up on the discussion end up viewing them. Would that make you perpetuating a sexual offense and/or possibly worthy on civil or criminal penalties?



However a website knowingly publishing them is another story.

That depends. The pictures were on public display not by the public forum owners but their customers that placed the photos in their public forum. Just like if someone posted the photos on the bulletin board at the local supermarket which you cannot blame the store owners for the actions of their customers.

[aGameOfThrones]

lol, as I said, they aren't just a couple pictures of her boobs... It was more like she had to explain to her dad why she had such a big grin on her face that was completely covered in jizz.

censored photo


http://www.chelseadogs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/dog_sticks_tongue_out.jpg

[pessimist]

That explains it for me.

So she essentially deserved to have her privacy trampled on because she apparently said that she would pose nude to the 'highest bidder' (does anyone have the actual quote and the context of it)?

Even if that were true, there is a HUGE differences between taking private photos and posing for a magazine.

I guess you folks believe in selective rights to privacy?

[Brian4Liberty]

So she essentially deserved to have her privacy trampled on because she apparently said that she would pose nude to the 'highest bidder' (does anyone have the actual quote and the context of it)?

So you believe in censorship if it's for a "good reason"?

[pessimist]

So you believe in censorship if it's for a "good reason"?

Huh?

[acptulsa]

I guess you folks believe in selective rights to privacy?

Putting words in people's mouths may be a grand progressive tradition, but that doesn't make it right. Deflection and distraction, too.

And so are attempts to make issues visceral, like when a pretty woman complains about being 'violated'. And so is lumping a group together, and denying them the right to be individuals and accusing them of groupthink.

We come here to have adult conversations. What do you come here for, other than to accuse us of being a monolithic pile of non-individuals marching in lockstep like fascists and to declare to everyone (as if anyone cares) that you're not here because you actually are like (or even that you do like) a single one of us?

My advice is either step up your game and use less transparent tactics, or close your mouth and open your mind long enough to figure out how to engage us competently. If not out of respect for us, then out of respect for yourself and your own reputation.


Huh?

He's asking you if you're arguing for her maidenly privacy and to protect her from shame, or if you're saying she should be able to copyright her face and body like a work of art.

Read the thread title again. Is a copyright violation a 'Sexual Offence[sic]'?

Einstein.

[pessimist]

Putting words in people's mouths may be a grand progressive tradition, but that doesn't make it right. Deflection and distraction, too.

And so are attempts to make issues visceral, like when a pretty woman complains about being 'violated'. And so is lumping a group together, and denying them the right to be individuals and accusing them of groupthink.

We come here to have adult conversations. What do you come here for, other than to accuse us of being a monolithic pile of non-individuals marching in lockstep like fascists and to declare to everyone (as if anyone cares) that you're not here because you actually are like (or even that you do like) a single one of us?

My advice is either step up your game and use less transparent tactics, or close your mouth and open your mind long enough to figure out how to engage us competently. If not out of respect for us, then out of respect for yourself and your own reputation.



He's asking you if you're arguing for her maidenly privacy and to protect her from shame, or if you're saying she should be able to copyright her face and body like a work of art.

Read the thread title again. Is a copyright violation a 'Sexual Offence[sic]'?

Einstein.



Dude I am just empathizing- I don't like my personal privacy violated either. I can't even tolerate a person standing over me while I am at a computer or peeking over me as I am texting.

I am not defending her because she is pretty. I am defending her and everyone else's right live without the fear of having their boundaries flagrantly violated.

Obviously we all have to learn to adapt to this new world where our entire lives are sitting on servers, and we need to learn to take the precautions necessary to protect our privacy.

Anyway, I am not endorsing any laws or any such thing. I am more or less looking at it from an ethical perspective; I think it is WRONG to actively seek out photos of anyone who did not want them to be viewed. I wasn’t accusing all you guys of hypocrisy; I was just genuinely perplexed by the dismissive tone and complete disregard for personal privacy in this thread from a few self-proclaimed libertarians.

I have no agenda here. I am not even entirely sure where I stand ideologically anymore. I’m all over the map.

[acptulsa]

Anyway, I am not endorsing any laws or any such thing. I am more or less looking at it from an ethical perspective; I think it is WRONG to actively seek out photos of anyone who did not want them to be viewed. I wasn’t accusing all you guys of hypocrisy; I was just genuinely perplexed by the dismissive tone and complete disregard for personal privacy in this thread from a few self-proclaimed libertarians.

I have no agenda here. I am not even entirely sure where I stand ideologically anymore. I’m all over the map.

Fair enough. Obviously this issue affects a great many more people than this one celebrity. And some of them might even be as modest as this girl is pretending to be when she talks of her body like she's frustrated she can't patent it, but bandies the term sexual offense about at the same time.

But all you're doing by helping her play on people's emotions is obscuring the issue. So, please, ease up on the 'us vs. them' mentality and stop looking for imagined cold-bloodedness like an Inquisitor hunting witches. Stuff like that is how CNN and their ilk are dumbing down America and assisting the government in getting away with criminal behavior, and we gather here as an antidote to that crap--not to further that agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

So you believe in censorship if it's for a "good reason"?


Huh?

You ask if the right to privacy is selective. On the other side, is freedom of speech selective?


However a website knowingly publishing them is another story.

You have called in this thread essentially for actions against websites with user content to be punished in some way. This is an argument for censorship, justified because this person doesn't want anyone to see some pictures. Is that a good reason for censorship? Who will enforce that censorship? What should the penalties be for the ungood use of freedom of speech?

Manning and Snowden revealed information, and that information was posted on many websites and viewed by millions. In some people's eyes, that would be much more important to censor (and punish) than some actress naked.

----------

Edit:

This post was more adamant about censorship, and it was not posted by "pessimist":


The pictures were taken without authorization. Those responsible should be imprisoned. Those who perpetrate it (4chan, reddit) should be sued. Only she has the right to disseminate those photos. No different if they were on her computer or in her home.

[FloralScent]

...her face that was completely covered in jizz.

The price of fame.

[acptulsa]

The price of fame.

Another country heard from. Or, rather, the underside of another bridge...

[Philhelm]

Sitting here within the intellectual prison of my boring, low-paying, soul-draining job, I cannot be roused to give one shit, much less two, about Jennifer Whorence's problems, especially if she is going to push for a further erosion of our rights. This bitch, by virture of playing pretend using a script for a children's book, will likely never know what it means to need or to covet. Did she stand up for the Fourth Amendment while the TSA has been abusing us?

[Philhelm]

lol, as I said, they aren't just a couple pictures of her boobs... It was more like she had to explain to her dad why she had such a big grin on her face that was completely covered in jizz.

My vote for the "Caption This" thread is...

Whistleblower

[thoughtomator]

Is anyone really debating against prosecuting those whom stole the property?

I'd say it's fairly trivial to make the case that there is no stolen property in this matter. The crime was unauthorized access (digital breaking and entering). The property remains in the possession of its original owner, if she has not disposed of it herself.

[pessimist]

You ask if the right to privacy is selective. On the other side, is freedom of speech selective?



You have called in this thread essentially for actions against websites with user content to be punished in some way. This is an argument for censorship, justified because this person doesn't want anyone to see some pictures. Is that a good reason for censorship? Who will enforce that censorship? What should the penalties be for the ungood use of freedom of speech?

Manning and Snowden revealed information, and that information was posted on many websites and viewed by millions. In some people's eyes, that would be much more important to censor (and punish) than some actress naked.

----------

Edit:

This post was more adamant about censorship, and it was not posted by "pessimist":


Well the whole torrent/p2p thing gets tricky, but I just cannot see how it is even legal for a website to wittingly publish unauthorized photos of anyone which were obtained illegally.

[cajuncocoa]

So she essentially deserved to have her privacy trampled on because she apparently said that she would pose nude to the 'highest bidder' (does anyone have the actual quote and the context of it)?

Even if that were true, there is a HUGE differences between taking private photos and posing for a magazine.

I guess you folks believe in selective rights to privacy?
It's really simple....if I posed nude for a magazine or in a movie, it would be hypocritical (and hilarious) to expect anyone would take me seriously for bitching about a right to privacy over personal photos....it's the same lady bits everyone would have seen before. Get it now?

[cajuncocoa]

lol, as I said, they aren't just a couple pictures of her boobs... It was more like she had to explain to her dad why she had such a big grin on her face that was completely covered in jizz.
I didn't see the pictures, but I thought someone said that described what was going on in Emma Watson's pictures. Maybe you've gotte them confused?

[pessimist]

It's really simple....if I posed nude for a magazine or in a movie, it would be hypocritical (and hilarious) to expect anyone would take me seriously for bitching about a right to privacy over personal photos....it's the same lady bits everyone would have seen before. Get it now?

No I don't get it.

We're just looking at from different points of view.

To me, I think it is irrelevant if someone posed nude or would pose nude- just because everyone has seen it before doesn't make it right or ethical for a person to violate anyone's privacy- these photos weren't meant for public consumption the way they would be if one posed for a magazine or stripped down in a movie.

I mean, just because a husband has had sex with his wife before doesn't mean he can't rape her.

Anyway, this thread is redundant and boring...I am done with it.

[cajuncocoa]

No I don't get it.

We're just looking at from different points of view.

To me, I think it is irrelevant if someone posed nude or would pose nude- just because everyone has seen it before doesn't make it right or ethical for a person to violate anyone's privacy- these photos weren't meant for public consumption the way they would be if one posed for a magazine or stripped down in a movie.

I mean, just because a husband has had sex with his wife before doesn't mean he can't rape her.

Anyway, this thread is redundant and boring...I am done with it.
apples and oranges

[acptulsa]

To me, I think it is irrelevant if someone posed nude or would pose nude- just because everyone has seen it before doesn't make it right or ethical for a person to violate anyone's privacy- these photos weren't meant for public consumption the way they would be if one posed for a magazine or stripped down in a movie.

Yes, and no. Taking pics of a prude, whose own husband of forty years and father of her four children has never seen completely disrobed, in the shower and exposing those to the world would cause sympathy in me that this celeb wench could never create without getting murdered.

That said, yes, it's not particularly to the subject at hand and the morality thereof. The woman's rights we violated. It's a pity the perpetrators profited. It's a pity people have so little regard for the rights of others that they look.

What to do about it isn't a boring conversation, though. Maybe it will get interesting after all the hijackers--because all the hijackers--get bored with it.

[dannno]

I didn't see the pictures, but I thought someone said that described what was going on in Emma Watson's pictures. Maybe you've gotte them confused?

I'll have to check when I get home, but the photos were all separate by actress name and they were definitely in her folder.. I'll have to check the Emma Watson folder and see what comes up.

[jmdrake]

Okay. I feel stupid. I just realized that Jennifer Lawrence is not the girl from the Chronicles of Narnia.

https://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/545193843.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ra5xfiYT1r1terto1_500.jpg

[osan]

OK, so let us summarize this in clear and truthful language.

Self-absorbed, hopelessly uninteresting, mawkishly stupid Hollywood actress engages in major intelligence FAIL by having someone take nudies of her. FAIL because she obviously is displeased with them having been released publicly.

Nitwit, mere entertainer gets hacked because, despite having more money than God, she is too willfully ignorant to understand even the most cursory fundamentals about networks and the essential security issues.

Pissy dimwit, apparently good for nothing other than mere acting, but who nonetheless deems herself somehow qualified to comment on any topic no matter how beyond the grasp of her obviously and sadly limited intellect the material may be, pronounces viewing of the naughty bits whose latency she failed to maintain a "sexual offense" and apparently expects the "state" and everyone else to take her seriously.

You can never make stuff up that is as good as the real thing, and in terms of sheer stupidity, human beings never cease to disappoint or amaze.

What a useless dumbass.

[William Tell]

Okay. I feel stupid. I just realized that Jennifer Lawrence is not the girl from the Chronicles of Narnia.

https://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/545193843.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ra5xfiYT1r1terto1_500.jpg

Interesting, I never really thought of them as looking the same. I am a big fan of the Narnia books, the movies were a bit of a let down:(

[osan]

Same here. I feel bad for Jeniffer though, she is pretty, people should not be mean:(

I have not seen the pictures.

Whatever floats your boat. To me her appearance is that of extreme insipidity. I have no time for boring, stupid people.

[cajuncocoa]

I'll have to check when I get home, but the photos were all separate by actress name and they were definitely in her folder.. I'll have to check the Emma Watson folder and see what comes up.
LOL

[Philhelm]

Pissy dimwit, apparently good for nothing other than mere acting, but who nonetheless deems herself somehow qualified to comment on any topic no matter how beyond the grasp of her obviously and sadly limited intellect the material may be, pronounces viewing of the naughty bits whose latency she failed to maintain a "sexual offense" and apparently expects the "state" and everyone else to take her seriously.

Unfortunately, the State may indeed (pretend to) take her seriously, so I can't fault her intellect on that minor point.

[Philhelm]

I'll have to check when I get home, but the photos were all separate by actress name and they were definitely in her folder.. I'll have to check the Emma Watson folder and see what comes up.

Does Jennifer Lawrence reenact goatse? That would be epic.

[pessimist]

she is too willfully ignorant to understand even the most cursory fundamentals about networks and the essential security issues.


You do realize that this applies to nearly everyone, right? You do realize the vast majority of 'hacking' is merely social engineering?

You do realize that you too could one day be a victim of a cyber-crime?

[William Tell]

Whatever floats your boat. To me her appearance is that of extreme insipidity. I have no time for boring, stupid people.

Good info, except that you are spending time typing about her:cool:

[aGameOfThrones]

I expect that any hacker, if caught, get the same punishment as this DEA agent got.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460997-DEA-agent-creates-Fakebook-account-with-images-from-seized-phone

[thoughtomator]

You do realize that this applies to nearly everyone, right? You do realize the vast majority of 'hacking' is merely social engineering?

You do realize that you too could one day be a victim of a cyber-crime? [/COLOR]

LAWL you really got a major woody for this pretty young lass, don't you?

We have a saying in computer science about making things idiot-proof, and that principle applies to the law as well.

[pcosmar]

You do realize that you too could one day be a victim of a cyber-crime? [/COLOR]

perhaps,,

but not from my computer. Some other computer perhaps,, but not from mine.

[The Free Hornet]

Don't libertarians supposedly advocate personal privacy?

I don't see how a person (regardless of their social status- their celebrity should be irrelevant) doesn't have the right to do whatever they want to do with their own devices in the privacy of their own home? Just because she had nude photos of herself doesn't mean that she is an 'exhibitionist' or wanted them to be plastered all over the internet. How is she a 'whore' for taking private photos? This isn't Madonna or Courtney Love or Paris Hilton or some porn star here.

And no, I honestly did not look at them.

That part in bold is exactly her complaint. She is complaining about what they do in the privacy of their own homes with their own devices. That her naughty bits got copied a million times is a shame. She had the option to keep them in her home but she sent them to Tim Cook instead. If you examine any Berne Convention treaty closely, you might notice my signature is not on the document. This actress is arguing we should be bound by IP treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#Adoption_and_implementation) to which we did not individually consent.

She deserves as much consideration as she has given. None.

[osan]

You do realize that this applies to nearly everyone, right? You do realize the vast majority of 'hacking' is merely social engineering?

You do realize that you too could one day be a victim of a cyber-crime? [/COLOR]

Hacked? Me? Not yet, and if it happens, the hacker will get nothing because nothing I value is network-accessible. I'm a bit smarter than the average bear where security goes. I've been in this business since the 70s. I've invented shit you probably use every day, directly or otherwise. I used to design network controllers and conference bridges. I am well aware of the issues in question.

Now, had you read the most wee little bit between the lines, you would have been moved to infer that unlike the average moron, this moron who is materially very wealthy and ought to understand that, being a "personality", she is likely to be the target of all manner of prying and other violations of her personal territory, that her failure was notably more remarkable than that of the average boob.

In this day and age, what with stalkers and all that, anyone in the Hollywood biz should know about and take measures to protect themselves from the crazy people who get all manner of brilliant ideas about the objects of their affections/hatred/ambivalence. That this woman was so endlessly stupid as to indulge her "I wanna be a porn-star" fantasies by allowing photos to be taken leaves me chuckling at the profound depths of her dumbassery. It also goes to show that money and fame can't fix stupid, no matter what the quantities.

You pays yer money; you takes yer chances.

[osan]

Good info, except that you are spending time typing about her:cool:

Perception FAIL. Line in question was not about her, but of a general type. Yah... hello.

[osan]

Unfortunately, the State may indeed (pretend to) take her seriously, so I can't fault her intellect on that minor point.

But that is mere coincidence and not the result of a boundless intellect arriving at an unarguable conclusion based on its unbreakable logic. Even a broken clock is right at least once a day, if not twice. :)

[Keith and stuff]

Edit: I cleared my post. Sorry about that.

[pessimist]

LAWL you really got a major woody for this pretty young lass, don't you?

We have a saying in computer science about making things idiot-proof, and that principle applies to the law as well.


Yeah, I wasn't even talking about her there. None my recent posts have even been about her- I've never even seen any of her movies. What are you talking about?

[pessimist]

perhaps,,

but not from my computer. Some other computer perhaps,, but not from mine.



No system is completely invulnerable.

Anyway, I am talking about social engineering here. Let's say your machine (do you use Linux?) is 'secure'. That still doesn't protect you from being tricked into a phishing site or a honeypot.

If doesn't protect you from people figuring out your security questions by obtaining a bunch of your personal information online. It is frightening the amount of data one can obtain from knowing a full name.

Someone could get your phone number call you up and sucker you into giving your personal information in order to get into one of your accounts. It happens all the time. In fact, didn't some tech writer from wired fall victim to this a few years ago? His macbook got wiped and he got locked out of all his iOS devices, and had his gmail deleted. He was a victim of social engineering.

The vast majority of hacking is literally social engineering- it's clever manipulation. These large tech companies have white hats working around the clock searching for vulnerabilities and attempting to break into their own systems- it is highly unlikely they were actually hacked into by a 4chan "photo smuggling ring" or bunch of script kiddies, lol.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I didn't see the pictures, but I thought someone said that described what was going on in Emma Watson's pictures. Maybe you've gotte them confused?

There were/are no Emma Watson pictures. The whole idea that there were pictures of her was perpetuated by a PR agency in an attempt to get 4chan.org shut down.


Okay. I feel stupid. I just realized that Jennifer Lawrence is not the girl from the Chronicles of Narnia.

https://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/545193843.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ra5xfiYT1r1terto1_500.jpg

The Hunger Games is also essentially a series of kids' books as well. So you weren't totally off in your initial description.

[specsaregood]

The vast majority of hacking is literally social engineering- it's clever manipulation. These large tech companies have white hats working around the clock searching for vulnerabilities and attempting to break into their own systems

I'm sure they would like you to think that. lol

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm not looking into the whole story, but I heard the whole thing was fakery anyway. Sure sounds like it.

Anyhoo, I remember long before the internet. There was this girl we knew who had her picture taken with a whiskey bottle up her hole. Somebody took that Polaroid and stuck it on a pinball machine. The really funny thing is the number of guys who looked at the photo, but never picked it up to stick in their pocket.





... I'll have to check the Emma Watson folder and see what comes up.


Oh, that part is called a "folder" now? Hunh.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The instant Jennifer Lawrence sent those pictures out to a third party, she lost ownership of the photos. The person whose camera they were taken from could reasonably make an argument that they were breached in some way (assuming they were taken from someone's possession, which sounds like this was not the case), but that owner isn't Lawrence herself. It's still pretty scummy for someone to have hacked information like that, but the target of her ire should be Google or Apple or whoever is responsible for storing the information, and the government, for 'requesting' (more like requiring) a backdoor service from these content providers for its goons to gather information.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I would probably agree with you if she was a playboy bunny or something, but she is an Oscar winning actor who carries herself with a certain level of class and 'girl-next-door' charm while in public.




They hand those little movie statues out to anyone. You're letting your schoolboy, girl-next-door fantasy crushes get in the way of reality and judgment. The girl said she wants to be naked in a movie. She has probably sucked a lot of dick. And I mean A LOT.

[jmdrake]

Interesting, I never really thought of them as looking the same. I am a big fan of the Narnia books, the movies were a bit of a let down:(

The BBC version, while poor in the special effects department, was much closer to the books.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5wVZZ2UUNM&list=PL1A513BD074A3CF2B

[William Tell]

The BBC version, while poor in the special effects department, was much closer to the books.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5wVZZ2UUNM&list=PL1A513BD074A3CF2B

Yeah, I watched it dozens of times:)

[dannno]

There were/are no Emma Watson pictures. The whole idea that there were pictures of her was perpetuated by a PR agency in an attempt to get 4chan.org shut down.


That's correct, I got no Emma Watson folder.

[Mani]

The instant Jennifer Lawrence sent those pictures out to a third party, she lost ownership of the photos. The person whose camera they were taken from could reasonably make an argument that they were breached in some way (assuming they were taken from someone's possession, which sounds like this was not the case), but that owner isn't Lawrence herself. It's still pretty scummy for someone to have hacked information like that, but the target of her ire should be Google or Apple or whoever is responsible for storing the information, and the government, for 'requesting' (more like requiring) a backdoor service from these content providers for its goons to gather information.



I agree her anger is misplaced. I also agree if she's passing the photos to a 3rd party she's opened herself up to trouble.


Yet I do agree with Pessimist that a person should have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if they have shown their bodies for money. That's like saying a stripper is not allowed to be upset if her private pictures get on display. So a stripper can NEVER EVER have PRIVATE PHOTOS because at some point she paid to show her tatas?? She has sacrificed her right to privacy for the rest of her life because she danced on a pole for a job at some point?

A prostitute can never be upset about being raped because well...she gets paid to fuck strangers...she's a slut. I don't agree with that logic.


I think we are talking about consent. A stripper consents to show her body for money during her working hours. But at times she may have private moments and does not consent to have her picture released and those private moments should be allowed to stay private.

I don't believe she should have those rights taken away because, "Well you are a slut whore dumb stripper, so you deserve it, your consent doesn't matter, dumb whore." Regardless of her profession, if she did not consent to have her private moments publicized it should be respected.

Again, this celebrity maybe a dumb bitch with loads of money and she may get paid to show her tits. That doesn't mean she loses the right to privacy. In this instance, I don't know if she passed the stuff around or sent to a photographer or friends or just plugged her photos into an icloud and it got hacked. I don't know. And her sex crime talk is asinine, she will get no where shaming the onlookers.


I'm not sure the specific circumstance in this case. What she did, who she sent the pictures to or who's camera it was taken from, etc. So maybe in this particular case she has no ground to stand on. But for me, the principle I think that's dangerous is the attitude...."Your a slut who pays money to show your body, so you have no right to be outraged if your private photos are leaked." Sluts deserve privacy too! Prostitutes, strippers, dumb bitch celebrities, all have a right to privacy, and should be allowed to give consent or not on their private photos. That is the only thing on this thread I'm not thrilled to see and I think Pessimist is saying something similar.

[osan]

No system is completely invulnerable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.


Anyway, I am talking about social engineering here. Let's say your machine (do you use Linux?) is 'secure'. That still doesn't protect you from being tricked into a phishing site or a honeypot.

And those are very easily avoided. The reason people get suckered is because of greed or ego. I've been called many times, even recently, by these sad and clown-like thieves. I usually shut them down immediately, but on rare occasion I decide to make them pay by stringing them along, only to give them false information in the end.


If doesn't protect you from people figuring out your security questions by obtaining a bunch of your personal information online. It is frightening the amount of data one can obtain from knowing a full name.

And it is still very easy to avoid being taken for a ride. That people do not adopt the habits - note habits - is on them and nobody else.


Someone could get your phone number call you up and sucker you into giving your personal information in order to get into one of your accounts.

No, they cannot. I am living proof of this. The knowledge necessary for this is TINY - a second grader can learn everything they need to know in under two minutes. Once again, this is a matter of habit and attitude, more than one of knowledge. Knowledge easy. Attitude and habit, apparently difficult.


It happens all the time.

Agreed, but not for the reasons you seem to imply.


In fact, didn't some tech writer from wired fall victim to this a few years ago? His macbook got wiped and he got locked out of all his iOS devices, and had his gmail deleted. He was a victim of social engineering.

Apparently, writing for Wired confers no special immunities. My hopes lay, dashed... oh, the humanity...

[specsaregood]

The instant Jennifer Lawrence sent those pictures out to a third party, she lost ownership of the photos. The person whose camera they were taken from could reasonably make an argument that they were breached in some way (assuming they were taken from someone's possession, which sounds like this was not the case), but that owner isn't Lawrence herself. It's still pretty scummy for someone to have hacked information like that, but the target of her ire should be Google or Apple or whoever is responsible for storing the information, and the government, for 'requesting' (more like requiring) a backdoor service from these content providers for its goons to gather information.

I can see it now. Future legislation requiring anybody offering to store other peoples information/content will be required to follow govt regulations and undergo govt audits of their security measures..

[pessimist]

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

"I can't be hacked. Maybe on another machine, but not mine"


And those are very easily avoided

You are underestimating the ingenuity and cleverness of the sociopathic mind. Also, humans (even highly intelligent, cognizant, and cautious ones) let their guard down, suffer momentary lapses in judgment, and act hastily and thoughtlessly at times.


The reason people get suckered is because of greed or ego. I've been called many times, even recently, by these sad and clown-like thieves

That was just one example I used. If someone wanted into one of YOUR accounts for example, they could try to manipulate someone you know or develop a profile on you based on the scattered info they're able to obtain. This is SCARY how easy this is to do.

If I recall correctly, this is from a few years ago so it's not fresh in my memory- the kid (or maybe it was a group), either way.. they were teens (or early twenties) who turned the guy from Wired life upside down because they were able to change his passwords based on the dossier they assembled, if I’m not mistaken they actually called Amazon and tricked them into thinking they were him.

Since he stupidly had all his accounts linked to one email- he got owned. None of this was a result of actual hacking.


And it is still very easy to avoid being taken for a ride.

Like I said if someone knows your full name- it is unbelievable the amount of data they can pull if they know what they're doing. I am talking SCARY. I have researched this myself...it gave me nightmares.


No, they cannot. I am living proof of this.

Maybe not you personally but they could con and manipulate someone you know to collect data on you. What if they have a profile on you and simply use deduction and guess work to get into your accounts?


Agreed, but not for the reasons you seem to imply.

It varies. Some are petty criminals, some are creepy stalkers, some are just script kiddie trolls wreaking havoc, etc.


Apparently, writing for Wired confers no special immunities. My hopes lay, dashed... oh, the humanity...

I respect your apparent knowledge of networks and longevity in the field, I just highly disagree with your mindset that you're incapable of being a victim of social engineering or outright hacking. No one is immune.

[DevilsAdvocate]

We need to come to a consensus regarding specifically what rights people have in the online world. A bill of rights if you will. Especially with regard to privacy. It needs to numerically list the specific protections one can expect, and more importantly address liability.

--------------------

I personally believe that the days of an anonymous web are numbered (and should be numbered). In the future, when you browse the web you will have an identity that people can track and verify. Just like your face in the real world serves as your identity, and gets you into your house, your bank account, your place of work.

There may be a separate network where everything is anonymous, like it is today. But this will be a seedy place that no one will hang around very long. Sort of like a dark and dangerous back alley that people pretend doesn't exist, full of drug deals, prostitution, and banner ads.