Google Removing Search Results to Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Photos

[Alleged_Alec]

No, Google, why do you take away mah freedumbs!!1! This is tyrannee!

Honestly glad to not see any of those types in this thread so far. Anyways, bit late for that Google, and a bit impossible too, but its not like this is something you can condemn them for.

Actually: I can. This along with some other removal of search results sets a really bad precedence.

 

[clippen05]

Don't store your private crap in a public, potentially exploitable or hackable service next time.

Icloud is not a public place. I may not be one to vouch for any of Apple's services, but no one had any reason to believe their things would be stolen. I guess don't buy anything, because its potentially steal-able by your logic.

 

[razer17]

Don't store your private crap in a public, potentially exploitable or hackable service next time.

Yeah, and whilst your at it, don't wear short skirts if you don't want to be raped...

 

[Strazdas]

The thing is that the people who put their funds/accounts on Paypal did so willingly. The whole thing about the photos on the Cloud is that people did NOT know their images were being uploaded there.

I think there's grounds there for negligence, even if they were hacked. Of course the hackers should be held accountable for the activity, but it seems that trail has grown cold.

wait, so apple hacked into peoples computers and put their photos on thier clouds?

besides, my point was more about if a company does not care abouts its security, it does not have to spend money to fix it, just wait till somone hacks it and extort money from that guy.

 

[Vykrel]

Don't store your private crap in a public, potentially exploitable or hackable service next time.

most of them were not aware that their images were being stored. iCloud backup was automatically enabled for some time, before being shut off. they were blissfully unaware that Apple had taken the liberty of storing their stuff.

 

[Abomination]

The thing is that the people who put their funds/accounts on Paypal did so willingly. The whole thing about the photos on the Cloud is that people did NOT know their images were being uploaded there.

I think there's grounds there for negligence, even if they were hacked. Of course the hackers should be held accountable for the activity, but it seems that trail has grown cold.

wait, so apple hacked into peoples computers and put their photos on thier clouds?

No, the default setting on the iPhone was to upload all photos to the Cloud and the user has to turn it off. The problem is that the average user or "everyman" (if your nation has that type of consumer protection law) does not know that is the function.

The users did not know their pictures were being uploaded to a cloud, they believed they were being stored locally on the iPhone's hard drives.

Would users have wanted their data uploaded to another server? If the customers' information is being stored elsewhere without consent of the customers by a CORPORATION and then that information is compromised the corporation bares at least some of the blame for placing customer data where the customers did not know it was being placed.

Imagine if you bought a computer and the information you were storing on it was also being uploaded to another server without your knowledge or consent, then that information was taken from that other server and used in ways you did not approve of - even in ways that were a violation of your privacy. From a theft perspective it's a theft of privacy BY the company because it "moved" your privacy without your consent.

 

[Strazdas]

The thing is that the people who put their funds/accounts on Paypal did so willingly. The whole thing about the photos on the Cloud is that people did NOT know their images were being uploaded there.

I think there's grounds there for negligence, even if they were hacked. Of course the hackers should be held accountable for the activity, but it seems that trail has grown cold.

wait, so apple hacked into peoples computers and put their photos on thier clouds?

No, the default setting on the iPhone was to upload all photos to the Cloud and the user has to turn it off. The problem is that the average user or "everyman" (if your nation has that type of consumer protection law) does not know that is the function.

The users did not know their pictures were being uploaded to a cloud, they believed they were being stored locally on the iPhone's hard drives.

Would users have wanted their data uploaded to another server? If the customers' information is being stored elsewhere without consent of the customers by a CORPORATION and then that information is compromised the corporation bares at least some of the blame for placing customer data where the customers did not know it was being placed.

Imagine if you bought a computer and the information you were storing on it was also being uploaded to another server without your knowledge or consent, then that information was taken from that other server and used in ways you did not approve of - even in ways that were a violation of your privacy. From a theft perspective it's a theft of privacy BY the company because it "moved" you privacy without your consent.

On one side i do think its bad that Apple does not inform its costumers about it and its a horrible setting to have at default (if only for it eating through your mobile internet). however i do think users are ultimately responsible to know how to use their devices, just like they were when they microwaved their phones. wasnt apples fault for not making phone microwave-proof.

Though you do make a good point of them bearing responsibility if it was done without consent and the option was hidden.

 

[Abomination]

On one side i do think its bad that Apple does not inform its costumers about it and its a horrible setting to have at default (if only for it eating through your mobile internet). however i do think users are ultimately responsible to know how to use their devices, just like they were when they microwaved their phones. wasnt apples fault for not making phone microwave-proof.

I would say there's a difference between doing something TO your phone and your phone doing something ON ITS OWN that separates consumer responsibility from consumer rights.

If I hit my phone with a hammer it's my fault.

If my phone hits me with a hammer it's the company's fault.

You do bring up an interesting tangent there as well, was the "viral" joke about putting phones in a microwave or immersing them in water a crime for publishing the joke? Was it a bit of the whole screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater? I personally fall on the side of the "everyman" argument where I feel the majority of the consumer base of iPhones DO understand the general principals of metal in microwaves or how software doesn't change the physical nature of a product... hence why it's called SOFTware and not HARDware.

But for something to upload info to a cloud and be on by default? That's a strict violation of privacy if ever I heard one.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Interesting. So if an angry ex-girlfriend steals and posts embarrassing photos of me on the internet, do I get to sue for $100 million and demand that one of the largest companies on the planet do whatever it can to get rid of the pictures, even though they aren't actually hosting the photos?

I don't know, are you a famous pro-feminism starlet?

Damnit!! I knew I missed something...

 

[Popido]

This case looks more and more like PR stunt. Nude photos cracked from iCloud and the supposed Emma Watson's leaker turned out to be a bacterial marketing firm.

It explains why they're blaming Google for this. They want attention.

And why did everyone report it being on 4chan? Everything is on 4chan, so who told the press to go on /b/ for the leaks? What where these people doing on /b/?

 

[Callate]

I understand the frustration she and her representatives must be going through, but I find strengthening the precedent of a search site being liable for the results it yields more than worrying. We've clearly entered an era of take-down notices being used to suppress and intimidate those without the resources to fight them, and that's even well before we get to the government level.

Before anyone jumps on my back: no, I'm not granting legitimacy to the posting of Jennifer Lawrence's stolen pictures. But I am worried that the precedent the removal helps to set could be used badly elsewhere.

 

[gridsleep]

Don't store your private crap in a public, potentially exploitable or hackable service next time.

Yeah, and whilst your at it, don't wear short skirts if you don't want to be raped...

"Live in just such a way that you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip." --Will Rogers

 

[Ukomba]

Never did search for those pics, but this makes me want to try when I get home. Streisand Effect?

 

[The Bandit]

That's lust, not love.

Yeah, no fucking kidding. Where have you been for all of human history?

 

[truckspond]

This bit of news reminded me about the whole thing and after a quick search via DuckDuckGo I discovered that there are several collections of the whole lot all over the place on file sharing sites and in torrents. I fail to see how removing a google link will stop all of that

 

[Weaver]

At least the krabby patty secret formula is still safe.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Disgusting behaviour by Lawrence and her lawyers. Go after the people who leaked them/host them, not a fucking search website. This sets a bad precedence and I think less of the people threatening with this lawsuit for doing so.

deserves quoting. its not Google's job to police the internet.

Also, isn't this shutting the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted?

I wonder if this will effect JLaw's career? I feel she's lost appeal for me.

 

[And Man]

Still don't get why this whole thing is centered around Jennifer Lawrence when a few dozen other celebrities also had nudes leaked.