Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place? Y/N?

[Aaron Sylvester]

Of course it is partly the celebrities' fault. I have some pretty personal shit on my harddrive and phone, do I upload it to cloud storage? OF COURSE NOT. Because I'm not fucking stupid. Those celebrities obviously are.

If a bank gets robbed people can still be 100% sure their money is safe, not to mention the damage is totally reversible (banks are insured).

But if a person choses to upload such incredibly private photos to an ONLINE CLOUD (theoretically accessible from anyone/anywhere), they should be made fully aware that anyone can steal their shit at any time. More importantly (unlike the bank), once all that stuff goes viral it is impossible to reverse.

Here, let me tell you my response in image form:

[img=https://38.media.tumblr.com/23bada4f7d151707df3ad8e889940159/tumblr_nbaxr1Gvcg1qel5vuo1_500.png]https://38.media.tumblr.com/23bada4f7d151707df3ad8e889940159/tumblr_nbaxr1Gvcg1qel5vuo1_500.png[/img]

Now stop.

That comic is dumb for the simple reason that it mocks people for taking nude photos, instead of mocking them for uploading nude photos to an online cloud.

If you upload something online, you are accepting the risk of it getting stolen.

 

[waj9876]

She didn't exactly need to do it, but she, and everyone else, should be able to take whatever kind of pictures they want as long as they're not breaking any laws.

So no, she didn't need to, but she did, and it was and is her right to do so.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

This is what you all get for allowing the phone companies to switch all the storage from local to cloud, You let people do this kind of crap and this is what happens. Remember SD cards in phones? the ability to have as much storage on your devices as you chose?

 

[clippen05]

People can take whatever damn photos they want. As I've said elsewhere, the only thing that these people did wrong was use Apple products. Had they not used Iphones that automatically sync to Icloud, I can assume most of these photos would not be in circulation. Most likely, but not certainly, photos of this nature were taken, sent to one person or two, and then deleted from local storage. I doubt most people would want these photos kept in the cloud. Bottom line, people should stop buying crapple; people should also stop blaming these women though. There is nothing wrong with what they did, aside from buying a terrible brand.

 

[Aurion]

See, this is why I'm still not sold on cloud storage.

This type of shit. It's similar to why I've never been sold on social media. People just don't know all the different ways this stuff can come back to bite them, and no one seems to be in any rush to actually inform people about the possible risks.

In reply to the thread topic directly: Well, no. It wouldn't be a problem if some creepy fucker hadn't decided rifling through people's cloud files was a fun way to spend an afternoon though.

 

[Ramzal]

Why does all of this matter? It's her body, she can take pictures of it if she wants to. Further more why do people care so much to see her naked? Have you never seen someone naked before? It's not that big of a deal.

 

[Parasondox]

Further more why do people care so much to see her naked? Have you never seen someone naked before? It's not that big of a deal.

And that's a question that not many people are willing to answer. Those who download and search for these images seem to have a strange attitude towards sex and nudity. Its either;

"Oh, so thats how she looks like naked" (Why do you need to know anyways?)

Or

"Finally get to see her naked, fucking win" and cue the filthy.

A few days ago I kept seeing headlines about "The Flappening" and I just thought to myself, "seriously, are people that desperate to see a naked celebrity when there is porn EVERYWHERE?"

Yes, women are beautiful in every shape, form and heart but why take that so so far that people "must" see them in a vulnerable position.

 

[Parasondox]

People can take whatever damn photos they want. As I've said elsewhere, the only thing that these people did wrong was use Apple products. Had they not used Iphones that automatically sync to Icloud, I can assume most of these photos would not be in circulation. Most likely, but not certainly, photos of this nature were taken, sent to one person or two, and then deleted from local storage. I doubt most people would want these photos kept in the cloud. Bottom line, people should stop buying crapple; people should also stop blaming these women though. There is nothing wrong with what they did, aside from buying a terrible brand.

You do have a point. I started using an apple product since last year and I hate it. What I discovered a few months after buying it was that iCloud doesn't just automatically save photos but also Notes you make, text messages, friends and families numbers and emails that I saved on my phone and other info that I had no clue that it automatically saved there. So I quickly had to deny my iPhone from accessing anything I take and write to be save to the cloud.

 

[Karthak]

Daniel O'Brien speaks truth: http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-our-reaction-to-nude-celeb-leaks-says-about-us/

These women did nothing wrong. The only people involved who did wrong were the assbags who stole private photos and posted them on the net. I hope the court system drops the hammer on those creeps.

 

[Lightknight]

People can take whatever damn photos they want. As I've said elsewhere, the only thing that these people did wrong was use Apple products. Had they not used Iphones that automatically sync to Icloud, I can assume most of these photos would not be in circulation. Most likely, but not certainly, photos of this nature were taken, sent to one person or two, and then deleted from local storage. I doubt most people would want these photos kept in the cloud. Bottom line, people should stop buying crapple; people should also stop blaming these women though. There is nothing wrong with what they did, aside from buying a terrible brand.

Apple wasn't at fault. Not only is there a good indication that several of these pictures came from elsewhere, but the access to their apple accounts was reportedly from people getting their credentials which can happen through normal hacking reconnaissance. It is far easier to gain access to specific individuals than it is to hack a hack aware network. Like robbing a gas station instead of fort Knox or a bank.

Honestly, where they made a mistake is entirely subjective. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't create something you couldn't bear to get out. Like taking a picture of you committing a crime, for example. It was unwise to create "evidence" that they couldn't afford to lose. These are professionals whose entire livelihood is centered around their image. The thought that they weren't careful with their image means they made a professional mistake.People make professional mistakes all the time in the name of love. Doesn't make it not a mistake.

As I've reiterated multiple times here. They are no more responsible for being hacked than we would be if our bank accounts got hacked. But for the pictures existing at all? The evidence? That's their fault. I know it can seem calloused to point out what an victim did wrong. Like it's saying they deserved this to happen, because they didn't. What they did was something risky, that does not equate to guilt. What we need to take away from this situation is that you shouldn't make yourself vulnerable if the risk of being caught isn't worth the benefit.

Should people be able to take pictures of themselves? Sure. But just like I wouldn't withdraw all of my money, put it in my wallet, and walk down harlem streets at night, so too shouldn't other people put themselves at unnecessary risk. Especially not celebrities who have a much higher risk to begin with.

Do not make the mistake of putting yourself into a star's shoes. Being a public figure is FAR riskier here. For them, this was like walking down a bad street while counting hundred dollar bills. They are a known and desirable target. But, if you personally couldn't bear to see that picture of you doing blow off a hooker's navel exposed then consider not taking out the camera. You aren't going to be held accountable for 'evidence' that doesn't exist. Not that these stars did anything illegal. I just mean evidence as in items you wouldn't want counted against you.

 

[clippen05]

People can take whatever damn photos they want. As I've said elsewhere, the only thing that these people did wrong was use Apple products. Had they not used Iphones that automatically sync to Icloud, I can assume most of these photos would not be in circulation. Most likely, but not certainly, photos of this nature were taken, sent to one person or two, and then deleted from local storage. I doubt most people would want these photos kept in the cloud. Bottom line, people should stop buying crapple; people should also stop blaming these women though. There is nothing wrong with what they did, aside from buying a terrible brand.

Apple wasn't at fault. Not only is there a good indication that several of these pictures came from elsewhere, but the access to their apple accounts was reportedly from people getting their credentials which can happen through normal hacking reconnaissance. It is far easier to gain access to specific individuals than it is to hack a hack aware network. Like robbing a gas station instead of fort Knox or a bank.

Honestly, where they made a mistake is entirely subjective. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't create something you couldn't bear to get out. Like taking a picture of you committing a crime, for example. It was unwise to create "evidence" that they couldn't afford to lose. These are professionals whose entire livelihood is centered around their image. The thought that they weren't careful with their image means they made a professional mistake.People make professional mistakes all the time in the name of love. Doesn't make it not a mistake.

As I've reiterated multiple times here. They are no more responsible for being hacked than we would be if our bank accounts got hacked. But for the pictures existing at all? The evidence? That's their fault. I know it can seem calloused to point out what an victim did wrong. Like it's saying they deserved this to happen, because they didn't. What they did was something risky, that does not equate to guilt. What we need to take away from this situation is that you shouldn't make yourself vulnerable if the risk of being caught isn't worth the benefit.

Should people be able to take pictures of themselves? Sure. But just like I wouldn't withdraw all of my money, put it in my wallet, and walk down harlem streets at night, so too shouldn't other people put themselves at unnecessary risk. Especially not celebrities who have a much higher risk to begin with.

Do not make the mistake of putting yourself into a star's shoes. Being a public figure is FAR riskier here. For them, this was like walking down a bad street while counting hundred dollar bills. They are a known and desirable target. But, if you personally couldn't bear to see that picture of you doing blow off a hooker's navel exposed then consider not taking out the camera. You aren't going to be held accountable for 'evidence' that doesn't exist. Not that these stars did anything illegal. I just mean evidence as in items you wouldn't want counted against you.

I'm not blaming their security, that's the thing. I'm blaming ICloud by default saving EVERY photo, text, whatever, you take to the cloud. Do you honestly think these actresses wanted their nudes saved to the cloud? Well, had they used literally any other service and phone, this would not have happened.

 

[Kuredan]

In response to the OP, as well as the title of the post (which people seem to have gotten away from), taken as a whole, it was an imprudent action. While people have the right to make whatever choices in life that they wish, they don't have a right to be free from the consequences. This not to imply that the consequence is deserved, merely that it is a risk associated with the choice.

Nude photos have a variety of consequences. If they are for yourself, it may make you feel more confident in your sexuality and body or it may have the opposite effect. At this level they only effect you and you have the greatest measure of control over the exposure. If they are an old school Polaroid you can burn them, or if they're on a device you can delete them, though has shown not to be 100% effective. If you are taking them for someone else, the photos may titillate them or cause any other reaction imaginable. You cannot control this reaction and now you have entrusted these photos to someone else, who may do with them as they wish. Their choice may be informed by their relation to you, but you have a lesser expectation of control than if you alone have the pictures. You might upload these private photos to a private computer or network. You now have even less control over the exposure because there are more potential access points to this data. A cloud network has the least amount of security as it is being accessed by the greatest number of people.

To me, prudence is a measure of action versus potential effect and the desirability of effect. Therefore, taking an action that has a higher risk and where that risk is more deleterious, is an example of an imprudent act.

Sadly, in that light, Ms. Lawrence's actions were not prudent. This does not discount that someone viciously robbed her of privacy and dignity and is guilty of a serious crime. These effects are not her fault and they do not reflect a value judgement on the taking of nude photos (eg. that she "deserves" this scandal because taking nude photos is wrong). She had every right to do that. Others may not share that view and see nude photos as a taboo or morally wrong. You can't control others' reactions. In the placing of these photos in a cloud there lies an increased risk they they will be exposed and subject to others' reactions. If that consequence is undesirable, then an action that increases the likelihood of said consequence is clearly seen as imprudent.

My heart goes out to people who suffer the worst consequences of vicious breaches of privacy. It is a sad commentary on the state of modern life when can no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something as intimate as the devices we own. Bear in mind, this wasn't facebook: an application begging you to expose your secrets. This was a "secure" cloud service for a personal device. To me it almost seems as though the world is hostile to us in any other state but our "game face". Those moments of relaxed attitudes and freedom are now a danger to our reputation when they are mixed with modern technology. There is no digital room to find out who we are and what we may want from life because this vulnerability is a commodity to capitalized on if we ever get under the cross-hairs of an especially motivated hacker. Doxxing behavior, stolen work, cyber bullying, and leaked photos are just the beginning of what we'll see the more we integrate our lives with the internet. That's just sad.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not blaming their security, that's the thing. I'm blaming ICloud by default saving EVERY photo, text, whatever, you take to the cloud. Do you honestly think these actresses wanted their nudes saved to the cloud? Well, had they used literally any other service and phone, this would not have happened.

Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it that this isn't a feature they turned on.

 

[Aurion]

I'm not blaming their security, that's the thing. I'm blaming ICloud by default saving EVERY photo, text, whatever, you take to the cloud. Do you honestly think these actresses wanted their nudes saved to the cloud? Well, had they used literally any other service and phone, this would not have happened.

Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it that this isn't a feature they turned on.

Opt-out is how a surprising amount of companies do it now, as opposed to opt-in. After all, they didn't do anything wrong- you can opt out at any time, and they get to brag about how many people use ! Everyone wins!

 

[weirdee]

For the OP:

The title is still focusing on questioning the actions of the easiest to focus on and most visible target in the matter instead of considering the implications of these constantly occurring incidents and how we should actually address them (less famous women are exposed without consent like this daily on the deepweb, which you can find yourself at your own risk if you don't believe me). Trying to focus on this one aspect (even if you say you are considering the other aspects, this thread existing at this moment with this question as the title is indicative that this is your focus) implies several unpleasant conclusions, such as wanting to have tidy closure to this situation as per the just world scenario [http://feministing.com/2014/08/19/fatal-hypothesis-how-belief-in-a-just-world-is-killing-us/] hypothesizes, or that since women are the majority (if not all) of the targets of this activity, given our past and current societal context, would lead us to believe that most men could not ever truly empathize due to never having felt this violated and robbed of agency in their own lives followed by the public condemning them for something that the public could not imagine they would ever be targeted for, and this is the question they choose to ask. After all, they have not really been the target, yet it seems very easy to pass judgment on the matter. The solution that we are invited to consider, as this question proposes, is to enforce more standards on women, especially any successful woman. Sure, you could say that "everybody" needs to be careful, but who is suffering the consequences here? Of this entire list I am looking at of roughly 100 people, there's only one guy, and it's at the bottom, paired with another woman. But that's just a crazy coincidence, right?

Regardless of your conscious intent of wanting to answer a 'simple' question on the internet, I have to wonder if you actually are interested in figuring out this situation for your own understanding, or if you are just seeking out approval and/or reinforcement of your present viewpoint, in what is largely a setting sympathetic to this line of questioning.

You are not a terrible person, but you are still affected by what society has taught you to believe.

 

[Maphysto]

If you upload something online, you are accepting the risk of it getting stolen.

If you get in your car and drive down the road, you accept the risk of being killed by a drunk driver. Does this mean you're the one at fault for being hit by a drunk driver?

EDIT: While it may have been a poor decision on her part to upload the photos, that still doesn't make it her fault they were stolen. It makes it the fault of the person who stole them. Because he, y'know, STOLE THEM. He deliberately took a course of action to violate her privacy and take something that wasn't his. That means he is in the wrong and she is in the right.

What you're doing is victim blaming. I feel like the term has been parroted by so many people for so many different reasons that it's lost its meaning in most people's minds, so I'll elaborate on exactly what I mean: You're looking at a situation in which someone was clearly wronged, and you're pointing the finger at the person who was wronged. You're saying "It's your fault that someone did something bad to you."

Does that honestly seem right to you? Do you really think that it's her fault that someone violated her privacy? Because if so, then I just don't know what to say to you.

 

[Vault101]

Having testicles is not a stupid, poorly-planned decision that leaves you totally vulnerable to an already existing population that wants to take advantage of you.

Deciding to achieving celebrity status and uploading nude photographs of yourself onto a poorly secured cloud is.

Neither person DESERVES what happened to them, but that's just not a fitting parable to juxtapose.

do you not leave the house without wearing a groin gaurd?

 

[McKitten]

It is perfectly possible to disapprove of actions while at the same time having the opinion that they are an individuals right. I disapprove of people taking (certain) drugs and think that it is an unwise decision they shouldn't make. But that doesn't mean that i think they shouldn't be allowed to, it is their decision, and they have the right to make a bad one. The hacking case is not that different even if there's also a criminal in the picture as well. You have the right to park your car with the key in the ignition on the street, and it is your decision alone whether you choose to do it. And if the car gets stolen, it's still a crime, not making crime hard isn't the same as giving permission. But that doesn't mean that making it easy for criminals is not a bad idea.
Yeah, in a perfect world no-one should ever have to think about how to not be an easy victim of crimes. But acting like this is a perfect world is also not the height of common sense.

On another note, dear Gygax stop it with the "People should be able to take Private Photos" nonsense. People are able to take private photos. It's not illegal. And it is already illegal to steal them. This is not some censorship or legislation or even "this demands action" issue. What the hacker did already is a crime. And crimes happen. You don't go around after every burglary wringing hands and crying "peoples homes should be safe". Crimes happen, always will, and unless there's some sort of rampant hacking epidemic going on that's counter to all other downwards trending crimes, the police are already doing a pretty good job about it.