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

[otakon17]

How is the best way I can change the body of the message to get across the point of:

There probably isn't. There's a fundamental issue. You would be unlikely to say "if they hadn't owned a home, they wouldn't have been robbed," yet when this comes up, it's suddenly an issue in which we bring up the actions of the victim.

I don't think there's a way to square that circle.

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I find it amusing the way Western countries get so worked up about nudity. Big deal, maybe if everyone didn't have such a repressive attitude towards sex forced on them, you wouldn't have people foaming at the chance to see a famous woman naked.

However

I do think it's a bit hypocritical to spend your entire life perpetuating and profiting from the stereotype that a woman's self-worth can only be judged based on her looks, then act like it's some massive outrage when some creep decides to go above and beyond to "get a better view".

This I feel is unfair. Jennifer Lawrence is only 24 and is reasonably well known for telling other women not to let people judge them based on their adherence or non-adherence to physical ideals.

It's heroic to post these images. It shows human beings so far bedazzled by glamour into worshiping these women the truth about what these women actually look like.

These images are in no way an attack on the women - they are an attack on the *image machines* - the system of editors, makeup artists, movie studios, photoshoppers, and the like who control and idealize the IMAGES of the women that they so kindly ALLOW into the world.

This is an attack on Sports Illustrated, Hollywood, Maxim, and the like. It's a very big fuck you to them, and I love it.

Are you serious? If anyone wants to see a celeb without makeup or in a situation that makes them look human, they can just pick up one of those trashy gossip magazines where they've been snapped by the paparazzi walking their dog or going for a swim.

There's nothing heroic about a celebrity nude photo ring. It's a disturbing, twisted culture that fetishes violating a woman's right to privacy.

 

[ultratog1028]

I am not victim blaming here.

Except you're going to do just that:

I simply feel that if she should not have taken compromising pictures of herself in the first place.

You're sending a lot of mixed messages here, at one point you're condemning those people for saying the exact same thing you said at the end of your post:

And to all those that downloaded said pictures and use "Well she shouldn't have taken them in the first place.", fuck off that's not the point of the argument to justify your invasion of a woman's privacy.

What a person does on their phone is their own business, whether it's sending messages, sending nude photos to someone else, or something else not illegal or dangerous to the public, full stop. Breaching that privacy is wrong, regardless of whether the person is a public figure or not.

pretty much this. The breach is the issue. The nudity I don't think is (she's starred in movies naked)

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's her body; Ms Lawrence has the right to use it as she sees fit. (within confines of the law anyway)
Which includes photography.

There's no moral or ethical or even logical dilemma there.
It's her right. Period.

Now, how those photos ended up in the hands of intruders...

*sigh*
I'm not going to make any friends for this...

...But as someone whose career started in security (especially computer and networks)...frankly, what was she thinking posting those on an external storage system?

Did she have a pressing need to always have access to nude photos of herself from potentially any computer?

I'm not in showbiz, but I cannot think of any reason to EVER leave those on the cloud.
Perhaps on a USB stick or hard drive, etc, if they were somehow important enough to be available...anything that's NOT remotely accessible.

And then there's the Apple side of the issue.
In short, it's not perfectly secure. We should never assume it's perfectly secure.
Are they culpable? Possibly, but I'll let the investigators and courts decide.
I don't know all the facts, and I make no assumption of culpability until proof of such exists.

What I do know:

Sometimes, essential sensitive data must go through the tubes.
Banking is a prime example. Business absolutely CANNOT operate without digital transactions.
(which is why any bank worth their salt will keep them highly controlled and monitored, and why we have every right to lose our fudge when they neglect that)

But not all sensitive data must go through a network or be available.
Call me crazy, but I think nude photos, while sensitive, is "non-essential" there.

I don't blame Ms. Lawrence for being a victim because that's hideous and misguided as fuck.
Rather, the most I can blame her for, is enabling herself to -become- a victim.

No, those aren't the same thing.

Some risks we cannot help but take, but we are responsible for those that we CAN help.

Now, I always blame the criminal first and foremost, because without them there would be no crime.
But that does not stop me from examining the situation and seeing if there was any simple or feasible way to prevent it.
Because that's how we learn. Either directly or by example.

If Ms Lawrence (or anyone else) is going to take nude photos of herself, at the very least she could store them where random internet perverts and hackers have no chance to reach them.

That's not a moral or ethical judgment, just a simple logical one.
If that offends you, well, I don't know what to say.

 

[Syntax Error]

The eternal rule of the internet:

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD.

 

[Lilani]

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

In all honesty, what you're trying to get across isn't very useful to anybody, because it really isn't a thing that needs to be said. I'm sure Jennifer Lawrence is perfectly aware that if she hadn't taken those pictures, they wouldn't be on the Internet right now. But just as somebody who buys an expensive TV accepts the risk of somebody trying to steal it, she accepted the risk of somebody exposing her pictures. People stealing expensive TVs is not a reason to argue that people should not own expensive TVs.

There's no point in drawing attention to the fact that she took the pictures, she isn't the one who did anything wrong. And by trying to draw attention to that, you are inevitably going to sound like you're trying to say it's her fault it happened. Frankly there's no other reason to bring up the risk BUT to point out how she could have prevented it, which is victim blaming. Owning desirable or embarrassing things comes with the risk of people stealing or exposing them. This isn't news to anybody, and beating the victims of such theft or exposure with the "YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS" stick is not helpful at all.

 

[Something Amyss]

Did she have a pressing need to always have access to nude photos of herself from potentially any computer?

No, but isn't that the new tech push? Store EVERYTHING to the cloud? Especially iproduct users with limited storage? I mean, it may not have even occurred to her to process these differently. There was a time where you stored to a floppy as a matter of course. Now, people use "the cloooooooooooud."

I don't know, it baffles me, too, but I can certainly hazard a guess.

 

[Leemaster777]

*SNIP*

I think you have a perfectly valid point.

Frankly, this entire thing has only proven to me something I've always said:

"Unless you want people to see them, you should NEVER take naked pictures of yourself. For any reason."

And this opinion has only been strengthened as time goes on, with how easy it is to share and store images on the internet. And, conversely, how commonplace hacking and privacy invasion has become. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to leave data on the internet in ANY form, and be completely certain that it is secure. Even deleted data can be restored (and seemingly WAS, in this case), so really, the best defense in this case is simply some foresight.

If I leave my keys in the ignition of my car, that's my right, certainly. And if it gets stolen, that's the criminal's fault, of course. But it was something that I could have prevented. This situation is much the same (and yes, I know I'm oversimplifying things a bit here. But the basic point I'm making stands).

Everyone who had their privacy invaded has every right to be angry, and are absolutely the victims in this. And whoever perpetrated this is certainly a scumbag of the highest order. But at the end of the day... they made a mistake. It's not an insult, it's a fact. And I can only hope that SOMEONE will learn from these mistakes, and make the choice NOT to post naked pictures of themselves on the internet.

I hope that, but I know that people are still going to do it.

 

[Lilani]

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

One more thing I'd like to add. A couple of years ago, I got in a car accident that I COULD have prevented, but still wasn't my fault. I was on a four lane road without a turn-lane (two lanes going one way, two lanes going the other). Because there was no turn-lane, the people who want to turn left just had to stop in the middle of the road to wait for the traffic in the other two lanes to stop so they could go.

I was driving in the right lane, and looking ahead I was vaguely aware that a few cars had stopped in the left lane to turn. I was also vaguely aware of a big white pickup truck that was coming up to these cars way too fast. I kind of just assumed he would hit his brakes at some point, but this did not happen. He ended up having to choose between staying in that lane and hitting three cars in a row, or merging over into my lane and hitting just me. He chose me, and slammed my little car into the sidewalk where luckily no pedestrians were walking, knocking both of my axles out of alignment, taking out my driver side mirror, damaging my driver side door and front left panel, damaging the front driver side tire, and completely severing the passenger side tire which was forced onto the sidewalk.

If I had been paying more active attention to the other lane, I could have noticed what was going on and slowed down to let this guy get over, preventing all of that damage. HOWEVER, legally it was still his fault, as he was the one who wasn't paying attention to what was going on in his OWN lane. And it was his insurance that paid for the damages.

The fact that I could have prevented it does not make what he did any more excusable, and nor does it shift any of the responsibility to me. He was the one in the wrong from beginning to end. Any actions that I could have taken to prevent it are irrelevant, because in this case saying I could have prevented it by paying better attention is as useful as saying I could have prevented it by not driving at all.

 

[otakon17]

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

One more thing I'd like to add. A couple of years ago, I got in a car accident that I COULD have prevented, but still wasn't my fault. I was on a four lane road without a turn-lane (two lanes going one way, two lanes going the other). Because there was no turn-lane, the people who want to turn left just had to stop in the middle of the road to wait for the traffic in the other two lanes to stop so they could go.

I was driving in the right lane, and looking ahead I was vaguely aware that a few cars had stopped in the left lane to turn. I was also vaguely aware of a big white pickup truck that was coming up to these cars way too fast. I kind of just assumed he would hit his brakes at some point, but this did not happen. He ended up having to choose between staying in that lane and hitting three cars in a row, or merging over into my lane and hitting just me. He chose me, and slammed my little car into the sidewalk where luckily no pedestrians were walking, knocking both of my axles out of alignment, taking out my driver side mirror, damaging my driver side door and front left panel, damaging the front driver side tire, and completely severing the passenger side tire which was forced onto the sidewalk.

If I had been paying more active attention to the other lane, I could have noticed what was going on and slowed down to let this guy get over, preventing all of that damage. HOWEVER, legally it was still his fault, as he was the one who wasn't paying attention to what was going on in his OWN lane. And it was his insurance that paid for the damages.



The fact that I could have prevented it does not make what he did any more excusable, and nor does it shift any of the responsibility to me. He was the one in the wrong from beginning to end. Any actions that I could have taken to prevent it are irrelevant, because in this case saying I could have prevented it by paying better attention is as useful as saying I could have prevented it by not driving at all.

Then I suppose that answers my question... I think I'll close this topic as it was said before, what I thought didn't need saying at all really.

 

[Something Amyss]

The fact that I could have prevented it does not make what he did any more excusable, and nor does it shift any of the responsibility to me. He was the one in the wrong from beginning to end. Any actions that I could have taken to prevent it are irrelevant, because in this case saying I could have prevented it by paying better attention is as useful as saying I could have prevented it by not driving at all.

If I could "like" this, I would, but I'll do the next best thing:

Several years ago, I was in a car accident where I was rear-ended. I had stopped at an intersection to let a car out because it's a difficult intersection and while I had no traffic to my back, they only had a small window before traffic from the other side would cut them off. While I'm sitting there, a guy comes speeding down the street behind me so fast I only see him at the last second and hits me with such force that my car almost slams into the car I was letting out. I was standing on the brakes at the time. The only thought in my head was that if I didn't keep on the brakes I would slam into that car.

Could this have been prevented? Yeah. I could have not stopped to let that car out. Or, the guy in the other car who left before the cops got there who sounded like he was drunk or stoned out of his mind could have not been speeding and possibly under the influence through one of the most dangerous intersections in town. And I would be piiiiiiiiiiiiiissed if someone told me it was my fault for stopping.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

In all honesty, what you're trying to get across isn't very useful to anybody, because it really isn't a thing that needs to be said. I'm sure Jennifer Lawrence is perfectly aware that if she hadn't taken those pictures, they wouldn't be on the Internet right now. But just as somebody who buys an expensive TV accepts the risk of somebody trying to steal it, she accepted the risk of somebody exposing her pictures. People stealing expensive TVs is not a reason to argue that people should not own expensive TVs.

really funny bit about this, I was about to use this exact example, I had a friend who didn't live in a ....nice neighborhood to put it nicely, for quite a while, and he decided to buy a nice tv one day and had it delivered and such....and what do you know, not a week later and while he was at work, his house got broken into and it was ripped right off the wall. Right when he was moving in I tried to warn him about the neighborhood and about showing/buying nice stuff, and I had to bite my lip a bit when he told me about his tv.

While obviously people that stole it were pieces of shit, do you think he could've used better judgement *at all* in this scenario?

Me personally, I don't expect people to be anything other than pieces of shit, so when I lived in not so nice areas I didn't buy anything nice and never had more than 10 bucks at a time in my wallet just in case.

(I know this is getting off topic, but I feel like some people are getting biased with the fact it's jennifer lawrence, this kind of shit has happened for years, but now that it is a bunch of popular celebrities, especially Jlaw, people are hulking out over it which seems unfair to the people it has happened to in the past and they never received this kind of response.)

 

[wetnap]

Prudent in the era of Kim Kardashian?

Honestly its not that bad anymore, and no one really cares.

What matters is whether your pictures are flattering, since that is what sticks in the public consciousness.

All the moral handwringing aside, its the ultimate form of flattery if that many people want to see you naked.

 

[Something Amyss]

So have we come to an impasse? Is there no way to represent my opinion on this point without considering that it's not victim blaming but an observation on risky behavior on the victims part that did not invite this to happen but enabled it as a possibility at the very least?

Quite possibly, we are at an impasse. I don't mean to be mean or dismissive (and I appreciate you asking if we were at an impasse rather than attacking me), I just can't see how to approach this in a way that this is broachable.

I mean, if you could come up with a way, I'd be interested in seeing how, but I can't see it myself.

 

[Stats ^1]

A lot of people take nude photos of themselves in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure a lot of escapist members here have done it. Also, when you have a partner, you sometimes do sexy things like send naked pictures.

Why is Jennifer Lawrence somehow not allowed to do that?

There's also the point that some of the victims supposedly deleting the imagea, but iCloud kept the data saved anyway.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No, but isn't that the new tech push? Store EVERYTHING to the cloud? Especially iproduct users with limited storage? I mean, it may not have even occurred to her to process these differently. There was a time where you stored to a floppy as a matter of course. Now, people use "the cloooooooooooud."

I don't know, it baffles me, too, but I can certainly hazard a guess.

There's definitely added risk associated with this kind of convenience.

All I can say is that accessibility cuts both ways. I think there's going to be a learning period with Cloud tech just as there was when multimedia was new, and enabled otherwise benign software to be used for ill intent.

Frankly, this entire thing has only proven to me something I've always said:

"Unless you want people to see them, you should NEVER take naked pictures of yourself. For any reason."

And this opinion has only been strengthened as time goes on, with how easy it is to share and store images on the internet. And, conversely, how commonplace hacking and privacy invasion has become. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to leave data on the internet in ANY form, and be completely certain that it is secure. Even deleted data can be restored (and seemingly WAS, in this case), so really, the best defense in this case is simply some foresight.

So it was restored...heh.

I shouldn't laugh, but people always gave me funny looks when I told them that deleted doesn't necessarily mean "gone for good"...usually followed by an explanation of data shredding or emulation.

And you capture the heart of what I'm kind of getting at: the Internet NEVER forgets.
No matter how much you wished it would.

 

[Skatologist]

Prudent in the era of Kim Kardashian?

Honestly its not that bad anymore, and no one really cares.

What matters is whether your pictures are flattering, since that is what sticks in the public consciousness.

All the moral handwringing aside, its the ultimate form of flattery if that many people want to see you naked.

Wanting to see me naked a flattery? I'm a guy and I'm creeped out by anyone doing such a thing, male or female, I could only imagine how a woman like Ms. Lawrence would feel. Me possibly taking pictures of myself nude is not an invitation for anyone beyond those who I'm willing to share them with to see them.

EDIT: And I will also not show anyone those aspects of my anatomy if they don't wish to see them, unless I find a really good reason to become a nudist.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Maybe she didn't know how sensitive iCloud can be. Can you really blame someone for not knowing something? Everything looks 20/20 in hindsight.
I wonder if everyone who posted here has not looked at the photos. I feel like it would be wrong to blame her and look at the photos, or worse, defend her and then look at the photos.

One conversation I wonder if people are having is to blame people who looked at the photos. The hacker is obviously horrible for stealing the photos and posting them online....but aren't you the ones looking at the photos without her permission?

Isn't that kind of the same as walking into her iCloud account and accessing the photos yourself? The hacker just opened the door for you.

I haven't looked at any naked celebrity photos.

 

[D.j. Wellborn]

I pretty much agree with the general consensus here: She's a human being with human thoughts and needs so she can do what she wants and she should be able to do just that without being scrutinized for it or having to always think if there's "some way someone can invade this privacy of mine". It's ridiculous that the general thoughts and opinions of the common folk are that just because someone is famous it means that they deserve no privacy and that every part of their lives is open to the public.

Ridiculous.

Now my question is, why is Jennifer Lawrence the only one mentioned? As I hear, multiple stars had their pictures stolen and shared so why is it only JLaw's that's come under such a discussion? Shouldn't this be about the all those stars in general or do they not count because JLaw is some how special or did something wrong?