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

[otakon17]

Owning a bike is not a societal taboo and is NOT inviting anyone to steal it. You don't INVITE anyone to take something from you unless you actually do so or are foolish to the extreme with it. Nakedness and sexuality however is and even the act of just putting it out "there" is a massive risk. This is more along the lines of throwing out your personalized porn stash improperly and someone taking it for themselves afterwards and sharing it with their scum buddies. It's dirty laundry that wasn't properly handled. Doesn't mean they deserved it to happen however.

So apparently an image of someone naked is `inviting` people to hack it and you pretty much threw it out to people?

Ew. Dude I think I'm done talking about this.

Said way back in my first post, you're not gonna change your mind about it.

Did you even read what I posted? No it's NOT inviting them to take it because it's there, I used that as an example of improperly handling something of this nature. Doing ANYTHING is not an invitation for some scumbag to take advantage of you doing it. You have jumped to conclusions on this post, I have said multiple times it is not.

 

[otakon17]

I think it her own god damn business. She wanted to take nude pictures of herself? Or sex pictures? Or whatever pictures that are not law breaking? It her own business.

That said, it's today's reality that once you take them they are at serious risk of being exposed to outer world.Just like I said with every other case, if you expose yourself to risk there is a greater chance that the trouble will find you. Is it her fault? No, she didn't spread them, someone violated her privacy. But, at the same time pictures wouldn't be stolen if they didn't exist in the first place.

In other words, think before you do some things. It can save you a lot of pain even if your actions are totally benign on the surface.

That's ALL I've been saying is consider the consequences of your actions online. I have never said she's not ALLOWED to or that it was WRONG of her to do so. Just that it wasn't prudent.

 

[Battenberg]

I'd say it was careless of her in the same way that not using antivirus is careless. Ultimately all she did is underestimate the lengths people would go to violate her privacy.

The only people at fault are the ones who failed to protect her privacy (and those who endeavoured to exploit this failure in order to steal very private content from strangers.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

She has a right to do whatever she wants. But a big name celebrity doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy...unfortunately.

She should be aware this kind of this is going to happen, as should anyone else of a similar status.

I feel terrible for her and I wish this kind of thing COULD stay private but it's never going to because that's the world we live in. You can find whoever leaked the pictures, give him whatever punishment you feel it fair but this is just going to happen again to a different set of celebrities at some other point.

It's not victim "blaming" to say that highly influential people are at incredibly high risk of having personal information put out there.

 

[Max_imus]

Ohboy. I only have two points to say about this:

1) It is within everyone's rights to take pictures in whatever pose or state of being dressed they choose. It is also within everyone's rights to trust a service like iCloud and trust that their privacy will be protected by this service.

2) It is sickening that people seem to think they have the right to expose private information of people without their consent while keeping their own identity private and defending their privacy with tooth and nail.

Come on people, this is a thing of common courtesy.

 

[TransGamer]

]There were other ways. Like sending them a sext. Or calling them on the phone. Or meeting with them in person for naughty times with the shades lowered and the curtains closed. All things involve risk and some things are more risky than others. The risk of exposure in this case outweighs the satisfaction of a successful flirt, to me anyway. Hindsight is 20/20 and all and it most definitely was not worth it at this point.

You're still blaming the people who had a crime perpetrated against them. All of those pictures are between consenting adults; some are even between spouses. We're to blame them for poor judgement but not the people who actually engaged in theft? If so, why?

 

[Mullac]

I really can't understand how anyone would blame Jennifer Lawrence for the pictures being leaked. Isn't it obvious that it is solely the hacker's fault. She made a choice to take the pictures, which is perfectly fine unless you have an issue with any kind of nude picture being taken while in the privacy oh your home and only for that privacy, and the hacker made the choice to broadcast them, which is obviously morally wrong!

 

[Lightknight]

Eh, she should have done whatever she wanted to do. Boobs are just boobs, people. Bunch of fatty tissue cells and whatever foreign material like silicone has been implanted. Fun to squeeze and useful for nursing but not much else other than them. I've got man boobs too. Anyone want a picture [/joke]?

Now, in doing so did she leave herself open for exploitation? Sure. In the same way that you walking down the street leaves you vulnerable to getting mugged. It doesn't mean she did anything wrong by doing it anymore than you walking down the street is you doing something wrong.

I don't know this particular situation. But whoever was responsible for storing them (if a third party) is partially to blame for bad security and whoever stole and released them are to blame by far the most.

The "crime" at hand here is them being stolen and released. She is merely responsible for them existing which is not itself a crime/problem. She did not steal them. She did not release them. She had no part in that anymore than a gem cutter is responsible for a pristine cut gem existing that a thief then shows up and steals.

Should she have been more careful? Sure. Does that mean she shares blame for what a criminal did? Nope.

There's a balancing act to perform here. On the one hand there is some onus on people to protect themselves. But that doesn't make them responsible for the crime. They are two distinct and separate issues. They were unwise and, on another note, someone did something bad. They are responsible for being unwise. They are not responsible for someone deciding to take their stuff.

 

[briankoontz]

This situation is so filled with ridiculous irony.

So let's get this straight - people whose large degree of wealth is based on other people looking at idealized (makeup, helpful lighting, camera angles, photoshopping, editing, etc) versions of their often nearly-naked bodies are upset that now people are looking at non-idealized versions of their nearly-naked or fully naked bodies.

This is the core of what's happening here. It's not about privacy - it's about controlling the way one's body is perceived. These are, except for the posing and whatever minor day-to-day enhancements these women are using at the time, NATURAL images of the women. This is the problem for them, not the "lack of privacy".

There's no GLAMOUR to these images. While this lack of glamour might be fine for their boyfriends, it abhors them for their "fans" to see them minus the glamour that their cadre of photographers, editors, makeup artists, etc. usually provide them.

These are women who have already put their barely clothed or not clothed bodies on display, in the context of idealization and wealth maximization. These women forgo privacy to exploit others for their own profit, and it's the perceived injury to their ability to continue to exploit that's the problem. But of course privacy is used as the excuse, as it's potentially a more effective argument than the truth.

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.

 

[klaynexas3]

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

This on a theoretical stand point.

On a practical stand point, she should have thought ahead about the possibilities of the bad things that could happen in the scenario, as all people should when they are deciding what actions to make. However, there is no reason to shove that in their face, they are already suffering because of these assholes, we don't need to remind them that it happened.

Yes, in a perfect world you shouldn't have to worry about that kind of stuff. Well, we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not going to blame them, but that doesn't stop me from thinking they should have thought this through a little more thoroughly. It's the same reason you put anti-virus programs on your computer or use a condom when having sex(or not even having that sex at all for that matter), it shouldn't have to be your job to look out for yourself, but it's an intelligent thing to do.

 

[Kathinka]

how about anyone can take any pictures of themselves however the fuck they please without being blamed?

now, uploading the stuff to a cloud, on the other hand..maybe a little bit their fault. not totally, since it's supposed to be private and save. but what really is nowadays.

 

[klaynexas3]

Eh, she should have done whatever she wanted to do. Boobs are just boobs, people. Bunch of fatty tissue cells and whatever foreign material like silicone has been implanted. Fun to squeeze and useful for nursing but not much else other than them. I've got man boobs too. Anyone want a picture

[/joke]

Oh. Well, um...well this is awkward isn't it. I think I might just, um...*jumps out a window running into the night*

 

[Pyrian]

I'm curious if all these people crying "victim blaming" play the same card for Apple. Should we absolve Apple of their responsibility to our privacy on account of the fact that it's "entirely" the fault of the hacker? I don't.

 

[Timpossible]

What?
She can do with her Body whatevery she wants. Not just Jennifer Lawrence.
Everyone can do what he wants as long no one else get's hurt.
If she's okay with making private nudies of herself than she can 100% do it.
The Scanal is not that those pictures exist or were made. The existence
of those pictures do not change my view of those women in any way.

About the Privacy of celebrities
Celebrities have a public persona. This Persona interacts with Fans and the Media,
who are still strangers to those celebrities. How much of the Private Person is in this
Persona can vary very much from person to peron. This Persona and the puplic have some
kind of mutual beneficial relationship "celebrity X givs Autographs, Interviews and stuff and
the plublic get's someting to well...like and "identify" with.

But a celebritie's actual privat life? Their actual sexuality? Their fears and most inner thoughts?
Its non of our business. Even if an Actress is nude in front of the camera. It's still something
very different from their actual self beeing nude.
Nothing justifies this violation of privatcy that happend there. Nothing.

The only thing that can be argued about is if it was the smartest thing to
do to have those pics/vids in a cloud. It wasn't dump. I mean those services are
supposed to be save. It would have been smartER to store them on a local
Hard-Drive or USB Stick at their home. But still: It was NOT a "Why the Fuck did she do this?"-Move.

But I think it is like parking your car in a public parking lot that is supposed to be guarded. Yes.
It would be safer to have your car in your garage at home, but maybe it's not possible for some reason.
Noone can blame you to trust a service that's supposed to be save.

It's not like those pics where in some public facebook folder or in an open network.

So who's to blame? The Hacker. He's the only one to blame.
If there was a breach at iCloud Apple also has to take some part of the blame. I doubt that Apple wasn't at least sloppy. But I don't know how much energy the Hacker had to put into this. If he had it easy: Apple is to blame. If you offer a Service it is your responsibilty to make it safe for your customer. If you can't do that, you have to take at least some of the blame.
But in general: Only The Hacker/Thief is to blame. Everything else is in my opinion at least quite cynical.

 

[Lightknight]

Eh, she should have done whatever she wanted to do. Boobs are just boobs, people. Bunch of fatty tissue cells and whatever foreign material like silicone has been implanted. Fun to squeeze and useful for nursing but not much else other than them. I've got man boobs too. Anyone want a picture

[/joke]

Oh. Well, um...well this is awkward isn't it. I think I might just, um...*jumps out a window running into the night*

Oh.... well, this isn't me but feel free to enjoy this video:

<youtube=FlwkTCdLA8I>

 

[xaszatm]

This situation is so filled with ridiculous irony.

So let's get this straight - people whose large degree of wealth is based on other people looking at idealized (makeup, helpful lighting, camera angles, photoshopping, editing, etc) versions of their often nearly-naked bodies are upset that now people are looking at non-idealized versions of their nearly-naked or fully naked bodies.

This is the core of what's happening here. It's not about privacy - it's about controlling the way one's body is perceived. These are, except for the posing and whatever minor day-to-day enhancements these women are using at the time, NATURAL images of the women. This is the problem for them, not the "lack of privacy".

There's no GLAMOUR to these images. While this lack of glamour might be fine for their boyfriends, it abhors them for their "fans" to see them minus the glamour that their cadre of photographers, editors, makeup artists, etc. usually provide them.

These are women who have already put their barely clothed or not clothed bodies on display, in the context of idealization and wealth maximization. These women forgo privacy to exploit others for their own profit, and it's the perceived injury to their ability to continue to exploit that's the problem. But of course privacy is used as the excuse, as it's potentially a more effective argument than the truth.

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.

...really? So these people have no right to complain at all about their nude photos being released publicly across the internet? Jenifer is the "villain" and the hacker is a "hero"? What sort of messed up Kool-Aid are you drinking, good sir?

If I were to publically hack into your files and steal personal and valuable information about you and post it everywhere, why would you complain? I'm your hero. Oh? It's different because these people are celebrities? NO THEY AREN'T! Paparazzi take unflattering photos of women all the time. These photos are an invasion of privacy and you are trying to make sure that the dirt the hacker created sticks because of "heroism."

snip

Also, what he said. High Five Spot1990.

 

[JetVypre]

Dishonest people exist. This is a fact, no matter how much you defend laws/rules, moral or otherwise, there will always be people who will attempt to undermine them (for teh lulz). Humanity sucks, blah blah blah.

This does not in anyway condone anything these people do, I'm just pointing it out.

If you take something as sensitive and private as nude pictures and store them ANYWHERE NEAR the internet, then there will always be the potential for said hackers to access them. Game over, never unseen.

As far as I have read, nobody is sure on how these pictures were acquired, so this may not apply. However, if it was due to iCloud or their phones being hacked, then I think it can be argued that a small portion of responsibility falls on the individual. Whilst if they were taken from a secure source (secure HDD and such) then of course they couldn't remotely be held responsible.

My analogy would be: If I have £1000 cash (or however much you consider nude pictures to be worth) in my wallet, perched slightly poking out of my back pocket so the money was visible and walked through a packed city train station, chances are, that wallet is gone within 30 seconds to pickpockets. I think most will agree that some of the blame would fall on me for not considering the risks in that instance. OR if I wasn't aware of the fact that city train stations are a hot spot for pickpockets, awareness should be raised of pickpockets.

However, if I take that £1000 cash and staple it to my chest underneath my coat and walk through the same train station (assuming the blood isn't too noticeable) I'd bet that £1000 that I could wander around that station for days and that money would be perfectly safe (albeit a bit blood stained). If someone mugged me and pulled out all the staples, I think most people would agree that in the scenario of carrying £1000 cash through a train station, I did a fairly good job of securing it and couldn't take any responsibility.

TLDR: If People are going to take nude photos, they need to be made or make themselves aware of how insecure the internet is, especially people in the public eye, and keep anything they don't want taken far away from it. If anything, everyone should take a lesson from this. Or just don't take nude photos...I don't understand why personally...

EDIT: Made my TLDR more to the point of the thread

 

[otakon17]

]There were other ways. Like sending them a sext. Or calling them on the phone. Or meeting with them in person for naughty times with the shades lowered and the curtains closed. All things involve risk and some things are more risky than others. The risk of exposure in this case outweighs the satisfaction of a successful flirt, to me anyway. Hindsight is 20/20 and all and it most definitely was not worth it at this point.

You're still blaming the people who had a crime perpetrated against them. All of those pictures are between consenting adults; some are even between spouses. We're to blame them for poor judgement but not the people who actually engaged in theft? If so, why?

I am not blaming her. I have said it a half dozen times and the blame for the whole mess falls to the assholes that stole them and spread them out. My only point is that at the time it did not seem like a smart decision. Put yourself in the same boat. You want to send a little something to your significant other. Does it seem like a good idea for it to be a picture over something as public as a cellphone?

I really can't understand how anyone would blame Jennifer Lawrence for the pictures being leaked. Isn't it obvious that it is solely the hacker's fault. She made a choice to take the pictures, which is perfectly fine unless you have an issue with any kind of nude picture being taken while in the privacy oh your home and only for that privacy, and the hacker made the choice to broadcast them, which is obviously morally wrong!

This isn't about laying blame, we know that the culprits that spread the data out are to blame. The point of the whole discussion is:

Was it prudent of her to take pictures of herself in that manner in the first place?

 

[Rattja]

Hehe, I've been saying this for years now.
Since my mom is somewhat addicted to taking pictures, documenting everything, I know all too well that there are pictures one just don't want the world to see. But I agreed back then, regretted it later and now shy away from any lens pointing my way.

I think that if you take these kinds of pictures, you also risk that anyone can see them at some point, and I don't really feel bad for you if that were to happen. It could have been prevented by simply not taking them in the first place.

People in general don't seem to adjust to the digital world we have created all that well. I mean, in theory this is the same as someone breaking into your home or whatever, grabbing a physical photo and coppy it right? The only difference is that it's easier to do now, as you just need to press the right keys and bam! Instant exposure.

I actually have a close friend that had this happen to her, where her previous husband spread them around, and I told her the same thing, should not have done it in the first place.
I get why someone may want to take pictures like this, but it's rather stupid to think they will ever be safe in this day and age as long as it's in digital form.
Hell, even deleting the things does not save you from someone who really wants to dig.

One could point fingers all day, but at the end of the day it could only be prevented by the person in the picture and only that person. We have yet to make a system that is unhackable, so just go with a physical picture in a safe or something if you just HAVE to take these pictures.

Regradless of everything, people in general can't be trusted, it is somewhat amusing that many seem to think they can.
It's just as with secrets, as soon as you tell someone it's out of your hands what that person will do with it.
Which makes me think about how messed up it is that we need to keep secrets of any kind in the first place.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I am not blaming her. I have said it a half dozen times and the blame for the whole mess falls to the assholes that stole them and spread them out. My only point is that at the time it did not seem like a smart decision. Put yourself in the same boat. You want to send a little something to your significant other. Does it seem like a good idea for it to be a picture over something as public as a cellphone?

This whole thing was about iCloud storage, which to be fair is a bit esoteric to the general public yet. Sending pics via MMS is one thing, but cloud storage is another. Neither case makes it justifiable.

Captcha: "box kitty" Oh, for fuck's sake.