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

[ExtraDebit]

We're only young, dumb and full of cum once, and before we know it we become old, boring and shooting blanks. I wished I had taking some nude pics of myself when I was young.

 

[carnex]

Let's break it down.

Measure of precaution? You mean like having information stored behind a password that was hacked, to enter a server that was promised to be secure?

Online storage has been prove vulnerable over and over and over again. It's safe with huge bulletproof glass window. Might be bulletproof but there are more effective means and they are publicly available and can not be controlled.

What do you use for your house? A key? They can be stolen. Locks can be picked.

True, but not all keys and not all locks are the same. Simple investment into better lock can save your bacon. It's a small investment worth several orders of magnitude more.

I hope you don't use Steam - those servers can be hacked.

You are right, that's why I have nothing precious there. Just games, that I have alternative copies of in any case (which is 100% legal).

Your credit card can be scanned.

Yep, that's why people use debit cards.

Anything you've ever typed into a computer can be retrieved.

Not really. There are one click solutions that take care of that. Also, don't do things you have to hide in places that are risk prone. [/quote]

I can go on and list more, but I'm sure you get the picture. Just because it involves sex and just because the victims are women, doesn't mean you can blame them. Or do I need to actually type out the entire list?

Don't bother, chances are it will be futile.

Oh and you lied about it being in public. Saying the server that was protected against hacks is public space is like saying a bank vault is public because someone broke into it.

Let me repeat myself. Clout storage is like a safe with big glass bulletproof window.

Now, you can make it more secure with two step activations and keep your passwords safe, unique, long and impersonal and than that glass window will get one heck of an upgrade. But who will bother with that a? I mean it's bad to abuse other is it not?

 

[carnex]

Your credit card can be scanned.

Yep, that's why people use debit cards.

What's the difference? Generally credit cards are more covered against abusive practices than debit cards. It used to be one of the big selling points that if you were the victim of identity theft or mis-sold goods, the credit card companies would help deal with it and would cover you against the loss, because at that point it's actually their money, not yours. Debit cards take you money directly, and offer less cover. But why are they less scammable?

Because you have less money on it. It's a limited account that you control. Both my debit card and my internet card (don't ask, Serbia) are connected to very limited accounts i control online (2 stop activation actually, with my phone having separate code for activation of activation app). I was burned once, I will not be burned again. As long as those measures have no impact on my life, and these certainly have none, I will take them. It's always better to prevent than to repair.

 

[carnex]

It was fun in the begining but it seriously is draging me down...

Homes with windows have been proven to be vulnerable over and over and over again. It's a building with class windows. Might be strong glass, but there are more effective means.

If someone breaks your window and steals from your home, why did you have glass windows?

Give me a reasonable alternative and I, we can talk about it. And no sunlight and no natural streaming of air is not acceptable to me. To repeat myself, taking least risks that you can take without effecting your life is just smart thing to do.

She used something she believed secure. It should be secure. A customer has a reasonable expectation that it is secure. Just like if I were to pick your lock or kick your door in, you'd have assumed they were both more reliable than that.

But there are numerous examples that it's not secure. Almost every cloud storage I know fell at one time or another. To be honest, cloud itself held up this time, it's one of the client apps that was wide open this time. Apple apparently patched it

Nothing precious? You mean like the bank account details you typed into Steam to purchase games? If it gets hacked and someone finds your financial information, surely you should not have had important information transmitted over a network. Why is it ok for you to store important information online, but not for these victims of a crime?

I could give you the number of my card that's attached to steam. All the data. And you would still end up empty handed. That card is on strict diet of eating only what it will regurgitate back in few minutes to an online shop.

Debit cards are just as easily scanned. So, replace the word credit with debit and you still didn't make a point there.

Yep, but the damage is limited by limited amounts of money on it.

Risk prone? Most murders occur in one's own home. Why do you sleep in such a risk prone area?

Because alternatives are either even more risk prone or contain other serious flaws that I hold unacceptable.

Not wanting the evidence doesn't make it less valid. Though it's interesting that you call it futile, meaning you believe any evidence to be invalid before you've seen it.

I said "chances are" meaning that that I think probability if you presenting me with a case that I or people who are in business of crime prevention didn't think off.

The metaphor wasn't good the first time you used it.

OK, read the first paragraph again if you like it.

I wasn't aware you knew the passwords of the victims.

Habit of putting words in people's mouth is not nice. No, I don't know people's passwords. But I have some experience there and I am aware of attitudes many of people have about it. And they are not in line with what I wrote.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I'd like to point out here, that some people have probably spent more time trying to blame the victims of a crime, then talking of the criminals and their responsibility. I've had to defend women whose private, personal items were stolen, because apparently the real issue here is their responsibility, and not the responsibility of the host servers that were hacked, not the responsibility of the criminals that broke the law, and not the responsibility of the people sharing nude images of women against their consent.

Clearly, discussing how much guilt the victims should own is far more important than anything else. They are women after all.

Well yeah, I mean, these women took exposing photos, some of then with the intention of titilating their lover, of course it's their fault that they trusted The security of Apple's databases, making themselves victims.

I send my naked pictures through an iron clad system of self destructing carrier pigeons and flash drives that would take eleventy thousand hours to hack. It's the only sensible precaution.

 

[carnex]

I'd like to point out here, that some people have probably spent more time trying to blame the victims of a crime, then talking of the criminals and their responsibility. I've had to defend women whose private, personal items were stolen, because apparently the real issue here is their responsibility, and not the responsibility of the host servers that were hacked, not the responsibility of the criminals that broke the law, and not the responsibility of the people sharing nude images of women against their consent.

Clearly, discussing how much guilt the victims should own is far more important than anything else. They are women after all.

Did you consider that we have a legal systems that will do their best, most of the time, to catch, process and punish person/persons that committed the transgression.

Also, pointing out the risks victim exposed itself to is not victim blaming unless the person starts claiming that that exact behavior is the primary reason why the transgression took place. Also one could use common sense about their perception of events.

Buying expensive sound system is not a risk factor. Putting said sound system in highly visible spot in crime prone area is.

 

[Vykrel]

people are acting like what she did was stupid. it was actually a pretty smart thing to do, considering she was in a long distance relationship.

swapping pictures is a good way to maintain intimacy and keep the relationship alive. there is just some risk involved.

and that relationship still didnt last, so you can imagine how much shorter it would have been if she had not been looking forward to sending her boyfriend pictures on occasion.

 

[SexyGarfield]

I think that we can all agree that the hacking that occurred is analogous to theft. The amount that one guards themselves against theft usually depends on the value of their possessions and likelihood of having something stolen from you. In the case of a theft of something physical the victim is never to blame if they take standard precautions, the thieves went to extraordinary measures to obtain those photos. Could they have been more cautious as a person who has a lot more to protect? Sure, but they didn't exactly park their Ferrari in a slum.

 

[lapan]

I think that we can all agree that the hacking that occurred is analogous to theft. The amount that one guards themselves against theft usually depends on the value of their possessions and likelihood of having something stolen from you. In the case of a theft of something physical the victim is never to blame if they take standard precautions, the thieves went to extraordinary measures to obtain those photos. Could they have been more cautious as a person who has a lot more to protect? Sure, but they didn't exactly park their Ferrari in a slum.

Fair enough.

I personally wouldn't save private pictures on cloud storage, but most normal people don't know that much about "the cloud" apart from the name. It's certainly not comparable with locking your doors like some people have equated it to in levels of common sense.

It will at least serve as wakeup-call in therms of security

 

[carnex]

I think that we can all agree that the hacking that occurred is analogous to theft. The amount that one guards themselves against theft usually depends on the value of their possessions and likelihood of having something stolen from you. In the case of a theft of something physical the victim is never to blame if they take standard precautions, the thieves went to extraordinary measures to obtain those photos. Could they have been more cautious as a person who has a lot more to protect? Sure, but they didn't exactly park their Ferrari in a slum.

Whole society is ill informed about risks in digital space. They all know of risks but are not really aware about how strong multiplicator of risk factor internet is. Also, the more integrated system is the more points of failure there is. In digital realm right now security of our data mostly is up to us. Every link added to chain of automatic operations is another point of failure and the more links there are the more thing will fall by failure of one. Every thing we do is tracked. Every thing we send is stored. Information is reigning as king like in no time prior.

Actually educating people about this stuff will put them at far lower risk. Removing those procedures behind user accessibility is compromise for benefit of ease of use. But I feel we went way, way too far.

It was fun in the begining but it seriously is draging me down...

It was fun pointing out ways women are responsible for their attack? Having it pointed out how gross that is has dragged you down?

I will not engage in conversation with person that actively attempts to accuse me of doing something this morally bankrupt. It's attitude like yours that actually makes victims of innocent people.

but I can not resist this one.

Least risks without affecting your life? Oh, so you get to choose that it's ok to have glass windows because you don't want to pay for bullet proof glass, but it's not ok when these women want to store their information in a password protected server? No, friend. No. You don't get to pick and choose what is ok and what are acceptable levels of risks to enjoy one's life.

I got that covered too. I live on 5th (6th floor for US residents) in building that is basically unassailable from the outside. And if someone with military grade gear decides to come in, I will not be able to stop him anyway.

 

[Verlander]

The issue is people getting upset about it. I have naked photos out there, on the web. So does the missus. Not a single fuck was given, or will be given if they come to surface.

The world is far too prudish. If someone wants to jerk to me, have at it!

 

[carnex]

The issue is people getting upset about it. I have naked photos out there, on the web. So does the missus. Not a single fuck was given, or will be given if they come to surface.

The world is far too prudish. If someone wants to jerk to me, have at it!

Potentially not all of them are actually hurt by this incident. For some it might be god sent. Sex tame is well known media stunt for publicity.

That said, most actresses either maintain certain public image of themselves that are core to their careers. Many of them actually demand huge amounts of money for their nudity. But most of all it's personal moral standards that are violated. Do they have far too prudish moral standards? Opinions on intersection of sexuality and morality will never be same between reasonable large group of people.

 

[Verlander]

The issue is people getting upset about it. I have naked photos out there, on the web. So does the missus. Not a single fuck was given, or will be given if they come to surface.

The world is far too prudish. If someone wants to jerk to me, have at it!

Potentially not all of them are actually hurt by this incident. For some it might be god sent. Sex tame is well known media stunt for publicity.

That said, most actresses either maintain certain public image of themselves that are core to their careers. Many of them actually demand huge amounts of money for their nudity. But most of all it's personal moral standards that are violated. Do they have far too prudish moral standards? Opinions on intersection of sexuality and morality will never be same between reasonable large group of people.

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

 

[SexyGarfield]

I think that we can all agree that the hacking that occurred is analogous to theft.

Copyright violation surely? My understanding is that she can still access naked photos of herself and as such no one has been deprived of said naked photos (entirely the opposite); therefore no theft has occurred.

I mean, if the naked photos weren't available for free, I wouldn't look at them - she hasn't lost a sale here. If anything, I'm helping spread the word about these photos so more people will pay for them later. Unless I let them copy my copy. Which I might.


(Note: I have not and will not be looking for the photos; I am making a light-hearted joke about some of the crap excuses people knock out for piracy.)

Most certainly. The way copyright works in the US everything is pretty much copyrighted by it's creator the moment it's created. Remember that "selfie" photo taken at the Oscars this year, with Ellen DeGeneres and a bunch of other stars, that became very popular? Even though it was Ellen's phone used to take the picture since Bradly Cooper had pressed the button on the phone he was technically the owner of the photo.

I'm sure CFAA will get thrown at them as well which would be even worse. No way these people getting off easy, if they are caught that is.

Edit: Sorry I think I may have missed the point of your post. I am not saying that it is analogous to theft legally, I meant more on a morale note is it like theft. If your social security number is "stolen" and broadcast you have still lost something. The numbers weren't technically or legally stolen, neither were the pictures their purpose and function were.

The pictures like a number are information therefore resistant to destruction of ownership through theft. Through no act of their own were these pictures given or distributed to unwanted parties. The pictures were obtained through force though not of brawn. If I had to call that act anything I would call it theft.

 

[carnex]

Potentially not all of them are actually hurt by this incident. For some it might be god sent. Sex tame is well known media stunt for publicity.

And they all could feel horribly violated. Your baseless "coulds" and "maybes" are pointless, but to ease the guilt of malicious thieves.

That said, most actresses either maintain certain public image of themselves that are core to their careers. Many of them actually demand huge amounts of money for their nudity. But most of all it's personal moral standards that are violated. Do they have far too prudish moral standards? Opinions on intersection of sexuality and morality will never be same between reasonable large group of people.

You actually asked the question, do the victims of a sex crime have "too prudish" standards. I just wanted to point that out.

This is actually getting ridiculous. You are, again, trying to put words I didn't say into my mouth. We have nothing to talk about. Have a nice day.

 

[carnex]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

There is a big difference between personal/intimate and public space. At least there is for me and I would dare for majority of people. We are prepared to do many things within out intimate/personal space that we wouldn't do under any circumstances, if we can help it, in public space. Nudity is one of those things for so many people. Sex for even greater percentage.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

Someone sees it? Allow me to strip out your deception and display the truth of the matter:

Someone took a private, intimate photo. It could be for themselves, it could be for a loved one. A person they do not know stole it. People they do not know shared it. Now a countless number of perverted assholes are viewing private, sensitive material of the most personal nature.

So, no. No they did not "just" take a photo and then get upset when "someone" saw it.

What you meant was "let me misframe what you wrote". We were talking about the moral standards, not the crime. I perfectly aware of what happened.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

There is a big difference between personal/intimate and public space. At least there is for me and I would dare for majority of people. We are prepared to do many things within out intimate/personal space that we wouldn't do under any circumstances, if we can help it, in public space. Nudity is one of those things for so many people. Sex for even greater percentage.

Awesome, good for you. I sincerely mean it. I just don't personally respect that outlook as being healthy or constructive.

 

[SexyGarfield]

Clip. Won't let you get me again

In all seriousness, I think the escapist might own our forum post. Might have to check the terms of service, or not. The value I receive from these forums is equal to or more than the value of anything I would conceivably post here.

 

[Reaper195]

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.

Christ...this thread pretty much ended at the first response. Nothing else can really be added that you didn't just say.