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

[giles]

The stupid decision was not wearing protection. If you have something so vulnerable, why would you not protect it like the women protected their images with passwords and a seemingly secure server? Is it because you expect others to not violate your rights? Do you expect people to not hurt you?

The comparison only works within the straw man of the comic ("If you're gonna have boobs" etc.), which mitchell271 didn't advocate.

If that person earned his livelihood through his testicles, was a popular target for violence and then made the conscious decision to wear his testicles when going outside to meet random people as opposed to simply not doing so (see where this nonsense falls flat?) it would have been smart to wear protection.

 

[giles]

What does livelihood have to do with anything?

That's simply part of the argument. Nude pictures of celebrities are potentially harmful to their career, so for this comparison to work that guy has to earn his money with his balls somehow.

Isn't not wanting to be kicked in the testicles reason enough?

This is not what this is about, now is it? You're trying to bring it down to "average person" level again, but that's simply neither here nor there.
But you're right, if I was a likely target for random acts of violence I might actually wear protection simply because I don't want to suffer permanent damage to my vital spots. Then again, I'm a regular runner so I might actually be safe by just keeping my distance and running away if shit goes down. Point is, I would take precautions.

 

[Harleykin]

just one thing (and i didn't follow this thread over 8 or 9 pages nor did i read into the whole leak shit except "oh noes nudies on the webs")

she is the vicitim
not accountable (that's the word right?...sry german here :x)

only if she would have said sth like :
pictures stolen from phones? from celbities? that's unheard of i would never have known that this could happen to ME.(like a bad psa)

then yeah i'd say girl that's naive. even paparazzi would hack your phone for that shit.

i doubt she did say that though.

and yeah i feel like it's an educational problem. things connected to the net are never safe so you really shouldn't have personal belongings on there (i mean naked pics personal. you obviously will have personal stuff on your phone). yeah she still is and forever will the vicitm please don't repeat this back to me i know it.
she could've just owned them by announcing a playboy shoot though. that would have been awesome like that 8 mile ending rap from rabbit ha!

 

[MeatMachine]

Maximumble did the perfect response to all the bullshit

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.

The stupid decision was not wearing protection. If you have something so vulnerable, why would you not protect it like the women protected their images with passwords and a seemingly secure server? Is it because you expect others to not violate your rights? Do you expect people to not hurt you?

Yes. I expect people to NOT kick me in the balls. Do you know how often people have kicked me in the balls in my 23 years of life? None. Never. Not once. I have NEVER been kicked in the balls because no one has ever had a REASON to kick me in the balls.

I used to play soccer in high school. Know what I did then? I wore a ball cup, because I was in a situation where it would be reasonably expected to possibly get hooved in the sack. After all, if you're knowingly introducing yourself to an environment where lots of people are throwing powerful kicks at groin-level, then it would be wise to adapt to that climate.

Now back to the real topic at hand.

Do I expect people to leak nude photos of me online? No. No, because I am not exceptionally attractive or well-known - even IF I was willing to put myself in a certain set of conditions that would INCREASE the likeliness of people doing so (i.e. BECOMING exceptionally attractive and well-known), I would take into consideration the increase risk that that brings.

Simply put, deeming it absolutely necessary to guard yourself from potential harm when there is virtually no risk factors present is paranoia. Not an intrinsically BAD idea, just one that you don't have to worry about much. However, guarding yourself from potential harm when you ought to rightly know that there is a LOT of risk involved is the smart, reasonable thing to do - which is clearly not what they anticipated.

I'm not defending or excusing the actions of the leakers or voyeurs of the photographs in any way; I'm simply stating that no matter how "sick" or "depraved" you think their actions are, SOMEONE WILL take advantage of that opening, and the celebrities should've taken that into consideration while accepting taking nude pictures and saving them to a cloud.

In a perfect world consisting entirely of good people, there would be no privacy infringements. There would also be no drunk drivers. Or manslaughters. Or domestic abuse. Or money laundering.

You have to protect yourself from opportunists. To quote the comic, yes, "that's just the way the world works".

 

[carnex]

This whole thread mostly reads to me like this bastardized version of comic

Empathy is good, but empathy won't fix jack shit on internet or IT in general.

 

[giles]

This whole thread mostly reads to me like this bastardized version of comic

Good job you're the third person who posted this comic. Oh, of course, you know that because you "mostly" "read" this thread, amirite?

I suppose that's the sad core of the issue, isn't it. Simply being female and in the spotlight is apparently enough to make you a likely target of this sort of thing - and apparently a fair number of people will tell you it's your fault going by my Google research.

Possibly. It is well known that public figures are targets, which, again, is why they live in mansions with big fences and security. They don't live in "normal people houses". Nobody cries about how their right to live in a normal house is being violated, though. This should simply extend to IT security aswell.
Also, I don't see how her being female factors into this; I'm working under the assumption that every celebrity out there gets shit from weirdos and creeps (death threats etc.).
Remember the "sex scandal" around a certain congressman by the name of Anthony Weiner? I still have the image of his hard dick in his boxers in my mind because I've seen it like 10 times on the Daily Show (god damnit, John Stewart..). Nobody cried "rape". I imagine they didn't pull that shit with Jennifer Lawrence's pictures.

 

[carnex]

This whole thread mostly reads to me like this bastardized version of comic

Good job you're the third person who posted this comic. Oh, of course, you know that because you "mostly" "read" this thread, amirite?

Please go read the thread from the start. Than read the comic i posted. Especially the credits under the boxes. Then go facepalm yourself, rub some lotion on there, come back and have fun.

Oh, btw, I'm in left guy's camp. Self-insertion FTW!

 

[MeatMachine]

-snip

Except you just ignored the entie argument I wrote, and only addresed a single part that wasn't an argument, but a critic of modern journalism, completely subverting my point that it's also partially their fault, but it's okay since you quoted something before then, making you look smarter!

I'll close the argument by suggesting for anyone who say it's not the celebrities fault: create a word file called "passwords" and put in it their name, address, social security number and bank accounts, then upload it to a safe cloud storing server of their choosing, if you say it's a terrible idea then congratulations, you are smarter than the "victims".

They would still be victims.

Incredibly stupid victims who totally stuck their asses in the air and SHUOTED "MY WALLET IS IN MY BACK LEFT POCKET, MY ASS IS IN THE AIR, AND I AM CURRENTLY DISTRACTED," but still victims nonetheless.

Maximumble did the perfect response to all the bullshit

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.

The stupid decision was not wearing protection. If you have something so vulnerable, why would you not protect it like the women protected their images with passwords and a seemingly secure server? Is it because you expect others to not violate your rights? Do you expect people to not hurt you?

Yes. I expect people to NOT kick me in the balls. Do you know how often people have kicked me in the balls in my 23 years of life? None. Never. Not once. I have NEVER been kicked in the balls because no one has ever had a REASON to kick me in the balls.

I used to play soccer in high school. Know what I did then? I wore a ball cup, because I was in a situation where it would be reasonably expected to possibly get hooved in the sack. After all, if you're knowingly introducing yourself to an environment where lots of people are throwing powerful kicks at groin-level, then it would be wise to adapt to that climate.

Now back to the real topic at hand.

Do I expect people to leak nude photos of me online? No. No, because I am not exceptionally attractive or well-known - even IF I was willing to put myself in a certain set of conditions that would INCREASE the likeliness of people doing so (i.e. BECOMING exceptionally attractive and well-known), I would take into consideration the increase risk that that brings.

Simply put, deeming it absolutely necessary to guard yourself from potential harm when there is virtually no risk factors present is paranoia. Not an intrinsically BAD idea, just one that you don't have to worry about much. However, guarding yourself from potential harm when you ought to rightly know that there is a LOT of risk involved is the smart, reasonable thing to do - which is clearly not what they anticipated.

I'm not defending or excusing the actions of the leakers or voyeurs of the photographs in any way; I'm simply stating that no matter how "sick" or "depraved" you think their actions are, SOMEONE WILL take advantage of that opening, and the celebrities should've taken that into consideration while accepting taking nude pictures and saving them to a cloud.

In a perfect world consisting entirely of good people, there would be no privacy infringements. There would also be no drunk drivers. Or manslaughters. Or domestic abuse. Or money laundering.

You have to protect yourself from opportunists. To quote the comic, yes, "that's just the way the world works".

The issue is how people are treating the victims. If you search online (I don't recommend it) a lot of people are literally saying it is the fault of the women. I don't think anyone has said that here, but some have said they are "stupid" and others have gone about it all entirely wrong; rather than say something like this:

"This is a terrible thing. I urge everyone to consider where they have things stored and make sure you aren't hosting material on the service that was hacked."

Or;

"If anyone has nude photos, please don't host them remotely, as sadly, it is currently too easy to steal from you."

We have people virtually finger pointing and talking about how the women should have done something different, about how they own at least some blame, discussing all the things they did wrong. We're talking about victims here. Let's not tell them what they did wrong or how they should have acted in their own private setting. Let's show some empathy and make some suggestions for potential future victims.

Fair enough. That's pretty much the point I was driving at from the beginning - this should serve as a wake-up call to anyone unfamiliar with internet security that the internet is not very secure after all.

As far as empathy goes, I ain't having any of it. As I said before, it's 2014 for Christ's sake; protecting personal information and content on the internet should be common sense to anyone who isn't living in a third world country by now.

 

[giles]

Please go read the thread from the start. Than read the comic i posted. Especially the credits under the boxes. Then go facepalm yourself, rub some lotion on there, come back and have fun.

I only read the credits part, but I see.
I'm so sorry I'm not paying more attention to your repetitive funneh pictuars when we're having a discussion here. Coz', you know, this is a forum, not 4chan.

 

[carnex]

The issue is how people are treating the victims. If you search online (I don't recommend it) a lot of people are literally saying it is the fault of the women. I don't think anyone has said that here, but some have said they are "stupid" and others have gone about it all entirely wrong; rather than say something like this:

"This is a terrible thing. I urge everyone to consider where they have things stored and make sure you aren't hosting material on the service that was hacked."

Or;

"If anyone has nude photos, please don't host them remotely, as sadly, it is currently too easy to steal from you."

We have people virtually finger pointing and talking about how the women should have done something different, about how they own at least some blame, discussing all the things they did wrong. We're talking about victims here. Let's not tell them what they did wrong or how they should have acted in their own private setting. Let's show some empathy and make some suggestions for potential future victims.

You just made you est point yet. But here is how I see the same problem. Let's say 1 in 1000 will post something like that. For whatever reason. Controversy, their honest opinion, trolling... whatever. Let it be 1 in 10000.

Now when photos like these appear in tabloid, what's the readership that will actually give feedback? 100.000? 300.000 with people reading and not buying? that would be 30 trolls. And how many will you actually hear? Managable with minimal effort.

Now when you port it to internet, what's the count? 100.000.000? 300.000.000? troll count goes three orders of magnitude up. But even worse, you can hear every one of them as they shout at the top of their lungs.

Internet is a most wonderful and most terrifying multiplicator ever. And I'm happy as a nerd on his first convention for it but I still have to change my trousers on regular basis because taht same place terrifies me into filling them (metaphorically of course).