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

[Lightknight]

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 people saying she did something unwise aren't saying that she didn't protect herself. They're saying that in making the photos and storing them anywhere she was creating a situation of vulnerability even if she protected it afterwards.

She did protect them. This whole scenario is equivalent to storing something in a storage facility and someone breaking into your unit. That you kept something that could be harmful to you is unwise. Like a person who keeps incriminating evidence of themselves in a cookie tin over the fridge. That is a mistake she made. However, this mistake is an entirely distinct incident from them being stolen. It is no more playing a part in the theft than a gem cutter is responsible for the gems he produces getting stolen.

What we should gather from this situation is that the internet is not a safe place and that it is not wise to maintain items we wouldn't want to fall into other people's hands and to store them online is not unlike walking through a bad neighborhood at the wrong hour. You aren't responsible for other people deciding to commit a crime. But learning from the bad choices that were made is a valuable way to avoid it happening to you.

 

[144_v1legacy]

-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".

Why did you quote the word victims? Was it sarcasm? Because they are victims; the law was broken and their rights illegally violated.

And again, you just ignored the entire argument for a technicality, WTF?

She does that. Also, I recommend avoiding sarcasm.

 

[Lightknight]

It sounds like you are suggesting women not take nude photos because it's possible to use it against them. That's a bit backwards, isn't it? To call it a mistake that a woman had private photos is... problematic at best.

Oh? How is it problematic? Do not keep and store material that would be damaging to you if it were released to the public if you are a public figure.

Take marijuana for example. I don't do it but I really don't give a shit who does. However, I would recommend that politicians, actors, and athletes not take photos of them doing so and then holding onto the evidence.

Also, if you generally commit any crime at all (not that being nude is a crime), I would recommend destroying the evidence.

It is unwise to do otherwise. If you have no problem with nude photos of yourself getting out. Then by all means, snap away and store them wherever you deem fit. But if you have a problem with it, I'd recommend not doing it.

Again, I'm not saying she's responsible for the theft. That's on the hacker. I am saying that she did something that was unwise that should be mentioned as a cautionary tale.

Newsflash, don't put all your money in one wallet/purse and walk down a bad street at night. You're not responsible for someone else's actions, but it is a risky thing to do.

 

[rosac]

The people saying she did something unwise aren't saying that she didn't protect herself. They're saying that in making the photos and storing them anywhere she was creating a situation of vulnerability even if she protected it afterwards.

She did protect them. This whole scenario is equivalent to storing something in a storage facility and someone breaking into your unit. That you kept something that could be harmful to you is unwise. Like a person who keeps incriminating evidence of themselves in a cookie tin over the fridge. That is a mistake she made. However, this mistake is an entirely distinct incident from them being stolen. It is no more playing a part in the theft than a gem cutter is responsible for the gems he produces getting stolen.

What we should gather from this situation is that the internet is not a safe place and that it is not wise to maintain items we wouldn't want to fall into other people's hands and to store them online is not unlike walking through a bad neighborhood at the wrong hour. You aren't responsible for other people deciding to commit a crime. But learning from the bad choices that were made is a valuable way to avoid it happening to you.

Thats what I got from this. Having these images about was a risk, and taking risks can go wrong, or other people can cause the wrong to happen as is the casse here. That's it really. She's the victim, but does have a tiny amount of responsibilty by making this mistake.

 

[giles]

It sounds like you are suggesting women not take nude photos because it's possible to use it against them. That's a bit backwards, isn't it? To call it a mistake that a woman had private photos is... problematic at best.

Not women, but celebrities.

 

[anthony87]

And again, you just ignored the entire argument for a technicality, WTF?

Yeah....Boudica does that. It's kind of her shtick.

 

[Lightknight]

The people saying she did something unwise aren't saying that she didn't protect herself. They're saying that in making the photos and storing them anywhere she was creating a situation of vulnerability even if she protected it afterwards.

She did protect them. This whole scenario is equivalent to storing something in a storage facility and someone breaking into your unit. That you kept something that could be harmful to you is unwise. Like a person who keeps incriminating evidence of themselves in a cookie tin over the fridge. That is a mistake she made. However, this mistake is an entirely distinct incident from them being stolen. It is no more playing a part in the theft than a gem cutter is responsible for the gems he produces getting stolen.

What we should gather from this situation is that the internet is not a safe place and that it is not wise to maintain items we wouldn't want to fall into other people's hands and to store them online is not unlike walking through a bad neighborhood at the wrong hour. You aren't responsible for other people deciding to commit a crime. But learning from the bad choices that were made is a valuable way to avoid it happening to you.

Thats what I got from this. Having these images about was a risk, and taking risks can go wrong, or other people can cause the wrong to happen as is the casse here. That's it really. She's the victim, but does have a tiny amount of responsibilty by making this mistake.

She is not responsible for a person hacking into her account and stealing from her any more than you would be if someone hacked into your bank account and stole your money and then spent it. The only difference there is that you need money to live in this world and she didn't need those pictures existing ever. So you are not being imprudent by having and storing money whereas she is being imprudent if it's something she doesn't need.

Her making the decision to take this photo was an unwise decision. Her decision to store it online was another.

But it must be understood that she is in no way responsible for someone else's decision to break the law. These are two distinct problems. Someone making a poor choice and then someone performing a criminal act. You can't blame her for the criminal act itself. You can only blame her for the item existing and that itself isn't wrong, just unwise. Is it wrong to have a lot of money in your wallet? No, just unwise. Doesn't make you responsible for someone mugging you unless you're waving the money around and she wasn't doing that.

 

[monkey_man]

Rule number one of the internet: Never do something stupid, it may stay on the internet forever.
Now, I am very much against the idea of nudes, because it's kind of a stupid thing to do really. If you are with someone, and they want to see you naked, go see them. If physical location is a possible obstacle, make sure to use a safe, secret channel only you and the intended party know about. Delete the images after you're done, and nobody will look for them. Seriously, do not save nudes. EVER. If somehow the images show up on the internet, you fucked up big time.

So no, I don't really care about the nudes, or the affected people. No sympathy whatsoever. There are plenty of stories on the internet of leaked nudes, and taking nudes only increases the chance of joining the 'oh fuck that's my diddlydoo on the internet club '. Sure they might be fun if you are in to it, i suppose, but you know the risks. Don't take the gamble, ESPECIALLY if you are famous. Because if you are, you just KNOW people are trying to find all the naughty images they can find.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Yes, Emma Watson, I'm capable of empathy and I do empathize with the victims here, in so much as this isn't their fault and someone had to go to serious lengths to violate and publish their privacy.

That out of the way, it is still foolish in every bit of the word to take digital photos of very sensitive things that can never see the light of family, let alone the entire world. It is also ignorant to not know that each photo is grabbed by Apple's servers and isn't humbly sitting on your physical device and your device alone.

There's without a doubt a certain, elevated risk of exposure with any digital information. It may be the tiniest of points, but it's still a valid one to say that privacy is long dead. There will be no crafty arguments that we must teach people not to seek nudes rather than force victims to keep their data more secure; data security and privacy are reality, and you better believe now that whatever you put on your devices is not completely secure. At some point you need to accept a measure of responsibility in what that is.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Should she have taken it? Not for anyone but her and her partner to decide and certainly not my place to have an opinion on. Should she have entrusted it to an online, cloud service? No. Given how every big company and service is regularly hacked, it's a little foolish, but that's just a simple mistake and changes nothing about the leak. (The only opinion I'd have on the matter is that if one were to take intimate photos, store them locally in a heavily encrypted partition using PGP, TrueCrypt or the like, and that's not really an opinion, just advice).

Thru all of it, I don't even blame the hackers who got into the service. That's what they do and not unexpected. The cloud service monumentally failed to keep users' data private and should be sued bankrupt. But the real arseholes are the sons-of-jackals who distribute and share this stuff for no other reason than to embarrass or shame a celebrity/ex/etc. Worse still is when the same arseholes do so behind the façade of anonymity or privacy; to use the "right" to privacy online and avoid any consequence whilst grossly violating another's privacy is contemptible.

If it is conceivable, they're an even lower life-form than paparazzi. At least "paps" have to buy expensive camera equipment, travel, wait, climb trees, leap fences and lie in gutters to photograph celebrity bottoms and they do so for an income. It's still despicable, they're still scum but at least there's an explanation for why. Distributing these images online has no rational explanation behind it except "for the lulz", "because we can" or to shame someone. Have some damned empathy for other human beings and think before acting. Just because one can do a thing, does not mean one should.

 

[Ickorus]

When something is private, it should stay private and not be manipulated.

And that's how things would work in an ideal world.

This has never been an ideal world.

Nothing is private, especially if you are in the public eye.

Leaked nudes are not a new thing, they have been happening for many years. Identity theft is a big money business so yes, it IS my responsibility to make sure my information is secure.

Well then there is the problem. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it should. People shouldn't have to live in fear that their private information, that no one needs to know about, will be leaked to the public. No one should have their lives altered because some pathetic lowlife wanted to make a quick buck for him/herself at the expense of causing personal harm to others. We need to get that attitude out of society where crap like this happens and people go, "Well that's how the world work. Ideal world or not, THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

What would you suggest to stop this thing from happening?

Thought police?

It is the way of the world, like it or not; the best any of us can do is condemn the people responsible for leaking the photos and demand better security, anything more strays towards the Orwellian.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

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?

If kicking me in the nuts caused pictures of naked celebrities to appear then I would probably start wearing a box (Alas, for better or worse, people generally aren't interested in my balls). I expect people to harm me if there is a reward for doing so.

Hacking pictures of celebrity tits has a clear motive. Kicking a stranger in the nuts does not. No one expects to be kicked in the nuts and these celebrities didn't expect to be hacked, but they're not comparable because there's no goal beyond pure sadism to kicking me in the nuts.

 

[ChaosBorne]

guess what people in the world we live in today privacy is not a given, simple as that.
anytime anyone takes nude pictures of themselves or their partners it's a calculated risk, when you are a celebrity the risk is far far greater, this has literally happened to every celebrity ever, the fact they even expect privacy the way they get hounded by paparazzi is just naive.
Jennifer Lawrence is not some ditsy little girl who has no understanding of the world, she is a grown woman with i hope some semblance of common sense.

is the person who violated her privacy and stole these pictures a filthy piece of shit? most definately.
should Jennifer Lawrence (or any other celebrity for that matter) have known better? absolutely.

these things do not negate each other, her lapse in judgement does not make his crime okay in any way.

oh and for all the people bitching that it's like saying you shouldn't own nice things to prevent burglary, there is a frikking reason we have locks on our doors and windows and if you don't meet a certain level of home security you forfeit your ability to claim damages with your Insurance company, this is no different, deal with it.

we do not live in a world where you can expect your privacy to be respected, because people are dicks.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

And jumping in after reading only the OP.

The way I see it is this. She's famous, famous by choice and with that comes consequences. People go to extraordinary lengths obsessing about celebrities. What it all boils down to is two questions.

Should she have taken the punctures in the first place? Yes, why not? If that's what she wants to do then all I have to say about it is her partner is a lucky man.

Should she have uploaded them to cloud storage? No. That was a really stupid idea. She and the others it's happened to should have known better. It's not even about knowing anything about how cloud storage works at all. All you need to ask your self is this, How bad would this be if some asshats get hold of it and post it on the internet? If the answer is anything other than not bad then you save it to the memory card and send it safely.

There is an ancient Chinese saying that sums it all up quite well in my opinion.

"People who live in glass pagoda[footnote]Ed: This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liuhe_Pagoda] is a pagoda if you're curious.[/footnote] should masturbate in basement"
[sup]AD920 Some Wise Chinese Guy[/sup]​

 

[McElroy]

An unintentional risk is a risk nonetheless; it sucks, but it happens. I don't really feel sorry for people I don't personally know, especially for such a little thing, and I will feign ignorance of the matter if I ever meet Lawrence or Dunst or Upton. There were a couple of good pics there, lots of fake ones going about. Can't help but say it's pretty cool to get a glimpse behind the glamorous personalities (yep, in a non-perverse way too) even if it was preceded by a crime.

I recommend avoiding sarcasm.

I see what you did there. ;-)

 

[COMaestro]

My thought is this: If a man or woman were to walk naked into their bedroom with the curtains wide open for anyone outside to see them, that's their fault.

If this same naked person asked someone to close the curtains before walking out, and they did it so sloppily so that a peeping tom could come up to the window and ogle, that's on both the person closing the curtains not doing a good job and the peeper for being scummy enough to go up to the window in the first place.

This whole situation is more like the second scenario with the celebrities obviously as the naked person, Apple as the person asked to close the curtains, and the hackers as the peeping toms. The celebrities have the same rights as everyone else to take nude photos of themselves for their husbands/boyfriends/lovers or even just for the hell of it. Apple should be expected to keep a secure site for the files they store and in this they dropped the ball. And, of course, the hackers are totally at fault for doing it in the first place. The celebs are not at fault in any way here.

 

[Flunk]

Yes, it was a bad idea. Is it her fault they leaked? Not unless they just guessed her password.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I think that the ease of use and digitizing of cams on devices has led to many being complacent with them. When cameras were in the hands of just those who were into photography, with such came rules of use, like if you are going to take a picture of a person, have the courtesy to ask them before hand.

Now everyone has got cams in their pockets and don't exercise any rules anymore. So confident some are that they resort to using device cams anywhere/everywhere and for their private time uses. When most people with cams aren't tech savvy, they entrust services like iCloud to their detriment.

I remember when iCloud began on iTunes. I was like, why would I want to upload my stuff for others to hold? Would you really trust someone to hold your balls and not squeeze them? We live in an age of ones and zeroes, where none of us are really as safe as we tell ourselves. Its a pity that this has happened to celebs, but it drives home the point that taking digital photos on devices hooked to the net isn't smart. Once stuff is online, it stays there with no retreat or surrender.

I expect that sales of normal offline digi-cameras will spike a bit now. No one is saying not to treasure your most intimate moments, if that's your thing, just be smarter about it. Its said by some that the NSA get to look at all those nude photos people keep uploading from their phones onto the net, which is terrible to imagine. So, the next time you think about taking a photo, think twice and use secure encrypted offline storage.

On top of that, Jen Lawrence is good to speak up where others might run and hide in fear and shame. She's taking ownership of hers, at the same time as objecting to a gross invasion of her privacy. Hacker/cracker types will see anyone as fair game, which is a pity for the human race and what we are becoming. I bet some draconian government types love this 1984 style crap, though.

Tis getting more like Skynet everyday, people. Tread carefully or those Terminators might be born some day.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

And again, you just ignored the entire argument for a technicality, WTF?

Yeah....Boudica does that. It's kind of her shtick.

oh man...this thread makes so much more sense now. thanks for pointing that out, time to brainsplode.

the nostalgia is rushing through me.

OT: It's almost sad how much support Jennifer has recieved in disproportion to other celeb's that this happened to or just even other people in general....(not that I don't like her as a person, she is great, but I don't see why she is being put under a microscope more and/or given higher more support.)