Why espousing proper, basic internet security is not the same as "blaming the victim"

[AuronFtw]

In regards to "the fappening" (and other similar scenarios), many long-time netizens have said "well... don't post compromising photos of yourself online." Quite often, these people immediately get swarmed by SJWs insisting that they're heathens incapable of even basic empathy and what they're doing accounts to nothing more than blaming the victim. Personally, I hate to see this happen, as I think the argument has merit; discounting it out of hand without even a moment's consideration is ridiculous.

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

A more apt comparison to the spread of nude photos, however, is drunk driving and crashing... or an unexpected pregnancy. These are events you had control leading up to, and still chose to partake in. Society, to varying degrees, has sympathy for the driver or hapless parents, but ultimately holds them accountable for their own poor decisions. A drunk driver hitting someone is still going to pay for it. Perhaps the claim could be made that peer pressure led to some number of nude selfies, but ultimately the responsibility for those photos lies with the person who took them.

Secondly, we are taught from a very young age to examine and weigh the consequences of our actions before we take them. Probably the largest difference between children and adults is the abstract thinking required to weigh the pros and cons of potential outcomes of a given scenario. Part of it is brain development, part of it is simply life experience. Regardless, young people often struggle to realize the full implications of what nude photos could do to their careers and/or lives... and, additionally, how difficult it is to "remove photos from the internet" (ask Beyonce's publicist!). I would argue that education about these dangers is the proper solution, rather than a half-hearted attempt at censorship and a hilarious attempt by the media to guilt trip people for invading the privacy of celebrities (despite doing it on a daily basis, and often making their livelihoods on the deed). Education - properly teaching people just how damaging explicit photos can be, allowing them to better grasp the potential risks associated with them.

Any children raised in the 80s or 90s with any connection to technology can tell you - privacy was important, both for your immediate personal safety and for your future well-being. "Don't tell anyone your name, age, or location. Don't agree to meet anyone you've only talked to online." These were *basic* tenants of the internet age - because we (and our parents, who guided us) realized, even in the internet's infancy, that the world is full of creepy motherfuckers, and avoiding falling into their path is entirely doable with a little bit of personal security. "Don't take nude pictures of yourself and post them online" falls in the same category of basic internet security, and anyone seriously concerned about the potential outcome of that action will stay way the hell away from it. If someone is truly ignorant of basic internet security, they can be taught; "don't reveal who you are to people you don't know, don't post nude pictures of yourself. The internet is full of weirdos, always has been, and likely always will be. Protect yourself and practice truly basic internet security." It's not unreasonable to expect this of any rational adult, and is just generally good common sense.

In conclusion, when someone says "just don't do it, then" the implications aren't that a nude selfie poster is a dirty whore for being comfortable enough to send nude photos... rather, the implication is that this particular problem is completely within their power to avoid, and if they're at all uncomfortable with the possibility of those pictures going viral, they should refrain.

Naked pictures can be a fun way to spice things up, but (personally) I never reciprocate because I'm not okay with the risks involved. Much in the same way I avoid sex without condoms or drinking then driving, I don't send nude pictures of myself, even to someone I trust, because even the chances of something happening to those photos is too great. Again, I'm in no way supporting those who upload these pictures (for fake internet points or real life money), as they're scumbags on par with the invasive celeb-obsessed media, but I am saying there's a nearly 100% guaranteed way to never allow that to happen. And that guarantee can't be said about rape, robbery or sexual harassment... because those are never in your control. Don't you have enough shit to worry about in your life without stressing out about nude pictures you yourself made and spread around? Don't do it to yourself.

TLR: if you don't want your nudes to go viral, the "basic" solution is not to take them. If you still take them, do so with the understanding of the risks... and know once they hit the net, there's not a goddamn thing you can do to stop them. A hypocritical media guilt-trip isn't going to stop shit.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully some of you will be a little less quick to say "omg don't blame the victim!!!!11!!111" next time. We're empathetic, but we're also security-minded. We expect other adults to be able to make decisions like adults. It's sad that dozens of celebs had their photos leaked; intense embarrassment, fear, anger and other feelings must have run rampant in the days/weeks following the leaks, and those feelings aren't fun. We understand that... and we also understand it could have been completely avoided. To aid in the prevention of future similar SNAFUs, spread the word; educate those who are ignorant of basic internet security, and make it plainly obvious their lives or careers can be massively impacted by those pictures going viral.

If they still do it? Well... they're fucking adults. They chose that path. Just like a drunk driver or a horny guy who forgot his condom. Now they have to live with the consequences.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.

 

[kyp275]

I understand what you're trying to say,t here are inherent risks to all behaviour. Taking photos of yourself nude is one of them However, and this is the biggest however, it's still a huge invasion of privacy and the feelings it invokes is not one of "oh that was stupid, I should have worn a condom when I had sex." To use your analogy. It is more akin to, "I wanted to share something personal with someone I loved deeply, and someone took that from me."

Agreed, but I feel there's an important detail (at least to me) that was not mentioned. To me, it's not so much that nude photos should or shouldn't be taken, that's a personal choice and not anyone else's business. However, what CAN be objectively criticized in many cases, is the method of storage.

For example, let's say someone has a life-long passion of collecting... valuable stamps and coins. Now, there are a myriad of methods for that person to securely store his collections - a secured deposit box in a bank vault somewhere, perhaps a secured/hidden safe built into his house, or a regular safe you can buy at Walmart on sale for $50, or maybe just a binder on the kitchen table.

Now the issue is that some people have the perception that the "safe" their using (cloud storage, phone, what have you) is the vault in Fort Knox, when in reality it's at best a Walmart special out on their front lawn, freely open to anyone to take a crack at it.

Basically, take all the pictures you want, share them with whomever you want, but at the same time if the security/confidentiality of those pictures(or for that matter anything of value to you) is important to you, then you should take appropriate steps in ensuring the security of those items.

So instead of only thinking of "basic internet security," try to think of it more along the lines of just an empathetic response to someone who feels something that we would probably all feel if we were in their shoes. Whether they did something silly because they're young doesn't matter, we can still pat them on the back and say we're sorry and that it was wrong that someone leaked those photos. It's just a basic human response.

I don't think that was what he was trying to say. It's not that you shouldn't empathize and console those who were wronged, but rather that it shouldn't be the ONLY thing allowed, where all you can do is console them and not tell them that leaving their valuables on the kitchen table wasn't the greatest idea.

As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.

You too missed his point. Rape/violent crimes etc. visited upon you isn't something you can reasonably prevent. Someone leaking your nude pictures however, CAN be easily prevented, and the methods to accomplish that are sound advices that should be given.

If I stored a $4000 tractor mower out in my backyard and it gets stolen, that's not my fault - I was simply storing my own property on what I thought was a secured enough location. Someone telling me "Heya, you know an open backyard really isn't the best place to store valuable equipment. You may want to put it in a locked shed or something " would not be "victim blaming".

 

[mecegirl]

If it can happen to major financial institutions I don't see how anyone else's information is supposed to be safe. There simply isn't a real solution to the internet storage issue that is unhackable yet.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10...-in-major-assault/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.

 

[mecegirl]

If I stored a $4000 tractor mower out in my backyard and it gets stolen, that's not my fault - I was simply storing my own property on what I thought was a secured enough location. Someone telling me "Heya, you know an open backyard really isn't the best place to store valuable equipment. You may want to put it in a locked shed or something " would not be "victim blaming".

But what if you did put your tractor in a locked shed and someone broke the lock off before stealing it? Would it be appropriate for someone to give "advice" then? You do know that these pictures were hacked right? Someone didn't just right click and then copied the images. They by passed the security of the site the pictures were on to get to them.

 

[kyp275]

It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.

I disagree, primarily because I have little confidence for so-called internet security already. Case in point, a typical point-and-shoot camera would've provided all the security you'd need against hackers - and you'd take much higher quality pictures as a bonus!

-snip

That's not the point I'm trying to make at all. I never said anything like people shouldn't take nude pictures - in fact I said that they should take all the pictures they want.

Neither was I saying that it's possible to guarantee 100% security on anything, that would be impossible.

What I WAS saying, is that people should take informed and practical steps to secure things they consider to be valuable, and pointing out what those steps may be is NOT victim blaming.

 

[kyp275]

But what if you did put your tractor in a locked shed and someone broke the lock off before stealing it? Would it be appropriate for someone to give "advice" then? You do know that these pictures were hacked right? Someone didn't just right click and then copied the images. They by passed the security of the site the pictures were on to get to them.

Absolutely. Perhaps I should consider using a bolt cutter resistant lock, or maybe a light/alarm system is in order. It all depends on the context and totality of the circumstances.

As to the other part of your post, I believe I addressed those points in my response to your other post.

But that's never how it comes across though, is it? It comes down to:
"She should have known better!" "It's her own fault because I never would have used that company." "If these people weren't so stupid, this never would happen!"

And that is unfortunate, but I think both mine and the OP's point is that there CAN be useful suggestions made, and that often times gets lumped in with the actual victim blaming.

And the suggestion that they shouldn't have left them on the kitchen counter was a bit of an odd metaphor, if you don't mind me saying.

That was just what came to my mind at the time, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mountain of random stuff I've currently left on my kitchen table!

So tl;dr is it's your fault for taking photos of yourself and storing them privately because if someone else steals them it's your fault you never stored them better.

Somehow not victim blaming..

Well Bees, there you go, took all of zero post after yours before I get accused of victim blaming

Pluvia, please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

 

[mecegirl]

It's pointless to go on and on about what someone should or shouldn't do with "valuable" things. Just like no one gives a fuck about what happened to the information hacked from those banking firms enough to berate the account owners, no one should care about this. It's not like these women just left the pictures on photobucket. The site they used had certain protections that were overrided. The solution to that is not to never have anything "valuable" anymore. No one tells that to someone who got their house broken into because someone kicked down their door. This is no different. The hackers shouldn't have hacked. Not the women shouldn't have put their pictures on a the internet, especially since the site did have some security.

I disagree, primarily because I have little confidence for so-called internet security already. Case in point, a typical point-and-shoot camera would've provided all the security you'd need against hackers - and you'd take much higher quality pictures as a bonus!

What does your confidence have to do with anything? The title the thread is "Why espousing proper, basic internet security is not the same as "blaming the victim"". Well, then tough shit. Those women did use basic internet security. So what's the problem? You can't expect them to just not use the internet. Even with your other reply to me, you do know that there are ways to cut even bolt cutter resistant locks right? Banks are getting hacked...banks. I'm pretty sure that they had tighter security than the Cloud. But no one is gonna tell the people who got their bank accounts hacked to stuff their money under their mattresses. Or tell them that they can never order things from the internet again, and one's financial information is a lot more valuable than nude pictures.

 

[carnex]

What it comes down to is that people will see in this what they want to see.

Some say that saying that crime was preventable in several ways is victim blaming. Others will say that it's actually doing society a favor by creating a scenario where further victims can be avoided or at very least make it harder for future perp to commit crime.

To put it in example.

You own a gold necklace with big stone, family heirloom that you rarely wear. You can

1) Leave it lying on the table
2) Put it in box in the drawer
3) Put it in strongbox in back of the closet
4) Put it in bank safe with certificate of safe content

In every case it's illegal to steal that necklace but it's not really the same. It's upon the owner of valuable thing to create a scenario that that person sees as good compromise of inconvenience, expenses and security and the first step in making a informed decision is to be informed.

My best guess is that those celebrities weren't informed and never really cared to inform themselves to make informed decisions. I could speculate further about the reasons for such behavior and I do have some hypothesis but I think i dug deep enough hole for myself with this post already.

captcha: she sells
Well, i bet quite a few of them are kicking themselves that they didn't...

 

[Netrigan]

If people give their information to banks what did they expect to happen? How many times do banks have to be hacked before people learn the lesson.

 

[seris]

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.

when it all boils down to it, it is their fault for taking the nude photographs in the first place. if they had not taken them then this would not have happened. she may be a victim but she is still responsible for her own mistakes.

 

[DrOswald]

If people give their information to banks what did they expect to happen? How many times do banks have to be hacked before people learn the lesson.

Good point. If a bank has a history of security leaks people should stop using that bank. What's more, people should make every effort to vet the bank they are going to choose to work with instead of just assuming it is secure. It is a great parallel to storing your sensitive information - you should be choosy of how you store that information, taking a good look at pros and cons and, if it is important to you, avoid storage methods that have a higher leak risk, such as any internet storage solution.

Perfect example. I agree that people should be far more proactive in defending their sensitive information, just as people should be highly proactive in choosing what financial institutions they choose to work with.

 

[seris]

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.

when it all boils down to it, it is their fault for taking the nude photographs in the first place. if they had not taken them then this would not have happened. she may be a victim but she is still responsible for her own mistakes.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for owning a car in the first place. If they had not bought a car, it could not have been stolen from them.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for having money in the first place. If they were penniless, it could not have been stolen from them.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for being born. If they were never born, they could not have been murdered.

That logic.

theres a difference between being an idiot and taking pictures of yourself naked and getting your car stolen. the first being something you can control, the second being out of your control. If you cannot see that then i cannot help you

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I don't think anyone needs to be told that nothing would have been leaked had they not chosen to upload any pictures at all.

Well, of course, I guess.

But when uploading pictures to storage sources that present themselves as highly secure, I'm pretty sure the majority of people are going to trust them not to drop the ball or potentially allow hackers to obtain personal information. Is that the smartest position? I don't know, but it's understandable.

 

[Skull Bearer]

The first thing that often happens are faulty comparisons. "Oh, sharing nude pictures is akin to robbery/identity theft/sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape." All these scenarios, which do often attract some aspect of victim blaming, involve an outside party acting with malice upon you; and although you can (and should, obviously) take measures to prevent them, they are largely unavoidable and *never* your fault. No style of clothing ever excuses rape; the blame for the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.

As opposed to someone leaking naked pictures of you, that's totally your own fault?

Overlooking that someone else is to blame is victim blaming.

when it all boils down to it, it is their fault for taking the nude photographs in the first place. if they had not taken them then this would not have happened. she may be a victim but she is still responsible for her own mistakes.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for owning a car in the first place. If they had not bought a car, it could not have been stolen from them.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for having money in the first place. If they were penniless, it could not have been stolen from them.

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for being born. If they were never born, they could not have been murdered.

That logic.

theres a difference between being an idiot and taking pictures of yourself naked and getting your car stolen. the first being something you can control, the second being out of your control. If you cannot see that then i cannot help you

They were being idiots for daring to take naked photos of themselves? Then you're an idiot for having money. Or a car. Or anything valuable at all, because ALL OF THESE CAN BE STOLEN AT ANY TIME.

You know what would be helpful and no victim blaming? Asking the fragging companies who are supposed to safeguard people's stuff to have better security. If a bank can't safeguard people's money, it should be pressured into getting better security.

 

[mecegirl]

theres a difference between being an idiot and taking pictures of yourself naked and getting your car stolen. the first being something you can control, the second being out of your control. If you cannot see that then i cannot help you

There is nothing inherently idiotic about taking nude pictures. And considering that those pictures were not put up on any site, but were on a site specifically for storage with security measures, there is no reason to be so judgmental. You act like these were pictures copy and pasted from tumblr instead in Cloud storage. You act like someone didn't have to HACK a website just to get to them. The pictures were stolen. STOLEN.

There are plenty of free naked pictures on the internet. Plenty of sources that are not password proceed, and even some that don't ask for age verification. But someone decided to hack a site to get to them instead.

 

[Private Custard]

When it all boils down to it, it is their fault for being born. If they were never born, they could not have been murdered.

That logic.

No, just don't take nude photos of yourself and then upload them to a cloud! Never trust anyone but yourself with shit like that.

 

[know whan purr tick]

theres a difference between being an idiot and taking pictures of yourself naked and getting your car stolen. the first being something you can control, the second being out of your control. If you cannot see that then i cannot help you

There's a difference between being an idiot and owning a car and getting naked pictures of yourself stolen. The first being something you can control, the second being out of your control. See how this works?

Wasn't the picture-theft a byproduct of the pictures being uploaded to the icloud? I don't know how clear this is in the TOS but I'm sure its buried in legalese. Can't the option to auto-upload to icloud be disabled or the sync feature de-activated (I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs)? Wouldn't someone have to agree to the TOS in order to use this service? Involuntary consent isn't an acceptable argument, "I didn't know what the contract said when I agreed because I didn't read it," at least from my understanding of how those walls of agreement text are considered in courts. They would be meaningless if anyone could say "I didn't read it, thus it doesn't apply."

I think there is a level of user-control in handling the photos and that it was preventable, given knowledge of what Apple was doing -uploading to icloud. Of course, this knowledge was not as common before this incident.

Say the car is in a secure parking garage and stolen. Who would be expected to pay damages? Would it be in the contract or are there laws to explicitly define fault?

I don't think its a sex-crime, I feel that serves to devalue what I would consider much more heinous crimes.

 

[Lieju]

Also I'd like to add that quite a lot of the victim-blaming comments I saw were just justification for why it was okay for the person to fap over them and/or enjoy the humiliation of the people involved.

I think the worst comment I saw was a response to someone saying some of the pictures might be child porn since the person in them was underage, which was:
"If I get in trouble for that I wish the ***** gets jailed for producing child pornography, serves her right."

Which was just...

I do't even know.

 

[DrOswald]

I don't think that was what he was trying to say. It's not that you shouldn't empathize and console those who were wronged, but rather that it shouldn't be the ONLY thing allowed, where all you can do is console them and not tell them that leaving their valuables on the kitchen table wasn't the greatest idea.

If I put my things on my kitchen table, in my house, I would expect my valuables to be safe. Because it's my house. I keep my doors locked. I keep my windows locked. I don't have an alarm, but then, I'm in a safe neighbourhood, and you wouldn't expect to.

The point I'm making is, sure someone could come in and take my wedding ring off my table. They could also take my TV and computer and all my other valuables. People regularly break into banks, Target, hack into other accounts and steal information from them. Should I never use a credit card? Should I not leave my money in banks? Wasn't there a huge DDoS thing on the Escapist while I didn't have internet just a couple of weeks ago? Does that mean I shouldn't use the internet at all?

Everything comes with inherent risks. Using Amazon, Dominoes, they may not have been broken into yet, but they could be. That doesn't stop people giving vital information. Passwords get stolen every day, and yet we continue using them. We don't blame people for shopping at Target when you find out that people broke in and stole information. After all, we assume some stuff are just secure.

And we would assume our phones are just as secure, or our computers are secure. Or that we can trust our husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends/wives to be as secure with our private pictures like that. When they can't be, or when people break into our clouds, computers, hack our phones, or just put up stuff they find, it's a shock of a breach of trust. A trust that we had in our electronics, or someone we had faith in.

Sure we can say "they shouldn't have done it," in a self righteous way, but how many of us haven't ever done something stupid? I mean, not to quote the bible here (because I'm not one of those people,) but it's kind of apt, he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. We've all done things we're not proud of that might have come back to bite us in the ass, and while we can judge them, the kind and human response would be to empathise with them and say "we've all been there in one way or another, I'm sorry you're in this situation."

Of course you shouldn't stop using credit cards. But you should be aware of the potential security risks in doing so and work to mitigate those risks. You should check your credit card statements for suspicious activities, you should report a stolen or lost card as soon as possible, Don't use your cards on questionable sites, always be on the look out for fraud.

In other words, you should not be cavalier about financial security. Don't take it on faith that nothing bad will happen. Be financially responsible.

Similarly, you should also not be cavalier about securing of sensitive information.

Lets put this into perspective. A lawyer representing the group of celebrities at large is attempting to sue google for damages of 100 million dollars. Which means that these celebrities made a collective bet of 100 million dollars on the security of iCloud.

Many people in this thread say that they believed the iCloud service was secure. Where the hell did they get that idea? Why in the world would you think iCloud is $100,000,000 secure? Why would you think it is even $10,000 secure? The iCloud service has a history of failed security. But even if iCloud was Fort Knox it wouldn't have worked out, the service was not hacked. The passwords of the celebrities were guessed, which means their passwords were less secure than the password on the ghost email address I use whenever I need to sign up for junk email.

What happened to these people sucks. But it so easily could have been avoided. These people failed in every way at securing their sensitive information. They failed to vet the storage solution, they failed to take advantage of available security features, they failed to practice even the most basic information security strategies. I see nothing wrong with saying "That really sucks. You should know that this was very easily preventable. This is what you should do to minimize the possibility of this happening to you again."