Support NeoGAF

[ampere]

I'm not going to lie, the day it happened my friend's fiancee Kelly told me that some photos got 'leaked' so we all looked at them.

Once I realized what actually happened I felt pretty bad about myself. :/

Same. Heard about it, checked them out and it just felt... wrong. Like if girls/guys post nudes of themselves online, fine. But knowing it was without her permission it felt like I was violating her privacy.

Damn, that really must be awkward indeed.

Wow. Yea that quote is powerful. Not a way I would want to feel.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

The solution to all crime is simple if we place the responsibility on the victim. Had your car stolen? Don't buy a car. Got mugged/assaulted/raped? Cover up and/or never go outside.

See, it's simple!

It's not like how you put it.

Look...when you choose to go somewhere in your vehicle and have option A to park in a crappy lot that looks like bad things will happen or option B, pay to put it in a parking garage where you assume it will be safer...at the end of the day, it can still be stolen from the garage too, yes, but it's a much better choice.

Can someone break into my house and get on my computer and steal my personal photos? Yes they can. What's the odds though of them doing it versus having them on the damn cloud for basically anyone to take?

I don't store my CC on itunes...and is it an inconvenience to have to always put in my CC info for every song I buy? Yeah, but I'm willing to be inconvenienced in order to stay safe.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's not like how you put it.

Look...when you choose to go somewhere in your vehicle and have option A to park in a crappy lot that looks like bad things will happen or option B, pay to put it in a parking garage where you assume it will be safer...at the end of the day, it can still be stolen from the garage too, yes, but it's a much better choice.

Which is great personal advice but awful societal advice, as all it leads to is people avoiding the bad garages instead of, I dunno, trying to fix them or something

 

[KHarvey16]

It's not like how you put it.

Look...when you choose to go somewhere in your vehicle and have option A to park in a crappy lot that looks like bad things will happen or option B, pay to put it in a parking garage where you assume it will be safer...at the end of the day, it can still be stolen from the garage too, yes, but it's a much better choice.

Can someone break into my house and get on my computer and steal my personal photos? Yes they can. What's the odds though of them doing it versus having them on the damn cloud for basically anyone to take?

I don't store my CC on itunes...and is it an inconvenience to have to always put in my CC info for every song I buy? Yeah, but I'm willing to be inconvenienced in order to stay safe.

It's simple, if anyone ever broke into your house you can bet it would be your fault for having things inside someone wanted.

 

[User 479360]

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't want to look at the picture(s), but I restrained myself. It felt wrong.

Jennifer Lawrence is incredibly hot, though, especially with short hair.

 

[jetjevons]

Terrible comparison though. When you rob a store you lose actual items of actual worth.

You're right.

Items can be replaced.

Nation wide embarrassment, privacy violation and emotional trauma are forever!

 

[The Elite]

Which is great personal advice but awful societal advice, as all it leads to is people avoiding the bad garages instead of, I dunno, trying to fix them or something

The realist realizes that there are always going to be bad garages. There are always going to be thieves and rapists.

It's simple, if anyone ever broke into your house you can bet it would be your fault for having things inside someone wanted.

You're doing a good job of twisting words. All that's being suggested is that people take some ownership in trying to protect themselves against criminal activity. You can own the fancy home with the fancy stuff inside but don't leave the door unlocked. And maybe if your stuff is fancy enough, get a security system.

Is that really hard to understand?

Blaming Jennifer Lawrence for having her pictures stolen is stupid. She's the victim. Suggesting that there are ways to protect yourself against this sort of crime is being proactive. We live in a world in which people want to steal your shit.

 

[Keri]

I'm pretty happy that she came out and spoke about it like this. I think there's been a lot of pressure on the celebs to pretend like it was no big deal hoping that it would fade away and everyone would move on like the way Kaley Cuoco addressed it. I wonder if she was being genuine or just putting up a front.

I can't imagine that feeling of violation, the lost sense of security. Everywhere she goes, she has to deal with people that have taken part in it. And you know that every couple of weeks at premieres, events, and just out on the street, some shithead will try to get her to sign one of the stolen pictures. And worse, the feeling of betrayal that people you care about took part in the violation. I wonder how you trust people after that...

Same. I'm so glad she's speaking out about this. When it happened, there were a lot of people who wanted to believe it wasn't a big deal and no one was getting hurt (so they could look at the pictures guilt free). I think people should know how these women really feel about it. That minute of excitement you got from looking at the pictures? Well, it devastated at least one women (and probably more).

 

[KHarvey16]

The realist realizes that there are always going to be bad garages. There are always going to be thieves and rapists.



You're doing a good job of twisting words. All that's being suggested is that people take some ownership in trying to protect themselves against criminal activity. You can own the fancy home with the fancy stuff inside but don't leave the door unlocked. And maybe if your stuff is fancy enough, get a security system.

Is that really hard to understand?

Blaming Jennifer Lawrence for having her pictures stolen is stupid. She's the victim. Suggesting that there are ways to protect yourself against this sort of crime is being proactive. We live in a world in which people want to steal your shit.

When the first thought is what the victim should have done and not what the perpetrator shouldn't have done there is a problem. Trying to assign even one iota of responsibility for this on the victim is shitty.

 

[leadbelly]

I can understand her being really upset about it, but I would stop at calling it a sex crime though.

 

[The Elite]

When the first thought is what the victim should have done and not what the perpetrator shouldn't have done there is a problem. Trying to assign even one iota of responsibility for this on the victim is shitty.

First of all, that wasn't the first though I had. My first concern was for the victim. Don't put words in my mouth.

Second, we live in an unfortunate reality where we do have to be somewhat proactive in protecting ourselves. There are people out there who want to hurt you, and yeah, it's fucking shitty, but it's reality. The criminals are to blame - 100% - but not taking at least some ownership in your own personal security is dangerous. That's the reality of the situation. I don't make the rules.

The rape whistle, self defense courses for women, that key ring that makes that annoyingly loud noise; these are all unfortunate developments of the ugly side of society. They are proactive attempts at protecting oneself. They are not a creation that was intended to blame the victim, they are there for protection. When it comes to online security we need to take the same proactive approach. Both men and women.

I can understand her being really upset about it, but I would stop at calling it a sex crime though.

It's a sex crime IMO. Her nude body is being used for financial gain and sexual exploitation.

 

[ampere]

The solution to all crime is simple if we place the responsibility on the victim. Had your car stolen? Don't buy a car. Got mugged/assaulted/raped? Cover up and/or never go outside.

See, it's simple!

Good post. A bit of an in-your-face explanation of why victim blaming isn't really productive.

I mean there are always ways to be cautious, and often times people as individuals are wise to take precautions, but victim blaming isn't the way to go.

Which is great personal advice but awful societal advice, as all it leads to is people avoiding the bad garages instead of, I dunno, trying to fix them or something

Good way to put it.

 

[KHarvey16]

First of all, that wasn't the first though I had. My first concern was for the victim. Don't put words in my mouth.

Second, we live in an unfortunate reality where we do have to be somewhat proactive in protecting ourselves. There are people out there who want to hurt you, and yeah, it's fucking shitty, but it's reality. The criminals are to blame - 100% - but not taking at least some ownership in your own personal security is dangerous. That's the reality of the situation. I don't make the rules.

The rape whistle, self defense courses for women, that key ring that makes that annoyingly loud noise; these are all unfortunate developments of the ugly side of society. They are proactive attempts at protecting oneself. They are not a creation that was intended to blame the victim, they are there for protection. When it comes to online security we need to take the same proactive approach. Both men and women.

When you say "...but, she shouldn't have put them online" you are assigning her a portion of the responsibility. In your eyes she did something she shouldn't have.

 

[The Elite]

When you say "...but, she shouldn't have put them online" you are assigning her a portion of the responsibility. In your eyes she did something she shouldn't have.

When did I say that?

I never said that.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I think if she wants to take nude photos of herself and send them to her boyfriend she should be allowed to.

 

[inkls]

Question: Whats the difference between this and paparazzi taking pictures of naked celebrities? I'm a bit confused as to some of them suing Google. Do we see the same thing with paparazzis?

I don't think its a good idea to host sensitive data/pictures online generally. Not saying "they should have seen this coming" or a variation of it, but its probably not the best place to store them imo, especially with how the internet has a tendency to keep copies of things that were "deleted" (obviously hacking a their pc is a thing too).

 

[KHarvey16]

When did I say that?

I never said that.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You are defending, in your words, "what's being suggested." It's being suggested that she shouldn't have posted the pictures in her account.

 

[ampere]

Question: Whats the difference between this and paparazzi taking pictures of naked celebrities? I'm a bit confused as to some of them suing Google. Do we see the same thing with paparazzis?

I don't think its a good idea to host sensitive data/pictures online generally. Not saying "they should have seen this coming" or a variation of it, but its probably not the best place to store them imo, especially with how the internet has a tendency to keep copies of things that were "deleted" (obviously hacking a their pc is a thing too).

There are anti-stalking laws.

See what happened to Erin Andrews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Andrews#Stalking_incident

 

[kehs]

Yeah, I don't get how celebs or even non-celebs can be so gullible toward internet privacy. "Well it's Apple icloud, they said it's secure"...so what? I'd never trust them. I don't even trust Facebook where I have some personal photos on my profile...but I know when I post something on FB that it's there for the taking basically, so I'm cautious in what I post.

It really is beyond me to understand how Jennifer Lawerence is this stupid.

Holy shit, did I type the opposite of what I meant?

Cause this comment....wtf

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Question: Whats the difference between this and paparazzi taking pictures of naked celebrities? I'm a bit confused as to some of them suing Google. Do we see the same thing with paparazzis?

I don't think its a good idea to host sensitive data/pictures online generally. Not saying "they should have seen this coming" or a variation of it, but its probably not the best place to store them imo, especially with how the internet has a tendency to keep copies of things that were "deleted" (obviously hacking a their pc is a thing too).

This is a bit of victim blaming as you're assuming users of their phones are as savy as you are. As companies continue to make products and software easier to use the automatic nature of photo backups are becoming less obvious. While phone apps now specifically state "Enable Photo Backup", what's not as likely is the desktop software doing this. Perhaps these people were using iPhoto previous to iCloud's backup feature. iCloud comes around and automatically begins syncing photos into the cloud. Think about how many times you go into your photo tool of choice and get reminded of an older photo you forgot about.

We have so much data everywhere between so many devices it is very easy to forget about a lot of it.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

I can understand her being really upset about it, but I would stop at calling it a sex crime though.

Agreed. That's where she lost me completely.

Doxing is a serious issue that needs further discussion, but I'm crossing that line is no where we should be going.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Agreed. That's where she lost me completely.

Doxing is a serious issue that needs further discussion, but I'm crossing that line is no where we should be going.

Covered earlier:

Given that unasked for voyeurism (peeping Toms) is generally considered a sex crime, as are things like incest, public exhibitionism, and a variety of other non-rape crimes, I don't have much problem with denoting it as a sex crime.

Sex crime is just a phrase denoting that a crime has a sexual component to it. It's not synonymous with rape. I'm not sure why people would think it was.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Agreed. That's where she lost me completely.

Doxing is a serious issue that needs further discussion, but I'm crossing that line is no where we should be going.

This isn't doxing though. At least as I understand doxing is figuring out an internet persona's real identity and releasing the info to the internet.

 

[CadetMahoney]

This is a bit of victim blaming as you're assuming users of their phones are as savy as you are.

I would go as far as to say it's not even about tech savvy. The company storing these things on their network for someone to come and steal them via hacking is to blame.

There really should be a group lawsuit against apple. . . I don't see how they're not liable at all.

 

[Seeds]

The solution to all crime is simple if we place the responsibility on the victim. Had your car stolen? Don't buy a car. Got mugged/assaulted/raped? Cover up and/or never go outside.

See, it's simple!

At the stage we are with internet security advising someone to not put photos you don't want others to see on the internet is not a bad idea, and not at all comparable to not getting a car or not going outside.

 

[leadbelly]

It's a sex crime IMO. Her nude body is being used for financial gain and sexual exploitation.

I can see the logic in that respect i guess, but...

Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offence.

I feel that is pushing the boundaries of what should be defined as a sexual offence, in my view. I feel it just puts the law in murky ground.

If for instance she accidentally made the pictures public and people looked at them, is it a sex crime? If so is she in violation of the law by making the images in the first place? How can you accurately define what does and doesn't constitute a sex crime? In some ways perhaps it would boil down to intent. I looked at these photos for the sole purpose of gaining sexual gratification from them.

It's not that she was coerced into making the pictures in the first place, it is more a question of who she feels has permission to look at them. It is a sex crime because I didn't give you permission to look at my naked body. That to me is a bit problematic in that it is a question of intent. I could walk in on a girl just getting out of the shower. Maybe she felt violated because she didn't give me permission to look at her naked body, but is it a sex crime? All I did is accidentally walk in on her. I didn't know she was in there.

In terms of actually stealing these images and selling them for financial gain, well there is certainly a crime there.

 

[inkls]

There are anti-stalking laws.

See what happened to Erin Andrews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Andrews#Stalking_incident

Hmm, good to know. Thanks for the link.

This is a bit of victim blaming as you're assuming users of their phones are as savy as you are. As companies continue to make products and software easier to use the automatic nature of photo backups are becoming less obvious. While phone apps now specifically state "Enable Photo Backup", what's not as likely is the desktop software doing this. Perhaps these people were using iPhoto previous to iCloud's backup feature. iCloud comes around and automatically begins syncing photos into the cloud. Think about how many times you go into your photo tool of choice and get reminded of an older photo you forgot about.

We have so much data everywhere between so many devices it is very easy to forget about a lot of it.

Sorry if it came out that way I think I rushed that post a bit. Not everyone will be savy about these things or read Google tos regarding what content you produce they are allowed to share, it was not the best idea in retrospective. Like all leaks, there's usually no sign that this will happen as we assume since there is no leak its supposedly secured. The only positive of the whole thing is that it raises awareness to security risks like this.

 

[The Lamp]

I didn't look at these pics even out of curiosity because I realized it was not okay. Poor Jennifer. If I was friends with her, I'd let her know that I'm one of the few that hasnt seen her naked.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Sorry if it came out that way I think I rushed that post a bit. Not everyone will be savy about these things or read Google tos regarding what content you produce they are allowed to share, it was not the best idea in retrospective. Like all leaks, there's usually no sign that this will happen as we assume since there is no leak its supposedly secured. The only positive of the whole thing is that it raises awareness to security risks like this.

I think you're over looking my point that the software and hardware we use today has made this process so effortless it's entirely possible people don't realize it's happening. It's entirely plausible they had no idea these photos were even ending up there.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

The victim blaming in this thread!!

Seriously, if someone's bank information can get stolen, and the person who stole it can be prosecuted as a cyber theft crime, then I don't see how a stealing someone's private sensitive nude pictures are not worthy of being a cyber sex theft crime.

She was violated unlawfully and her private data should always remain exactly that, private.

 

[Keri]

It's not that she was coerced into making the pictures in the first place, it is more a question of who she feels has permission to look at them. It is a sex crime because I didn't give you permission to look at my naked body. That to me is a bit problematic in that it is a question of intent. I could walk in on a girl just getting out of the shower. Maybe she felt violated because she didn't give me permission to look at her naked body, but is it a sex crime? All I did is accidentally walk in on her. I didn't know she was in there.

This is so weird. You clearly frame the issue as one of consent, yet somehow manage to turn the focus around to the intent of the person violating that consent. Then suggest that some of those violations could be accidents so...no infringement on consent should be considered a sex crime?

It's perfectly fair to consider this a sex crime. Stealing and releasing the photographs is clearly criminal and the subject of the photos is sexual. And the violation experienced by these victims is clearly a sexual violation. If you viewed those photos then yes, you are perpetuating a sex crime, because you are contributing to the victimization.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

I



I feel that is pushing the boundaries of what should be defined as a sexual offence, in my view. I feel it just puts the law in murky ground.

If for instance she accidentally made the pictures public and people looked at them, is it a sex crime? If so is she in violation of the law by making the images in the first place? How can you accurately define what does and doesn't constitute a sex crime? In some ways perhaps it would boil down to intent. I looked at these photos for the sole purpose of gaining sexual gratification from them.

It's not that she was coerced into making the pictures in the first place, it is more a question of who she feels has permission to look at them. It is a sex crime because I didn't give you permission to look at my naked body. That to me is a bit problematic in that it is a question of intent. I could walk in on a girl just getting out of the shower. Maybe she felt violated because she didn't give me permission to look at her naked body, but is it a sex crime? All I did is accidentally walk in on her. I didn't know she was in there.

In terms of actually stealing these images and selling them for financial gain, well there is certainly a crime there.

Perpetuating means to encourage or condone the act. They weren't saying you committed the crime, but rather you're only facilitating the encouragement of people to continue seeking out private photos.

 

[KHarvey16]

I would go as far as to say it's not even about tech savvy. The company storing these things on their network for someone to come and steal them via hacking is to blame.

There really should be a group lawsuit against apple. . . I don't see how they're not liable at all.

Did you look into how the pictures were obtained by these people?

At the stage we are with internet security advising someone to not put photos you don't want others to see on the internet is not a bad idea, and not at all comparable to not getting a car or not going outside.

Telling someone they shouldn't have stored their photos after they've been stolen is precisely like telling someone they shouldn't have gone outside after they've been mugged. It's nonsense victim blaming.

 

[inkls]

I think you're over looking my point that the software and hardware we use today has made this process so effortless it's entirely possible people don't realize it's happening. It's entirely plausible they had no idea these photos were even ending up there.

I though that was part of my point when I said it was common for people to not check for that or read tos?

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

I though that was part of my point when I said it was common for people to not check for that or read tos?

I may have misunderstood your retrospect part to mean "in hindsight they shouldn't have taken the photos" or "never put them in the cloud".

 

[CadetMahoney]

Did you look into how the pictures were obtained by these people?

So you tell me. Everyone is mentioning iCloud and none of the google searches mentions how exactly how the numerous ppl where hacked. If it wasn't physically handling all their phones, it must've been remotely meaning a hack. So if the company "locks" failed to prevent remote hacking via someone with a keyboard in a basement somewhere then they've definitely failed in their security and are liable.

It's not a secret. If you spent half the amount of time looking for how it was done as you have posting in this thread about how Apple must pay I'm sure you'd have found out by now. Clearly though actually knowing isn't your concern.

So how was it done to all these ppl and Apple is not liable? Which was the point you contradicted.

Are you saying it was "not a hack" and "no security was circumvented" or do you just want to focus on this "derp you didn't searchez" now.

 

[inkls]

I may have misunderstood your retrospect part to mean "in hindsight they shouldn't have taken the photos" or "never put them in the cloud".

I meant it in the same way that someone says "in retrospect it may have been a bad idea to invest in company X" after said company crash with little to no sign that it was going to crash.

The leak made it apparent it is a very bad idea now to host sensitive data online and that you should look into if you are compared to previously where there was little to no sign that this could happen or that the risk was low enough that it could be judged an acceptable risk.

Like all catastrophe, who expected it? Now that it has happened we know its a bad idea. I'm not gonna blame a victim of an earthquake that wasn't properly prepared in a region with no recorded history of huge quakes.

 

[KHarvey16]

So you tell me. Everyone is mentioning iCloud and none of the google searches mentions how exactly how the numerous ppl where hacked. If it wasn't physically handling all their phones, it must've been remotely meaning a hack. So if the company "locks" failed to prevent remote hacking via someone with a keyboard in a basement somewhere then they've definitely failed in their security and are liable.

It's not a secret. If you spent half the amount of time looking for how it was done as you have posting in this thread about how Apple must pay I'm sure you'd have found out by now. Clearly though actually knowing isn't your concern.

 

[Seeds]

Telling someone they shouldn't have stored their photos after they've been stolen is precisely like telling someone they shouldn't have gone outside after they've been mugged. It's nonsense victim blaming.

Lawrence can do what she initially intended to do without storing the pictures online. So not only does the advice not prevent her from doing anything she wants to do, it also makes the photos a lot harder to steal.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why telling someone to not go out is a stupid advice.

 

[TCRS]

I can certainly sympathise. Having that kind of shit of yourself out there is fucked up.

 

[KHarvey16]

Lawrence can do what she initially intended to do without storing the pictures online. So not only does the advice not prevent her from doing anything she wants to do, it also makes the photos a lot harder to steal.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why telling someone to not go out is a stupid advice.

I think telling someone not to go outside so they don't get mugged is stupid advice too. Are you understanding the point being made now?

 

[leadbelly]

This is so weird. You clearly frame the issue as one of consent, yet somehow manage to turn the focus around to the intent of the person violating that consent. Then suggest that some of those violations could be accidents so...no infringement on consent should be considered a sex crime?

It's perfectly fair to consider this a sex crime. Stealing and releasing the photographs is clearly criminal and the subject of the photos is sexual. And the violation experienced by these victims is clearly a sexual violation. If you viewed those photos then yes, you are perpetuating a sex crime, because you are contributing to the victimization.

I actually find it weird the way you justify this classification of it. Stealing photos is a crime and the photos were sexual, therefore if you put crime and sexual together you get sex crime (lol).

I'm not the one framing the issue as one of consent, JLaw is. I was just giving examples of how basing it as a 'sex crime' because she simply did not give permission to view the pictures, is somewhat murky. The question isn't whether she gave you permission or not, it is what makes it sexual violation?

Sexual violation is defined as: To assault (a person) sexually. It requires me to do something to JLaw that is sexually inappropriate. I would not actually be doing anything to her personally though by looking at her picture. In fact a naked picture in itself is not inherently sexual. If lets say it was just a naked picture of Jlaw without her doing anything sexually provocative, there would not be anything inherently sexual in the picture. My reasoning on that would be that a picture of a 'nudist' is not sexual or intended to be sexual. In that sense, she may not have gave me permission to look at the picture, but it doesn't necessarily mean looking at it constitutes a 'sex crime'.

The point I was making is, if lets say we do class this as a 'sex crime' as a form of sexual assault, simply looking at a picture does not determine this, you would have to determine intent. The example I gave was that if she accidentally made the pictures public does it make it a sex crime to view them? By simply viewing them am I committing a sex crime? If I accidentally walk in on someone coming out of the shower, am I committing a sex crime? In terms of that analogy, I don't think it would classed as a sex crime. If I actually started sexually harassing her, then you would have intent. Perhaps I walked in accidentally.

At least when it comes to child porn, the actual making of the image is illegal in itself. This however, is simply to do with the person viewing the image not having permission to do so. The actual picture is not illegal in and of itself. It seems hard then in my mind, properly enforce this law.

 

[Seeds]

I think telling someone not to go outside so they don't get mugged is stupid advice too. Are you understanding the point being made now?

I understad that you're trying to make a point, but you've yet to explain how advising someone not to store photos they don't want others to see online is precisely the same as telling people to not go outside, considering the latter can ruin someones social/work life while the former has no effect on it.

 

[-Amon-]

I think that nowadays celebrieties than live and die by their image should hire some form of it / security consultant to help them understand what does it mean to upload certain kind of photos on a cloud service.

Or at least, spend some time learning the technology they are using.

No cloud service is secure, all of them can be hacked by social engineriing or security vulnerabilities.

People that decide to use those services should be aware of that and act accordingly.

At the same time, apple in this case or any other company that offer similar services should make their users aware of these vulnerabilities, or be sued if they don't in case that hacks occurs.

For me it's simple as that.

 

[Two Words]

I actually find it weird the way you justify this classification of it. Stealing photos is a crime and the photos were sexual, therefore if you put crime and sexual together you get sex crime (lol).

I'm not the one framing the issue as one of consent, JLaw is. I was just giving examples of how basing it as a 'sex crime' because she simply did not give permission to view the pictures, is somewhat murky. The question isn't whether she gave you permission or not, it is what makes it sexual violation?

Sexual violation is defined as: To assault (a person) sexually. It requires me to do something to JLaw that is sexually inappropriate. I would not actually be doing anything to her personally though by looking at her picture. In fact a naked picture in itself is not inherently sexual. If lets say it was just a naked picture of Jlaw without her doing anything sexually provocative, there would not be anything inherently sexual in the picture. My reasoning on that would be that a picture of a 'nudist' is not sexual or intended to be sexual. In that sense, she may not have gave me permission to look at the picture, but it doesn't necessarily mean looking at it constitutes a 'sex crime'.

The point I was making is, if lets say we do class this as a 'sex crime' as a form of sexual assault, simply looking at a picture does not determine this, you would have to determine intent. The example I gave was that if she accidentally made the pictures public does it make it a sex crime to view them? By simply viewing them am I committing a sex crime? If I accidentally walk in on someone coming out of the shower, am I committing a sex crime? In terms of that analogy, I don't think it would classed as a sex crime. If I actually started sexually harassing her, then you would have intent. Perhaps I walked in accidentally.

At least when it comes to child porn, the actual making of the image is illegal in itself. This however, is simply to do with the person viewing the image not having permission to do so. The actual picture is not illegal in and of itself. It seems hard then in my mind, properly enforce this law.

If these were naked pictures of children, it would be a sex crime. Naked photos of women being publicized without their consent is similar in logic. Both children and women in this case are not giving content. By law, children cannot give consent, and hacking a woman's security is breaking consent because the purpose of the security is the information is not consent for public consumption. So why is spreading naked photos of children a sed crime, but not the same for in consenting women? Please don't say "because kids". That's just an answer pleading to people's emotions and isn't a logical argument.

 

[Two Words]

I understad that you're trying to make a point, but you've yet to explain how advising someone not to store photos they don't want others to see online is precisely the same as telling people to not go outside, considering the latter can ruin someones social/work life while the former has no effect on it.

Why don't you not store any photos online then?

 

[KHarvey16]

I understad that you're trying to make a point, but you've yet to explain how advising someone not to store photos they don't want others to see online is precisely the same as telling people to not go outside, considering the latter can ruin someones social/work life while the former has no effect on it.

What? If someone gets mugged, telling them they shouldn't go outside is just like telling someone, after their pictures have been stolen, to not store their pictures online. Both of these examples place the onus on the victim and it's nonsense. I don't understand the difficulty here.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I would go as far as to say it's not even about tech savvy. The company storing these things on their network for someone to come and steal them via hacking is to blame.

There really should be a group lawsuit against apple. . . I don't see how they're not liable at all.

Did you look into how the pictures were obtained by these people?

My initial assertion is correct no? They where on (taken from) Apple's iCloud.

I don't know what your point/counter-argument is? That no corporate-run remote storage security was circumvented? (i.e. "hacked").

 

[Two Words]

My initial assertion is correct no? They where on (taken from) Apple's iCloud.

I don't know what your point/counter-argument is? That no corporate-run remote storage security was circumvented? (i.e. "hacked").

It appears that the celebrities got hacked individually, not through Apple.

 

[inkls]

If these were naked pictures of children, it would be a sex crime. Naked photos of women being publicized without their consent is similar in logic. Both children and women in this case are not giving content. By law, children cannot give consent, and hacking a woman's security is breaking consent because the purpose of the security is the information is not consent for public consumption. So why is spreading naked photos of children a sed crime, but not the same for in consenting women? Please don't say "because kids". That's just an answer pleading to people's emotions and isn't a logical argument.

Isn't it also because pedophilia is illegal?

 

[KHarvey16]

My initial assertion is correct no? They where on (taken from) Apple's iCloud.

I don't know what your point/counter-argument is? That no corporate-run remote storage security was circumvented? (i.e. "hacked").

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/npa5yMn.gif

I think your goal is to hate on Apple and you don't actually care what happened. That's supported by your refusal to actually learn anything.