It's funny they use the word "could" in the title, don't you think?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jennifer Lawrence talks about being violated
- Thread starter ReturnOfTheRAT
- Start date
- Status
It's funny they use the word "could" in the title, don't you think?
CadetMahoney
Member
Exactly.
This person just won't give up trying to say it's not a "hack". How blunt-headed can you get. Time and time again plus links have been given. It's a very weird bullet point to get hung up on.
No it isn't sarcasm. I said "if" this was how you lived your life (and so on).
I don't use a lot of those sites either. I'm not on cloud, Facebook, etcetera. However, I still sympathize with anyone affected by this.
Forget the celebrity part. She's a human being and this became a nightmare for her. Everyone makes mistakes or choices everyone doesn't agree with. That isn't enough to somehow feel they warrant suffering. Because they don't.
Anton Sugar
Member
Victim-blaming: serious business.
TheRedSnifit
Member
You're deciding my arguments for me and then rejecting the arguments you decided upon. If you're going to go on a meta-tirade, try quoting somebody who's actually said that stuff.
Heartless maybe
When you make the choice to become a celeb, you should know there's a HUGE risk to your privacy. No one is saying that you don't have a right to privacy because you're a celeb, but your privacy is at a much higher risk of being breached.
That's a fact. Why do you think politicians who run for office have to make sure they have a super clean background? Because that one thing you thought was private will come back to haunt you.
Good thing Lewinsky didn't have iPhone.
It's idiotic because the logic is nonsensical. Simply saying "I don't care" is heartless. His argument is a lame excuse to justify being a peeping Tom.
BadAss2961
Member
Of course the search for her pics would be at their height around the time of the leak. But here we are, weeks later, over 500 posts into this topic yet again. Many who've already seen the pics will probably take another look, and many more who haven't will check them out purely out of curiosity.
Although I think she went a bit too far, JLaw has every right to complain. But staying on it will cause more people to see the pics. My older brother wouldn't know JLaw if she slapped him the face, but he's seen the pics after one of these outbursts. Yet he probably hasn't seen the pics of some of the other celebs from the same leak that he knows better.
No it's not idiotic at all, it's not completely unrelated as the ultimate effect is exactly the same. Privacy doesn't stop being a right when you're a celebrity, the tiny difference is that when you're a celebrity there will actually be a concrete hunger about this kind of photos. And you know it.
It doesn't matter if it comes through hacking, sharing, or whatever. It makes absolutely no difference.
I'm not saying that the hackers "did right". I just don't feel any sympathy about her giving her nude pics around and complaining once they get out, what can I do. It's ultimately depending how much you care about yourself, if you think that it's OKAY that your body could be in a photo\a video or something that should be seen only in private moments.
If you think that it's okay, then you're taking a gamble.
Besides, it's not as if this never happened before, guess what, it did.
What other "outburst?"
Ok. So what. Who cares. That isn't her fault. She did nothing wrong. She has her rights and they were violated. What is the fucking point of a right if you can't use it?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
And that's why all these analogies fail.
The Internet is a whole other beast that you can't just treat as real life.
cpp_is_king
Member
AFAIK there is only a handful of known instances of these so-called "insiders" snooping on private data. You have to understand, the hiring bar at these companies is extremely high. For someone to throw away an extremely successful career which they've worked their whole life to build up is exceedingly rare. But it happens, as you can see by doing some googling (try "David Barksdale", for example). And each time it has happened, controls are tightened. data becomes restricted to even fewer people than it was before. additional controls are put in place so that if one of these people wants to see something, they simply don't have access unless it goes through multiple approvals. Not in the sense of "well they still have the power to access it, they'll just get in even more trouble than before", but rather in the sense of "it literally is impossible to get the data without multiple signoffs".
Now consider the amount of data these companies process. How much data do you think Google has processed in the past, say, 5 years? I have no idea, but I'll just take a wild guess and say 5 exabytes. The amount of data that I personally have stored in the cloud which would do significant damage to me were it seen by someone is maybe on the order of a gigabyte. So doing some quick math, that accounts for about 2.0 × 10^(-10) of google's data, or .00000002% of Google's data.
Multiply this number by the probability that they were unlucky enough to hire an engineer with sufficient motive to throw away his entire career, and then multiply it again by the probability that he was able to get past privacy controls in place to prevent this sort of thing.
Yea, the probability is zero.
faceless007
Member
It's really weird when people post "No one is saying X" when the entire first few pages of this thread, as well as the last few threads about the hack, prove that wrong incredibly quickly.
The internet has changed the game. Your rights are always on the edge of being violated. It's not just about Lars being mad about his Metallica music being stolen anymore.
It's completely unrelated because her boyfriend didn't leak it. What is the point of a right if you cannot use it? It is completely contrarian to tell somebody they have the right to do something and them tell them not to do it. I hope people in person realize how gross you are. I wouldn't want to know anybody with the mentality you have as a secret.
Just checked. Nope, Internet has had no impact on what our rights are. Can you show me a source that says our rights are different in this post-Internet world?
Resident_UA
Member
I mean sure. It sucks for her. Not sure how not celebrity people could really relate to this though. When average person's private pictures are stolen from nobody would do anything about it. I don't expect police to investigate how my Facebook account was hacked. In fact I think it would be a waste of their time. I would be happy if they got to investigating credit card fraud which they are still too lazy to do.
This is just sad.
Dice//
Banned
Except most celebrities hate paparazzi, some have even gotten violent or resorted to constant hat-wearing and other tactics just to avoid them. We're a celebrity-loving culture, and we love these celebrity scoops and perpetuate what makes this kind of stuff "news". If Jennifer Lawrence was any other girl, it wouldn't matter as much (sadly), but she's no different at heart for just being another person involved in a shady and shitty situation --- NO ONE should have their photos hacked and leaked; celebrity or not. No one deserves to have their private photos leaked. You make it sound like she should just "toughen up" to it because she's a celebrity. Why shouldn't she feel just as bad if it were anyone else? It's an embarrassing thing to deal with.
Celebrities and politicians are followed but not for the same reasons; one is to find dirt on a nation or some sort of leader (someone you want to have faith in, vote for, and hope they aren't a scumbag), the former is just because they're popular for the entertainment they're in and literally have little to no direct affect on us beyond what we watch on a Saturday night.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This is a leap I don't find supported by any kind of reality. The thread seems to be made up of roughly two kinds of people - those who are unhappy with the culture of victim blaming, and those who are trying to nuance their way into an end-run around being called victim blamers.
Neither of those two parties are likely to go seek out pictures they were either never going to download due to their stance or their unrelated disinterest, or have already downloaded and saved. Your assumption that this 500 post thread about her Vanity Fair article will lead to more people looking at pictures that were already front-page news long before she even offered her first COMMENT on the theft is a bad assumption. It doesn't carry any weight.
A bit too far with WHAT? I don't even understand this, man. You're telling a woman who had her private photos shared on the internet with hundreds of thousands of people she didn't ever intend to see them, that she's going a bit too far in writing an essay about it.
That's a bad look for you.
heh, as you wish. What can I do, me and my family probably have a different view on treasuring what's private, and your naked body is certainly part of it.
Guess it's not the same for everyone. We're not talking about a tricked 14 years old girl here.
This brilliant post just shows that plenty of people don't give a shit about their personal data or don't think about what they are doing.
btw. I don't use gmail, facebook and all sorts of other crap. Not only because I don't want to, but I also don't want that data on the internet - at all - and I also don't want those corporations to have it. I even block google cookies and so on. I'm privacy-aware.
My BluRay/DVD collection for example is in the internet. Because I don't have a problem with that. It was a concious decision. I wouldn't even have a problem with it in case my real name was attached to it.
The creditcard part is silly. Creditcard numbers is not critical information. When I order something from for example zavvi and they get hacked, then I will simply contact my bank and get a new creditcard number. Already happened once. Yes, it's a hassle, but it's not critical. Like nude photos, medical data and other really personal data.
It would have a point in case people posted their bank account number + PIN + transaction numbers on the internet. But noone does that. Strangely. I mean in case someone did, calling that someone naive would be "victim blaming" according to posts in this thread.
Noone knows for sure, because Apple didn't give out detailed information. This would have been one way in. Maybe there were more than that. This way was definitely available.
Your rights are the same they are just being violated more often. Piracy, Identity Theft, Stolen naked pictures.
cpp_is_king
Member
I would call this either "privacy paranoid" or "privacy unaware", not privacy aware. Some of the best and smartest security researchers and privacy advocates in the world use all of these services, and they don't feel their privacy is at risk. Certainly removing all of them from your usage habits sets your risk to 0, but it's the "i don't know enough about what I'm doing to keep my data private, therefore I won't use it at all". That's the definition of "unaware"
Yeah guys, come on! She's a 24 year old girl who locked her photos away on a cloud service of the largest tech company in the world. Having it somewhere that skilled hackers would have to find vulnerabilities in Apple or her own security endlessly until they got lucky is basically the same as her accidentally forwarding it to everybody in her contacts as far as security goes! How is she even a victim?!
It's sad how people can think like this.
Typically, when a subsection of a population is having their rights targeted to be violated, you don't blame them for trying to exercise their rights.
You don't tell black people who were lynched that they shouldn't have driven through a racist town.
You don't tell women who were raped that they shouldn't have gone outside alone.
You don't tell gay people assaulted that they shouldn't have let it be known that they are gay.
So why do we suddenly blame famous people again?
What are you doing for your right to take dick pics?
If so, does it matter less?
It's a good thing for you that we all do have that right, or else you'd be left out unable to take selfies.
I think everyone has the right to take dick pics and share. But who protects these rights? The government?
You trust em? I think for many things we are own our own.
I understand it's unwise to put nakid pictures online. And now we are back to square one.
You all keep up the good fight.
Peace.
So no, you don't understand.
And yes, we return to square one when you nonsensically turn the conversation back to square one. I guess you just needed an excuse to back out.
IAmRandom31
Banned
Victim Blaming logic only holds up as long as the scenario is pedestrian in nature. As soon as you go to something more serious, then generally that thought process blows up under the weight.
Like say ... it is cool outside and I leave my window open to let the breeze in. If someone suddenly jumps through the window and murders my family, is it still my fault because I opened the window?
Woah, suddenly the scenario got a whole lot more serious then just someones nude photos. Now victim blaming isn't all that great anymore.
You don't understand privacy, you think it's dependent (ironically) on what it entails.
deejay8595
my posts are "MEH"
Great post. Co-sign.
WHY OH WHY ISNT EVERYBODY AS FLUENT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AS MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
bloodydrake
Cool Smoke Luke
ya more like..has an iota of common sense
Then you're reading without understanding the whole point of my post, sorry.
This doesn't mean anything. I've never said she shouldn't complain about her privacy being violated. Especially since it was through an hacking.
I merely stated that she took a big gamble when she took naked pictures of herself. If we want to be a little less strict, she could've taken them and leave them on a physical object. A hard disk in her house. A photo on a camera and she owns the SD.
Sure, someone could break in her house and stole them but at least that's incredibly way less likely to happen.
Fascinating theory.
Completely abstract from reality, but that's another story.
Having rights doesn't mean you don't have to make choices. You wouldn't post your facebook password here just because you have a right for privacy, right?
And you would be quite mad if I had sex with your wife even if it's not against my rights to do so, right? You know, I have the right to do it, so it's contrarian if you tell me not to!
It's not like since she has a "right to privacy" she could send those pictures to random people and then ask for my sympathy when she complains later if they get leaked.
I know that it's not what happened, don't take it away from the whole point again. The point is that rights aren't abstract from the context of reality. You make choices based on how much you treasure things.
tl;dr
You don't have "the right to make nude pics". You have the a right to privacy, but that privacy, in technology, is guaranteed through certain systems which you should be aware of.
You know there's a password system and that if someone finds it you're in trouble. It doesn't matter if it's by brute force, or you told it to your lover, or someone finds it casually.
In her case, she even knew that it had already happened.
Same here, I certainly wouldn't want to know anybody who considers people "gross" because they disagree onhow much you should treasure your privacy
JinjoUnchained
Member
Agree with this post, particularly the last part. Bolded is the only part I have an issue with. Surely you aren't that blindly trusting and naive? Society runs the gamut from people with a good moral compasses to scumbags with a chip on their shoulder who think they have a right to steal. It's not "blaming the victim" or "monday morning QBing" to point out that people should keep sensitive information out of the cloud and protect themselves from said scumbags. We point that out because we want to learn from this so there aren't future victims. What's wrong with that?
Also LOL at the poster with the Google avatar saying we should expect the best from humanity,
So you think if you lack understanding of modern technology and how it's security works, then you have no common sense?
deejay8595
my posts are "MEH"
Fluent? It's common sense...
I already wrote that I simply don't want to use it. I don't WANT my data to be on facebook or any of the other crappy services. Not even non-critical data. Because I don't WANT any of those corporations to get any of my data, especially the ones located in 'murica. That's my decision.
Never forget this little fact about google, facebook and others: If you are not paying for it, then you are the product.
btw. google for example already has creepy tech like this one:
http://www.robertelliottsmith.com/?p=530
Ok.
Or simply not giving a shit about those "services". I simply don't need or want them.
IF I wanted to use them, I would take care about what data I publish. That's what I'm doing with services, that I do use (for example GAF).
I think there's some common sense to having nude photos floating around on the web...it's not safe.
faceless007
Member
If "having an iota of common sense" means not using any cloud-based service for any personal data, then the vast majority of technology users in the developed world don't qualify, so clearly isn't that common and your threshold for what counts as "common sense" is rather meaningless.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
They weren't "floating around."
This is the sort of subtle reframing of what actually happened that makes it easier to shame the victim for having been victimized.
There is so much garbage here. What a mess. Stop dancing around this bullshit.
Either she has the right to privacy or she doesn't.
If she does, others breaking it are in the wrong and she has done nothing wrong
She does have the right.
Therefore, the people breaking her right to privacy are wrong and she has done nothing wrong.
It's as simple as that. You only have to make bullshit weasel logic to try and excuse gross behavior. It's not hard to simply say she is a victim and what happened shouldn't have happened. Full stop.
- Status