General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe saddest part of the nude celebrity photo hack
is that an incredible number of people will be searching for those photos today. Will they find them? Probably.
That's what I find sad and depressing.
For the people searching for them: Why? The answer to that question is one that is worth thinking about.
Hemmingway
(104 posts)The answers are likely the same.
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)especially defensively in those situations and keep my eye on traffic. If everyone did that, it would be a less dangerous situation. You may be right, though, about the motivation. Again, it makes me sad.
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The entire point of being a celebrity is that people will pay to look at you.
However, in order to maximize the return, it is important to control the supply. What has happened here is like Debeers losing control of the volume of diamonds on the market.
HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)equivalent of blood-diamonds?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What we have here is enhanced by the economic value of controlling the exposure of famous people, whose vast incomes are a consequence of being paid to be seen.
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)I don't care why they took the photos. Why would I? They were not intended for public viewing, so I won't go looking for them. Why would I?
Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)the same as having them on a computer at home. She didn't realize that someone could hack into them from a distance.
Why is it degrading for a woman to take a nude photo?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Jennifer Lawrence's were taken from her Cloud storage. Which I never understood how anyone would think the Cloud a safe place to store anything of importance. Others were taken from private emails.
From what I understand many of these pictures were taken for boyfriend/girlfriends and in private settings. These were not photoshoots that these celebs were hoping to never see the light of day. These were things they did in private with their significant other.
Response to meadowlark5 (Reply #28)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)I guess you haven't learned.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)speech" here, ann.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Maybe you shouldn't have made them in the first place.
Sound familiar?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Here's a link for you. Read this, it explains it all:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
alp227
(31,959 posts)Enjoy yourself anywhere else...of course there's the trade-off between your freedom to talk trash and the kinds of netizens you're surrounded with.
Response to alp227 (Reply #75)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)managed to say all sorts of horrible shit, even with DU's limitations. I'm glad somebody is finally onto your game.
Response to ann--- (Reply #58)
Post removed
ann---
(1,933 posts)your vulgar post to me is allowed to stand?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and didn't realize some hacker could break into her iPhone photos in the cloud.
Slut-shaming isn't allowed here, and that's what you did -- literally. If you're not comfortable avoiding that then you should avoid DU.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #90)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And she did not "post" her photos online. You were lying about that. Someone took her picture with her personal camera, and she didn't realize that the photos would go to the cloud or that that iCloud was hackable. Apple didn't either, so you can hardly blame her.
If you really think there is anything immoral about putting your own nude photos on your own camera, phone, or computer, then you really don't belong on a progressive website.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #96)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)for your own purposes is not objectifying anyone.
And neither is it immoral. No one would have been harmed if Apple hadn't had a bug in its software that allowed the hack to occur.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and makes them public.
Then you say people who put their 'naked photos' on an iPhone are not victims if someone hacks into them and makes them public.
Apparently, you think the content of the photo affects whether the person is a victim or not. This makes no sense.
I don't know what her purpose was, but it could have been art. She has a beautiful body, and beautiful bodies have always been used to make art. Who are YOU to say that wasn't her purpose?
She took the pictures on a camera that happens to be on her phone. For many people these days, that is the only camera they own. So what?
Response to pnwmom (Reply #103)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)you might as well stop. What kind of progressive voice is so afraid of nudity that they make multiple posts to shame women who take private photos of themselves? This sort of Comstockery is way more disgusting than any nude photos might be because it indicates a form of self-loathing bluenosedness. Whatever it is that you hoped to accomplish by shaming the actress, you've really only managed to expose yourself. Hint: No one thinks she's the one who looks bad here.
ann---
(1,933 posts)I didn't know that having a different opinion from the "popular" one was a crime. My gawd. You have it all wrong.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)hunter
(38,264 posts)Guilty as charged.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)it is the owner's fault for bringing it home. There is a thing called a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
You have "standards." Some of us have fun.
And?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
I don't know much about art but I know what I like.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)breaks your window and steals everything you own. Is it your fault for having glass?
Response to mercuryblues (Reply #113)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)insisting that they put them online.
Why are you BLAMING the victims, not the criminals?
Why are you BLAMING the victims, not the CRIMINALS?
Listen, If I want to take pics of myself, with my own phone, they are my property. Anyone who breaks into my phone is committing a CRIME.
SO again
WHY ARE YOU BLAMING THE VICTIMS, NOT THE CRIMINALS? Did YOU help perpetuate this crime? IS this a way to alleviate some of YOUR guilt over YOUR assist in this CRIME?
Response to mercuryblues (Reply #116)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)you are, by claiming that "they should have known" among the various other ways. ou keep saying because the photos were ther in the 1st place.... It was their PROPERTY that was HACKED by CRIMINALS. No different than if someone broke into their home and stole hard copies.
You have doubled and tripled down on it, then deny.
SO much so that I wonder if you helped in the hack.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
why do you blame the victim? The fault lies within.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Warpy
(110,900 posts)The casting couch is still in use in Hollywood, for instance.
It's not as simple as it once was. Polaroids (state of the art in the 60s) fade over time and few women my age who had dirty pictures taken by and for boyfriends can be haunted by them now.
Eventually online formats will change so drastically that women with public personas can no longer be slut shamed by the Playboy style photos that were in their unofficial portfolio.
It would be a great help if women didn't blame other women for this stuff. We're only the targets and all we can do is modify our reactions to it. Men are the ones who need to clean up their acts.
Or we leave them.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Before you earn yet another well-deserved hide.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)?
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)No seriously. Mineral Man had a philosophical question of sorts. So why do you ask why? Is it your philosophy to question the question always or just when you want to snark?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Those who search for them will likely be disappointed, too, when they don't find the airbrushed and 'enhanced' aspects they expected.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
MADem
(135,425 posts)claim a hack. It's all part of the "viral publicity" meme. So long as the name is spelled right, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
There is a well-known "reality television star" whose claim to fame is a sex tape. She parlayed that "leak" into a multi-million dollar family empire. Another fashionable heiress did the same, and even went on Saturday Night Live to snark about it.
https://screen.yahoo.com/paris-hilton-double-entendres-000000396.html
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)this on purpose -- or that any of the other victims did, for that matter.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Go back and actually READ what I wrote. I did the OPPOSITE of suggesting--I cast DOUBT on the possibility.
Thanks in advance for reading comprehensively.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)How clever.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your issues with the written word are certainly NOT my problem, and my remarks throughout this thread back up MY POV, and not yours.
You should be embarrassed that you have a need to accuse me of something I didn't do in that fashion. Not sure what you get out of it, but it really is uncivil and it makes DU stink on ice.
And on edit--I wrote this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5473838
well before you came after me with those nasty insinuations. I think you really need to check yourself, and maybe read the whole thread, before you cherry-pick and accuse people of viewpoints they don't hold.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)That all the huge hits went down. I wouldn't touch those pics with a ten foot pole today . . .
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)online all the time, so the morning news is where many people heard of this for the very first time. Today will see a huge number of searches for these photos.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Didn't watch the news this morning. I have a Homeland Security aspect of my job so in our world of wireless communications and devices - it was yesterday. Woke up to an alert text.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)He is the writer for a UK comedy show called "Coupling" and he's also the lead writer for Doctor Who.
What he argued in the episode called "Inferno" is relevant here.
We face a Nietzchean dilemma on this issue. Do we accept people for what they are and embrace humanity for what it is? Or do we advocate for the annihilation (or re-education, perhaps) of those whose actions do not comport with our own ethics?
Each of us must make this decision individually.
-Laelth
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)Of course each person makes his or her own decisions on this and most other things. I have an opinion about it. My decision was to post that opinion. No dilemma I can see.
randome
(34,845 posts)He can't write women characters without descending into tired cliches. And what he did to "A Good Man Goes To War, Part 2" (Oh, wait, there never was a Part 2, was there?) is the 'highlight' of his career for me.
I am so over him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I do feel bad for the people, but look at how many views the original thread has racked up.
If only it were James Franco!
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)take such photos themselves or have others take them. Instead, it is about those who seek them out once they've been compromised. I'm certain that I won't see any of them. None of the places I go on the Internet will publish them, and I won't be looking for them. If a person wants to see them, they have to take positive action to find them, unless they're already frequenting sites that will be posting the photos.
It is a choice. That people make the choice to go looking for such things is what saddens me. As far as I know, there are no revealing photos of my naked self in existence. That was a choice, too. However, if I had chosen to do that, I'd expect to be able to keep them as private as I chose. Not everyone knows that just about any storage involving the Internet is not secure. Many people believe the services that provide "secure" storage can actually guarantee that.
But, it's not the fault of the people who stored those photos. The fault for their distribution is on the backs of Internet criminals. I don't do victim blaming.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I also think the hackers should be charged and punished. I believe some already have; a few years ago the same thing happened to ScarJo.
MADem
(135,425 posts)compel more than a few people to go looking for those pictures now, when before they looked at the thread, they never had a thought in their head to do such a thing!!
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I don't think it should be censored. I'm on MIRT and noticed a troll with a link and we nuked him.
It's up to the individual to do the right thing.
Remember the Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee tape? They ended up turning it into a profit...I saw is as it was on the market and all I have to say is that the rumors about him are true.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not prudishness, and it's not "Oh, I would NEVER be a voyeur in that fashion!" ... I'm just not that interested in all these nekkid people. They aren't people I really care about or follow closely, so ... eh! If someone showed me a picture I wouldn't get all affronted and look away, I'd probably say "What were they thinking?"
I always thought that Tommy Lee was a pretty ugly looking guy, so I guess hidden assets can be compelling!
It certainly was!
Response to MADem (Reply #29)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have no idea how she feels about it, because I don't know her and she hasn't issued a statement saying "I'm loving the publicity" now has she? She's at the height of her marketability--it doesn't seem like the right time to pull this kind of publicity stunt.
These kinds of things are done to get press and stand out from a crowd when one is first getting started, or to get some publicity after one's star has started to fade.
JL is at the top of her game right now, she doesn't need the publicity. She's got more than enough without this.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,206 posts)Why are these so sacred?
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)I'm not even talking about the pictures themselves. I'm talking about people's apparent fascination with them.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)career for the foreseeable future?
RandiFan1290
(6,206 posts)He didn't want them public
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Apple promised to hold data securely, and it apparently failed to do so.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-01/celebrity-nude-photo-hack-may-be-breach-of-apple-s-icloud
Apple has fixed a bug in its Find My iPhone software that may have allowed hackers to gain access to the celebrity iCloud accounts, the Engadget technology website reported, citing developers.
Trudy Muller, a spokeswoman for Apple, didnt return an e-mail and phone messages seeking comment. The company is closed for the U.S. Labor Day holiday.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)there would be more demand for photos of people with clothes. especially when they've started to age.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)In the Upton pics there are peppered in a few random women no one has ever seen before. Which is more likely, Kate Upton save nudes of random chicks or Verlander was acting like a baseball player on the road?
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Mine especially.
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)It's just about impossible not to have seen photos of people naked. That humans have bodies isn't any sort of surprise. I see my own on a daily basis. I see those of others from time to time, and have seen many during my life. I find them unremarkable, really.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And I have a feeling that quite a few of these celebrities would prefer to have people searching for nude pictures of them on the internet than nobody at all searching for them on the internet.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)...today, some celebrities leak their own sex tapes...
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)in the first place, and second, why post them online?
I don't judge whether the phenomenon is sad or happy; I don't know why people do it.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)than if she had them stored on her computer, that happened to have an internet connection.
Her iphone was supposed to be secure, but the hacker broke into it and posted her pictures online -- not JL.
Why she took the pictures is none of our business. To even ask the question is a form of victim-blaming.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)The pix...no naked pix to hack.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Same as saying that if a rape victim hadn't been outside at night, she wouldn't be been raped.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)The celebrity chose to take off her clothes, she chose to use a camera phone. Taking naked pix of yourself is not a passive activity.
You are equating rape victims with celebrity pix. NOT THE SAME!!
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)She could choose to go outside alone at night in a skimpy skirt. These are not passive activities.
These activities still do not make her responsible for a rape.
What happened to JL was a massive invasion of privacy, and as damaging emotionally as if someone had punched her in public -- maybe more so, because no idiots would be blaming her if she had been punched.
You are equating "celebrity pix" with personal, private photos being stolen and posted on the internet.
They are not the same!
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)by equating a hacked picture of a celebrity with someone who has been raped. Wow, just wow.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)say such a stupid thing.
Both a rape and what happened to JL were personal violations. The damage is of course different in terms of degree. But in neither case is the victim in any way to blame for the criminal act.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)a hacked celebrity photo is equivalent to the crime of rape. And you accuse me of saying stupid things?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)With that personal attack on my intelligence.
alp227
(31,959 posts)YOU do not get to blame a crime victim for the crime, EVER.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I especially like Ann the victim blamer.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The name ann-- suggests it, but that's all.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)I guess that's why it sounded off to me.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Welcome to Planet Earth. Be sure to try the pizza.
I hate to say it, but there are only two people to blame in a situation like this. The hacker, who is an irritating blight, and the celebrity, who really should've known better. This technology has been around long enough that people should be expected to take the most basic precautions to secure their data. And if you can't do that, well... if you aren't comfortable with the world seeing a picture, don't take it.
Honestly, I would advise any celebrity not to take such pictures even if they're experts with internet security. I can't imagine there's any shortage of perverts at the NSA, and they're going to have a backdoor into some step in the process, you can be certain.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)to be held securely by Apple. Blame Apple for fooling millions of customers, not JL.
Marr
(20,317 posts)the door locks didn't stop the thieves.
In my experience, most security failures are really the fault of the user. They make themselves vulnerable by poor choice of passwords or using the same one in multiple places, letting malware in, etc., etc. Ford can't protect your car from theft if you park it in the darkest alley in worst neighborhood you can find.
You just shouldn't take a picture these days if you can't accept the idea of the world seeing it. It sucks, but it's true-- and much more so for celebrities.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Ford doesn't say it will take responsibility for your car when you're not using it.
Apple offers to take control of your iPhone's data and tells you it has your data held securely.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-01/celebrity-nude-photo-hack-may-be-breach-of-apple-s-icloud
Apple has fixed a bug in its Find My iPhone software that may have allowed hackers to gain access to the celebrity iCloud accounts, the Engadget technology website reported, citing developers.
Trudy Muller, a spokeswoman for Apple, didnt return an e-mail and phone messages seeking comment. The company is closed for the U.S. Labor Day holiday.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If Apple-- or anyone else-- promises absolute security, they're lying. I feel sorry for Ms. Lawrence, who is probably the ten millionth celebrity to demonstrate that fact, but... there you go. It's still true. If you don't want the world to see it, don't make it digital.
randome
(34,845 posts)...and it would still be the fault of someone who picked it up and ran off with it.
But I would still be stupid for putting it there in the first place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
leftyladyfrommo
(18,815 posts)And why do people continue to send e-mails with stuff that gets them into a world of trouble? You would think they would figure that out. If it needs to be private don't use the internet. And don't use a cell phone.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)But that is just me.
You have to deliberately turn on iCloud, just want to clarify that to other readers because you seem to suggest otherwise.
ON EDIT: do not manipulate my words and try to claim I am saying anything other than what I am saying which is:
- I personally would not store sensitive data in "the cloud."
P.S. Hackers should be jailed.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)effect is of turning it on. Apple does NOT warn you. This is a 24 year old actor. She probably isn't a big tech expert.
Warpy
(110,900 posts)My own response, had I ever posed for a dirty Polaroid (the state of the art back when anybody wanted to see me nekkid) would likely have been "Yeah, we all have bodies and yours should look so good." Besides, do you know what happens to a Polaroid after 50 years?
My response to rape threats when I was moderating political chat online 20 years ago was "with whose dick?" as I changed the hour time out into a three week ban and blocked his PMs.
I've been that despised minority within a minority within a minority in political struggle long enough to have developed a hide like a rhino. It's only younger women in their 20s who can be intimidated by this garbage. It's usually women who have achieved any amount of fame who are most likely to be heavily slut shamed by men in prolonged adolescence who are outraged that a mere woman has achieved more than they can ever hope to.
This behavior is not our problem, it's men's problem. Our problem is how we react to it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and spreading the word so that more people find out about it and start searching and clicking?
Thanks for the info, though I have no interest in the subject OTHER THAN to point out how these things go viral. Now back to what this site is supposed to be about ....
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I didn't know about it either, but logging on DU last night I noticed a thread with almost 100,000 views. !! In all my years here I don't think I've ever seen a thread with that many views. Naturally it was about the celebrities and their leaked nude photos, and obviously Google searches had something to do with it.
Ugh.
Millionaire celebrities freak over un-airbrushed nude photos. Oh, the humanity!
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)thank god!
pfitz59
(10,196 posts)Masturbatory aids...fantasy fulfillment....
flvegan
(64,389 posts)What's sad is that with all the porn on the internet, people are spending every waking moment looking at/for this crap.
I will say that this is quite the interesting study on how the internet works. I'm also interested in how Apple comes out of this.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MineralMan
(146,190 posts)I haven't looked and won't look for any of those images.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And of digital devices overall. Deregulation sucks.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)these photos don't even come in under my 5000 worries . . .
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)MineralMan
(146,190 posts)there would be no reason to hack people's private files and sell them. I believe the demand is driving the supply, so I find it saddest that people are looking for this stuff.
I wonder what the count is for searches for "Jennifer Lawrence naked" over the past couple of days. Very high, I assume.
Demand leads to people hoping to exploit that demand.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)MineralMan
(146,190 posts)Of course, the demand exists, so there is a market for that stuff, and people who are trying to exploit that market. Sad, all around.