Today's simple lesson: If you don't want pictures of you topless to go public-----

[Bluenorthwest]

90. Interesting thread reactions. Something similar once happened to a famous man

I know slightly. Lenses a mile long used to take nude pictures while he was inside the house. Now this guy is not body shy at all, but he photographed looking silly and looking vein, he was in his own damn house.
It is an invasion of privacy, nothing to do with breasts or prudes. Taking those photos was a crime, yes it was, both the ones of my aquiantance and those of Kate. A crime. Those who publish such crap are usually low lives and reprobates who would do other crimes as well, tap phones for instance.
Do you say, 'if you have a phone, don't use it or assume it is tapped by Berlusconi?' It is easy to tap a cell line. It is also a crime. It is also done to famous people to invade privacy. No nudity physically. Emotionally, you bet. So do you use the same standards? Folks should assume their phones are tapped by Ruperts and no one should do a thing about it?
Just amazing how peeping toms and phone tappers are seen so differently. Folks here went to 'breats, we are prudes we are animals, men are this, women are that' and this has zip to do with nekkid and everything to do with spying and invasion of privacy.