General Discussion

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)

149. Her last and only statements were that they were fake.

Wed Sep 3, 2014, 02:02 PM

Sep 2014

Photos alleging to be more than 100 celebrity women were released as part of a 'game' in which the hackers collectively tried to get into the accounts of these women and some were rewarded with money (bitcoins). Some are very likely not who they claim to be. Some are.

Dozens of lawyers are working on this. Several takedown letters have been successful based on copyright claims. McKayla has only been 18 for 8 months. It's safe to assume the images taken on cell phones contain metadata that includes "date taken". It seems incredibly easy to state and effective to tell these sites that, if the images are real, she was underage in them. Her attorney carefully worded the letter to state that she was under 18 when the photos were taken. That doesn't mean that they are her, but if they are, they are child porn. Even if they aren't her, what they allege to BE is. Any website run by someone with even half a brain (even really seedy sites) do not want to play around with the possibility of child pornography so they take them down.

They may be her, they may not be her, but it doesn't matter.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

McKayla Maroney -- I Was Underage in Hacked Nude Photos [View all] jakeXT Sep 2014 OP

That changes things. TDale313 Sep 2014 #1

Just a thought MFrohike Sep 2014 #2

And to cover HER umm behind justiceischeap Sep 2014 #3

She'll be fine MFrohike Sep 2014 #7

No consent under age 18. nt TBF Sep 2014 #46

It doesn't work that way MFrohike Sep 2014 #140

Her celebrity status is irrelevant. The government isn't about to go after teens pnwmom Sep 2014 #68

Thank you! BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #76

A lot of people seem to be enjoying viewing themselves as far superior pnwmom Sep 2014 #77

I agree. BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #81

I bet those same people are still furious about THAT. pnwmom Sep 2014 #110

The disconnect is BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #115

I've heard of a few cases like this in the past... Lancero Sep 2014 #165

Those cases weren't like this, because these women didn't "send" their photos to anyone. pnwmom Sep 2014 #169

Thank you! xmas74 Sep 2014 #168

Actually, they do upload themselves into the cloud. JaneyVee Sep 2014 #4

Without enabling the feature? MFrohike Sep 2014 #5

Ive had an iPhone for about 6 years bigwillq Sep 2014 #6

It's possible MFrohike Sep 2014 #8

You don't have to push a hundred buttons to get the phone working. Most settings are default, pnwmom Sep 2014 #69

Hyperbole MFrohike Sep 2014 #121

It didn't with my iPhone. That was the default setting. But it wouldn't matter anyway. pnwmom Sep 2014 #172

And I bet you are in the solid majority. All these DUers who condemn these young women pnwmom Sep 2014 #70

Ever been in an Apple store? herding cats Sep 2014 #143

Only to people who accept default installations TransitJohn Sep 2014 #14

Smart people... JaneyVee Sep 2014 #38

It's smarter to backup onto your on separate physical media you possess. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #39

I know a PhD engineer who backs his data up on a secure server pnwmom Sep 2014 #72

More power to him. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #190

How do you know your home wi fi can't be broken into? Or do you not have wi fi? nt pnwmom Sep 2014 #193

I don't. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #194

So? The world is set up to take advantage of people who are less smart. That doesn't mean pnwmom Sep 2014 #71

This Smart Person RobinA Sep 2014 #100

Try reading the instructions TransitJohn Sep 2014 #191

It's a ridiculous aspect of law that punishes a person for taking photos of themselves. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #9

There's a thought MFrohike Sep 2014 #12

That sounds like one of the hypotheticals from hell hifiguy Sep 2014 #16

Haha MFrohike Sep 2014 #18

True, but that is the kind of framework hifiguy Sep 2014 #22

It does MFrohike Sep 2014 #23

You can place reasonable limitations, like no commercial use of underage photos. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #17

Not a bad argument MFrohike Sep 2014 #21

If both parties consented to take it, it should be handled just like how we handle it for adults. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #24

I disagree yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #154

Please explain how it helps society to destroy the future of a child? NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #174

Minors can't sign contracts, so the answer is no. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #73

Yes they can MFrohike Sep 2014 #117

Then they can't be prosecuted because they can simply disavow it. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #120

No MFrohike Sep 2014 #126

Absolutely disagree with you immensely yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #151

I'm sure a felony conviction and permanent registration as a sex offender will serve them well. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #173

Totally! TransitJohn Sep 2014 #197

She still denies that they are her. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #11

still? even after this tmz thing? big_dog Sep 2014 #31

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #149

So she says she had child porn of someone else on her iPhone? Kablooie Sep 2014 #109

holy shit, really?? PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #123

Having not looked, I can't say content, but there are non-sex reasons to take unclothed pics. politicat Sep 2014 #19

That may be the case MFrohike Sep 2014 #30

They became porn when they were stolen and distributed without permission. politicat Sep 2014 #42

That's not how it works. LisaL Sep 2014 #47

By your logic all children who are victims would be convicted kcr Sep 2014 #52

The children who are victims aren't making the porn themselvs. LisaL Sep 2014 #55

You're the one claiming its porn in the first place kcr Sep 2014 #60

I am not claiming that they are porn. LisaL Sep 2014 #62

You have a funny way of not claiming they're porn kcr Sep 2014 #64

For the same reason that medical photos are not CP when in a file, but become so when politicat Sep 2014 #66

Do you have a link to that case? LisaL Sep 2014 #78

Still trying to find it, politicat Sep 2014 #148

Because the law can define anything as it wishes. Every naked picture of a child pnwmom Sep 2014 #79

Legally, child porn is defined by the nature of the photo. Nudity isn't even required. Xithras Sep 2014 #85

Isn't it considered ann--- Sep 2014 #102

Define. politicat Sep 2014 #111

I didn't blame the victim - please don't accuse me of that ann--- Sep 2014 #114

We're talking at cross purposes. politicat Sep 2014 #129

What is CP? ann--- Sep 2014 #141

Didn't Yale do it to incoming freshmen? Generic Other Sep 2014 #41

Fair point, also, the pictures might not have been taken/uploaded to "the cloud" from USA. MADem Sep 2014 #142

This message was self-deleted by its author big_dog Sep 2014 #20

I think that "Porn" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you say she "did" the porn herself just world wide wally Sep 2014 #25

Not exactly MFrohike Sep 2014 #29

But she didn't distribute the photos. LisaL Sep 2014 #32

Wow... That is some fuckin stretch to blame a victim... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #33

Those are our laws. LisaL Sep 2014 #45

Wow, that's terrible reading comprehension MFrohike Sep 2014 #132

"presumably broken"... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #183

You know, forget it MFrohike Sep 2014 #186

I'm shocked... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #189

When you're white knighting on that mighty high horse, MFrohike Sep 2014 #195

'white knighting'? Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #199

Why? MFrohike Sep 2014 #202

'white knighting'... Fucking MRA's... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #200

Man, you need to grow up MFrohike Sep 2014 #201

Dead giveaway, isn't it? Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #204

She was a teen who didn't understand that her photos were hackable. pnwmom Sep 2014 #67

That isn't really a thought so much as not really getting it Kalidurga Sep 2014 #75

Hoo boy MFrohike Sep 2014 #134

Really. It's the Pauli principle in action. Chan790 Sep 2014 #157

It is sad Kalidurga Sep 2014 #171

Smug and humorless MFrohike Sep 2014 #177

Look you have a whole thread of people here who can explain things much better Kalidurga Sep 2014 #178

Whew MFrohike Sep 2014 #179

Somehow I don't care if people think I am arrogant or not. Kalidurga Sep 2014 #181

You have an odd sense of humor. n/t Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #80

Agreed MFrohike Sep 2014 #138

Not amused, not impressed. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #87

Hahaha MFrohike Sep 2014 #139

And ann--- Sep 2014 #101

Oh, I see a "TMZ Exclusive" with details on a letter from her attorney. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #10

Touche MFrohike Sep 2014 #13

So she posed because...? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #15

And you need to know because . . .? Lex Sep 2014 #26

It's in the news? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #118

Yes it is. Lex Sep 2014 #131

That was my answer, not a question. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #136

Because it was Tuesday mythology Sep 2014 #27

Excuse me, but did she not know her own age at the time? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #119

Because she felt like it? world wide wally Sep 2014 #34

Then don't cry "MINOR!" after the fact. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #122

Why not? world wide wally Sep 2014 #146

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #150

Any number of reasons. xmas74 Sep 2014 #36

Good for you! But MM was under 18 and is now claiming her minor status. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #124

As she should. xmas74 Sep 2014 #166

Because it's her own damn body and she can do what she wants with it? NuclearDem Sep 2014 #40

Not if she was a minor. LisaL Sep 2014 #44

I think she has to distribute them kcr Sep 2014 #48

My undestanding is that production/possession is a crime even without distribution. LisaL Sep 2014 #53

Yes. But she didn't distribute them, see? n/t kcr Sep 2014 #54

Then she can not be charged with distribution. LisaL Sep 2014 #56

Why aren't other children charged then? kcr Sep 2014 #58

What other children? LisaL Sep 2014 #59

Oh, come on. What children could I be talking about? kcr Sep 2014 #61

I can't read your mind, so I have no clue. LisaL Sep 2014 #63

But she didn't send them kcr Sep 2014 #65

Isn't it a crime simply to possess nude pictures of minors? Orrex Sep 2014 #86

How did those possessing them come into possession? kcr Sep 2014 #88

Presumably Ms Maroney took some of them Orrex Sep 2014 #89

People come into possesion of child porn simply by taking pictures of themselves? kcr Sep 2014 #90

If they're nude pictures, then I believe that the answer is "possibly, yes." Orrex Sep 2014 #93

You believe magical transforming pictures are possible? kcr Sep 2014 #95

Don't try to make me think that you're an idiot. Orrex Sep 2014 #96

I don't care what you think of me kcr Sep 2014 #97

But no one here has asserted that that's the case, so why do you keep repeating it? Orrex Sep 2014 #98

That's funny considering you're the one who started this whole absurd chain kcr Sep 2014 #99

You asked a silly question and I gave a reasonable answer Orrex Sep 2014 #104

Did she sext the pictures? kcr Sep 2014 #105

It was a reasonable answer to your silly question Orrex Sep 2014 #108

Yes, I did kcr Sep 2014 #112

Where is your reply? Orrex Sep 2014 #116

It's been asked and answered multiple times in this thread kcr Sep 2014 #135

Well, here's why they ask the question: Orrex Sep 2014 #152

Doesn't say possessing pics of onself is illegal. kcr Sep 2014 #160

Perhaps you're not clear about what a "selfie" is. Orrex Sep 2014 #163

Perhaps you're not clear about what sexually explicit means kcr Sep 2014 #167

Again, you're trying to make me think you're an idiot. Orrex Sep 2014 #176

Your argument is fatally flawed by its absurdity kcr Sep 2014 #180

You are fixated on preposterous false equivalence Orrex Sep 2014 #182

They don't have to have anything to do with each other kcr Sep 2014 #184

Well, you've revealed yourself as a desperate liar. Orrex Sep 2014 #187

I'm lying by saying you said she could be charged. Then you go on and state she should be charged. kcr Sep 2014 #188

Well, see, the LAW would disagree with you----indeed, it is the very law that MM is now citing. And WinkyDink Sep 2014 #125

Kids do weird things - TBF Sep 2014 #50

Ah. So a minor can TAKE the photo, but if someone else SEES it, she can cry "Child porn!"? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #128

Because stealing it and distributing it so others can wank off to it shouldn't upset her one bit? kcr Sep 2014 #137

Because she wanted to. End of story. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #74

Fine and dandy! And the hacker "wanted to" hack! I don't GADamn, but for her to think of using the WinkyDink Sep 2014 #130

Not the same. The hacker "wanted to" break the law. The hacker is the criminal, pnwmom Sep 2014 #170

Should she have cried child porn before the pictures were stolen RedCappedBandit Sep 2014 #196

Common for high-level athletes actually. Chan790 Sep 2014 #158

Two reasons: TransitJohn Sep 2014 #192

I believe an underage head photoshopped onto an over-21 naked body is still considered child porn. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #28

It's a legal gray area. Xithras Sep 2014 #37

Which means that everyone who viewed the photos committed a felony. Xithras Sep 2014 #35

And while we are at it, she can potentially be thrown in prison too. For LisaL Sep 2014 #43

Is she the one who distributed them? kcr Sep 2014 #49

But making child porn and possessing it is a crime. Even if photos aren't distributed. LisaL Sep 2014 #51

All children who are victims aren't convicted, no? kcr Sep 2014 #57

I agree with everything you said AngryAmish Sep 2014 #82

If she sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend then she distributed them. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #145

Okay. But that's if. kcr Sep 2014 #147

We don't know if they were hacked or sent. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #155

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #156

We don't know if she's ever robbed a house. kcr Sep 2014 #161

Potentially, but there is no moral equivalence between the two. Xithras Sep 2014 #83

Don't ever search for "naturist" on Google images. tridim Sep 2014 #106

one of the websites said the immediatly took down the pictures rdking647 Sep 2014 #84

I hope the skeevy pervs who gleefully downloaded the pics Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #91

Can you believe the posts in this thread about prosecuting her, too? kcr Sep 2014 #92

Sure I can believe it. Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #94

As should ann--- Sep 2014 #103

I got infamously banned and harrassed on DU for using the word "skanky." Atman Sep 2014 #203

She should be arrested for having child porn on her iPhone! Kablooie Sep 2014 #107

Well she could! It's the law! kcr Sep 2014 #113

Interesting Orrex Sep 2014 #127

Yes, and if you find evidence that she sent them to someone you'll have a point n/t kcr Sep 2014 #144

Highlighted for emphasis. Orrex Sep 2014 #153

You're free to infer whatever you like kcr Sep 2014 #159

It's nothing at all like that. Orrex Sep 2014 #162

You highlighted it yourself. Sexually explicit pictures. kcr Sep 2014 #164

It also says "nude or lurid" Orrex Sep 2014 #175

How can a picture of oneself be lurid? kcr Sep 2014 #185

Blaming the victims is seriously f'd up. nt abelenkpe Sep 2014 #133

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #198