(August 5, 2017 at 6:08 pm)johan Wrote: Doing harm to other people is a very big deal to me. Looking at nude pics of someone who, if we're being honest, stands at least a 50/50 chance of having released said pics on purpose to further their own brand, just doesn't carry the same amount of weight for me no matter how you slice it.
You have absolutely no idea what intent was in place in posting those photos to a private and presumably secure account on the Cloud, and furthermore, you have absolutely no data to back up your '50/50' assertion about branding and release.
There's an awful lot of people here in this thread who seem very unaware that the harm done is in the futures market. You see, when you click on a stolen celeb nude, what you're doing is telling the site that hosted it, "Hey, I like looking at these folks nude, permission or no" -- and then what do you think happens?
Market forces start moving in and pushing the market itself. You don't need to believe me. Look at the rise of the paparazzi. When you start acclimating a new market to new thrills, the marketeers tend to compete.
Put short: I've got every right to sell a picture of my own dick. But you don't have the right to invade my privacy to get that same pic and sell it for your own profit.
And yes, my private account on the Cloud, behind their encryption and my password, is indeed my privacy.
I wonder how many folks here who have no problem with these stolen pics would whine about government invasion of privacy? And I wonder if they understand that there's very little difference?
