viewing stolen nude photos

[SteelCurtain]

But if you're going to agree to let someone take nudes of you in your home, you do so willing accepting the risk that your boss might see them or your brother or anyone with an internet connection.

This is absolute lunacy to me.

There is no question there is a risk in the act of taking a nude photo. But the same inherent risk exists in buying expensive jewelry and wearing it in public. The same risk in purchasing/driving a car, the same risk in pretty much anything you do.

But having nude pictures stolen from a person (whomever it is) is the only thing in that infinite list where (primarily) women get blamed for even having taken them in the first place. There exists somehow in the human zeitgeist that women are to blame for sex happening to them or being taken from them. They are the temptress ("what was she wearing?") or they shouldn't have done something (taken the pictures, worn the dress, gone to the party full of frat bros) that "caused" someone to take from them.

It's just fucking ludicrous. Of course it's immoral to take from a person you don't know something you don't have consent to take. Period. End of fucking story.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yep. As i said earlier in the thread, unfortunately there still exists this idea that women are walking temptations and men are just gonna do what men are gonna do. So when a sex crime is commited against them, the conversation becomes about how stupid she was and "what was she thinking" rather than "wow, who the hell was the dirt ball that did this?" When you hear about someone's house getting broken into and robbed, the conversation never turns to "OMG, they should have had an alarm system", "don't they have better locks?", "well that's what you get for having windows on the first floor." It's only when it's women and involves sex.

---

Also, I don't blame her in the least bit for sending nudes to her boyfriend. She was in a long distance relationship. Understandibly, that's what people do when they are away from their significant others for long periods of time and can't be together. My husband and i did it when he was away in training for 9 weeks. Its not really fair to tell someone they can't or shouldn't do that.

[pocaracas]

Yep. As i said earlier in the thread, unfortunately there still exists this idea that women are walking temptations and men are just gonna do what men are gonna do. So when a sex crime is commited against them, the conversation becomes about how stupid she was and "what was she thinking" rather than "wow, who the hell was the dirt ball that did this?" When you hear about someone's house getting broken into and robbed, the conversation never turns to "OMG, they should have had an alarm system", "don't they have better locks?", "well that's what you get for having windows on the first floor." It's only when it's women and involves sex.

I know what you mean and I understand it all... and I don't personally go out of my way to chase this sort of material...
However, one must be a realist.
- There is no way to police the internet.
- There is demand for naughty pics - not just pics of women, mind you.
- There will always be someone with time on their hands to carry out these hacks which carry little or no threat of punishment, while leading to a grand reward.

While we'd like to keep make two last points illegal, the first point counters our practical ability to do it.
Making it immoral is nothing more than supposing that each individual will police him/herself... realistically, that may work for a part of the population. but will never work for a significant part of the people on the internet.


- We've all heard stories of this kind. Celebrities should be painfully aware of it through their celebrity friends. That they continue to put such content out there, while not taking due care with their access credentials, is their own fault... or intent, as some "leaks" are actually intentional (but we cannot tell, so it doesn't matter for this discussion)

I'm not saying "don't do it". I'm saying, if you never want your private pics or videos or whatever on public display, be careful. If you are a celebrity, be extra careful.
I'm a nobody, in comparison.... still, when I shared something a bit more concerning, I put it in a password protected RAR file, 128 bit encryption - unbeatable! And hosted it on my personal Raspberry Pi... and I keep it accessible only through SSH or SCP... The password was passed through a guessing game. Was I too careful? perhaps... it was a sort of test also to teach the other party the level of security that can be applied to such content...
Of course, once it reaches the other side, it is out of my control. Only trust applies.
Also, such photos/videos are taken with the phone in offline mode, then the content is moved out of the folders that get cloud stored automatically, before the phone is connected back to the internet.... not sure that's something you can do on an iPhone, but it most certainly is something that can be done with an Android.


- Should people have these concerns in an ideal world? NO! But they do need to have them in the real world.

[Catholic_Lady]

But thats what we are saying. You can use the "if you dont want ______ then don't do ________," for anything. Everything has a certain level of risk, and we have to weigh the level of risk. Recently here, someone just died and 7 others seriously hurt in a fair ride accident. The ride broke apart in motion. Not a single person is saying "wellp, they shouldn't have ridden the ride!" Again, you have to weigh the level of risk. Celebrity or not, there is nothing at all reckless about taking a nude photo of yourself, in your home, with your password secured phone. Just as there is nothing reckless about getting on a carni ride. There is no unreasonable level of risk in doing either of those things, to where you'd be a complete idiot for doing them and deserve what's coming to you. Sometimes shit just happens and you're the unlucky one. Sometimes your house gets broken into. Sometimes your shit gets stolen. Sometimes you get into a freak accident. I dont think what she did was unreasonably risky at all. It was her phone and her secured account. We never imagine our house will get broken into either, but when it does no one says you were stupid for not having MORE security. It is perfectly acceptable to lock your doors and assume youll most likely be ok without getting an alarm system, bullet proof windows, and a safe room. Sure, you can get all those things, and you probably will after you get robbed the first time. But it wasn't at all your failing for not having them in the first place.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your point is well-taken and it is unfortunate.  To a degree, I'm somewhat concerned that my interactions with women (especially those who I don't know very well or if they happen to be good-looking as per whatever societal/cultural standards) may very well be misunderstood due to the part in bold quoted above; thus, resulting in me being lumped into a stereotype that has nothing to do with me.

I highly doubt that. You're such a respectful person.

Even us respectful guys get tarred with that brush, trust me. The respect itself is often seen as an "angle".

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm sorry. Stereotypes really suck.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And if you're not provided with that amount of time?...

There will be little investment made... so not much lost on your part. You'll know what you are while they won't... they're the losers in that story. Still, it's a shame that we have to operate under that unfair assumption.

It's hard for me to feel like it's unfair when the other side is that women have to feel like prey all the time.

There's justice to both points in this discussion.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I know the whole issue is hard for women but believe me it's hard for me too

[pocaracas]

But thats what we are saying. You can use the "if you dont want ______ then don't do ________," for anything. Everything has a certain level of risk, and we have to weigh the level of risk. Recently here, someone just died and 7 others seriously hurt in a fair ride accident. The ride broke apart in motion. Not a single person is saying "wellp, they shouldn't have ridden the ride!" Again, you have to weigh the level of risk. Celebrity or not, there is nothing at all reckless about taking a nude photo of yourself, in your home, with your password secured phone. Just as there is nothing reckless about getting on a carni ride. There is no unreasonable level of risk in doing either of those things, to where you'd be a complete idiot for doing them and deserve what's coming to you. Sometimes shit just happens and you're the unlucky one. Sometimes your house gets broken into. Sometimes your shit gets stolen. Sometimes you get into a freak accident. I dont think what she did was unreasonably risky at all. It was her phone and her secured account. We never imagine our house will get broken into either, but when it does no one says you were stupid for not having MORE security. It is perfectly acceptable to lock your doors and assume youll most likely be ok without getting an alarm system, bullet proof windows, and a safe room. Sure, you can get all those things, and you probably will after you get robbed the first time. But it wasn't at all your failing for not having them in the first place.

Well, I'm saying that a celebrity is at a higher risk of this happening to them, so they should use better security measures. Better than what is available for the common folk, at least.

Picking up on your home security example... I'd say the security measures should be proportional to the assets you're not wanting to share with ill-intentioned people.
You do expect a bank to have a very difficult to break in vault. You don't expect the bank to use a standard wooden door to protect its money.
I'm not saying it's the bank's fault that it gets its money stolen... but the bank should take certain measures to deter or completely prevent such theft from occurring in the first place.
It's the reality we have. It doesn't matter how immoral it is to steal money... it happens and needs adequate security to be prevented.

Sure, the celebrity may be slightly tech ignorant and expect the password protection provided by their phone's software to be enough. But, given the stories that surely float around that crowd, they should know that account hacking happens (mostly through social engineering, than actual brute force password hacks) and thus they should try to invest in securing their assets accordingly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sorry. Stereotypes really suck.

Meh, made my peace with it a while back. What strangers think of me is none of my business.