viewing stolen nude photos

[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.

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.

Ok, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. Obviously, the smarter and safer you are about any risk, the better... so there's nothing to argue there. I just hate that this always becomes the focal point every time something like this happens to a woman. It always becomes centered around "well, she shouldn't have ______". Yes, she could have been smarter about it, but I still don't think what she did was reckless, and I certainly don't put a single bit of blame on her for this having happened.

---

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.

I'd be interested in hearing about the types of struggles men deal with, being men. What type of prejudices/disadvantages yall have to deal with, etc. It isn't a subject that is much talked about, but sexism is sexism regardless who it is directed towards. Maybe I'll start a thread about it.

---

Let me add to my response to poca:

I start a thread asking if people think it is immoral to view stolen nude photos of jennifer (or anyone) against her will, and the thread primarily becomes about how she should have known better. I mean, that doesn't really answer the question of the thread. The thread subject wasn't "What should Jen have done to prevent this?"

So, unless someone is trying to say that it is ok to look at her photos because it was her fault they were stolen and shared, I don't see why it keeps getting brought up.

[johan]

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.

Correct. We're both saying exactly the same thing. However you seem to have a problem with it so I assume the difference between you and I is that you somehow believe that because everything carries some level of risk, a person therefore for some reason does not need to ever weigh the risk vs the reward and make a decision about whether or not they feel assume said risk is worth it.

Driving is pretty handy thing. And yep, there's risk involved but much of that risk is manageable if I stay sober, keep my vehicle maintained and don't drive recklessly. The risk/reward is there for me. What's the reward for having nudes of yourself? We know what the risks are, but what's the reward? Is it worth it? For me, it isn't and that is why you won't pics of my junk on the net.

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.

Wooh wooh wooh wooh wooh. You are now putting a metric shit ton of words in my mouth that I never said. I do not blame women for stolen pics. Not at all. I do not blame women for sex. Maybe other people do it, but that shit ain't me. Ever.

And for the record, the question posed wasn't is immoral to steal photos of others and publish them i.e. commit the crime. The question posed was is it immoral for other people to view them once released. Two TOTALLY different questions with very different answers as far as I'm concerned.

---

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. 

 
Ahem.... <raises hand>.... I will not set foot on a carnival ride. Ever. I've seen how those operations run and you won't catch me on one of those rides ever. Way too little training of those running them and way too much duct tape and bailing wire holding them together for my tastes. Now I'm not all saying those kids shouldn't have gotten on the ride nor that they deserved what they got. Not at all.

But at the same time, don't make the claim that just because the rate of occurrence is low, everyone is somehow released of the responsibility to weigh the risk/reward for themselves and make an informed decision.

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.

With all due respect, while this statement can be valid under some circumstances, there are lots of situations where it is very much not valid at all. If you have a known high value property, say a warehouse filled with electronics for instance, and that property is located in a known high crime area? You are an idiot if you assume just locking the doors will be enough and additional security measure aren't required.

We do not have a high value property where I work and it is not in a particularly high crime area. But we have electronic locks on the doors and alarm system and have had it for quite some time. And even at that, we felt it wasn't enough so security cameras are being installed this week. We've never had a break in. And we don't want to have one, so we're taking precautions. That doesn't mean I blame victims who didn't take precautions they could have taken. But it also doesn't mean its automatically guaranteed I'll feel all that sorry for them.

[SteelCurtain]

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.

Correct. We're both saying exactly the same thing. However you seem to have a problem with it so I assume the difference between you and I is that you somehow believe that because everything carries some level of risk, a person therefore for some reason does not need to ever weigh the risk vs the reward and make a decision about whether or not they feel assume said risk is worth it.

Driving is pretty handy thing. And yep, there's risk involved but much of that risk is manageable if I stay sober, keep my vehicle maintained and don't drive recklessly. The risk/reward is there for me. What's the reward for having nudes of yourself? We know what the risks are, but what's the reward? Is it worth it? For me, it isn't and that is why you won't pics of my junk on the net.

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.

Wooh wooh wooh wooh wooh. You are now putting a metric shit ton of words in my mouth that I never said. I do not blame women for stolen pics. Not at all. I do not blame women for sex. Maybe other people do it, but that shit ain't me. Ever.

And for the record, the question posed wasn't is immoral to steal photos of others and publish them i.e. commit the crime. The question posed was is it immoral for other people to view them once released. Two TOTALLY different questions with very different answers as far as I'm concerned.

You split my post up into two different sections and responded to them as if they were separate thoughts. I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was expanding on the previous paragraph. It's a pretty common grammar device. I am going to do it again here.

Besides, if you'd re-read the paragraph where you accused me of putting words in your mouth, you'll see that I did nothing of the sort.

In response to your characterization of my post, I will say that no, in fact I do not think that since everything carries a level of risk, fuck it and don't worry about it. What I was clearly saying is that just because something has risk, that does not mean that someone can be blamed for bad things that happen. I was saying that a woman should never be blamed---and saying "She knew the risk" is absolutely just as much blaming them as "what was she wearing"---for their sex being stolen from them.

And all along I have answered the question---it is still absolutely immoral to take something from someone without their permission. If I steal a car, and then you drive that car around knowing I stole it, you still did something wrong. Just because someone else did the stealing doesn't make it okay for you to take part afterwards.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

[KevinM1]

For me, it's simple:

If I leave my house unlocked, that doesn't mean it's okay to rob me.
If I leave my car unlocked, that doesn't mean it's okay to steal my stereo.
If I drop my wallet, that doesn't mean it's okay to steal my cash and credit cards.
If someone is looking fine, that doesn't give me permission to rape them (not that I would entertain such an idea anyway).
And if I take nudes and save them to private cloud storage, that doesn't give someone else permission to hack into that account, steal them, and disseminate them.

These aren't complicated concepts.  They should be uncontroversial.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda may be worthwhile in terms of solidifying one's survival skills because assholes abound, but that's a separate discussion that doesn't change the morality of the acts in question.

And for the record, if I know ahead of time that certain pictures were stolen, then no, I wouldn't look at them.  Consent is very important to me, and knowingly looking at someone's stolen private moments is a violation, and I won't be a party to that if I can help it.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Sheesh. Don't be dense guy, just because I took a picture of my treasure (I haven't) doesn't mean I consent to having it hosted on some shady porn site.

If I take a picture on my phone I consent to have the picture captured, stored and viewed through my phone and nothing else, same for everyone else, the rules doesn't magically change because you happened to have bewbs.

pew pew pew.

BUT(and this is a big but, a bubble but if you will) if I take a private picture of myself and keep it with me then the sole responsibility of keeping that picture private is with me and only me, nobody else owes this privacy to me. There are services like cloud that are not within our grasp to have any meaningful control over, so the responsibility to keep the data secure shifts from us to the company providing this service, in that case sue the company if they mess up.

You know, uncle Ben said with great power comes great responsibility, he forgot to finish I guess because he didn't mention with great responsibility also comes great blame if things go down the gutter.This is the same for everyone regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and even vegans.

[Catholic_Lady]

For me, it's simple:

If I leave my house unlocked, that doesn't mean it's okay to rob me.
If I leave my car unlocked, that doesn't mean it's okay to steal my stereo.
If I drop my wallet, that doesn't mean it's okay to steal my cash and credit cards.
If someone is looking fine, that doesn't give me permission to rape them (not that I would entertain such an idea anyway).
And if I take nudes and save them to private cloud storage, that doesn't give someone else permission to hack into that account, steal them, and disseminate them.

These aren't complicated concepts.  They should be uncontroversial.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda may be worthwhile in terms of solidifying one's survival skills because assholes abound, but that's a separate discussion that doesn't change the morality of the acts in question.

And for the record, if I know ahead of time that certain pictures were stolen, then no, I wouldn't look at them.  Consent is very important to me, and knowingly looking at someone's stolen private moments is a violation, and I won't be a party to that if I can help it.

Well said.

[johan]

You split my post up into two different sections and responded to them as if they were separate thoughts. I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was expanding on the previous paragraph. It's a pretty common grammar device. 

I split your post up into two different sections because I had comments that were specifically addressing each individual part and doing it that way makes it easier for all involved to understand what exactly I'm responding to. Its a pretty common forum device. Sorry if that offends you. Actually that's a lie, I'm not sorry.

Besides, if you'd re-read the paragraph where you accused me of putting words in your mouth, you'll see that I did nothing of the sort. 

I did re-read it and yeah you did put words in my mouth. You tried to qualify it by saying 'in the human zeitgeist' but you began the post by addressing me and you did not specifically exclude me from your subsequent statements so yeah, its perfectly reasonable to assume they were also directed at me. If you didn't intend those comments to apply to me, then you have my apologies for misunderstanding your lack of clarity.

In response to your characterization of my post, I will say that no, in fact I do not think that since everything carries a level of risk, fuck it and don't worry about it. What I was clearly saying is that just because something has risk, that does not mean that someone can be blamed for bad things that happen. I was saying that a woman should never be blamed---and saying "She knew the risk" is absolutely just as much blaming them as "what was she wearing"---for their sex being stolen from them. 

I don't believe i've ever said that victims deserve to be blamed. Victims are always victims. But my level of compassion for them definitely varies depending on circumstances. If you or anyone else wants to believe that makes me a horrible person, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I believe it makes me human, nothing more nothing less.

And all along I have answered the question---it is still absolutely immoral to take something from someone without their permission. If I steal a car, and then you drive that car around knowing I stole it, you still did something wrong. Just because someone else did the stealing doesn't make it okay for you to take part afterwards.

I totally get what you're saying here, I really do. If you know a crime was committed, and you're complicate in that, it makes you somewhat guilty by default. I totally get that. And there's not much I can really say to defend that to be honest. Although I don't generally search for them, I've most certainly seen stolen photos of nude celebrities and I have to tell you, I don't really feel like I'm all that much of a criminal or any kind of menace to society because of it. I also don't feel like I'm all that much a part of problem itself because of it. 

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if you disagreed with that nor would it surprise me if you had some sort of self righteous comeback at the ready intended to make me and any filfth like me feel like the fifth we really are. But before you dispense that as I'm sure you will, let me ask you something.
If you had a close friend who admitted to you that she willingly bought a fake Gouache handbag or if your best friend showed his nifty new obviously fake Rolex watch, would you turn them in to the authorities? Would you cut off all communication with them immediately? Would you go out of your way to try and make them feel guilty for the horrible things they'd done? And if not, why not? Why would you not do that to them but feel perfectly justified to direct the comments you've made toward me?

---

Sheesh. Don't be dense guy, just because I took a picture of my treasure (I haven't) doesn't mean I consent to having it hosted on some shady porn site.

True enough. Perhaps I misspoke when I used the word consent. My bad. Lets fix that. Instead of the word consent, replace it with the phrase willingly accept that you are engaging in an activity which carries a certain amount of known risk. Are we on the same page now?

[bennyboy]

If I'm in a public park and a girl's skirt blows up randomly, and she says, "Please don't look at me," then it's wrong for me to look, because that's a violation of that person's wishes. If you know photos were not meant to be shared, then you should in your mind hear that implicit "Please don't look at me." Looking at that point is immoral.

That being said, I like looking at naked girls, and I don't have a particular relationship with Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else. My sexual interest might override the relatively harmless act of my looking at someone's nude pictures. I'd say for people who KNOW her, like male acquaintances, it would be much more important for them to show restraint.

[Dropship]

I'm curious to know how ya'll feel about the morality of looking at stolen nude photos of celebrities that were posted on the internet...

Nobody takes the pics seriously because it's dead easy to photoshop somebody's head onto a nude body, so the celebs simply need say- "that's not my body, it's faked"..