You are right in the sense that both victims of child porn and celebrities have had their privacy violated, and that they did not consent to the sharing of the photos.
But one similarity does not make them identical. Maybe to you it seems they are the same because you place a lot of weight on privacy, but let me outline how they are different.
- Children cannot consent to the original photograph either. Most of the celebrity photos were likely self-taken or taken with consent. In other words, yes the privacy of celebrities has been violated by the sharing of the photos, but the initial sexual act was likely consensual. This is a huge difference.
- Children are implicitly more vulnerable. Sexual abuse on children is one of the most universally reviled acts. Celebrities are largely adults, and while they may suffer embarrassment or even social anxiety as a result, the impact on their future lifestyle is likely less than a child suffering from sexual abuse (including child pornography). Society has generally agreed that the punishment should fit the crime -- read about the "glass jaw" argument.
- Some of the celebrities have consented to sharing nudity (or something very close) in other formats. For example, nude scenes in "artistic" movies or some of the fashion worn. I agree that's not identical to consent of sharing nude photos, but I think it's worth bearing in mind when determining the "intensity" of the privacy violation.
- In addition, it can be argued that celebrities are aware of the risk of nudes spreading. It's been well established that the public has a strong appetite for celebrity nudes, even at the expense of privacy. Assuming the original photos were performed with consent (as opposed to voyeur shots with a telescope lens or upskirts with a foot camera), the celebrities were aware of the fact that there is a chance they could be spread. This happens all the time with jealous ex's, but it could be as simple as losing the phone while past the lock screen.
Of course, the celebrities should have legal ways to seek recompense, which they do. And depending what's involved, Apple itself could probably have legal grounds for a civil suit. Maybe there's even criminal grounds (copyright? anti-hacking laws?) but I'm not an expert on that.
However, it is not equivalent to child pornography, and as you experienced above, to most posters may not even be comparable. The privacy concerns are secondary to the consent of the original act in my opinion. Unless the celebrities are also underage, but to my knowledge they were not (though I have not seen the photos myself or even aware of who was leaked).
And I agree paparazzi laws need to be reevaluated or enforced, but again it's not the same as child pornography.
