Can we talk about the apparent iCloud break-in?
- Thread starter Mr.Mike
- Start date
- Status
The point I'm making is that it is silly that there is all this outrage because it happened to celebrities when it happens to regular people and no one cares. When it is more damaging to regular people who have their careers and livelihoods actually damaged when naked pictures of them get out.
I think the new Jennettes are fake.
crazepharmacist
Member
I thought Jennette's were fake. At least the ones I saw yesterday.
Wasn't Anthony Weiner's Weiner picture a leak?
IIRC, the woman he sent them to forwarded them to the media. Betrayed.
What really is pathetic that threads like this on NeoGAF (title:
Records Of Every Verizon Call Monitored By NSA) only got 50 posts, while this one is already at 1000.
yeah but he was cheating on his famous wife, plus a lot of people hate him. So...
(but yeah I remember someone trying to defend him on this NPR poli-talk show and getting shut down hard while everyone else was cracking jokes and calling him a jerk. I guess context, etc. It wasn't even actual cheating, just sexting pics of a boner through his shorts, no nudity or anything, but he was a "cheater" who deserved to lose his election.)
Dragonborn
Member
I think speaking of the pics in any way is bannable here (not sure)
I don't think you're pathetic. Go all out and look at the pics they are out there and that's that. I'm just saying you came into a thread where just by looking at the pics you are branded the bad guy.
geez... is there a "fun" thread about this topic?
No, you're pathetic for seeking the pictures out then posting (under the title "LTTP"): "Wow, those Lawrence pics are amazing!
"These are someone's private photos that were not meant to be seen by the general public. Yes, that includes you.
If you absolutely *must* see them, then just look at them without telling anyone and keep your cum-soaked thoughts to yourself.
If you were really sorry you wouldn't have sought out the photos then posted what you did.
Quit rationalizing the fact that you're perving out to someone's private photos.
This is the best part of your post though--good save:
That's right guys. WHOEVER LEAKED THESE IS BASICALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF EDWARD SNOWDEN.
They looked real enough to me!
It's not, but requesting and/or posting them is.
Well, in terms of effect resulting from the leaks... maybe? If not even more.
lol. Not even close. One had national and international implications that are still going on to this day. This one is already starting to fade.
You are arguing that you can dial down the "intensity" of the privacy because of someones previous nude exposure elsewhere. It doesn't take mental leaps that such a suggestion eases the burden of guilt on those that have done the leaking in this case. You may not be arguing that explicit consent is given but what you are arguing isn't that far off.
And who the fuck is talking about child porn.
I saw them and am not having "cum-soaked" thoughts. How about dialing the Knighting back just a bit?
CornBurrito
Member
However the lack of consent is a huge issue, even if it isn't the only thing wrong with it.
Okay, I did not understand that point from your followup posts as I was unable to trace it back to the original. Thank you for clarifying for me.
In that case, I guess I am forced to agree that the primary difference boils down to what individuals are sexually attracted to. If I posted a photo of my kids at the beach and someone takes that off facebook and shares it without consent, and someone who downloads it masturbates (and stops there) and I never learn about it, I guess that's not too dissimilar from someone masturbating visually to a "mental" picture of my children. It's a scary thought, but I suppose if that was ALL that happened, it would be hard to pinpoint a victim or the damage done.
That being said, I do think society has some grounds to prosecute individuals actively engaging in pedophilia. I guess the argument is that it's either a slippery slope, or the idea that individuals masturbating to kids beach photos may also have committed child abuse but there is insufficient evidence. It might also serve as a deterrent. I am less concerned that individuals who download private celebrity photos are also doing other crimes or more likely to do crimes as a result of downloading celebrity photos.
Though after listening to the NPR American Life episode about pedophilia, I'm not entirely without sympathy to individuals who are attracted to children but unable to remove that attraction. I wish there were more resources and research and that we understood the brain better to handle that as a society and help those individuals remove that attraction. Of course those who engage in it, especially at the expense of others, are despicable.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about. All I'm saying is that when certain NSA leakes got public, I was very surprised to realize that not as many people as I thought were deeply affected by that. Even on GAF I thought this topic would be much much bigger, but no. Some even started to defend the NSA.
The dude who has repeatedly said those looking at any of the pictures are no different than people looking at child porn.
Most importantly, the fans of those celebs should have gotten the message, too, by now. As strange as this sounds, but tragic events like this help spread the awareness of the general public to this kind of issues.
Some?
There's also not much interest in the topic general, see e.g. the lack of a James Risen thread or the fact that due to a recent ruling US data law applies to data on servers in foreign countries as well that seems to have gone unnoticed. Many people have given up on privacy and accept the consequences without ever really thinking about what that truly means.
Edit:
What bothers me is that people tend to put the sole blame on the victims as some sort of justification for their own actions.
No, that's too broad I think, depending on what you mean with "private consumption". You should rather define what's inappropriate w.r.t. the content, not the intended audience.
I wasn't talking to you.
As far as I know, you haven't come into this thread posting "wow guys... just saw those JLaw pics and jeez she sure is hot!
"A thread about the leaking of technical security data got fewer posts than a thread about the leaking of pictures of Jennifer Lawrence's tits?Miatador said:
I'm absolutely shocked.
What's hilarious is that is that you started out like this:
Wow, those Lawrence pics are amazing!
And edited a later post with the NSA bullshit. Own your perviness bro. You're not fooling anyone.
Hmmmm.....good point (especially if you're defending the celebrity)
Wow, so many people here acting all chivalrous and honorable over leaked pics that are 5th-hand by now. See a picture of a naked woman on the internet and say you did it in this thread? Get branded as scum of the earth.
I wonder if this is just prudish people from the U.S.? Maybe people are more open to nudity in other countries?
Anyway, the decision to act all moral was at the point where the hackers and the buyer got the pics in the first place. At this point, telling others they shouldn't see the pics now would be like saying you're gonna close your eyes whenever you see Paris Hilton nudes that were leaked nearly 10 years ago, saying you're doing it to protect her privacy and having decency.
Also, Victoria Justice will easily come out of this nearly unscathed. She's the best looking one out of the bunch; nearly perfect.
Edit: Also, seeing as how this thread has more replies than the one about the NSA shows where our priorities are, either good or bad.
I wonder if this is just prudish people from the U.S.? Maybe people are more open to nudity in other countries?
Anyway, the decision to act all moral was at the point where the hackers and the buyer got the pics in the first place. At this point, telling others they shouldn't see the pics now would be like saying you're gonna close your eyes whenever you see Paris Hilton nudes that were leaked nearly 10 years ago, saying you're doing it to protect her privacy and having decency.
Also, Victoria Justice will easily come out of this nearly unscathed. She's the best looking one out of the bunch; nearly perfect.
Edit: Also, seeing as how this thread has more replies than the one about the NSA shows where our priorities are, either good or bad.
It's still pretty embarrassing for Apple to have such a basic security flaw as a brute force vulnerability. That is cryptography 101.
Circle Jerk
Member
Wow, so many people here acting all chivalrous and honorable over leaked pics that are 5th-hand by now. See a picture of a naked woman on the internet and say you did it in this thread? Get branded as scum of the earth.
I wonder if this is just prudish people from the U.S.? Maybe people are more open to nudity in other countries?
Anyway, the decision to act all moral was at the point where the hackers and the buyer got the pics in the first place. At this point, telling others they shouldn't see the pics now would be like saying you're gonna close your eyes whenever you see Paris Hilton nudes that were leaked nearly 10 years ago, saying you're doing it to protect her privacy and having decency.
Also, Victoria Justice will easily come out of this nearly unscathed. She's the best looking one out of the bunch; nearly perfect.
Edit: Also, seeing as how this thread has more replies than the one about the NSA shows where our priorities are, either good or bad.
Watching creepy dudes try and convince themselves and others they aren't in the wrong is probably the best part of this thing.
How come this thread from 2 month ago with the title: Snowden: NSA employees routinely pass around intercepted nude photos only got 100 posts?
thesuperfunk
Member
Has this been posted yet? ... interesting if true ...
The Elite
BOSS
Donald Sterling tapes.
Recorded under consent. Leaked without consent.
I don't see much difference to be honest.
One depicts the ramblings of a racist asshole, but his privacy was infringed upon once the tapes were released.
I don't feel sorry for the man but a lot of people here seem to think that viewing these pictures is infringing on the privacy of the subject. Why doesn't that also apply to private audio recordings?
Honest question.
I know there will be people who will state that the violation of the women in this instance far outweighs Sterling's situation but his privacy was violated when the audio was released and it did have a rather substantial impact on his life.
Circle Jerk
Member
How come you keep pointing this out? How come this wasn't your first point, but only brought up after people called you out on being creepy? Why is stealing from people okay as long as it's done by private people? If you could see what the NSA was stealing, would you be as okay with it as you are with this leak? Do you actually think this is a good point?
Did I say that it wasn't far off? No, I argued that it was one factor (out of many) that would and should be analyzed when considering the extent of damages.
And yes, I believe that the guilt/punishment involved should be comparable to the extent of damages.
There are literally 4-5 pages with several posts about this point. I would not have posted if this was not the case. A lot of it was sparked by Two Words but there were others on both sides.
For example,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128002949&postcount=774
But there are approximately 30+ posts about it one way or another. I can provide several other posts but I would just browse the past 2-3 pages for more examples.
However, it seems I partly misunderstood Two Words, who was originally talking about a very specific subset of child photos.
Your original concern was not about gratification the viewer received. I thought it was about violating the celebrities by viewing images they did not want viewed. Viewing them without sexual gratification does not make it okay -- you now have seen the visual image. (By your own arguments, you are trying to ease the burden of guilt of viewing the images without consent but that does not make it okay.)
Perhaps I misunderstand the term, but if anyone is "knighting" it's you. You've viewed the images without consent but come out on a pedestal because it wasn't about sexual gratification? I don't think the female celebrities would be okay with this if only straight women saw the photos. By your own admission, they were intensely private.
Edit: Just realized the bit about Knighting was not directed at my comments. When I hit quote it removed the original quote. I left the comments above for reply and general discussion.
This was my first point. And no, stealing from people is not ok. Finding a woman attractive does not have anything to do with creepiness.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Exactly.
I'm not saying you're a bad person if you're looking at these photos. But that doesn't mean that it's right to look at them.
Try to have some respect for others' privacy, even if the people in question are already famous.
Come on. Really?DoctorWho said:
Donald Sterling was the owner of a huge business enterprise that employs dozens of minorities, including virtually all of the highest-paid employees.
Comments that demonstrate ignorant and racist views are much, much more relevant to the public interest than private pictures of celebrities' naked bodies.
And that only difference is what matter in your incorrect comparison, one is done by a group of people that have a sexual perversion, the worst of them all in my opinion, the other is just people with natural atraction to adults, if you can't see why they should not be compared, then you are putting sexual atraction to kids and sexual atraction to women on the same level.
And your second sentece is proved wrong based on the posts in this thread.
Because the world's priorities aren't as organized as you would wish them to be. It's unfortunate that people care more about hacked celebrity phones than the activities of the NSA but complaining about it here isn't going to slow the celebrity gossip train.
The Elite
BOSS
Ok, you're saying it's ok to violate the privacy of someone in certain situations?
I don't mind that he got busted. I am curious where people in general draw the line, and why.
A much bigger impact then these women will face on theirs, I predict.
Has this been posted yet? ... interesting if true ...
That explains why some pics were deleted and founded out today.
Circle Jerk
Member
You know we can see the previous posts you made in this thread right. And how the first time you posted it was to talk about how you looked at someones naked pictures. Meaning it's pretty obvious that wasn't your first point and you only grabbed onto that in some desperate attempt to deflect attention.
Are you like mentally broken that you can't tell the difference between a racist recording from a man who has had multiple racial issues arise, and owned a team in a predominately black league and stealing nude pictures?
jacksepticeye
Member
I think you know the answer to your own question
It also seems to be why there's no real consistency to it. They get leaked in spurts of random people instead of "Here's the Jennifer folder" etc. Also people asking for donations to leak certain things and then no doing so likely trying to scam people cos they don't have them material
The difference is public interest. And no, I don't mean "public interest" that is ogling at these images. With your definition, many political scandals would've never happened. And that wouldn't be for the better.
- Status