If you click on Jennifer Lawrence's naked pictures, you're perpetuating her abuse

[alp227]

Excellent, EXCELLENT Guardian "Comment Is Free" article condemning the leaks of the female celebrities' photos:

It’s not merely tawdry that the private sexual conversations of partners are now being disseminated like memes. Sharing these images is not the same as making a joke including characters such as Doge, Grumpy Cat and Sad Keanu. It’s an act of sexual violation, and it deserves the same social and legal punishment as meted out to stalkers and other sexual predators.

Violation it is, too, because whatever the medium of communication between lovers (whether it’s a telephone call, a text message or the sexual act itself), the conversation is private and to intrude upon it is sexual involvement that has occurred without consent, and it has the same resultant harms. That a mobile phone used to facilitate a lovers’ conversation can also be used as a means of mass communication is irrelevant, because mass communication was in no way agreed to by the lovers, who had every right to believe their security would not be compromised. Actors and other entertainers may certainly offer their image to public consumption as their professional practice, but what they are not trading is their intimacy.

Because of the simple moral issue: People have the right to control their own sexuality, and others need CONSENT to access it.

And here's a hard truth: the adults in those photos didn't consent to public consumption of the photos. Neither do the millions of abused children worldwide who are victims of the child pornography trade. So guess what? By viewing those photos, you sink to the level of the worst of the worst in the world. You contribute to a culture of sexual abuse. You contribute to a culture that values instant sexual satisfaction over respect for other human beings' privacy. I don't care if this hurts your feelings, because a hard truth is always, always better than a convenient lie.

</rant off>

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Agreed, but the tough question is...

what can be done about it?

I don't have much of a problem with porn, but I do have a huge problem when it's not consensual, or when privacy is violated. In these days when drunken selfies turn out not to be deleted from Snapchat after all, just how are we going to deal with people who have no shame or guilt looking at this stuff? To say nothing of the people with no shame or guilt propagating it?

[davidn3600]

2. There is nothing that can be done, really

Security in the IT industry is practically non-existent. The technology moves so quickly that industries and governments can't adapt fast enough. Even IT security professionals struggle to keep up.

Hackers don't even have to be that skilled. Most are teenagers or young college students with too much time on their hands.

No form of electronic media is secure. Every system has flaws and vulnerabilities. That needs to be kept in mind when you use these machines and devices.

[CSStrowbridge]

6. "what can be done about it?"

"What can be done about it?"

The last time something like this happened, the guy who leaked it was caught and sent to prison for ten years. I think that's a good start. Next, start prosecuting some of the people who posted the images online.

[joshcryer]

7. Implement SOPA.

Any site with infringing content is taken offline.

Oh we wouldn't want that, would we?

[krawhitham]

21. So do we take control of every site in the world or is this just a US thing?

I thought being the World's police was a bad thing?

[joshcryer]

22. As of *right now* the US controls the entire global internet DNS system.

But the US gave it over to a third party via the NTIA in 2014 (this year).

It's possible that the NTIA third party, whenever they take power, would do it by a country-by-country basis, but they still are bound by treaty, and US copyright is almost ubiquitous.

So a SOPA-like system would dominate the entire globe for the most part and effect everyone.

Being the worlds internet police is definitely a bad thing. The internet should be free. The bad with the good. I know this is an extreme position to take here but even the most vile, completely immoral crap should not be disallowed (but you can go after the producers such as CP, etc).

Don't control the bits.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. But if an employee is abusing their position

Extreme examples should be made.

There is a culture of "fear" where I work regarding customer proprietary information. Snowden touched on this a bit - re his peers and well yeah him - having access to personal content and not treating it like a raw egg.

And I think it was on another post - you mentioned how difficult it is to keep up with the hackers - so very true.

Hackers
Phishers
Social Engineers

In light of what one of my favorite members was threatened with last night - this thing with these women having their accounts hacked is not sitting well with me.

Any news on where they hacked them from? When I received an alert on this yesterday we were concerned with our Cloud Services - they were secure. But if I find out that someone in my org chart fucked these people over . . .

[joshcryer]

42. My guess?

NSA employee leaked it. Collected images over time. Some victims said they deleted their images, that indicates that the images were collected over time.

If it can be traced back to an NSA employee, then shit hits the fan, maybe we even get rid of the NSA completely.

[JustAnotherGen]

48. I'm not going there yet

Trust me - I would always prefer a federal law enforcement agency have the content for a GOOD reason - google Mustafa Family Minnesota. That was good old fashioned investigation triggered by patterns of theft. But NSA - would leak a foreign politicians naked pics first.

Private industry is tougher. Shit - found out someone went into Accurint for personal reasons and they were gone. Usually when it is high profile - its malicious (young male Cheeto eating basement dweller) or someone who has had a lot of personal assistans with a bridge to burn. Thinking of the heavy metal guitarist we had an issue with account takeover Q 4 last year.

Account takeover by a Cheeto eater (more likely because of the large number of women impacted) via a cloud service makes sense to me.

Our security - not IT - IT is worthless at identifying the weak spot - they only fix - will be working the issue today. My greatest fear is that there is a weak spot in our cloud. I'll update if I hear anything from Secret Service - those women I deal with are The Best at this shit.

[Chan790]

63. I'm about 90% sure this was done by teenaged hackers.

Primarily because of whose photos were released. It's a cornucopia of masturbatory-fantasy subjects specifically of 15 year old boys. Cherry-picked to that end. The pool of victims of a hacker(s) even 3 years older would be dramatically different and over a broader age range. Different actresses would have been targeted. Several victims would not have been people whose peccadilloes would have been specifically sought-out. (That is, if making a specific hit-list of people whose cloud-storage to hack to look for scandalous photos...a lot of other people make more sense than supporting actresses on Glee, lesser Disney stars, and an 18 year old gymnast.) We know, via certain edited photos of things like file-folders reposted by the media, that this was done by gaining access to accounts.

Two, this was done via an iCloud exploit. If NSA had an iCloud exploit...it would be among their dearest and most-closely held secrets. Virtually nobody outside of compartmentalized clearance would know about it...and because of that, the fact that only about 15 people would know and 9 or more would be non-technical supervisory personnel (Mostly people like POTUS, NSA Director Gen. Alexander, and DNI Clapper...all of whom I think you can safely rule-out)...nobody in that compartment would publicly utilize it in this way, they know they'd be found instantly. If the purpose was to burn the exploit in a pro-privacy action (something more Snowden than Tichý)...they'd have released different material: something damning to the surveillance state.

Three. Based on the proof-of-concept of a brute force exploit via "Find my iPhone" posted to GitHub yesterday, I have a fairly good idea of how this was done. This may be huge and apocalyptic but in terms of how it was done...script-kiddie shit. As long as you know someone has an iPhone and you know their email address or User ID, you just need the utility...it might take 50 minutes or 3 hours for the utility to try a few million combinations but given a long window, access is inevitable.

[joshcryer]

143. After the fog cleared I think you are right.

Wow, I really missed the ball on that one.

[rocktivity]

156. I understand what you mean by "kiddie shit"

Even I managed to figure out how Norm Coleman's credit card donor database got breached:



But what I can't stop wondering is, what are the odds of all 100 of those actresses having iPhones AND nude pictures?


rocktivity

[jakeXT]

64. Some blamed it on a bruteforce exploit in the find my iphone feature, but you still need the email

Last edited Mon Sep 1, 2014, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

address, and deleted pictures resurfacing is interesting, too.

This 'Find My iPhone' exploit could be to blame for celebrity photo hacks

We don't need to rake over the gory details here, but in the last 12 hours, the internet has lost its "you know what" over some leaked celebrity photos. Initial reports suggested that hackers targeted the iCloud accounts of the high-profile victims, and held eager would-be-viewers to ransom on notorious bulletin-board 4chan, demanding Bitcoin in exchange for a peek of the images (reportedly earning a princely $95 for their troubles). As yet though, no one has been able to confirm how the images actually leaked, but some keen programmers think they may have spotted at least one (now fixed) route into accounts.

The potential exploit relates to a project on the code hosting site Github called, imaginatively, ibrute. Just a day before the images leaked, the developers of ibrute announced a bug in the Find My iPhone service means it doesn't employ bruteforce protection (i.e. an attack can continue using different passwords until the right one if found). The implication is that this could give access to AppleIDs, and from there any number of avenues to compromise accounts become significantly more viable. It's certainly not the first intrusion issue with the service we've seen. If this was the tool used, the hackers would have needed email addresses of celebrities. But, it's possible that only one address is needed, allowing to search inboxes for those of others in a domino effect

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/01/find-my-iphone-exploit/

[appal_jack]

67. Nonsense article. NONSENSE authoritarian 'solution.'

joshcryer, have you really thought-through your suggestion to impose draconian authoritarianism over the entire internet in order to protect a few celeb pics? How is this the least bit progressive?

Let me help you with the answer:SOPA is NOT progressive, at all. And implementing it because images of a few extra square inches of a few very wealthy celebrities are now visible online would be utterly nonsensical.

-app

[Laelth]

71. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[joshcryer]

141. I'm not advocating it, Christ.

If you want to stop people looking at content you don't want them to look at, that's how.

[MADem]

97. Yeah, we want INTERNET WORLD POLICE, who will remove any content that people find offensive!!!

That'll make the internet "safe" -- and boring as hell.

It's why kids in Iran link directly to computers outside Iran in order to use that EEEEEEVIL Facebook!!!

Whatever happened to "navigate away if it offends you?" Do people have NO self control? Just because somewhere on the net there are "naughty" (word used advisedly, I haven't seen the photos so I don't know if they are, indeed, naughty) pictures of a film star, that doesn't mean that one HAS TO Google and try to find them, now, does it?

This is just the latest outrage du jour, I wonder how many more threads we'll have on it before it sinks to the bottom?

Oh well, at least it's paying some of the admin's bills, so there's good to come of it....click away, peeps! Those kids deserve a college fund!

[LittleBlue]

99. SOPA is a corporate monstrosity

It's so godawful that even the Republicans balked.

[Dr. Strange]

100. I sure as hell don't want it.

Any site with infringing content is taken offline.

Oh we wouldn't want that, would we?

It's not just a site with infringing content--it's any site accused of having infringing content. After the dajaz1 incident, I don't trust the RIAA or the government with the authority to take down websites.

[marshall]

52. I avoid having nude photos taken of myself

So far it seems to have worked, and if anyone hacks my photos they will get nothing.

[AngryAmish]

60. The only porn on my phone is food porn

Lamb chops, jambalaya....

[TreasonousBastard]

126. I am tempted to post nude photos of myself...

but I might risk charges when viewers pass out from fright.

[pinboy3niner]

132. You realize you'd be risking charges...

...of Assault With A Dead Weapon?

Sorry, couldn't resist. That was just TOO easy.

[TreasonousBastard]

135. Good one!

[zappaman]

3. Do you have a link?

For research purposes only.

[joshcryer]

8. Brave.

[pnwmom]

12. You think this is funny?

[Jester Messiah]

13. I thought it was hilarious.

Get the stick out.

[chervilant]

27. "Get the stick out"!?!

I feel sorry for people whose ability to empathize is so stunted they think it's avant-garde to make comedy fodder out of victimization.

[theHandpuppet]

28. +100!!

And some still wonder why so many women no longer feel welcome on DU.

[phil89]

89. Some of us have other things to worry about than a multi multi millionaire

celebrity having nude pics hacked. It's seriously not the end of the world. She'll be just fine.

[chervilant]

98. Belittling my post (and Jennifer Lawrence)

because you think "other things to worry about" relegates Ms. Lawrence's issue to relative oblivion is rather off-putting. I would prefer that you not respond to any of my posts in this manner, as it adds nothing to the discussion.

The issues commiserate with the hacking of nude pictures of celebrities include sexism, rape culture, and the patriarchal social system that perpetuates and sustains misogyny -- the bigotry that relegates half of our species to "less-than" status. I (and countless other feminists) consider this of utmost importance.

(BTW, "some of us" suggests that you feel you speak for other people. I doubt this is true...)

[Jester Messiah]

115. You "would prefer" ...?

People in hell want ice water. You don't get to dictate how people respond.

[LanternWaste]

157. But we all have the opportunity (and the obligation) to critique it...

"You don't get to dictate how people respond..."

But we all have the opportunity (and the obligation) to critique it...

(By the way, intentionally conflating "preference" with "dictate" illustrates a need for melodrama to make up for a lack of actual substance)

[TreasonousBastard]

134. I would be interested in what Jennifer Lawrence has to say about it...

but not so much in the thoughts of overwrought political activists using buzzwords.

[L0oniX]

102. Hacking is a felony. IMO it's like someone breaking in to your home.

[mimi85]

149. I don't believe it was hacking for a moment. nt

[Kalidurga]

66. The Cave called

they want their sexism back.

[oldhippie]

72. My keyboard, my keyboard, ...

... now has coffee all over it!

[LanternWaste]

158. Of course it does... as we all illustrate our character in one way or another.

Of course it does... as we all illustrate our character in one way or another.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. Just a heads up, some bozo alerted on this comment.

I voted 'leave', of course, but haven't seen the results yet.

(Edit: Alerted on your comment, I mean, not the one to which you were objecting.)

[dsc]

40. two leaves

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. 0-7 now.

results:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No sense of humor.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 1, 2014, 08:31 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This kind of shit truly is getting ridiculous.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: no sense of humor is no reason to push the alert button.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No sense of humour is not a hideable offense. Stupid alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is total abuse of the alert system. Frankly this should count against the alerter as much as a removed post does against a poster.

I agree with 7, obviously abusing the alert system should lose you alerting privileges, at least for some timeframe, at the least.

[dsc]

44. I was number 7

[theHandpuppet]

30. Not funny, zappaman

At a time when women on DU are distressed from being stalked and threatened, you make this glib comment? Perhaps you should change your avatar because I suspect she wouldn't find anything funny about it, either.

[chervilant]

33. Here's a "link" you might consider:

"There are suggestions that prosecution may result not only for the hacker of the photos, but for those who view and share them. Good. To excuse viewing the images just because they’re available is deplorable. It’s the equivalent of creepily hiding in a wardrobe because a conversation may be taking place you’d be interested, excited or turned on to overhear."

It may not matter to you how other members of this forum feel about posts like yours, but I choose not to have to see such tawdry and puerile sexist posts, which is why I use my IL.


(Three additions to my IL, right in a row ...)

[Logical]

127. You support arresting someone who "views" photos? Sharing them I understand, but there.....

is no law against viewing them.

[BlindTiresias]

136. Suggestions from who?

I doubt it is from anyone with any kind of legal background as while there may be a case for legal action against uploaders/distributors I somehow doubt that would extend to millions of viewers and especially given how widespread these are.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. I suspect that would involve arresting a large portion of the planet.

[conservaphobe]

53. C:\My Pictures\

[bigwillq]

59. Bwah!

[F4lconF16]

122. ...

[mimi85]

148. And Craig's List. What a big pile of crap about nothing.

Boobs is boobs.

[bigwillq]

58. Search twitter

For research purposes only.

[tammywammy]

94. Jury results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:34 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Do you have a link?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5472640

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No, and this comment is egregiously tasteless and insensitive, given the facts in op about how the pictures went public. Furthermore, posting porn links is against terms of service anyway.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:42 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A silly, if tasteless, little joke.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Thicker skin, people. Thicker skin.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster may be trying to be funny, but this is incredibly insensitive.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Um! I think the alert is over the top.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[F4lconF16]

120. This is disgusting.

Making a joke out of this is just wrong. She is a victim, and this was a serious violation of her privacy. If it had been someone under-age, would you be laughing? If this had been a friend of yours that had her photo leaked? The idea that you would want to then see that violation is sickening.

Get a clue. I'm amazed things like this stand.

[Vine Gatherer]

4. Privacy

[LittleBlue]

5. Prosecution for those who view the photos? Uh no

We're going to prosecute millions of people on twitter, where the photos are coming up everywhere? Anyone who retweets what another person tweeted will go to jail? What if it shows up on my friend's Facebook page and I see it while loading?

That is crazy. No wonder all the comments are calling her article stupid.

[joshcryer]

9. Everyone uploading them is infringing copyright.

This isn't really an issue of privacy in the eyes of the law, it's distribution of privately made copyrighted works.

I suspect Jennifer Lawrence is going to take every single IP that distributed her pictures to court. And she will win. It's actually unfortunate that some of the women are claiming that the pictures are fake because at that point they have no recourse. They have bad PR people / lawyers.

But I would say calling anyone viewing the pictures molesters is wrong. That's akin to saying people viewing the beheading videos are culpable in murder. Most people are doing it for the drama / just to see what the fuss is about.

[Jester Messiah]

14. That would invoke the Streisand effect.

Once it's on the Internet, it's out there for good. Best you can do is try not to call attention to it, or else flood the system with fakes.

[joshcryer]

15. Oh the pics aren't going anywhere.

But the initial uploaders are going to get some very nasty lawsuits. It's not just Jennifer Lawrence. It's dozens of high profile celebrities.

It's not really about preventing them from being distributed, it's about punishing the original distributors.

[davidn3600]

16. ...and dont forget the hacker

If they can find him, he's toast too. Unless he's in Russia or China or something.

And right you can forget about stopping the spread. That'll be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Those pics are likely in millions and millions of computers all over the world and spreading through social media as we speak.

[joshcryer]

17. Looks like one was already partially dox'd.

He's a 15 year old kid, probably going to get some jail time. It appears that the original hackers sold the pics privately via bitcoin last week, to many other hackers. The other hackers then decided to go public with the pictures and sell them also by bitcoin. Pretty clever scheme by the original hacker, we may never figure out who they are.

One hacker has over $70k in their bitcoin blockchain from this.

But people keep uploading the pics to imgur and imgur is "taking them down" with a vengeance, but they're still up there if you replace the address with .zip. So that means imgur is keeping the files, for the impending cease and desists and lawsuits. ie, the uploaders are being logged. There are probably going to be a lot of people in the eventual lawsuit.

[AngryAmish]

39. At this point we have no proof this was not done by the NSA

Cloud storage is completely compromised.

[hedgehog]

95. At this point, we have no proof you or I didn't do it.

[LittleBlue]

50. You pose some good questions

Obviously the writer in the OP is writing from Britain, where the laws may be different, although she doesn't substantiate her claim about the possibility of prosecution.

Nevertheless, as you say, a copyright infringement could be claimed. I'm not a lawyer (hopefully one will comment here), but I thought one needed to at least show the possibility of lost income in civil court. Or at least ill-gotten economic gains by someone else, which she could claim. The guys who profited by bitcoin certainly had an economic gain. The average person who merely uploads it and shares, that part I'm not sure about. Yes, they took her photograph from someone else and published an unauthorized work, yet Jennifer Lawrence had never intended to sell the pictures, so she had no loss. And the person who uploaded it, if he got no compensation for it, would have no gain to show. At least, this is what I understand about US civil court.

It would be curious to hear a legal perspective on this.

[hifiguy]

164. I know something about copyright and am a lawyer

and you are generally correct. There is usually not a copyright cause of action without some financial harm inuring to the claimant. You have to show copyright-related damages, which in fact pattern involving say bootleg DVDs is easy - sales lost to the bootlegger = damages.

Now an invasion-of-privacy suit is an equine of another hue. But if it was some teenage hacker he is probably judgment-proof, i.e., broke.

Legally speaking this is a theft/invasion of privacy case and nothing more or else than that.

[LittleBlue]

168. Thanks for that

[TampaAnimusVortex]

154. And to those people in Belize or Iran uploading them?

You do understand how the internet works don't you?

If they cant stop people trading music, movies, programs, etc... What makes you think anyone can do anything about a few pics?

[nomorenomore08]

10. Obviously that's quite impractical. I can understand civil or criminal penalties for uploading

but just for viewing? That's kind of silly.

[hifiguy]

165. No, that isn't "kind of silly,"

it is batshit insane.

[nomorenomore08]

169. No way to enforce it anyhow, realistically. And I'm not all that interested in Ms. Lawrence's nudes

to begin with, even if she is quite attractive. Otherwise I agree - prosecute/sue the hackers and uploaders, and leave everybody else alone.

[MH1]

43. If the headline is there that the image was stolen,

it's just like knowingly passing on stolen goods, right?

(Actually it's NOT "just" like it - there are other factors here - but to me that alone is sufficient to justify legal action.)

[freshwest]

11. Excellent rant!

[Quantess]

18. Who is Jennifer Lawrence?

And why do I need to hear about her naked pictures?

I would never have known had you not mentioned it here.

[KansDem]

20. I didn't know either...

I searched the tubes and found this article--

The Independent

Photos purportedly showing Jennifer Lawrence and more than 100 other Hollywood stars naked have leaked online.

Among others the list includes Rihanna, Kim Kardashian, Mary Kate Olsen, Cara Delevingne, Kate Bosworth, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst and Kaley Cucoo.

The pictures were allegedly discovered, according to Buzzfeed, by an iCloud leak which allowed the celebrities’ phones to be hacked.

Lawrence’s spokesperson has released a statement saying: “This is a flagrant violation of privacy. The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos of Jennifer Lawrence”.

This morning many celebrities have been quick to deny the photographs are genuine, with a spokesperson for Ariana Grande saying: “These photos are completely fake,” in an email to Buzzfeed.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. She won the academy award for best actress in 2013

Silver Linings Playbook

[Fla_Democrat]

25. Katniss Everdeen

[NuclearDem]

62. And Mystique too!

[roody]

51. Hell if I know.

[pnwmom]

68. She is a young Academy award winner who is willing to laugh at herself.

Very unaffected, very un-diva-ish and generous to her co-stars, and audiences love her.

By targeting her, whoever did this has earned millions of enemies.

(Ever hear of Hunger Games? She was the lead.)

[NuclearDem]

80. Unbelievable. Shame on you.

[pnwmom]

81. Your post is an example of the kind of misogyny we've been talking about lately.

Whether you are a female or a male, your attitude is judgmental and anti-female.

The word "slut" doesn't belong on DU.

[NuclearDem]

82. And a very well-deserved hide.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
On Mon Sep 1, 2014, 12:15 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

who is also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5473755

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Slut-shaming. Purely unacceptable.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Sep 1, 2014, 12:17 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Vile post. Hide
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Did someone get up on the wring side of the bed this morning?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide and ban. Idiot.

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

84. Oh good. Thanks. Someone above alerted on me, actually.

For this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5472709

Things are kind of crazy around here lately -- but both of these juries worked.

[Codeine]

121. That poster is just plain old horrible.

Nastiness, nothing of any value -- that's the extent of what they bring to the party.

[mimi85]

150. You know her personally I take it. nt

[hifiguy]

166. I was wondering the same thing.

I've heard the name but couldn't pick her out of a line up if my life depended on it.

[Quantess]

167. All I know is, I don't care about her boobs.

I'm a hetero woman and I actually have ZERO interest in celebrity boobs (as long as they aren't HUGELY obviously, and/or terribly done with plastic surgery. Bad or obvious plastic surgery is train-wreck entertainment that entertains me for a minute.

Normal boobs, great rack or not... I don't really care. Weird, huh..

[Skittles]

19. can someone tell me why people have nekked pics on their phones

I am not judging or blaming, merely asking a question

[krispos42]

23. Sexting

Not that I've dated much, but when I was thrown back in the dating pool (in this case, plenty of fish, but there are lots of others) when you finally find somebody that likes your profile and you like their profile, you swap messages through the dating service, then graduate to a phone call and/or text messages. At some point you're texting a lot, and maybe you're swapping pictures back and forth for amusement or humor or just plain silliness. And at some point, you drift into the idea of sex, and then the interesting pictures show up.

Not necessarily porn images, but maybe you get a pic of cleavage in a low-cut shirt, that kind of stuff.

If this progress to the point you're sleeping together, then maybe you tease each other with sexier pics. "Here's the bra I'm wearing today; you'll see it more tonight", or the guy sends Congressman Weiner-style pics in response.

Obviously, it doesn't have to lead to full-on nudity, but it's also not that far of a step.

[Codeine]

34. Sexting, of course.

I've exchanged naughty photos with a number of people over the years via MMS messaging. It's a fun and sexy way to interact with your romantic/sexual partners or interests.

Unfortunately, it can be dangerous if you're a celebrity.

[cwydro]

47. Shoot.

I'll judge.

Anyone stupid enough to put naked pics on the internet...well, don't be surprised when they show up everywhere.

[PasadenaTrudy]

56. Exactly n/t

[pnwmom]

70. Putting the pictures on her phone was like putting them on her computer. That isn't the same

as putting them on the open internet. The articles said that Apple's i-cloud was hacked. This could have happened on someone's home computer as well.

[Skittles]

138. I hesitated to say

Last edited Mon Sep 1, 2014, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

because I know ultimately the hacker is the criminal, but just how naive ARE people?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

163. that's just as inane as saying if you have nice things in your home, you deserve to have them stolen

its not stupid to have pictures of yourself at the height of your beauty, especially if you look like any of the women the pictures were stolen from.

[pnwmom]

69. Also, some people use it as their only camera. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

113. I'll explain, and again this isnt judging. I think many people dont totally understand

How the cloud works, for instance.

And as others have noted, for many people at this point the phone IS the primary camera/video camera many people use, as opposed to having a separate one.

Apple, for instance, makes it pretty seamless and kind of unnoticeable- you take pictures from your vacation, come home and you can pull them up on the computer right away. Cool, right? But the thing is, those pictures are no longer just on your phone and your computer, they're off in some apple server.

The lesson is- and again, this isn't judging, but its probably 21st century commonsense- if you're going to take nude pictures of yourself and your spouse, say, having sex with your phone (i mean taking pictures with the phone, not having sex with the phone itself, although that would apply too) move them off the phone as soon as you can, and then delete them from your cloud and photostream, etc.

[kcr]

119. Yes, this.

Apple does not make it clear and obvious that this happens. They absolutely should.

[hfojvt]

130. well even photos on my computer

if my computer is on the web, are vulnerable to hacking.

After all, it was very easy to put one up on FB.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Yes, but assuming you have a router and a firewall and some decent malware protection

it's a good bit safer than having them out in your icloud account.

[hfojvt]

137. a what and a who?

I just call roto router when I need them. I don't own one of my own.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I take all my nude selfies with a silver chloride daguerreotype

honestly, the worst part is having to sit in the room for 6 hours.

[EX500rider]

161. You modernists and all your toys...

I use the camera obscura or lithography of course!

[krawhitham]

29. Why do people think iCloud/The Cloud/Any Clouds are safe

These clouds allow you to upload you stuff to a glorified FTP server on the internet.

DO you think if someone asked Jennifer Lawrence if she would like to upload naked images of herself to the internet she would says YES?

I'm guessing she would say NO, but since it had the word CLOUD on it that is exactly what she did, she uploaded naked pictures of herself to the internet. And once anything is on the internet it will always be on the internet.


Yes there is more to Cloud computing than just storage, but 99% of time when people use the term CLOUD they are just talking about cloud storage not cloud computing. They want to be able to access their shit from any device anywhere in the world.

[elias49]

32. Just got a MacBook recently as a gift from my son. Now I find

all my contacts are on the Cloud. Apparently anyone with an Iphone IPad or Mac gets all kinds of stuff automatically 'uploaded' to the "Cloud". Gonna have to look into this error on my part.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

57. Good to know. Thanks. n/t

[sendero]

37. Cloud computing in general..

... is a ruse to snare the doofus among us who actually think some company is going to take as good care of our data as we would.

It's a bad joke and people are falling for it, and especially companies, who will trundle along congratulating themselves on their tech savvy until the day their data is lost and they are toast.

[freshwest]

144. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

49. I agree

We don't use it. If I lose a pic on my phone - I lose it. If it matters to me I take it with my camera. I only save to a USB.

She doesn't have to upload. Someone else could have received it - and uploaded it.

[pnwmom]

73. It was supposed to be secure. Lots of people are using programs that promise

to save their data in a secure way.

[BeyondGeography]

31. She's being embarrassed, not abused

And comparing adult sexters who willingly send images of themselves over telecom networks to children who are victimized by adult pornographers is absurd.

[chervilant]

36. Really?

I just posted this herein above, but it bears repeating.

Here's a "link" you might consider:

"There are suggestions that prosecution may result not only for the hacker of the photos, but for those who view and share them. Good. To excuse viewing the images just because they’re available is deplorable. It’s the equivalent of creepily hiding in a wardrobe because a conversation may be taking place you’d be interested, excited or turned on to overhear."

It may not matter to you how other members of this forum feel about posts like yours, but I choose not to have to see such tawdry and puerile sexist posts, which is why I use my IL.

(Three additions to my IL, right in a row ...)

[Hosnon]

46. Good luck prosecuting viewers.

The photos are all over Reddit. You're talking millions of defendants (with many unintentional).

[chervilant]

61. Prosecuting?

The majority of sex offenders go unpunished. Misogyny holds sway, even herein.

I don't expect ANY prosecution; well -- at most -- a slap on the wrist.

[pnwmom]

90. The hacker victimized her by breaking into her data and dumping it into the open internet.

She didn't willingly send it on an open network. If she was aware of the iCloud at all, she was told it was secure. Even corporations put data in the cloud on what are supposed to be secure networks.

[mimi85]

151. I doubt she's even embarrassed.

Anyone that lives in SoCal been to the beach lately? I'm a woman (last time I checked) and all this is puritanical beyond belief. How much more PC can we get without taking a vow of celibacy? It's all a crock.

[nomorenomore08]

152. I wouldn't use that analogy myself, but she's still the victim of a crime.

A guy who pulled a similar stunt on ScarJo and others got 10 years in prison. Not that I necessarily agree with the length of the sentence, I'm just saying.

[GusBob]

35. i ve no idea who most of these hacked celebrities are

Am not really interested in seeing them with their clothes on either. Is not contributing to their fame abusive?

[whistler162]

45. Wouldn't that hold true if you post

an article announcing, and "condemning", the nude photos. Free publicity for something is always good for more traffic to the site.

[LanternWaste]

159. If an only if "free publicity" was the implicit goal. I imagine many prophets will allege it was...

If an only if "free publicity" was the implicit goal. Yet I imagine many prophets will allege it was-- all the more convenient to better rationalize their own grasp of ethical behavior ...

[CentralMass]

54. Not drawing attention to them might have been a better tactic to avoid drawing attention to them.

[cwydro]

77. Yup. nt

[F4lconF16]

123. That's not the point.

First off, she's a pretty big celebrity now, particularly among the youth that probably hacked and distributed this. As soon as they were leaked and published, it was going to spread. There's not much anyone can do about it. Ignoring it almost sanctions it, really.

But anyways, the point of the piece was that she was a victim of a serious violation of privacy. She has every right to go after the people who did it, and those who judge her for doing that are part of the problem, just as those who look at the pictures are part of the problem.

[NYC Liberal]

142. This piece tells you where to get them and which ones are real and fake.

Ignoring it doesn't sanction it. Ignoring it is precisely what should be done. There are hundreds of photos and videos yet to be released. Hyping it like this will only increase the demand. These articles just contribute to it.

[Baitball Blogger]

55. Whoever is responsible for this hack is going to spend some time in the Graybar Hotel.

[mythology]

65. That is one reason why I'm not interested in searching out the pictures

That and I really don't care about seeing functionally random people (admittedly some of them are very attractive random people) naked. While I may know some of Jennifer Lawrence's work and have enjoyed it, I don't know her. So seeing her naked doesn't hold a lot of appeal for me even though she's physically attractive.

[randome]

74. Do you even know if Jennifer Lawrence gives a shit?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigwillq]

75. This is a flagrant violation of privacy, Lawrence's rep said

http://mashable.com/2014/08/31/celebrity-nude-photo-hack/

[randome]

91. And it will always occur.

I'm not the one who says she shouldn't have put the pictures out there in the first place. That was her choice and it would be nice to imagine some Utopian society where people didn't behave badly.

But it's the Internet! There is no fool-proof privacy and there never will be. A system that wants to be open to the world and yet completely secure is an exercise in futility.

And crying out for the world to behave better because...just because is another exercise in futility.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[pnwmom]

92. This is victim blaming. Just because the i-cloud turned out to be hackable

doesn't mean you should be blaming JL for putting "the pictures out there." She thought they were in a secure place. She may not even have understood what the cloud is. Lots of people own cell phones and computers who don't understand the technology.

Are you also saying that anyone with a computer and an internet connection has made the "choice" to put their data "out there"?

[randome]

96. I'm not blaming Lawrence. I'm saying there is no privacy on the Internet.

We can insist until we're blue in the face that all people everywhere behave ethically all the time.

But it will never happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[F4lconF16]

125. So therefore we should just sit down and shut up about it?

Because this might not change anything, we shouldn't say anything?

Yeah, right.

And yes, you are victim blaming. By insisting that everyone should know that anything could be hacked at any time and that we're never going to solve the problem, you are placing the blame not on the perpetrators but on the victim. You are saying that we shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on our computers, as well as from a service claiming to be secure. She should have been able to put anything she wanted there.

In some ways, it's like saying that a woman who was raped shouldn't have been walking down the street in a short skirt. She has every right to be able to do that without harassment.

I'm not blaming Lawrence. I'm saying there is no privacy on the street.

We can insist until we're blue in the face that all people everywhere behave ethically all the time.

But it will never happen.

See how that works?

[randome]

153. 'Raped'? Really?

If I left my wallet full of cash on a public sidewalk and expected it to still be there when I returned, would you say I was stupid?

Or would you say that the person who took my wallet had raped me?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[bigwillq]

105. I agree with you (nt)

[Gothmog]

76. Agreed

Do not reward the jerks who violated her privacy.

[libdem4life]

83. Don't get it ... Poor celebrity strips and takes pictures. Good Lord. Kind of like if you don't

want to get charged with robbery, don't steal anything. These are all publicity stunts, followed up by more public denials. Think Kim Kardashian and others who have a fetish with their own bodies.

I never saw the photos and could care less.

[NuclearDem]

87. Exactly what crime did Jennifer Lawrence commit?

Because if you can't think of one, then your victim-blaming robbery analogy falls flat on its face.

[libdem4life]

109. Get real. It's no crime, sheesh. Just obsessed with their bodies, get paid for same

and "sneak" in some naughty, "forbidden" ones that get "leaked". Oh Noes.

[NuclearDem]

110. So you admit your robbery analogy was full of shit?

And that you're just blaming a woman for the actions of some pathetic pervert low-life?

[libdem4life]

112. Well, it was the first thing that came to mind. Others on here have better analogies, I'll

give you that. Full of Shit? A bit touchy there?

And no, I don't blame women, for Chris's sake. I'm equal opportunity. I'd say the same about a man. Stop trying to make this about misogyny or shit.

[tritsofme]

111. Photos like this are often leaked intentionally, this does not appear to be the case at all here.

This is not a PR stunt, but the result of illegal hacking.

The names I've seen mentioned, like Jennifer Lawrence, are A-list actors with no need for this sort of publicity. A crime definitely occurred.

[libdem4life]

114. Not arguing that. Just questioning all these nude selfies. First nipples, and a slippery slope

literally, downwards. Those probably exist out there in The Cloud somewhere, too.

[Reter]

85. Are you talking about her nude beach pictures?

I can't agree or disagree unless I know more. If they were private pictures an ex-boyfriend took, then I would completely agree with you. But if they are the nude beach pics, that would be a different story. She went out nude in public not private.

[alp227]

93. Even if Lawrence went out publicly nude,

that doesn't mean it's ethical to spread photos of it. Just as wrong as sticking surveillance cameras everywhere "because security".

[Logical]

129. I disagree, anyone nude in public is free to photograph. And legal to post. You sound like the...

cops whining about being photographed in public.

Read more about the right to take photos in public areas.

[bigwillq]

106. From what I saw, they weren't at the beach.

I am not even sure if the ones I saw are the ones in question (it looks like her, and she is nude) but they weren't at a beach

[Blue_Adept]

86. Someone on my twitter feed retweeted them

And they came across my screen. Am I perpetuating the abuse and, as some have said in these particular discussions, do criminal charges need to be pressed against me because I was exposed to it but not actively seeking it out?

[kcr]

116. Does the OP give the impression they'd blame someone for something out of their control?

There are people actively seeking out these photos. You realize that, right? Should people go out of their way to make sure they mean those people and not people accidentally seeing them? Really?

I think it's safe for you to feel okay with what happened, no matter what anyone else thinks.

[Blue_Adept]

117. Not in the OP

But it's come up in other comments by people that those simply viewing it should be held accountable and are responsible for perpetuating it. That's a black and white approach to a very gray world.

[kcr]

118. People are saying that those who accidently see it even if they didn't mean to are to blame?

Hmmm

[itsrobert]

88. Who? Mama Harper?

Did nude photos?

[L0oniX]

101. Are there any celebrities that don't have naked pictures on line?

I find the real violation is not the pictures ...but the hacking into someones storage device. Cell phone hacks are on the rise. Side issue: What does the NSA have to say about this?

[jakeXT]

103. Snowden: NSA employees routinely pass around intercepted nude photos

If Snowden’s allegations of sexual photo distribution are true, they would be consistent with what the NSA has already reported. In September 2013, in a letter from the NSA’s Inspector General Dr. George Ellard to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the agency outlined a handful of instances during which NSA agents admitted that they had spied on their former love interests. This even spawned a nickname within the agency, LOVEINT—a riff on HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence).

“You've got young enlisted guys, 18 to 22 years old,” Snowden said. “They've suddenly been thrust into a position of extraordinary responsibility where they now have access to all of your private records. In the course of their daily work they stumble across something that is completely unrelated to their work in any sort of necessary sense. For example, an intimate nude photo of someone in a sexually compromising position. But they're extremely attractive.

“So what do they do? They turn around in their chair and show their co-worker. The co-worker says: ‘Hey that's great. Send that to Bill down the way.’ And then Bill sends it to George and George sends it to Tom. And sooner or later this person's whole life has been seen by all of these other people. It's never reported. Nobody ever knows about it because the auditing of these systems is incredibly weak. The fact that your private images, records of your private lives, records of your intimate moments have been taken from your private communications stream from the intended recipient and given to the government without any specific authorization without any specific need is itself a violation of your rights. Why is that in a government database?”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/snowden-nsa-employees-routinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/

[L0oniX]

107. Made me remember the photo developing shop employees passing around personal pictures...

with some of them getting caught.

[Kablooie]

104. Another reason to be thankful you're not a young, beautiful, rich, famous, starlet.

We are all so lucky.

[Blue_In_AK]

108. And once again DU informs me of something

I should avoid that I wouldn't have known about otherwise. Good job...

[NYC Liberal]

124. The more articles people write and post about it, the more people who didn't know anything of it before

will now know and go looking.

This very article and those like it are perpetuating the whole thing. Fuck, this one even tells you where to go to get them, and which ones are real and which aren't!

[F4lconF16]

128. See my reply #123. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

140. best way to get someone to look at something, is to tell them not to look at it.

Crap, you'd have think people would have figured that out by now.

[MineralMan]

131. Why bother. Just go to Google images, type in "naked"

and you can see as many naked people as you can stand. I don't get it. I mean Jennifer Lawrence is a nice looking young woman, but so what?

[NuclearDem]

146. It's control.

She's a young woman doing extremely well, and a bunch of pathetic losers are subconsciously trying to reminder her that she's just a piece of meat to them.

[mimi85]

147. What a bunch of BS! nt

[BlueCaliDem]

155. Agreed. No ifs, ands, or buts. eom

[ChisolmTrailDem]

160. Your post about it is helping to propagate the abuse. nt