• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jennifer Lawrence Nude Photo Leak Who is responsible?

Who is responsible?


  • Total voters
    45
First, the poll should allow for multiple options. It's the idiots fault for taking the photos in the first place and keeping them insecurely, the equivalent in the real world of leaving them lying around the house. It's the hackers fault for committing the crime of hacking the cloud and reposting them.

Agreed.
 
apparently the only thing keeping some of you creeps from peeking in windows is the odds of getting caught, not because it is wrong to sneak around and obtain views of naked women against their wishes

You're talking about the people who have had especially large and clear windows installed facing the public street precisely so the public will watch them in the first place.
 
apparently the only thing keeping some of you creeps from peeking in windows is the odds of getting caught, not because it is wrong to sneak around and obtain views of naked women against their wishes

From a general population stand point...

Yes. That's basically right. That's a large part of the premise of your social contract philosophers that were kind of the cornerstone of this country being established. It's the cornerstone of most established societies over the years.

People, when left entirely up to their own devices, are often going to do whatever suits their purposes. It's only when you place some sort of societal or legal expectation upon them that said measurement of what "suits their purpose" change.

If there were no laws against drunk driving do you think the amount of drunk drivers wouldn't shoot up? If there were no laws against theft do you think the amount of people stealing things wouldn't shoot up? If society didn't have a negative social stigma to drinking that there wouldn't be more people that knock back a few every night?

Yes, there are groups of people in the world that would do things that society views as immoral or illegal if said things were easier to do or had less reprucussions for doing it. This is a surprise to you?
 
I don't deserve to have my TV stolen whether or not I leave my house unlocked. It's still my TV and I have a right to it, while others don't.

But I would have to be pretty stupid and reckless to leave my house unlocked.
 
Those who own the photograph do have a right to privacy. They also have a responsibility to to take reasonable actions to maintain that privacy. Putting that stuff on the internet and expecting it to remain private IS NOT reasonable.

How many celebrity "hacks" will have to happen before people figure out that hanging your personal laundry in the middle of a freeway isn't a particularly good idea? Hell, between the people that "leak" their own stuff, the fakes and the idiots who just can't figure it all out I can't believe that someone would actually believe that anything is going to be "private" on the internet for very long.

I agree wholly. Once an image is captured that image runs the risk of being viewed by unintended parties. This goes for polaroids in a shoebox never mind a global network with potentially billions of prying eyes.

It's like anything else in this new digital era, you have to guard your data.
 
That's what drives me crazy about some of these topics recently. My wife went off on a nice 15 minute rant to me the other day about the women complaining about and lecturing people over the negatives of date-rape detecting finger nail polish.

We don't live in a utopia. It'd be nice if we could "end violence" or "end people invading peoples privacy" but to think that doing so is an achievable reality is naivity of the highest sort. That doesn't mean that as a society we should promote not engaging in violence and not violtaing peoples privacy, but it does mean that we shouldn't just ignore the realities and act like everyone should just carry along however they like.

WANTING there not to be violence or WANTING there not to be people who violate peoples privacy doesn't magically make it so; and if you live your life in a way that assumes those things don't exist simply because "they shouldn't" then you're going to have issues. Sorry, that's the truth.

And the dirty little secret is EVERYONE KNOWS THIS and generally engages in it; but they just don't want to acknowledge that when they're on their activist agendas. Why do I say that?

How many of you lock the doors to your house or your car every time you get out of your car?

Should you HAVE to lock your doors? Of course not. We should never fear that someone is going to come into our private property and take our stuffs. Our world shouldn't be one where such happens. But it does, and that's not going to magically stop even if we spend years and years as a society telling people that going into others private property and taking stuff is bad.

So we lock our stuff, because we know it's smart to take precautions against the realities of today. If we don't lock our stuff is it guaranteed it will be entered and things taken? Not necessarily. But there's a better chance that it's going to happen due to our irresponsability in light of reality. This is common sense type stuff that EVERYONE does.

Why it's okay to make believe that the world is a utopia and people should be free to act like that utopia exists in some cases, while in others it's routine to deal with reality as just that...reality

I get what you are saying but that doesn't make the victim of the crime responsible. Especially not in this case where reasonable measures were taken to prevent others from obtaining them (I.E. a password protected account) If they had placed them in a public folder on dropbox and someone found them, then yes they are responsible. That is not the case. The hackers had to make a specific effort to obtain something they knew they had no right to.
 
From a general population stand point...

Yes. That's basically right. That's a large part of the premise of your social contract philosophers that were kind of the cornerstone of this country being established. It's the cornerstone of most established societies over the years.

People, when left entirely up to their own devices, are often going to do whatever suits their purposes. It's only when you place some sort of societal or legal expectation upon them that said measurement of what "suits their purpose" change.

If there were no laws against drunk driving do you think the amount of drunk drivers wouldn't shoot up? If there were no laws against theft do you think the amount of people stealing things wouldn't shoot up? If society didn't have a negative social stigma to drinking that there wouldn't be more people that knock back a few every night?

Yes, there are groups of people in the world that would do things that society views as immoral or illegal if said things were easier to do or had less reprucussions for doing it. This is a surprise to you?

it's surprising to me the # of people that are showing public support for peeping Tom's. I realize they have a level of anonymity posting on this site, but it is still creepy seeing it.
 
I don't deserve to have my TV stolen whether or not I leave my house unlocked. It's still my TV and I have a right to it, while others don't.

But I would have to be pretty stupid and reckless to leave my house unlocked.

Yeah, even more so when you know every other house on the street has been robbed in the past. It's not like this photo release is a new thing, this isn't the first time it's happened by a long shot.
 
it's surprising to me the # of people that are showing public support for peeping Tom's. I realize they have a level of anonymity posting on this site, but it is still creepy seeing it.

Then you must be totally creeped out by the celebrities themselves whose entire careers are built upon encouraging people to peep them. It's like taking up mud wrestling and complaining that you get dirty.
 
You're talking about the people who have had especially large and clear windows installed facing the public street precisely so the public will watch them in the first place.

so they asked for it? sick!
 
Then you must be totally creeped out by the celebrities themselves whose entire careers are built upon encouraging people to peep them. It's like taking up mud wrestling and complaining that you get dirty.

nonsense. but hey, whatever makes you ok with being a peeping Tom
 
One of the most interesting bits of this situation has been watching the reaction and contrasting it to the last major public figure who had private information leaked. What I've seen is that all the indignation all over my facebook page and over the internet supposedly about "privacy" (including phrases like "psychic violence" and "virtual assault") are all absolutely hollow bull****. Most of these people aren't actually caring about "privacy", they care about OTHER political agendas and issues and see this particular issue as a means of pushing it. Namely, they are neutral or approve of the "private" information and thus they disapprove of it being released. If they disapprove of the "private" information then they approve of it being released.

Case in point is Donald Sterling, where the illegal obtaining of private information of his was released to the public causing irrecovable damage to him (both his personal and business life), and the outcry regarding his "privacy" was mild at best and was largely ignored in an effort to punish him for those private things that were illegally exposed.

Do I have a massive issue with the treatment Donald Sterling got and the treatment being shown to the celeberities by and large? No. But I do have an issue with those ACTING like their concern and issue is with the "invasion of privacy" that occured when that's clearly not their concern, and in reality this is just another cudgel to use to beat people over the head with the feminist agenda.
 
That's what drives me crazy about some of these topics recently. My wife went off on a nice 15 minute rant to me the other day about the women complaining about and lecturing people over the negatives of date-rape detecting finger nail polish.

We don't live in a utopia. It'd be nice if we could "end violence" or "end people invading peoples privacy" but to think that doing so is an achievable reality is naivity of the highest sort. That doesn't mean that as a society we should promote not engaging in violence and not violtaing peoples privacy, but it does mean that we shouldn't just ignore the realities and act like everyone should just carry along however they like.

WANTING there not to be violence or WANTING there not to be people who violate peoples privacy doesn't magically make it so; and if you live your life in a way that assumes those things don't exist simply because "they shouldn't" then you're going to have issues. Sorry, that's the truth.

And the dirty little secret is EVERYONE KNOWS THIS and generally engages in it; but they just don't want to acknowledge that when they're on their activist agendas. Why do I say that?

How many of you lock the doors to your house or your car every time you get out of your car?

Should you HAVE to lock your doors? Of course not. We should never fear that someone is going to come into our private property and take our stuffs. Our world shouldn't be one where such happens. But it does, and that's not going to magically stop even if we spend years and years as a society telling people that going into others private property and taking stuff is bad.

So we lock our stuff, because we know it's smart to take precautions against the realities of today. If we don't lock our stuff is it guaranteed it will be entered and things taken? Not necessarily. But there's a better chance that it's going to happen due to our irresponsability in light of reality. This is common sense type stuff that EVERYONE does.

Why it's okay to make believe that the world is a utopia and people should be free to act like that utopia exists in some cases, while in others it's routine to deal with reality as just that...reality

There are negatives to date rape detecting fingernail polish?

First things first: the post DA60 was responding to did not suggest that should and will are the same thing. Longview was not suggesting people should not take precautions, but that does not negate the right to privacy. We was in no way suggesting that people would respect that right, only that it exists and puts the responsibility squarely on the person who decided to hack.

No one is suggesting you should not take basic precautions. No one I see is making believe the world is a utopia. Your long winded rant is misplaced.
 
One of the most interesting bits of this situation has been watching the reaction and contrasting it to the last major public figure who had private information leaked. What I've seen is that all the indignation all over my facebook page and over the internet supposedly about "privacy" (including phrases like "psychic violence" and "virtual assault") are all absolutely hollow bull****. Most of these people aren't actually caring about "privacy", they care about OTHER political agendas and issues and see this particular issue as a means of pushing it. Namely, they are neutral or approve of the "private" information and thus they disapprove of it being released. If they disapprove of the "private" information then they approve of it being released.

Case in point is Donald Sterling, where the illegal obtaining of private information of his was released to the public causing irrecovable damage to him (both his personal and business life), and the outcry regarding his "privacy" was mild at best and was largely ignored in an effort to punish him for those private things that were illegally exposed.

Do I have a massive issue with the treatment Donald Sterling got and the treatment being shown to the celeberities by and large? No. But I do have an issue with those ACTING like their concern and issue is with the "invasion of privacy" that occured when that's clearly not their concern, and in reality this is just another cudgel to use to beat people over the head with the feminist agenda.

And again, you are creating this weird spin. The reason the privacy issue was not focused on in the Sterling case(though in fact I and many others did comment about it) was because it was overshadowed by what was revealed. I did not see any one try and justify recording private conversations(it should not be done), but you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, and that was a big ****ing genie for many people. In this case, the genie is some tits. Kinda a whole different level of thing. If you look at two different events and wonder why they are treated somewhat differently, the problem might be with you.

Of course we probably should not mention the names of Manning or Snowden, cuz then things get really complicated....
 
One of the most interesting bits of this situation...

I've no idea whom the person in question is or what photos were leaked, but I'd expect the "most interesting bits" to be something infraction worthy. :)


Case in point is Donald Sterling, where the illegal obtaining of private information of his was released to the public causing irrecovable damage to him (both his personal and business life), and the outcry regarding his "privacy" was mild at best and was largely ignored in an effort to punish him for those private things that were illegally exposed.

Do I have a massive issue with the treatment Donald Sterling got and the treatment being shown to the celeberities by and large? No. But I do have an issue with those ACTING like their concern and issue is with the "invasion of privacy" that occured when that's clearly not their concern, and in reality this is just another cudgel to use to beat people over the head with the feminist agenda.

Being a racist is like having pics stolen? If you'd like, we can presume the existence of the pics proves she's a slut. So, he's a racist and she's a slut. Are we supposed to have equal derision? Since when is 'equal outcome' a concern?
 
I see your point but as previously mentioned leaving the door open is not an invitation to come in and steal. That is like blaming Yale because their locks can be picked.

It is if you are telling people that the door is closed and their stuff is safe.....

Apple are to blame for this ultimately, regardless if it was pin-point hacking or a massive hack. Why? Because all their competitors do protect their cloud users not only with encryption but also "strange behavior" software.

On Google and Microsoft if there any sort of strange behavior like being accessed from a new location in a different country, then the account is frozen instantly and the user is contacted via the methods set up on the account. In my case I get an SMS and an email on a secondary email account I control and I am a "nobody". Surely Apple could provide the same security for their most high profile customers... guess not.

Google and Microsoft are pro-active, they block and ask you to reopen.. Apple seems to just ignore **** and hope not to get caught. This hardly the first time Apple has been caught with its pants down on security and used its propaganda army to drown the bad press. I remember off hand the Safari hack that was around for 2+ years and everyone knew it was there, but Apple did nothing. In the end it was Google who paid a fine for exploiting the bug, but not Apple leaving it in several versions of Safari. Then there was the SSL bug that went unnoticed for 2 years that opened all Apples systems to hackers that knew about the bug, and took Apple many weeks to actually patch.. hell it could be here that this hack happened.. who knows. Or firmware bugs on the Mac, to security holes in iOS.. Apple sucks at security and sucks at patching holes, but they excel at marketing and propaganda to hide the dark side of their systems.

Point is, that what the hacker did is both wrong and right.. it is right to expose security flaws, but wrong to exploit them. It is in no way the fault of the celebs or anyone who takes pictures that they are spread across the internet. Those pictures on any cloud service should be private and the software should protect them. Google does it, Microsoft does it.. hell even Dropbox does it, but not Apple. Hence the one that is most to blame is Apple for not having their systems secure enough to catch this crap.. hope they sue the crap out of Apple, but knowing how things work with Apple.. they will go totally free of any blame, thanks to their friends in the media.
 
I get what you are saying but that doesn't make the victim of the crime responsible.

Absolutely. I've never suggested it did.

But the problem is that people WRONGLY accuse and suggest people of suggesting someone is "responsible" for the crime.

What the person IS responsible for is increasing their RISK. We make choices every day as humans as to weigh risk vs reward. That's part of how life works. I risk my life each time I get in my car and drive to work, but I find the amount of risk acceptable comparitive to the benefit it gives me. However, if I'm going 100 MPH to work every day then that amount of risk is significantly higher and that equation changes a bit.

ACKNOWLEDGING the risk they took is not suggesting someone is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIME. Those are two different things, despite the fact that people often like to put words in peoples mouths and declare they're claiming something they're not.

If you put information on the internet in any fashion you are RISKING that others may obtain that information. There are ways to mitigate that risk, such as password protecting it, but that doesn't ELIMINATE that risk.

As I said, I don't think any celebrity is in the wrong or a bad person or "responsible" for the crime in this case. What I have said is my level of sympathy for them varies. Someone whose got racy pictures in a private online location with a strong password will get more sympathy from me than someone that has them in the same place with "password" as the password. And that individual would have more sympathy from me than someone who had them in a folder without a password at all.

Again, from the point where I started using the internet as a young teen it's been drilled in my head that ANYTHING you do on or with a computer is potentially something that someone will someday see. And that's kind of where my mindset is on this. Doesn't mean that the celebs did anything WRONG, doesn't mean they deserve to get hacked, but it does mean I'm not here crying a river for them and agreeing with some on the net engaging in hysterics like treating this as similar to someone being raped.
 
Yeah, but that's uncommon for most people to NOT use their phone for photo's, including sensitive ones. I think they were under the illusion that their photo's were not accessible from the Internet. Many of these software companies like Google and Apple want to merge everyone's personal data and have open access, which we now see is a flawed concept. And they don't openly explain how all their software works thoroughly, till something crappy happens.

We're talking about celebrities here. These are people who have a whole posse of paparazzi chasing them everywhere they go. The KNOW that there is a premium on any picture of a slipped nipple or whatever. These should be the people MOST interested in protecting themselves from a hacker but what do they do, they go full Carlos Danger with the stuff.

This kind of hacking isn't some new enterprise. It's been around as long as digital photography has been (or at least as long as the technology has been readily available). Yeah, the hackers are bad guys in this but the "victims" are just plain idiots.
 
From the article it appears the photos were stolen. In that case 100% responsibility for the crime on the thief. Blaming the women is the equivalent of blaming a homeowner for theft because he left his door open. An open door is not an invitation to come in steal.

Wrong !
But for a Libertarian, NOT wrong ...They live in a perfect world..
 
We're talking about celebrities here. These are people who have a whole posse of paparazzi chasing them everywhere they go. The KNOW that there is a premium on any picture of a slipped nipple or whatever.

I know what that's like. Ever had a nipple request? Some people.





:D
 
No one is suggesting you should not take basic precautions. No one I see is making believe the world is a utopia. Your long winded rant is misplaced.

I never claimed my "rant" was aimed specifically at anyone on this forum or just this forums responses to things. If I was meaning to comment on SPECIFIC comments made on this forum I would've linked to them. My "rant" was me posting my views on an attitude towards this and other situations recently that I've seen in a multitude of different places and locations. For example the fingernail polish I referenced above, where a detractor (in a news story, let me clarify since you seem to think the extent of my experience is just this forum) came out condeming it because it'd just continue the trend of "making women responsible for not being raped" and that there simply shouldn't be violence against women.
 
it doesn't mean creepos can try to invade their privacy, sorry.

So, Anthony Wiener? These folks lead and profit from leading public lives. That is the distinguishing characteristic of their chosen career, a total lack of privacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom