• 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
clownboy said:
What? I think you're lost the thread of what we were discussing.
Click to expand...

I think you have.

If someone sends you a picture, you now have rights to that picture. You can show others the picture that was sent to you unless they can somehow prove that you agreed to not show it.
 
Luftwaffe said:
"at some places called 4chan and AnonIB"

The most trolliest sites ever made in the history of mankind. Pretty much up there with reddit.

These sites are the ones people go to to have their brain cells fried.

The "hackers" themselves weren't even that smart. A glitch on Apple's part simply allowed them to try as many times to get the password as they want (normally the account locks after X tries).

Sorry about that little aside, it was just in case people here didn't know what these sites were.

As for the OP...

Lawrence, upton, rafael, etc. are all morons for:

#1 having nude photos in the first place (what's the point?)

#2 putting said photos on any kind of internet storage (you got looks, but clearly no brains)

#3 whining that this happened
Click to expand...

Based on a few pictures I saw of Jennifer Lawrence, I think she was just having fun with a boyfriend or whatever. But instead of like the old days when nude pictures may have been taken with a Polaroid camera and the picture put in some dresser drawer, they were stored digitally some place that was thought to be safe but obviously was not. I think it is a big wake-up call for everyone about their personal data and the internet.

I think it is a crime though, because if someone guesses the door code to my car and takes what is in it, it is still wrong of them to do that and take my stuff.
 
Oh, and this needs multiple choice.

The leaker is responsible, and it's a crime and a "scandal". The actual hacking of the accounts is a crime. The media coverage and the aftermath as it relates to internet traffic is a scandal.
 
radcen said:
Supposedly, the photos got "pushed" into the cloud when their phones had reached memory capacity, or something like that. They didn't actively put them there.

For whatever that's worth.
Click to expand...

There's truth to what you say.

I have pictures I took of my family over the Christmas holiday using my cellphone and noticed that those pictures are now stored in the cloud. I didn't send them there; it happened because my cellphone lacked sufficient storage space.

Nonetheless, speaking strictly to the liability issue addressed in the OP, I'd say there sufficient responsibility to go around:

- Jennifer Lawrence for taking nude pictures of herself using her iphone/smartphone. These things are mini-computers!

- The cellphone company for not security the data stored in the cloud.

- The hacker for leaking the photos.
 
The German said:
Does someone have a link to the pics?
Click to expand...

I only saw ones with black boxes over the yummy parts. ;) I'm sure they're out there.

Fact is most of these ladies have already showed the goods for money and they're only mad now because people are getting to see them for free.
 
ARealConservative said:
I think you have.

If someone sends you a picture, you now have rights to that picture. You can show others the picture that was sent to you unless they can somehow prove that you agreed to not show it.
Click to expand...


I see where you're trying to go, you just didn't like the Weiner example. There are plenty more. So okay, I'll give up that example. Now, that still doesn't prove your point.

Btw, on that last, no. The photographer keeps the rights to their photo, even if they share it with other individuals. They still retain the rights where it comes to public display of the photograph.
 
clownboy said:
Obviously that's the point, NOT a secured server and you may wish to rethink making purchases online. I purchase online, but I don't let them keep my CC info and I keep track.

Again, these folks are in the business of leading public lives. They KNOW everything they do online can be exposed to the public. Their management knows.
Click to expand...

Would you be okay if a celebrity got his or her credit card number hacked?

Lutherf said:
I expect my online credit card information to be private too. That being said, I have ONE card I use just for online purchases because although I expect privacy I also understand that such privacy can be compromised.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that in no way shape or form lessens the burden of guilt from the hacker.

Ockham said:
All too true. Purchases on line - like the current information as well as the Home Depot hack which has now inflicted a possible 70 million people are not secure. Fact is NO information is secure online. It's a bad expectation to think otherwise. The FBI, the CIA have been breached in the past. No system online is secure - ever. The only way to keep something secure is to not allow it online at all. Every purchase, every banking transaction on the internet, every bit of information, every password, picture, event.... all of it is at risk.
Click to expand...

Great. Now how do we discourage hacking and shift the blame onto them, where it belongs?
 
WCH said:
I only saw ones with black boxes over the yummy parts. ;) I'm sure they're out there.

Fact is most of these ladies have already showed the goods for money and they're only mad now because people are getting to see them for free.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true. That's part of the appeal of the leak. Many of the big names...like Upton and Lawrence...have never done nude shots. Hell, there was a whole skit as the oscars about actresses whose Boobs we've seen on Movies and mentioning how Jennifer Lawerence wasn't on that list yet.

Arieanna Grande and Mikahala Maroney (I butchered that spelling of both) haven't done nude things. Olivia Munn has done topless, but I believe this leak supposedly included a nude bottom of her as well.

Many of those in the leak have never been nude on film in any public fashion.
 
DA60 said:
Mostly those that hacked it and leaked it.

Partly her for being so staggeringly naive as to put nude photos of herself in the Cloud.


NEVER put anything in the Cloud you are not prepared for EVERYONE to eventually see.
Click to expand...

The only thing (thus far) that is clear in regard to Apple's complicity is that by default your photos are uploaded to iCloud. Thus far, what we also know is that many celebrities had weak passwords, did not have two-factor verification, and had not deleted the iCloud backups.
 
clownboy said:
Btw, on that last, no. The photographer keeps the rights to their photo, even if they share it with other individuals. They still retain the rights where it comes to public display of the photograph.
Click to expand...

They retain commercial rights to the photo, they don’t have a right to keep the photo private. So nice try, but every excuse you have given to justify perverted activity has failed.
 
Zyphlin said:
However, if you stub your toe and don't fall down the stairs you may complain a bit more than you would in the latter example, but you're still not going to complain much because it's just a stubbed toe. You're not likely going to make it out to be like you just broke your leg.

Admittedly, as I ALREADY SAID, a lot of my musing and expression of my thoughts on this is based off other things I've read be it on my facebook feed, articles, or other forums.

One particular person I was dealing with on another forum (and likely shaped some of my heated response here) who said not a peep about the privacy issues of the sterling case but whose suggested this "invasion of privacy" is a "non-consexual form of sexual violence" ala rape. An "invasion of privacy" that should make us "terrified". That "privacy is everything" and that it's "repulsive" that people seem to not be bothered by this because "women are hot so it's okay". That anyone seeking out these pictures in any way are "engaging in violence against a womans body". That this invasion of privacy is an act of "psychic violence which constitues a form of assault".

If this is one's views on "privacy" in this issue, and your views on "privacy" on the Sterling issue were "that's too bad, but..." at best, then I call "bull****" on the notion that your care is about "privacy" and not something else. This isn't like stubbing your toe in both cases, but one you fall down the stairs. This is like stubbing your toe in both situations, but one you fall down the stairs and say next to nothing about the toe and in the other you act like you just got sliced in half from your toe to the tip of your head with a long serated knife.

And this persons responses and attitudes hasn't been that much off base with some of the random comments I've seen on my facebook feeds or some of the various articles headlines and excerpts I've seen linked about this.

The disconnect between this and the sterling case, when one is simply going on about "privacy", is the width of the grand canyon which is why I roll my eyes at the screams of some about "privacy" when it's crystal clear and transparent that they give two ****s about privacy from a principled level, but rather they believe privacy should exist on things they morally don't have an issue with and could care less about it on things they morally do.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the person you where talking to is prone to overblown hyperbole.

The Sterling thing from a privacy issue is just as bad, but in this case, the other aspect in the Sterling case was alot more...interesting I guess you could say. You can only talk about tits so long, and there are plenty of better looking ones out there. I think of it much like I think of the Snowden thing: there are two separate issues going on, the release, and the contents of the release. They should be judged as two different events if that makes sense.
 
Porchev said:
Based on a few pictures I saw of Jennifer Lawrence, I think she was just having fun with a boyfriend or whatever. But instead of like the old days when nude pictures may have been taken with a Polaroid camera and the picture put in some dresser drawer, they were stored digitally some place that was thought to be safe but obviously was not. I think it is a big wake-up call for everyone about their personal data and the internet.

I think it is a crime though, because if someone guesses the door code to my car and takes what is in it, it is still wrong of them to do that and take my stuff.
Click to expand...

This is no wakeup call, just a reminder of what EVERYONE already knows, especially celebrities. They are reminded of it every time they take a walk, go shopping, do anything. Their management knows this. My goodness, it's like having to explain to adults that fire is hot. :roll:
 
ecofarm said:
Not really. The pics served to show boobies, fundamentally that's laudable. The audio was merely support for an accusation. Is there an accusation involved in the first case that demands evidence?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point.

If you were making a huge deal out of the privacy notion of this then you'd be a poster child for what I'm saying.

Don't CLAIM your big issue about this is Privacy when in reality its "Privacy for things I find laudable" and "No Privacy for things I don't find laudable".
 
Phys251 said:
Yes, but that in no way shape or form lessens the burden of guilt from the hacker.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm more interested in not getting hacked than I am in punishing someone after the fact. My whole goal is to not set myself up for a problem in the first part so, to that end, I choose to take personal responsibility for my decisions FIRST and then worry about who to blame farther down the road. In my experience whatever recompense you get from someone who has wronged you rarely makes up for the affront anyway.
 
VanceMack said:
This is all rather amusing. We ignore hacking going on daily that affects peoples finances and lives. Some people even CELEBRATE certain groups of hackers...especially if they can 'stick it to da man!'. But we are supposed to be outraged because a hacker found their way into nude photos and videos of 'starlets'?

Does anyone NOT know by now that EVERYTHING you put on your phone or computer (if said device is connected in any way to the network) is visible and in fact fair game?
Click to expand...

It's true. Hacktivists, even though they frequently do things for financial gain in the guise of public activism, are oft celebrated by the Left and Libertarians. That being said, I think people are slowly coming around to accepting that their personal data, although potentially vulnerable for exploitation, is something that ought to be protected against by authorities (in addition to being protected from authorities).
 
Phys251 said:
Would you be okay if a celebrity got his or her credit card number hacked?



Yes, but that in no way shape or form lessens the burden of guilt from the hacker.



Great. Now how do we discourage hacking and shift the blame onto them, where it belongs?
Click to expand...

You're arguing with the wrong person. I said from the very beginning that what the hackers did was a crime. But again, if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it in a area known by all to be rife with car thieves, your insurance is likely to refuse your claim when it is stolen. Why? Because you are partially responsible and a total dumb****.
 
Phys251 said:
Great. Now how do we discourage hacking and shift the blame onto them, where it belongs?
Click to expand...
You cannot discourage hacking any more than has already been done. It's not about blame - it's about involuntary ignorance. Most people do not know how much information is available on them and how vulnerable it is. We have out of kilter expectations that Home Depot, or Apple, or any other company is protecting their financial or personal information and most do an adequate job. But as has already been said - if a hacker wants to get information they will. It's up to us, the users, to inform ourselves, to regulate our expectations, and to not to trust any information we would not want shown to everyone we know, on anything which has an internet connection.
 
longview said:
We have privacy rights in this country, even a person poor personal choices,
should be kept private, unless permission is granted for it's release.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Digital content is no longer sacred.
 
Fiddytree said:
It's true. Hacktivists, even though they frequently do things for financial gain in the guise of public activism, are oft celebrated by the Left and Libertarians. That being said, I think people are slowly coming around to accepting that their personal data, although potentially vulnerable for exploitation, is something that ought to be protected against by authorities (in addition to being protected from authorities).
Click to expand...
Its that LAST part thats the real kicker.

Personally...I'm all for the death penalty for hackers (and I dont even automatically go for the death sentence for murderers).
 
clownboy said:
Gervais' comment was dead on the money here:

"Celebrities, make it harder for hackers to get nude pics of you from your computer by not putting nude pics of yourself on your computer."
Click to expand...

Spot on. But then again celebrities arent known for their brains. Emails are extremely unsecured and can be intercepted without encryption just as cloud files.
 
Ockham said:
You cannot discourage hacking any more than has already been done. It's not about blame - it's about involuntary ignorance. Most people do not know how much information is available on them and how vulnerable it is. We have out of kilter expectations that Home Depot, or Apple, or any other company is protecting their financial or personal information and most do an adequate job. But as has already been said - if a hacker wants to get information they will. It's up to us, the users, to inform ourselves, to regulate our expectations, and to not to trust any information we would not want shown to everyone we know, on anything which has an internet connection.
Click to expand...

Well, no. We(collective we, referring to us as a country, and in this case law enforcement) could do a much better job going after and punishing hackers. Unfortunately, it would cost alot of money. I think it would be money well spent, but spending on something that will have an invisible effect is something that is just not politically going to happen right now.
 
PoS said:
Spot on. But then again celebrities arent known for their brains. Emails are extremely unsecured and can be intercepted without encryption.
Click to expand...

The best way to be close to hack proof is to encrypt your whole OS.
 
VanceMack said:
Its that LAST part thats the real kicker.

Personally...I'm all for the death penalty for hackers (and I dont even automatically go for the death sentence for murderers).
Click to expand...

Hey, even though we have the NSA's data center, we now have protections against law enforcement from unnecessarily snooping into your phone. It's now a somewhat protected device.
 
longview said:
We have privacy rights in this country, even a person poor personal choices,
should be kept private, unless permission is granted for it's release.
Click to expand...

Except that hasn't been the case since mankind began writing things down. The only thing that has perpetuated that illusion was that previous media were not that long-lasting. That letter you wrote to your penpal was likely to eventually be trashed and unrecoverable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom