Just an interesting topic to discuss

[billisonboard]

Words and images have the power that we give them.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

rather than hoping the celebrity's case doesn't get taken seriously just because some others have not

I don't hope that at all. I just do not agree with the rationale that it's "more serious" because JLo is a celeb compared to Jane Doe. The reason it's "more serious" is because JLo has the money to be able to make it a more serious deal.

It's the same thing with credit card fraud, it's written off if it isn't over a certain amount. Which is stupid because all that does is encourage criminals to take multiple card numbers so they can charge a little to each one and avoid prosecution.

It should all be a crime no matter what the amount, period.

If Jennifer Hudson's nude photos warrant an FBI investigation, then Jane Doe's should too. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Granted, I'm somewhat inexperienced, but why in the world would you take nude pictures of one another anyway?  If you are in a close enough relationship to be nude, don't you remember what the other person looks like without having to refer to a picture?

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2014 14:26:56 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Granted, I'm somewhat inexperienced, but why in the world would you take nude pictures of one another anyway?  If you are in a close enough relationship to be nude, don't you remember what the other person looks like without having to refer to a picture?

Some find it is better masturbation material then stranger porn.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'm somewhat inexperienced, but why in the world would you take nude pictures of one another anyway

Cause it's naughty? Some people like to have "homemade" porn.

I wouldn't upload it to my computer though. Pictures would stay locked away on our digital camera's memory card until my children go thru everything after we die.  Gotta create one last therapy session.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 2, 2014 14:30:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2014 14:26:56 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Granted, I'm somewhat inexperienced, but why in the world would you take nude pictures of one another anyway?  If you are in a close enough relationship to be nude, don't you remember what the other person looks like without having to refer to a picture?

Some find it is better masturbation material then stranger porn.

Gotcha.  I guess I'd rather just go grab my significant other and have the real thing.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Gotta create one last therapy session

LOL!!  Ah well.....what's one more?

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2014 14:33:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Sept 2, 2014 14:30:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Some find it is better masturbation material then stranger porn.

Gotcha.  I guess I'd rather just go grab my significant other and have the real thing.

If available sure. But when not ...

[Firebird]

Not sure why exactly Jane Doe shouldn't get her case prosecuted just as heavily as a celebrity. The reason people do these kinds of things is because they know that 99% of the time they'll get away with it.

  Sheesh.  You guys are reading into what I said and skipping right over the part where I said I AGREE THAT THE CASES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED EQUALLY.

Given that they're probably NOT, though (in terms of investigative resources - because both are prosecuted as far as I know), I wanted to point out that the extra attention is BOTH A GIFT AND A CURSE.  I never said that the Jane Doe victims weren't equally traumatized or undeserving of prosecution or anything else you guys seem to be reading into my posts. 

[zibazinski]

Are these pictures really of her or someone put her face on another's body?

[imawino]

Sept 2, 2014 14:26:32 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

rather than hoping the celebrity's case doesn't get taken seriously just because some others have not

I don't hope that at all. I just do not agree with the rationale that it's "more serious" because JLo is a celeb compared to Jane Doe. The reason it's "more serious" is because JLo has the money to be able to make it a more serious deal.

It's the same thing with credit card fraud, it's written off if it isn't over a certain amount. Which is stupid because all that does is encourage criminals to take multiple card numbers so they can charge a little to each one and avoid prosecution.

It should all be a crime no matter what the amount, period.

If Jennifer Hudson's nude photos warrant an FBI investigation, then Jane Doe's should too. 

Yes, I said that I believe that all these sorts of crimes should be prosecuted as appropriate. However, I am guessing any FBI involvement has more to do with some cloud server getting hacked (and whatever multi-national corporation it belongs to wanting that investigated). I say that having only heard tiny snippets of this story, so I may be totally wrong. In the case of a high-school girl who sent a picture to one boy and he passed it around or whatever - that does not warrant FBI involvement I wouldn't think. It warrants appropriate local prosecution, but I don't think you are comparing apples to apples in your anger over one case being treated differently than some others in this instance.   

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 2, 2014 14:34:29 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2014 14:33:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Gotcha.  I guess I'd rather just go grab my significant other and have the real thing.

If available sure. But when not ...

....I'll wait. 

But I get it.  To each their own!  I liked 50 Shades...

[Firebird]

In any case, it's a crime and the blame the victim mentality is disturbing. I think the goal should be that we are saying that hopefully prosecuting in this case would lead to more awareness and for similar cases involving non-celebrity people being taken more seriously - rather than hoping the celebrity's case doesn't get taken seriously just because some others have not. That's counter productive.



The "silver lining" when this happens to a celebrity is that it raises awareness.  Yes, people SHOULD be aware of these crimes whether they happen to "somebody" or not but that's not the world we live in.

In our current reality, people pay more attention when these things happen to a celebrity.  That doesn't in any way imply that the celebrities are more important or deserving of attention, just that they are more visible to the public by nature of their job.

And therefore they can use things that happen to them (especially a widescale attack like this) to highlight something that happens to a LOT of women and is rarely discussed or taken seriously. 

[Firebird]

Sept 2, 2014 14:37:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Are these pictures really of her or someone put her face on another's body?

Several celebrities have confirmed that the photos are real.  I'm not sure they all are. 

[zibazinski]

Doesn't any parent ever say to their child that someone pressuring you to do something you know is stupid is not the kind of person who really cares about you? The old answer for the old question of " If you loved me you would" is still " If you loved me, you wouldn't ask."

[imawino]

Sept 2, 2014 14:40:41 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Doesn't any parent ever say to their child that someone pressuring you to do something you know is stupid is not the kind of person who really cares about you? The old answer for the old question of " If you loved me you would" is still " If you loved me, you wouldn't ask."

What on earth does that have to do with adults taking some photos that were intended to remain private and were then stolen and distributed? People can take nude-selfies and have perfectly fine self-esteem and no daddy issues.

[Firebird]

However, I am guessing any FBI involvement has more to do with some cloud server getting hacked (and whatever multi-national corporation it belongs to wanting that investigated).

This too.  The FBI doesn't get involved unless they have jurisdiction.  Which they wouldn't in a typical hacking/stalking case. 

[Firebird]

Doesn't any parent ever say to their child that someone pressuring you to do something you know is stupid is not the kind of person who really cares about you?

It isn't "stupid" to take nude photos of yourself intending for only your partner to see them in the context of a consensual relationship, assuming you want to do it.

The celebrities did nothing wrong here by sharing images of their own bodies with selected individuals.

The hackers and the people who are actively seeking the photos now are the ones at fault, not the women who took them in the first place. 

[zibazinski]

This was more geared toward HS kids but no one really is dumb enough to think that stuff can never be used. I trust DF as much as I trust any guy but no way in hell would I ever do something like that. 

[movingforward]

The celebrities did nothing wrong here by sharing images of their own bodies with selected individuals.

No, they did nothing wrong; however, I do think it is stupid because the person you share it with might end up showing it to the world.  Especially young teens who are sending out nude photos of themselves to "the love of their life."  Meanwhile the love of their life is showing it in the locker room or forwarding it to his buddies.  Unfortunately, teenage girls can be both naive and stupid.  They think they are in love with "the one" and the "the one" would never hurt them but things often don't turn out that way. 

[zibazinski]

Anyone can be hacked at any time. Period.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It isn't "stupid" to take nude photos of yourself intending for only your partner to see them in the context of a consensual relationship, assuming you want to do it.

I hear what you are saying and while I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "stupid", I would venture to say it's not very smart.  That doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong, nor do I think it places any of the blame on the victims in this matter.  It's just that when a person does something they KNOW the risks FAR outweigh the possible benefits, it's not very smart.

It might not even be a deliberate "outing".  A babysitter might find the pics.  Hubby may have his wallet stolen.  Wife may have her purse stolen.  Really good way to get revenge if the marriage goes sour in a year or two.   Any number of things could happen and all of a sudden, Mrs. Jones in all her glory is splashed all over the internet. 

Risks vs Benefits.  No brainer fo rme.

[movingforward]

Sept 2, 2014 15:00:25 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

It isn't "stupid" to take nude photos of yourself intending for only your partner to see them in the context of a consensual relationship, assuming you want to do it.

I hear what you are saying and while I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "stupid", I would venture to say it's not very smart.  That doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong, nor do I think it places any of the blame on the victims in this matter.  It's just that when a person does something they KNOW the risks FAR outweigh the possible benefits, it's not very smart.

It might not even be a deliberate "outing".  A babysitter might find the pics.  Hubby may have his wallet stolen.  Wife may have her purse stolen.  Really good way to get revenge if the marriage goes sour in a year or two.   Any number of things could happen and all of a sudden, Mrs. Jones in all her glory is splashed all over the internet. 

Risks vs Benefits.  No brainer fo rme.

  You said it much better than I did

[imawino]

Sept 2, 2014 14:54:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Anyone can be hacked at any time. Period.

True enough. But we don't blame everyone who has ever had their credit card number stolen in a data breach for being such a stupid slut and having a credit card in the first place so they got what's coming to them.

If you want to take a photo, you should be able to with the expectation that if you don't distribute it, it won't get distributed. And that if it gets stolen, it is a crime and will be treated as such. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[ArchietheDragon]

It is not stupid.  It is very smart of these women to leak naked pics of themselves.   Best publicity they will ever get.  Just ask Kim K. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I think people need to remember technology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Someone with enough time and enough talent can retrieve just about anything so you can never assume that what you sent via email, your phone, facebook, twitter is truly gone.

It's not like a film version that you can sneak out of your boyfriend's house and burn/shred. Unless someone had the negatives a film image of you is gone once you destroy it. Doing it and saving it on the computer is not the same thing.

But we don't blame everyone who has ever had their credit card number stolen in a data breach for being such a stupid slut and having a credit card in the first place so they got what's coming to them

No but I think most people nowadays understand the risks they are taking by putting your credit card information online and credit cards do offer protection for that kind of thing.   It's a PITA to clean up no denying it but I can get a new card and VISA will delete the transaction.

Your personal picture uploads don't have any kind of protection, once they are taken they are gone and free for everyone to use.  I can't get them back.   I don't think people realize that "private" accounts online aren't really private.  You're just as much at risk as you are using your credit card on a public site.

[zibazinski]

Yup

[Green Eyed Lady]

Very good point, imawino.  Perhaps if there were strict penalities, consistently enforced, people would think twice before distributing something that wasn't theirs to begin with.

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2014 15:00:25 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... Mrs. Jones in all her glory is splashed all over the internet. 

...

And ...?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 2, 2014 15:06:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2014 15:00:25 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... Mrs. Jones in all her glory is splashed all over the internet. 

...

And ...?

....Mrs. Jones may have an issue with her employer or her father or her children seeing her naked, bent over, making the kissy lip face over her shoulder!

Then again, maybe not!