…Creating Hefner’s Law, whose text in total is “If you don’t pose for any nude pictures, there won’t be any nude pictures of you” is exactly finger pointing. Some people for valid reasons decide that taking nude photos is something they want to do. Hefner’s Law does not point out a practical way to partake in a legal activity whilst reducing risk: it just points out that if you don’t partake in a legal activity, that legal activity won’t happen. Which is not helpful advice.
If you don’t stick your ass out the window to fart, it is unlikely to get ripped off by a passing telephone pole. It makes no difference that farting out a car window is (probably) legal and (of course) a personal behavior choice - the telephone pole, steel climbing pegs and all, is right there any time you want to exercise your freedom.
Too many of the arguments here are assuming that taking nude selfies is a harmless personal choice. They are - for probably all of us here. I wouldn’t be grossly humiliated nor my life ruined if a selfie of my dong got out on the webz.
Then again, I’m not a 20-something celebrity riding a popularity bubble made of the thinnest glass to a multi-million, possibly multi-billion dollar future, either. People with that much on the line - on such a thin, fickle, easily damaged line - may have just as much “freedom” as yous’n and me’sn, but they should have thousands of times more sense about exercising it unless they don’t mind being a has-been at 29 because their boyfriend wanted a boobie picture to jerk off to.
As I’ve said already, I’m not the OP. I’m offering my views on the topic just as other people are doing.
I haven’t suggested people should not take nude pictures. My specific advice has been that if you’re taking nude pictures, you should do it on a digital camera and store them on a secure memory card not take them with a cell phone and store them in a cloud.
…if you don’t drive a car, you won’t get into a car crash.
If you don’t walk down the street while it rains, you won’t get wet.
Any more helpful advice you want to give everyone?
Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney, who originally claimed that the photos of her were fake, is now saying that she was a minor when she took them.
I wonder if she’ll get arrested for child porn. It wouldn’t be the first time.
How about this amendment to Hefner’s Law then…
**If it would harm your image to get drunk - don’t get drunk. **
is that sound advice or victim blaming?
Or something a little different
I seem to remember some 47% kerfuffle during the election…for comments made at a closed door, private event. How many people were arguing that the only blame there lay with the unathorised recording?
Yeah…sending that letter doesn’t seem the smartest of moves - she is admitting to creating, possessing and distributing child porn.
It ought to be. I think too many of us are taking the crime here for granted and clucking our tongues at the victims. Here’s more about the apparent flaw in Apple’s security.
For pictures of herself? I don’t think that’s how that works.
I would describe it as a useless statement of the obvious. That’s part of why people keep talking about the OP’s law blaming the victim: it boils down to “you shouldn’t have done that.” Even though you did nothing wrong and someone else went to a great effort to get your personal property.
No one argued that the only blame lay with the recording, because…wait for it. …the more disturbing issue was the elitist beliefs he revealed in the language he used. Yeah, I know, it’s rather cruel and crazy that people judged Romney for dismissing the votes of half the public due to them being no-account government moochers. But I fail to see how his remarks are even remotely comparable to a woman posing naked in the privacy of her own home.
I find threads like this fascinating. In support of the OP’s admonishment, there is always a chorus of posters stridently insisting they are not proponents of slut shaming/victim blaming, that they are just fans of common sense, and yet this chorus is belied by analogies like this one. I don’t get it. How does this happen?
“If you don’t pose for any nude pictures, there won’t be any nude pictures of you.”
“If you don’t have sex, you don’t have to worry about STDs and unwanted pregnancy.”
While neither of us are lawyers, it seems she’s admitting to being a victim of child porn, possibly posing while too young to give consent, and to possessing it.
Possession, Sale and Distribution of it would seem to be the thief/hacker and if so, of course, any website that posts them.
I’m not sure if advertisers on the website can be seen as accessories after the fact, since they made money off of views of child porn, but if active prosecution shuttered/bankrupted a few Mr Skin clones, I wouldn’t shed any tears.
Legally, it has in several cases.
You realize that the rest of us know which direction time works in, right? Do you think there are Hollywood celebrities who don’t have their own opinions about all this shit and can’t make heads nor tails about what to do and who are reading friggin Amateur Barbarian’s advice for next time around?
You can’t give “sound advice” right after a thing happens and actually help the people who were affected by it. The thing already happened. If you wait until after a significant event happens, and then espouse a friendly general rule of thumb which coincidentally has just been violated by the victim in the significant event, people are going to understand what you’re doing. You are publicly pronouncing judgment. This is an obvious thing.
You can say it’s just common sense all you want. Maybe it is, since it sure seems to be common. It’s just kind of perplexing why you guys object to the very obvious implication of your pointing out that you think common sense was violated by the victims of this stuff.
Er. So… blame, right?
Romney was running for president and talking about his politics with a bunch of supporters and donors. I think all events of that type should be open to the public, and it’s very bad news for the US as a democracy that major political candidates are so successful at keeping the media out of a lot of events where they say important things. If someone had hacked Romney’s phone or a private personal account and leaked naked photos of him (and thanks for making me think about this), it would’ve been a violation of his privacy.
I’ve known for some time that they could do that. (Actually, what I thought I knew was that if the phone was on, it didn’t matter if you made calls or not; my understanding was that the cell phone and the nearby towers would ‘ping’ each other every once in awhile.)
At any rate, the authorities presumably obtained this info the old-fashioned way: through a subpoena in the course of investigating the crime. If the murderer hadn’t had a cell phone, but had taken a selfie of him and his victim, presumably that selfie could have been obtained in the same way.
That’s what subpoenas do: they allow the authorities investigating crimes to access information that would otherwise be private. That’s a big difference from private individuals illegally hacking into computers, phones, databases, etc. to access information that would otherwise be private.
Also, I’m not aware of any crime having been committed in filming the speech.
According to Apple, that isn’t what happened.
Short version: Apple says it was a social engineering attack, not an exploit of the (now closed) vulnerability in their system.
Now, you may choose not to believe Apple - they obviously have a vested interest in this not being their fault. On the other hand, it is consistent with some posts allegedly by a/the perpetrator of the attack, and Apple is presumably the only one besides the attacker who is likely to know exactly what happened.
And also also, the problem with the Romney quote was people thinking that the content itself was immoral.
If the analogy is his speech, unfairly captured and broadcast, to the naked pictures, unfairly captured and broadcast, then what we’re saying is that the pictures themselves are morally offensive just like the comments were (to the people who thought they were offensive). It’s like you with the face said: by making the analogy you’re conceding that in fact you are blaming the celebrities for taking the pictures in the first place.
I’ll wait and see. In either case the problem doesn’t seem to have been on the users’ end.
Overlooked in this thread the fact that by virtue of being celebrities, Lawrence et al. constantly have to fend off invasions of privacy from overzealous paparazzi. Some of whom are probably willing to break the law just to snap a juicy pic of them.
So while much ado is being made about how careless they were to take pics of themselves, one should wonder how this “carelessness” is any different from any other action they could have taken, that could lead to similar exposure.
When people stay at a hotel, for instance, most of them are confident they won’t be spied upon and that nude pics won’t be taken and mass distributed. But we all understand this theoretical risk exist; there’s always a chance someone installed a hidden somewhere. The risk for a celebrity is even greater, and yet, who would judge them as careless for “letting” themselves be spied upon by a Peeping Tom in a setting where the expectation of privacy is a given? Locker rooms, public restroom stalls, and exam rooms are all places that someone could be opening themselves up for exposure.
I see no reason why we’re reacting to phone pics any differently. These images were taken on secure devices that were hacked into illegally. They had every reason to expect privacy, and that privacy was violated. No, they didn’t “have” to take nude pics of themselves. But no one “has” to get undressed in a fitting room either. That doesn’t mean make its risky tut-tut worthy behavior.
Oh, that I agree with you completely on that. I just get annoyed when media screws up technical stuff.