I do have sympathy for one of the female celebs in this instance. Hers is a career that has just been ruined. Most of the other celebrity victims will just find this mildly embarrassing.
I’m sorry it crossed my mind for even a minute that maybe dopers at least could be counted on to limit themselves to sexy photos released with the models’ permission.
I’m not sure how anyone’s career could be ruined by this. Most of the subjects are victims and have suffered various kinds of harm, but not specifically harm to their careers. If anything, this might help some careers, though not necessarily at a price the subjects were willing to pay.
Please explain how a career is ruined by this. Lots of careers have survived nudie pics and even sex videos.
Ask Anthony Weiner.
The real victims are the publicists and agents that had to spend their Labor Day explaining to their clients that they don’t understand how the Cloud works either.
Which one is that?
That was in no way shape or form comparable to this.
There is at least one celeb who will be particularly humiliated by these leaks. Not all of the leaked pics are simply titillating shots of a pretty ass or boobs. I find it difficult to imagine her career taking off after this, but I suppose I may be wrong.
I cant remember her name offhand. Jessica whatshername from Downton Abbey. Hers is a career that will be difficult to get back on track.
I think it’s comparable, if not identical. Pictures of him that he probably meant to share privately became public without his permission.
Statement from her camp is that the photos are fakes. So unless they want to change stances and cop to the photos being legitimate, there isn’t much room for anyone to make an underage photos charge.
He was a married man cheating on his wife, the pictures were the proof not the scandal.
“Sex crime” is a bit strong, but it’s pretty much akin to being a peeping tom - if you’d have problems doing that, you should have problems looking at private pictures not meant for the public. But I guess there are a lot of people who believe they have a right to see tits and that trumps others’ right to privacy. Just because you’re not the one who released the pictures doesn’t mean you’re not complicit if you check them out.
So…you’re complicit if you look at topless photographs of a celebrity that are shot by paparazzi and published in a tabloid?
I don’t view it as akin to a peeping tom, because what makes a peeping tom so skeevy is their physical presence outside your window.
In my opinion, it’s more akin to paparazzi photos, both moreso and less so. Morseo because these photos are (generally) more revealing/explicit than paparazzi photos, but less so because these photos were taken intentionally and consensually by the subjects. Not shared, of course, but taken. So it’s both more and less bad than, say, a paparazzi photo of a nude Kate Middleton on a yacht from 2 miles away using an extreme telephoto lens getting plastered all over tabloid front pages.
EDIT: And while I can intellectually understand a comparison between paparazzi photos and peeping toms, my honest reaction to such a comparison would be “meh.”
It has a level of skeeviness, and breach of trust in his marriage, but it also kinda depends on where you define what counts as cheating. Did he have sex with any other women, or just send them pictures? In any case, it seems his privacy was violated as much as was that of the women in this current hack.
For that matter, the only people I know of in this current situation are the names I’ve read in this thread. Are any of them married (or were at the time the pictures were taken), were the pictures shared with anyone other than their spouse? Would it matter if they were?
Or reading about any sexual encounter of a politician. Reading about them is not so different as looking at pictures. They both detail private acts not meant for public consumption. I said I have sympathy for one of the celebrities, but a few posters are getting a bit prescious here.
Well, this particular theft was committed with the intent (and effect) to sexually exploit people.
The entire purpose of the leak is to expose people in a prurient sexual manner without their consent.
So, it’s a crime . . . and it’s sexual. Pick any nits you want, the facts remain.
He was caught doing something he shouldn’t have been doing, none of this girls did anything wrong. And his pictures were shared by the person he sent them to, not some random third party. It is a completely different situation.