Where Milo was all "Oh man, you can control how and where they are stored, so it is relevant to if this was an invasion of property / privacy"
One post later...
"Hey guys, how do I know if these personal pics of mine are saving to the cloud or not?"
Wow.
Mark
Didn't say I cared, I was just curious, as most of the articles focused on the iCloud aspect of things. I assumed that Android would have a similar "cloud" or whatever they call it, but was not certain. I do not have a data plan for my phone, and all of those aspects have been turned off, so I am not overly worried, but I am not as tech savvy as some here, so I thought there would be no harm in asking.
And fed? No worries about nudes, pal. Even I don't want to see that.
Oh, and the reason why it is relevant is that it speaks to the degree of the offence should any charges be forthcoming.
Just "intent" affects what type of charge a murderer faces, so too would the level of security affect the charge for breaching same. In the States, at least.
1. Whether I look at car crashes is relevant how? A better question might be if you asked me if I set up scenarios where I could cause a car crash and then share pictures of that car crash with everyone in the world with no regard for who was hurt by it. Then I think we'd be on the same page.
2. I don't know what evidence exists to suggest that we're naturally voyeuristic. Seems like more of a learned behaviour to me. Though, I have no evidence that I'm right and you're wrong. Interestingly enough, the word voyeur does historically refer to a specific sexual paraphilia though I realize it has taken on a broader meaning in popular culture and that's likely not how you intended it.
3. If I left my door unlocked and got robbed, I would agree that I erred, and that my error was a factor in my being robbed. I would never agree that I caused myself to be robbed or that the perpetrator bore a reduced responsibility for robbing me. Furthermore, it seems as though more information is coming out that suggests that this hack was pretty coordinated and required a lot of effort. The door wasn't necessarily left open, so to speak.
4. Arguing that it's ok because others have "benefitted" from similar events in the past is just baffling to me. Do the wrongfully convicted and imprisoned "benefit" from an eventual settlement from the government? I suppose they do, but I'm not sure they feel very lucky about it. Extreme example perhaps, but similar logic.
5. I don't think we use the word misdemeanour in Canada. Perhaps you're right in the sense that it might be a summary conviction. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would still be an offence, and that offence would be sexual in nature?
Clearly, we won't all agree on these things. Clearly, we don't all agree. That said, I stand by my point. The most important element here is consent, and choice. They didn't consent and they weren't given a choice. The fact that they're celebrities or that they may have made poor choices or didn't understand the technology does not justify their victimization or absolve the guilty.
I suggest maybe we don't have the right to invade someone's privacy, steal from them and humiliate them without any cause except "YEE HAW, TITS", and I'm on a high horse? I guess I was hoping that maybe this was an issue where we could all sit on a high horse. Maybe rise above our sense of entitlement and show some respect for others.
I'm sorry that I disagreed with the majority and expressed that disagreement. If I upset anyone, or undermined my own argument by suggesting people should feel creepy then I guess I'm sorry for that too. Though you should, because looking at naked pictures of people without their consent is fucking creepy.
1. Whether I look at car crashes is relevant how? A better question might be if you asked me if I set up scenarios where I could cause a car crash and then share pictures of that car crash with everyone in the world with no regard for who was hurt by it. Then I think we'd be on the same page.
Similarity is that it is something that is a "negative" to the people involved but, rather than just move on and let them deal with it, people will compound their misery (and that of other bystanders) by slowing and gawking. Drives me nuts to be stuck behind rubberneckers.
2. I don't know what evidence exists to suggest that we're naturally voyeuristic. Seems like more of a learned behaviour to me. Though, I have no evidence that I'm right and you're wrong. Interestingly enough, the word voyeur does historically refer to a specific sexual paraphilia though I realize it has taken on a broader meaning in popular culture and that's likely not how you intended it.
People seem to enjoy gawking at others, in a wide variety of situations.
3. If I left my door unlocked and got robbed, I would agree that I erred, and that my error was a factor in my being robbed. I would never agree that I caused myself to be robbed or that the perpetrator bore a reduced responsibility for robbing me. Furthermore, it seems as though more information is coming out that suggests that this hack was pretty coordinated and required a lot of effort. The door wasn't necessarily left open, so to speak.
Not saying it's Kate Upton's fault. I am saying that, much like my own query, she was incredibly naïve about security of those pics. My comment is more in the vein of WTF?!?
4. Arguing that it's ok because others have "benefitted" from similar events in the past is just baffling to me. Do the wrongfully convicted and imprisoned "benefit" from an eventual settlement from the government? I suppose they do, but I'm not sure they feel very lucky about it. Extreme example perhaps, but similar logic.
Never said it was OK, merely said that it was not much more than a misdemeanour offence. Still think the perpetrators should be prosecuted and possibly sued for damages.
5. I don't think we use the word misdemeanour in Canada. Perhaps you're right in the sense that it might be a summary conviction. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would still be an offence, and that offence would be sexual in nature?
Whatever the term, I doubt you could attach a sexual nature to the charge and make it stick. The theft is a property crime, basically data (1s and 0s). that the pics contain boobies is largely irrelevant, but IANAL either. Willing to bet they would TRY, but also think it would be the first thing jettisoned in a plea bargain.
Clearly, we won't all agree on these things. Clearly, we don't all agree. That said, I stand by my point. The most important element here is consent, and choice. They didn't consent and they weren't given a choice. The fact that they're celebrities or that they may have made poor choices or didn't understand the technology does not justify their victimization or absolve the guilty.
Once again, I am not absolving the guilty, but neither am I going to cry crocodile tears over a bunch of silly celebs who could not be bothered to take the time to properly "lock their doors", so to speak.
Once again, I am not absolving the guilty, but neither am I going to cry crocodile tears over a bunch of silly celebs who could not be bothered to take the time to properly "lock their doors", so to speak.
These responses were even more ridiculous than the first batch and addressed none of the concerns I raised.
However, I do sometimes know how to fold when I'm beat. Nice hand.
Comments
Wow.
tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU
Didn't say I cared, I was just curious, as most of the articles focused on the iCloud aspect of things. I assumed that Android would have a similar "cloud" or whatever they call it, but was not certain. I do not have a data plan for my phone, and all of those aspects have been turned off, so I am not overly worried, but I am not as tech savvy as some here, so I thought there would be no harm in asking.
And fed? No worries about nudes, pal. Even I don't want to see that.
Just "intent" affects what type of charge a murderer faces, so too would the level of security affect the charge for breaching same. In the States, at least.
1. Whether I look at car crashes is relevant how? A better question might be if you asked me if I set up scenarios where I could cause a car crash and then share pictures of that car crash with everyone in the world with no regard for who was hurt by it. Then I think we'd be on the same page.
2. I don't know what evidence exists to suggest that we're naturally voyeuristic. Seems like more of a learned behaviour to me. Though, I have no evidence that I'm right and you're wrong. Interestingly enough, the word voyeur does historically refer to a specific sexual paraphilia though I realize it has taken on a broader meaning in popular culture and that's likely not how you intended it.
3. If I left my door unlocked and got robbed, I would agree that I erred, and that my error was a factor in my being robbed. I would never agree that I caused myself to be robbed or that the perpetrator bore a reduced responsibility for robbing me. Furthermore, it seems as though more information is coming out that suggests that this hack was pretty coordinated and required a lot of effort. The door wasn't necessarily left open, so to speak.
4. Arguing that it's ok because others have "benefitted" from similar events in the past is just baffling to me. Do the wrongfully convicted and imprisoned "benefit" from an eventual settlement from the government? I suppose they do, but I'm not sure they feel very lucky about it. Extreme example perhaps, but similar logic.
5. I don't think we use the word misdemeanour in Canada. Perhaps you're right in the sense that it might be a summary conviction. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would still be an offence, and that offence would be sexual in nature?
Clearly, we won't all agree on these things. Clearly, we don't all agree. That said, I stand by my point. The most important element here is consent, and choice. They didn't consent and they weren't given a choice. The fact that they're celebrities or that they may have made poor choices or didn't understand the technology does not justify their victimization or absolve the guilty.
I'm sorry that I disagreed with the majority and expressed that disagreement. If I upset anyone, or undermined my own argument by suggesting people should feel creepy then I guess I'm sorry for that too. Though you should, because looking at naked pictures of people without their consent is fucking creepy.
PS: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
PSS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/09/01/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-leak-isnt-a-scandal-its-a-sex-crime/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
Once again, I am not absolving the guilty, but neither am I going to cry crocodile tears over a bunch of silly celebs who could not be bothered to take the time to properly "lock their doors", so to speak.
These responses were even more ridiculous than the first batch and addressed none of the concerns I raised.
However, I do sometimes know how to fold when I'm beat. Nice hand.
Forget I brought it up.
Naahh . . . I am white, and have the anatomy to prove it.
Dinobot....Milo.
I've resisted logging in for months. This post broke me.
*Wisers clap*
Don't leave us Mole!
A: Confirmed Creepy
B: Who really faps to still photos anymore?
I do all the time
Dirty snap chats and txts from sluts is the nuts >:D
I keep checking for links, but I'm still disappointed.
Something about this post reminds me of one of the worst celebrity nude leaks ever....
Confirmed celebrity but the nudity level is so far below reasonable expectations.
And yes
A: I'm creepy
B: Still fap to this still.
I am always around. Just my posting time has taken a hit.
Bad read again from Milo. Lowest number of golf rounds for me in the past 25 years this season. Coaching the boys baseball team has been the issue.
I fap to you fapping to this, LDO
This was in my "paste", figured it belonged here too.
bigger bewbs and a glow that is hard to miss
"bewbs".