Dissenting Opinion

Sep 3, 2014 10:24 AM

brokenglassgranola

Views

957224

Likes

12308

Dislikes

980

What's wrong with private, intimate photos? Nothing. There is no bad example set. The dumb part was assuming anything online is 100% safe.

12 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 5

Fucking wha? Upvote for effort, downvote*2 for message. Of course people have a right to privacy and the comments above show consensus there

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

I don't see anything wrong with what she did in the privacy of her own home. I see something wrong with people violating her privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

The focus is on crime prevention, not the crime itself is because it is uncontroversial to state the latter as immoral.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

PRIVACY MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU HAVE IT?

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

"Not proud of"? I've had sex with lots of women and I was very happy, proud even, but that doesn't mean I want people seeing photos.

12 years ago | Likes 140 Dislikes 6

You're proud of the act and not of the photos? I understand what the guy means, but, it's hard to put into words... y'know?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I really don't see how any of the celebs were doing anything to be ashamed of, but I can understand not wanting other people seeing the pics

12 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 1

IN this day in age, expect that ANYTHING you make accessible to the internet can and WILL be hijacked. My HDD is only USB accessible ftr.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not the point. The photos are important, not the act itself.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is really simple. She took pictures that were not meant for you. If you have them, it's because you have stolen goods. Simple.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

The focus is on crime prevention, not the crime itself is because it is uncontroversial to state the latter as immoral.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I agree with you - the sad point is the willingness of however many thousands readily snatched up the private property of others readily.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Being ashamed of something and wanting privacy are not the same. I'm not ashamed that i masturbate, doesn't mean i'd want an audience.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

This is the wrong argument, and it's getting kind of ridiculous. This isn't about taking them, it's about understanding security...

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 2

Some days, imgur... some days your hypocrisy and lack of respect for others' privacy is too much for me to handle.

12 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 15

Nah, they're fairly consistent with disrespecting women.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

this is the equivalent of saying the way she was dressed was asking for it :/

12 years ago | Likes 68 Dislikes 22

Yeah, right? So so right. It's got that same feel as she/he was bad so they deserve what they got. Shit made me want to vomit.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Nobody should leak your nudes. Nobody should get raped. But shit happens and you have to take the precautions to protect yourself.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

no its not and I really wish people would stop comparing stolen pics to someone being raped.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Who says they're not proud of them? The fact is, hacking private property and stealing stuff that doesn't belong to you is a crime. End of.

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 2

I agree, that was poor wording on the author's part in his/ her description of the information.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nobody is arguing that point.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

the thing is its not a morals issue. There's nothing wrong with taking nudes. The issue here is the invasion of privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

You have kids? I do and I most certainly don't want them to think sending those are okay until they know the consequences. That being (1)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

said, I feel bad for those who were exposed during this. I'm not going to pretend to completely empathize though when the internet is (2)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

filled with all sorts of people whose sole purpose is to pry into the lives of others. Privacy is an illusion when it's preceeded by the (3)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

word "internet"

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is terrible. Blaming these people is WAY more morally upsetting than anything they did in any of those pictures or taking the pictures.

12 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 7

The focus is on crime prevention, not the crime itself is because it is uncontroversial to state the latter as immoral.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

If I didn't look like a sack of flour I'd probably have naked pictures.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"It's a public figure making a record of something they wouldn't be proud of" BULLSHIT!!

12 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 9

I also object to "proud of". I'm proud of the sex I've had but that doesn't mean I want people looking at photos of me doing it

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Not like they were saved to imgur.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

I agree, his / her wording was inadequate. " a record of what they would prefer the public not to see" would have been better.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I actually misread it and I'm surprised that comment of mine got any upvotes. I thought they were saying "cloud=public info".

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In no way does that make them public. It was saved to what was supposed to be a secure place and they pictures were TAKEN out of that.

12 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 3

Supposed to be secure and actually secure are entirely different. Crime prevention depends on discerning the difference.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

it's like someone going into a private safe and taking the stuff in it, sure your safe combination might have been 0000

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I wouldn't say that it's quite that easy, but most would assume the cloud was safe before hearing about this.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They have not been paying proper attention to online developments, then. If Google's corp. emails can be hacked, assume yours can be too.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

but it's still the burglar that committed the crime. It's not the victims' fault and it's time we stopped blaming them for it.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

We all agree on that, its just this: If i had a picture i did not want to get out, and knew people would be looking for it...cloud storage?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

With apple devices many things auto-upload. One of the victims said she deleted the images years ago.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Id like to elaborate: definitely wrong that these photos were stolen, and i will not look at them because of that. But i am not surprised..

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The point is that the president shouldn't take photos of himself getting a blowjob from his secretary, because he doesn't want people to 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

really sensitive about photos of them naked, they probably shouldn't take those photos in the first place. 3/3

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Oct 30, 2014 3:37 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Third player joins the game!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

<3

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

see it. Yes these photos SHOULD be secure, but it's still stupid to create a record of stuff you don't want people to see. If they're 2/3

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

I'm actually trying to decide which I like better, this or the original

12 years ago | Likes 1974 Dislikes 54

This one

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It's hard to top the foot-fucking-master but this comes close.

12 years ago | Likes 180 Dislikes 1

I was trying to remember the original. That helps but now I want to watch the whole movie again. New gifs are coming, prepare

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

And we all said it using their voices the whole fucking time. AWESOME!

12 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 0

This is actually the director's cut. Available on Blu-Ray.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I was just thinking this and the original is too good. Glad to see I wasn't the only one.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I lost it at selfie-fucking master

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

In the meantime, care for a foot rub Ms Wallace?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I need to rewatch pulp fiction. Haven't watched it in years

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ditto

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I wonder... @TheBOULDER

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

oh good more people justifying how Jennifer Lawrence's body and pictures don't actually belong to her.

12 years ago | Likes 120 Dislikes 25

I know. And then people calling it the Fappening, like it's hilarious to masturbate to someone's stolen nude pics. I find it disgusting.

12 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 9

You know I was thinking. Even if someone got a picture of a pair of shoes in this manner and posted it, I would still be pretty pissed.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

It's a pretty nice post but I don't agree with it. By the way the large majority is not agreeing that her body/pics don't belong to her.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Oh good, more people missing the point. This post isn't saying the pics don't belong to her or that it was right to post them. (1)

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 11

Just that you have to be aware that the possibility of them getting leaked exists and where your trusted information resides. (2)

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 6

that's adorable but no, I got the point, and it's all still focusing on what she did "wrong". BS.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Agreed, she did nothing wrong. But if I had taken such picks they'd been stored on portable hardware if at all and not any internet account

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

And that is good, def.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

OP's not saying that at all. It IS wrong, but if you go into a group of gang members, and start yelling slurs at them, you can expect (1/2)

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 7

Them to do something violent. I know it's a different situation because JLaw and the others did nothing to deserve it, but they probably 2/3

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 5

Should have expected their nude pictures that they left laying around to get taken and circulated(3/3)

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

"left laying around" - the fuck are you smoking??

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 6

It feels like websites get hacked all the time, and celebrities would definitely be a target for that sort of thing

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

While a password is nominal protection, it is widely known that it is not sufficient, especially for highly valued information.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Call me paranoid, but I don't keep anything I don't want discovered in a website. If I want to keep it, it's on a flash drive. That's it

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Oh your finances got hacked? That's your own fault for using online banking & having credit cards. Should've known it was coming

12 years ago | Likes 76 Dislikes 10

I wish I could upvote this more than once

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

I actually heard this a lot at Target after their security breach.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*bangs head on wall*

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've actually had my finances get hacked..twice. One time was my own fault for using a less than reputable website, the next wasn't.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They would be responsible for not making themselves aware of the risks. Widespread popularity doesn't negate the risks involved.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

There are risks with doing everything in life - that doesn't mean it's the victims fault when criminals target them.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is ubiquitous risk, but not in equal degrees. Prevention is still viable.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Exactly! That's why everyone blamed PSN users after PSN was hacked and information was stolen right? *also being sarcastic*

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

Just a thought. This isn't directly comparable as the information lost was still securely-encrypted, I think. I don't remember exactly.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yes I believe it was still encrypted so it isn't the best comparison, but I'm only practically perfect so I do what I can

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

If the bank has a bad history, it is your fault for entrusting the bank with your money

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 10

I'm not an apple fan/user, so I wasn't aware of that they had a bad reputation apart from the "stupidly inflated costs" kind.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Guess they don't like Apple criticisms.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As someone who is an asshole irl what the hell with the victim blaming?

12 years ago | Likes 76 Dislikes 15

No one the victim, but acknowledging the major factor that she is in fact a public figure, and therefore should be more wary of such acts.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

Maybe but that feels really weak. But these were private pictures. I feel people would feel differently if this was a physical theft.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

In the privacy of my own home? Done with and shared with someone I am intimate and possibly in love with? She has a right to privacy too

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

The majority is not victim blaming, they just don't feel the need for black and white arguments and using "rape culture" monnikers

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

at first that was my response, but some of the gleeful remarks like "why take them if you dont them to be see" and so on are messed up

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

extreme sides. The trick is to gauge the amount of people who flock to the less black'n'white argument and decide if you agree. 2/2

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I guess the lack of empathy I've seen for this girl upsets me. I agree with everything you said

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Those people are out there yes, and so are the extremist feminazis having a field day screaming rape culture. You'll always see both 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I was with you until you trotted out the role model shit, like these women owe you a duty of purity or something.

12 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 9

2/2 or not is their choice.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

They are role models though, to kids. To a kid they are smart, funny, rich, perfect, and above normal people. Whether they live up to it 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 7

My dad was a role model to me. He's still a goddamned human being.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

So, because your dad's your role model, everyone's parents have to be theirs? Sorry,but some people have shitty parents who aren't idolized

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

3/4 I don't see why so many here are so pissed at hearing that someone famous may be a role model to a kid. Also, where did I say that your

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

2/? by them. So they look up to others, which may or may not be good (celebrities included). Hell, even comic book heros are looked up to so

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

4/4 dad wasn't a human? And are you implying that famous people aren't?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Look at this:

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

The problem isn't the statement that she's a role model, but the subsequent statement that she's therefore not allowed to be human.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

2/2 are role models. Whether you or the op (of this thread) choose not to believe it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yes, and...? I'm not saying they can't do adult things (which isn't even what we're talking about) I'm simply saying that to some, yes, they

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

This argument sounds too much like "Stealing stored information from other people's cell phones is ok because it's there. Don't have stuff."

12 years ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 9

More like "You should know better than to trust insecure services with sensitive data." Theft is not ok, but one needs to learn risk mgmt.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

After it's already been stolen, it's too late for security measures, but the person who stole it is forever an asshat.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

True, which is why crime prevention is imperative.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My good sir:

12 years ago | Likes 485 Dislikes 56

It always bugged me how his face is *slightly* off just after the zoom-in. >_<

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Roland, is that you?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Aye.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

20 fps, yw

12 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

I'm sorry my phone took 5 min to load that. What did I miss

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

amazing

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I like Leo too, but 20 faps per second? Damn, son.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

not sure which version I like better...

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Enlighten me: is that how it looks like in the original film?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think the film's fps is 24, so it's closer to that. It also has bigger picture size. I added the fade in.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Very nice.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Always expect what you do online to be seen by someone else.

12 years ago | Likes 176 Dislikes 31

This. This should have been part of the school curriculum for at least the last 15 years.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

I've discussed this with people before-no compromising photos of me because even polaroids may be scanned for storage and then hacked.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

My law firm on email: "Never put anything in an email unless you're willing to see it on the front page of the WSJ tomorrow."

12 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Or screencapped and spread around the world via twitter within a matter of hours.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Yes. To be fair, this was almost 15 years ago. They've probably updated it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, sorry, didn't get that bit :D

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I saw a reddit comment of mines on the dailydot, it was weird.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

100%

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

But they didn't do anything online, they did it on their phone. They prob. weren't even aware of the automated backup uploaded to a cloud.

12 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

You can't turn it off. My Google + keeps uploading my photos to a cloud account and I can't remove the app or turn off the automatic upload.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I don't take naked pics because I'm 31 and probably look like a walrus. I don't want to have to go on the lam from the SPCA.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In any case, taking sensitive photos with an easily-stolen low-security handheld computer that happens to have always-on internet? Not good.

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

If you weren't aware your stuff was being backhauled to their server farm, well...

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

The providers of those services tout them pretty hard, and Apple use the automatic backup as something of a selling point for their products

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

As someone from the internet generation(s), I agree but that doesn't make it their fault. Victim blaming is bullshit.

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 6

It isn't victim blaming to say that people should acknowledge the risks of the things they choose to do before doing them.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Pretending anything is risk free is a recipe for bad times. Take protective measures. Letting things leave your control isn't helpful.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You're right, it isn't their fault. Again though, people should know by now the internet has no true anonymity.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Agree completely! I didn't read the post as a public service announcement on IT-security though, I did indeed find it to be placing blame.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It's not their fault someone 'broke in'. Locks keep honest people honest. Being popular makes people want to open your locks even more.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Not victim blaming, lessons learned. Stuff stolen from an unlocked car, not victim blaming to say "Hey, maybe always lock the car".

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Nothing was unlocked. Somebody went out of their way to break into their storage. It was a fucking CRIME

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

It was locked but only in a nominal fashion. It was a crime, but crime prevention is still an unfortunate necessity.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It was a locked car and the hackers were using basically a coat hanger to pick open the lock.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I find the post to try to place blame on the victims. Especially the moralizing, what is wrong with stuffing an iron in your ass?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

And this, my friends, is what is known as victim blaming. As eloquently, and thoughtfully done as this was. It's still victim blaming.

12 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 20

This.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 12

Sometimes victim blaming is justified.

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 26

That would only be considered if it was applied to all crimes, which it is not.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Yes but sometimes victim blaming is justified.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 8

Example?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

You're walking in the road with your eyes closed and you get run over by a driver not paying attention.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Sometimes being never?

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

In this sitution, barely if at all. In some situations, yes.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Example?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

You're walking in the road with your eyes closed and you get run over by a driver not paying attention.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Being a film start isn't a choice to live in the public domain. It is a career choice, how many unpopular actors dont get this shit?

12 years ago | Likes 116 Dislikes 12

No, it absolutely is a choice to live in the public domain. Doesn't make stealing their pics right.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Being good at their job makes them popular. They shouldn't do a job they love/should do it badly because the world at large is shitty?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So they love what, acting? You can't do that without all the fame and fortune, eh?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Try telling that to Anthony Weiner or any other politician.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

If you're going into politics you better damn well know you're going to be in the public spotlight.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

But not entertainment? That's literally a public spotlight.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I'm going to be straight with you, I have no idea what the comment I replied to was, but I don't think I implied that entertainment wasn't?

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

True, but that doesn't make it right.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Never claimed it was. So to that, I agree with you.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Since when did being naked make you a bad person?

12 years ago | Likes 142 Dislikes 9

bad person? it doesn't. dumb person? yuuuuuup.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 14

It doesn't...

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Since the moment it will make a person feel better for looking at stolen photos of nude celebrities.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 8

Since when has anyone ever said Jennifer Lawrence is a bad person?

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Since this meme thing I guess. According to it we should all know better than to take naked photos of ourselves in private.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

You know... Just in case someone steals them.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Not so much in private as on the web. The internet is a central part of many lives. To use a tool without understanding it is dangerous.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They had a reasonable expectation of privacy where the picture were stored. People were wrong to hack into them and take them. No debate.

12 years ago | Likes 114 Dislikes 21

2) might be in the minority here but if someone brute forced my amazon account and bought something I'd probably blame myself

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

3) for not coming up with a strong enough password

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

1) Is anything storing on a server that's reachable anywhere on the internet truly have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Honestly I

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Anyone expecting privacy from NSAware shouldn't be on the internet. Clouds aggregate data externally for a reason. Convenience has value.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Password protected, clearly nto meant for the public eye. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It wasn't private. A drive on your local network is private. A cloud service is public. User accounts are locked doors in a public building.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Does apple allow you to look at anyone's cloud you choose? did you have to resort to things you shouldn't do to get it?

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The intent isn't as important as the ability to enforce the former, when it comes to crime prevention.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Would you store something you want private on the internet? It's ridiculous to think that it's safe, especially when you're a celeb and 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Whether or not they are celeb, it was password protected, and there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I agree with you in theory, but in practice a password is little protection against a concerted hacker.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I never back anything up on the internet, because it's way to risky. This really should be common knowledge. Passwords don't do shit for 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2/2 the determined.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

should know that people will go to great lengths to find out ANYTHING about you. Hell, there's a career dedicated to taking private pics of

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

them (which I wonder how that shit is legal).

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

absolutely they had a reasonable expectation of privacy....doesn't make taking and storing such pics smart though.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Agreed. But that's not the point.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I would argue there are two points: right vs. wrong, and smart vs. dumb. totally think the hacking part is wrong...while

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is the point, I think. No one is advocating the actual hackings, as far as I know.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

posing for/taking and storing those pics on an apple device with weak ass security is dumb of the person/persons in questions

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I agree.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Saying no debate at the end of a post doesn't make you correct

12 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 17

There is no debate. What the fuck are people "debating"? Like autism and vaccines. There is no debate, stop pretending there is one.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

I'd like to hear your justification then that there is some moral ambiguity in hacking and taking private info.

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 4

Storing pictures they only want themselves or the recipient to see on something outside of their control portions them some of the blame

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 12

The question isn't over justifying the crime. It is over the veracity of your presupposition of a reasonable expectation, which is dubious.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But yes people were wrong to steal them, the point of my post though was saying 'No debate' makes you look like an ass in any context

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 11

Well, I'll learn to live with looking like an ass for saying that I don't think there's a debate about stealing private info.

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

This is always the debate... are public figures who are role models entitled to privacy and secrets like everyone else?

12 years ago | Likes 1213 Dislikes 46

you'd think it would go without saying, not if they post those "secrets" on the freaking internet

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yes, they are entitled to privacy, just like everybody else. They are also entitled to have that privacy shat upon, just like everybody else

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Someone is always gonna want to steal your shit, whether you're a billionaire or a bum. You can take naked selfies or keep a wad of cash...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...or keep jewelry or have cars or have nice things in general, but if you don't protect your shit, don't be shocked when a thief steals it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Everyone has a right to privacy. You also basically waive that right by putting it online. Anyone who thinks something they put online(1/2)

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

can remain hidden forever, especially when they are a public figure, is kidding themselves.(2/2)

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The odd part is that their reputation won't really suffer from this. non-celebs get blackmailed or embarrassed, their stock just goes up

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The thing is, most people were just astonished how normal they were. Theres a silver lining here I can't find the words for.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Privacy yes, syupid things like taking naked pictures and sending it no. How stupid are you to do that knowing people will want to see it

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

They are fully entitled to a degree of it, just as everyone else is. They should still act responsibly in regard to such matters.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They are, but they should never expect it. As a public figure, you've a right to privacy, but you should never expect it.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Of course they are, but common sense rules. If I'm a famous person, I expect constant intrusion, and take steps to minimize it. 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

like not keeping nude selfies on my damn phone, but rather on secure removable media.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you put yourself in the eye of the public, prepare to be looked at. If you want privacy, don't be in a situation where it is easy to lose

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

There isn't anyone in here that wouldn't trade their "selfie" privacy for their millions. Not saying they don't deserve privacy but yep.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

entitled? yes. doesnt mean they will get it

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

they should be, but they don't get to. part and parcel of having privileges no one else does

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That isn't a debate. Yes, they are entitled to privacy. Yes, they should be able to expect it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course they are entitled to privacy and secrets. People who need celebrity role models, need to grow the fuck up.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes they are. Yet "everyone else's" private pictures *also* leak from time to time so how would celebrities expect theirs never would?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I thought the debate was whether one of the leaked photos actually has someone with a curling iron in their butt.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You can't have everything, fame and fortune comes at a heft price. That's just the natural balance of the universe. Example: Fappening.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course they are! The problem is they didn't secure their shit. Would you buy a brand new house and leave the keys in the mailbox?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Sep 8, 2014 3:14 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Because taking naked pictures of yourself is better than being racist

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Sterling isn't an attractive young lady. He's a cranky old white man. That's pretty much 95% of it, best I can tell.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Commenting to save your comment for a highschool essay topic later this year.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People are always entitled to privacy, just like they are entitled to possessions, but there will always be an immoral fucker somewhere 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

who is prepared to steal what you got, and people must be aware of this. Keep your shit behind a safe lock and key. 2/2

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

They are but they will have work a lot harder for it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

They are. But like he said, they should know that no stronghold is unbreakable.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

of course they are entitled to privacy and secrets like everyone else, but they will always be held to more scrutiny. They should understand

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not really. They get paid ridiculous sums of money on the understanding that their privacy is compromised, not just based on talent

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

I hate how these pics assume these pics are something they would be ashamed of. I doubt they are; they just wanted to keep it private.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well the FBI sure as hell shouldn't give them special treatment, no matter who they are.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If I'm, in return, entitled to millions of dollars and fame, then yes, they are entitled to privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

No

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is a real debate. Are they their own entities or does the public own them?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think they are, but they should also be smart about it and not store private shit on an online server where it might be vulnerable.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree that whoever stole those pictures and posted them is in the wrong but personal responsibility is a thing, ya know?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Short answer: yes. Not a debate

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes celebrities can get naked but once they're on the internet, even a private service, theres a chance they get out.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

solution? Next time use a polaroid.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

For the amount of money they make they have no reason to complain. Miley Cyrus gets it.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In a perfect world, yes. But this isn't a perfect world.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Legally in the U.S. There are basically no provisions for "privacy," but socially, probably.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I believe they are entitled, yes. I would, however, recommend those in the public spotlight to keep such content better protected.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Role models, of which the desire for possession is the example, selfish or interested desires are destructive of the appreciation of beauty.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. Regardless of profession, you have the public you and the personal you and a right to keep them separate without creeps exposing you.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes ofc, but you have to understand your position. You can't always cross the street without injury just cause you have the right of way.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now that's not entirely fair because they did this in the privacy of their own homes even deleting the pictures. It's sad.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It isn't limited to role models. There is also a debate about medical info on company figurheads and should shareholders have access...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When Steve jobs was dying he knew and could sell his shares before dying instead of leaving his children with shares that he knew would...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Be worth less than when he was still alive (because Apple stock dropped after). He couldn't though, because it's essentially inside trading

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1. Everyone is entitled to privacy, however, those in the public eye need to understand that the price of fame is people wanting to know

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2. rather some people, wanting to know about every aspect of your life. This means they will go to great lengths to know what they can

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

6. yourself at risk for exposure. Hell Pamela and Tommy Lee had their "home movie" stolen from their house. Best practice is don't do it.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

5. that is always connected to the Internet. Even then, if you use a regular camera and try to email the images to someone you are putting

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

4. precaution to try and insulate themselves from privacy intrusion. Like not taking compromising pictures of themselves with a device

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

3. about you. Some people are also disturbed and have issues and may even try to harm you. Therefore, one should take every available

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Why can't they have both?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course they are - this isn't even close to a debate.

12 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

You live in the year 2014, privacy and secrets don't exist anymore.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

People say 'role model' like they're not supposed to do things most normal people do.

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Privacy for everyone has gone the way of the dinosaurs. You can't put the genie of technology back in the bottle.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

We have as much privacy as we allow ourselves. There's a reason there are no nudes of me floating around; I was smart enough to not take any

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

America is soo religiously colored when it comes to morals... "Role model", why would nude pics be something wrong?

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I was thinking the exact same thing. Seems perfectly fine to model healthy sexuality!

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If its showing nipples is porn, and you'll go to hell for looking at them. Unless you are paying for a movie, then its fine.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's a debate? How is that a freaking debate? Of course they are.

12 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

Every person's relationships should be entirely as private as they want and no-one should be looking into them for any reason

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

...unless there is evidence that a crime was committed and the relationship might be relevant to that

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Politicians financial records should be public record but only because of their access to public money and the need to audit.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Read "they need an adult".

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They are entitled to privacy, but should be aware that they have to do more to keep things private(like not use fking icloud)

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

No your not entitled to privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

So you wouldn't mind me creeping in your brush with binoculars or using teamviewer to see what you do with your computer?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Sure but am I "entitled" to you not doing that...no.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Trust me I look, Porn, Netflix, CNN, and FaceBook and YouTube...and whatever podcast of the day to watch. No need to hide in the brush.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

We need to STOP looking at these people like role models, and start looking at them like normal human beings. Which they are.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes. Besides the obvious reason that everyone should be entitled to their privacy I'm going to give you the business reason why actors (1)

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

have an even greater entitlement to their privacy. Most of us don't have jobs that is somewhat dependent on our looks. Actors and (2)

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Actresses do. By leaking their nudes you remove any possible leverage they might have later on. JLaw now can't use a nude scene to get (3)

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

a pay pump for a movie that has one they want her for since everyone already saw her naked. Its the difference between giving out (4)

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Grandma's fried chicken recipe vs giving out Colonel's 11 herb's and spices.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yes they're entitled to it. Should they expect it? No. Be safe not sorry.

12 years ago | Likes 220 Dislikes 17

Should they be given the privacy they're entitled to? Yes.

12 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 8

Yes they should. I completely agree. But will there be people who don't respect that? Also yes.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But ARE they? No. So they should be careful. Because people seldom follow the "should"s

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Of course. And noone should be stolen from and noone should be muredered and noone should be raped...Oh wait

12 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 3

I know, it's obvious, but it's not like they were posting their pics to imgur...

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Yes i know. But its still on the internet. Which isnt exactly known for being secure

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

We should have laws against all that! Oh wait.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

should they store possibly compromising pictures in a cloud? No.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Should that cloud be secure? YES.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Only as secure as your password. And if your password sucks, it can be easily bruteforced.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Easier said than done.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yes, they are. I don't see why this is even a debate. Do people really flat-out think "they're celebrities, they dont deserve any privacy"?

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

When it comes to their bodies, yes. They are entitled.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

No debate here imo. These people aren't role models. They're actors. Why shouldn't they have the same expectation of privacy we would have?

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Role model here is completely irrelevant... They aren't modelling behaviour that is wrong in any way, just healthy sex lives!!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Implying that taking pictures of yourself naked is inherently wrong/bad. Bleh.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Entitled? Yes. Reasonable expectation for it to stay private all the time in a world steadily going digital? Laughable.

12 years ago | Likes 767 Dislikes 23

this. so much this.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

FUCKING THIS.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

An average person cannot expect anything of theirs to stay private anymore. Someone is going to try and dig up something on them. /1

12 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

So people who are in the public eye should know and understand that they have more people digging up mud on them on a daily basis.

12 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

A billionaire is entitled to keep all their money, but you bet your ass people will try to take it, and more than average.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

like my penis size

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This. So much this. And yet people can't seem to understand the reality of the world we live in.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Translation: "Sure they have the right to privacy, but I can't be bothered to honor it CAUSE I WANT TO SEE HER TITTIES YES TITTIES WOOO"

12 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 13

Truth.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Perfectly said.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

NO ONE FUCKING SAID THIS ABOUT THE BUGGED PHONES! WHY DOES IT ONLY APPLY HERE!?!

12 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 5

What? Sorry, I don't speak capslock. One more time?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Everyone says the senators and politicians deserve their pics leaked why didn't that apply here?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Probably because no one wants to see most politicians' naked selfies.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How can one be entitled to the impossible?

12 years ago | Likes 72 Dislikes 6

Makes no sense at all

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

People are entitled to basic human rights, yet it's near impossible that 100% of the world's population will ever have them.

12 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

because entitlements are a human construct and completely in your head? real life isnt fair and it doesnt have to make sense.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Therein lies the rub. Vast difference between snapping a digital, copyable image of yourself and storing it in a 'secure' location and >>

12 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

<< Going to some club. People claiming that stealing an image of sexual nature is on par with ravaging someone physically. Wrong.

12 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

Privacy isn't a right in the constitutional sense. It is therefore a privilege. 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Celebrity status increases social privilege. However privilege has risk. Increased privilege, increased risk. 2/3

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If they don't assess the risks they take, they'll make bad decisions, and suffer the consequences. 3/4

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The argument here, they deserve their privileges, but not to understand the risks and possible consequences of their behavior is foolish.4/4

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But things like this happen to normal people too. Just on a smaller scale. A girl from my high school got nudes sent all over town.

12 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

I love how you phrase this like there wasn't some asshole stealing and spreading them and ruining her life at all.

12 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

I meant to say there's gonna be assholes to whoever you are, famous or not. Ones just going to be more publicly shown.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nope, no perp! Just a girl who 'got them sent' and she brought in on herself, right? The victim blaming is right there in your language

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 5

Yeah that's like say a guy "got himself mugged" because he walked outside at night.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Oh maybe, JUST MAYBE, his way of phrasing it fit under 140 characters. Sheesh. Calm down.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

If that were the case, we would have forgotten about @kylecorn by now

12 years ago | Likes 78 Dislikes 2

Never forget.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Ok, I missed something here. What happened with him?

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Who the fuck is @kylecorn?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You must be new here.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Some of the images/videos leaked were of them changing or using the bathroom. Those are times you should expect not to be filmed.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Role models? They're fucking actresses.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That doesn't mean people can't/won't look up to them. And, in fact, tons of them do.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well that's their problem.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What would be wrong if people looked up to them? They might get the idea that people like to be naked and have sex?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dumbest argument ever. Privacy is privacy and we all have a right to it regardless of whether or not we are a celebrity.

12 years ago | Likes 270 Dislikes 45

True, and I really think what the hackers did is wrong. But nothing you put online is really private. Whether you're a celebrity or not.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

To be clear: I'm putting full responsibility on the hackers for this one. They should be punished. It's still a cautionary tale.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

right, and people shouldn't steal or kill. but welcome to reality, where you still lock your door and shouldn't take nude selfies.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Funny, cause all us people who aren't celebrities tend to know if you don't want pics like that seen, then don't take them.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Looks like this went right over your head. Wow.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Not at all. Just because I disagree with the post or your opinion, does not make me a fool.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ask George Carlin about rights you have. Ask Japanese American who were imprisoned against their will about rights. It's not a right (1)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if someone can take it away at their own choosing (the Patriot act was a lawful invasion of privacy and is still active)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good point, however I feel zero pity for someone who plays with matches and gasoline, then gets burned.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

This made my day. Thank you for not being overzealous as the mob has been.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So just because it was easy to hack those people..makes it ok? Im not sayin they are the smartest people in the world, but that fact doesn't

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

make it ok to do it.I one of you "forgot" to lock your door..its ok for me to go in and take what I want? How is it any different?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not the point. The point is if you are in constant public eye, you have to be careful with what you do, as well as what you say.

12 years ago | Likes 53 Dislikes 10

dude u cant make sense on imgur, it just doesn't work that way.

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 12

I understand the point but it doesnt make it right. Just because a person is famous doesnt mean they have no right to privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Sep 4, 2014 4:46 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Yes,sadly. I just think its another form of victim shaming is all.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not victim shaming, but acknowledging consequences. All jobs and professions have them. For celebrities, it's losing privacy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's a difference between knowing your rights, and taking appropriate precautions to protect them...

12 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 10

Putting pictures on your phone should be fine.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They weren't "on their phone", though, they were in a web-based backup service. And in any case, phones can be stolen.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Phones come with web-based backup services by default.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I strongly agree with you. Well said!

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

Which is only ever brought up in these situations. Don't believe me? Check out posts about theft, or a dog attack. No one asks what 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

THIS! It's systemic!

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

'precautions' the victim took. Even pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

Well, there's such precautions as not flashing your best bling and newest gadgets when walking through a rough neighbourhood.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

tl;dr legal protection is all well and good but it doesn't absolve you of the need to physically protect yourself as well.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Criminal acts are, after all, illegal, but people still commit them.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Leaving all the windows open on your ground floor property then very obviously going out for the evening without any visible security.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Making sure to look whether someone's about to run the stoplight at a pedestrian crossing before you step into the road. Etc, etc, etc.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh i'm quite sure the insurance does.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

As does the police. (that's their job) Not every stranger who hears about it. There's a difference.

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Or taunting / getting too close to an obviously dangerous dog (if it comes out of nowhere, then, that's a different story)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Leaving your bike parked with the key in the ignition and no steering / disc / security chain lock in place.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Oh, and my own personal bugbear: heaping all the blame onto the driver when a pedestrian is run down. Why did they run out into the road?!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

(The annual death rate for pedestrians who stay on the sidewalk until it's safe for them to cross is WAY lower vs those who don't...)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(10) Speed doesn't kill you, it's the sudden stop. And most of the time, you don't suffer that unless someone else does something idiotic.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(7) All anyone concentrated on there was that he was doing 90-ish mph. 50 years ago, that would've been legal on that road, and you don't up

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(9) would still most likely have caused the rider's death, even if he'd been riding at 59.9mph. But, no mention of the car driver's idiocy.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

>>>the other's line of sight, and going at a pace which might be reasonably encountered on a more open road. But, there's nothing said >4>

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(11) Note, this isn't an argument against all limits, or even all low ones in town. There's an appropriate time and place, and you have to

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(8) and die just because you move at a certain speed. The limit there was 60 anyway. The same driver pulling the same stunt a second later

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(13) But if the main human obstacle you're likely to encounter is a full grown adult, we should assume some intelligent agency there...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But, no, it's cuz people drive too fast, & speed limits are too high, so I hope you like averaging no more'n 30km/h cross-city from now on..

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

>>another car whose driver didn't look when pulling out, and said driver died. The jailed guy was going pretty fast, but he was still in>>>

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That and those who pull out from or turn across opposing traffic into side streets without looking. A guy got jailed recently after he hit>>

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(12) suit the running speed to the likely hazards. EG if there's a lot of children about, who are less cognizant of risk and hard to control

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(15) ...and so are able to deal with and properly respond to other traffic that's moving faster than a pony going for a slightly brisk trot.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(14) That, and, if they're at the controls of a motor vehicle, they've had the proper training and testing of their knowledge & skills...

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(6) Ditto a now-infamous helmetcam recording of a dude on a motorbike who died after hitting a car... THAT TURNED ACROSS HIM W/O LOOKING.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(16) (Artificially low & overbearingly enforced limits also weakens their effectiveness as a warning of actually-tricky conditions ahead...)

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

>4> about how his right of way was randomly interrupted without warning or time to react. The accident would have been survivable at lower>5

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

>5>speed, but not avoided entirely, and that's still two written-off cars & possibly some hospital time those involved would have to suffer.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Celebrities are NOT role models. We really need to stop thinking that they are. Role models should be parents and teachers.

12 years ago | Likes 376 Dislikes 41

I agree and if OP had removed that one line, this would have been perfect. "When you're a celebrity, you're in the public's eye..."

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Keyword there is "should." Like it or not, they're perceived as role models. Whether or not that means they have some obligation to [1]

12 years ago | Likes 57 Dislikes 1

I agree that they are perceived as role models but at the same time I disagree that they should feel obligated to behave as such. +0

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

I don't really think they should either but I can see how one might think otherwise. It's a complex issue, imo.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Oh very much so. They're free to be who they are but at the same time should accept that people will be more critical of them 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Because of their status, fame, and perceived(or endorsed) role model-ness.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Vlad Tepes are my role models.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not role models, no. The actual term is "highly visible targets."

12 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

What is right doesn't change the way the wind blows. Our minds can only track so many input points and, for many people, especially (1/2)

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

younger people, celebrities' output is perceived as valuable or worthy of extra attention. They WILL be modeled in their roles.

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Oh for fucks sakes! People look up to them that makes them role models you can't change who people look up to that is not your decision

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

now that, I agree with. but not an excuse for people to invade and violate their privacy and persons

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I agree completely. I know people that are more upset about this than they are about the NSA!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Celebs have higher reputations and are often looked up by many people all over the world, so its best for them to behave like role models.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I think that there are several celebrities who are legitimately inspirational with their activism work. (i.e. Clooney with Sudan)

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yep, because bad teachers and parents aren't a thing. How about good people instead?

12 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

I'm all for parents needing a license to have children.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

OMG!! this needs to be a thing....it's genius

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

human rights would get in the way of it, which is a stupid argument because the kid is entitled to a good upbringing

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

I really don't see how having kids should be considered a right. It's a massive responsibility.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I agree.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So much YES to this ^^^ Same with pro athletes!

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The point is if you're choosing to undergo a career that involves being in the public eye, you have to be careful with what you do.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I always believed the characters that they play, like Katniss, are the role-models, not the actors playing them. They're just doing a job.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Celebrities are role models, but I agree that they shouldn't be. Nor should professional athletes. They are all just entertainers.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not role models necessarily, but they are individuals who are in the public eye is more what they are talking about.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I don't see why teachers and parents are innately better than celebrities, there are terrible teachers and amazing celebrities.

12 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Damned right!

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Some of them are role models. Not because they're celebrities, but because they're damn good people.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I whole heartedly agree!

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Role models, no. People of public interest, absolutely. Their privacy is more likely to be violated. Sad but true.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You a thousand times!

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Yeah, celebrity worship gets ridiculous, but there are cases where a famous person is worth admiring and emulating.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I'm not saying that isn't the case, i'm just saying that there should be more important and more influential role models.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Yeah, I think most well-balanced folks have a family member or personal mentor they hold higher than any person harassed by TMZ

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Agreed.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

looks like some celeb-worshipper didn't like my comment. -1 away, friend

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

behave as such because of society's perceptions and expectations is up for debate though. [2]

12 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 1

but that's not what they signed up for

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't think it is up for debate at all. These people are in the entertainment industry. I get your reasoning, but I don't agree with it.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

I tend to lean toward "no" on the question of whether they have an obligation to behave as role models but I kind of understand the [1]

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

opposing argument. Whether they asked for it or not, they have influence over people. You know, the whole "with great power comes [2]

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

great responsibility" bit. I think both sides have some merit. [3]

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Lol. Yes they are.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

No, they're not.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 12

*doesn't actually remember what he was commenting about*

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, they ARE.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They are in fact "role models". Like an image is a likeness. The value of it can be questioned, but not the content of the concept.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They are only role models because of the laziness of those who are in charge of raising a decent human being.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

No, they are role models due to the visibility they have. No matter the nature of the parent. What fact means can vary widely.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Forbes article on how this isn't a scandal, it's a sex crime. interesting perspective. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx_mobile.html

12 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Oct 30, 2014 3:37 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Interesting as in fucking stupid.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Honestly comparing this to rape is pretty offensive. It's not an attack, it's an invasion of privacy. It's not taking a photo up her 1/2

12 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 8

I posted the link. The article doesn't really compare it to rape, I think reading it will make that clear. I thought it was pretty spot on.

12 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that that one did, but I've seen some people make the comparison.

12 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Ah, okay. Still exploitation, invasion of privacy, theft, and victim blaming, but not rape. Comparisons like those are ridiculous though.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Absolutely agree, it's very clearly wrong. But yeah, comparing this to rape just trivialises rape.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No one is comparing the act to rape, they're comparing the victim-blaming tactics. It's nonconsensual porn, which is a sex crime.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

I have seen people compare it to rape. Not here, but I have. Jesus christ.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

sexual assault and rape are different things.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Ok maybe I used the wrong word, so bloody sue me alright? And I'm sure I could find someone comparing to rape specifically if I tried to.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

skirt, it's stealing her own photo of up her skirt. Yes it's fucked up, but nowhere near as fucked up as sexual assault.

12 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Oct 30, 2014 3:37 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

They're just incorrect, it's absurd.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 years ago (deleted Oct 30, 2014 3:36 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Sexual assault is not just rape. This is sexual assault. If someone were to do it to a girl you know, it would be sexual assault.

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Stealing pictures isn't sexual assault, but taking photos up someone's skirt is... Some sort of sexual invasion. That's what I meant.

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Stealing NUDE photos and distributing without consent IS sexual assault. I's why porn actors and actresses have to sign disclaimers, jackass

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4