Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

http://mashable.com/2014/09/24/emma-...ral-marketing/

I haven't got his 100% confirmed.. So might be wrong, but it's big on social media...

1. If you don't want your nude photos going viral, don't do nude photos and upload.

2. To use this as some sort of argument to stop the internet from being free is.... ridiculous.

Nr 1 is don't ever cloud save anything you don't want being risked at getting hacked, aka don't ever be able to access files from two different computers (that includes phones) without it being placed in local storage (or possibly the local network).

Nr 2, yes it is. Unfortunatly, there's market forces seeing profits in that and the bile that's been coming up with feminism (and computer gaming in particular) has been very nasty (4chan has been using the banhammer due to gamersgate), although I think simply enforcing the rules on say twitter would help a lot vs that.

Ironside, I agree with what you say.





All, whenever I hear about internet censorship, I can't help but think of the (now failed) revolution in Iran. To have a free internet was not only a way for them to communicate the revolution, but also a way to show the world...

With the banstick hitting the internet, we will let governments and companies dictate what you should see, and what you should communicate or not.

Now that is an extremely SCARY idea.


Problems will arise with a free internet. But the benefits will ALWAYS be worth it.

Apparently, the whole thing is a hoax. There are no nudes (in the wild, anyway), and I'm sure the marketing company that did this is about to feel the full wrath of Anon...

The thingy remains. Yes it was a hoax, people who wanted to see it got directed to a site being anti-internet-freedom if I got it right?

So, no nudity but a load of ban-stick. Anyway, the ban-stick on the internet is scary...

Regardless, main point was that the internet should remain the internet

Oh good, otherwise Provost would be too preoccupied for....pretty much anything else.

She's a pretty average scrawny thing anyway.

Lauren Bacall in her prime and Ingrid Bergman

Now there's a couple of lasses....

So, sexual crimes against women should be tolerated because, once again, those stupid sluts haven't taken measures to specifically protect themselves?

I'm not entirely sure this isn't someone from 4chan or something spoofing this. "Brad Cockingham"? It seems like a shell setup to me.

I was led to this thread on a misleading title :(

I thought it was over excitement from my Backroom Video Post, I opened it up and got impressed.

Sexual crimes are sexual crimes, we already have laws to deal with that.

To shut down the free internet to protect women who upload butt naked photos... Well, I see it as another issue entirely.

thats not what they are doing though - they are banning people who post the illegally obtained pictures - this is not a strike against the internet but against immature hackers and their supporters

I see this much like the protection of Free speech - you are allowed to post whatever you like but you are not free from the consequences of what you posted...

In addition blaming the Women for having Naked pictures is victim blaming of the worst kind - don't do it

It's not really blaming the victim - it's common sense. How would we deal with a guy leaving his house unlocked and getting robbed? Would we demand a curfew so there's no more robberies?

No, he would be reminded to lock his house next time and police would go about finding the perpetrator. Same thing.

It is not like leaving a door unlocked at all - they had the images in secure storage and the hackers illegally obtained access - it is the equivalent of the thief picking the lock to rob the house.

Blaming the Women for simply having the pictures in the first place IS victim blaming and you should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise

That is blaming them for being careless, what moody is saying is wrong is blaming them for making the images in the first place.

The last 10 years has shown that cloud storage and/or storage by any private entity is anything but secure. This is a video game forum, did none of us learn from the PlayStation Network hack?

that is on the company's for their shoddy security - its clear they haven't learnt from ANY of the major hacks over the last decade (which worries me about how much data these companies now are "protecting").

The Storage is still supposed to be secure however - to continue Sarmatian's already dodgy analogy - the hackers picked the lock after bypassing the alarm - it still isn't the victims fault at all

Sure, that's on the company but if it is clear that they have not learned, then it should be clear that when you upload compromising pics at your discretion you can not be surprised that this might happen.

There is nothing wrong with the act of taking nude pictures. But you can take nude pictures without uploading it to the iCloud or having Snapchat hide it on your phone without actually deleting it.

As much as Sarmatian seems to have a problem with me, I can see his point that if you assume mobile picture taking apps are inherently insecure (which they are) then it's inappropriate to simply counter by tossing out the victim blaming card.

You can criticize peoples actions without putting the blame solely on them.

It isn't my fault if I get raped... But I still wouldn't go to a gay party dressed in butt open chaps and drink till I passed out.

You have a wonderful talent at undermining your own points.

Of course, a lock and a security system are no threat to a skilled cat burglar. If your home is up, you will be burgled.

Which is why when you cant ensure its safety with a bank vault or something you dont put your precious stuff somewhere someone might actually think is worth stealing from in the first place.

Billy Madison clip

You know, that didnt sound all that great in my head, but I didnt think what I said was "god have mercy on your soul" bad

The price of being a celebrity is that you always have public's attention. That's the very definition of being a celebrity. That's why they are often a target of paparazzi or hack attempts, much more often compared to Average Joe. Nobody would give a rat's ass about yours or mine naked pictures. Keep that in mind if you have naked photos.

That's doesn't mean that there is no crime or no victim, but people should be smart not to place themselves in a position where they can become victims of a crime. Common sense - nothing else.

Politicians have the public's attention too. Ain't no nudes of them that they don't personally disseminate. And yet, actors and famous personalities can hardly be said to be working in the public service, and thereby worthy of careful scrutiny.

Why is it exactly that (female) celebrities should have no expectation of privacy, particularly in terms of strangers not getting to see their naked bodies unless in relation to some approved work or cultural product? Is there no difference between on one hand accepting that people have an interest in your day-to-day living, and on the other coming to terms with an inevitability of elements of that public consuming the most intimate details of your existence at will and shaming you for them?

Celebrities are people too, yo.

That's not because we're nobodies. It's because we're men. The Average Joanne has quite a bit to worry about in terms of absolute risk and personal fallout, but I guess you're right in that they do get much less attention than the rich and famous - when it comes to reporting on their plight...

In typical contexts, we would call indicators that someone were doing so 'unhealthy paranoia'.

At any rate, it's likely that most do quietly take measures, but that these measures fail, as they are wont to do in the face of determined onslaught.

I wasn't going to comment on this topic, but this thread has gotten too silly. First the premise:

The pedobears over at 4chan, who have the attention span and long-term thinking capabilities of a slightly retarded goldfish, supposedly has teh noodz of Emma Watson. And they have not posted them all over the place.

That sounds slightly less likely than Queen Elizabeth being a reptile from outer space.

Second, the police do indeed care about sexual harassment of unknown people. One could argue that they care more about those than others, and the law certainly does. It's more legal to post nudes of famous people than unknown people, because apparently that's free 'speech'. A man from my hometown was convicted two years ago for hacking the iCloud accounts of a few girls and retrieving their pictures.

Third, plenty of the times a celebrity is caught doing "something outrageous", it's simply a staged publicity stunt. Celebrities make money out of being famous, and "having your sex tape stolen" ensures your place in the spotlight. It's showbiz, nothing to care about.

Fourth, this particular case seems to be some social media company wanting to show their skills at viral marketing. Watson may or may not be involved. If she's not, I suspect said company has taken a huge risk which will probably backfire. Bring popcorn.

In conclusion, this incident has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with free speech or internet freedom.

There's a fundamental difference between what people should [ideally] expect and what they can [in practice] expect.

We introduce things like laws to make the can approach the should, but even if we introduced death by a thousand cuts for the stealing of celebrity nude pictures, there would still a chance that it could happen. The only way to make sure that [genuine] nude pictures of oneself that oneself took does not appear on the internet, is by not taking such pictures in the first place.

Essentially no-one is saying that celebrities are to blame for this because they took nude pictures, which would be real victim-blaming. It would of course be a philosophically absurd position to take.

This discussion here is exactly why I don't get involved in this chat. It's amazing the gymnastics people will do to justify stuff.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last