Considering all the hysteria surrounding the NSA spying on Americans, is participation in the Fappenning an indirect form of consent for NSA spying? I think participants in the Fappenning and followers of spy like media (paparazzi) reinforce the stereotype that NSA style voyuerism is acceptable.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...earing-about-arent-necessarily-towers-at-all/ or http://www.businessinsider.com/mysterious-fake-cellphone-towers-intercept-calls-2014-9 Rocket River
The problem I have with government hacking is much more than just the hacking. It is the fact that the government and the NSA specifically are supposed to be the ones protecting us from spying. I'm sure if the government finds the culprit, they'll send him to jail for 100 years for doing things that NSA hackers probably do for fun every day on their lunch break for fun between doing truly invasive things en masse on essentially random people. With the NSA, the inmates are running the asylum. The FBI Cyber Crime Division is the check - and - balance on whomever it was that hacked these pictures. NSA is like a cancer in that the normal mechanisms that prevent it from running out of control have been circumvented. So I see it very differently. Unless the FBI just fails at their job, there will be consequences for this hacker for crossing the line.
Readers and reporters in this case are acting out of purely selfish, unprincipled reasons; shouldn't pretend that attempting to curb terrorism or syndicated criminality isn't at least morally or empathically focused if not necessarily grounded.
The government has the power to imprison. The people doing this to celebrities are going away for a VERY LONG time. We know about this happening out in the light. This is a crime, period, but in the end---you had your naked pictures stolen. You're a victim. It's harsh, but not as harsh as what the government could do to you. The government agencies doing this are doing this in the dark. To the extent that they have been caught lying---none will be confined to prison (except for the whistle-blowers who will have called them out). They will have the power to destroy your lives for activities that are non-criminal---power they are exercising now. Ask anybody who is on the TSA no-fly list---such as Laura Poitras, a political documentary maker who rose to fame on dissenting through documentary. You can argue security vs simple trifling horniness, but up to now, we have seen about as much concrete evidence that being a creep and looking at nudies of JLaw has foiled about the same amount of meaningful terrorist plots as the out-of-control surveillance state.
I like this argument because it follows through on the thought. ...BUT on principle, doesn't condoning or participating in the invasion of privacy by the end user (not the perpetrator) create some form of hypocrisy (which I'd be part of) among advocates who argue a sanctity in privacy?
If you go back and look at the Bradley Manning thing, I'm pretty consistent. I thought Manning "embezzled" information from the government and given the contractual obligations of his security clearance contract, he committed a crime. Conversely, the idea that information can inherently be criminal to possess if you didn't directly break the law to get it is ridiculous. I think prosecuting Asange is ridiculous. Once something is in the public sphere it is in the public sphere. Trying to contain it is like trying to stuff the evil back in Pandora 's Box. It socks that these ladies had their information stolen. They definitely have recourse against the person who stole it. But once it is out of your control, it is gone. If I look at something on a website, I don't think it is my responsibility to vet the provenance of acquisition, and I have no legal relationship to the celebrity that would obligate me to help them protect their info. That was their responsibility. It's like Beyonce trying to get unflattering photos taken off the internet. Good luck. Once it's in the aether, you just have to close your eyes and think of England.
Being self-centered, I wasn't pointing a finger at you, but rather posing a question in my own self interest. I'm not concerned about criminality on the subject matter but more about the ethical spirit regarding my principles and boundaries of privacy and as a consequence, extending it to others as well. I'm thinking of the principle of fruit from the poisonous tree (yeah it's rooted in legality...think more of the spirit rather than any law). I know those pics are damn well not intended for me to see. While it's not my responsibility to vet the source, I know it when I see it. Just because Kim Kardashian profited off of being a whoremonger doesn't mean all female celebrities can be implicitly put in that same bubble or be cast in the same light. It's a judgement call. For me, it's not about protecting the info, it's more about consuming the info and the fact that I hate others consuming my info without out any informed consent, implicit or explicit.. On an off tangent, some replies about the fappening was that "she was gonna be naked sooner or later, so it's not that big a deal, and it shouldn't be a big deal to her". That has some rationalization of future consent, but that argument doesn't even have the implict consent like terrible EULAs found on Facebook or Google. It's implying that once you're a female celeb, you're aggreeing that being nude is "part of the job" just like the chance of falling off a building is part of the risks being a window washer. Totally disagree on that front... So yeah, I'm not calling you a hypocrite if it sounded like it. It's more like you had a good response to a premise I'm playing in my mind, and I thought it'd be nice abstract discussion.
All this little episode of drama has taught me is the following: 1) People (even people who really should know better) still have no understanding of the permanence of the internet. If you stupidly put pictures of yourself naked on the internet, they are likely to still be cached somewhere years from now - even if you "delete" them. 2) American culture is still unhealthily obsessed with nakedness. The paradox of a puritan taboo on revealing naughty bits and a simultaneous obsession with them is no better exemplified then in a 24 hour news blitz about some celebrity's tatas. Get over it already. 3) Speaking of news...it just gets dumber and dumber. God help the American who wants to "get informed" via the televised news available there.
1- If you use a device to take pic and have no clue it gets onto the cloud, i said you aren't stupid, you just not aware of how that device work. And the device maker is very much responsible for safe guarding your info when it does thing this way. 2- More about celebrity than nakedness i think. Most companies still don't invest much into security nor care much about your privacy. Beware of the cloud. Don't put stuff up there (knowingly) that you don't want others to see.,
You say this: And then say this: Which is a bit contradictory. These sorts of incidents and associated warnings about taking nekkid pics of yourself on a phone are not exactly new. There is a fine line between ignorance and stupidity.
You can take it to the bank that even in "enlightened Europe" that there are plenty of pervs spanking it to the stolen photos.
On android phone, you take picture, it stays on your phone and go no where else by default. You want it on the cloud, you go through steps to enable that service. On iOS phone, you take picture, it gets onto the cloud by default (not exactly, but most user will have it setup this way without realizing it). You want it off the cloud, you go through steps to disable that service. In the near future, I wouldn't at all be surprise that you have almost no option but to have cloud service enabled at all time. At this point, your phone should be what? Something that you must be extremely careful of all the time? People sure need to be aware of what their devices do, but I place the most responsibility on the technologists that design these and the company that fail to safe guard your info. There is no such thing (and maybe ever) as complete security. But the technology and methods do exists to make it very difficult (and it doesn't necessary costs that much to implement at least basic good security). Apple has huge resources, but didn't care much for their user privacy or protection. Their security on their iCloud is a joke.
Google has been trying to discourage microSD slots in new Android phones. It extends to the Nexus lines and their closest partners. The endgame for them is obvious but only customers can allow it. They have just as sleezy paparazzi culture. Kate Middleton comes into mind...
