The Fappening

Off Topic
41

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I wonder if this will cause a shift in how people think of the internet. I think its best to think of it as a public place and behave accordingly. Even if some parts are more secluded than others, you can still be seen/overheard without your knowledge.

As an aside, they say one of the reasons fewer women are sunbathing topless in Europe is because they don’t want their diddies showing up on social media… but then we do get to see Kate Upton’s, so you have to take the rough with the smooth.[/quote]

I think you are overestimating the technical understanding of many people. Without knowing all the details, it’s pretty fair to think that any one of the celebs took a photo with their phone and did not understand what that little cloud logo even meant. From their perspective it could just be that they have a photo on their phone and had no idea it went anywhere near the ‘internet.’

I have a mac and an iPhone and I was delighted when I saw that all my tabs from my home mac where there open on my phone, but I don’t know if the implications that kind of stuff is obvious to most mac users. I wouldn’t sully my mac with any naughty stuff anyways but not everyone really understands how these things actually work.

You do have to assume everything is unsecured though. At work I put wireshark on while using yahoo chat through the email app and sure enough there in clear text was my chat for anyone on my subnet to see. I suspected it to be so (this is why I checked).

42

[quote]kenny-mccormick wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Meh, jerking it to a nude scene or porno that someone knowingly and willingly produced for distribution is one thing.

This is more like hiding in the bushes outside someone’s window and jerking it while they do their private business.

Seems really uncool and like a huge invasion of privacy.

I’m out, personally.[/quote]
Wow welcome to the internet does your mom know your here?[/quote]

Golly gee Mister, no she doesn’t. I hope you won’t tell her, she’d be powerful mad if knew.

43

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Meh, jerking it to a nude scene or porno that someone knowingly and willingly produced for distribution is one thing.

This is more like hiding in the bushes outside someone’s window and jerking it while they do their private business.

Seems really uncool and like a huge invasion of privacy.

I’m out, personally.[/quote]

On a tangent and not to single you out personally, this for anyone to respond to, but does this apply to any amateur internet porn? Because I think it’s safe to say that there is no way to determine the origin of it was acquired ethically/willfully etc.

44

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Oh yea, my choosing not to view the pics does nothing to mitigate the harm any more than someone else choosing to view them aggravates it.

Edit: (premature submit click) I choose to opt out because I don’t want to participate, but I think people who choose to view it should at least be honest with themselves about what it is.

45

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Oh yea, my choosing not to view the pics does nothing to mitigate the harm any more than someone else choosing to view them aggravates it[/quote]

I think if everyone just ignored stuff like this it would not even exist. Dr. Pangloss, you are not only looking at it but you are actually linking to it. Sorry lol you are very much part of the problem.

46

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Oh yea, my choosing not to view the pics does nothing to mitigate the harm any more than someone else choosing to view them aggravates it[/quote]

I think if everyone just ignored stuff like this it would not even exist. [/quote]

Actually, this is probably true.

47

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Oh yea, my choosing not to view the pics does nothing to mitigate the harm any more than someone else choosing to view them aggravates it[/quote]

I think if everyone just ignored stuff like this it would not even exist. [/quote]

Actually, this is probably true.
[/quote]

Yep. No market, no product.

48

[quote]debraD wrote:
but does this apply to any amateur internet porn? Because I think it’s safe to say that there is no way to determine the origin of it was acquired ethically/willfully etc.[/quote]

Nah, user submitted sights with certain girls/couples who contribute often can be more safely assumed it was an okay choice v one off sets found in the rando smut pages.

Video seems much more obvious.

49

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I wonder if this will cause a shift in how people think of the internet. I think its best to think of it as a public place and behave accordingly. Even if some parts are more secluded than others, you can still be seen/overheard without your knowledge.

As an aside, they say one of the reasons fewer women are sunbathing topless in Europe is because they don’t want their diddies showing up on social media… but then we do get to see Kate Upton’s, so you have to take the rough with the smooth.[/quote]

I think you are overestimating the technical understanding of many people. Without knowing all the details, it’s pretty fair to think that any one of the celebs took a photo with their phone and did not understand what that little cloud logo even meant. From their perspective it could just be that they have a photo on their phone and had no idea it went anywhere near the ‘internet.’

I have a mac and an iPhone and I was delighted when I saw that all my tabs from my home mac where there open on my phone, but I don’t know if the implications that kind of stuff is obvious to most mac users. I wouldn’t sully my mac with any naughty stuff anyways but not everyone really understands how these things actually work.

You do have to assume everything is unsecured though. At work I put wireshark on while using yahoo chat through the email app and sure enough there in clear text was my chat for anyone on my subnet to see. I suspected it to be so (this is why I checked).[/quote]

Agreed.

Most people have no idea that perhaps taking a picture via a phone that it has the possibility of being stored remotely on multiple servers across the world.They may notice that the same picture shows up on their macbook 10 seconds later in a gallery yet many do not ask how that happened. They do not care but they continue using it because of the convenience.

Everything should be assumed to be insecure unless you understand how it works… I do not mean just knowing something will be uploaded to servers but the encryption being used(if at all) and how it is stored/accessed etc but this education will never happen globally.

50

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I wonder if this will cause a shift in how people think of the internet. [/quote]

I doubt it, because ultimately this isn’t that big of a deal to anyone but the women who have been seen naked by the world and didn’t want to be.

Some younger kids and creepy old fuckers will pound out a couple to these pics and in a could months it will be generally old news.

I mean really, anyone that’s been with more than two women over the age of 19, or looked at any amount of porn knows what tits, vagina and anus look like. The variation isn’t that big, really. Tits are tits, ass is ass and vagoo looks like vagoo, some are just more gloriously lippy than others…

In the end what do we know now we didn’t before? That they are into sex, have nice bodies and have tits and a vagina under their cloths?

Yes this sucks for them, and I generally feel bad, but in some ways, no I don’t. It’s embarrassing, but the same people pulling their pudd to titty shots and some pics of vagoo were probably doing so to the fully clothed pics too…

51

I was pretty underwhelmed by the list of celebrities whose photos got leaked, I only wanted to check out Jennifer Lawrence because she’s famous, not terribly attracted to her, seeing Hope Solo’s fat ass was most excellent (I’d bang the shit out of that crazy dysfunctional mess) and I wanted to see Mackayla Maroney’s pics, but now it turns out that she was under 18 when she took the photos so I have since now given up my search.

52

[quote]CLINK wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Oh yea, my choosing not to view the pics does nothing to mitigate the harm any more than someone else choosing to view them aggravates it[/quote]

I think if everyone just ignored stuff like this it would not even exist. [/quote]

Actually, this is probably true.
[/quote]

Yep. No market, no product.
[/quote]

too bad most of us are pervs

53

[quote]xcintrik wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
I think you are overestimating the technical understanding of many people. Without knowing all the details, it’s pretty fair to think that any one of the celebs took a photo with their phone and did not understand what that little cloud logo even meant. From their perspective it could just be that they have a photo on their phone and had no idea it went anywhere near the ‘internet.’

I have a mac and an iPhone and I was delighted when I saw that all my tabs from my home mac where there open on my phone, but I don’t know if the implications that kind of stuff is obvious to most mac users. I wouldn’t sully my mac with any naughty stuff anyways but not everyone really understands how these things actually work.

You do have to assume everything is unsecured though. At work I put wireshark on while using yahoo chat through the email app and sure enough there in clear text was my chat for anyone on my subnet to see. I suspected it to be so (this is why I checked).[/quote]

Agreed.

Most people have no idea that perhaps taking a picture via a phone that it has the possibility of being stored remotely on multiple servers across the world.They may notice that the same picture shows up on their macbook 10 seconds later in a gallery yet many do not ask how that happened. They do not care but they continue using it because of the convenience.

Everything should be assumed to be insecure unless you understand how it works… I do not mean just knowing something will be uploaded to servers but the encryption being used(if at all) and how it is stored/accessed etc but this education will never happen globally.
[/quote]

Agreed that most people have a poor understanding of how the internet works (myself included, I just know that it isn’t particularly secure). I suppose people are still enthralled by the joy of sexting and sharing, but maybe events like this, together with the recent attention given to legislating revenge porn ('Revenge porn' laws: Ministers urged to go further - BBC News), might cause the masses to wise up.

It was recently in the news over here that GCHQ (a bit like our NSA) had been recording people’s Yahoo webcam chats, and basically got a huge trawl of people masturbating, ha.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
gloriously lippy[/quote]

lol

54

I looked at them all, not particualrly impressed with most of them Kirsten Dunst is ugly and looks like she smells like spoiled milk.

What did get me was many of these women/girls are on shows that my 11 year old daughter watches. (McCurdy, Grande, Justice etc)

most of them need to go on the Prof X diet…way too fucking skinny

55

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I looked at them all, not particualrly impressed with most of them Kirsten Dunst is ugly and looks like she smells like spoiled milk.

What did get me was many of these women/girls are on shows that my 11 year old daughter watches. (McCurdy, Grande, Justice etc)

most of them need to go on the Prof X diet…way too fucking skinny[/quote]

THIS! I guess the 1 benefit of having all this leaked though is that it can show the world that these are just NORMAL women. I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

Having said that, I can now comfortably state that there is nothing special about Kate Upton to validate all the people fawning over her. I think I’ve been with multiple girls that have a similar if not substantially better body.

56

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

[/quote]

This might actually be a good that comes from this. I wonder if the people who were violated here could come to terms with it and be on board with this narrative concerning the situation…

57

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

[/quote]

Said the guy on the bodybuilding supplement site.

58

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Okay to dovetail this with a post you made in another thread:

At what point in the conversation about this, in your opinion do we start “blaming the victim”? (If at all.)

Does telling people that nudie photos and sexting isn’t the best idea if you’d be upset if they ended up on the internet “blame the victim”.

Take the perv’s in public taking “upskirts”. Does mentioning that wearing a skirt that goes below the knee, or being very cautious where and how you sit in public blame the victim?

[/quote]

Blame is such a loaded term…

If we’re going to apportion responsibility, I think we should use the “reasonable man” dcotrine. Would a reasonable person believe that their pics were relatively safe stored on Apple’s servers? Yeah, I think so. I think a famous actress would have to know that they could be a target for hacking, and therefore would have to tread more carefully.

What if JLaw had Poloroids of herself hidden under her bed and her house was broken into? I think this is similar. You could say she never should have taken the pics of herself, but I think they took reasonable precautions and had nearly every reason to believe their pics would be safe.

59

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Okay to dovetail this with a post you made in another thread:

At what point in the conversation about this, in your opinion do we start “blaming the victim”? (If at all.)

Does telling people that nudie photos and sexting isn’t the best idea if you’d be upset if they ended up on the internet “blame the victim”.

Take the perv’s in public taking “upskirts”. Does mentioning that wearing a skirt that goes below the knee, or being very cautious where and how you sit in public blame the victim?

[/quote]

Blame is such a loaded term…

If we’re going to apportion responsibility, I think we should use the “reasonable man” dcotrine. Would a reasonable person believe that their pics were relatively safe stored on Apple’s servers? Yeah, I think so. I think a famous actress would have to know that they could be a target for hacking, and therefore would have to tread more carefully.

What if JLaw had Poloroids of herself hidden under her bed and her house was broken into? I think this is similar. You could say she never should have taken the pics of herself, but I think they took reasonable precautions and had nearly every reason to believe their pics would be safe.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I can co-sign this.

Although, I’m still going to use this as an example when I tell my kids not to take pictures of themselves naked and send/keep/share it with anyone.

60

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

[/quote]

Said the guy on the bodybuilding supplement site.
[/quote]

Fair enough but I would like to think I’m of a sound enough mind to know what is attainable for myself and what isn’t. Some of the younger gals and guys in this world see these actresses and actors all covered in makeup and photo-shopped like crazy and allow it to degrade their self-esteem thinking they will never reach that point. I don’t think it’s hard for you to understand that aspect.