Bear Down Wildcats

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Just a PSA about the picture post earlier. I don't know if that's one of the leaks, but there are a ton of threats of legal action for anyone who posts them right now.

This makes me chuckle...

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Just a PSA about the picture post earlier. I don't know if that's one of the leaks, but there are a ton of threats of legal action for anyone who posts them right now.

That's truly a joke. Like going after everyone who downloaded stuff in Napster's heyday. Empty legal threat.

Streisand effect, they are going to be on the web forever unfortunately

cpt wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Just a PSA about the picture post earlier. I don't know if that's one of the leaks, but there are a ton of threats of legal action for anyone who posts them right now.

That's truly a joke. Like going after everyone who downloaded stuff in Napster's heyday. Empty legal threat.

Hey, I'm just trying to be nice to my fellow posters. If loving them is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Prosecuting third parties posting those images would be nearly impossible.

Salty wrote:Prosecuting third parties posting those images would be nearly impossible.

But very easy to sue them. They have the financial resources to get what they want.

Salty wrote:Prosecuting third parties posting those images would be nearly impossible.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18 ... r-20121218

It's obviously a bit different, but do you really want to be the test case? Or, as Merkin says, get sued back to the stone age?

Hey, it's not my shower, my soap, etc., but the risk/reward of posting those images isn't for me.

Merkin wrote:

Salty wrote:Prosecuting third parties posting those images would be nearly impossible.

But very easy to sue them. They have the financial resources to get what they want.

As a third party?

Good luck.

Beyond pinpointing the one out of a million times that image was shared... They'd have to prove who uploaded it.

That's not easy. Once images are shared... They're not the property of first party anymore. Just because the picture shows a nude image doesn't change that.

Salty wrote:

Merkin wrote:

Salty wrote:Prosecuting third parties posting those images would be nearly impossible.

But very easy to sue them. They have the financial resources to get what they want.

As a third party?

Good luck.

Beyond pinpointing the one out of a million times that image was shared... They'd have to prove who uploaded it.

That's not easy. Once images are shared... They're not the property of first party anymore. Just because the picture shows a nude image doesn't change that.

They can sue whoever they want, including this board just to hassle them. They have the resources to hire lawyers to harass people with or without merit, most people do not have the money or time to defend themselves so give in. Happens every day.

Look at the 97Cats/Ace dilemma going on now without lawyers. Very easy to harass someone.

http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-fap ... hild-porn/

The saga of the illegally obtained nude photos of dozens of celebrities has taken a darker turn. According to Reddit administrators, photos of gymnast McKayla Maroney and MTV actress Liz Lee, shared to 130,000 people on popular forum r/TheFappening, constitute child pornography.

ghostwhitehorse wrote:http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-fap ... hild-porn/

The saga of the illegally obtained nude photos of dozens of celebrities has taken a darker turn. According to Reddit administrators, photos of gymnast McKayla Maroney and MTV actress Liz Lee, shared to 130,000 people on popular forum r/TheFappening, constitute child pornography.

That is another good reason not to get involved in this thing.

ghostwhitehorse wrote:http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-fap ... hild-porn/

The saga of the illegally obtained nude photos of dozens of celebrities has taken a darker turn. According to Reddit administrators, photos of gymnast McKayla Maroney and MTV actress Liz Lee, shared to 130,000 people on popular forum r/TheFappening, constitute child pornography.

Liz Lee's BF was convicted, but if McKayla Maroney sent those images herself wouldn't she also be convicted?

ghostwhitehorse wrote:http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-fap ... hild-porn/

The saga of the illegally obtained nude photos of dozens of celebrities has taken a darker turn. According to Reddit administrators, photos of gymnast McKayla Maroney and MTV actress Liz Lee, shared to 130,000 people on popular forum r/TheFappening, constitute child pornography.

The child porn implications of self-pictures are kinda intriguing. This has been brought up before when you have minors texting pictures of themselves to boys they like. Is the boy (assuming its the girl who is sending) guilty of downloading child pornography if he keeps or shares it or even by receiving it? Also is the girl who took a picture of herself a child pornographer?

Jeez. That's out of control

UofACat23 wrote:The answer to the "common refrain" is obviously yes celebrities are entitled to their privacy. To claim otherwise is just a ridiculous. What happened to these people is just as appalling as if it had happened to one of your closest friends. Hacking and posting those pictures was an incredibly f*cked up thing to do, I don't know how any decent person could argue otherwise.

Yes, celebrities should probably be more careful because they are more commonly the target of creeps like the person who stole those photos, but that's like blaming the homeowner for not buying a security system when their house was robbed. Besides, it's not that crazy to think that your personal computer files are safe from public view. Celebrities are people too and I feel just as bad for them as I would for anyone who had their privacy violated like that.

I'm not defending any hackers. They're the scum of the earth and try to prove so at every turn.

But I also have no sympathy for anybody bringing any kind of a camera into their bedrooms. None. That's where the analogy of the Fappening being just like being robbed falls apart, because what the hackers stole wasn't in these people's homes--it was in "the cloud," off an anonymous server somewhere.

I don't care if it's a camera phone...it's a camera that can take pictures. These aren't "personal computer files," these are photographs.

Wouldn't matter if it was my neighbor down the street--you want your personal space to remain personal, you've got to try a little harder than letting your partner snap shots of your anus for sh*ts and giggles.

Even my closest friend would know better than that, and if he/she didn't, well...sorry for the choice YOU made, and the consent YOU gave.

Like it or not, technology is invasive enough now where each of us have to draw our own privacy restrictions. It would be different if this was an unauthorized third party taking the pictures, but there was consent involved here.

Celebrities are the ones who forget that--and no doubt would do so if it helped their livelihoods. If this gave Jennifer Lawrence or Kate Upton a boost to their careers, 100 percent guaranteed they'd be capitalizing on it right now instead of threatening to sue.

I think too many people use the "they should have known better" argument as a way to make themselves feel better about an invasion of privacy.

Yeah, celebrities and really anyone should know better. That said, it doesn't mean you have to look. A celebrity making a poor choice doesn't mean I'd feel any different about my actions in viewing. I'll happily go on record saying that I'd feel wrong about viewing this stuff, and saying they should know better would only be me rationalizing it to myself.

I find it funny how many people are up in arms about this, but weren't (or aren't now) up in arms when has happened to male celebrities.

Apparently it's only a big invasion of privacy when it's a woman.

For the record, I didn't look at the naked dudes either. The only difference in this case is that I'm actually tempted to.

ASUCatFan wrote:For the record, I didn't look at the naked dudes either. The only difference in this case is that I'm actually tempted to.

Yeah, I thought that was the big dividing line with this one. It appealed to a demographic who was cool posting about how they spent an entire day punching the clown.

For the record, I'm not engaging in any false moralizing here.

Quite bluntly and frankly, what I saw was disappointing, put me in a dark place I never want to be again and made me disgusted with those who find celebrities' asses, boobs and cooters to be some kind of magical revelation.

But with so much more important of our personal stuff being hacked, aired on Facebook or the property of the NSA already, it is flat-out absurd to draw the line of outrage over privacy squarely on what some bubbleheaded actresses, models and pop singers allowed to be put on their phones.

And it is certainly not the "line not to be crossed" the courts should be getting involved in.

All those pics are out there and they aren't coming back. Be more careful next time.

ASUCatFan wrote:For the record, I didn't look at the naked dudes either. The only difference in this case is that I'm actually tempted to.

That fapping site had a link to the whole file they had at that point. Why they had to include Verlander's dick pix is a complete mystery to me.

catgrad97 wrote:For the record, I'm not engaging in any false moralizing here.

Quite bluntly and frankly, what I saw was disappointing, put me in a dark place I never want to be again and made me disgusted with those who find celebrities' asses, boobs and cooters to be some kind of magical revelation.

But with so much more important of our personal stuff being hacked, aired on Facebook or the property of the NSA already, it is flat-out absurd to draw the line of outrage over privacy squarely on what some bubbleheaded actresses, models and pop singers allowed to be put on their phones.

And it is certainly not the "line not to be crossed" the courts should be getting involved in.

All those pics are out there and they aren't coming back. Be more careful next time.

There's no comparison between this and the NSA. The NSA balances security and privacy. This balances privacy against...masturbating. Most privacy debates balance against something of societal value. This doesn't have any. There's no pretense of anything of value, and I'd think for many, the invasion of privacy was why they were into it.

Porn is readily available on the net. I think that a lot of the draw for people in this was the idea that is was without the consent of the celebrity, and that it was "wrong."

It'll be easy to sue, and I don't have sympathy for people who posted them. It can't be a shocker that a wealthy celebrity with a lawyer might sue when you invade their privacy.

I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

catgrad97 wrote:
But I also have no sympathy for anybody bringing any kind of a camera into their bedrooms. None. That's where the analogy of the Fappening being just like being robbed falls apart, because what the hackers stole wasn't in these people's homes--it was in "the cloud," off an anonymous server somewhere.

I don't care if it's a camera phone...it's a camera that can take pictures. These aren't "personal computer files," these are photographs.

Wouldn't matter if it was my neighbor down the street--you want your personal space to remain personal, you've got to try a little harder than letting your partner snap shots of your anus for sh*ts and giggles.

I'm sorry but I really think that's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people taking personal photos of themselves and wanting to keep them private, and just because their iphone automatically backs up their pictures on the cloud doesn't transform these pictures into something they should expect to come into the public eye.

If someone hacked your friend's amazon account and stole their credit card information, how would you feel about that? What if they shared everything your friend has ever purchased on reddit? I guess it's no big deal and not worthy of sympathy- they should know better right?

We all live in a world where our information can be hacked and our privacy violated. That doesn't mean everyone should live in fear all the time and never do anything remotely private online. We take reasonable precautions but if a hacker really wants our information, they can probably get it. Just because celebrities are bigger targets doesn't mean that they should be criticized for behaving like any other person. They are still entitled to the same sympathy as anyone else who has their privacy violated.

Also, this idea that they wouldn't be complaining if there was a financial benefit is a terrible portrayal of celebrities and I think shows an underlying animosity that is both unwarranted, misguided, and overly broad. Some celebrities might be fine with it, but there are numerous others who would not "capitalize" on the situation and would be appalled by that suggestion.

I can understand the argument that they get paid a lot of money for the inconvenience of having the public objectify them, and for a lot of things I can accept that it's a fair trade off that comes with the territory of being famous. However, there is a line, and this hacking went so far over the line I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. Celebrities might need to give up some privacy, but they certainly shouldn't have to give up all privacy, and I can't think of anything much more private than personal photos you keep on your computer.

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

Salty wrote:

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

So you fapped to the pics Salty? Would you like a quick tutorial on how to find actual porn on the interwebs?

1) Turn on your computer.
2) Open your internet browser.
3) Type "www.google.com" into the address bar at the top of the page (if it isn't already your default homepage).
4) Type "porn" into the search field.
5) Begin masturbating to actual pornography.

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

There were over a million visitors to the reddit. I doubt they were there to admire the Ansel Adamsish use of light and shadow in the cell phone pics.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

There were over a million visitors to the reddit. I doubt they were there to admire the Ansel Adamsish use of light and shadow in the cell phone pics.

Do most people need to bust a nut every time they see a tit?

Spiffy and Salty arguing with me? Must be a day that ends in "Y".

I could be wrong, but I would bet that the percentage of people who actually were turned on enough to jerk it or flip the bean to those pics is under 5%.

Now go ahead Spiffy and play devil's advocate, and Salty you can commence with the "I've seen studies that show..." post.

Alieberman wrote:Do most people need to bust a nut every time they see a tit?

Exactly. It's been a long time since the sight of a nipple made me break out the hand lotion. If those pics got you so hot and bothered they prompted an immediate fap session, it might have been because it was your first day on the internet, you're 14 years old (physically and/or mentally), or it has been a REALLY long time since you saw a vagina.

Alieberman wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

There were over a million visitors to the reddit. I doubt they were there to admire the Ansel Adamsish use of light and shadow in the cell phone pics.

Do most people need to bust a nut every time they see a tit?

No, but why else are people seeking out naked pictures on the internet? I'm not sure what I'd find more depressing, seeking these pictures out to whack it or seeking these pictures out to not whack it.

And Chi, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I think it was called The Fappening for reasons other than how awesome that movie was (partially because that movie sucked).

What, guys just like to be able to see a chick naked, then they usually can move on with their lives. It's in our DNA, there is no explaining it.

I looked.

I didn't fap.

JL isn't that hot.

I was just curious what all the hub bub was about.

"If verlander thinks this is bad, he hasn't seen his ERA."

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, but why else are people seeking out naked pictures on the internet?

You really think there's no other reason to want to see people's private pictures than to masturbate? That the only curiosity involves immediate sexual self-gratification?

Do you also think people are fapping to the Survival Pool thread?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:And Chi, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate.

Sorry, it's tough to tell when you're trying to make a point you actually believe in and when you're trying to make a point just to make a point.

Like Merkin, I looked but didn't fap. I looked again later. Still no fapping. I'll probably look again at some point. Probably still won't fap. Mostly because I'm not a mindless masturbating machine who can't see a girl's boobs without whipping it out and beating it mercilessly.

I'm going to look again just to make sure there are no McKayla Maroney pics. Don't want those hanging around my computer.

Merkin wrote:I'm going to look again just to make sure there are no McKayla Maroney pics. Don't want those hanging around my computer.

I only saw the MM thong pic. Were there others that would constitute child porn as has been mentioned in the media reports? I purposefully haven't sought those out.

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:I'm going to look again just to make sure there are no McKayla Maroney pics. Don't want those hanging around my computer.

I only saw the MM thong pic. Were there others that would constitute child porn as has been mentioned in the media reports? I purposefully haven't sought those out.

Head shot to look for:



at least what some other site said was her.

I'm currently working a plastic surgery conference. From 7am to 7pm I am pretty much looking at giant screens filled with nipples, vaginas, and asses.

I'd hate to see the carpet in this ballroom if a few of you were here.

This whole thing is dumb

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No, but why else are people seeking out naked pictures on the internet?

You really think there's no other reason to want to see people's private pictures than to masturbate? That the only curiosity involves immediate sexual self-gratification?

Do you also think people are fapping to the Survival Pool thread?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:And Chi, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate.

Sorry, it's tough to tell when you're trying to make a point you actually believe in and when you're trying to make a point just to make a point.

Like Merkin, I looked but didn't fap. I looked again later. Still no fapping. I'll probably look again at some point. Probably still won't fap. Mostly because I'm not a mindless masturbating machine who can't see a girl's boobs without whipping it out and beating it mercilessly.

Like I said, seeking out private pictures of other that they don't want you to see for a nonsexual reason is something I find creepy too. It's like peering into the bedroom window with binoculars and not masturbating. Does that really make things better?

Hey, maybe I'm weird, but the purpose of looking at naked pictures of at least somewhat attractive women would be sexual. I have no curiosity for candid pictures of celebrities period. I didn't look, but if I did, it wouldn't be because I like candid celeb shots.

Maybe we've got a lot of US Weekly readers here. I don't look at celeb pictures period, so the only possible reason I'd be interested would be the nudity.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I think too many people use the "they should have known better" argument as a way to make themselves feel better about an invasion of privacy.

Yeah, celebrities and really anyone should know better. That said, it doesn't mean you have to look. A celebrity making a poor choice doesn't mean I'd feel any different about my actions in viewing. I'll happily go on record saying that I'd feel wrong about viewing this stuff, and saying they should know better would only be me rationalizing it to myself.

Agree. It's like the "they charge too much" argument to justify stealing music.

"They're just asking for it when they charge that for a CD!"

Lame. Clear theft in a brick and mortar store. But on the Internet, the rationalizations abound.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Like I said, seeking out private pictures of other that they don't want you to see for a nonsexual reason is something I find creepy too. It's like peering into the bedroom window with binoculars and not masturbating. Does that really make things better?

Hey, maybe I'm weird, but the purpose of looking at naked pictures of at least somewhat attractive women would be sexual. I have no curiosity for candid pictures of celebrities period. I didn't look, but if I did, it wouldn't be because I like candid celeb shots.

Maybe we've got a lot of US Weekly readers here. I don't look at celeb pictures period, so the only possible reason I'd be interested would be the nudity.

The good news is that you have been given the opportunity to establish again that you're better than 99.999% of the world. Congrats...

gumby wrote:
Lame.

There's the operative word to describe this entire situation.

The scary nerd who did this obviously isn't the victims' friend, but he isn't anybody else's, either.

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Like I said, seeking out private pictures of other that they don't want you to see for a nonsexual reason is something I find creepy too. It's like peering into the bedroom window with binoculars and not masturbating. Does that really make things better?

Hey, maybe I'm weird, but the purpose of looking at naked pictures of at least somewhat attractive women would be sexual. I have no curiosity for candid pictures of celebrities period. I didn't look, but if I did, it wouldn't be because I like candid celeb shots.

Maybe we've got a lot of US Weekly readers here. I don't look at celeb pictures period, so the only possible reason I'd be interested would be the nudity.

The good news is that you have been given the opportunity to establish again that you're better than 99.999% of the world. Congrats...

Thank you for the compliment, but I didn't mean it as a value judgment. I just honestly have little/no interest in celebrity pictures. I don't browse the magazines near checkout for paparazzi photos, so I wouldn't be looking here unless I wanted to look at naked ladies.

You can find plenty of better looking naked ladies on the internet without any privacy issue. The fact these are about celebrities doesn't do much for me, and there's the basic creepy factor. The whole thing feels sleazy to me.

If I win internet morality points for only being interested in looking at naked ladies who consent, huzzah for me, I guess.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Thank you for the compliment, but I didn't mean it as a value judgment. I just honestly have little/no interest in celebrity pictures. I don't browse the magazines near checkout for paparazzi photos, so I wouldn't be looking here unless I wanted to look at naked ladies.

You can find plenty of better looking naked ladies on the internet without any privacy issue. The fact these are about celebrities doesn't do much for me, and there's the basic creepy factor. The whole thing feels sleazy to me.

If I win internet morality points for only being interested in looking at naked ladies who consent, huzzah for me, I guess.

Oh for the love of god, its amazing how, you can say so much yet say so little. Every post is reiterating the same point over and over. Good for you that you have such strong morals when it comes to this but you could've said it that first 2 times and let it be. How would you even allow yourself to become this pretentious without noticing how stupid you seem?

Oh and please stop going into the psychology of why people want to look at them - consent, no consent BS. People aren't complicated creatures, they just want to look at tits and ass. No different than when Alexandria Daddario is naked in True Detective, or Scarlett Johansson is naked in a movie.

In the end are you right? Yes but you're painting with a pretty wide brush.

Chicat wrote:

Salty wrote:

Chicat wrote:I can't imagine that anyone actually beat off to those pics.

So you fapped to the pics Salty? Would you like a quick tutorial on how to find actual porn on the interwebs?

1) Turn on your computer.
2) Open your internet browser.
3) Type "www.google.com" into the address bar at the top of the page (if it isn't already your default homepage).
4) Type "porn" into the search field.
5) Begin masturbating to actual pornography.

I didn't fap.

But I have absolutely no doubt that some people did.

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Thank you for the compliment, but I didn't mean it as a value judgment. I just honestly have little/no interest in celebrity pictures. I don't browse the magazines near checkout for paparazzi photos, so I wouldn't be looking here unless I wanted to look at naked ladies.

You can find plenty of better looking naked ladies on the internet without any privacy issue. The fact these are about celebrities doesn't do much for me, and there's the basic creepy factor. The whole thing feels sleazy to me.

If I win internet morality points for only being interested in looking at naked ladies who consent, huzzah for me, I guess.

Oh for the love of god, its amazing how, you can say so much yet say so little. Every post is reiterating the same point over and over. Good for you that you have such strong morals when it comes to this but you could've said it that first 2 times and let it be. How would you even allow yourself to become this pretentious without noticing how stupid you seem?

Oh and please stop going into the psychology of why people want to look at them - consent, no consent BS. People aren't complicated creatures, they just want to look at tits and ass. No different than when Alexandria Daddario is naked in True Detective, or Scarlett Johansson is naked in a movie.

In the end are you right? Yes but you're painting with a pretty wide brush.

Chi was the one who said that people aren't interested in whacking off to these pictures, and that's why I got back into the discussion. I disagree and think it was about the sexual nature for most.

Look, disregard my posts if you want to. I didn't let it be because there were new posts. I was under the impression we could continue discussing a topic when people disagree. Sorry for posting responses, I guess.

NYCat wrote:How would you even allow yourself to become this pretentious without noticing how stupid you seem?

I feel like this should be on a t-shirt, but I worry that it's too long of a phrase to work well.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Chi was the one who said that people aren't interested in whacking off to these pictures, and that's why I got back into the discussion. I disagree and think it was about the sexual nature for most.

Look, disregard my posts if you want to. I didn't let it be because there were new posts. I was under the impression we could continue discussing a topic when people disagree. Sorry for posting responses, I guess.

To paraphrase, I posted, Spiffy sensed it like a great disturbance in The Force and had to run to his computer to take the opposite side of the argument.

NYCat wrote:Oh for the love of god, its amazing how, you can say so much yet say so little. Every post is reiterating the same point over and over. Good for you that you have such strong morals when it comes to this but you could've said it that first 2 times and let it be. How would you even allow yourself to become this pretentious without noticing how stupid you seem?

Oh and please stop going into the psychology of why people want to look at them - consent, no consent BS. People aren't complicated creatures, they just want to look at tits and ass. No different than when Alexandria Daddario is naked in True Detective, or Scarlett Johansson is naked in a movie.

In the end are you right? Yes but you're painting with a pretty wide brush.

I tend to agree with this in general, although I would also tend to agree with the distinction of intention between nudity in a movie (meant to show to a wide audience for whatever purpose) and hacked photos from one's phone/cloud storage (not meant to show to a wide audience).

I looked. I was curious. Loves me some Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton. Had no idea who Brie Larson was, but she clearly has been blessed and works hard to maintain it. But like others, I can look at pics of tits and ass, famous or not, without having to whip it out and fap on the spot, so I find the reduction of looking at those pictures to that purpose and that purpose only to be absurd.

Also, let's get something straight - looking at the pictures IS NOT ON THE SAME LEVEL of intrusion as the person who stole them. This kind of equivocation goes too far - I would agree that looking at them may perpetuate such behavior in the future, but it is not the same thing as committing that behavior. Those who looked at the pictures are not the peeping toms, they are those who looked at what someone took from the peeping toms' efforts and published, for better or worse, as those pictures were for all intents and purposes no longer private, even if they were meant to remain so.

While I agree that this was an awful invasion of personal privacy by the hacker - the fact that they are celebrities means nothing as far as any justification for that goes - and that it was another proactively awful decision to make them available for public viewing, the toothpaste was out of the tube at that point, and it is not up to any one of us to put that toothpaste back in the tube. That's for the legal system and those victimized by this to try and remediate, which includes more vigilance by those who were victimized in the first place - we can wax poetic about the theory and philosophy of privacy rights and what we SHOULD be entitled to all we want, but the reality does not represent an optimal view of that theory, and as such people need to realize that and act accordingly with appropriate vigilance. That may be overly pragmatic for some of you, but really there's no harm in being vigilant, and as we saw, potential for real harm in not being so vigilant.

I respect those who chose not to view them based on their own beliefs. I get why you feel that you don't want to witness in that fashion. It's up to each person to decide for themselves - there are things I deliberately choose not to witness as a form of self-care or protection. However, I don't respect the pejorative judgment by those who didn't on those who did - not only is that destined for hypocrisy at some point, it places blame on the wrong party.