QuoteNude Photos Of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Ariana Grande Leak In Massive Hack
Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, and Kate Upton were among a handful of celebrities whose nude photos were leaked late Sunday afternoon following what appears to be a large-scale hack.
The photos first appeared on a 4Chan thread (very NSFW). So far, only Lawrence's publicist Bryna Rifkin has confirmed, in an official statement to Buzzfeed, that the photos were of her client:
This is a flagrant violation of privacy. The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos of Jennifer Lawrence.
The leaked photos were allegedly obtained via a massive hack of Apple's iCloud. They were then posted on 4chan by users offering more explicit material in exchange for bitcoin payments.
"The hacker on 4chan is also claiming to have explicit videos of Lawrence, and claims to have over 60 nude selfies of the Oscar-winning actress," Buzzfeed reported Sunday.
Former Nickelodeon star Victoria Justice took to Twitter to say the photos leaked of her were fake.
The tweet has racked up thousands of retweets in support of the actress and songwriter.
A master list of all of the celebrities whose phones were apparently obtained is circulating the internet.
It includes Cara Delevingne, Kim Kardashian, and Mary-Kate Olsen.
Master List
Imgur/Buzzfeed
Business Insider will continue to update this post as more details become available.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/4chan-nude-photo-leak-2014-8#ixzz3C1h6QeY0
http://www.businessinsider.com/4chan-nude-photo-leak-2014-8
9/11. And now this. Stories so big that when I first heard them, I will remember where I was and what I was doing for the rest of my life.
4Chan posters being amongst the worst scum of humanity? Amazed and, indeed, shocked.
Since Larch notified me first, he keeps his Golden Tilapia award.
I'll send you the consolation prize, Ken Dorsey's jockstrap.
I approve of this flagrant violation of privacy.
QuoteThe leaked photos were allegedly obtained via a massive hack of Apple's iCloud.
Fuckers got my cat photos.
URL for these pics?
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
Will they try and sue Apple for some kind of negligence?
Nice to see hackers using their powers for good, rather than evil.
It's like Christmas in August!
Brie Larson's nipples are Olympic gold.
Mary E. Winstead looks fetching on all fours.
Jennifer Lawrence is just freaking adorable.
They're starting to take the images off that site.
Yeah I seemed to have missed all this fun. :(
Quote from: katmai on September 01, 2014, 03:38:00 AM
Yeah I seemed to have missed all this fun. :(
They're still there. It's the internet, nothing ever leaves, especially not nude celebrity pictures. :P
Though I do regret that visit to the sewers of the internet that, perhaps rightly, 4chan has been dubbed; these celebrities are fucking weird. Who keeps blowjob pictures on an iCloud account? Jeez, I thought I was looking for, at most, a naked mirror selfie or something, not.. that.
Thats the trouble with this consumer cloud stuff, so much of it just uploads all your photos automatically without the user being really aware of quite what is going on.
I approve.
A date which which will live in infamy for all selfie attention-whores.
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 31, 2014, 11:15:17 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
The Fappening? :lmfao:
Man, what a night this must've been, thousands upon thousands of neckbeards slowjerking it to constant updates. Dump Apple stock, invest in Kleenex.
:lol:
Quote from: Legbiter on September 01, 2014, 05:51:49 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 31, 2014, 11:15:17 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
The Fappening? :lmfao:
Man, what a night this must've been, thousands upon thousands of neckbeards slowjerking it to constant updates. Dump Apple stock, invest in Kleenex.
Apple's legal team is probably going nuts about now.
As a layperson I think it would depend on how much negligence there was on their side, how secure the damaged parties could reasonably consider their data to be, and what the contractual terms re: data security between Apple and their customers were.
This is America...our lawsuits can ignore all that and run on emotion and hysteria alone.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 01, 2014, 07:31:08 AM
This is America...our lawsuits can ignore all that and run on emotion and hysteria alone.
So... sorta like "taking a step backwards is running away" Languish, then?
Quote from: Syt on September 01, 2014, 07:29:49 AM
As a layperson I think it would depend on how much negligence there was on their side, how secure the damaged parties could reasonably consider their data to be, and what the contractual terms re: data security between Apple and their customers were.
My opinion is that a celebrity is completely negligent in uploading nude pictures to the cloud. Some of those pictures are conceivably worth 7 figures--certainly well in the 6 figures--in the right venue. Half the world wants access to them. I'm excluding the possibility of Apple affirmatively taking on the risk in a contract.
I'm guessing a large part of the legal profession will disagree with me though.
There's something wrong with about 80% of you. Have you considered Jesus? It's a fundamentally flawed moral system, but for some of you, it might be an improvement and it's pretty easy to get into.
Does this fall outside the bounds of Ethical Hedonism? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 01:12:58 PM
There's something wrong with about 80% of you.
That is probably so, but I'm not convinced this thread is evidence of that. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
Some of those pictures are conceivably worth 7 figures--certainly well in the 6 figures--in the right venue.
not anymore I guess
It's funny how people who consider themselves decent and "white knights", or complain about rape jokes etc. go and watch these pictures and see nothing wrong with that. :lol:
Who? I'm pretty sure most of Languish is retrograde, misogynist and proud of it.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 02:02:05 PM
Who? I'm pretty sure most of Languish is retrograde, misogynist and proud of it.
Damn right.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 02:02:05 PM
Who? I'm pretty sure most of Languish is retrograde, misogynist and proud of it.
Well it was more of a general comment. :P
I thought you meant me. I don't white knight. Women are dysfunctional machines, like everybody else.
I suppose all these pictures would be rather more interesting if I had any idea on who those young ladies are.
Maybe they showed up in a movie or two I've seen, but in truth... their names and faces don't ring a bell.
Now, if you excuse me, I'll be at a corner, felling like 800 years old. :sleep:
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2014, 01:59:24 PM
It's funny how people who consider themselves decent and "white knights", or complain about rape jokes etc. go and watch these pictures and see nothing wrong with that. :lol:
Or for that matter who moan about the NSA violating privacy rights :lol:
Or support wikileaks?
S, that's a good Goddamned point.
Spying is okay if it's by private individuals and it's somebody's private parts! But spying is bad if it's Chinese saboteurs, or, paradoxically, the responsible guardians of our nation's security.
Quote from: Martim Silva on September 01, 2014, 02:15:41 PM
I suppose all these pictures would be rather more interesting if I had any idea on who those young ladies are.
Maybe they showed up in a movie or two I've seen, but in truth... their names and faces don't ring a bell.
Now, if you excuse me, I'll be at a corner, felling like 800 years old. :sleep:
Jennifer Lawrence (the one with the baby face and shaved cooter) played the bimbo in American Hustle.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
My opinion is that a celebrity is completely negligent in uploading nude pictures to the cloud. Some of those pictures are conceivably worth 7 figures--certainly well in the 6 figures--in the right venue. Half the world wants access to them. I'm excluding the possibility of Apple affirmatively taking on the risk in a contract.
I'm guessing a large part of the legal profession will disagree with me though.
I'm reasonably sure that iPhones (and iPads) back up your photos on the cloud automatically, and if they don't do it automatically it's heavily suggested in that "click this button once, it's for the best" way that Apple has.
I'd wager that most people with iGadgets have their photos backed up on Apple's cloud servers, and that many of them have no idea.
Personally, I thought only the pictures I set to "shared" were on the cloud, but it appears that all of them are backed up for my convenience.
I heard it mentioned elsewhere on the net that the people who released these photos have a whole bunch of material - documents, photos, etc - from the servers and that they only released the celebrity nudies to draw some attention, but that more stuff will be released in the future (unless money changes hands).
If that's true, it seems we're talking straight up organized crime.
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2014, 01:59:24 PM
It's funny how people who consider themselves decent and "white knights", or complain about rape jokes etc. go and watch these pictures and see nothing wrong with that. :lol:
Yeah, that is funny.
Do you have anyone particular in mind?
I won't be clicking on those links, not so much because of ethics, but to avoid suspect websites.
I'm a bit like MS, I don't think I've heard of any of those actresses.
Besides what's the big deal, it seems normal now for most actresses to have to get their kit off at some point in their careers, so I guess there's already plenty of nude photos of them floating about cyberspace.
I didn't look at them, because if I want to see porn, I want to see pro subjects photographed by pro photographers. Amateur porn isn't like amateur (HS/college) football; there's no emotional tie to nude amateur porno types.
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2014, 03:56:36 PM
I heard it mentioned elsewhere on the net that the people who released these photos have a whole bunch of material - documents, photos, etc - from the servers and that they only released the celebrity nudies to draw some attention, but that more stuff will be released in the future (unless money changes hands).
If that's true, it seems we're talking straight up organized crime.
I thought they had already found out that it was a 15 year old kid who thought he could make some quick bitcoins.
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2014, 04:13:28 PM
I didn't look at them, because if I want to see porn, I want to see pro subjects photographed by pro photographers. Amateur porn isn't like amateur (HS/college) football; there's no emotional tie to nude amateur porno types.
grumbler got tired of cranking the mutoscope handle. NOW IN STEREOSCOPE!
Quote from: Liep on September 01, 2014, 04:34:06 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 01, 2014, 03:38:00 AM
Yeah I seemed to have missed all this fun. :(
They're still there. It's the internet, nothing ever leaves, especially not nude celebrity pictures. :P
Though I do regret that visit to the sewers of the internet that, perhaps rightly, 4chan has been dubbed; these celebrities are fucking weird. Who keeps blowjob pictures on an iCloud account? Jeez, I thought I was looking for, at most, a naked mirror selfie or something, not.. that.
All your iPhone/iPad's content is uploaded to iCloud by default, if you don't configure it otherwise.
You think it's a good idea to back up your settings and apps at first, and then you forget it uploads your photos after a while because nobody ever checks its iCloud account.
Another problem is that the photos on iCloud aren't deleted when you delete them on the phone.
Quote from: Martim Silva on September 01, 2014, 02:15:41 PM
I suppose all these pictures would be rather more interesting if I had any idea on who those young ladies are.
Maybe they showed up in a movie or two I've seen, but in truth... their names and faces don't ring a bell.
Now, if you excuse me, I'll be at a corner, felling like 800 years old. :sleep:
I know of Kate Upton (some romantic comedy), Kirsten Dunst (the old Spiderman, I think) and Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle).
I figure you must know of at least J-Law? The Hunger Games?
Quote from: Liep on September 01, 2014, 04:58:04 PM
Another problem is that the photos on iCloud aren't deleted when you delete them on the phone.
I think right now, a lot of these cloud things are double-checking their security...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 03:23:18 AM
They're starting to take the images off that site.
The pictures are going down all over the internet. We shall not see them again posted in our lifetimes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
grumbler got tired of cranking the mutoscope handle. NOW IN STEREOSCOPE!
I had to look up mutoscope to understand this post, but well-played.
Quote from: Kleves on September 01, 2014, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 03:23:18 AM
They're starting to take the images off that site.
The pictures are going down all over the internet. We shall not see them again posted in our lifetimes.
Well-done, sir. I wish I had said that.
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Calm down spaz.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Yeah, it's a real secret. Have you considered not being gross?
She does have great nipples.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_le8bfyEKa81qzv7f4.jpg&hash=23d5a00bfcba8d7a61542a6819f9967ec593ddc1)
Seriously, who could have guessed? You possess knowledge now, Psellus, and you can turn it into power.
<insert MISYOGINIST comment here>
What is she semi famous for?
Kate Upton too. I've at least heard that name before, but not sure where.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
I think implants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 06:40:33 PM
What is she semi famous for?
Kate Upton too. I've at least heard that name before, but not sure where.
Probably as a most read story somewhere: "Upton's new bikini shots"
she is justin verlander's girlfriend.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 06:45:24 PM
she is justin verlander's girlfriend.
and to clarify, he's friends with Chris Akabusi's late uncle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 06:40:33 PM
What is she semi famous for?
I know her principally as the voice of Unikitty in The Lego Movie. Excellent vocal performance.Lol, that was Alison Brie. Accurate information is below.
Oh, and she was in Scott Pilgrim, and the (in-story) inappropriate crush Jonah Hill was developing in 21 Jump Street. She was actually like 25 or something, and only barely passes as a high school senior.
Honestly I have no idea who these people are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 06:49:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 06:45:24 PM
she is justin verlander's girlfriend.
Whoa, A list.
I may not have captured her fame. She was twice the covergirl for the SI swimsuit edition. She also became an internet phenomena with these two youtube clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpQgDbqz6U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCUnWIs88CQ&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCUnWIs88CQ&has_verified=1
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Yeah, she's a total A+...but did you see those feet? There were smaller boats at Omaha Beach.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 06:57:31 PM
Oh, and she was in Scott Pilgrim, and the (in-story) inappropriate crush Jonah Hill was developing in 21 Jump Street. She was actually like 25 or something, and only barely passes as a high school senior.
She's was also Woody Harrelson's daughter in
Rampart, and has done a bunch of other little stuff.
She was a bubble gum pop singer something like ten years ago before she got into movies; the fact her biggest hit is a Metric cover in
Scott Pilgrim is telling. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2014, 07:13:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Yeah, she's a total A+...but did you see those feet? There were smaller boats at Omaha Beach.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on September 01, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
grumbler got tired of cranking the mutoscope handle. NOW IN STEREOSCOPE!
I had to look up mutoscope to understand this post, but well-played.
Vets examine dog's bowels with them.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
I may not have captured her fame. She was twice the covergirl for the SI swimsuit edition. She also became an internet phenomena with these two youtube clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCUnWIs88CQ&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCUnWIs88CQ&has_verified=1
It's a shame a girl of such obvious modesty had her private photos exposed to the public. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 07:44:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
I may not have captured her fame. She was twice the covergirl for the SI swimsuit edition. She also became an internet phenomena with these two youtube clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCUnWIs88CQ&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCUnWIs88CQ&has_verified=1
It's a shame a girl of such obvious modesty had her private photos exposed to the public. :(
Hey! She's Michigan fan, so lay off!
She fucking hot. Those hooters are simply amazing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 07:44:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
I may not have captured her fame. She was twice the covergirl for the SI swimsuit edition. She also became an internet phenomena with these two youtube clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCUnWIs88CQ&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCUnWIs88CQ&has_verified=1
It's a shame a girl of such obvious modesty had her private photos exposed to the public. :(
If you consent to something once, then you consent to the same act forever in any context, and even if it's more extreme. :)
Hey, maybe you do have an inside line on CEO ethics. Though I'm pretty sure at this point you're just trolling.
Quote from: Berkut on September 01, 2014, 07:51:08 PM
She fucking hot. Those hooters are simply amazing.
Yeah, a Michigan tradition at MGoBlog is to play one of her bikini dance gifs after every major football or basketball win. She knows about that, and likes it. She's pretty cool about her fame.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 06:40:33 PM
What is she semi famous for?
Kate Upton too. I've at least heard that name before, but not sure where.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471042/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3
I was confusing her with another girl, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2014, 06:40:33 PM
What is she semi famous for?
She used to make webcam appearances dressed like a superhero.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F33.media.tumblr.com%2F24b708ca296e27ebdf99bf1d26d6f083%2Ftumblr_mwii83xmVD1s1q3xmo1_500.gif&hash=97ab53c256f10ca86dbfe47a48b69f20edf0ea45)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 07:56:15 PM
If you consent to something once, then you consent to the same act forever in any context, and even if it's more extreme. :)
Wait a second...while you have a point on the extreme angle, but her career is based on shit like in the youtube video. She is a swimsuit model. :lol:
:grr:
Incidentally, I can't parse what's happening in that gif.
:lol:
She's sitting on a cake.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 07:56:15 PM
If you consent to something once, then you consent to the same act forever in any context, and even if it's more extreme. :)
Wait a second...while you have a point on the extreme angle, but her career is based on shit like in the youtube video. She is a swimsuit model. :lol:
So a swimsuit model should have no expectation of privacy in the rest of her life?
Quote from: sbr on September 01, 2014, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2014, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 01, 2014, 07:56:15 PM
If you consent to something once, then you consent to the same act forever in any context, and even if it's more extreme. :)
Wait a second...while you have a point on the extreme angle, but her career is based on shit like in the youtube video. She is a swimsuit model. :lol:
So a swimsuit model should have no expectation of privacy in the rest of her life?
That is why I said Ide had a point on the extreme angle. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2014, 11:04:29 PM
:lol:
She's sitting on a cake.
She wasted a cake? BURN HER SHE'S A WITCH
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA85bbqV.gif&hash=e4b281ef64d2d7e3dd19c9f62ef6fa1ad9a91447)
Fappening still ongoing?
Quote from: Legbiter on September 02, 2014, 08:17:40 AM
Fappening still ongoing?
:lol:
There are some pics of one of those characters in the archive
L.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Jacob :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2014, 07:13:06 PMYeah, she's a total A+...but did you see those feet? There were smaller boats at Omaha Beach.
Obamaha Breach? Is the next Benghazi?
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2014, 03:41:35 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
HOLY FUCK!
I KNEW BRIE LARSON'S BODY WAS SECRETLY AWESOME! BUT HOW AWESOME I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!!
Jacob :contract:
I don't think this goes against anything Spellus has said or done or claims to stand for?
So apparently Apple is saying this is the result of an attack targetting the celebrities in question's actual account login's, not a hack of the storage in general.
In other words, they managed to figure out their username/password by correctly answering or spoofing security questions.
Ooops.
This doesn't worry me, but what if someone hacks into the Languish Flickr group. :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2014, 05:55:11 PM
So apparently Apple is saying this is the result of an attack targetting the celebrities in question's actual account login's, not a hack of the storage in general.
In other words, they managed to figure out their username/password by correctly answering or spoofing security questions.
Ooops.
Yes, but apparently the system allowed the hackers to use brute force techniques - try 1000s of passwords until one worked.
Or just read a celebrity interview in Vogue. What's her dog's name? Muffins?
PASSWORD: MUFFINS
THANK YOU!
Too fat, too old.
Somebody tried to hack my Facebook account yesterday. Does this mean I'm a celeb?
Quote from: mongers on September 02, 2014, 06:11:17 PM
This doesn't worry me, but what if someone hacks into the Languish Flickr group. :unsure:
The one with all the sex photos or the other one?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2014, 06:33:46 PM
Or just read a celebrity interview in Vogue. What's her dog's name? Muffins?
PASSWORD: MUFFINS
THANK YOU!
Actually they were saying the real problem was with Security QUestions.
You've forgotten your password? No worries, we can reset it!
What is your mothers maiden name? BECAUSE NOBODY COULD FIGURE THAT OUT FOR A CELEBRITY....
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 31, 2014, 11:15:17 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
Is there a new location?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 02, 2014, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 31, 2014, 11:15:17 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
Is there a new location?
How about you look around for yourself, this damn generation.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 02, 2014, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 31, 2014, 11:15:17 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
Is there a new location?
Why do you want to see old fat people naked?
Siege, I'm unsure which path the singularity will take us...
On the one hand, the singularity will be able to crack any security system, and thus provide us with naked selfies of all hot celebrities.
On the other hand, the singularity will be able to design secure systems that are unhackable, denying us naked selfies of any hot celebrities.
Which do you see as the true way of the singularity?
Is YHWH able to create a boulder so heavy that He can't lift it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2014, 10:47:13 PM
Is YHWH able to create a boulder so heavy that He can't lift it?
I'm really interested in the answers to questions like this one. I can't wait for the singularity to tell us what they are.
I'm expecting the Singularity will allow us to have virtual sex with any hot celebrity we want. Or maybe actual sex with a replica. :hmm:
Singularity's just going to fuck with our private space and Me Time. Might as well get married.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 06:32:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2014, 05:55:11 PM
So apparently Apple is saying this is the result of an attack targetting the celebrities in question's actual account login's, not a hack of the storage in general.
In other words, they managed to figure out their username/password by correctly answering or spoofing security questions.
Ooops.
Yes, but apparently the system allowed the hackers to use brute force techniques - try 1000s of passwords until one worked.
This can take minutes to succeed with a weak password.
Set up a piece of software called a dictionary bot to probe an open IP that accepts incoming remote control requests.
You still need to login which your bot tries with username "admin" or "administrator" or "root" and for the password, starting with the first "a" word in the dictionary on through to the last "z" word.
Chances are "muffins" up above was cracked after an hour.
EDIT: If you have logmein.com or teamviewer or VNC or Microsoft remote desktop installed / enabled... then your router is listening for those remote access requests and certainly being bombarded with access queries. Strong passwords are the only thing keeping those requests at bay (unless it's a request by the NSA... they have a backdoor apparently).
We always appreciated the Linux team that would always set up test accounts with the user name as "User Name" and the password as "Password" on a Friday and then forget about it until the damage was done by Monday.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
We always appreciated the Linux team that would always set up test accounts with the user name as "User Name" and the password as "Password" on a Friday and then forget about it until the damage was done by Monday.
Best passwords: Think up a random three word phrase that only you will know. Separate them with a number or wildcard character.
So for CdM it might be "Baltimore6Asian9Unemployed". No one is going to crack that.
Still needs at least two special characters. :P
M3S0H0rny#<3Ulongtime
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2014, 10:37:17 PM
Why do you want to see old fat people naked?
Really? I thought you'd be all over the Selena Gomez pics. :P
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2014, 10:37:17 PM
Why do you want to see old fat people naked?
Why are you trying to get people to log on to your pedo sites instead of the standard porn sites? I'd think you would want to discourage that and encourage people to look at naked normal adults rather than your skinny jailbait.
Man, some of you are in for it once Meri reads this thread :(
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Indeed. It will be hilarious to see her go to jail for taking pictures of a nude child (if she took the pictures; it it was a boyfriend, he is in even bigger trouble).
Quote from: PRC on September 03, 2014, 12:15:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
We always appreciated the Linux team that would always set up test accounts with the user name as "User Name" and the password as "Password" on a Friday and then forget about it until the damage was done by Monday.
Best passwords: Think up a random three word phrase that only you will know. Separate them with a number or wildcard character.
So for CdM it might be "Baltimore6Asian9Unemployed". No one is going to crack that.
Nah, the cool thing I do with my security question answers is that I make them up.
"What is the name of the street you grew up on?"
"123 Cul de Ballsac."
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Actually, why stop at the distributers? What about the downloaders? We could possibly put 10s of millions in jail for years, and add as many to the sex offender registeries. Think how much safer our streets will be. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2014, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Actually, why stop at the distributers? What about the downloaders? We could possibly put 10s of millions in jail for years, and add as many to the sex offender registeries. Think how much safer our streets will be. :)
:thumbsup:
If any of you grabbed any nude pics of McKayla Maroney I'd be formatting your hard drive about now.
I think we should extend it to anyone who makes posts about nude photos of that girl. Even safer.
If she denies it's her how do you prove the kiddie porn angle?
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
:thumbsup:
If any of you grabbed any nude pics of McKayla Maroney I'd be formatting your hard drive about now.
Or just viewed them. The evidence of what you did is probably in your cache.
Quote from: HVC on September 03, 2014, 02:44:18 PM
If she denies it's her how do you prove the kiddie porn angle?
Her lawyer confirm's it's her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741448/Leaked-photos-Olympic-gymnast-Mckayla.html
Oh yeah, how does he know?? Preverts are everwhere!!1
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
I occasionally do gaol time for Languish stuff thanks to BB.
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2014, 03:34:43 PM
I occasionally do gaol time for Languish stuff thanks to BB.
I thought you said what you do is legal in Sweden. :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2014, 03:36:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2014, 03:34:43 PM
I occasionally do gaol time for Languish stuff thanks to BB.
I thought you said what you do is legal in Sweden. :unsure:
Languish isn't in Sweden.
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
Whoosh is right - whatever point you were trying to make completely escapes me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
Whoosh is right - whatever point you were trying to make completely escapes me.
Throw him in gaol until he starts making sense! :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
Whoosh is right - whatever point you were trying to make completely escapes me.
That you have an authoritarian streak running through you're character.
Quote from: Malthus on September 03, 2014, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
Whoosh is right - whatever point you were trying to make completely escapes me.
Throw him in gaol until he starts making sense! :contract:
:lol:
This article is not too far from how I feel about this: http://www.playboy.com/articles/jennifer-lawrence-nudes
I did a quick search for the pictures when they first came up, but the first few links were empty. Since then, I haven't looked; though I'm still interested.
But even though I'm interested - and even though I might in fact look at some of those pictures at some point, it doesn't make doing so not wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong to hack those pictures in the first place, to distribute them, to look at them, and to celebrate looking at them.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2014, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Actually, why stop at the distributers? What about the downloaders? We could possibly put 10s of millions in jail for years, and add as many to the sex offender registeries. Think how much safer our streets will be. :)
:thumbsup:
If any of you grabbed any nude pics of McKayla Maroney I'd be formatting your hard drive about now.
Could one could interpret this as a crown prosecutor giving potential child pornographers advice on how to destroy the evidence of their crimes. :hmm:
I for one haven't considered looking at the pics. It would be tacky.
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2014, 04:23:22 PM
I for one haven't considered looking at the pics. It would be tacky.
Use kleenex.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2014, 04:19:52 PM
This article is not too far from how I feel about this: http://www.playboy.com/articles/jennifer-lawrence-nudes
I did a quick search for the pictures when they first came up, but the first few links were empty. Since then, I haven't looked; though I'm still interested.
But even though I'm interested - and even though I might in fact look at some of those pictures at some point, it doesn't make doing so not wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong to hack those pictures in the first place, to distribute them, to look at them, and to celebrate looking at them.
Is there really any debate about that?
I mean, among actual rational people?
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
Is there really any debate about that?
I mean, among actual rational people?
Well, there certainly seems to be a fair bit of celebratory content generated in response. Whether you consider those people, or the people who ignore the issue all together and just discuss the aesthetics of the pictures, as rational is your call.
For one thread I get to avoid Jake's judgment :showoff:
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2014, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
Is there really any debate about that?
I mean, among actual rational people?
Well, there certainly seems to be a fair bit of celebratory content generated in response. Whether you consider those people, or the people who ignore the issue all together and just discuss the aesthetics of the pictures, as rational is your call.
People who rationalize this are basically the same as people who rationalize speeding regularly.
Personally, I am ok with accepting that (like speeding) this is something that is clearly morally wrong, yet the evaluation of added harm done to the victim is trivial enough that I probably would not let it me deter me from checking them out if I find them interesting.
So I think I am fine with accepting that I should not look at this in a strictly moral sense, but willing to live with it. I think most people, even those who try to rationalize, know that it is, of course, wrong to look at someone private stuff if they don't want you to do so.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2014, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2014, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
Actually, why stop at the distributers? What about the downloaders? We could possibly put 10s of millions in jail for years, and add as many to the sex offender registeries. Think how much safer our streets will be. :)
:thumbsup:
If any of you grabbed any nude pics of McKayla Maroney I'd be formatting your hard drive about now.
Could one could interpret this as a crown prosecutor giving potential child pornographers advice on how to destroy the evidence of their crimes. :hmm:
I view it as advising people who are in the possession of child pornography a way to destroy said child pornography. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
For one thread I get to avoid Jake's judgment :showoff:
It is touching that my judgment means more to you than BB's :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2014, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
For one thread I get to avoid Jake's judgment :showoff:
It is touching that my judgment means more to you than BB's :hug:
Truly, the judgment of Canadians is a mighty force. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Has BB gotten around to shopping the whole membership list of Languish to the 'authorities' yet? Just to be on the safe-side, as after all some of us did read this thread on the pictures and all of us would have seen the thread title on the Index page.
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Whoosh.
Whoosh is right - whatever point you were trying to make completely escapes me.
That you have an authoritarian streak running through you're character.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It's only his morality that's inadequate. His character is sterling.
Quote from: Malthus on September 03, 2014, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2014, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
For one thread I get to avoid Jake's judgment :showoff:
It is touching that my judgment means more to you than BB's :hug:
Truly, the judgment of Canadians is a mighty force. :hmm:
WWJD: the right thing condescendingly
WWBBD: the wrong thing well
WWMD: buy something
Any male nudes made it out? Zac Efron to start with - Nicholas Hoult? OMG! Logan Lerman! :licklips:!
Really in this day and age, posting nudes online should be a big no-no for anyone - especially for celebrities!
G.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
:wacko:
There's nothing wrong in discussing this (it's a valid news story), and there's probably nothing wrong with sharing a link - what's against the law is possessing child porn (and AR is right - having a pic in your cache probably counts as possessing).
Such is the rule, from what I've heard. Which is absolutely stupid, since just clicking an unlabeled link and then immediately closing the image when you realize what it is would still leave a copy in the cache. So an accidental click can leave you fucked if you're not a total paranoid nut who's erasing the cache and overwriting the specific hard drive sectors to erase the residual data.
I start having issues with heavy-handed and sometimes completely disingenuous definitions of "possession" when the users in question could legitimately not even know that they're in "possession" of the data in question.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2014, 04:23:04 PM
Could one could interpret this as a crown prosecutor giving potential child pornographers advice on how to destroy the evidence of their crimes. :hmm:
No, he knows perfectly well that formatting isn't enough. If the NSA can crack the Tor network, any agency can easily unformat a drive.
One more advantage of SSDs: they don't leave a residual magnetic charge that needs to be overwritten to be erased completely.
Bob Lefsetz:
The Nude Picture Scandal
How dumb can you be?
Excoriate Perez Hilton, come down on 4chan, but what I want to know is why these celebrities have nude photos on their phones to begin with?
Maybe I grew up in the dark ages, when you had to go to the porn shop to buy European magazines to see naked ladies, when it was a breakthrough when "Penthouse" printed pictures of women below the waist. But despite being aged, a veritable antique, I'm fully aware that if you don't want anybody to know anything, don't put it on the Internet!
No, let me restate that. If you're going to do anything illicit, do it alone, in the bathroom, in the dark.
Is it any wonder the public is interested in nude photos of celebrities? Isn't that what they're selling? There aren't that many unattractive actors and actresses in America. No, you won the gene derby, you worked on your craft and you made it. Congratulations! But do you have to be so dumb?
I mean exactly why do you need to take nude photos of yourself to begin with? When did that become the highest form of art? Ain't that America, where sex is taboo, but you flaunt your naked body nonetheless. I mean which way do we want it, European style, with naked boobies on the beach, or buttoned-up puritanical?
Oh, of course I feel sorry for Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton and the rest of the cadre whose names I don't recognize. But it really makes me wonder if they live in the real world. Are they so busy flying private and staying at the Four Seasons that they don't know what's going on?
There's a camera in every store..
There's a camera in the taxi.
There's a black box in your car.
And I believe we should definitely be debating privacy. But when I can go online and see a list of everywhere I've ever lived, the residence of my ex-wife, even the assets owned by my long deceased dad, I don't enter anything in a field that I don't want everybody to know.
Kind of like addresses... Want to buy something illicit on the Internet? Don't ship it to your home. That data is there...FOREVER! Kind of like Jennifer Lawrence's nude pics.
We've had leaked sex tapes, we've been living in this Internet era for nearly two decades, and suddenly we've got actresses stunned that their data isn't safe?
You never got your phone stolen? You've never lent it to another to take a picture? If you're famous, no one's ever snapped a photo of you without asking first? Hell, this has happened to me, and my fame can fit in a thimble compared to that of Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton.
That's the society we live in.
As for iCloud... Read this story:
"The Police Tool That Pervs Use to Steal Nude Pics From Apple's iCloud"
Furthermore, Google keeps your search history. So when you're at home, surfing porn, know that you are not alone, big brother is watching.
So what are we gonna do about this?
SELF-POLICE!
This was a crisis on Facebook a few years back. Drunken pics of college students went on their permanent record and prevented them from getting jobs. Did we beat up the corporations for using this data? Hell, we couldn't even get Facebook to give an adequate response. No, we educated ourselves and stopped posting that information. A big activity became scrubbing photos from Facebook the night after a party. Everybody woke up.
Why can't the actresses involved in this scandal wake up?
The last time I checked I had a body. Not that I'm proud of it. But I'm not taking naked photos of it and sending it to my girlfriend, because then they'd exist. On my phone, in the cloud, on my computer. If someone wanted to blackmail or humiliate me...
And I'm not demanding my girlfriend send me these photos either. I can get enough of her live.
Come on, Snapchat is all the rage because it evaporates, however imperfectly, and famous people get a pass for taking permanent photos and being astounded they leaked? THAT'S HOW THE INTERNET WORKS!
Perez Hilton has proven he's got no morals. He's a product of the Internet era, where personal fame is everything. Your brand trumps your talent and if you cross the line you apologize.
But if we stopped clicking on the links, he'd go out of business.
But we can't help ourselves. Because we're animals, human beings, with curiosity and desire. We love gossip because it's about us, people. We're evaluating others' fashion choices and word choices and love choices all the time, frequently modeling ourselves after them.
Furthermore, the Internet is filled with nobodies posting their own naked photos in an effort to get famous. Just Google your favorite predilection, photos and videos will come right up.
But no, the famous are inviolate.
Anthony Weiner resigns from Congress because he doesn't understand Internet privacy and makes poor choices but Hollywood is immune?
Hogwash.
What an incredibly silly op-ed.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
What an incredibly silly op-ed.
:yeahright: The author's got a point. This should be common sense by now: 1) don't put your nudie pics online, and 2) be aware that all iPhones (and many other cell phones, as well) default to backing your pictures up online.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2014, 09:54:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
What an incredibly silly op-ed.
:yeahright: The author's got a point. This should be common sense by now: 1) don't put your nudie pics online, and 2) be aware that all iPhones (and many other cell phones, as well) default to backing your pictures up online.
Sure but at the same time, it isn't their fault if someone decides to hack into their accounts and distribute said photos.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
Sure but at the same time, it isn't their fault if someone decides to hack into their accounts and distribute said photos.
Nice strawman. Nobody's saying it's the celebs' fault that the photos were leaked, just that the response is disproportionate given that common sense should dictate a minimum level of assumed risk in keeping private photos on online devices.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2014, 10:14:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
Sure but at the same time, it isn't their fault if someone decides to hack into their accounts and distribute said photos.
Nice strawman. Nobody's saying it's the celebs' fault that the photos were leaked, just that the response is disproportionate given that common sense should dictate a minimum level of assumed risk in keeping private photos on online devices.
The response is disproportionate? Disproportionate to what exactly? We are of course talking about how their accounts were hacked and photos they didn't entire to share with the world were made public. Because hacking is something that can take place, no one should be concerned when it is used to divulge a large amount of private stuff?
But sure, of course. The best way not to have nude photos leaked is to not take them. So?
I call the op-ed silly as it tells us nothing that we don't all know but somehow tries to take that info to minimize what happened . 'How can they be so outraged at was bound to happen' is what it seems to suggest.
That's it. I aint using smart phones or computers ever again.
Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2014, 11:13:55 PM
That's it. I aint using smart phones or computers ever again.
Thank God.
I demand you acknowledge my compliment.
Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2014, 11:13:55 PM
That's it. I aint using smart phones or computers ever again.
Thus preventing the Siegularity from ever happening.
If you leave your house unlocked and someone steals your TV...you should take some of the blame. Not saying the thief bears no culpability.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Apparently one of the celebrities who had nude photos on the web was McKayle Maroney, of 2012 London Olympics "pouty face" fame.
Trouble is she only just turned 18, and the nude photos that were hacked and released were when she was under 18. Which means they were child porn, and anyone who distributed those pics is guilty of distributing child porn.
:lol: :menace:
I hope they nail those pervs to the wall.
and she's guilty of producing child porn. I hope she also rots in jail. The law is the law.
Quote from: Josephus on September 04, 2014, 06:10:53 AM
If you leave your house unlocked and someone steals your TV...you should take some of the blame. Not saying the thief bears no culpability.
Not an analogy. If you lock you house, and someone steals your TV, and some guy on the internet argues that, "if you didn't want your TV set stolen, you shouldn't have bought one," should you take some of the blame?
If you put money into a mutual fund, and someone embezzles your money, and some guy on the internet argues that, "if you didn't want your money stolen, you shouldn't have made money," should you take some of the blame?
These people were not careless. They were robbed after trusting protections that authoritative figures promised them were adequate. The onus for this crime lies on the perps, and if anyone else should take "some of the blame" it should be Apple.
What seems so surprising to me is how the old man media is complety astonish that Millennials take pictures of themselves naked. They all do it, the famous & the unknowns.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 04, 2014, 06:26:56 AM
What seems so surprising to me is how the old man media is complety astonish that Millennials take pictures of themselves naked. They all do it, the famous & the unknowns.
That's the other moan that I have to laugh at; "I just don't understand why they would want to take nude pictures fo themselves." You don't
have to understand, dude, and your lack of understanding is on you.
Do you understand, grumbler?
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 08:53:44 AM
Do you understand, grumbler?
I think we may have finally solved the mystery of those cave paintings depicting naked men with erections ...
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
I guess you're right-- your strawman is not directly relevant.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
Weren't some teens charged in a few states on this? I think the laws been changed since then, but when camera phones really started to become big it happened.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2014, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
Weren't some teens charged in a few states on this? I think the laws been changed since then, but when camera phones really started to become big it happened.
I think some teens were charged with "sexting" - that is, taking nude pics of themselves
and sending them to other people.
Being charged for that is dumb IMO, but it is still far from being charged simply for making the pics in the first place.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
It varies states by states but naked picture, yes.
And she did send them somewhere: to Apple.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
It is going to depend on the specific wording of the local law in question, but in Canada there's nothing that would specifically exempt a person from a charge of producing child pornography if they take a picture of themselves.
HOWEVER
laying such a charge would be so phenomenally stupid no cop would ever charge it. If some cop was that stupid no prosecutor would ever prosecute it. And if you had a both a phenomenally stupid cop and a phenomenally stupid prosecutor, no judge or jury would ever convict.
Austrian law states that pics of people 14+ are legal if they're made for "personal use" with knowledge and consent of the person, or if a person above 14 creates them his-/herself and shares them if there's "no substantial risk of further spreading."
Which sounds like a common sense approach, but considering how easy it is for such content to be shared among, say, class mates to shame someone ...
I was just taking the piss, Beeb.
Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident. Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 01:48:24 PM
Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident. Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.
I think the general feel at this point is that Lena Dunham is so obnoxious.
Quote from: garbon on September 04, 2014, 02:05:25 PM
I think the general feel at this point is that Lena Dunham is so obnoxious.
So you've turned on her?
It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography". Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".
Hmmm, so what do we think about Lena's decision that "Hackers are sex offenders".
I dunno, I think they are just hackers.
She should say they are worse than Hitler.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 02:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 04, 2014, 02:05:25 PM
I think the general feel at this point is that Lena Dunham is so obnoxious.
So you've turned on her?
I haven't liked her for quite some time. Watching a show doesn't mean you have like its creator.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 08:53:44 AM
Do you understand, grumbler?
Nope. But my failure to understand is a reflection of my apathy in regards to the situation, not a reflection of the situation.
Okay.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 02:10:29 PM
It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography". Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".
BB, have you ever heard a case where one of the sites pushing young looking girls turned to have actual underage girls?
It must have happened at some point. Could/have they just gone after the whole client list of the website? I'd love to hear the customers defense: "sure they advertised that she looked 13, and I joined the website because she looked 13, and okay so she turned out to be 13, but I thought she was 18".
And before you try to turn this on me, I've never subscribed to any porn website of any type. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2014, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 02:10:29 PM
It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography". Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".
BB, have you ever heard a case where one of the sites pushing young looking girls turned to have actual underage girls?
It must have happened at some point. Could/have they just gone after the whole client list of the website? I'd love to hear the customers defense: "sure they advertised that she looked 13, and I joined the website because she looked 13, and okay so she turned out to be 13, but I thought she was 18".
And before you try to turn this on me, I've never subscribed to any porn website of any type. :P
Note - I have prosecuted the grand total of 1 child porn case, and that had somewhat unique facts (over 18 boyfriend took nude pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend. When they broke up, he printed out the pictures and put them up on lightpoles in their small town with writing calling her a slut and a whore. He started shitting himself when we charged him with distributing child porn).
Whether or not the girl was under 18, and more importantly looked under 18, is a huge part of a child porn prosecution. It is an element of the offence that we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Because in order to be found guilty you must have both a guilty act (the
actus reus) and a guilty mind (the
mens rea), in order to be found guilty of possessing child porn we must show you intended to possess pictures of underage girls.
From what I understand in hearing lectures by child porn prosecutors they will have the absolutely delightful job of having to review some or all of the pics in question to try and determine whether it constitutes child porn. If there's an unsourced pictures of a girl who looks like she may or may not be under 18, it's not enough for a prosecution.
Often times though while there may be some (or even a lot) of ambiguous photos, there are some where the nature of the picture is crystal clear.
I'm pretty sure a subscriber to "Barely Legal Teens" or whatever would be in the clear, even if the model later turned out to be 15. The site does state that the girls are "legal" (even if only barely). The site itself however would potentially be in a lot more trouble however.
Going back to McKayla Maroney however, she only just turned 18. She's a public figure, and her age is easily discernable. Someone with nude McKayla pics probably doesn't have a "but I thought she was 18" defence.
The McKayla situation is interesting in the sense that I believe her people first said, "not me, fakes" and then "ok, real, but under 18". Was she really under 18 or is that the strategy being used to stop distribution and close off criticism?
I don't think I'd want to be making such a case in front of a jury though. :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 01:48:24 PM
I was just taking the piss, Beeb.
Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident. Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.
She's not bad looking, Siegebreaker. She's just kind of heavy and not beautiful. That doesn't make someone gross.
I don't know how I got the reputation for being a pig when you people are the comparators.
Uh, no she's gross. It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.
If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?
I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.
Why?
It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.
How is this even remotely relevant?
I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.
It is going to depend on the specific wording of the local law in question, but in Canada there's nothing that would specifically exempt a person from a charge of producing child pornography if they take a picture of themselves.
HOWEVER
laying such a charge would be so phenomenally stupid no cop would ever charge it. If some cop was that stupid no prosecutor would ever prosecute it. And if you had a both a phenomenally stupid cop and a phenomenally stupid prosecutor, no judge or jury would ever convict.
even if there was a phenomenally stupid judge or jury? :P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2014, 07:43:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 01:48:24 PM
I was just taking the piss, Beeb.
Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident. Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.
She's not bad looking, Siegebreaker. She's just kind of heavy and not beautiful. That doesn't make someone gross.
I don't know how I got the reputation for being a pig when you people are the comparators.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg829.imageshack.us%2Fimg829%2F6214%2F30facesevilcuriositygal.jpg&hash=0d3ead5a2fefe3af6672f74df654dbaa0a467880)
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Uh, no she's gross. It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.
If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.
I concur with the esteemed Amish gentleman. I don't need to see chicks on premium cable that I can see every day in traffic. It's about escaping reality, not reinforcing it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Uh, no she's gross. It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.
If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.
I concur with the esteemed Amish gentleman. I don't need to see chicks on premium cable that I can see every day in traffic. It's about escaping reality, not reinforcing it.
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
There should be a warning when I'm channel surfing and that show is on. When she's naked it should be blocked out by default-- the kind of thing you'd have to opt in to see. Assuming anyone really wants to see some dumpy pear-shaped girl nude.
That's why you use the guide function instead of just flipping through channels. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
It's not about me, it's Hollywood's and society's unreasonable expections of what I have been conditioned to expect from the feminine mystique. And it ain't Saggy McSugartits.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
He probably thinks this song is about him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2014, 10:26:57 AM
That's why you use the guide function instead of just flipping through channels. :P
:yes:
Besides, HBO is a channel you have to opt-in for.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
It's not about me, it's Hollywood's and society's unreasonable expections of what I have been conditioned to expect from the feminine mystique. And it ain't Saggy McSugartits.
That's laziness on your part then. You should be able to have your own opinions that don't consist solely of what Hollywood/Society tells you to like.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2014, 10:26:57 AM
That's why you use the guide function instead of just flipping through channels. :P
I shouldn't have to do that :angry:
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 10:56:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
It's not about me, it's Hollywood's and society's unreasonable expections of what I have been conditioned to expect from the feminine mystique. And it ain't Saggy McSugartits.
That's laziness on your part then. You should be able to have your own opinions that don't consist solely of what Hollywood/Society tells you to like.
What are you talking about?
Everything we do is conditioned by the cultural environment.
Back in the day was whatever the local village sense of female perfection was.
Most people only had to recognize the few faces of the people in the village, and everybody else was a stranger that they would never seen twice.
Today he recognize the faces of thousands of celebrities, and hundreds of co-workers, neighbours, etc, and the cultural environment's ideal of a perfect female is not decided by the elders in the local village with their opinions powered by their influence, but globally by the Elders of Hollywood with their movies and TV shows.
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 10:56:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
It's not about me, it's Hollywood's and society's unreasonable expections of what I have been conditioned to expect from the feminine mystique. And it ain't Saggy McSugartits.
That's laziness on your part then. You should be able to have your own opinions that don't consist solely of what Hollywood/Society tells you to like.
What are you talking about?
Everything we do is conditioned by the cultural environment.
Back in the day was whatever the local village sense of female perfection was.
Most people only had to recognize the few faces of the people in the village, and everybody else was a stranger that they would never seen twice.
Today he recognize the faces of thousands of celebrities, and hundreds of co-workers, neighbours, etc, and the cultural environment's ideal of a perfect female is not decided by the elders in the local village with their opinions powered by their influence, but globally by the Elders of Hollywood with their movies and TV shows.
What are you talking about?
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 11:25:50 AM
Quote from: Siege on September 05, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 10:56:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2014, 08:10:21 AM
Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.
If I wanted the reality of Girls, I'd have had one. Or been one.
You also aren't the target audience so...quit being so vain?
It's not about me, it's Hollywood's and society's unreasonable expections of what I have been conditioned to expect from the feminine mystique. And it ain't Saggy McSugartits.
That's laziness on your part then. You should be able to have your own opinions that don't consist solely of what Hollywood/Society tells you to like.
What are you talking about?
Everything we do is conditioned by the cultural environment.
Back in the day was whatever the local village sense of female perfection was.
Most people only had to recognize the few faces of the people in the village, and everybody else was a stranger that they would never seen twice.
Today he recognize the faces of thousands of celebrities, and hundreds of co-workers, neighbours, etc, and the cultural environment's ideal of a perfect female is not decided by the elders in the local village with their opinions powered by their influence, but globally by the Elders of Hollywood with their movies and TV shows.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
Why do we have to inject Lena Dunham into this otherwise intersting conversation?
Quote from: Josephus on September 05, 2014, 04:01:08 PM
Why do we have to inject Lena Dunham into this otherwise intersting conversation?
I'm done talking about her. You're the one who brought her back up ;)