Should hacking nude celebrity photos be a sex crime?

posted at 2:21 pm on September 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Consider this today’s deep thought from Agence France-Presse, in which the overreach appears to have peaked in the celebrity hacking scandal du jour. The question comes from a particular line of rebuttal to a blame-the-victim approach that emerged almost at the same time as the photos, but this misses the point even more than the arguments that provoked it:

Already hounded by paparazzi on their doorsteps, celebrities face a new battle to protect their privacy from hackers willing to splash their most intimate, behind-closed-doors photos online.

After the massive release of naked photos of stars including Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence, some experts said it should be treated as a sex crime, rather that just an Internet or privacy breach. …

For Polonetsky, “this is a sex crime more than a leak” — a view expressed by a number of celebrities themselves on Twitter following the weekend hack.

“Remember, when you look at these pictures you are violating these women again and again… The person who stole these pictures and leaked them is not a hacker: they’re a sex offender,” said “Girls” creator Lena Dunham.

Er, no. Sex crimes and sex offenses deal with actions that are explicitly about sex or sexual images in which the accused participated in the illegal action. Had the person involved stalked the celebrity and took pictures while acting as a Peeping Tom, for instance, then the act of peeping and taking the pictures would be a sex crime. If the pictures involved underaged victims, for which possession and/or distribution are sex crimes, then that would be the charge. In this case, though, neither the images depicted nor the circumstances of the photography qualify as sex crimes. Naked pictures of adult celebrities who consented to the photography don’t qualify for that category of crime, whether taken by others or themselves.

What we have left is theft, not a sex offense. That hardly lets the criminal off the hook, however. In an earlier celebrity-hack case involving private images of nudity, the perpetrator got a decade in prison for stealing the pictures, and could have ended up with a 121-year sentence. Nor should that let those who exploit the spoils of the crime for their own entertainment off the ethics hook. Those who publicize and pursue these stolen images on line have a moral culpability, as Jim Geraghty writes, that goes beyond the question of legality:

If you knew Kate Upton personally… you wouldn’t look at the pictures that were copied from her private account, showing her nude, right? The pictures hacked off her phone are a violation of her privacy, and while you may not be a criminal for looking at them – although some people want it to be a crime – looking at someone else’s private photographs that were not meant for your eyes is not a nice thing to do.

Oh, you might be tempted… but you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t, because Kate Upton is your friend in this imaginary scenario, and that would be a terrible thing to do to a friend. Also, the world really doesn’t have a shortage of pictures of Kate Upton almost nude – say, the July 2012 cover of GQ — and she didn’t have any problem with anyone looking at any of those.

Here’s why you should avoid looking at those hacked Kate Upton pictures: Someday, you may meet Kate Upton! Sure, it’s not particularly likely, but it’s possible. If you do meet her, and she brings up how awful it was back in September 2014 when her personal pictures were hacked and spread all over the Internet, wouldn’t you want to say, with a clean conscience, “yes, that was awful, I can’t believe someone would do that to you” and not have a nervous twitch indicating that you looked at them?

Really, gentlemen, hasn’t Kate given us enough happiness? Doesn’t she deserve this little bit of decency on our part?

I’d say yes, whether I have any expectations of meeting Kate Upton or not, or any of the other celebrities who had their pictures stolen. (I don’t.) It should embarrass people who seek out these photos because these people are victims — of theft, not of a sex crime — and the distribution of their stolen merchandise does add to their victimization, whether they are aware of each instance or not. That’s not a legal argument, but a moral one, and has to do with one’s interior life rather than the odds of meeting supermodels and A-list celebrities. Had those pictures come from pictorials intended for publication, that question becomes a little different — at least in terms of participating in victimization — which is Jim’s larger point.

This comes back around to Dunham’s argument, with which I partially agree. It’s not a sex crime, but it is a crime to steal other people’s property and information. We can debate the relative merits of the naked selfie, as I write in my column today at The Week, but indulging in that fad doesn’t make the victims liable for theft of those images, which were private property and intended to remain that way. Conservatives should understand this better than most:

[E]ven back then the more caddish Polaroid owners would share these pictures widely, even after assuring their paramours of strict secrecy. Young women were warned not to trust boyfriends who claimed to take these pictures just to have a keepsake of their love, and not to let those images slip out of their own possession. Those who didn’t take that advice were considered at least somewhat responsible for whatever embarrassment followed.

However, today’s hacking scandal — which involved the online publication of nude photos of numerous Hollywood stars — is different in important ways. The impulse to unclothe in front of the camera is still the same, and the motivations are probably similar. But the issue with the release of those photographs presents a night-and-day contrast to the non-digital age.

These photos were not shared by caddish ex-boyfriends. Nor were they like the “revenge porn” videos that some jurisdictions have tried to address over the last year. These celebrity pictures were stolen from private accounts, not shared by a contributor to the act. …

A crime against private property and privacy should matter more than any offense over nudity and exhibitionism — perhaps especially to conservatives. It’s possible to criticize both, but it gets the priorities backward to focus on a younger generation’s predilection for taking nude pictures over the actions of hackers and the failure of cloud services to protect private material.

Conservatives generally reject blame-shifting when it comes to crime and punishment; “blaming society” gets special scorn on the right. We insist on assigning guilt and responsibility for crimes on individual actors, not groups or demographics. Why should that change when real actors become the victims?

Sonny Bunch put it well:

Yes, it is dumb in this day and age to take nude photos of yourself and store them in the cloud. But also: Yes, it is gross that people are hacking into private photo banks with the purpose of disseminating their contents for titillation and profit. And, finally: Yes, it is skeevy that you’re taking so much pleasure in this. There is nothing contradictory about statement one and statements two and three. Just because something exists, it doesn’t mean you have a right to viddy it. And saying “Ugh, you shouldn’t be so stupid as to take those photos!” doesn’t resolve you of moral responsibility for looking at them. …

I suppose this is just the continuation of a long and storied effort to dehumanize celebrities. “Oh, you want to be famous? Well then you can’t complain when the tabloids write up your exploits. Oh, you want to be famous? Well then you can’t complain when paparazzi stake out your home and get in your face when you’re out with your family. Oh, you want to be famous? Well then you can’t complain when some skeez hacks your iCloud and disseminates your nude body all over the Internet.” At least there’s a First Amendment rationale for the first two “can’t complains.” I fail to see any justification for the nastiness we saw go down yesterday.

Neither can I. Regardless of who the victims are, shouldn’t we arrange our outrage and criticism to prioritize those who steal other people’s property and distribute it for their own purposes? Those of us who believe in private property, especially?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You’re the idiot and an ahole, too. I haven’t the time to argue with you. Plse educate yourself about not being such a dick. lol

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM

⋀ proof of lost argument. Thanks.

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

“Toothless”

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

She was a juvenile and nothing was to be gain by prosecuting her.

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 3:40 PM

I agree. But people get pinned by the technicalities of such laws sometimes, dependent on which side of the brf the police and DA got out of in the morn or if the judge had a good breakfast.

I’ve actually come across more than a few news articles along this lines over the years, that’s what made me think of it in this case. In such cases it’s usually some goofy zero-tolerance mentality at work.

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I once heard someone argue that a person DESERVED to have their house broken into because they didn’t have a robust security system and they naively trusted their simple door locks.

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

⋀ proof of lost argument. Thanks.

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

No, your comments are proof that you are an ahole and a dick. I was not rude to you when I initially responded to you. I qualified my statements. But for some bizarre reason you are taking this much too personally. Obviously, there are videos and pixs of you giving blow jobs to guys on numerous camera phones and you are worried. Good! lol

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM

f

actsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 3:36 PM

You’re the idiot and an ahole, too. I haven’t the time to argue with you. Plse educate yourself about not being such a dick. lol

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I believe that was directed my way, actually. He apparently missed the link I shared with you:
Teen Charged With Sending Nude Pics of Herself

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

No, your comments are proof that you are an ahole and a dick. I was not rude to you when I initially responded to you. I qualified my statements. But for some bizarre reason you are taking this much too personally. Obviously, there are videos and pixs of you giving blow jobs to guys on numerous camera phones and you are worried. Good! lol

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM

⋀⋀ more proof. Thanks.

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

One of the celebrities who’s photos were released was 16 when the photos were taken. In that case, possession of those photos could be considered ownership of child pornography.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Then, isn’t Apple’s iCloud trafficking in child porn?

Should their executives be placed in handcuffs?

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:03 PM

I do have to laugh at all the columnists suddenly struggling to define why looking at naked pictures of a celebrity is bad. (“You might meet Kate Upton one day?” Really?)

I think that’s why the rush to escalate it into a full-fledged sex crime. Otherwise, they’re just a few more naked pictures of probably millions (billions?) on the internet.

Since they have gone to so much trouble to redefine sexual morality in order to justify explicit movies and pictures, now they really can’t argue that looking at these pictures is indefensible just because they were illegally accessed.

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to. That’s not just a matter of indefinable “respect,” but of human dignity. But accepting that kind of standard might imply that there was something wrong with the sex-soaked nature of Hollywood in the first place.

So expect more meaningless platitudes and faux outrage, some grumbling about how it should be considered a full sex crime …. and then nothing.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

As a Detroit Tigers fan I can now see why Justin Verlander has had a mediocre season pitching this summer. Maybe he and Kate Upton can spend less time taking nude pictures of themselves after this and he will get his head back into the game so the Tigers can win the division.

mechkiller_k on September 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

thank goodness I didn’t stumble onto any Sandra Fluke pics

DanMan on September 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Bet it helps all their careers.

Somewhere there is a starlet crying, “why didn’t they hack my photos, too?”

albill on September 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM

More than half of the apps you might install on your phone ask for full access- to all call origination, your contacts, all photos and media, all files.
M240H on September 3, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Same with Android-based tablets. I use one sometimes, but I would never put anything private on it. It’s mostly for playing solitaire & bowling games and reading news or watching Youtube when I’m waiting at the Docs office or the like (nothing I have to log into to do.)

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Should hacking nude celebrity photos be a sex crime?

I think just writing about is sex abuse. Every time you say their name in print, a baby seal dies.

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Bet it helps all their careers.

Somewhere there is a starlet crying, “why didn’t they hack my photos, too?”

albill on September 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Isn’t that whats-her-name Kardashian(?) is famous for? No such thing as bad PR, they say.

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Every time you say their name in print, a baby seal dies.

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Worse yet, I heard that every time you see a celeb in a steamy sex scene 5 gay whales die.

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Okay let me weigh in on all the hoopla. First you have to be dim to store “private” nude photos of yourself on a cloud server, If you really want them safe use a storage device (Thumb drive, CD R/W etc). Second hacking and stealing the photos are a crime, but not a sex crime Unless the photos are of a minor then it is child pornography. Now as too culpability the hacker/thief and any site that publishes the stolen photos are guilty of a crime. The hacker for theft and the web site for possession of stolen property. The viewer is too IF they download the images to their device. Simple huh :)
Now as to the privacy issue for the Celebs, my advice use some common sense DON”T store sensitive images or Data on a computer or server! People forget that the safest way to store information/photos is OFFLINE. That way the only way they get out in public is if someone physically steals the storage device. It makes for a smaller circle of possible culprits.

JKotthoff on September 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Which century were you born in?

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

It may be viewed as a “blame the victim” p.o.v., but the question that I have is, “Why do these individuals take these photos in the first place? More so if they’re never intended to be released to the public?” It seems to me the height of narcissism and autolatry. The sticker, and where many would brand me a prude and blaming the victim is that I see taking part in such activities as “just asking for it.”

First, they’re celebrities, so ne’er do wells are going to be focusing on their privacy all the more. One would think they’d be doing their utmost to keep their privacy as secure as possible. It seems quite naive to me to trust any cloud storage for any sensitive data, be it nude photos, financial information, etc. Sometimes you have no choice, as in your bank, but in this instance, you are specifically chosing to save intimate data onto a site you have virtually no control over. Second, yes, people have the right to do things like this in their own privacy and expect/hope for some privacy.

I’m not arguing about the right to privacy or the right to engage in such activity. I am arguing against the reason behind the activity in the first place.

But then, I’m someone who believes in modesty and common sense. To that end, it seems stupid to take the photos in the first place.

I also think that exposing yourself to the public, more so for monetary gain, is not empowering. I do not agree with nor can I understand that argument. If being viewed as a piece of meat is empowering, then why don’t people strut nude in public – I realize some do and in I some places it’s legal.

So, I look at these women and while I agree that they should go after the criminals, I also look at the women and think, “stupid idiot.”

We all make choices in life. They chose at some point to think it reasonable to take nude pictures of themselves. It’s like the sex tapes.

It goes back to beliefs, ideology and world views. This world is morally and spiritually bankrupt and incidents like this provide yet another example of how we are sliding ever further down the scree towards Gommorah. There is such a thing as right and wrong, there is such a thing as morality. But this world relies on relativism and falls back onto cognitive dissonance to deal with its inherent illogic.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Have they caught the hackers yet? I am sure they will, and the thieves lives deserve to be ruined. They should be given more than 10 years in prison and deserve to be destroyed financially and utterly humiliated.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

What about statues? Can we look at statues?

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Have they caught the hackers yet? I am sure they will, and the thieves lives deserve to be ruined. They should be given more than 10 years in prison and deserve to be destroyed financially and utterly humiliated.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

I’m pretty sure that most of the blame goes to Apple.

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM

We all make choices in life. They chose at some point to think it reasonable to take nude pictures of themselves. It’s like the sex tapes.
It goes back to beliefs, ideology and world views. This world is morally and spiritually bankrupt and incidents like this provide yet another example of how we are sliding ever further down the scree towards Gommorah. There is such a thing as right and wrong, there is such a thing as morality. But this world relies on relativism and falls back onto cognitive dissonance to deal with its inherent illogic.
Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

What’s missing from your post: any mention of freedom. It’s really none of your damn business what kind of pictures someone wants to take, whether with their spouse, their significant other or just by themselves.

Are you anti-sex?

You talk a lot about morality, but I don’t see you spending much time talking about the immorality of theft.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

So much for the dinner and a movie night out.

You heard that in a mosque, didn’t you?

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Michael Sam is headed to the “Big D.”

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Isn’t that what all the controversy was about in the first place?

James on September 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Have they caught the hackers yet? I am sure they will, and the thieves lives deserve to be ruined. They should be given more than 10 years in prison and deserve to be destroyed financially and utterly humiliated.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

While at the same time, the box-office draw for the “victims” skyrockets.

“Thanks for making me rich beyond my wildest dreams, you pervert.”

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Which century were you born in?

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM

I imagine you’re also one who thinks, “hey, they’re gonna do it anyway.” One of the primary reasons our society and cultures continue to degrade is because so many believe that the bar should be lowered, and lowered, and lowered, or just thrown away altogether, because, hey, do whatever you want, it’s all good.

Moral relativism is illogical and it’s adherents daily fall into cognitive dissonance to deal with their flawed beliefs.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM

If you knew Kate Upton personally… you wouldn’t look at the pictures that were copied from her private account, showing her nude, right?

Yes. Yes, I would.

GAbred on September 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Should hacking nude celebrity photos be a sex crime?

No, hackers should be treated more like 19th century horse thieves.

Knott Buyinit on September 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM

You talk a lot about morality, but I don’t see you spending much time talking about the immorality of theft.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Although I don’t condone hacking, I also don’t see how this amounts to “theft.” Theft involves removing something from another’s possession and placing it into one’s own possession, making it available for the thief’s use and also denying use for the original owner. Electronic data doesn’t work that way, be it for music, documents, or photos, so it’s inaccurate to call it theft — unless we’re going to start calling the use of the photocopier at the library a form of theft.

Stoic Patriot on September 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

If you knew Kate Upton personally…

huh, what?

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

I do have to laugh at all the columnists suddenly struggling to define why looking at naked pictures of a celebrity is bad. (“You might meet Kate Upton one day?” Really?)
There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Y’know, those of us who have worked as extras as film actually have both met actresses clothed and seen them in the buff (along with millions of others). Hadn’t really thought about that til now. Hmmmmm….

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

What’s missing from your post: any mention of freedom. It’s really none of your damn business what kind of pictures someone wants to take, whether with their spouse, their significant other or just by themselves.

Are you anti-sex?

You talk a lot about morality, but I don’t see you spending much time talking about the immorality of theft.

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Actually I did talk about freedom. I also said they should go after those who stole their property. Theft is wrong. People are quite free to take those photos and certainly, it’s none of my business as to whether or not they do it and what they do. I’m not anti sex, I am however addressing the foundational philosophical and theological questions as to why people would choose to engage in such activity in the first place.

But, the masses with muddling morality would rather not address such questions, instead screaming, “Freedom!” Yep. You have freedom. You have the freedom to be immoral. No one wants to address the deeper issues. No, let’s lambast those who bring it up. We should focus only on the hackers and law breakers. Philosophy and theology? Unimportant. We have Gommorah to slink towards after all.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Storing for view or distributing naked pics that are stolen, whether for gain or prurient enjoyment, is an offense against decency and privacy and akin to a thief by any pervert…no less so than if a creep had entered a home and stolen a woman’s underpants for the same reasons.

Don’t minimize the creep factor, it’s definitely present. The fact that these women are public figures doesn’t lessen the perverted nature of the theft.

SarahW on September 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Y’know, those of us who have worked as extras as film actually have both met actresses clothed and seen them in the buff (along with millions of others). Hadn’t really thought about that til now. Hmmmmm….

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Or, you make a determination that if you’re going to work in film, that you’re either going to work jobs where you know people aren’t going to be “in the buff” or you don’t work in that industry at all.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

stoic patriot – use of a photocopier CAN be theft – a professor can’t photocopy a novel or textbook and distribute it to his class…that’s theft of copyright.

SarahW on September 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Google ‘naked celebrities’ then we’ll talk.

Arrest all the Google executives, then we’ll talk.

Until then, hands up, and shut up.

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

So much for the dinner and a movie night out.

You heard that in a mosque, didn’t you?

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Never read the Bible? This is not exactly a new standard.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM

If you knew Kate Upton personally… you wouldn’t look at the pictures that were copied from her private account, showing her nude, right?

I am sympathetic to the invasion of privacy each of these women has suffered.

But let’s put it in perspective with this picture of a young Yazidi girl

With all due respect to the violation of their privacy, if Jennifer Lawrence and the rest started their own “challenge” to help girls victimized by Rotherham, ISIS and the like … they would change the narrative and how the entire incident is remembered.

Leave the hackers to the FBI, don’t spend money on lawyers to sue websites – spend the money doing something so noble the websites take down the pictures due to negative feedback.

PolAgnostic on September 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

What about statues? Can we look at statues?

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I guess you think Jesus was a real stick-in-the-mud.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

The simpler moral standard is that men shouldn’t be looking at pictures of naked women they aren’t married to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

What about statues? Can we look at statues?

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I guess you think Jesus was a real stick-in-the-mud.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

To your question: You’re probably not in danger of committing adultery with a statue, so you should be clear on this one.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM

I shed crocodile tears for these self absorbed narcicists…

How dare you look at my nude photos!!! Don’t look – unless I’m paid for it…

Wah effing Wah

Kuffar on September 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I guess you think Jesus was a real stick-in-the-mud.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

For most of the modern world, they prefer to think of Jesus like the Doobie Brother’s song, mixed with some Joel Osteen. “Jesus is just alright with me…”

It’s all good, I think black is blue and you think blue is black, but that guy who thinks blue is blue? He’s cracked. Wait, blue isn’t black? Let me figure out how I can reconcile that without admitting or understanding that blue is blue… ///

Moral relativism and cognitive dissonance.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Certainly punishing the act of hacking is enough. Sex offender lists should be reserved for those who are likely to be a threat to the neighbors (e.g. molestors).

DisneyFan on September 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM

One of the celebrities who’s photos were released was 16 when the photos were taken. In that case, possession of those photos could be considered ownership of child pornography.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM

As long as she gets charged with manufacturing child pornography first.

Spliff Menendez on September 3, 2014 at 5:18 PM

tip for those of you with their own websites/vps/servers.
install oowncloud.
install the owncloud clients on pc/phones.
disable other sync items.

your cloud under your control.
I haven’t used dropbox/box/anything since I installed owncloud on my server (I have dual xeon dedicated at a datacenter in KY) and the android client works well.

another benefit is data deduplication issues, dropbox will delete your specific file if there are others already stored on their server with same metadata.
the only restriction is how much drive space is in the server, I can easily use 300GB id I want w/o affecting any of the domains I run off the server. and if I needed more I could always just put larger drives in the array.

if you have a fast up/down broadband connection and a home server can easily run a nix based virtual machine and run it all from home. just watch for dynamic ip issues and your isp tos.

now if anyone wants to see me naked they have to hack MY server, and I nobody is going to be able to email me and social engineer my info for it from me.

dmacleo on September 3, 2014 at 5:27 PM

an addendum to my last, even if you are on a shared host owncloud is still a good deal. its not as good as if you were on a vps/dedicated but its a lot better than using services under other peoples FULL control.

dmacleo on September 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM

One of the celebrities who’s photos were released was 16 when the photos were taken. In that case, possession of those photos could be considered ownership of child pornography.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM

this what you were thinking of?
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/03/olympian-mckayla-maroney-has-the-best-advice-yet-for-the-creeps-who-are-hacking-celebrity-phones/

not a crime due to them being fake.
if this was already addressed disregard.
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/spring2002.php?entry=203455

dmacleo on September 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

dmacleo on September 3, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Awesome. I want to check that out. Do you have to have your home computer running at all times ?

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM

One of the celebrities who’s photos were released was 16 when the photos were taken. In that case, possession of those photos could be considered ownership of child pornography.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM

That’s not what the laws say, though you’d never know it by the media who will try to sensationalize everything. Simple nudity of someone under 18 is not child pornography unless the picture shows sexual activity. For example, the hit film American Beauty from 1999 had a 16 year old actress in a topless scene.

AngusMc on September 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Or, you make a determination that if you’re going to work in film, that you’re either going to work jobs where you know people aren’t going to be “in the buff” or you don’t work in that industry at all.

Logus on September 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Nope, no nekkidness on the sets I was on. And in such scenes where that is the case they usually don’t employ extras to stroll by to fill in the set as actors are making the naked pretzel. The AD would discourage that sort of thing.
We’re talking about mainstream films; actresses are disrobed to some degree or another in some of them, so a great many people are going to see them in that state. Or at least the celebs hope so – the film’s level of success is determined by ticket sales. But I have no say in the roles they choose. That’s for the agents and studios to negotiate. (I wouldn’t refuse getting a couple of points off the top of that, tho.)

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 5:40 PM

So, celebrities are being treated like ordinary porn stars now?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kew-el!

ExpressoBold on September 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Awesome. I want to check that out. Do you have to have your home computer running at all times ?

bluegill on September 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM

if the server section of it is running on that computer then yes, it really should.
if you are thinking the pc with the sync client on it needs to be on all the time then no, not needed.
if you have sites hosted on a shared host most auto installers have owncloud included but even if they don’t its easy to install.

really its JUST like dropbox except YOU host the server section yourself.
I’ll help anyone here set owncloud up (yes even you ahole liberals) if needed, I’ve always considered this sort of thing really important.
all I would need from people is a place to install the server, and I will of course insist afterwards you change any passwords used during setup.

I know many people here run their own blogs, and as long as its not on wordpress.com or other free blog servers (they only allow blogs) its usually easy.
does need to be nix based server, but most shared hosts are anyways.

dmacleo on September 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM

This comes back around to Dunham’s argument, with which I partially agree. It’s not a sex crime, but it is a crime to steal other people’s property and information. We can debate the relative merits of the naked selfie, as I write in my column today at The Week, but indulging in that fad doesn’t make the victims liable for theft of those images, which were private property and intended to remain that way. Conservatives should understand this better than most . . .

What if I take pictures of the pictures?

Say you’ve got a folder called Morrissey Unleashed. The contents thereof are tell-tale of the reason a political career is out of the question. You happen to have it open, I happen to snap an image of the screen.

What, exactly, have I stolen?

I think these things might be about theft, but only if we can get clear again on what is and what isn’t property.

Axe on September 3, 2014 at 5:45 PM

That’s not what the laws say, though you’d never know it by the media who will try to sensationalize everything. Simple nudity of someone under 18 is not child pornography unless the picture shows sexual activity. For example, the hit film American Beauty from 1999 had a 16 year old actress in a topless scene.

AngusMc on September 3, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Mena Suvari was born in 1979.

RickB on September 3, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Brooke Shield was I think 12 when she made Pretty Baby.

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Mena Suvari was born in 1979.

RickB on September 3, 2014 at 5:50 PM

The actress was Thora Birch, who was 16 at the time of filming.

AngusMc on September 3, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Brooke Shield was I think 12 when she made Pretty Baby.

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM

I suspect it, like “Blazing Saddles”, couldn’t be filmed today.

whatcat on September 3, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Brooke Shield was I think 12 when she made Pretty Baby.

Blake on September 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM

That was on TV lately. Do all the viewers have to be arrested? Or just the Teapeople?

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 6:11 PM

This entire blog entry is what I tried to express in the other thread, but obviously didn’t find the right words.

Gelsomina on September 3, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Prioritize it over what? Pointing out that stupid celebrity sluts are both slutty and stupid?

Stoic Patriot on September 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM

And here we go again.

Gelsomina on September 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

While I think the theft of celeb nudes is a crime; I am appalled at the “press” Hollywood gets with their trivial BS, compared to what’s going on in the world. This is the same Hollywood that still loves Polanski.

Ferguson was highlighted by the press and their whining about being detained for a few hours, taking over the story line – filled with faux outrage.

Whether you think no one should take a nude photo or no one should upload them to “the cloud” or no one should digitize anything – who cares. Theft within all mediums has and always will take place. You prosecute them through the proper channels.

Making this nonsense a national story is pathetic. Love you Ed – and your fantastic hometown; but come on now…

Odie1941 on September 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I’m pretty sure that most of the blame goes to Apple.

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM

As it should. They were reckless by not blocking the accounts after a few password trials. They are the ones who should be compared to people who don’t lock their houses.

Gelsomina on September 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Love you Ed – and your fantastic hometown; but come on now…

Odie1941 on September 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

.
WaitWaitWait… Ed Morrissey is a native of Hollywood, CA?

ExpressoBold on September 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM

How does this rate so much attention? I’m serious.

Fallon on September 3, 2014 at 7:04 PM

It’s like the old joke–”the party’s getting rough. I’m gonna put my clothes back on and go home.” The best way not to have sexy pictures of you hacked is 1: Don’t make them in the first place . 2 Don’t post them on the internet. These beautiful People make me sick–they perpetually act like whores on a busman’s holiday; have the morality of Afghan goat molesters and if it’s not alcohol it’s ups, downs, and zonked out clowns.

MaiDee on September 3, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Absolutely NOT .
Unless the celebrity is someone like Barney Frank or Shiela Jackson Lee .

burrata on September 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM

More nauseating than syrup of ipecac.

*BLEAH!*

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 3, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Enough of this. Celebrity. Nudity. Invasion. Privacy. Theft.

I have two words to give to the “celebrity” culture who are apparently aghast at this. Ready?

Rape rape.

When an entire industry condones the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl, and confirms their ideology by giving the convicted rapist awards, they get what sow.

I couldn’t care less.

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM

“Should hacking nude celebrity photos be a sex crime?”

I don’t know. I’d have to think about it more, but, I have seen a couple more news stories today that one set of photos contained an entertainer who was underage at the time the photos were taken, so that the FBI are looking at it as though it’s a child pr0n case.

TigerPaw on September 3, 2014 at 8:24 PM

When an entire industry condones the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl, and confirms their ideology by giving the convicted rapist awards, they get what sow.

I couldn’t care less.

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM

I doubt that all or most of the young ladies who had their photos stolen would support child rape. They are all probably just as disgusted by it as you and I are.

TigerPaw on September 3, 2014 at 8:25 PM

As it should. They were reckless by not blocking the accounts after a few password trials. They are the ones who should be compared to people who don’t lock their houses.

Gelsomina

So it’s okay to blame some victims, but not okay to blame others, lol.

xblade on September 3, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Gelsomina on September 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM

.
So it’s okay to blame some victims, but not okay to blame others, lol.

xblade on September 3, 2014 at 8:58 PM

.
Do you consider Apple Inc to be a “victim” in this ?

listens2glenn on September 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Shhh…don’t let the mods or the Mrs know you got them from me…. (nsfw warning)

;P

abobo on September 3, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Dear God in Heaven. Thank you abobo! (Who’s that weird dude she’s with tho?)

She is truly God’s gift to humanity.

WhatSlushfund on September 3, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Dude, all these chicks are skanks. This Upton chick is the latest in human history of whoredom.
But she’ll die fat, rich and un-lonely. It’s the way of the world.

WhatSlushfund on September 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Can’t say I disagree. Models and actresses live a weirdly public slut life, making money by selling misleading and hyper-sexualized images of themselves. This apparently carries over into their supposedly private lives where they photograph themselves naked. I’m no prude but that’s a little weird.

No surprise – someone decided that if Kate Upton can paint her tits and declare herself clothed and distribute those photos all over the world for money, then maybe she won’t feel too violated by publishing the nudes. These chicks live in a different world. Maybe normal rules of decency don’t apply to them?

Jaibones on September 3, 2014 at 3:09 PM

I used to work in the adult entertainment industry. I’ve partied with more strippers and porn stars than the average dude. Kate, as much as I love her, is just another one, just on a different income level. She’s just got a really good gig going on right now.

How Jennifer Lawrence got famous though is a mystery to me. I don’t find her attractive or talented. Kate at least has the looks.

To whoever is “leaking” these pics: More Kate, less Jennifer.

WhatSlushfund on September 3, 2014 at 9:40 PM

I feel fairly certain this whole theft thingy is a fake. Haven’t seen anyone link, or seen a single photo anywhere.

Bmore on September 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM

This is kind of a weird story and way too much information, but one time I was having phone sex with this chick that I’d only met over the internet, and she asked me to send a photo of my erect p3nis, so I took a pic and did.

About a month later, I was visiting work headquarters (which was in a different city) and went out for drinks with the big boss and a bunch of other top people, and I was showing them a photo on my camera of something completely different, and I totally forgot that the photo was still on there, and they started passing around the camera and scrolling through all my photos. I didn’t think anything about it at first. But then they came across that photo. You could see my face and everything.

How embarrassing.

Exit question: How many HA posters have shown your erect p3nis to your boss and all your co-workers?

I’ll never live that one down.

Anyway, I guess my point, related to the topic of the thread, is; stuff happens.

WhatSlushfund on September 3, 2014 at 10:00 PM

As it should. They were reckless by not blocking the accounts after a few password trials. They are the ones who should be compared to people who don’t lock their houses.

Gelsomina

They should be compared to banks that don’t lock the vault at night.

pedestrian on September 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM

That girl in the top pic is not even that attractive.

Sherman1864 on September 4, 2014 at 12:09 AM

This entire blog entry is what I tried to express in the other thread, but obviously didn’t find the right words.

Gelsomina on September 3, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You simply littered the thread with your hypocrisy, Irene.

corkie on September 4, 2014 at 12:30 AM

I agree with most of the blowback over the “outrage” of their private pics being hacked. Enough of the silliness.

How many times have we seen celebrities do “glamour shots” showing about everything through thin shirts, wet shirts, bikinis etc.? Then they put them out there for all of us to go “wow!” over and they move up the celebrity chain just a little.

Then comes the inevitable “She has a nude scene” moment, and everybody rushes to see the starlet or star get out of a bed or take a shower or something. Then the critics all gasp “Groundbreaking!” “On the edge” “really putting herself out there!”

Now, in this day and age of selfies, regular girls sending guys pics all the time, the sexualization of about everything in the media, we have a set of hacked pics of young starlets and models. Many of them posed so they were obviously showing off to someone.

BIG FREAKING DEAL!

I know actors, was married to one small timer, they’ll strip naked if it means a paycheck in a minute. It is all about being self absorbed. Sure, it is “private” in the sense they meant the pics for someone, not everyone.

But this is the 21st century, there are headlines about hacking, NSA, Google tracking, Droid hacking, ID theft every day! The fact these kids can’t connect the freaking dots between sending pics or having pics on their phones, and it getting out- especially after what a dozen similar cases over the last few years- then I guess shame on them!

The question is, are they upset over the nudes, or are they upset they didn’t get paid for the nudes?? Sooner or later, JL would have done that “walk across the room undressing” scene for shock value, especially if she had lost her stardom.

All that said, it is theft and a privacy invasion. But it is not an FBI case for the love of God! That’s just a bunch of FBI agents and DOJ attorneys seeing an opportunity to scan through all the pics in the case “legitimately” and jumping all over it. (I was a cop for twenty years, trust me, the number of hands waving when the supervisor said “Anyone want this case?” filled the freaking room!!)

They can’t find one frigging ISIS terrorist running around the country when we all know they are here, but JL’s full frontal- that’s the crime of the century!

Jeeezz…

archer52 on September 4, 2014 at 7:25 AM

One assumes this breaks the law.

But I find that I haven’t a trace of sympathy. I suppose there’s a law against robbing me when I wear my money suit and go traipsing through a crowd.

You are a perfect idiot if you have nudes of yourself on your phone, or anybody’s phone, or on unseen servers in some remote closet somewhere and expect them to remain private. It’s absurd. The absurdity is utterly unworthy of sympathy. And this from who put themselves purposefully in front of the public specifically to draw attention to themselves as actors, models, singers, what have you.

It’s analog is the purposefully revealing low-cut garnet + “Hellooooo. My eyes are up here.”

i stepped into a crowded elevator one hot summer day with my shirt unbuttoned half way and a woman stuck her hand right into my shirt and then remarked to the passengers what she felt inside there, and I thought, “Animal! How rude. Well, I guess I did invite that.” I should sue! Go on, drag a pork chop on a string through a kennel then complain about your pork chop being snapped up. Surely there is a law that protects you. The whole thing is absurd. Where are the photos of men? They’re in the cloud too, but the hackers weren’t interested. Just yet. Where did my empathy go? There never was any.

bour3 on September 4, 2014 at 9:14 AM

When an entire industry condones the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl, and confirms their ideology by giving the convicted rapist awards, they get what sow.

I couldn’t care less.

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM

I doubt that all or most of the young ladies who had their photos stolen would support child rape. They are all probably just as disgusted by it as you and I are.

TigerPaw on September 3, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You may be right, but I don’t recall a single one stating they were “just as disgusted by it as you and I are.”

I mean, if they were truly just as disgusted (and I was pretty damn disgusted), why wouldn’t they use their much bigger soap box (than mine certainly) to say so?

I swear, it’s like trying to find that “majority of the muslim community” that thinks terrorists are bad people. You never seem to hear from a single one.

And the reason is pretty much the same. In both cases, they don’t want to be shunned (or worse) within their respective communities.

I’m with BobMbx here.

runawayyyy on September 4, 2014 at 9:17 AM

In a time when one of the most famous women in the world got there because her mother leaked a sex tape of her own daughter – I just don’t see how these celebs can complain about their own nude pictures being hacked from the Internet. They may not be that smart but their PR people are – and I suspect that some of these are left out there on the Web for just this purpose – publicity.

Yes, it is theft and the hackers need to be punished. However I am also in the camp that believes if you have nude pictures of yourself, they shouldn’t be left on the Internet. It’s not blaming the victim – it’s just common sense.

KrisinNE on September 4, 2014 at 9:29 AM

They all said it happened so long ago and Polanski has suffered enough. Only a few stated in public what he did was wrong. One was Kirstie Alley who said she had a 45 and was willing to shoot him.

Blake on September 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Not unless its Dire’s Kate Upton puzzle

SpongePuppy on September 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Sex crime? NO way. Stupidity, yes. They took these photos and put them on the Net, and hence is public property. If you didn’t want them seen, then you don’t do this. Think, if your head has space to do so. Notoriety is the way to go in today’s entertainment world, so you asked for it and you got it.

Roselle on September 4, 2014 at 12:01 PM

factsonlypls on September 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Metadata is extremely easy to alter.

Al in St. Lou on September 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Should hacking nude celebrity photos be a sex crime?

I agree with Bill Cosby: We should outlaw stupidity! Then we wouldn’t need so many other laws..

In this case, the celebrities who uploaded nude pix would be the first ones arrested.

landlines on September 6, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2