The Fappening

PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
the reality is that these celebrities are very careful who they hand out their phone number to. They are careful to protect their privacy in a variety of ways that the average person doesn't. They've seen and heard of data breaches in the news, and they've no doubt known individuals in their line of work who's privacy was violated through phone or internet or computer hacking. Maybe this is still surprising to many of them. It's not their fault, but you can bet they are going to change their behavior to reduce their exposure to this type of attack.
Click to expand...
This is how the usual immune response works. There is a breach of some sort, a defense is mounted and deployed, and further breaches are therefore mitigated. It sucks for those caught up in the initial breach, but their sacrifice ensures the safety of the rest.
stienman said:
Apple and other device makers will beef up their security significantly, because celebrities hold a lot of sway in the advertising of such products. Even if the device makers can't be blamed, you can be sure they'll attempt to set people at ease, or tout their security features in the face of competitors obvious failures.
Click to expand...
They'd better, since they've already suggested they're moving to a model where all your photos are stored online by default.
Charlie Don't Surf said:
re: the fappening... you ever wonder why there's no celeb dick pics leaked yet??? hum.....
Click to expand...
No, I don't wonder this at all. It's the same reason there aren't any nude photos leaked of Queen Elizabeth, Joan Rivers, or Shirley MacLaine. I mean, they're all women, and that means their nudie pictures should be in rabid demand, right? Unfortunately for them, this is probably not the case.

--Patrick
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
Necronic, I don't know entirely what you should do, but you should definitely learn how to spell your favorite porn category :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, this has honestly caused problems for me (on some sites things will be tagged by the incorrect spelling, but only a few of them, so I'll always be surprised and try to figure out why there are so few videos.)

Also after asking my fiancé if she had heard of this we quickly decided we needed a new sex tape. I don't think we're really receiving the right message from this.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Necronic said:
Yeah, this has honestly caused problems for me (on some sites things will be tagged by the incorrect spelling, but only a few of them, so I'll always be surprised and try to figure out why there are so few videos.)

Also after asking my fiancé if she had heard of this we quickly decided we needed a new sex tape. I don't think we're really receiving the right message from this.
Click to expand...
Well, if you're looking for a cinematographer or someone to edit...




...you should look elsewhere.

--Patrick
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

PatrThom said:
No, I don't wonder this at all. It's the same reason there aren't any nude photos leaked of Queen Elizabeth, Joan Rivers, or Shirley MacLaine. I mean, they're all women, and that means their nudie pictures should be in rabid demand, right? Unfortunately for them, this is probably not the case.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Hey if they find pics of those ladies when they were under 30... especially Shirley, there will be a ton of money to be made.

For the Queen, there were blackmail pics of her sister 50 years ago.
 
Mathias

Mathias

Ok, this pissed me off. Reddit was donating towards Prostate Cancer research as a joke to "atone" for the sub /r/thefappening.

They get this response from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: http://imgur.com/DpJoOcH

Perfectly justifiable response.

There are people pissed off and concluding that the PCF finds celebrities more important than cancer! http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappenin...ate_cancer_foundation_returns_donations_from/


NO! YOU DUMB FUCKING IDIOTS! NO! Of course they can't accept that money, it's a breach in science ethics 101. You might as well fucking claim data from the Tuskegee experiments, use stolen money, mafia/drug cartel money, or say Josef Mengele's research is admissible. That is not how it works, you dumb fuck basement dwelling retards!


Edit. So I made a comment in the main post about this. Seems like OP is in high school. Ah well.
 
Last edited:
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
The thing is, though, that these people didn't send it to anyone or even try and make the pictures remotely public. The Apple iCloud backup thing just kinda takes it upon itself to update and put the stuff in the cloud and you'd THINK that they'd have had a bit better security. This is about the same as going into someone's house and rifling through their stuff to see what you can find. It's theft and harassment, plain and simple. You can dress it up all you want but this is just awful. And the comments...Jesus Christ. Who gives a damn if the girl wants to take sexy pictures of herself for her boyfriend or husband? It's none of your damned business.
Click to expand...
I think some people are making the mistake of filing this alongside posting pics on the web and getting upset when they start being distributed from there. And that's not at all what's happened here. I would view it like this:

If you walk around naked in your house, with the blinds open in full daylight, you maybe shouldn't be upset if your neighbors see you. But you can totally be upset if someone breaks down your door to peep at you in the shower.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
I think some people are making the mistake of filing this alongside posting pics on the web and getting upset when they start being distributed from there. And that's not at all what's happened here. I would view it like this:

If you walk around naked in your house, with the blinds open in full daylight, you maybe shouldn't be upset if your neighbors see you. But you can totally be upset if someone breaks down your door to peep at you in the shower.
Click to expand...
No, it's like someone opened the blinds themselves without your knowing it. Bad analogy! Bad! These women did NOTHING to allow this to happen.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Dave said:
No, it's like someone opened the blinds themselves without your knowing it.
Click to expand...
Yes. You had the blinds closed, but someone discovered they could reach the cord with a simple coat hanger and pull it...and then they pulled it.

--Patrick
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
PatrThom said:
Yes. You had the blinds closed, but someone discovered they could reach the cord with a simple coat hanger and pull it...and then they pulled it.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Which is still a complete intrusion into your privacy. Jesus Christ, people, quit trying to blame the girls!
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
I was actually agreeing with you. I don't blame the girls for it at all. If anything, they are merely an "attractive nuisance."

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Uh, you're totally disagreeing with him if you're using that tort. By citing that, you're saying that having private nude pictures of themselves in existence makes them ultimately responsible for people wanting to hack their stuff to get it.

I'd reword your response.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Bullshit. Because they are good looking it's reasonable to think that people will do this? Again, that is placing the blame on them.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
I'd reword your response.
Click to expand...
The celebrity pictures were the "attractive nuisance" in question that encouraged people to hack iCloud. Apple would be the one liable, if anyone, according to that tort.

Better, edited version below. Read that one. Nothing to see here...

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Bowielee

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
The celebrity pictures were the "attractive nuisance" in question that encouraged people to hack iCloud. Apple would be the one liable, if anyone, according to that tort.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
You do realize that you're literally objectifying women with that example, right :p
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

OK, the main reason that the attractive nuisance is a horrible example is because the owner of the object and the object itself are still the women, placing the blame on them for being so damn alluring that the poor weak men (equated in this example as children who don't know any better) that they can't help themselves but trample all over someone else's property.

And I guess the injury would be from masturbation cramps?

I get what PatrThom is really trying to say, I think. I believe he's putting the fault on the security breach itself, not the original owner of the content.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Reworded.

The celebrity pictures were the "attractive nuisance" in question that encouraged people to hack iCloud. Apple would be the one liable, if anyone, if that tort applied. However, if you read the doctrine, blame shifts from the trespassers to the landowner ONLY IF certain conditions are met, chief among them being that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the trespassers are either ignorant of or unable to comprehend that what they are doing is wrong. I do not believe the trespassers would pass that test, in this case.
[DOUBLEPOST=1409709394,1409709315][/DOUBLEPOST]
Bowielee said:
You do realize that you're literally objectifying women with that example, right :p
Click to expand...
No, I'm objectifying their photographs. Which are...um, objects. And I'm placing blame on the breachers, not the breachees. It's really hard to say whether Apple or the celebrities are the "victims" in this case, since technically both were violated.

I'm kind of reminded of the Maginot Line, in a way. The perpetrators did not attack the celebrities directly, instead they did so through a weakened intermediary.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
PatrThom said:
Reworded.

The celebrity pictures were the "attractive nuisance" in question that encouraged people to hack iCloud. Apple would be the one liable, if anyone, if that tort applied. However, if you read the doctrine, blame shifts from the trespassers to the landowner ONLY IF certain conditions are met, chief among them being that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the trespassers are either ignorant of or unable to comprehend that what they are doing is wrong. I do not believe they would pass that test, in this case.

--Patrick[DOUBLEPOST=1409709394,1409709315][/DOUBLEPOST]
No, I'm objectifying their photographs. Which are...objects.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
You need to drop the "attractive nuisance" bit. The term's definition makes it explicitly fault the owner of the item in question.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
Reworded.

The celebrity pictures were the "attractive nuisance" in question that encouraged people to hack iCloud. Apple would be the one liable, if anyone, if that tort applied. However, if you read the doctrine, blame shifts from the trespassers to the landowner ONLY IF certain conditions are met, chief among them being that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the trespassers are either ignorant of or unable to comprehend that what they are doing is wrong. I do not believe the trespassers would pass that test, in this case.
[DOUBLEPOST=1409709394,1409709315][/DOUBLEPOST]
No, I'm objectifying their photographs. Which are...um, objects. And I'm placing blame on the breachers, not the breachees. It's really hard to say whether Apple or the celebrities are the "victims" in this case, since technically both were violated.

I'm kind of reminded of the Maginot Line, in a way. The perpetrators did not attack the celebrities directly, instead they did so through a weakened intermediary.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Regardless of how they obtained the photos, the intended attack is on the celebrity.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
You need to drop the "attractive nuisance" bit. The term's definition makes it explicitly fault the owner of the item in question.
Click to expand...
Possessor, not owner, and only if certain tests are met, yes.
The five conditions are:
  • The place where the condition exists is one on which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
  • The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and
  • The children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in inter-meddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and
  • The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
  • The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children
Click to expand...
The test fails spectacularly on points 3 and 5, and also 2 if you want to get literal on the "bodily harm" part.
Also, not all of my analogies can be gold. It's obvious that I'm relating situational mechanics and not actually stating that the doctrine should literally apply any more than I'm stating that said photos were protected behind actual pre-WWII fortifications.

--Patrick
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
Regardless of how they obtained the photos, the intended attack is on the celebrity.
Click to expand...
Yes, and John Hinckley, Jr. was still charged with the shooting of James Brady and his two buddies even though the attack was technically supposed to be "only" on President Reagan.

Honestly, I wonder if I'm just not explaining my thoughts well enough, if the issue is just too emotionally active to have a rational discussion about it, or whether I'm just sailing way over people's heads. This must be how @GasBandit feels.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
No, it's like someone opened the blinds themselves without your knowing it. Bad analogy! Bad! These women did NOTHING to allow this to happen.
Click to expand...
I feel like you didn't read all of my post? My analogy was someone breaking down your door to watch you shower.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
I saw that part, but the window part was more apt to me.
Click to expand...
But that's the part I said wasn't happening....

Ravenpoe said:
I think some people are making the mistake of filing this alongside posting pics on the web and getting upset when they start being distributed from there. And that's not at all what's happened here.
Click to expand...
The window analogy was an example of that, whereas the break-in is what was actually happening.

Geeze Dave, reading comprehension :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top