Leaked Celebrity Photos: Who is wrong?

[D-Man]

There is currently a heated debate happening in the Cage in regards to Blake Lively's iPhone being hacked and her self-taken nude photos leaking onto the internet. Personally, I believe that both sides of the debate have great points and have backed up said points very well. So well, in fact, that I feel it should continue in here and become a true topic of debate.

We all know this has happened in the past with stars such as Paris Hilton, Hayley Williams from Paramore, and others. One Hollywood star's irresponsibility has become some creepy bastard's gain (as well as the world that follows pop culture). You would think that young stars of Hollywood would stop taking nude photos or making sex tapes in order for them to avoid getting leaked for the public to see.

Although it is criminal and wrong for anyone to "hack" into cell phones or others' computers, who can we truly blame for these blunders? Do we blame the crooks for stealing said media or the public figures for creating them?

Discuss it all in here.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

Okay, I know nothing of this story - until I Googled it and saw the photos before I commented. First of all, can someone explain to me why she had the photos on her phone in the first place? Is it common to walk around with photos of yourself nude on your phone? If so, I better start taking snaps of my schlong.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont care to argue this in here, since I have already done it extensively


what I will say, is that looking at anyone in the nude without their consent is about the wrongest of wrong, full fucking stop, period. You can try to soften it, shift blame, do what you want, but it is what it is.

At the end of the day, you are looking at someone naked who did not consent for you to do so.

Anything you want to make up or use as an excuse for yourself, is just as wrong.

 

[amazing_blue]

^I agree with you 100%, man. What's on her phone is her private business, and nobody has the right to hack into that.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It's not 'wrong' to take nude photos of yourself providing you're over-age and are making them of your own free will, and those people certainly shouldn't be blamed if someone uses illegal methods to find and spread those photos. There's a case to be made for stupidity and naivety of course, especially if you're a celebrity, but that's literally as far as this can go.

Those stealing these photographs are wrong. "They were in a public place". Well so is my car. And the clothes in the shop I work in. It doesn't mean I'm allowed to take them because stealing a new top would be easy, and I had access to them publicly. This is no different, although I do enjoy how it has been spun around by some people.

As for looking at them, I'm in agreement with how NorCal put it - looking at someone naked without their consent just doesn't do it for me in the slightest and I previously assumed many others would feel the same. If you choose to look at them it doesn't mean you're the worst person in the world, but it's nothing to be proud of, and it all seems too seedy and desperate to me.

 

[D-Man]

It's not 'wrong' to take nude photos of yourself providing you're over-age and are making them of your own free will, and those people certainly shouldn't be blamed if someone uses illegal methods to find and spread those photos. There's a case to be made for stupidity and naivety of course, especially if you're a celebrity, but that's literally as far as this can go.

Those stealing these photographs are wrong. "They were in a public place". Well so is my car. And the clothes in the shop I work in. It doesn't mean I'm allowed to take them because stealing a new top would be easy, and I had access to them publicly. This is no different, although I do enjoy how it has been spun around by some people.

As for looking at them, I'm in agreement with how NorCal put it - looking at someone naked without their consent just doesn't do it for me in the slightest and I previously assumed many others would feel the same. If you choose to look at them it doesn't mean you're the worst person in the world, but it's nothing to be proud of, and it all seems too seedy and desperate to me.

I agree with most of this. And I also agree that it is morally wrong for someone like myself to take enjoyment in looking at these pictures. They weren't meant for me to look at, after all.

It's really easy to blame the hacker in this situation. It goes without saying that it is wrong for them to gain access to these pieces of e-media. After all, they are going out of their way and invading privacy by gaining access to these photos and leaking them in public places and that is morally wrong. But if I may play devil's advocate for a minute here, the news does the same thing on occasion. News platforms such as TMZ, tabloids, and even Fox News channels have been guilty of digging for news stories in places where they don't belong. Should a "hacker" of someone's cell phone be held to the same standards as news reporters and tabloids? Just because the Hollywood actress is naked in the photos, does that make the penalty any more severe?

Another angle of the argument here is whether or not we should hold the taker/owner of the pictures accountable. Now, let me clarify this... I'm not talking about 100% accountability, but some nonetheless. They are aware that these types of things happen all the time. They know their information isn't secure. All apps on cell phones (as well as the cell phones themselves) come with disclaimers that state the publicity of information sent over unsecured platforms on the internet. Ho can we shift ALL blame onto the hackers, in this instance, when the owner can be blamed for his or her ignorance to the disclaimers that have already been presented to them? I have to put blame on them for just clicking "OK" at the end of the disclaimer instead of actually sitting down, reading it, and following it.

Once again, I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I think it's a valid argument. Thoughts?

 

[Arkham Noir]

First thing I will say is that I don't any blame should be put on a celebrity if they get hacked.Quite simply they are people just like we are. They are entitled to do anything in their private lives that you and I can. If Blake Lively wants to have nude photos of herself on her phone, she should have the right to . If I want to have nude photos of my girlfirend on my phone I should be able to without any fear of someone hacking my phone.

The point is that people are people and should all have the the same right to privacy. I think it is borderly ridiculous to blame a celebrity for someone else invading their privacy. Should a celebrity be a little more careful? Yes, but at the end of the it is an invasion of privacy to hack some phone for pictures the same way that is an invasion of privacy to hack someone's computer for credit card numbers or personal information and should be viewed and dealt with in the similar manner. I think that is the big thing here. People look at this situation differently because we are getting nude photos of a beautiful woman instead of someone losing thousand of dollars in damage to identity theft.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I agree with most of this. And I also agree that it is morally wrong for someone like myself to take enjoyment in looking at these pictures. They weren't meant for me to look at, after all.

It's really easy to blame the hacker in this situation. It goes without saying that it is wrong for them to gain access to these pieces of e-media. After all, they are going out of their way and invading privacy by gaining access to these photos and leaking them in public places and that is morally wrong. But if I may play devil's advocate for a minute here, the news does the same thing on occasion. News platforms such as TMZ, tabloids, and even Fox News channels have been guilty of digging for news stories in places where they don't belong. Should a "hacker" of someone's cell phone be held to the same standards as news reporters and tabloids? Just because the Hollywood actress is naked in the photos, does that make the penalty any more severe?

There has recently been an issue here where the largest Sunday newspaper was found to have illegally hacked the phones of important figures/celebrities in order to find out things about them and their life. Both are wrong, and invasions of privacy. The reason nude photos appears to be worse is because you can't go much further into invasion of privacy than by looking at someone naked against their consent. I'd much rather a newspaper know what I had for breakfast in the morning than to hold nude photos of me, and I'm sure most people would agree.

Also, I think going into a profession such as acting in Hollywood means you need to accept you're going to get more attention than others for your love life, and related issues which gain publicity. However, any news outlet that does anything illegal to gain a story, or photograph is in the wrong, regardless of it being a nude snap, or story of your new boyfriend.

Another angle of the argument here is whether or not we should hold the taker/owner of the pictures accountable. Now, let me clarify this... I'm not talking about 100% accountability, but some nonetheless. They are aware that these types of things happen all the time. They know their information isn't secure. All apps on cell phones (as well as the cell phones themselves) come with disclaimers that state the publicity of information sent over unsecured platforms on the internet. Ho can we shift ALL blame onto the hackers, in this instance, when the owner can be blamed for his or her ignorance to the disclaimers that have already been presented to them? I have to put blame on them for just clicking "OK" at the end of the disclaimer instead of actually sitting down, reading it, and following it.

Once again, I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I think it's a valid argument. Thoughts?

We can call them stupid, and naive. But I don't think stupidity and naivety equates to being wrong. There's no disclaimer on mobile phone contracts which says their staff are allowed to go through your photographs and pass them onto others for the sake of getting turned on, or post them on the internet. What happened in this particular situation was illegal, and regardless of the horrible phrase 'unintentional consent' or whatever else wants to be said, what happened was NOT agreed by her, and was against the law.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I think this is pretty clear cut, it's illegal to hack someones phone, and the same for stealing their media. At the same time, it's a good lesson that you should be more careful what kind of media you keep on your devices, because right or wrong, they're vulnerable to hackers. I think it's fair to say that she should know better when she's a famous celebrity and is thus a prime target for this sort of thing. She's not to blame though, I don't think that argument can be made.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Stealing these photos is wrong, end of story. Looking at them is somewhat wrong, but not on the same level as actually stealing them.

I'm not in the business of blaming victims. Should someone in her position take these kinds of photos? No, it's stupid. She's stupid, more than likely. Does that mean the weirdo who stole them isn't 100% at fault? No, it doesn't. He's 100% at fault, and a total scumbag.

Regardless of how stupid and careless she was, it's not her fault. Not at all. Being stupid and guilty are two very different things.

 

[LSN80]

So much of this is a case of action and reaction. Without the celebrity taking the nude photos in the first place, there would be no heated debate. One has to question why a celebrity, whsoe public eye would be taking such photos with the built in knowledge that there re people out there who make a living off of going to whatever lengths are possible to get dirt on celebrities. Those who don't realize this live in an awfully large bubble, and are incredibly naive. I think back to even the Matt Striker pictures that were "intended" only for his close family and friends, and wound up all over the internet. Part of me wonders if celebrities enjoy the attention they get from having risque shots of them being plastered into the public eye. All publicity is sometimes seen as good publicity, and anything to stay relevant, whether it be positive or negative, seems to be the Hollywood mindset.

It may seem that Im defending the hacker, but Im not. At the end of the day, wrong is wrong. A celebrity shouldnt, theoretically, be held to any more scrutiny then is done so for a normal person. Hell, Ive had friends who have taken nude pictures on their phone. If I hadnt been granted permission to see them, which I declined anyway, and did so without consent, it's wrong. Those who take it one step further and actually print said photos without consent, having hacked a phone, is flat out criminal. They should be held fully accountable, as the celebrity is a private citizen just like you and I. The only difference is the demand of the photos, and whatever compensation or expose of someone whose seen as important. But it doesnt change the right and wrong of what was done by the hacker. There's no difference between someone hacking my phone to see if Im cheating on my wife then there is for a celebrity whose phone is hacked simplyfor nude pictures that create a buzz. They're both crimes.

Originally posted by Dragon Saga
Okay, I know nothing of this story - until I Googled it and saw the photos before I commented. First of all, can someone explain to me why she had the photos on her phone in the first place? Is it common to walk around with photos of yourself nude on your phone?

Ill again reference my friend,who had nude pictures of herself on her phone. She is very attractive, and and after a night of drinking, thought it might be fun to share. I dont see the personal logic behind it, because I wouldnt want to share my body with anyone but my wife, but there are plenty of people who not only enjoy taking the photos, but sharing with others. Attractive celebrities with little moral compas likely feel even moreso that this is a thing they want to share amongst others, of their choosing.

Originally posted by D-ManNews platforms such as TMZ, tabloids, and even Fox News channels have been guilty of digging for news stories in places where they don't belong. Should a "hacker" of someone's cell phone be held to the same standards as news reporters and tabloids? Just because the Hollywood actress is naked in the photos, does that make the penalty any more severe?

The dfference betweent the two is that while platforms such as TMZ and Fox Newsmaay stoop to shady, questionable behavior in their pursuit of dirt on Hollywood, they dont out and out break the law. Things arent clear cut in these situations with these dirt shows. When it comes to hacking a phone, for whatever reason, it's very clear cut in terms of legality, and they absolutely should be held to a higher standard. I dont condone the actions of a TMZ, because they push the boundary of the law as far as they can without breaking it, but thy shouldnt be held to the same standard as a hacker, simply because hacking is a crime. We could get into question of human decency on both ends and that would be a different story, but this isn't moral standards here, it's about legal ones. There's nothing wrong with us viewing said photos if they are leaked, but them being there in the first place is wrong.

 

[Slyfox696]

Stealing these photos is wrong, end of story. Looking at them is somewhat wrong, but not on the same level as actually stealing them.

I'm not in the business of blaming victims. Should someone in her position take these kinds of photos? No, it's stupid. She's stupid, more than likely. Does that mean the weirdo who stole them isn't 100% at fault? No, it doesn't. He's 100% at fault, and a total scumbag.

Regardless of how stupid and careless she was, it's not her fault. Not at all. Being stupid and guilty are two very different things.

I pretty much agree here. Stealing the photos is wrong, and having the photos to be stolen is stupid.

First of all, why ANYONE, in this day and age, wants to carry naked pictures of themselves on their cell phones is absolutely mind-boggling to me. Take the picture with the phone, transfer it to the computer, and delete off the phone. Given the wide range of Wi-Fi networks, packet sniffers, etc. which are easily attainable and usable, having a naked picture on your phone is like leaving the keys in your brand new unlocked Porsche. Yes, it would be wrong for someone to steal that Porshe, but c'mon...you're basically asking for it at that point. I consider cell phone pictures to basically be the same thing. And when you're a celebrity, whether it's right or not, you should know your privacy is much smaller than of those people who are not famous, and should take even greater precautions to protect those private items/moments.

So it's stupid to have them on your phone, illegal/wrong for people to steal them from your phone, so the biggest part of this thread is it wrong for people like us to look at the hacked and released photos. And in that, I say it's not. It's obviously embarrassing for the people who it affects, but at the same time, the biggest question I have is "Why is it embarrassing?". The pictures, assuming they were real, of Blake Lively were very flattering pictures of her. I mean, does anyone find it surprising she has breasts, a vagina and buttocks? Those are pretty standard fares on women, not exactly earth shattering. And she's in very good shape and it shows. Instead of being ashamed of those pictures, she should be proud of the way she looks.

It's just the human body. Our culture needs to quit enforcing the concept of being ashamed of nakedness, and instead embrace the idea that, at the end of the day, we all look pretty damn similar underneath the large variety of clothing we wear to separate us from others. If we'd quit treating nudity as such a taboo, then things like this would never even be an issue.

I believe it was Norcal who mentioned we shouldn't be looking at her without her consent, and that's a perfectly acceptable view of the situation. However, a lot of things happen to me without my consent. I didn't ask for the speed limit to be changed from 35 to 25 on the road that goes to my mother's house, it affects me personally...but that's life. Things happen all the time without our consent and against our wishes. And in this case, this woman had the opportunity to prevent such an occurrence from happening, but she took the risk and it backfired on her.

So, at the end of the day, while I certainly understand the position Norcal takes, I just don't agree with it. Things happen without our consent everyday, and this lady had a chance to prevent this from happening but didn't. As such, I don't feel as if it's wrong to view the pictures.

In conclusion, to clarify:

Taking the pictures: Not wrong, just stupid
Hacking phone/stealing pictures: Illegal and morally wrong
Viewing released pictures: Not wrong

 

[Mustang Sally]

Of course, you have to blame the hacker for stealing what wasn't his. But I do have to wonder why Blake Lively felt the need to take nude photos of herself and place them on her cell phone (i.e., a place where they are subject to being hacked, as opposed to making hard copies of the photos and keeping them in her desk drawer).

Blake Lively knows she's a celebrity and she knows there are paparazzi and stalkers out there who feel it's their privilege to invade her privacy. Given this, why upload these pictures in the first place? What for?

Yes, for those of you who don't like my last statement, she has a right to do it and no one can stop her if she wants to. But if she enjoys the fame and fortune of her celebrity status, she also knows it comes with a price. It's hard for these people to expect their celebrity status and their privacy.

Just one more thought: There was a movie made in the 1960's called "The Oscar" in which an actor who was nominated for an Academy Award uses a private investigator to start leaking false negative information about the actor's past in an effort to gain him notoriety and earn him the attention of those voting for the Oscar winner. The actor had to explain away the negative stories to the press, which gave him plenty of attention in the weeks leading up to the award.

To apply this to the current situation, given the risk Blake Lively took in doing such a foolish (and unnecessary) thing by placing these nude photos on her phone, does it occur to anyone that she might have orchestrated the whole thing herself......for the publicity?

Just sayin'.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I believe it was Norcal who mentioned we shouldn't be looking at her without her consent, and that's a perfectly acceptable view of the situation. However, a lot of things happen to me without my consent. I didn't ask for the speed limit to be changed from 35 to 25 on the road that goes to my mother's house, it affects me personally...but that's life. Things happen all the time without our consent and against our wishes. And in this case, this woman had the opportunity to prevent such an occurrence from happening, but she took the risk and it backfired on her.

The problem with citing the road on the way to your mothers house as an example though, is that you don't own that road. That road is owned and operated by the government, and you just pay to use it. Therefore, it is well within their rights to change the speed limit without your consent.

The pictures were her personal property. To take the personally owned photos and broadcast them to the world without her consent IS wrong. Just because it happens it the outside world doesn't automatically transfer to this situation.

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem with citing the road on the way to your mothers house as an example though, is that you don't own that road. That road is owned and operated by the government, and you just pay to use it. Therefore, it is well within their rights to change the speed limit without your consent.

The pictures were her personal property. To take the personally owned photos and broadcast them to the world without her consent IS wrong. Just because it happens it the outside world doesn't automatically transfer to this situation.

That's a great point...or, at least it would be if you didn't misinterpret the example.

I never once said that stealing the photos and broadcasting them to the world wasn't wrong. In fact, I said it was wrong and illegal. Look for yourself:

In conclusion, to clarify:

Taking the pictures: Not wrong, just stupid
Hacking phone/stealing pictures: Illegal and morally wrong
Viewing released pictures: Not wrong

You just spent an entire post arguing with me over the fact we agree. My point is not that it wasn't wrong for her photos to be taken, my point is that it isn't wrong for me to look at them now that they have been taken and exposed to the world.

You made an honest mistake that anyone could have made, but the fact is your post is wholly unnecessary as you missed the point of mine.

 

[SomeAreSet]

It's 100% the hacker's or thief's fault if they hack into a celebrity's phone or computer and start digging around for dirt,or if they steal videos or pictures from the celebrity's home or whatever.There's no two ways about it,they took something without the owner's consent and used those images or videos to maliciously attack the celebrity and to hurt the celebrity's reputation.If I stole a TV from my neighbor,I'd be charged with theft.If I stole business information from my neighbor,I'd be charged with theft,hacking and corporate espionage.I don't see how hacking and stealing compromising pictures from celebrities should be any different.

Celebrities should smarten up and realize that there will always be someone out there looking to attack their reputations in any way and don't give the would-be hacker any dirt to dig up.I feel sorry for celebrities sometimes,for fame and fortune,they give up any right to their privacy.Even worse,there are people who think they have a right to invade a celebrity's privacy because they're famous.It's ridiculous.

By the way,I may be a bad person,terrible even,for looking at Blake Lively's nude pictures,but by God,she is a perfect female specimen.I can die happy knowing that Venus lives among us and that I've seen her nude form.

 

[Calderownz]

You blame the hacks. Hacking is simply another form of snitching. Simply for different reasons.

With common sense always in the back of my mind, I'm always going to use a simply train of thought. Don't want certain information out there? Don't document it in any way. However, that still doesn't give people the right to take what is your private information and share it.

One is a crime, the other isn't. It's a crime to steal this information. It's not illegal to take nudes of yourself. Stupid, but not illegal. And unlike so many other laws, this one makes sense. You should have privacy. While she might have leaked them herself, I'm using the idea that she didn't.

While this isn't the worst thing that could happen, it's still not right. What if it were goofy pictures of her young daughter naked? (Don't know if she has kids, but it's beside the point.) Parents love those horrible pictures. People leaking that could be very bad and would be all the hackers faults.

Just like it is in this situation.

 

[ABMorales787]

Hacking or taking the photos is the same as stealing. That's no real mystery. It's pretty damn obvious, actually. But it's a pretty damn stupid move to take them. At times, you have to wonder if celebs do this intentionally as publicity stunts. This is something that happens so very oftenly that it's hard to believe they still fall for it. Blake Lively now joins quite a long list of public figures that have fallen victim to the same issue. Britney Spears, Vanessa Hudgens, Paris Hilton, among many others. It may have been true that they were stolen, but it's just becomes too hard to think these public figures haven't learned from the mistakes of others.

 

[Rayne]

It's good to see that there doesn't need to be much debate on if hacking someone's phone to steal information off of it is wrong. There always seems to be one token dissenter in these threads.

Is taking pictures of yourself wrong? It's probably not a smart idea, but no. It's your phone, it's your body, go to town. I'm of the opinion that consenting adults should be allowed to run over each other with haybalers, so long as they don't do it in front of children. Or lovers of harvesting equipment. (If you caught that obscure reference without googling it, seriously, pat yourself on the back!) It's sort of like living in the inner city and leaving your door unlocked when you leave the house. Yeah, you put yourself in a bad situation by doing it, but the person who walks in your front door and steals all your stuff is the wrong party.

Is it wrong for me to look at them? I don't know who Blake Lively is, I'll let you know after I google the pics.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Although it is criminal and wrong for anyone to "hack" into cell phones or others' computers, who can we truly blame for these blunders? Do we blame the crooks for stealing said media or the public figures for creating them?

Discuss it all in here.

Congrats, you just uncovered the entire undebatable truth behind the entire situation. There really isn't anything else that should be said, or needs to be said. But I'm going to ramble for a bit, so as not to be flagged for spam.

It's illegal to hack into someone's private and personal stuff. It's one thing if they willingly release the video to make money. (The Paris Hilton stuff you can buy in porn shops, thus it can't be illegal otherwise anyone selling it would be a partner in crime.)

Shit like what happened to Erin Andrews is illegal and completely immoral. Whoever took that video was violating privacy, and downloading it to the internet was yet another crime.

At this point I'm truly just repeating myself so not to get flagged for spamming, but the only fact is.. it's illegal to do the shit that has been done over 90% of the time regarding these photos and videos. The crotch shots of Britney Spears, and others. The nude photos of celeb couples having sex in a private area that can ONLY be seen from above (helicopter, I'm assuming). All of that is an invasion of privacy, and one that is illegal just like any other.

Anyone who says stuff like "Because they're famous, they should know not to do this sort of thing." has no idea what it's like to do anything they want to keep private - or more so, has no idea what it's like to have something private slip into the hands, or minds, of people it shouldn't be with. You can't force someone to not do something sexual just because "they're famous". Thousands, if not millions, of people all over the world make sex videos, take nude photos, send e-mails or text photos all the time. It isn't illegal to take them, but it IS illegal for someone to hack to them and show the world when the person regarding them only wanted them to be private between themselves and whoever they WANTED to know of them.

Now, this is where someone thinks they're smart by saying "Well, then they shouldn't take something they know could be hacked." Uhm, no. If that were the case then NO ONE should shop online. NO ONE should talk online. NO ONE should do anything, regarding ANYONE ELSE because there will always be a fear of having identity theft on your hands. But you do, and should that ever happen your first thought is likely something like.. "but it's illegal, I can't believe it's happened, the person responsible should pay." So, anyone claiming a celeb is wrong for doing something private - in turn should say to themselves regarding identity theft, the person getting their identity stolen is in the wrong; not the actual thief.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The fault obviously lies with the hackers. If someone owns a phone and wants to take pictures of something, they have the freedom to do so. They do run the risk of others seeing said pictures, but they are not at fault for taking the pictures to begin with. Hackers on the other hand are always at fault because they are stealing files and information. They are always the ones at fault unless they hack under extreme circumstances when it could save someone's life or something. Sure the person taking the photos runs the risk of others seeing them, but they are not at fault for something of theirs being stolen.

 

[TheNewStyle]

The victim is to blame. I know it's fully your private business to do what you want and take whatever pictures you want of yourself without having to worry about being exposed. But at the end of the day, knowing how far the technology world has come, you know damn well you are not safe and could be hacked at any time. Therefore you should not cry if you do get hacked eventually. It's your own fault, if you are so fond of yourself, go and pose in front of your bathroom mirror. Unless somebody has rigged a camera somewhere, nobody is going to catch you. As for the person who did this evil hacking thing. I don't blame them, they are just having fun and their ways of that is by being assholes ruining other's lives. This is how the world has become and not much can be done about it. I'm not gonna run my mouth about "morals" though cause I don't give a damn about the concept of morals.

 

[H33LTurn]

One Hollywood star's irresponsibility has become some creepy bastard's gain

You said it best. People should know by now not to leave nude pictures of themseves in places where others can access them, and this includes a phone.

Although it is criminal and wrong for anyone to "hack" into cell phones or others' computers, who can we truly blame for these blunders? Do we blame the crooks for stealing said media or the public figures for creating them?

Its crimminal, just stop right there. That law is in place for a reason, to protect the privacy of those who choose to do these things. As stupid as it may seem to leave a nude photo of yourself on a phone knowing how easily it can get hacked, if you're breaking a just law then you're wrong, end of story. And I would love to see anyone make the argument that the law is unjust and we should be able to see whoever's privates we want, because I'm pretty sure if that was them on TMZ and other websites they wouldnt be so happy.

 

[iwinulose]

something personal like a phone, kinda odd to have nude pics of yourself on it, but if its your phone and not like a porno or something crazy like that then its the person(s) who hacked the phone is in the wrong. plus its illegal to hack someone elses private property.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

I agree with most of this. And I also agree that it is morally wrong for someone like myself to take enjoyment in looking at these pictures. They weren't meant for me to look at, after all.

It is morally wrong if your considering the ethical views of the individual but in the world of the celebrity and the Paparazzi anything my friend is fair game.

It's really easy to blame the hacker in this situation. It goes without saying that it is wrong for them to gain access to these pieces of e-media. After all, they are going out of their way and invading privacy by gaining access to these photos and leaking them in public places and that is morally wrong. But if I may play devil's advocate for a minute here, the news does the same thing on occasion. News platforms such as TMZ, tabloids, and even Fox News channels have been guilty of digging for news stories in places where they don't belong. Should a "hacker" of someone's cell phone be held to the same standards as news reporters and tabloids? Just because the Hollywood actress is naked in the photos, does that make the penalty any more severe?

With ever growing popularity of the DIY tabloids such as TMZ most people are going out on their own and leaking information, everyday people are submitting celebrity photo's, voice clips, video's whatever they can find in an attempt to make a quick buck, again it's imorale but is also defended by america's first amendment freedom of speech.

I also need to ask a simple question "how do we know that this isn't all a work set up by her publicist's?", it worked for Hilton on many occassions and has elevated a number of celebrities in their attempts to gain more leverage in their careers.

The situation may be used to get us all talking and gain individual relevance for the celebrity in question and it has, we are all debating the situation.

Another angle of the argument here is whether or not we should hold the taker/owner of the pictures accountable. Now, let me clarify this... I'm not talking about 100% accountability, but some nonetheless. They are aware that these types of things happen all the time. They know their information isn't secure. All apps on cell phones (as well as the cell phones themselves) come with disclaimers that state the publicity of information sent over unsecured platforms on the internet. Ho can we shift ALL blame onto the hackers, in this instance, when the owner can be blamed for his or her ignorance to the disclaimers that have already been presented to them? I have to put blame on them for just clicking "OK" at the end of the disclaimer instead of actually sitting down, reading it, and following it.

this situation is rather relevant when looking into the semiotics of the celebrity (celebrity theory), if you choose to be apart of that genre, that lifestyle than you are open to any individual that wants to reveal your tiniest secrets, you cannot choose when the media exposes you or how they do it or complain that you have no life because in the end this is your life, this is what you signed up for.

Without these photo's would she have meaning?, without the viewing public itching to find out more about her would she have relevance?

the answer to these questions are no, and no offence Iphone hacking?, really Iphone hacking in most casses are near enough impossible you need to be familiar with the exact code to open the phone up and i doubt anyone with that knowledge is gonna leak nude celebrity picks, i stand by my comment in the belief that we have all been worked in this situation.

Once again, I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I think it's a valid argument. Thoughts?[/quote]