giblet wrote: And if women put themselves in a situation where they could be raped (like, you know, existing), are they also to blame? And if they are raped, is it acceptable to pile on and join in? Get a grip.

Wow. Bit of a leap in logic there, don't you think?

If celebrities want fame, they have to accept that people want to see them nude. They want their private life in the gossip mags. They can't then complain that their nudie pics are being distributed.

Satiated Parrot wrote:If celebrities want fame, they have to accept that people want to see them nude. They want their private life in the gossip mags. They can't then complain that their nudie pics are being distributed.

Of course they can complain about their private accounts being hacked and personal information distributed, just like the rest of us. It's a crime. But equating people looking at available nude photos online with the criminals who hacked the accounts and/or rapists is quite a stretch.

I edited my comment to add something a little less nuclear option-ish. I'm not certain as to what "abuse" really means in this context, but I think downloading photos that were stolen through hacking is wrong. It's a crappy thing to do. You can defend it all you want, but I still think it's wrong. Just like buying stolen phones is wrong or watching stolen cable is wrong. But in cases like stolen phones or stolen cable, you aren't stealing someone's dignity by doing it. Several teenage girls have killed themselves after having sexual photos of themselves released. They are actually traumatized so much by people downloading these photos that they want to die. Think about that for a second. That's why this is worse than stealing cable. You can choose not to care, but that doesn't make right.

Viewing the photos ignores our laws and societal rules about consent and privacy. You can victim blame all you want by saying it's their fault for taking these photos to begin with, but that doesn't make downloading the photos "right".

(and when I say "you" I'm not referring to you)

giblet wrote:I edited my comment to add something a little less nuclear option-ish. I'm not certain as to what "abuse" really means in this context, but I think downloading photos that were stolen through hacking is wrong. It's a crappy thing to do. You can defend it all you want, but I still think it's wrong. Just like buying stolen phones is wrong or watching stolen cable is wrong. But in cases like stolen phones or stolen cable, you aren't stealing someone's dignity by doing it. Several teenage girls have killed themselves after having sexual photos of themselves released. They are actually traumatized so much by people downloading these photos that they want to die. Think about that for a second. That's why this is worse than stealing cable. You can choose not to care, but that doesn't make right.

Viewing the photos ignores our laws and societal rules about consent and privacy. You can victim blame all you want by saying it's their fault for taking these photos to begin with, but that doesn't make downloading the photos "right".

(and when I say "you" I'm not referring to you)

Fair enough. But how many people do you know who illegally download music and movies? Some crimes are deemed by society as much less serious than others. Nobody should be saying this is "right", but on the scale of criminality, looking at illegally obtained nude photos doesn't rate very high on most people's scale, apparently. The hacking is the serious criminal act and should be severely punished. Don't place blame on a viewer of a nude photo for the suicides of a person in few photographs.

Soi Dog wrote:Don't place blame on a viewer of a nude photo for the suicides of a person in few photographs.

I wouldn't expect people to inherently realize why viewing stolen nude photos is wrong, I don't think I would have automatically jumped to that conclusion. But I think that once they have had it explained to them, and with the understanding that those who are victimized in this way are almost certainly traumatized, there's no way to deny some sort of shared culpability, however small.

In fact, in the US victims of child pornography can seek damages from those convicted of possessing their images. These cases have been tried many times and it seems that the courts accept that just downloading these illegal photos that are already out there continues to damage the victim over and over. This may not be on the same scale, but I think it's quite similar. This article about these cases is really interesting: The Price of a Stolen Childhood

giblet wrote: In fact, in the US victims of child pornography can seek damages from those convicted of possessing their images. These cases have been tried many times and it seems that the courts accept that just downloading these illegal photos that are already out there continues to damage the victim over and over.

You can't compare child pornography with nude pictures of adults taken voluntarily, even if stolen and disseminated illegally via the internet. You can compare the hacking and stealing of any person's personal data with any other type of theft, but bringing child pornography, rape and suicides into this debate is way off topic, IMO. Those things are not comparable in any way.

If a comparison must be made, I would equate looking at hacked nude photos with knowingly looking at a website showing images of art stolen by the Nazis during WWII. The horrible act was the stealing of the artwork and the extermination of the rightful Jewish owners in concentration camps. Saying that any willing website viewer is somehow complicit in the theft or the misery of the victims by clicking a link is just preposterous. If one were to pay money to some criminal syndicate or make any personal benefit for simply viewing that stolen artwork website, then you have more of a point.

Soi Dog wrote:You can't compare child pornography with nude pictures of adults taken voluntarily, even if stolen and disseminated illegally via the internet. You can compare the hacking and stealing of any person's personal data with any other type of theft, but bringing child pornography, rape and suicides into this debate is way off topic, IMO. Those things are not comparable in any way.

I disagree. We're talking about sexual photos distributed without consent. As I said, the two crimes are not on the same scale, but the point is that the courts have said in many cases that downloading criminal sexual photos that already exist continue to traumatize the victims. Any why is bringing suicide into this somehow off-topic? Women who have had their photos publicly distributed without their consent, just like in this case, have committed suicide.

You can look at this as merely a hacking case, but I think to ignore the very real trauma of people who are victimized this way is just a way to excuse doing something that's wrong.

giblet wrote: Any why is bringing suicide into this somehow off-topic? Women who have had their photos publicly distributed without their consent, just like in this case, have committed suicide.

If I commit suicide because someone humiliated me on this internet forum, naked pictures or no pictures involved, would that necessitate criminal charges against my brutal forum adversary? The US courts have repeatedly struck down such lawsuits against teenage internet bullying cases. Those suicides are horrible and traumatic to all, but not criminal offenses.