Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,085
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Location:
    California, US

    Revealing private data: men v. women

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Steerpike, Sep 13, 2015.

  2. Bethany35
    Offline

    Bethany35 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    London, UK
    I personally believe anyone who is cheating on Ashley Madison deserves what they get
     
  3. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    I realise that the following will be incredibly unpopular with some of the more strident ... members of this forum but I feel very, very strongly about this.

    ackbar it's a trap.jpg
     
    GingerCoffee, Lemex and Lea`Brooks like this.
  4. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,085
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Location:
    California, US
    Suppose the iPhone nude photo leaks were taken while someone was cheating on their spouse. Does leaking those photos become different from leaking photos of non-cheaters? Is it the nature of the information or the cheating/non-cheating status of the people?
     
  5. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,628
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    I've been trying really hard to avoid the Debate Room -- but this article really pissed me off. It's a classic case of victim blaming. JLaw didn't know how to protect her photos, so it's her fault they got stolen and leaked online. Bullshit. Bullllshit. That's like telling women who don't carry guns or knives that they deserved to get raped. "Should've known how to protect yourself!"

    And saying that she shouldn't be complaining because she poses nude? Even more bullshit. That's like saying porn stars can't be raped because they advertise sex. Or strippers can't get angry when someone rips their clothes off without consent. Grocery stores have an abundance of food. It doesn't mean you can just take it because it's on display.

    As for Hogan's sex tape, the same as above. Releasing naked images to people they weren't intended for is completely wrong to me. It should be a crime in my opinion.

    As for Ashley Madison, I can't form a proper opinion. As a married woman, I'd be grateful for the leak because I'd want to know if my husband was on that site. But as someone unaffected by it, I feel for the men. So a part of me blames the victim (the members of the site) because they were being scandalous and deceitful. But the other part of me thinks they deserve their privacy too. So that's all I have to say about that.
     
    GingerCoffee likes this.
  6. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,085
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Location:
    California, US
    @Lea`Brooks I agree that there is no sense whatsoever in blaming the victims of photo/video leaks, whether they secured their information or not. The hacking and release of the information is to be blamed on the hackers and no one else. Your view on Hogan is consistent with that, though as the article points out, certain media outlets did treat the Hogan release different from the wide-scale hacker release of female celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence. I think the nature of the Ashley Madison site makes the schadenfreude expected. The Sony hack released private details of men and women both, and didn't receive the level of condemnation as the iPhone hack, at least not that I saw.
     
  7. ManOrAstroMan
    Offline

    ManOrAstroMan Magical Space Detective Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    817
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    Missouri
    Probably because no one was naked on PlayStation.
     
  8. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    I believe in personal responsibility, so do your utmost to protect yourself and your privacy -- if the shit still hits the fan, that sucks, but then you just gotta deal. We use burglar alarms, we lock our doors, change our passwords frequently, avoid dark alleys and so on, and there's nothing wrong with taking precautions and being smart.

    As for media treating men and women differently. There's a shocker. When you've lived in this world long enough, you'll learn male and female nudity and bodies are regarded and priced differently. It's likely there's less interest in the nudes of Ryan Gosling than JLaw. Good for Ryan, he's probably less likely to get targeted by hackers 'cause there's less money to be made with his dick pics. Then again, my guess is he's not going to make as much money with artistic nudes as top actresses. My next, tongue-in-cheek guess is he's not going to give too many shits if his dick gets out there 'cause there isn't that much money for him or anyone else to be made with it anyway, so consequently he's not going to feel as exploited and robbed as JLaw.

    And I think because of all the differences, we're more comfortable shaming men at their most vulnerable (naked). We also expect they'll be able to take it and won't give too many shits if their dick gets out there. To me the OP's article suggests men are generally not shielded, protected, coddled, and lifted to the pedestal as readily as women are. Grown men don't garner sympathy by the bucketful like women and children do. Men are not victims. And so on.

    As for Ashley Madison. I do feel disdain towards cheaters because they're violating the commitment they've made to their spouses (otherwise it wouldn't be called cheating, would it? If you can't be monogamous, don't pretend you are), but I don't think it's any more right to wash celeb cheaters' dirty laundry in public as it's to publicize JLaw's tits without her consent. However, even the entertainment biz is a biz. A buyers' market. You want to sell your magazines and get clicks. As long as we buy their magazines, visit their websites, and click their links, we're keeping that biz alive and continue exploiting celebrities and help uphold a culture of acceptance of celebs becoming sharkfood the moment they step in the spotlight. The hackers wouldn't hack if there wasn't something to gain. These godawful websites like Gawker and Jezebell (and even this Judgy Bitch site is over-the-top) would go under if they didn't take some kind of crazy stand to garner clicks. Unfortunately, I can't really see people changing. We're going to continue clicking 'cause it's easy and effortless and satisfies our curiosity for train wrecks. It's not my dick on the video, after all.
     
    T.Trian and Lemex like this.
  9. Lemex
    Offline

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,507
    Likes Received:
    3,151
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Something like Ashley Madison - I don't have any problem with the site, anyone who uses the site and are likely to really psychologically hurt their significant other don't really have my respect, but I'm not going to see them in a bad way either. Why would it even be a gender issue, why can't it just be a moral issue? If these morals are enough for you. The internet is becoming so focused on gender issues, and it's becoming sad. Victim-blaming is a very disturbing practice - and if they have their private information leaked unlawfully then they are victims, regardless of what gender they are. It doesn't matter a pound or pinch of shit what they are identity-wise, what matters to me is who they are, and if they are the subject of a crime they are victims.

    Men and women are equal, because they are people - and should be treated as individuals. Putting people into groups is part of our natural psychology, but it's also wrong to do. If we are moving into an era where the internet will damage the concept of individualism then that is the way things will go. Don't expect people who don't like blind distaste of others just because of arbitrary features to like that though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2015
  10. daemon
    Offline

    daemon Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    982
    Tone of the judgybitch.com post aside, no, the two are really not alike.

    Granted, someone who rapes a physically undefended victim is guilty in the same way that someone is guilty who accesses and shares insecure data that was meant to be private. That is, in the abstract ethical sense that it is the rapist's/data accessor's fault, not the victim's. You are right about that.

    But physically defending your body is nothing like digitally securing your data. To borrow your analogy structure, is telling women "carry guns and knives" really like telling women "configure your software not to expose your sensitive data"?

    Let's take each one to its extreme. Imagine that everyone is always going through the effort to maintain a physical defense mechanism against assault. Now imagine that everyone understands the privacy settings of their software, knows the privacy policy of their cloud service (if they use one), and configures their software properly.
     
    KaTrian likes this.
  11. Chinspinner
    Offline

    Chinspinner Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    I have a mate who uses Ashley Madison. He was in a very unhappy relationship that lingered because of children. Do I want to see his details plastered over the internet? Not really. That said, I generally feel some disdain towards the creator's of Ashley Madison.

    With regard to accessing private data, I do not see how this is a gender issue. If I had private pictures of my knob which ended up on the internet I would be rather peeved. If I released my knob into the public realm (and I have had many requests to do so) then it is a free-for-all.
     
  12. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    I'm all for privacy and the right to have your personal life kept personal. The idea of someone else taking something that's yours, be it information about the sites you frequent or nude photos, and releasing it into the public domain is repugnant.

    That said, would this be a debate about privacy if the leak hadn't been on Ashley Madison, but instead the membership roster of the KKK? Or the members of a child porn website? Where do you draw the line between total privacy and social justice?

    Do I think anyone should be subjected to having nude photos of themselves leaked online? Absolutely not. Do I think that wives have a right to know if their significant others are cheating on them, or at the very least attempting to? Yes, I think wives do. But certainly not the entire world. I am against both.

    I don't see this as an issue of gender. Situation and context matter.
     
    ManOrAstroMan likes this.
  13. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I'm not following you here. When someone commits a crime against you, it's a crime whether or not your efforts to prevent it were maximal state-of-the-art efforts. The severity of these two crimes is different, but in both cases it's a crime, a crime for which the criminal should bear full moral responsibility and experience full penalties, no matter what the victim did to prevent it.
     
    ManOrAstroMan likes this.
  14. daemon
    Offline

    daemon Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    982
    No disagreement there. In fact, my paragraph 2 basically says the same thing.

    But about my paragraphs 3 and 4: you are talking about the perpetrator. I was talking about how not to become a victim.
     
  15. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Ah. OK. I was confused by the "but" at the beginning of:

    And the more I read the above paragraph, the less clear I am on what you mean. Can you explain? Are you saying that correct software configuration is less of a burden than carrying guns and knives? Or is your focus something else that I'm not seeing?
     
  16. Jack Asher
    Offline

    Jack Asher Wildly experimental Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,571
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    Location:
    Denver
    Reading this was really fun, because I knew that @KaTrian or @T.Trian was going to get on this thread to make that very point. And then I read down and she did!
     
  17. daemon
    Offline

    daemon Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    982
    Yes, my focus was on the difference between the burden of physical self defense and the burden of data security.

    There is also a more fundamental difference that I did not mention. I once referred to hacking as "breaking things", and the person I was talking to said hacking is not breaking something, but exploiting what was already broken. That stuck with me, and it is now how I see information security in general.

    When you patch your software, or when you change your software's settings to close a vulnerability, you are fixing something that was broken. The software was providing a way for someone to attack you, and you simply change it so it no longer provides that.

    When you defend yourself from assault, you are not fixing something that was broken. It is not as if you were providing a way for someone to attack you and now you simply stop providing that. Rather, you are putting up an active resistance to something that is being forced on you.
     
    Aaron DC likes this.
  18. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    You do realise that changing an opinion of whether it's right or wrong depending on the party involved, or their gender, or another personal attribute, isn't entirely non-hypocritical.

    Btw: Don't expect to see any naked photos of me any time soon, because I don't take such photos of myself, yet alone store such photos on the net.
     
  19. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I agree and disagree here. Certainly, equipping ourself for self defense, as if you're a movie action hero, is less plausible than correctly configuring your software. But I'm afraid that I feel that for the average non-technical person, and in a world where many software settings default to minimal security, correctly configuring software may be an unrealistic expectation. Now, I don't know exactly how easy these hacks were, or if they even were hacks. Was a weak password broken? Was a phone without a screen password stolen? Or did someone click the "public" checkbox for a photo album, so that no crime was even required to obtain the photos? (I still think that publishing photos that are clearly, from the context, intended to be private, without a release from those photographed, should be a crime, and not just a civil crime. I don't know the legal situation there.)

    Edited to add: And, yes, I'm aware that I could probably research the answer to these questions. But aside from a person making their photos public using an interface that makes it perfectly clear that they will be public, I don't consider them to be relevant to my point.

    This distinction isn't working for me. To shift to the physical world, the average house lock is, I believe, extremely easily picked. One could say that the lock is, by design, "broken". Windows can be smashed and the home entered. One could say that the window is, by design, "broken". But I would say that the lock and the window, like the security elements of much software, provide a moderate, but not unbreakable, level of security. When you install a door or window in your home, you are not providing a way for someone to attack you.

    On the other hand, it could be argued that by exiting your home without a bodyguard, you ARE providing a way for someone to attack you.

    I don't see a fundamental difference here. Again, I see a difference in the severity of the crime, but that's the only difference that I see.
     
  20. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    Windows can be smashed so windows by design are broken?

    :wtf:
     
  21. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    No. They're not. That's my point.
     
  22. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,085
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Location:
    California, US
    One line of inquiry may be whether the person has a reasonable expectation of safety, privacy, or what have you. Whether you think there is a reasonable expectation in any given instance, a conscious act by another is enough to place the blame for the act on that person. It doesn't make sense to blame the victim for the act itself, even if the victim didn't protect themselves as well as possible.
     
    Lea`Brooks likes this.
  23. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,628
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    Exactly. Hacking into someone's personal property (email, text messages, etc), whether they're protected or not, is wrong.

    Compare this to breaking into someone's house.

    They should've protected their privacy better = They should've locked their door/had a security system

    They shouldn't keep important/private information on their computer = They should've have had so many valuables in their home

    While the first one seems like a logical thing to assume, when did it become okay to blame victims for someone else's crime? Certainly don't make it easy for criminals to do such acts. But whether it's easy or hard, they still committed a crime. Blame them, not the person who didn't have a deadbolt on their door.
     
  24. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    Insurance companies expect you to lock your doors. I'd say that's a fair expectation.
     
  25. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    I think you'd have to be pretty naive to not expect people to attempt to gain access to your private information and to take steps to prevent that access. This just seems like common sense to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page