FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Thu 02 Jul, 2020 2:27 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 6:36 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
Spacedone wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I have to say I am genuinely shocked that (again) we have naked pictures of famous actresses on the internet. Shocked I tell you.

I am therefore extremely grateful that an event that would otherwise have gone unnoticed has been brought to our attention (repeatedly) by the Guardian, Indy and Telegraph. I mean without this public service millions of people would have been blissfully unaware and would not now be searching the web to see for themselves just how outraged they should be.

Seriously - what was wrong with the headline "Cloud photo storage provider hacked - some dodgy pictures published." Oh yes it doesn't sell papers or give the usual suspects a subject to repeatedly write about.



It does seem seedy, particularly those papers who have used pics of the celebrities, presumably to remind readers if they fancy them so they can search online and find see them sans culottes.

But, as a woman, I do roll my eyes at how many of my sex somehow think posing for naked or half naked 'selfies' is empowering. So, if you are going to be a naked narcissist don't complain if the pics get out and newspapers report it.



Yep. Couldn't agree more. And even a computer dummy like me knows nothing is 100% safe.


I'm frankly amazed that anyone puts sensitive documents or images on "the Cloud". You're giving whichever company owns that online storage space access to your stuff (in some cases it's even in the terms and conditions that they'll go through your files looking for anything they can use commercially) and you're opening yourself up to having those files stolen, as happened in this case.


It depends on the terms and conditions. Google have openly said that anybody using their Gmail service has no expectation of privacy :o

Security is a complex issue. Step 1 don't take the pictures, but if you must do (and it is a free country) don't share them and keep them secure.

Some cloud services are probably more secure than your home PC, but you pay a lot of cash for those. However once you share an image you are open to it being distributed without your consent. No UK cloud service is safe from GCHQ, although if you encrypt your image before sending it then you will give even them an issue.

As far as the actresses (and actors - it will happen eventually) goes it is unacceptable and fairly horrid, but nobody will lose their job and the world will move on. It is an oddity that they are successful because they are attractive (sex sells ) the downside is lots of people are motivated to get a (digital) glimpse of them naked.

Incidentally if you walked past JL in the street I bet you wouldn't recognise her.

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 6:44 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:10 pm
Posts: 10937
Has thanked: 27291 times
Been thanked: 15460 times
Enfield tears up rules in radical attempt to ease housing problem
Pushed into a corner by soaring prices, greedy landlords and a cap on benefits, one London council has embarked on a daring set of untested policies to provide more public housing

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/01/enfield-experiment-housing-problem-radical-solution?CMP=twt_gu


Well worth a read.

_________________
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 6:57 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:20 pm
Posts: 14038
Has thanked: 7492 times
Been thanked: 25825 times
Quote:
Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics 23m
It's James Cracknell vs Boris Johnson for the right to be Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip http://tgr.ph/1un9V0h


So it might be an interesting fight for selection ....

_________________
Working on the wild side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 7:01 pm 
Offline
Whip

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 5:21 pm
Posts: 889
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I have to say I am genuinely shocked that (again) we have naked pictures of famous actresses on the internet. Shocked I tell you.

I am therefore extremely grateful that an event that would otherwise have gone unnoticed has been brought to our attention (repeatedly) by the Guardian, Indy and Telegraph. I mean without this public service millions of people would have been blissfully unaware and would not now be searching the web to see for themselves just how outraged they should be.

Seriously - what was wrong with the headline "Cloud photo storage provider hacked - some dodgy pictures published." Oh yes it doesn't sell papers or give the usual suspects a subject to repeatedly write about.



It does seem seedy, particularly those papers who have used pics of the celebrities, presumably to remind readers if they fancy them so they can search online and find see them sans culottes.

But, as a woman, I do roll my eyes at how many of my sex somehow think posing for naked or half naked 'selfies' is empowering. So, if you are going to be a naked narcissist don't complain if the pics get out and newspapers report it.



Yep. Couldn't agree more. And even a computer dummy like me knows nothing is 100% safe.


I'm frankly amazed that anyone puts sensitive documents or images on "the Cloud". You're giving whichever company owns that online storage space access to your stuff (in some cases it's even in the terms and conditions that they'll go through your files looking for anything they can use commercially) and you're opening yourself up to having those files stolen, as happened in this case.


It depends on the terms and conditions. Google have openly said that anybody using their Gmail service has no expectation of privacy :o


Same with Facebook. Their messenger app comes with the small print that by installing it to your phone or tablet you are giving them permission to access and view all your files and the contact details of everyone on your phone, read/edit/send emails and texts, edit your contacts to add or delete whoever they want, monitor your position via GPS so as to get an idea of your shopping habits, remote access your camera at any time (including when it's in sleep mode) without you knowing and generally monitor your entire life for anything they can make a profit out of.

And best of all if you install it on an iPhone you can't even see what permissions you are giving them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 7:11 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:20 pm
Posts: 14038
Has thanked: 7492 times
Been thanked: 25825 times
There are times when I am very glad that we live in such a remote - non digitised / internet enabled - area that we are spared or, if you prefer, denied such problems.

A mobile signal would be nice. So would reliable and reasonably speedy internet access. Digital radio .... ha, ha, ha (hollowly) what's that?

I imagine even a remote hacker might get pissed off by the frequent outages and slow speeds here.

Small mercies and blessings. And trying to always look on the bright side.

_________________
Working on the wild side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 7:32 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Quote:
Rory Stewart, the Conservative MP and new chair of the Commons defence committee, asks when Cameron will pre-commit British troops to the Baltics.

Cameron says this issue will be addressed at this week’s Nato summit. We need to make real Nato’s Article 5, he says.


Getting the Baltics to pay a proportionate share of NATO defence spending might help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 7:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:10 pm
Posts: 10937
Has thanked: 27291 times
Been thanked: 15460 times
http://order-order.com/2014/09/01/libdems-select-hancock-cover-up-ally-to-fight-his-seat/

Here's another for PF....

_________________
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 7:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 8012
Has thanked: 2481 times
Been thanked: 13007 times
Retweeted by George Eaton
Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 11m
Interviewing @AlexSalmond in the morning at a distillery. He'll be smiling & may even raise a glass when he sees latest YouGov poll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:00 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
For some light relief.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10435797/The-top-20-space-movies.html

Not a bad effort, I might have been tempted to move Star Trek 2 into the top 10, but other than that...

Disappointed to see Star Wars The Phantom Menace was just pipped to top spot.

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 8012
Has thanked: 2481 times
Been thanked: 13007 times
George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 9s
YouGov poll in tomorrow's Times puts Scottish Yes just six points behind (gap was 18 in July) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/l ... 193736.ece


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:06 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 9s
YouGov poll in tomorrow's Times puts Scottish Yes just six points behind (gap was 18 in July) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/l ... 193736.ece


Erm, nobody else has really been showing 18 point deficits.

Looks a lot like 47-53 from other pollsters then.

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 8012
Has thanked: 2481 times
Been thanked: 13007 times
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 9s
YouGov poll in tomorrow's Times puts Scottish Yes just six points behind (gap was 18 in July) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/l ... 193736.ece


Erm, nobody else has really been showing 18 point deficits.

Looks a lot like 47-53 from other pollsters then.


Well yes.

But why is Nick Robinson bigging it up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
After Squeaker's "Dave pointing" by Alex Andreou this morning, I have to say I'm rather liking Mr Andreou.
This piece makes some excellent points about jumping to conclusions.
Quote:
Don’t blame the parents of the Foxtons child cleaner
Corporations have a choice when it comes to choosing employees. Poor families may not have a choice in how they make ends meet


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... r-families

(Dave Pointing for anyone who missed it http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/ )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:50 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 11:23 am
Posts: 2192
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 723 times
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
For some light relief.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10435797/The-top-20-space-movies.html

Not a bad effort, I might have been tempted to move Star Trek 2 into the top 10, but other than that...

Disappointed to see Star Wars The Phantom Menace was just pipped to top spot.


Silent Running at number 25 (most lists overlook that little gem), Dark Star at 13 ....yeah, not bad. Disappointing to see the Clooney Solaris (although it is a damn good film) but not the far superior Andrei Tarkovsky version in the list, but that may just be me reaching geek overload! :lol:

_________________
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:52 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 9074
Has thanked: 5109 times
Been thanked: 20194 times
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
For some light relief.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10435797/The-top-20-space-movies.html

Not a bad effort, I might have been tempted to move Star Trek 2 into the top 10, but other than that...

Disappointed to see Star Wars The Phantom Menace was just pipped to top spot.


Silent Running at number 25 (most lists overlook that little gem), Dark Star at 13 ....yeah, not bad. Disappointing to see the Clooney Solaris (although it is a damn good film) but not the far superior Andrei Tarkovsky version in the list, but that may just be me reaching geek overload! :lol:


I said the same to myself when I went through.

Does Planet of the Apes count as a 'space movie' given that it's on Earth?

_________________
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 8:53 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 11:23 am
Posts: 2192
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 723 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
After Squeaker's "Dave pointing" by Alex Andreou this morning, I have to say I'm rather liking Mr Andreou.
This piece makes some excellent points about jumping to conclusions.
Quote:
Don’t blame the parents of the Foxtons child cleaner
Corporations have a choice when it comes to choosing employees. Poor families may not have a choice in how they make ends meet


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... r-families

(Dave Pointing for anyone who missed it http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/ )


Alex is one of their better writers and, like Zoe, isn't afraid of taking on the trolls BTL; seeing him at work BTL on an immigration piece is an absolute joy. Loved that Foxtons piece, meant to flag it up here but got distracted at work.

_________________
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:00 pm 
Offline
Lord Chancellor
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:47 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Stockport, Great Manchester in body, the Lake District at heart
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 1671 times
ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I have to say I am genuinely shocked that (again) we have naked pictures of famous actresses on the internet. Shocked I tell you.

I am therefore extremely grateful that an event that would otherwise have gone unnoticed has been brought to our attention (repeatedly) by the Guardian, Indy and Telegraph. I mean without this public service millions of people would have been blissfully unaware and would not now be searching the web to see for themselves just how outraged they should be.

Seriously - what was wrong with the headline "Cloud photo storage provider hacked - some dodgy pictures published." Oh yes it doesn't sell papers or give the usual suspects a subject to repeatedly write about.



It does seem seedy, particularly those papers who have used pics of the celebrities, presumably to remind readers if they fancy them so they can search online and find see them sans culottes.

But, as a woman, I do roll my eyes at how many of my sex somehow think posing for naked or half naked 'selfies' is empowering. So, if you are going to be a naked narcissist don't complain if the pics get out and newspapers report it.



Yep. Couldn't agree more. And even a computer dummy like me knows nothing is 100% safe.


Couldn't agree less. You're basically saying that not only does a woman not have any privacy but that she shouldn't even imagine she should have any if she appears in a photograph less than fully clad. Talk about victim-blaming and letting the reprehensible people off.

_________________
The truth ferret speaks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:00 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 11:23 am
Posts: 2192
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 723 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:

Does Planet of the Apes count as a 'space movie' given that it's on Earth?


I think so, it certainly merits its place in that list. The only real issue I have with it is ....... 2001, top, again!!! I loathe that film, think it is vastly overrated but, apparently, I am the only person in the universe who thinks that. Ah well.

_________________
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:02 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
After Squeaker's "Dave pointing" by Alex Andreou this morning, I have to say I'm rather liking Mr Andreou.
This piece makes some excellent points about jumping to conclusions.
Quote:
Don’t blame the parents of the Foxtons child cleaner
Corporations have a choice when it comes to choosing employees. Poor families may not have a choice in how they make ends meet


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... r-families

(Dave Pointing for anyone who missed it http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/ )


Alex is one of their better writers and, like Zoe, isn't afraid of taking on the trolls BTL; seeing him at work BTL on an immigration piece is an absolute joy. Loved that Foxtons piece, meant to flag it up here but got distracted at work.

Yep - been a couple of pieces by him I've read and though Yes! well said! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:04 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 2m
YouGov/Sun poll CON 34% LAB 35% LDEM 7% UKIP 14%

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB · 4m
ComRes phone poll for the Indy sees LAB lead increase to 7%
CON 28+1
LAB 35+2
LD 9+1
UKIP 17=


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:23 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
That Lib Dem 7-9% is looking increasingly nailed on.

Hard to see them picking up much from UKIP either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:40 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
You really really really can NOT make this lot up
Guardian front page, Tuesday 2 September 2014:
Cameron shelves move to ban British jihadis returning to UK

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/506555598507618304


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:54 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
mbc1955 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I have to say I am genuinely shocked that (again) we have naked pictures of famous actresses on the internet. Shocked I tell you.

I am therefore extremely grateful that an event that would otherwise have gone unnoticed has been brought to our attention (repeatedly) by the Guardian, Indy and Telegraph. I mean without this public service millions of people would have been blissfully unaware and would not now be searching the web to see for themselves just how outraged they should be.

Seriously - what was wrong with the headline "Cloud photo storage provider hacked - some dodgy pictures published." Oh yes it doesn't sell papers or give the usual suspects a subject to repeatedly write about.



It does seem seedy, particularly those papers who have used pics of the celebrities, presumably to remind readers if they fancy them so they can search online and find see them sans culottes.

But, as a woman, I do roll my eyes at how many of my sex somehow think posing for naked or half naked 'selfies' is empowering. So, if you are going to be a naked narcissist don't complain if the pics get out and newspapers report it.



Yep. Couldn't agree more. And even a computer dummy like me knows nothing is 100% safe.


Couldn't agree less. You're basically saying that not only does a woman not have any privacy but that she shouldn't even imagine she should have any if she appears in a photograph less than fully clad. Talk about victim-blaming and letting the reprehensible people off.


Actually it isn't just women, men can suffer this sort of thing.

I think the interesting story is how were these images obtained, especially those of the young lady who said they had been deleted. We didn't actually need to be told who had been hacked.

In theory you are entitled to take photographs of yourself naked and store them on a cloud platform. But as others have pointed out here we see a collision between people's expectation of privacy and what the cloud provider actually provides. This is even more of an issue with modern mobile phones that very often send your pictures to cloud platforms as a default setting - either as backup or as storage. Once in the cloud terms and conditions vary.

It is a risky world especially if you are a famous person as this stuff usually gets out somehow. I don't have any issue with people taking photographs of themselves doing anything legal and non violent. I wouldn't regard an individual who did such things as in any way transgressing acceptable behaviour (as long as they don't post pictures of their partner without its consent).

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 9:59 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
You really really really can NOT make this lot up
Guardian front page, Tuesday 2 September 2014:
Cameron shelves move to ban British jihadis returning to UK

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/506555598507618304


It was always going to be impossible in international law. You have to take your citizens back.

If Cameron had a competent AG he would know that, sadly he sacked Grieve and Wright either wasn't asked, didn't care or didn't dare to talk Cameron down.

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 10:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Was Cameron relying on David Anderson, the terrorism law assessor?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 10:13 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Aren't the jihadis going to enjoy Cameron's backdown?

Wouldn't it have been better for him to say "They won't force us to change our ways" or something? Then nick a couple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 10:39 pm 
Offline
Speaker of the House
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 2967
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 2514 times
According to the Telegraph Cameron is claiming he can use a threat to national security to bomb ISIS and inform the commons later.

Is he arguing that a bunch of fighters in a desert in Iraq are about to storm the Palace of Westminster?

That would not go down well (and he won't do it with a clear majority in the UK against action).

_________________
Release the Guardvarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01 Sep, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline
Lord Chancellor
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:47 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Stockport, Great Manchester in body, the Lake District at heart
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 1671 times
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I have to say I am genuinely shocked that (again) we have naked pictures of famous actresses on the internet. Shocked I tell you.

I am therefore extremely grateful that an event that would otherwise have gone unnoticed has been brought to our attention (repeatedly) by the Guardian, Indy and Telegraph. I mean without this public service millions of people would have been blissfully unaware and would not now be searching the web to see for themselves just how outraged they should be.

Seriously - what was wrong with the headline "Cloud photo storage provider hacked - some dodgy pictures published." Oh yes it doesn't sell papers or give the usual suspects a subject to repeatedly write about.



It does seem seedy, particularly those papers who have used pics of the celebrities, presumably to remind readers if they fancy them so they can search online and find see them sans culottes.

But, as a woman, I do roll my eyes at how many of my sex somehow think posing for naked or half naked 'selfies' is empowering. So, if you are going to be a naked narcissist don't complain if the pics get out and newspapers report it.



Yep. Couldn't agree more. And even a computer dummy like me knows nothing is 100% safe.


Couldn't agree less. You're basically saying that not only does a woman not have any privacy but that she shouldn't even imagine she should have any if she appears in a photograph less than fully clad. Talk about victim-blaming and letting the reprehensible people off.


Actually it isn't just women, men can suffer this sort of thing.

I think the interesting story is how were these images obtained, especially those of the young lady who said they had been deleted. We didn't actually need to be told who had been hacked.

In theory you are entitled to take photographs of yourself naked and store them on a cloud platform. But as others have pointed out here we see a collision between people's expectation of privacy and what the cloud provider actually provides. This is even more of an issue with modern mobile phones that very often send your pictures to cloud platforms as a default setting - either as backup or as storage. Once in the cloud terms and conditions vary.

It is a risky world especially if you are a famous person as this stuff usually gets out somehow. I don't have any issue with people taking photographs of themselves doing anything legal and non violent. I wouldn't regard an individual who did such things as in any way transgressing acceptable behaviour (as long as they don't post pictures of their partner without its consent).


Can I just clarify that I had no issues with your original post, and that it was the two sneering ones that followed it that offended me, a fact I overlooked making plain.

_________________
The truth ferret speaks!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: frog222, PorFavor, RogerOThornhill, Willow904 and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group