You can still be thin but I guarantee that skin will hang more
Even though my grandmother is 91 and is so remarkably firm and wrinkle free on her body. It's a little weird actually but hopefully I get those genes.
Cyber Hacker has posted Naked photos of many celebs Online (according to Daily Mail)
- Thread starter CeeJay
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
You can still be thin but I guarantee that skin will hang more
Even though my grandmother is 91 and is so remarkably firm and wrinkle free on her body. It's a little weird actually but hopefully I get those genes.
I'm sorry I see worst things on the internet all the time besides some a$$ and titties that I think should not be on the internet. While Google can serve take down notices I don't know if I think they're obliged to do so because these women are famous--some of whom have posed naked willingly. Yes, those shoots had their consent but if we're talking just plain nudity then this is the same--to play devil's advocate.
Ok 
I just am in the school of thought that people's PERSONAL photos they they did not release but were stolen from them should not continue to be passed around. I just think the right thing to do is remove them, not perpetuate the offense against these women. It's gross.
Again, I'm not talking legal obligation, I'm talking about ethics and morals.
I just am in the school of thought that people's PERSONAL photos they they did not release but were stolen from them should not continue to be passed around. I just think the right thing to do is remove them, not perpetuate the offense against these women. It's gross.
Again, I'm not talking legal obligation, I'm talking about ethics and morals.
Couldn't agree more! It's Apple's product, they are partly to blame. The celebs who uploaded their nudes to a public server are partly to blame as well and the douche bags who hacked this stuff are mostly to blame, but my guess is that they don't have 30 million bucks lying around so the lawyers are going after a search engine. It's not like Google were advertising the nude pics to make a profit.
Ok
I just am in the school of thought that people's PERSONAL photos they they did not release but were stolen from them should not continue to be passed around. I just think the right thing to do is remove them, not perpetuate the offense against these women. It's gross.
Again, I'm not talking legal obligation, I'm talking about ethics and morals.
Totally agree. It would be interesting to see people's take on it if it happened to them - I'm picturing the moral outrage right now.
What is that lawyer's letter actually saying though? I'm sure most people would agree the photos should be taken down but what's happening that they aren't being taken down? Companies like google and twitter are always going to do as little as possible to regulate content to avoid getting into censorship issues. Google did delete many of the photos but didn't delete others... I want to know more about their reasoning for that.
I may be completely wrong about this so please correct me... but the photos were regarded as copyrighted material which means that google is obligated to remove them if certain DMCA requests are filed. Google complied with the requests in the most narrow sense, (the lawyers are complaining google wasn't quick enough in removing material or that they ignored certain requests... or something along those lines) now the lawyer seems to be challenging Google's ability to comply with DMCA requests in a broader sense. Google has automated technology to identify and remove original content and any subsequent uploads (as they do with child pornography)... does the lawyer want google to apply that technology in this case? If that's the case it seems to be similar to the case being made for twitter to take more preemptive measures to remove jihadist material from twitter.
But anyway... even if they go after google and google removes everything there are other search engines, those photos are out there, it's going to be a Sisyphean task trying to rid the internet of them.
I really feel they'll have more luck suing Apple, prosecuting the original perps and battling it out in pop culture so that future risk is diminished.
I may be completely wrong about this so please correct me... but the photos were regarded as copyrighted material which means that google is obligated to remove them if certain DMCA requests are filed. Google complied with the requests in the most narrow sense, (the lawyers are complaining google wasn't quick enough in removing material or that they ignored certain requests... or something along those lines) now the lawyer seems to be challenging Google's ability to comply with DMCA requests in a broader sense. Google has automated technology to identify and remove original content and any subsequent uploads (as they do with child pornography)... does the lawyer want google to apply that technology in this case? If that's the case it seems to be similar to the case being made for twitter to take more preemptive measures to remove jihadist material from twitter.
But anyway... even if they go after google and google removes everything there are other search engines, those photos are out there, it's going to be a Sisyphean task trying to rid the internet of them.
I really feel they'll have more luck suing Apple, prosecuting the original perps and battling it out in pop culture so that future risk is diminished.
The problem is this .. any search engine, whether it be Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. - makes use of huge Metadata repositories, which then employ various AI, neural networking, semantic and confidence factor technologies. IF .. and that's a big 'IF', any of these Search Engines were to attempt to 'clean up' this data, it would be a MASSIVE effort and would cost them a huge ton of $$$. The breech occurred in Apple's iCloud product, why should Google or the other search Engines incur the cost of Apple's eff-up? That lawyer needs to consult with an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law.
If you think of this in layman's terms, this would be like going to every single library in the world and removing "certain" information/books .. feasible? .. not likely.
While I agree that what the hackers have done is TOTALLY wrong, I'm also a bit surprised that people would be so naive as to think that their phones can't be hacked (especially if using the "cloud"). Doesn't anyone remember the story about that cheesy tabloid paper in the UK (Rupert Murdoch) that hacked into various celeb phones? Bottom line, if a hacker wants at your data/pictures, they will find ways to do so .. especially on a phone which is a LOT more vulnerable than big iron.
Maybe it's me, since I work in Finance/Investments IT and so I have had to be on top of the latest in security measures, to ensure that your private data remains just that .. PRIVATE!
If you think of this in layman's terms, this would be like going to every single library in the world and removing "certain" information/books .. feasible? .. not likely.
While I agree that what the hackers have done is TOTALLY wrong, I'm also a bit surprised that people would be so naive as to think that their phones can't be hacked (especially if using the "cloud"). Doesn't anyone remember the story about that cheesy tabloid paper in the UK (Rupert Murdoch) that hacked into various celeb phones? Bottom line, if a hacker wants at your data/pictures, they will find ways to do so .. especially on a phone which is a LOT more vulnerable than big iron.
Maybe it's me, since I work in Finance/Investments IT and so I have had to be on top of the latest in security measures, to ensure that your private data remains just that .. PRIVATE!
^^ I don't have any nudie pics out there. But if I did and someone saw them, THEY would be the ones outraged. And possibly sickened.
What comes to mind is who took the pictures, who owns the copyright and who made the takedown request.
Consider the story of Wiki and the monkey picture. Apparently a photographer placed his camera where a monkey was able to press the shutter release taking a 'monkey selfie'. Wiki posted the picture. The photographer demanded they take it down. Wiki refused the request essentially stating the photographer didn't own the copyright and could not make the request.
"This is the hypothetical question raised by US regulators, who have said in effect that the now famous 'selfie' taken by a monkey that snatched a wildlife photographer's camera cannot be copyrighted, because it wasn't taken through a creative, self-aware process.
In other words, it was more on account of an accident than smart thinking by the monkey or the photographer, the US copyright office says"
http://www.domain-b.com/industry/Media/20140823_monkey.html
While the situation is different in many regards, it also says that if you don't own the copyright, you can't request a takedown.
I'm not sure the argument would stand in court under the Apple cloud circumstances, it could be why they haven't complied yet.
Well some of them are selfies so the women would own the copyright but others are pictures clearly takes by others [based on what I have read] so the women don't actually own the copyright to those pics. So technically they can't ask for those pics to be taken down legally--unless they did argued a work for hire situation or something which they could not.
This isn't really Google's problem & I am sure Google knows that. And if this happened to me [which it wouldn't] I would know better than to sue Google and not the company that compromised my personal information in the first place.
This isn't really Google's problem & I am sure Google knows that. And if this happened to me [which it wouldn't] I would know better than to sue Google and not the company that compromised my personal information in the first place.