Cyber Hacker has posted Naked photos of many celebs Online (according to Daily Mail)

[Charles]

The website - in this case Google. If I ran Google I'd remove them.

I'm glad you don't run Google. This is bigger than someone's feelings being hurt that naked pics of them are posted. It sucks, yes, but the "right" thing isn't for Google to step in to hide stuff. As it was mentioned in the article above, what needs to happen is the websites hosting said pics need to be prosecuted...which is happening.

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'm talking about morals too. For me, them taking down things is immoral and unethical. If I want to see decomposing bodies or sexually explicit material, I should be able to. Google shouldn't have any right to police that. If they did, I would see that as an ethical issue. They have a responsibility to keep lanes of information open. Now, if they're told that legally they have to remove stuff, by all means, they need to comply, but until then...they should be obligated to be transparent.

 

[L etoile]

I'm glad you don't run Google. This is bigger than someone's feelings being hurt that naked pics of them are posted. It sucks, yes, but the "right" thing isn't for Google to step in to hide stuff. As it was mentioned in the article above, what needs to happen is the websites hosting said pics need to be prosecuted...which is happening.



I'm talking about morals too. For me, them taking down things is immoral and unethical. If I want to see decomposing bodies or sexually explicit material, I should be able to. Google shouldn't have any right to police that. If they did, I would see that as an ethical issue. They have a responsibility to keep lanes of information open. Now, if they're told that legally they have to remove stuff, by all means, they need to comply, but until then...they should be obligated to be transparent.

THIS x 1000. The search engine should not be policing searches or not allowing certain searches. The websites that harbor the photos (i.e. 4chan, etc.) are the ones that are responsible for maintaining that material. Why aren't the celebrities going after them instead?

Asking Google to police what's online is a slippery slope. Should Google police everything that's "wrong" to certain people? I'd hate to try to order a "controversial book" that's available (i.e. Huck Finn, Communist Manifesto, etc.), but not be able to search for it on Google because Google forbids that in the long run.

 

[Chloe_chick999]

The one I saw let's just say she had something on her face.

Oh. Ew.

 

[Singra]

^ I think the photo she's referring to is not JL, it appeared on 4chan a couple months before the leak and was proven to be a someone else, I've seen a screen cap of the original post from 4chan and it was some random guy's unlucky girlfriend.

 

[Echoes]

In this discussion of who should take what down, remember that search engines cache/archive things on their own servers to help speed search results and delivery. There are also various internet archives (Wayback Machine for one).

In short, once it's on the web, it's very difficult to completely remove it. Also, the more popular something is, the more places it's stored. Even if it disappears for a while, days, weeks, months, years, there is always a chance it can reappear.

 

[labelwhore04]

Trying to remove things from the internet is a waste of time and energy. If they get removed from one site, they'll just pop up somewhere else. Anyone who was interested in these pics has probably seen them already. The initial hype has died down and soon enough literally nobody will care anymore.

 

[FreeSpirit71]

I think them going after Google may be a way to get Google to push Apple to take action. Just a thought.

I don't believe sites or Google need to be pursued legally for them to take down explicit photos if the owners of the photos request they do so. Its an ethical thing to do. Would you have the same thoughts if this case was about pedophile sites and photos of children that had been hacked and stolen?

There seems to be a "get out of jail free" card just because the victims are celebs.

This is not about your civil liberty to perve on them being infringed. Its a case of theft and their right to privacy.

 

[HauteMama]

I can see both sides of the issue, but I have to agree with Charles. While the case with these photos might seem fairly clear, if Google removes these images, how many more he said/she said disputes will they feel it necessary to take action on without a legal obligation to do so? Indeed, Google doesn't have time for that sort of nonsense. So perhaps the question is why should celebs have a free pass to have an internet search engine spend the time and resources to take down their photos when they wouldn't act as internet police for anyone else?

 

[FreeSpirit71]

^If its in a case where a crime has been committed to obtain those images then yes.

Again, I believe they are using the action against Google as a bludgeoning tool, to get the sites hosting the pics to remove them. Go after the big guy and hopefully it gets to the sites as well.

 

[Singra]

I don't see how going after Google would do much in the case against Apple. The Apple issue is about inadequate security measures and the threatened action against google would seem to be more of a distribution issue. Apple has already promised the implementation of greater security measures so a suit against them would presumably be more compensatory but it might propel Apple and other companies to be more careful in future... prevention is better than cure.

The lawyer's letter said that overall smaller sites were complying with takedown notices but that google based site such as youtube etc had been much slower in responding.

The lawyers letter also mentions Google's invocation of safe harbour rules. I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of safe harbour rules but it seems the lawyers are challenging Google's interpretation of those rules... I found this article pretty helpful. If the lawyers were to challenge the safe harbour interpretation it could end up being a very important case that could have far reaching implications for other cases.

I've also read that according to Google requests must be submitted for specific URLs in order for them to be taken down (not 100% sure how accurate this info is). Each case is reviewed by google and they then decide wether action is taken, Google has to provide reasons for each non removal which are then published on a public site. In Justin Verander's case only 51% of the photos he requested to be taken down were removed... I think they hadn't deleted mirror URLs and in some cases they disputed Verander's ownership of certain photos using the selfie ownership argument, apparently in those cases Upton would have needed to submit a request for the photos removal.

I would imagine that having to submit individual requests for each URL is costly and time intensive for the lawyers... so are they wanting more automation from Google's side as Google currently does with child pornography? Are they wanting Google to remove photos they have already requested be removed without having to file a separate request for a specific URL?

In any event Google did remove a lot of the photos and continues to remove photos... it just hasn't been fast enough for the celebs' lawyer, I'd be curious to know exactly how much Google did or didn't remove. After the first wave the removal of photos seemed very efficient, that seemed to drop off a bit in the second and third waves so was that because the lawyers stopped issuing takedown requests or because there was a problem on google's side... although even if google removes 99% the 1% is still out there.

Of course the photos should be removed but the actual implementation is complicated, slow and difficult so how realistic are the lawyer's demands?... As most people who have been a victim of crime know justice is difficult to come by.

 

[schadenfreude]

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 is actually a really good point which hasn't really been discussed. Some of the photos were truly mirror selfies, but many of them were not. Of course, then we get into the question of who took them? Were they using shutter remotes? If someone else took the pics, why would the celeb give them their phone to do so? No one really knows.

 

[jclaybo]

This is actually a really good point which hasn't really been discussed. Some of the photos were truly mirror selfies, but many of them were not. Of course, then we get into the question of who took them? Were they using shutter remotes? If someone else took the pics, why would the celeb give them their phone to do so? No one really knows.

Yes cause Rihanna's clearly looked like she was at a dress fitting

 

[Echoes]

Washington (CNN)FBI agents stormed a home in Chicago last fall and seized several computers, cell phones and storage drives in connection with the investigation into the hacking and leaking of dozens of celebrities' private nude photos, according to a warrant unsealed this week.

The FBI tracked the source of the celebrity hacking to an IP address linked to Emilio Herrera, who was the target of the federal warrant that was carried out Oct. 16, just over one month after photos of celebrities such as Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence were posted online. It quickly became clear that the celebrities' iCloud accounts had been compromised, and Apple had begun looking into the incident.

The IP address linked to Herrera was used to access 572 individual iCloud accounts, many of which "were accounts of celebrities who had photos leaked online," according to the warrant application, which was first obtained by Gawker. Those accounts were accessed 3,263 times from Herrera's IP address.

Herrera is just one of several people under investigation and the FBI has carried out several other searches across the country in connection with the celebrity hack, a law enforcement official told CNN on Wednesday.

"These are a series of unconnected guys conducting relatively unsophisticated hacking," the official said, adding that the individuals were apparently part of a network online where they traded pictures.

The FBI identifies eight celebrities whose accounts were accessed from Herrera's IP address, but only by their initials: "A.S., C.H., H.S., J.M., O.W., A.K., E.B., and A.H."

Photos of Abigail Spencer, Christina Hendricks, Hope Solo, Jennette McCurdy, Olivia Wilde, Anna Kendrick, Emily Browning, and Amber Heard were all leaked online.

The FBI agents petitioned for the warrant noting that there was "probable cause to believe that ... evidence and instrumentalities relating to this criminal conduct ... will be found in the Subject Premises."

FBI agents seized two desktop computers, a laptop, two cell phones, a Kindle Fire, an MP3 player, two micro-SD cards and two floppy disks.

The FBI's Cybercrimes Unit in Los Angeles is carrying out the investigation.

Herrera is 30 and lives with his parents at the Chicago home that was searched by federal investigators in October, according to public records. Several calls to a phone number associated with that address went unanswered Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/celebrity-hack-search-warrant-emilio-hernandez/

 

[Ms Kiah]

They always live with their parents! :greengrin: