Another nice thing – a bunch of women have had naked pictures of themselves stolen and posted online. Punishing women for existing just never gets old, does it.
A hacker has reportedly obtained nude photos of a slew of female celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence.
The anonymous source, according to The Hollywood Gossip, has 60 images of the 24-year-old The Hunger Games star in various states of undress and has posted them on an online bulletin board. The photos of Lawrence, some of which are topless, have since appeared on photo sharing site Imgur.
Because obviously women have no right to be left alone, because they’re women – they’re public property.
Reports in the US suggest the phones and computers of celebrities were hacked over the weekend as a form of extortion as the photos are available for sale in exchange for Bitcoins.
Authorities have been cracking down on hacking and phone tapping, especially in Hollywood. A man in Florida was arrested recently after he released nude images of Scarlett Johannson and Mila Kunis after hacking a number of celebrity email accounts for more than a year.
International Business Times seems to think it’s the women in the photos who did something wrong, not the hackers who stole them and made them public. Wtf? How could it possibly be the women in the photos who did a bad thing?! If they were photos of women murdering people, then yes, but being naked?
It’s not the first time Justice has fallen victim to a nude photo scandal. Semi-nude pictures of the star were leaked in April 2013 and she issued a statement, saying stealing and hacking is “not cool.”
“Hacking & stealing is NOT COOL. #RespectPeoplesPersonalProperty #Karma,” the “Victorious” star tweeted after the risqué images were released in 2013.
Scandal-risqué nothing. Mind your own business. The scandal is that some bullying thief stole the pictures.
It’s a crisis! There must be a terrible shortage of naked lady photos on the internet! That’s the only possible reason for doing the porn equivalent of fracking to get more.
I can see the argument now: “I’m not a voyeur, officer! If she didn’t want me drilling a hole in the wall of her house and taking naked pictures, she shouldn’t be naked in her own house!”
The only people who should be ashamed are the violators of those women’s privacy.
I don’t even know who Jennifer Lawrence is, but Google Now thought it important I should know there were nekkid pictures of her.
Are there all that many of juvenile mind who don’t know what the female physique is generally like? It’s most like other female physiques. Why all this fascination with the trivially obvious?
The story is a pure example of victim blaming.
Clearly the IBT must think that if the photos were taken on film cameras then the women would still be at fault for having been a victim of theft from their own homes.
Oh, dear sweet FSM. I (and several others) just wasted a lot of electrons over at Ed Brayton’s place trying to explain to a group of victim-blamers that sharing nude photos with an intimate partner doesn’t forever waive your privacy rights. Don’t think I can handle another round.
As much as I agree with your position, I’m at a loss as to why you’re critiquing the article for a position that, based on the quotes you selected and the article linked, I don’t see being expressed. It seems like they’re just reporting what happened. If anything, the fact they posted quotes from the victims shaming the voyeurs who have been looking at the pics made me think they were doing quite the opposite of victim-blaming.
I saw some of the photos of Lawrence, and I’m not really sure the nudes are of her. The non-nude photos are pretty clear, and of good quality, and the face does seem to be hers — but the nude photos are of poorer quality, and the face is less distinct. It could be her, or it could be some look-alike.
@3…Seriously? You don’t know an Oscar-winning actress who was also the star of one of the top-grossing films of 2012 and a highly successful sequel?
You definitely need to get out more. No kidding. That’s like saying you don’t know who Hillary Clinton is.
Michael @ 8 – sorry, the post was confusing because I forgot the second link, so it wasn’t clear that the IBT story was a new one, not the one quoted in the first part of the post. It’s the IBT that I think used silly victim-blaming language.
Kevin @ 10 – nonsense. Not knowing who a particular movie star is is not at all like not knowing who Hillary Clinton is, and no, people who don’t know who a particular movie star is do not need to get out more. I might just as well say people who think movie stars are the equivalent of Senators and Secretaries of State need to stay in more.
She’s pretty and an actress, therefore inconsequential?
FWIW: I don’t go to the movies (in theaters), don’t read People or Us or any of the other “fan” magazines, don’t watch the celebrity shows…and I certainly know who she is. HOw could I not? Her face was quite literally everywhere in 2012 and her popularity is higher now than it was then.
She’s a seriously good actress. She’s won one Oscar and has been nominated for two more. She won a Golden Globe in 2013. In 2014, she topped the list of Forbes’s Most Powerful Actresses and was ranked No. 12 its Celebrity 100 list, behind folks like Beyonce and Ellen Degeneres.
Are you people all that oblivious? Or is this just a case of demeaning someone who happens to have a job as an actress and who is conventionally attractive? Or are you too highbrow to go to the movies?
By declaring her to be just some actress, you’re seriously outing yourselves as to be clueless as to popular culture — which is not a great admission for someone who makes their living commenting on popular culture.
That cloister must be pretty musty. You might want to open a window.
EXCUSE ME??
Did I say she’s inconsequential? If I thought that why would I even blog about this story? Did I say anything even resembling “She’s pretty and an actress, therefore inconsequential”?
No actually her face was not “quite literally everywhere in 2012.” I can think of several places where it wasn’t.
What’s this “you people” shit? One person doesn’t know who she is, and I rejected your ridiculous claim that saying you don’t know who she is is like saying you don’t know who Hillary Clinton is. That’s it! Nothing to do with “you people” let alone drawing all those snotty out-of-nowhere conclusions.
Good point, except that I DIDN’T “declare her to be just some actress.” Except that you start by smearing all of us and in the next half of the sentence you’re apparently addressing me – although what I have to do with “who makes their living commenting on popular culture” is not entirely clear.
You seem to be deeply confused about where you are and the people you’re talking to.
Can I seriously out myself to be clueless about popular culture? Because I like it that way. You do your thing, no one has a problem with that. (And watching movies isn’t “getting out more”. Are you quite serious?)
But never mind what the article is about, someone didn’t know who Hunger Games Woman was. @@
Actually, I don’t go to (or otherwise watch) the movies, and I have a terrible memory for names at the best of times. I have absolutely no idea who won any of the Oscars (ever), and I’m not even sure what a Golden Globe is. You could fit my interest in the film industry and its products in a thimble, and still use it. Apparently this makes me an inadequate person somehow…
(OK, I did notice when Lauren Bacall died. That’s different.)