MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

I Love This Faux TIFF Logo (with bonus cloud hacking comment section)


Be Sociable, Share!

128 Responses to “I Love This Faux TIFF Logo (with bonus cloud hacking comment section)”

  1. Joshua says:

    All I see is an animation of an orange stick figure walking in place. Is there more to it?

  2. movieman says:

    It would be more apropos if the stick figure was just standing in place.
    TIFF is all about queuing up (for ungodly amounts of time).

  3. Ryan says:

    Maybe I’m too late to some party that I can’t find in here, but it seems like some thread should exist about the idea of the celebs getting hacked.

    Normally I don’t care about any of those type of things-celeb gossip, but the idea of J Law/Chris Martin and a guy who is now a hacker on the run from the ‘FBI’!!!, is just strange, especially when it also involves people like Kate Upton. Does this not seem like a potential movie in the making?

    I kind of hope this guy gets caught immediately, because I don’t believe in invasion of privacy, no matter who is involved, but I just picture this dude getting picked up in some shady motel with a stained-wife-beater and “U of” (I won’t predict the school, because it will be offensive, but would bet money he has some kind of random athletic gear on, that does not fit. :). And again, I just keep thinking about the idea that Roger Federer can afford 40k a year just to get some rackets restrung constantly:


    …but someone like J Law can’t afford to hire a ‘privacy consultant’ if she is going to post nude pictures on her phone? I’m at a loss. The above article makes me think that Fed would probably have paid to maintain his privacy with any kind of Mirka pics that existed in the last 14 years though. 🙂

  4. PcChongor says:

    Nic Cage is already on his way to New Orleans to star in the “The Naked Steal.”

  5. YancySkancy says:

    Well, if it’s anything like what I’m seeing on Facebook, such a thread would probably just be a lot of guys saying, “They put naked pictures on their phone — what did they expect?” With other people saying “Well, maybe that was dumb, but they were still victimized.” “Yeah, but come on, we all know how this works.” “Yeah, but we don’t have to give these hacker assholes a free pass just because their victims were naive.” Rinse, lather, repeat.

  6. Ryan says:

    Yancy-is that not a conversation that we should be having as a society in general though? “Rinse, lather, repeat”, until you’re the person whose nude photos are exposed, and you’re not a celeb!

    I’m not going to be the “she shouldn’t have been doing that on her phone” guy. I just wonder where this is going, where so many people assume that they have privacy, when obviously they don’t. I know zero about hacking, but it scares the shit out of me to think that there are people out there who do this kind of thing for pure spite, or to prove a point. Because if there are people out there who can hack whatever they want for spite value, we’re in trouble for a lot of other reasons that have nothing to do with celebrity. I know I sound like a Luddite for acting like this couldn’t have happened 15-20 years ago at this point, but everyone is still shocked by it, so I can get away with the “I can’t believe people can manipulate the internet” logic. 🙂

    Also, it’s not just celebrities who are putting naked pictures of themselves on their phones. I’m not speaking personally, but I can guess who among my friends would be vulnerable in the same way! The hacker assholes are the entire point-aren’t they just proving that we’re all idiots for thinking anything is truly private anymore (sadly), and isn’t the hacker ethos a big “FU” to anything being secure (naked pictures, nuclear launch codes, etc.)?

    Shouldn’t we be talking about that, rather than the fact that JLaw/whoever might have some naked picture out there somewhere? Who cares? Boobs are boobs! But eventually, something big time is going to backfire, where we suddenly say “We should have taken those hacker assholes a lot more seriously”. Imagine if 9/11 had happened, because some ‘hacker assholes’ got ahold of Air Traffic Control for 2 hours. Do you think we would take minor stuff like this lightly anymore? I predict that people doing stuff like this would have been in Guantanamo immediately! I digress…

  7. Ryan says:

    PcChongor-that killed me btw

  8. cadavra says:

    When Pamela Anderson’s third sex tape was released, Dennis Miller (this is when he was still funny) said, “Hey, Pammy, ya want this to stop? Then quit taping yourself fucking!!

  9. YancySkancy says:

    Ryan: My attempt in a friend’s FB post to engage in the conversation about this incident quickly devolved into me taking it seriously and another guy basically saying (over and over) “They should’ve seen it coming! The hackers exposed security issues at Apple — they should be rewarded! And oh yeah — boobies!” I’m paraphrasing, of course. Maybe I shouldn’t assume it would go that way here.

    To me, the big issue is security. Naked pictures aren’t the only things floating around in the cloud. It would also be great if people would stop wagging their fingers at the victims. I’m sure they get it now — because of a-hole hackers, there is no expectation of privacy anymore. And if one does call the victims dumb, one should also make sure to note that the hackers are evil criminals, and that evil is worse than dumb.

  10. PcChongor says:

    And so if viewing the leaked photos are being likened to engaging in “digital molestation,” what’s it mean to look at the new beheading video stills that are once again being paraded around by the Daily News?

  11. Triple Option says:

    Anybody remember back in the 80s how hard it was to get a female to let you take a picture of her just in her bikini?

    Some thought condoms would ruin the porn industry, I’m thinking it’s the DiY’ers who’d be worse for business.

    Question: What kind of career do you think Vanessa Hudgens would have/would have had if nude pics of her weren’t “leaked”?

    I have to admit, I was kinda surprised to hear JLaw’s name mentioned. Was it a selfie? Was it from an ex? Was it artful or did some paparazzi steal a shot? She’s Jennifer Freckin’ Lawrence, guys should be sending nude pictures of themselves to her. If she really wanted to appear naked in front of a camera, I can think 15,000,000 better ways to go about it. It’s not even a morality thing. I won’t even go into “she should know better.” I just want to know why? She bored? Was it for a guy? Were these old? I’d rank this somewhere around Jeff Kent breaking his wrist popping wheelies on a dirt bike in the middle of spring training. Like, seriously, don’t you have anything better to do with your time? There is absolutely no upside to this. Fortunately for her, there’s no real downside either. Will prolly get a few questions about it on her next junket but I got a feeling it’ll be off limits until she has a post oscar sitdown w/Oprah.

    That said, I put all this on the hackers. It’s going to be 1987 all over again and no matter how much Meister Brau and Aqua Net you have, you’re not gonna get a girl to do the splits on the hood of your Camry even in shorts and boxy logo Tee. Then where will you be?? Is this a problem at all in other countries? Think we can get some emerging countries to scale back their nuclear programs over threats of releasing nude selfies of the regime’s leaders daughters? Prolly not, cuz they appear to at least panty up before going out on the town.

  12. Ryan says:

    Triple-can’t say I was trying to take pics of girls back in the 80s (I was born in 82), but I disagree that this is going to stop. It’s not like pics that people don’t want to see online haven’t leaked before, and nobody seemingly ever learns their lesson. Should JLaw have known better, or was she bored? I have no idea-if I was her or her PR people-I would ignore this, and act like it happens to everyone, because really, that’s starting to be the truth for a lot of people.

    Vanessa Hudgens??-is there any proof that she was a good actress to being with, or that she has charm in the same way the Efron obviously does? She is clearly beautiful (and I haven’t seen the naked pics, so I don’t know/care about that), but it’s not like you leaked Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan naked in the late 80s and ruined two of the most promising romantic comedy careers ever (IMO). I think if you asked most kids who were obsessed with HSM, they would have zero idea about the nude pics, in the same way they probably have zero idea about Efron going to rehab-maybe I’m completely naïve about both of those things. But did she even try to bounce back from that in the same way that Efron did? Not sure…

    PCChonger: That’s a good question. Those type of videos terrify me, and I have no idea why people are now or ever have watched them. I guess as a male, I can understand, the “I want to see J Law’s boobs!” logic, but who the “F” is watching that? It makes me sick to think about it. But after the last few days, I don’t get the sense that those type of videos are going away anytime soon. And the American media is not necessarily helping the cause by playing the story that those videos are out there 24/7 (When the President does a press conference just to talk about it, it’s not going to stop).

    Yancy-agreed that evil is worse than dumb.

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    I like and agree with what Amanda Hess said at Slate:

    New York Times tech columnist Nick Bilton tweeted Monday, “Put together a list of tips for celebs after latest leaks: 1. Don’t take nude selfies 2. Don’t take nude selfies 3. Don’t take nude selfies.” (He later apologized.) Ricky Gervais made a similar joke before deleting it from Twitter: “Celebrities, make it harder for hackers to get nude pics of you from your computer by not putting nude pics of yourself on your computer.” These messages instruct women that they are to blame for being sexually exploited because they dared to express themselves sexually in private and in consensual contexts. (When hackers steal credit card information, the public isn’t blamed for daring to shop.) As Lena Dunham succinctly put it, “The ‘don’t take naked pics if you don’t want them online’ argument is the ‘she was wearing a short skirt’ of the web.”

  14. PcChongor says:

    The ultimate lesson should be that whether it’s in real life or inside the cloud, one should always be aware of their surroundings and act accordingly. “Wired” had already been putting out articles for years about the outstanding insecurity of Apple’s security measures, and these celebs’ PR people should take a good deal of blame too for not making their clients aware about the realities of online data storage.

    Also, it’s pretty ironic how Jason Verlander was just as exposed as everyone else, but this whole fiasco has still been framed as a womens’ privacy issue.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    It is a women’s privacy issue. Or are the people peddling the pics bragging about everyone’s opportunity to see Justin Verlander naked, and not Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, etc.? And it’s Upton’s photos that were hacked right? I don’t think the presence of Verlander in Upton’s pics means this isn’t a women’s privacy issue.

  16. PcChongor says:

    It’s my understanding that it was Verlander’s phone that was hacked, not Uptons, and he’s the one who’s subsequently had his privacy most invaded (I wouldn’t suggest giving Deadspin the ad click revenue, but here’s a pretty despicable article that shows what I mean):

  17. YancySkancy says:

    PcChongor: What it means when people look at beheading pictures is that the mentality that made the Faces of Death videos so popular is still out there. I have never understood the willingness to seek out such images, especially as some kind of cool badge of honor. At least I can understand the interest in J-Law’s breasts, even as I condemn those who stole the images.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    I mean it’s fair to note that Verlander was also affected by this, but surely he was hacked only to get pics of Upton, and the vast majority of the hacked images are of females (is Verlander the only male?). Verlander or no Verlander, still seems like a women’s privacy issue to me.

  19. PcChongor says:

    Yeah, but ultimately isn’t it a bit condescending to always assume that guys can easily just “man up” and take the fact that private pictures of them have been posted everywhere, but women are delicate little flowers that need to be protected by the FBI and swarms of hundreds of lawyers? If one form of privacy invasion is considered to be wrong, then ALL others should be too.

    And it just seems a bit hypocritical that the very same type of media coverage that initially creates such a huge desire for these kinds of leaks is also the same kind of coverage that acts selectively outraged when it finally does happen (i.e., only focusing on Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton to help drive clicks when this was an event that affected dozens of individuals).

  20. Stella's Boy says:

    RE: privacy invasions being wrong and media hypocrisy, no argument here.

  21. leahnz says:

    such a mystery why women can’t be bothered commenting on this blog
    (yeah almost 100 women are targeted in a heinous invasion of privacy, have their property stolen, sold, and posted online, wherein as collateral damage like 2 dudes have their bods exposed – scott speedman is another one – and suddenly it’s NOT A WOMAN’S ISSUE, WHAT ABOUT THE MEN!!! hahaha yeah verlander was the target, the hacker wasn’t after upton’s boobies at all; there’s no culture of entitlement to women’s bodies as the ultimate issue here (in this thread alone people say it’s understandable that men want to see jlaws tits, as if this is something they are even REMOTELY entitled to in any way), no the lesson to be had here is “be aware of your surrounding and act accordingly” dumbasses, and “why is Jennifer Lawrence taking nude pictures of herself anyway?”. here’s a thought: maybe she likes to get sexy riding around naked on a unicycle wearing a propeller cap and a cape with a spray can of whip cream in one hand while she takes selfies with her other, and it’s nobody’s business because SHE’S A FUCKING ADULT IN THE PRIVACY OF HER OWN HOME)

  22. Pcchongor says:

    I think the point is, you can do whatever you want in private, but don’t expect it to remain that way once it’s been stored digitally.

    And I wasn’t suggesting that mens’ privacy was more important or a bigger issue than any of the womens’, but that invasions of their privacy are generally made fun of or treated with a much lighter tone in the media. Just don’t act like it’s the end of the world for some and no big deal for others.

  23. Ryan says:

    Leah-I think people said that it’s understandable to want to see a sexual expression of a member of the opposite sex. I don’t think anybody said, “I’m entitled to see JLaw’s boobs, so if she ever wants to take a picture of them privately, IT’S MINE!!!!”

    I didn’t see an FBI investigation launched over Brett Favre deciding to take a picture of his junk and it ending up on the internet. Did women just feel entitled to that, so it wasn’t an issue? No-people said that if Favre wants to take pictures of his junk and have those pictures not end up on the internet, he should stop taking those pictures. Now the opposite happens to several women, and it launches a bunch of lawsuits and a Federal investigation. And you think there is no double standard here-I don’t get that.

    What’s wrong with telling people that if they don’t want things that are private to them to be exposed in public, that they should try a little harder to protect their privacy. I’m not following your logic.

  24. Ryan says:

    Stella-as far as Amanda Hess goes, I think she takes it too far-especially this:

    “Attitudes like Bilton’s suggest that female sexuality is so easily exploitable that women like Lawrence would be best not to engage in it at all, even on their own terms. ”

    Why is this about ‘female sexuality’? When did celebs, male or female, gain the right to publish things digitally and expect that it’s going to remain private? When did anyone gain that right? They’re naive if they think they’ve ever had it, or are ever going to.

    And Dunham also goes too far. The “don’t take naked pics if you don’t want them online” is not the issue. If you want to take naked pictures on your own personal camera, and hand out a copy to your friends that you personally develop in your own dark room, go for it-at least then you know it’s in your hands. But 20 years ago, if you were Jennifer Lawrence, took a photo of yourself, and had it developed at Walgreens, would you expect/demand total privacy?

    We’re back to the ‘Don’t expect to put anything online digitally and there not be the possibility that it is gone forever’ argument. And the credit card issue is ridiculous-if you go online and use a credit card, you should expect at this point that the card information is also out of your hands. People are/were outraged about the Target/Home Depot situations because those happened in the actual stores. But I would shake my head at people who think anything online is safe anymore, whether it be credit cards or nude pictures, and it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘female sexuality’.

  25. Ryan says:

    Not to obsess about this, but I can’t stop reading different points of view, and it’s all over the place-I just do not see where any of this is going-it’s turned from a privacy statement into a feminism debate overnight:

    I don’t get how you go from this logic…:

    “Even though the web has progressed beyond its image as a haven for social outcasts and adult virgins, there is a very real way in which it remains a conduit for our ids. Human consciousness is compartmentalized by necessity, but the Internet does allow for the relegation of deviant impulses to a specific nonphysical zone, protected by anonymity. But there is no anonymity; it’s as imaginary as the false security you feel while driving in your car, a sense of detached invulnerability that can inspire road rage.”…

    (Could not agree more with this-I think it’s exactly the argument PcChonger and I are trying to make, if I can associate us by previous messages)

    …to this logic, in the same article:

    “The women targeted in this hack were not sex workers but actresses, and the scandal has revealed some people’s inability to distinguish between the two. ”

    WHAT? Because I have a problem with the fact that you have naive ideas about privacy (male or female, actress/actor/non celeb), I’m automatically equating anyone who ever ‘takes naked pictures of themselves, posts them digitally, and thinks that they’re going to remain private’ as sex workers?

    I don’t see Lambert saying that I now automatically think Justin Verlander is a porn star because of what happened, but she is saying that because I’m male, I think J Law is now the equivalent of a sex worker because of what happened.

  26. Ryan says:

    Leah and Stella-I have another hypothetical that I would like you to answer if we can move this away from a feminism argument for a moment. I was thinking about this whole thing again when I saw the outrage on the “Today” show while running on the treadmill at the Y this morning. I can’t get away from this.

    Would you, Hess, Lambert, Dunham and everyone who is making your same argument about ‘female sexual expression online’ being a personal and private issue, also be defending any other these celebrities right to “personal freedom of opinion and expression” in the Cloud, if it came out that these same 100 or so people were posting Anti-Semitic/anti-women/racist/homophobic/hateful/etc. letters online, in the Cloud?

    Let’s say these letters were private messages on their phones/things they wrote online/things they thought only their friends and private acquaintances could see-Would any of you still be on the side of “They should be able to do whatever they want in private and not expect hackers”, or would you be saying “WTF were they thinking writing those things and expecting them to remain private?”. I’m pretty sure their careers would be over tomorrow, and nobody would have sympathy for them when it came down to it-I would love to read any arguments against that. I’m not equating taking naked pics with being a hateful individual-I’m just saying that if you did both things in what you thought were private spaces, in one situation you would get sympathy/FBI investigation/lawsuits and another situation you would get hate/loss of career. But the situations as far as ‘private things being made public’ would be the exact same.

    I’m wondering where Mel Gibson is to weigh in on this issue.

    Let’s say it’s not a celebrity, but it’s a public figure, like Arne Duncan. Would people be defending his right to ‘individual expression’ in his own private space, or would they be demanding his resignation as Secretary of Education immediately? Same thing for Mark Zuckerburg, as a CEO of a company-maybe he gets sympathy for private naked pics being made public, but he doesn’t get sympathy for private hateful thoughts being made public, and he probably loses his company. Again-where is Donald Sterling on this issue as well? Where was the sympathy there?

    I think we all know the answer to these questions. I would like to hear you defend that concept-that the right to individual privacy online is absolute, whether it be hateful thoughts, or nude pics, and that we should think the exact same thing about both.

  27. YancySkancy says:

    leah: In fairness, only PcChongor raised the issue of Verlander’s rights being violated, and not one other person said, “Hey, good point.” Stella’s Boy, in fact, replied that while it was fair to point out that a couple of males were victimized, too, the case was still a women’s privacy issue.

    Not one person here said that a DESIRE to see J-Law’s boobies equated to a RIGHT to see them. I did indeed say I could understand why someone would want to see J-Law’s breasts, but then I immediately condemned those who stole the pictures. And by the way, it IS understandable, isn’t it? That hetero men, gay women, and bisexuals of both genders who find J-Law attractive might want to see her naked? That’s kind of how attraction works. But again, no one here has argued that such a desire trumps her right to privacy.

    Also, given the ubiquity of phone and internet hackers and the increase in the theft of nude celebrity pics, it seems perfectly valid to raise the issue of privacy expectations in relation to privacy rights. From a moral standpoint, OF COURSE Jennifer Lawrence is an adult in the privacy of her own home, and in a perfect world she should be able to do as she wishes there. But pointing out that doing so leaves her open to evil a-hole hackers is not (or should not be) a moral judgment — it’s a simple statement of fact. A fact that we all have to deal with, as the issue is broader than the specifics of this case.

  28. christian says:

    Dunham reveals what a shallow thinker she is with her silly line. She could maybe wonder about the security of ALL our private info in some cloud and how it opens ALL of us to security issues. And how corporations have tricked Americans into releasing all their private moments onto public systems. By SELLING PHONES in ads where people are humiliated in public with camera surveillance.

    But Dunham can’t let go of her phone I bet. As others can’t. And therein lies the problem.

  29. PcChongor says:

    Pretty good summation of the media’s coverage so far:

  30. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Where does something like this fall into how we discuss privacy in the digital age?

    While there is a difference in mechanism between someone illegally gaining access to your files and a (formerly) trusted partner leaking your files, if both the consequences and the preventative measures are the same, should we treat them the same?

  31. Amblinman says:

    “no the lesson to be had here is “be aware of your surrounding and act accordingly” dumbasses, and “why is Jennifer Lawrence taking nude pictures of herself anyway?”

    – said absolutely no one except every hysteric online intent on using this straw man.

    Yeah yeah, anecdotally there are a few “they had it coming” types saying this shit but by and large the vast majority of opinion has been that JLaw and the rest are victims. The FBI is investigating. Not exactly the stuff to suggest the victims are being blamed.

    And yeah, huuuuuge female-right-to-privacy issue. The thousands of victims of identity theft who have been financially ripped off in this country will attest to the fact that people hack accounts to try just to slut shame.

  32. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I do think it’s difficult to argue against the proposition that these people were targeted because they were female. In addition to financial databases, high-profile women also have to worry about people targeting them for TMZ-like purposes at a rate far in excess of high-profile men.

  33. palmtree says:

    I haven’t seen any of the leaked photos and wouldn’t dream of ever seeing them. But I recently overheard a conversation of women in their 20s talking about the viewing the photos when they came out. I was surprised at how okay it seemed for them to do this even though I personally had drawn a boundary for myself against TMZ-Gawker unholiness. Weird, but maybe it’s a generational thing as well…

  34. LexG says:

    Nobody has any qualms about looking at paparazzi pics of JLaw slinging a Coffee Bean on a walk — well, obviously all of humanity realizes tabloids are a scourge, but nobody’s accused of “sexual assault” if they flip through an Us Weekly with pics of Rihanna or Kate Upton on a beach taken by some slimeball 100 yards away.

    Nobody had any qualms at all about yukking it over Gibson or Sterling’s loony rants that were recorded without their knowledge; Obviously, and especially coming from dumbass LexG that sounds like an equivocation, but it’s NOT, and it’s not defending prejudiced speech in any way, but if an OUTSIDE SPECTATOR ogling a JLaw or Justice pic they never meant for public consumption is a TRESPASS on the part of the voyeur, then I have to assume 100% of those refraining from said pics ALSO refrained from listening to Sterling, Gibson, Pat O’Brien, whoever. Again, it’s not an equation, but someone tell what the DISTINCTION is.

    And isn’t this all a sorta slippery slope? I think all of sensible humanity thinks this is an asshole move that should be fully punishable. Me being the sleazy type I am, a couple folks asked if I wanted to see some of the pics, and I pretty much demured, not clicking any links, because it’s just not cool. We all agree on that, but, tricky question….

    If it’s “sexual assault,” or men demanding some repulsive access to women’s “bodies,” then is it also the same thing if some horny young dude ogles a swimsuit issue with Upton? The clear distinction is the model knows she’s been snapped and knows the game, but HONESTLY? (This is gonna get un-PC and I hope DP doesn’t drop the hammer) In GENERAL, I tend to think actresses and models have NO IDEA how much guys are masturbating to them. Guys are gross. A Scarlett Johansson might think she’s making an UNDER THE SKIN for enlightened artistic reasons, but the screen grabs will show up on the same slimy sites as any other nude pic; More guys than not would take a movie like that as pure “spank bait” rather than be on board with whatever Glazer’s saying — more precisely, most dudes are just gonna watch the nude scenes and clips and never even engage the movie itself. Are they all committing “sexual assault” if they fap to a screen grab? If I get a boner over a US Weekly pic of Selena Gomez with a Venti Ice Drip and a straw in her mouth, isn’t that kinda the same deal as looking at these alleged JLaw nudes? How do you psychically divine intent on the part of the audience? The whole thing gets into that gray area where some hair-splitting rube might semi-reasonably ask how masturbation or wearing a rubber isn’t kinda the same deal as abortion. If a guy gets aroused by a pic of JLaw walking her dog in short shorts and flip flops, a pic snapped on the sly by some pap scumbag, how is that really different from leching over leaked nudes? In both cases, JLaw would’ve had no intention of it being public spank material.

    I think people tend to assume that unless there’s exposed areola, no guy could be ogling it. There’s whole websites devoted to actresses’ models’ legs, feet, armpits, abs, navels, fingers, YOU NAME IT. Most of the pics being “candids” and red carpet stuff or just the gals moseying on down to the Coffee Bean. I think we can safely assume when Emma Stone wears some strappy heels on a Spidey red carpet, she’s not doing it in the expectation that it’s gonna be some guy’s strokeoff material. What, are we now coming down on the pathetic, innocuous pleasure of lame celebrity fantasy? Clearly the distinction is these pics were never meant for public consumption, but a pic of Rihanna on a kayak wasn’t exactly a porn shoot, but yet dudes will ogle it and women will click the links to gossip over her; Are they ALL committing “sexual assault”?

  35. YancySkancy says:

    I remember on the Comedy Central roast of Hugh Hefner, Adam Carolla had a bit that was something like, “Before Playboy, my grandfather had to lie in a field till a cloud came along in the shape of a tit.” We’ve definitely come a long way since then, including the way we define “cloud.”

    Lex, are people really calling this “sexual assault” in a non-metaphorical way, as in let’s press charges? I can see someone saying the fappers are “part of the problem,” but pretty soon it gets back to the issue of what one does in the privacy of one’s home.

    As for how the paparazzi figure into this, as you know they’ve always got the expectation of privacy aspect on their side. If you’re on a public street, beach, whatever, you’re legally fair game. I can’t imagine the slope ever getting slippery enough to criminalize someone fapping to Emma Stone’s red carpet heels. But I suppose we much be ever vigilant.

  36. leahnz says:

    ‘I didn’t see an FBI investigation launched over Brett Favre deciding to take a picture of his junk and it ending up on the internet. Did women just feel entitled to that, so it wasn’t an issue? No-people said that if Favre wants to take pictures of his junk and have those pictures not end up on the internet, he should stop taking those pictures. Now the opposite happens to several women, and it launches a bunch of lawsuits and a Federal investigation. And you think there is no double standard here-I don’t get that.’

    oh really, now the opposite? this gem can’t pass without comment, because the false equivalency and straw man arguments coming out surrounding this issue are mind-boggling, people can’t really be this thick.

    -favre willingly and with his full knowledge and consent sent UNSOLICITED dick pics/video to a woman, a reporter no less, which then ended up going public.
    -almost 100 women took pictures of themselves, which were then illegally accessed and STOLEN from a supposedly secure digital storage facility – theft in any language – and then without their consent their property was SOLD for profit and disseminated with impunity.

    favre wasn’t targeted for theft, if you can’t see the difference – legally, morally, and logically – well, maybe taking a class in critical thinking skills would be a start, because the two scenarios are NOTHING alike and comparing them is inane, but from what little i’ve read about this shitstorm ‘inane’ and lack of critical thinking skills are in full regalia

  37. film fanatic says:

    I don’t think the pundits who have taken the position of advising famous women “not to take nude selfies” deserve the scorn they’ve been receiving. It is facile to think that such a stance is somehow “blaming the victim” or implying that the actresses in question somehow deserved the invasion of their privacy or “had it coming.” Of course they didn’t. No one does.

    But the reality of the situation is that it’s been made clear on numerous occasions from numerous real-world examples that almost no cloud-based platform is immune from a determined hacker. That goes for private photos as well as for credit card numbers stored in databases at retailers like Target and Home Depot, to name a few. And it just so happens that the most determined hackers are likely to be the same types of people who are most likely to want to see pictures of famous women naked (blame stereotypes of computer nerd culture/immature borderline autistic man-children who treat women as objects and not human beings/what have you, but those stereotypes exist for a reason) and will be incredibly resourceful in pursuit of their goal.

    Thus, the suggestion of “don’t store nude sexts on your phone or in the cloud” isn’t about shaming the victims or being a finger-wagging scold damning them for having the audacity to keep mementoes of private sexual encounters, but, rather, a warning to famous people not to be naive about the security of the internet. It’s no different than telling the owner of an expensive sportscar not to park it on the street with the windows open if he/she wants to be 100% sure it’s not stolen. That’s not blaming the victim, either; rather, it’s telling potential future victims to keep their eyes open.

    As long as there continue to be physically attractive female actresses, there will always be a subset of men obsessed with trying to see them naked. That may not be pleasant, but it’s a reality. And if you’re a public figure, of course you shouldn’t automatically have to sign away your right to privacy. But due to society/technology being the way it is, you unfortunately need to take extra precautions if you want to have a reasonable expectation of maintaining it. Which is not to say that’s how things SHOULD be, just that that’s how things, regrettably, ARE.

    It IS naive in this day and age to assume that something stored on the cloud or on ones’s phone or computer is 100% secure. And any publicist or celebrity crisis management consultant worth his/her salt would tell their clients that from the get-go. I think it’s safe to assume if the photos in question were analog-only and had only been printed in physical form, they’d never have seen the light of day, Blame the culture if you want, but don’t pillory a handful of pundits for merely pointing out the obvious.

  38. christian says:

    Anthony Weiner. Discuss.

  39. palmtree says:

    The name “Anthony Weiner” kinda says it all.

    So I suppose celebrities will now attempt to sext with each other using, what, polaroids sent through the mail? Or is the postal service compromised too?

  40. PcChongor says:

    Mark my words, carrier pigeons with flash paper is going to be the next killer app.

  41. leahnz says:

    it’s not even about sexting, this has nothing to do with sexting really – i mean i’m sure there was some sexting of the images that were stolen, and emailing – but for example i didn’t even realise (my kid informed me after this thing happened) that if i take a photo on my ipad air – which broke after 9 months, a whole nuther kettle of fish, apples blows – it’s automatically backed up in the cloud, you have to manually change a setting so that’s not the case; i’m not super tech savvy but not a complete neanderthal either, and if you didn’t personally set up your device – like i didn’t – you could easily be blissfully unaware that your images are being stored there, like me. you don’t have to send the images anywhere, and people take naked pictures of themselves for all kinds of reasons – sometimes just to look at yourself naked, i know i’ve done it – that’s not what this particular incident is about. and yeah maybe people aren’t as aware/expert tech savvy as they could be – but the rather smug emphasis in the public discourse blaming the (overwhelmingly) women who had their privacy violated and images stolen rather than taking a close, critical look at the culture of entitlement and warped behaviour that feeds incidents like this, the behaviour of the hackers, the people who reward the exploitation of people without their consent, and the often sexist, misogynist mob mentality of people who feel entitled to wank off to it.

  42. Triple Option says:

    LexG wrote:Nobody had any qualms at all about yukking it over Gibson or Sterling’s loony rants that were recorded without their knowledge; …then I have to assume 100% of those refraining from said pics ALSO refrained from listening to Sterling, Gibson, Pat O’Brien, whoever. Again, it’s not an equation, but someone tell what the DISTINCTION is.”

    Could the distinction be that the women who recorded Gibson and Sterling did so essentially as a matter of self defense? If either of those women had gone to TMZ or even the LA Times, would anybody have believed them? The first thing out of people’s mouths most likely would’ve been “it’s an exaggeration; she’s doing it for money; total bs; she took something he said out of context; if he’s such a monster, why does she stay; I’m sure she’s got issues herself” The outcry against those women would’ve been brutal.

    Without the recordings, would either of those men faced any sort of reprisal? Would there still be a swell of support for those guys offering opinion in the privacy of their own home? Would the women have had a right to repeat something so upsetting to them? How many would’ve adopted the position that “it’s not a crime to be racist” and anyone who wants to disassociate with them is a hypocrite or pansy for falling to the PC police.

    So many people think facing consequences for actions is some kind of assault on the rights of an individual. And yes, of course, I’d feel very upset if someone released something meant to be private publicly. Although, I will say I think there would be something different between me saying something ABOUT others as opposed to saying something nasty and hateful TO someone. Do you think Mel or Donald would’ve said those things if those women had a buff older brother? Maybe once. Then they would’ve gotten a phone call or a visit. And do you think after Mel or Donald would’ve said “Hey, I can say whatever the F- I want to in the privacy of my own home!” or “I’m sorry for my behavior”??

    It sux for JLaw to have to enlist so many resources to maintain security. Maybe if I looked like her I’d want to look at me looking at my ass in the mirror or whatever. I still get a little dumbfounded when people don’t get that they don’t get to do everything. It’s not at all fair but I’d say she doesn’t have the option of taking a nude selfie w/her iPhone, even if she doesn’t hit send. it’s just not an option. I mean, to the extent of being able to control exactly whom she’ll let see her uncovered. Maybe violations to her will lead to greater protection for the rest of us down the road. Maybe to the extent someone goes to obtain private items will be a direct meted punishment for the infraction. You wouldn’t say to someone “ha, you got what you deserved” when her identity gets stolen. I think there’s a difference between victim blaming and warning people to exercise caution to the point of restricting personal liberties. Unfortunate, but that’s the world we live in.

  43. film fanatic says:

    Leah: True, it’s not just about sexting. That was a simplification on my part. But while you may have an archive of nude personal photos on your computer stored for your own private use, you aren’t a celebrity and don’t have a target on your back for curious assholes who view breaking into your archive as a puzzle to be solved for high-fives or shits and giggles. There’s no incentive or bragging rights involved if a hacker breaks into your phone. My argument is if one IS a public figure — and of course, in an ideal world, public figures should deserve the same level of privacy, sanctity and respect as anyone else, though the reality is different — someone on the payroll of the business (and being a public figure definitely IS a business) has to have enough common sense to know that such an outcome is possible and recommend contingincies against it. You don’t have to have a private security detail because of potential stalkers/psychos; most movie stars are forced to. To say this couldn’t have been foreseen is ridiculous. You don’t have a brand that can be damaged, they do. The same way that if someone snaps a pic of you smoking a joint, no one is going to give a shit, but if you’re running for political office, it could ruin your career. There are different standards for celebrities. I’m not saying those standards are fair, and, yes, an even greater level of sexism/unpleasantness is involved when we’re talking about what society considers to be a “young, attractive” female celebrity, but these different standards are very real and definitely exist.

    There are two telling details about this whole sordid affair that don’t get talked about enough. First, the guy who was allegedly first shopping the photos was using them not for profit, but as “evidence” to try to convince people online that he’d had sex with some of the women in question, which speaks to a level of delusional detachment from reality that is astounding. Second, the scourge known as TMZ (a fully-owned and operated subsidiary of Time Warner) was offering cold hard cash for the photos before they leaked. So this isn’t just about some entitled misogynist sociopathic hackers. It’s about a whole multi-billion dollar media complex that explicitly profits from degrading people and stirring up shit. How about holding some of the suits who profit off this behavior accountable, too?

  44. leahnz says:

    the photos didn’t ‘leak’, a leak implies a breach coming from within the ranks, they were stolen; i think there’s a distinction and it’s a disingenuous description being used to describe a pretty serious crime.

    and how exactly are these women (as a BRAND!) being ‘damaged’, they’ve done NOTHING WRONG to warrant being labelled damaged goods in any way, the fucking sociopathic asshole(s) who feel entitled to do this should be the ones considered damaged goods, fucked in the head and dealt with accordingly. but you’re doing a good job of exemplifying the culture of victim-blaming and shaming, and i don’t think you even realise it.
    (plus christ on a cracker i’m not a big perv with a huge treasure trove of nudes of myself, i didn’t imply that – and nobody is a fucking BRAND, screw that, fuck the police. that sounds like something someone in marketing would say, not to mention objectifying, what bullshit, these are people with lives and feelings. i think you’re overestimating how carefully regulated and slickly-run every moment and aspect of an actor/celeb’s life can be, even someone like Lawrence, everyone still has their private relationships and secrets and weird shit they like to do, that they don’t necessarily want people to know about, that’s why they do it in PRIVATE. see people – perhaps particularly young women who get shamed a lot – tend to not talk/make a big thing about their naked photos and private escapades to their management team, everyone so convinced her team should have known better and been able to prevent this, well apparently not, i guess they’re just a bunch of serious freakin’ morons huh, as were a hell of a lot of other people’s ‘teams’; so maybe the truth is this big threat to the cloud that should have been so obvious a baby could have prevented it wasn’t actually all that clear-cut and well-known at the time as everyone is making it out to be now with hindsight. isn’t TMZ and its ilk renown for being grandstanding sensationalist rags run by jackasses, i’m not convinced everyone is paying attention to TMZ trash whims and running the minutiae of their lives accordingly. wasn’t there just a thing when ‘sex tape’ came out recently with ‘experts’ saying how silly it was/how secure the actual cloud was? irony)

    and film fanatic your second paragraph describes the very ‘culture of entitlement’ i pointed out needed to be examined and held accountable, those people who reward – and then profit from – the exploitation of others without their consent. you’re agreeing with me. i’m not sure if you realised that. i said the same thing, but the role of the misogynist sociopathic hacker – and the fact that women are overwhelmingly targeted in these types of thefts – doesn’t need to be diminished in order to address the role of the next exploiter.

  45. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Because I’m a huge nitpicker, Sterling wasn’t taped without his knowledge nor without his consent. He asked his girlfriend to record his conversations (in general) because he has problems remembering the content of discussions.

  46. skycapitan says:

    You know, I don’t really care about #thefappening.
    Actresses use their sex appeal to advance their careers all the time. How many haven’t objectified themselves by doing the bikini photoshoot? Anyone see the Jennifer Lawrence Esquire shoot? Are those kinds of retouched pics more “damaging” for women than her taking a naked selfie in a mirror? Or how about Kate Upton sucking on a popsicle while wearing a teeny bikini. Is that worse than that leaked pic of her sitting on a bed wearing a vest/tie?

    Who cares. It won’t hurt anyones career.
    The smart ones will be like Becca Tobbin tweeting out “Merry Christmas!” and leaving it at that.
    Getting all sanctimonious about it doesn’t help anything.

  47. YancySkancy says:

    leah, the only thing I’m not clear on is what you think would be an acceptable outcome of this debacle. For all the exploiters and victim-blamers to come to Jesus? Some sort of “honor system” that will allow celebs to take nude selfies without fear of them ending up online?

    It’s all well and good to want the exploiters to be “held accountable,” which they should be, but will that actually translate into a solution to the problem? We may not like it, but as of this moment, the only way a woman can guarantee that her privacy won’t be compromised in this way is to refrain from the activity or figure out the necessary steps to keep it truly private. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out this reality, depressing as it may be.

  48. YancySkancy says:

    skycapitan: If you can’t see the difference between choosing to exploit one’s sexuality and having that choice made for you, the issue has clearly sailed over your head. Your argument sounds similar to “A prostitute can’t be raped.”

  49. film fanatic says:

    Leah: I think we are on the same page more than you realize, but you seem too caught up in splitting hairs to see forest for the trees. Nowhere am I blaming the victims. And yes, this is a case of theft/dissemination of private property, not a leak. Nor am I suggesting anywhere that the women who were victimized are somehow “damaged goods.” What I meant by “brand damage” is simply this: beyond even the obvious personal sense of violation, in terms of just their careers/carefully crafted public images they put forth professionally, this is a headache/curveball/potential source of embarrassment that they’d obviously rather not have had to deal with. The irony, of course, is that their careers and fame are precisely the reasons they were targeted for this crime in the first place. Which is not to say that the victims should in any way feel ashamed. OF COURSE they did nothing wrong here. Nor do I anywhere make the leap that keeping private photos of oneself in any way makes one a perv. But I think (regrettably, fyi) that the reality of the world today is that there is no such thing as “privacy” anymore for celebrities in the modern age, unless they take great extraordinary pains to craft it for themselves — like Bill Murray or D’Angelo go-entirely-off-the-grid levels of extraordinary. Warren Buffett has a famous quote of advice for public figures: “don’t do anything you wouldn’t inadvertently want to have show up on the front page of your hometown newspaper.” That’s not victim-blaming, it’s called recognizing the extra — often unfair — scrutiny public figures find themselves under and taking extra precautions. Also, I am well aware of my intent in my second paragraph — it’s beyond obvious that I agree the sense of entitlement by the hackers and the sleaziness of the tabloids profiting off the click-traffic is a major problem. To assume that I “inadvertently” agreed with you is patronizing beyond belief.

  50. LexG says:

    Are we really at the point where anyone with a public voice is so terrified of being considered in any way “judgmental,” that it’s thus considered offensive (and misogynist?) to merely opine that a celeb is kind of a dingleberry for making and storing a video of themselves high as a kite demanding to sniff their bf’s ass?

    Just seems like we’re SO trained at this point with that default “what happens in people’s bedrooms is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!” Which is kind of disingenuous, people love knowing celeb hookup crap, gossip amongst their friends coworkers — Online if someone asks, “Is so-and-so actress/actor gay?”, immediately they are crucified as a homophobe (“What difference does it make? It doesn’t affect their acting,” etc etc etc.) Then I go to the workplace where I work with 5 or 6 celeb/tabloid-obsessed women who spent EVERY WAKING MINUTE accusing certain actors of being gay, gossiping over celeb hookups, mocking celebrity outfit pics, etc. It just seems like this PUBLIC STONING of anyone who says “hey maybe don’t film yourselves covered in semen” is a rather strange avenue coming from some unexpected sources. Like if James Franco or Ryan Gosling had 1000 pics of their jizz on their phone, pulling trains on midgets with jumper cables attached to their ballsack, nobody’s allowed to kinda think, “Eh, maybe cool it on fucking filming that stuff?”

  51. leahnz says:

    yes yancysk i want everyone to come to jesus

    filmfanatic, i didn’t know if you were agreeing with me or not, no patronisation intended, i wasn’t sure if you understood what I was trying to get across (and by ‘big perv’ i meant ‘really digging myself in a narcissistic way’, not that taking naked pictures makes one a perv, how silly, my bad for not expressing myself more succinctly though because i can see how that was misinterpreted).

    as for the ‘damaged goods’, you are the one who used the words ‘damaged brand’ to describe these women, you used the language, i’m pointing here how victim-blaming/shaming LANGUAGE is a very commonly used in our culture (this is part of what crates a ‘culture’) and language is a powerful thing; so if you didn’t intend to victim blame/shame, than you need to think carefully about the WORDS YOU USE when you describe your thoughts and opinions. i believe you when you say you didn’t intend to victim blame/shame when you called these women a damaged brand, but your language was victim shaming/blaming, because you are conditioned by society to express concepts in a certain way that needs to be UNDONE.

    and i find it quite patronising to be told i’m splitting hairs and thus missing the forest for the trees in this situation; did it occur to you that perhaps there’s been a preponderance of not considering the trees in the examination of the forest in this case, and pointing out things out that are just glossed over and not discussed (particularly by a bunch of dudes) is not ‘splitting hairs’.

  52. YancySkancy says:

    If I may clarify on film fanatic’s behalf, he did not say the victims were “damaged brands.” He said that they have brands that could be damaged by the dissemination of these photos. Which is simply a fact and in no way suggests that he intended to characterize the victims as “damaged goods.” It’s not like using the word “damage” automatically suggests some sexual component, especially when coupled with “brand.” Tylenol’s brand was damaged when some asshole put cyanide in a few bottles of their product. Katherine Heigl’s brand was damaged when she made statements that seemed ungracious to co-workers. Michael Richards’ brand was damaged when he used the “n” word in his stand-up act. So I fail to see how saying that this brouhaha might damage an actress’s brand is in any way using the language of victim-blaming. If anything, it’s the language of economics.

    Ultimately, I don’t think the actresses have to worry too much about brand damage — the kind of people who would hold this thing against them are probably the type that consider actresses to be de facto prostitutes to begin with. More reasonable people see this as a case of violated privacy and theft.

    It is also possible to advise celebs to take privacy precautions without suggesting they are to blame for anything, just as it is possible to advise them to install home security systems without “blaming” them for owning nice things.

  53. leahnz says:

    “If I may clarify on film fanatic’s behalf, he did not say the victims were “damaged brands.” He said that they have brands that could be damaged”

    lol are you even serious with this shit, saying that the women have brands that could be damaged is not the same as saying they could be damaged brands? what the ever living fuck, maybe you should just speak for yourself —

    and talk about missing the point, allow me to tune you in yancysk, because i don’t think you get it: these are women, PEOPLE, who are being actively and insidiously shamed on the internet because of something they did privately in their personal space expressing their sexuality; using the word ‘damage’ and ‘brand’ in any freaking configuration to describe these women, the victims of a crime, is employing typical victim-blaming language (not to mention objectifying language, you’re comparing fucking TYLENOL, an inanimate object – a LITERAL BRAND – to actual WOMEN? well there you go, that’s perfect, couldn’t have made my point for me any better, and your other examples are people who SAID something that was deemed offensive, and your comparing that ‘damage to their brand’ to the victimisation of these women, who neither did nor said anything wrong or offensive? i think you need to think carefully about your analogies and thought process) in our culture where women who are victims of sexual impropriety, assault and violence are ROUTINELY blamed and shamed for the acts perpetrated against them, routinely blamed and shamed for their sexuality, because they were asking for it/had it coming, and are by virtue of what has been done to them damaged goods — if you don’t understand this, you need to educate yourself rather than just falling back on tired semantics and your comfy world view.

  54. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    I am woman, hear me roar
    In numbers too big to ignore
    And I know too much to go back an’ pretend
    ’cause I’ve heard it all before
    And I’ve been down there on the floor
    No one’s ever gonna keep me down again

  55. YancySkancy says:

    leah: We agree on this issue, but the way you insist on misinterpreting my points makes it clear that one cannot engage in a meaningful discussion on the subject with you. I really don’t understand it. I think I’m being clear, and then you come at me with this nonsense. NOWHERE do I say or suggest that I support the shaming/blaming of the victims in this case, nor do I suggest that the victims did anything wrong — quite the freaking opposite. And of course I’m not comparing women to Tylenol; I specifically used examples that were not sexual in nature to show that the phrase “brand damage” does not represent a moral judgment. Brands are damaged for all sorts of reason, and sometimes the victim is blameless (as in this case and the Tylenol case) and sometimes they invite it (Heigl, Richards).

    Also, I never said that these women ARE brands. But it’s a simple fact to say that, like all celebrities these days, they HAVE brands. If the word “brand” is an issue, call it “reputation” instead. I don’t care. I thought my point was self-evident, since it’s mentioned in every story about this thing: Yes, some are trying to shame/blame these women for taking the pics in the first place — this is morally wrong, but you can bet the celebs and their managers are concerned about it: that’s why they engage in a thing called, dare I say it, “damage control.”

    Even though the victims are blameless, many have made statements to condemn the hackers. Some have claimed that the pics are fake; others have admitted they’re real; others are remaining silent. But I suspect most have conferred with managers, publicists, whatever, to discuss the impact, if any, it may have on their careers. And these days every public career encompasses a “brand.”

    Finally, I hope with more clarity than I’ve managed heretofore, it is not victim-blaming to suggest that they need to take precautions if they don’t want their privacy breached. It’s just an unfortunate fact of life now. If there are things we can do to change that, then let’s! I don’t know what the answer is. Do you? If you do, I wish you’d share it.

  56. film fanatic says:

    You silly, silly man. DAMAGE CONTROL is a sexist term of the patriarchy, The mere etymology of the phrase shows this. First, “DAMAGE.” Yes, all women are sluts in men’s eyes; men view them as DAMAGED because of their Virgin/Whore obsession, all the while turning a blind eye to the real DAMAGE they do to women by possessing PENISES. And CONTROL is symbolic of the way men historically attempt to CONTROL women and subjugate them to their will. So even the very utterance of the phrase “DAMAGE CONTROL” is a provocative, hostile act and is all about MEN sticking it to our cis-gender-female-identifying-as-female comrades, setting off a trigger-warning and PTSD symptoms by reminding them of how MEN have done untold DAMAGE to them through their eternal need to CONTROL them. LANGUAGE IS POWER. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE WORDS YOU USE. YOU DON’T EVEN REALIZE THAT SOCIETY HAS MOLDED AND SHAPED THE LANGUAGE YOU USE TO CONVEY CONCEPTS AND YOU ARE BLIND TO THE WORDS’ TRUE MEANING. Could someone, somewhere, possibly misinterpret the words you use, no matter how much context and explicit deliniation you provide? THEN DON’T USE THEM. SHIT, DON’T EVEN USE WORDS AT ALL! JUST GRUNT LIKE AN APE, BUT NOT IN A WAY THAT MIGHT BE AGRESSIVE OR INTIMIDATING. “Language is the house we live in,” quoth Wittgenstein, and it is a house of SHAME AND PATRIARCHAL SUBJUGATION. HOW DARE YOU! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!

  57. PcChongor says:

    For FUCKS sake, can we all AGREE that giant run-on PARAGRAPHS with sporadically CAPITALIZED words ARE infuriatingly difficult TO read!

  58. Hallick says:

    They aren’t difficult to read, just unpleasant.

  59. film fanatic says:

    um, it was parody?

  60. Hallick says:

    I got that, FF. I was referring to the non-parodic.

  61. Hallick says:

    There’s a Venn diagram somewhere where the pragmatists’ and the blue nosers’ circles are overlapping at the statement, “if you don’t want nude pictures of yourself on the internet, don’t take nude pictures of yourself”. Said statement assumes that this thought hadn’t instantly occured to the vast majority of the victimized celebrities already. And who’s to say this didn’t occur to them even at the time they took the photos?

    Back one time when I was trying to lose weight and I took a “before” picture of my flabby-ass gut, I was paranoid about catching any full frontal nudity in the pic because god-knows-what-would-happen if that got compromised. Nevermind that I was using a digital camera, nobody on earth would care if I even had done it, etc. My personal belief is that, likewise, most of these high profile celebrities knew that they were taking a calculated risk and that there was a chance their pictures could make their way onto the internet either by accident, vindictiveness or stalkerazzi snooping. Especially after the dozens of previous examples in the last decade or so. But, fascinatingly, they still took or posed for the pics anyway. And that doesn’t make me want to see them shamed, it makes me want to see them admired for their chutzpah.

    That being said, to speak to Leah’s earlier point about an entitlement complex among some men regarding the bodies of women, and especially famous women in particular, the scariest takeaway from all of this is that it would still happen if zero girl-shaming and zero entitlement were even involved because men (well, yeah, I guess STRAIGHT men) want to see famous attractive women naked even if they absolutely know it’s wrong and they have no right to it whatsoever.

  62. leahnz says:

    what sort of witchcraft is this when the only cleverly ironic retort is from JBD? (i assume ironic anyway, but i guess never assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME. those caps are just for you PcChongor baby, nice and short so you don’t sprain that brain! i will now continue to write exactly how i fucking please on this blog)

    and FOAMY, i meant SAY that your DEAD-PAN joke ABOUT that SENILE OLD FUCKER wahtshisname MADE me LAUGH

    (i should say this: “I specifically used examples that were not sexual in nature to show that the phrase “brand damage” does not represent a moral judgment. Brands are damaged for all sorts of reason, and sometimes the victim is blameless (as in this case and the Tylenol case) and sometimes they invite it (Heigl, Richards).”

    GEE yancysk, it might HAVE BEEN prudent TO ACTUALLY include THIS RATHER CRUCIAL tidbit IN your ACTUAL comment, because IT SIGNIFICANTLY changes the MEANING, TONE and context; IF YOU re-read YOUR comment and KEEP IN MIND that i’m not PSYCHIC and CAN NOT GLEAN things you DON’T WRITE from YOUR POST, by NOT including that QUALIFIER and choosing AN INANIMATE object and AN analogy COMPARING two people whose OWN PUBLIC ACTIONS directly caused their PROBLEMS, hopefully you can SEE how i’d interpret your COMMENT quite differently FROM what you claim you’re TRYING TO SAY.)

    how do like me now fuckers !?,:;-‘”/( <<< some random punctuation AT THE END for NO REASON just to chap YOUR ASS! anarchy, alert the grammar/syntax police, SOMEONE'S NOT writing with a STICK up THEIR ASS on a BLOG OH NO!!!!

  63. YancySkancy says:

    I don’t know, leah — in my original comment I offered this: “It’s not like using the word ‘damage’ automatically suggests some sexual component, especially when coupled with ‘brand.’” I followed that with three examples of brand damage that didn’t involve sex. So the only comparison I was making was between types of brand damage. I didn’t compare the victims of the photo brouhaha to anything at all. I honestly don’t see why anyone would read that and think I was making any kind of judgment. I was merely saying that the women in this case (and their managers) might be concerned that it could damage their brand.

    But of course I’m not going to be the best judge of my own writing. Maybe I should call my alma mater and ask for a refund on that English degree. Sorry for any confusion.

  64. leahnz says:

    yeah whatever, this thread is just a bad romance. i must say, you know what would just floor me? just for once one of you guys to actually consider (that magical thing called ‘listening’) what i’m saying and go, “you know what? i kind of get how assigning the ‘damaged’ label in any way to the victims in this situation – given the context of how women who are violated in some way are often wrongly blamed, labelled and shamed in society, made to feel like damaged goods – is a little problematic.” (at this point i’m half-expecting it to be JBD, even just ironically) i would shit a brick. see someone really consider something outside your worldview, that because something may be meaningless or a non-issue to you and your sensibilities, that doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone. but no, just the usual vaguely smug to out-and-out assholishness and hilarious defensiveness (and a good dose of righteousness too for sure, plenty of cool guys here and most of the time it’s pretty chill – verging on morgue-like), christ boys are big babies. but i must admit the hilariousness of the boy’s club here is one of the things that makes me post, just the sheer absurdity of it, i get a perverse kick out of it, the pompousness (occasionally) on display, like preening peacocks – with easily ruffled feathers. i must have a warped sense of humour.

  65. YancySkancy says:

    leah: You don’t get to decide the definition of the word “damaged.” Even in this context of women being violated, a discussion of possible brand damage does not automatically connote any sort of blame. If a woman is in a car accident, and I say her car was “damaged,” am I suggesting she’s a bad driver who deserved what she got? I’m legitimately confused, undoubtedly because I’m a man. But I have now explained, re-explained and over-explained my use of the offending phrase, and obviously one or both of us is being willfully obtuse now. So, stalemate (in my opinion, but you can feel free to consider it a victory).

  66. doug r says:

    It’s really about control.

  67. Ryan says:

    Leah. Re read your post and come back to say you didn’t just violate everything Steinem stood for within 30 seconds

  68. film fanatic says:

    Everyone knows punctuation is a patriarchal conspiracy designed by men to impose rigid, arbitrary order on the expression of otherwise free-form cis-female-identifying-as-female speech. Consider the very nomenclature of the most famous of punctuation symbols: THE PERIOD. It’s no coincidence that it is a homophone (AGAIN, “HOMO” = MAN DICTATING THE TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION) for a woman’s menstrual cycle. And insisting on proper punctuation, or even USING the words that signify punctuation (like the aforementioned “period”), can thus trigger a primal trauma in cis-female-self-identifying-as-female persons, evoking feelings of isolation because of their DIFFERENCE and unleashing reminders of 2000+ years of repression and judgemental negativity at the hands of men, going all the way back to Leviticus 15:19.


  69. Ryan says:

    If you want to have that argument…I am game. Other reasons
    I’m out.

  70. Ryan says:

    Actually. This entered the ‘congrats on the FAUX Feminist’ category, as soon as the NFL started

  71. Ryan says:

    My bad.

  72. KrazyEyes says:

    However wrong it may be, I find it very hard to believe that Jessica Brown Findlay’s career won’t be damaged by this. I have no interest in seeing the video but the description of it has colored my impression of her if/when I see her in future roles.

  73. EtGuild2 says:

    Since there’s no box office, only thing (to me) that’s notable is:

    Studio confirmed INTO THE STORM cost $50 mil, which is wayyyy more than I would have thought. But it’s playing damn well overseas, so it’s all good…

    LUCY is clearly going to be the top worldwide grosser for live-actions films made for under 9 figures this year. A triumph for Besson and ScarJo.

  74. EtGuild2 says:

    Also, I’m afraid to mention GUARDIANS…but catching IRON MAN seems realistic now domestically (IRON MAN 2 seems likely).

    Worlwide, CAP 2 (and Spidey) seems well in play. A 300/700 result would squarely put the film in the realm of “big fat hit.”

  75. Foamy Squirrel says:

    “leahnz says:
    September 7, 2014 at 2:16 am

    how do like me now fuckers !?,:;-’”/( <<< some random punctuation AT THE END for NO REASON just to chap YOUR ASS! anarchy, alert the grammar/syntax police, SOMEONE'S NOT writing with a STICK up THEIR ASS on a BLOG OH NO!!!!

    I have an Ass-Stick rental service for the discerning Grammar/Syntax Police, at reasonable prices. Please email for a confidential discussion.

  76. leahnz says:

    one word foamy: autoclave. health & safety first

  77. Ryan says:

    This conversation just flipped due to the Ray Rice video

  78. YancySkancy says:

    Ryan: Yikes — I’m not sure there’s as much to be said about the Ray Rice situation. Certainly there’s no moral equivalency between punching your significant other in the face and taking a naked selfie. And is anyone really going to make a case for the “privacy” of a hotel elevator, most of which are known to have surveillance cameras? I guess the issue of “leaked” video is in play, but sheesh.

  79. PcChongor says:

    Well, it’s certainly some sort of tabloid dystopia when TMZ has more access to critical evidence than the police and the entire NFL do.

  80. Ryan says:

    Yancy. I am pretty sure everyone on ESPN disagrees with you.

  81. Ryan says:

    The moral equivancy argument is the point. Seriously? You are going the other way, now?

  82. YancySkancy says:

    Ryan: Not sure what you mean. Perhaps there’s more to the Rice story than my cursory research revealed. I don’t know who leaked the elevator video, for instance. But unlike the actresses’ cell phones, the elevator was a public place with surveillance cameras with no expectation of privacy. I suppose if Rice had filmed such an attack in the privacy of his own home and someone had hacked it, the privacy issues raised would be the same. And sure, some would undoubtedly be saying, “Hey, he had an expectation of privacy, and she didn’t press charges, so that’s that.” But to me, the location of the attack nullifies that issue. The elevator camera captured a crime — did the hotel report it to the police at the time? If not, what’s the purpose of the camera? If the person who leaked the video did so illegally, then I guess they should be found and charged as well. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

  83. film fanatic says:

    The Rice elevator video is potential evidence involving a crime that is a felony (whether charges are filed or not) and total apples/oranges in comparison to the selfies hack. Also, any man who hits a woman is a total piece of shit, so he deserves anything coming his way and doesn’t have a single iota of my sympathy.

    Different from the hack, but somewhat similar to the Rice situation is the greased-palms scoop machine that is TMZ. There are blatant invasions of privacy committed in the name of tabloid “journalism” on a daily basis, many of them out-and-out illegal: like paying off hospital workers to convey confidential medical information; condoning illegal tape-recording of private conversations and then giving the person who is either profiting or scoring agenda points from said leak legal cover by pretending a “third party” was responsible; bribing employees in hotels where celebrity patrons expect privacy as part of the deal, etc. The Beyonce/Solange/Jay-Z elevator fight of a few months ago is a perfect example. While maybe not technically illegal, I sure as hell hope the management of the five-star hotel where the incident took place fired the shit out of the employee who sold that Jay-Z costume ball security cam footage.

    Again, this speaks to the culture that directly profits off embarrassing celebs and stirring shit up. And, keep in mind, Harvey Levin’s TMZ is a subsidiary of Time Warner, which hypocritically plays both sides off the middle, as I’m sure their film and TV divisions would often like to have the very things their TMZ division exposes swept under the rug.

    But bringing Rice into the discussion is a non-starter. There’s a special place in hell for the likes of him and Chris Brown.

    (Waiting for Leah to nitpick and tell me that the above was still sexist somehow).

  84. Hallick says:

    Where would the moral equivalency be made? There isn’t even a technical equivalency between stolen, non-criminal private property being publicized online and casino elevator footage showing evidence of a high profile crime.

  85. Pete B. says:

    The casino where the Ray Rice incident took place just closed recently, so somebody had to have been holding on to that tape until they couldn’t get in trouble for leaking it, and as soon as their last paycheck cleared, they went straight to TMZ to get some cash.

  86. PcChongor says:

    I think the NFL is just thanking their lucky stars that more of their players aren’t nearly as photogenic as Ray Rice is:

  87. Mike says:

    The real question is what changed by the Ray Rice video coming out. He already admitted to the crime and pleaded down to a lesser charge and served his time. The Ravens and the NFL already had access to those records and the video of him dragging his unconscious wife out of the hotel. What did they think he did? Why did the video make this go from a two-game suspension to an indefinite and probable ban from the NFL for life? How is it worse than Michael Vick, who killed dogs, or the Rothlesberger, who allegedly raped a girl? Because now there’s embarrassing video? There’s something wrong with our culture if we’re only willing to get upset once we have video.

  88. Ryan says:

    Goodell is a lying ass. We didn’t know? REALLY?

  89. Ryan says:

    Not potentially a felony. IS a felony!

  90. Ryan says:

    Mike. He knew. Admit it and move on
    “I don’t know how TMZ get their videos” This from the biggest SPORTS LEAGUE in the US.

  91. Ryan says:

    How is beating women different from killing dogs? Leah just had a heart attack!!

  92. Ryan says:

    Yancy. So it’s OK to beat women in the privacy of your own home and expect different privacy issues concerning naked pics in the same setting. We are going there?

  93. Ryan says:

    Check out Andrew Sharp on Grantland. He has the best argument I have seen.

  94. Ryan says:

    Cris Carter just admitted on Mike and Mike that NFL security is scary. Former FBI/CIA people! And they couldn’t see this two months ago. Come on!

  95. Ryan says:

    I am sorry that I am so outraged by this. But who is rational and not outraged by this, after the outrage over female celeb naked pic privacy.

  96. Ryan says:

    Luol Deng also changed the convo.

    What a class act PR move

  97. Ryan says:

    Thanks for bringing class back to Sports, Mr. Deng

  98. Ryan says:

    I am now happy/less outraged. I digress/give up. Congrat to Deng’s PR people for writing that

  99. Ryan says:

    I am immediately outraged again at hearing Floyd.

    Guaranteed he beats the crap out of anyone who touches his illegitimate daughters. He is defending domestic violence. WTF?

  100. YancySkancy says:

    “Yancy. So it’s OK to beat women in the privacy of your own home and expect different privacy issues concerning naked pics in the same setting. We are going there?”

    We’re not going anywhere, dude, because I never said that. You started this part of the thread by saying the Rice video flipped the conversation. I assumed you meant the conversation about right to privacy re “leaked” video or pics. I pointed out the obvious difference between pics taken in the privacy of an actress’s home and video taken from a hotel surveillance cam. I then said that SOME people might argue that if the Rice video were taken in the privacy of his home that it would still be a violation of his privacy despite the heinous nature of what he did, morally muddying the waters of this issue. How this translates to you as “OK to beat women in the privacy of your own home and expect different privacy issues concerning naked pics in the same setting,” I don’t know.

    In fact, looking back over your posts, I’m not sure I understand where you were coming from originally. State your position clearly, and maybe I can tell if I agree with it or not. If you’re simply saying Ray Rice is a scumbag and it’s great that we have video to prove it, we couldn’t agree more. How it changes the conversation about naked selfies is beyond me. That’s why I brought in the notion of WHAT IF his video were private and hacked: would the legal issue be different? Would we be praising the hackers for doing in effect the same thing they did to the actresses? These may or may not be interesting points of discussion, but raising them doesn’t make me sympathetic to Rice or less than outraged at his behavior.

    EDIT: Reading over all this again, I’m hopelessly confused. I’m trying to parse your comment. “…expect different privacy issues…” You seem to think I’m saying Rice SHOULD NOT expect different privacy issues in that hypothetical, but I’m only saying that SOMEONE would undoubtedly say, “His privacy isn’t an issue; he beat that woman.”

  101. Ryan says:

    I am saying that .the naked female celeb pics privacy issue got changed overnight

  102. Ryan says:

    Welcome to the HAWKS situation! You are now forced to PRIVATELY sell a public asset b/c you make an AHole out of yourself online?

  103. Ryan says:

    Welcome back

  104. Hallick says:

    “I am saying that the naked female celeb pics privacy issue got changed overnight”

    But you’re not saying what it got changed to or how the Ray Rice video changed it.

  105. Ryan says:


    People cannot expect privacy anywhere video/sound recording is available (which is everywhere now), period.

    Whether it’s a naked selfie in the privacy of ones own home (but is still recorded and available for a hacker to find, obviously), or a public hotel casino. I don’t think the question was ever answered-why does Jennifer Lawrence get sympathy for recording something that she wanted to remain private, but Donald Sterling gets no sympathy for saying racist things in what he thought was a private conversation, but was obviously recorded. I’m not defending Sterling or Rice-but I’m also not criticizing J Law for anything other than naivete. But what is the difference?

  106. cadavra says:

    No offense, Ryan, but privacy is not the issue here. The issue is that a nude photo and someone spewing racism are not even remotely the same thing and shouldn’t be used as a basis of comparison.

  107. Hallick says:

    “I don’t think the question was ever answered-why does Jennifer Lawrence get sympathy for recording something that she wanted to remain private, but Donald Sterling gets no sympathy for saying racist things in what he thought was a private conversation, but was obviously recorded.”

    The question doesn’t get answered because it qualifies as rhetorical. If somebody wants sympathy for the devil, they can buy a fucking Stones album.

  108. Hallick says:

    Bumper sticker zingers aside, I don’t think Lawrence has universal sympathy anymore than Sterling probably has universal condemnation, but that’s besides the point. The public-at-large (or the media-at-large) perceived the Sterling recording as a whistleblower incident and the Lawerence photos as a monkey-spanker incident. The villain in the former became Sterling and the villain in the latter became the monkey-spanking hacker. Basically, if the public good is seen to have been served by the violation of someone’s privacy, there might still be small murmurings about the manner in which it’s done, but overall it gets a morality pass.

  109. Ryan says:

    “I don’t think Lawrence has universal sympathy anymore than Sterling probably has universal condemnation, but that’s besides the point.”

    Is that a joke? All you heard all over the news was poor J Law and Kate Upton. It was even discussed on this blog that it was going down that way. The hacker immediately became the villain-nobody questioned why people who take pictures and put them up digitally cannot expect privacy.

    And how is it in the ‘public good’ to force Donald Sterling to sell as asset he held forever because he happens to be a white male sports owner with potentially racist views. We could throw out half the league owners most likely! We could also throw out 1/3 of Congress for similar reasons.

    I bet you those white male sports owners learned the Donald Sterling lesson very quickly. I don’t think that the celebs with the naked pictures did the same (see Kardashian, Favre, Anthony Weiner, etc.)

  110. Hallick says:

    It isn’t a joke because you yourself appear to be just one example of the fact that Lawrence doesn’t have universal sympathy.

    Nobody’s right to privacy is considered null and void because the boundaries in which they expect to have that privacy are able to be physically violated. By that definition, Lawrence wouldn’t have any expectation of privacy (or sympathy) in her own home while taking a shower or changing her clothes because, hey, people can pick locks and get in her house with the right tools anyway, y’know? What’s the big fuss about that?

    And I can extend that logic to it’s utterly worst conclusion and say “well hell, don’t expect a right not to be raped because lots of people can tear off you panties and force themselves between your legs”.

  111. YancySkancy says:

    Unless you’re a blue-nose, of course you’ll sympathize with the actresses over Sterling. Both may be “guilty” of naivete or ignorance about their expectation of privacy, but as cadavra said, there’s a big difference between posing for sexy photos and making racist remarks.

    Oh, and of course the hacker was the “villain” in the photo theft case. Generally, when there are criminals and victims, it’s the former who are considered the villains.

  112. Ryan says:

    Ask Erin Andrews about the hotel room/shower situation. But that’s a different issue. Erin Andrews didn’t take selfies in her hotel room while she was naked, and then expect that “Hey, you know, that will never show up anywhere”.

    “Nobody’s right to privacy is considered null and void because the boundaries in which they expect to have that privacy are able to be physically violated.”

    It is considered null and void when you take pictures that can show up digitally in your ‘private space’. You don’t have private space when you make it so easily public through stupidity.

    Let me ask you this-are you naïve enough to think that someone can’t track you down every second of the day when your cell phone is on, and when you carry that cell phone, you lose privacy expectations immediately? Once you signed that phone contract, or linked your name to your phone, you gave up your privacy to the government and your cell phone provider, whether you want to admit it, are mad about it, or whatever. There is a GPS following you 24/7.

    So we give up a little bit of privacy everyday. But we give up a lot of privacy when we make irresponsible decisions. When you do stupid things, you get stupid results.

    “Unless you’re a blue-nose, of course you’ll sympathize with the actresses over Sterling.”

    I had to look that up. It still makes no sense in this context that I can see. Maybe the Urban dictionary definition doesn’t apply.

    ““well hell, don’t expect a right not to be raped because lots of people can tear off you panties and force themselves between your legs”.”

    I don’t want to go here, but why do you think they do rape prevention on every college campus, everywhere, and teach girls to always go somewhere with a partner? It is because it is a horrible logical conclusion, but we’ve already gone there as a society to that conclusion!

    People who want to remain relatively private can still do so. They can just can’t take naked pictures of themselves or make dumb ass, racist, sexist, homophobic comments anywhere, and expect that it’s ok. Again-we wouldn’t be having this conversation if J Law had said “I don’t like black people” and it got recorded. Or would you still say she has the right to make that comment (as long it is in the shower I guess).

  113. Hallick says:

    “Erin Andrews didn’t take selfies in her hotel room while she was naked, and then expect that ‘Hey, you know, that will never show up anywhere’.”

    Is there a quote somewhere that supports the idea that Jennifer Lawrence thought that? In this day and age, if you take a naked picture of yourself on a smart phone, I think you know that risk ahead of time. I don’t think you can expect the images to be perfectly inaccessable and safe. But at the same time, it took somebody actively committing a crime to get to those pictures and post them on the internet. It wasn’t like she carelessly sent the pics out to somebody who then turned around and sold them to one of the stalkerazzi sites.

    “So we give up a little bit of privacy everyday. But we give up a lot of privacy when we make irresponsible decisions. When you do stupid things, you get stupid results.”

    You’re talking about a voluntary choice to give up a piece of privacy versus a uninvited stranger forcing themself into someone’s private life without any of that.

    “Again-we wouldn’t be having this conversation if J Law had said ‘I don’t like black people’ and it got recorded. Or would you still say she has the right to make that comment (as long it is in the shower I guess).”

    She does still have the right to make that comment, just like Sterling has the right to make all the racist comments he pleases, because they both have freedom of speech. The problem for Sterling was that there’s no such thing as immunity of speech and the NBA came down on him. Whether they did that legally is still for the courts to decide.

    I don’t understand the point of creating a hypothetical situation where Lawrence does something racist to excuse what happened. We’re talking about a specific situation that really has happened. Yeah, and people wouldn’t have been mad at Ray Rice if the elevator video just showed him holding hands with his fiancee and then skipping out into the lobby together like Kindergarteners, but so what? That didn’t happen either.

  114. Hallick says:

    “People cannot expect privacy anywhere video/sound recording is available (which is everywhere now), period.”

    I agree with that. But this reality doesn’t lessen my sympathy for people like Lawrence and it doesn’t absolve the hacker in any way whatsoever. Again, to take a step back technology-wise, let’s say somebody keeps a diary in their bedroom and somebody else breaks into their home, steals the diary and then posts copies of it all over the place for everybody to see. Is the diary keeper “stupid” and “irresponsible” for keeping a diary in the first place because they should have known that houses can be broken into?

    “Whether it’s a naked selfie in the privacy of ones own home (but is still recorded and available for a hacker to find, obviously), or a public hotel casino. I don’t think the question was ever answered-why does Jennifer Lawrence get sympathy for recording something that she wanted to remain private, but Donald Sterling gets no sympathy for saying racist things in what he thought was a private conversation, but was obviously recorded.”

    She gets sympathy because what was exposed wasn’t fucked up and hateful like Rice or Sterling. That’s it. To go back to the diary example above, if somebody’s journal was stolen and passages bragging over how much they were into pedophilia were made public, there wouldn’t be any sympathy there either, even though you have an identical set of circumstances. Content is just as important as context.

  115. Ryan says:

    “Is there a quote somewhere that supports the idea that Jennifer Lawrence thought that? In this day and age, if you take a naked picture of yourself on a smart phone, I think you know that risk ahead of time.”

    Publicist Liz Mahoney calls the posts “a flagrant violation of privacy.” She says Lawrence, the star of “The Hunger Games” movies, has asked authorities to prosecute whoever is posting the photos. Mahoney declined to provide any further details.

    Read more here:

    “It wasn’t like she carelessly sent the pics out to somebody who then turned around and sold them to one of the stalkerazzi sites.”

    All I’m saying is that she carelessly sent the pics out to the Cloud, and gets a ‘woe is me’ response from the press. Sterling was taped illegally-that also took someone committing a crime. I didn’t see a ‘woe is me’ response there.

    I think we just have a difference of opinion on how much privacy one can expect in a digital world, and the safeguarding of that privacy is extremely important, especially for high profile figures.

    “Yeah, and people wouldn’t have been mad at Ray Rice if the elevator video just showed him holding hands with his fiancee and then skipping out into the lobby together like Kindergarteners, but so what?”

    And to your point here about the other double standard in the media. Again, not defending Rice, but I didn’t hear the press or anyone saying “Well, if you watch the video, she hit him first more than once, so that’s assault. Maybe Rice should have pressed charges and moved on.”

  116. YancySkancy says:

    “Blue-nose” is just another word for prude, basically. So unless one is very prudish, one will sympathize with the actresses. Well, either prudish or an a-hole. Seriously, I don’t see why some people think it’s impossible to sympathize with these women EVEN IF you think they were stupid for not realizing their privacy could be easily violated.

    But you have to be racist to sympathize with Sterling, regardless of how you feel about his privacy rights.

  117. Ryan says:

    I never have said I sympathize with Sterling-he got what he deserved. I also don’t ever think I’ve said that I don’t have some sympathy for J Law-just that she is naive for making a fuss about posting naked pics in the Cloud and then being ‘outraged, outraged I tell you’ that someone would have an interest in finding said pictures and posting them online. And I’ve never said that I sympathize with the hacker who did the posting.

    Urban Dictionary defines blue nose as “a person who always has to announce to all other people in his immediate company who and how many cops he knows. Said person is always making stupid small talk with cops, i.e. on details, in coffee shops, etc. Their obnoxious ass-kissing usually purports a certain discomfort level to the pigs they are conversing with.”,

    So that’s why I thought it made zero sense in this context.

  118. YancySkancy says:

    Yeah, I don’t know why the traditional old definition of bluenose (which I think is one word, not two as I originally wrote it) isn’t the first result in a Google search. Weird. I know common phrases can become archaic, but I’ve never heard of the cop-related use of it before.

  119. Hallick says:

    “Publicist Liz Mahoney calls the posts ‘a flagrant violation of privacy.’ She says Lawrence, the star of “The Hunger Games” movies, has asked authorities to prosecute whoever is posting the photos. Mahoney declined to provide any further details.”

    And this is crying “woe is me” to your eyes how?

  120. Ryan says:

    Woe is me as in I posted something online and I can’t believe a hacker could get it or would want to get it.

    Your definition of bluenose or blue nose sounds like a Fitzgerald invention.

  121. Ryan says:

    You should get a subscription to oed and look it up.

  122. Hallick says:

    “Woe is me as in I posted something online and I can’t believe a hacker could get it or would want to get it.”

    But that isn’t what was said or implied in the comments you quoted. Naked photos or a credit card number, people still have the right to be outraged when somebody hacks into their cloud and throws the stuff out to the world. This isn’t material that was just laying out in the open like somebody’s purse on a table at a PTA meeting. The cloud is secured online storage and breaking into it is no different than breaking into someone’s car or home. How secure or not-secure-at-all the hacker community considers it is irrelevant.

    An expectation of privacy doesn’t have be absolute where nobody could EVER get to a person’s private things. It’s just a boundary set by law that isn’t supposed to be trespassed.

  123. YancySkancy says:

    Rather than subscribing to the OED, I’ll just go with Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

    Definition of bluenose: a person who advocates a rigorous moral code

    Example of bluenose: “…the editorial lambasts those bluenoses who feel they have the moral authority to dictate how other people should conduct themselves in private…”

    First known use: 1903

    So ends today’s lesson, kids. Wasn’t it exciting?

  124. Ryan says:

    “This isn’t material that was just laying out in the open like somebody’s purse on a table at a PTA meeting.”

    Doesn’t seem to be the case. Same thing with Target and Home Depot credit card numbers. It’s all there-someone just has to grab it.

    “How secure or not-secure-at-all the hacker community considers it is irrelevant.”

    Is that what Lawrence and her ilk believe?

  125. Ryan says:

    ““…the editorial lambasts those bluenoses who feel they have the moral authority to dictate how other people should conduct themselves in private…””

    …or in this case, with the Cloud, something that’s obviously very public.

    Thanks for the lesson.

  126. Ryan says:

    I think I digress on this and wait for the “Gone Girl” debate to rage.

  127. Hallick says:

    “Doesn’t seem to be the case. Same thing with Target and Home Depot credit card numbers. It’s all there-someone just has to grab it.”

    “Grab it” is somebody finding $20 on the sidewalk that fell out of your pocket. This is more like breaking and entering to take that $20 out of your nightstand.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon