Minor news items that don't deserve a thread

[chokeout]

1 hour ago, Supremo said:

Are you sure? When this happened to my friend we discovered there are huge, international websites solely dedicated to hacking accounts of either women or the partners of women that people wish to see naked. And that was just for civillians who creeps had encountered in their lives. I suspect there's an even bigger network out there for celebrities.

Wasn't that huge leak of celebrities a few years ago also attributed to a web of hackers that had been trading stolen photographs for years, only for someone to go public?

It's grim as fuck and the last people who should be blamed are normal, innocent folk sending their partners sexy photos.

Oh I'm not saying it doesn't happen and the big one a few years ago was people intentionally hacking female celebrities accounts ( which was mainly just fishing emails that got people's passwords and by all accounts was a small pool of people doing it and sharing the info) but when we've been to comms conferences and it been raised the sheer volume of cases where photos have 'got out' or accounts have been entered it's by people who know/ guessed passwords based on personal knowledge And have/ had a connection to the victim  

 

[Love-Wilcox]

If you do something a bit stupid and somebody takes advantage of you then you’re still a victim.

Being a victim and being stupid aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. Why can’t both of these things be true?

[Loki]

4 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

In this instance, I genuinely think we're talking "advice with hindsight". Of course Toni Storm should be able to send private pictures to someone without them betraying her trust. Anyone should. But like everything, where you park your car, which way you walk home, whether you lock your doors and put your alarm on when you leave home, etc, there's always an element of protecting yourself.

It might be that there was nothing she could have done if it was a long-term relationship with someone she trusted implicitly. Then she's just been done over. But it's a lesson everyone should think about IMO. I'd certainly talk to my girls about being ultra-careful with this stuff (Might leave it a while with my 4yo). And none of this is excusing the cunt who did it.

Spot on _rick.  Nobody is victim-blaming here - Toni is 100% the victim, she should be able to send nudies and not have them released, if an ex has released these (or a hacker accessed them) then they are entirely to blame.

But at the same time, you can take some precautions in your life.  If I had teenage daughters I'd be telling them NOT to send nudes of themselves to anyone.  I don't see that as blaming women, quite the opposite - I see that as acknowledging the inherent shitness of men, and the observation that nude pics are one of those things that you can't really take back, and can prove very embarrassing in the future.

I dislike the phrase "victim blaming" intensely.  It's creating a false relationship between blame and precaution, and used as an excuse to abrogate personal responsibility in areas where we can all be smart.  If someone says that a woman invited rape because of what she was wearing, they're being a misogynistic twat and should be rightly condemned and pilloried.  If someone says you should probably lock your doors at night, they're not "victim blaming" people whose houses were burgled.

I'd love it if we could all still leave our doors unlocked.  I'd love it if women could walk buck naked down any road in the world and know they were not at risk from the unwanted attention of men.  I'm not going to encourage or suggest anyone do it though.

[Keith Houchen]

13 minutes ago, Loki said:

If I had teenage daughters I'd be telling them NOT to send nudes of themselves to anyone.

And if you had teenage sons you'd be telling them to not ask for nudes?

Yes there is prevention and precaution, such as looking both ways when crossing a road. If she hadn't have sent the pic, it wouldn't have been viewed by people whose eyes it wasn't intended for.  Maybe if she didn't have a phone in the first place she wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place.

People DO blame people for not locking their doors though if they get robbed, you could also say that if they didn't have the TV and laptop in the first place they wouldn't have got stolen.  It's 100% the perps fault and isn't in any way the blame of who got robbed.

But yes, I'm very paranoid about locking doors and windows.  I hate leaving the place overnight and I think despite saying what I say, I'd blame myself if I got robbed.

[Loki]

11 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

And if you had teenage sons you'd be telling them to not ask for nudes?

Yes absolutely.  I'd also be telling them not to send them as well.

Quote

People DO blame people for not locking their doors though if they get robbed

Well of course they do!  And so would your insurers if you got robbed and it turned out you'd left your door unlocked or open.  You have made an error which has cost you.  I don't see how that in any way removes blame from the burglar, this isn't a percentage that has to add up to 100.  The burglar is a criminal, you are foolish.

[Keith Houchen]

But then you head down the road of if you locked your doors and windows it might not have happened if you had a burglar alarm. And if you had a burglar alarm you could have got a better one. All these things point towards victims of crime could have done more to prevent it. You even hear of people “flaunting their wealth” by having new stuff delivered to their house all the time so they brought it on themselves.  

People are scum, we know that. People feel bad enough after their property / photos have been robbed. Telling them how they could have done more to prevent it isn’t going to help. If someone nicked your Porsche, maybe you shouldn’t have got a Porsche in the first place isn’t something that is going to help. 

[Loki]

I understand your concern and I share it, but I think that's a very long road, and I'm right at the top of it.  As with everything in life, the truth is nuanced and not easily boiled down into a hashtag.  There ARE things you can do to minimise being a victim of crime.  Doesn't mean you're any more or less of a victim if it does happen.  I'd take you back to the merciless world of insurance.  They put actual monetary value on precautions.  Got a burglar alarm?  Your house insurance premium will be lower.  That's not victim blaming, it's life.  I remember when my parents place was burglarised, the police suggested they fit a burglar alarm - again, that's not the plod shaming victims, it's a practical suggestion.

Should you be able to take nudes and send them to people? Yes.  Are you running a risk of having them become public?  Yes.  Could you minimise the latter by not doing the former?  Yes.

[Max Power]

6 hours ago, Cod Eye said:

I can see the argument from both sides to be honest. If the photos are not taken in the first place, they can't be stolen. But at the same time, why shoud anyone have to stop doing something they find enjoyable and exciting just because someone might want to be a dickhead and leak said photos onto the internet. It's a shit situation.

My brother in law is a footballer. I know for a fact he takes photos of his Mrs as I saw them while showing him how to update his new phone. He's not high profile in the grand scheme of things(Chapionship level), but is probaly known by many more people than know the ass were talking about here, and I tell him all the time to make sure things like the photos are secure, and not to share with anyone. Trouble is, it feels like he thinks he is untouchable and the advice is going in one ear and out the other.

And I think that is a huge part of the issue with people in the public eye. They are hero worshipped by people so much, they feel like they are untouchable, and it's just not true.

Intrigued about this as a fellow Barnsley fan. Hope it's Mamadou...

[Cod Eye]

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Intrigued about this as a fellow Barnsley fan. Hope it's Mamadou...

Hahah, nope, not Mamadou! He's never actually played for the Reds(can't go into much detail for obvious reasons!)

[Keith Houchen]

25 minutes ago, Loki said:

I'd take you back to the merciless world of insurance.

Merciless being the key word, they aren't the best people to be taking pointers from.  They want your money and will do what they can to stop paying you out.

When you're in the public eye, you are more of a target for this sort of thing, and there is going to be more interest in seeing a public figure nude than there is the girl who works at Greggs.  I'm not the kind of person interested in sending or receiving nudes, and giving advice about prevention is important.  We do what we can to prevent crime against us. But when that advice is given after the fact, it's finger wagging and not helpful.

[Loki]

Agreed Keith.  Unfortunately I don't know how you can talk about prevention without talking about previous incidents.  It's not helpful to poor Toni Storm now, but if up and coming young female athletes see what's happened here and are more circumspect about with whom they share their most intimate pictures, that's something.

Not that there ARE any girls on UKFF, this being a sausage factory   So the point is moot.

[tiger_rick]

6 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

the girl who works at Greggs. 

She quit. Got fed up of people shouting "freak" at her.

[David]

1 minute ago, tiger_rick said:

She quit. Got fed up of people shouting "freak" at her.

Arrows, as they say.

[Keith Houchen]

4 minutes ago, Loki said:

Agreed Keith.  Unfortunately I don't know how you can talk about prevention without talking about previous incidents.  It's not helpful to poor Toni Storm now, but if up and coming young female athletes see what's happened here and are more circumspect about with whom they share their most intimate pictures, that's something.

Not that there ARE any girls on UKFF, this being a sausage factory   So the point is moot.

Yeah, you'd hope that given the way it's happened to colleagues of hers that THOSE are the instances to learn from and talk about to people for whom it hasn't happened to.

[AdamTH17]

Hogan is back on RAW this coming Monday to "celebrate the life of Mean Gene Okerlund".

In other words, they're going to utilise the death of a much-loved announcer to engineer the television return of an unapologetic racist whilst limiting the negative reactions because it's a tribute, brother.