It’s not the same thing at all, I personally don’t trust the cloud, I don’t feel I need it except on collaborative projects where the data does not need to be secure so I don’t put any personal data there.
It’s a risk I don’t take.
Credit cards do provide a real benefit however and while taking what precautions I can to minimise the risks I do use one for both in-store and on-line payments.
In both cases when things go wrong you have the possibility to resort to the law for redress. I just think why take unnecessary risks.
I also choose not to have any social media accounts such as twitter or Facebook because I don’t feel the need to let everyone know what I’m doing all the time. I don’t see any benefit.
That does not mean I’m telling you are anyone else here you can’t or shouldn’t have a Facebook, twitter or any other account.
Um if you aren’t seeing a “real benefit” from the cloud then perhaps you aren’t it’s target audiance.You also don’t have social media because you don’t see the benifit.
So how can someone who isn’t using these services and doesn’t personally have the need tell others who may actualy have valid needs that they should just not have them?
Different people have different needs and requirments. We need to find ways that everyone can safely satisfy them rather than sitting on the sidelines and laughing at the “others” and saying “told you so”. That doesn’t make anything better, because it isn’t useful to them. We need to be more constructive.
I mean let’s also talk cars. Cars are shockingly deangerous and deadly and we all take a risk getting in them. Do we then tell car crash victems “too bad, cars are risky” or do we have huge industrires dedicated to endlessly making car travel safer through myrid of innovative means. And finally, if you’re a person who can transit or walk everywhere and doesn’t use a car, I really don’t want to hear from you after I’m in a car crash just saying “be more like me, don’t use cars” cus odds are our life circumstance are very different (like living proximity to work, city layout and size etc) and that is just not constructive or useful. It’s a very self-centric view. Solving these problems probably needs more empathy.
I sincerely apologise if I have upset you. it is clearly not my aim. I apologise here.
I do not want to upset you or anyone-else here.I fully accept I may not be the target audience and if your needs differ from mine that is perfectly acceptable.
We have a right to have different opinions here. and I hope I have never implied that just because our opinions are different yours are wrong.
If you do have a problem with me I would like to hear details so I can deal with them. I don’t want to upset anyone here
Oh my well first thank you, but no, I’m not upset. Just in disagreement And really we’re probably 80% of the way there. We both agree illegal acts took place. I’m just disagreeing on the last 20%: response actions and how we less involved in the situation view it and what our perspective perhaps should be.
More I’m juist trying to raise awareness how some of the communication about this topic can come off. Being glib and discussing Jennifer Lawrence in terms of looking " quite good without any clothes on" does seem… crass? to me. I’m less ofended but I know a lot more people who might be. It feels like the wrong tone to take when discussing someone who had their sexual privacy violated. And Jono’s view of
is also a bit difficult for me. a) he condones[Edit typo] condems the violation of her privacy while participating in it (against her wishes obviously) and justifies it with basically she’s famous and I was curuious. That feels weak. You are basically saying your curiosity trumps her right to privacy. Lots of people are quibbling that “well, it’s already out there [so now it’s so easy], so whats one more? why not me too?” But that’s not a great argument imho. Because it’s easy and she’s famous we can disregaurd her wishes. She has to make it harder for us to violate them? If she was passed out at a party because it was easy and she was famous would we think it was ok to take other types of advantage of her? And no I’m not equating them or implying you would, I’m positive you wouldn’t, but I am saying try to think of it more in those terms, again, on a spectrum. Viewing the pictures, talking about viewing them and their contents isn’t perhaps consequenceless or unfelt.
I spend a lot of time with some pretty amazing feminists and like to think I do ok myself. So when I see some of this discussion I more wish to raise awareness that there are some issues that a good segment of the population has with what or how we are discussing the subject. And that our actions have consequences on others. If we all do it,it normalizes it for others who might be on the fence post for instance. I’d rather strongly stand up and say “I haven’t looked at the pictures” because maybe then some others will pause too.
@dan, this is what I find frustrating about these debates sometimes. You said:
in response to me saying this:
I was very explicit about me not condoning the act of breaching her privacy and putting it online. My point was that human beings will be human beings, and curiosity is a perfectly normal function in people.
This is precisely what I am not saying.
You seem to be drawing a connection that someone viewing the pictures is as guilty as the person responsible for the breach. I am saying the two are quite different - the person or persons who performed the breach is a horrible human being, and a person who is curious about seeing the pictures is just a curious person who sees something that is not the norm and decided to check it out. This is perfectly normal human behavior.
I think the focus of our ire should be the people behind the breach, not the people in the Internet who are click happy.
Not as guilty at all but not guilt free either. And as much as appeal to masses is a weak argument, a bunch of my friends more strongly think so (as evidenced on things like my FB feed) as do a bunch of other people I don’t know like the article above I linked to of which there are more.
Lets talk about images an the law. We’ve made CP illegal to look at straight up. It touches your eye balls and the law is happy to lock you up. And now laws agaisnt revenge porn are starting. For now it’s most unevenly distributed (California has one of the first) and for now it’s more with hosting than viewing. But watch the trend. We are more and more respecting people’s sexual privacy as a right and the law which is always slower than social norm changing is just starting to change. “Cutting edge” social norms are further than that and are frowing on things like this too. But the growing consensus is that imagry of your self created for personal sexual purpose is your property and that anyone looking at it uninvited is “not cool” for now. So yes, currently legally and socially acceptable, writ large averaged over all people, there is nothing “wrong” with it, but that appears to be changing and in 10 years it might all be viewed very differently. Me? I like to try and keep up with these things rather than be dragged, but thats personal preference, and you could argue that the danger of being more “out there” is that not ever new trend does take off.
Soooo I’m some where in the middle, not as hard line as some of my friends, moreso perhaps than you. So maybe we can let it rest with saying simple there are a bunch of people who really do think it’s pretty terrible to be looking at those pictures and so people chatting about it so boldly cauight me off guard? And I’m akwardly trying to alert you that since this is a public net venue a lot of different people may wander by and react differently than you expected to these statements, and so you may risk allienating or offending some people.
I think this is too different of an example. An image of CP is an image of an illegal act and thus illegal material. I would fully expect that to be both illegal and possession and viewing of that to be something that the law takes a pretty dim view of.
The nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence were not pictures of an illegal act. They were illegally sourced, which makes them morally questionable (which we would all agree to), but I think viewing a picture of her naked is quite different to viewing an indecent picture of a child.
I agree to a point, but I don’t think it is going to change as much as you think. In 1988 a sex tape of Rob Lowe surfaced and since then there has been Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian, and a swathe of others. I think the cultural view of these incidents has remained largely unchanged in over 30 years…people agree that those materials hitting the public airwaves are immorally sourced, but they are fascinating for so many to watch due to…curiosity.
You are totally right that we shouldn’t watch these celebrity sex tapes/images them because they are unethical in how they are sourced, and my only two arguments here are that (a) just because someone watches or views this celebrity nude content makes them as evil as the person who hacked it, and (b) the reason why people do this is plain and simple human nature, and I don’t think it is going to change much.
Are you really saying that you have to use a product or service in order to be able to comment on it?
When you consider using a product or service you weigh up the perceived benefits to you against the perceived risks. For me with the cloud the risks out weigh the benefits. You may choose to disagree with me here and you are welcome to. If for you believe the benefits are bigger than risks then by all means use whatever services you like.
It does not invalidate my opinion that there is insufficient security with cloud services for me to trust them with personal data.
With the benefit of hindsight I realise my comment about the appearance of Jennifer Lawrence may have come across as unkind and perhaps even sexist. This was never my intention.
I am happy to condemn anyone posting similar pictures, or links to pictures, of anyone who has not given permission for the images to be published. Regardless of whether they are a celebrity or not.
Sorry, perhaps then a little strong? It certainly doesn’t invalidate your personal opinion. For your (and often mine) weights about security vs ease of use the cloud comes up short. All I’m saying is we can’t generalize these onto everyone. Me, I can go set up an OwnCloud on an encrypted HD on a server I own. Everyone else? not so much an option. And I still keep a dropbox because it makes sharing so damn easy too (for non private material). But other people, non tech people don’t really have that option. Or the tech experience and knowledge to even judge security matters often. And they have a strong need for these services. All I was trying to say is that we aren’t really helping much saying “you just shouldn’t have done that”. More helpful might be “here are some super easy to use encryption tools you can layer on top of that” or something. Like I said about cars, some people need them more than others. The option at car crashes is silence or “oh I’m sorry” and rarely “I told you so” Your opinion is perfectly valid and kind of validated by this but it’s not the right time to claim that just like the heavy, loud and vocal transit user won’t be greeted warmly at a car crash It’s kind of a weird social thing that we mostly all have the hang of more for physical things than technical ephemeral things. Social sometimes does seem to lag well behind technical.
Splendid I mostly just wanted to raise awareness, do my little part to shift the Overton Window or what not.Thanks guys for listening and being open! As for if it will or will not change, lets ride times slowly into the future and find out! I for one want to push a little here and there to see if we can’t make small differences
There are many aspects to human nature. It causes us to rejoice when a friend is rejoicing, or weep when a friend is grieving. But it also may cause us to want to retaliate when we are wronged. It is also such nature that can lead to mob action. So, it goes to show that human nature isn’t always a good thing. In fact, it is something we have to fight at times. It makes for a sorry excuse.
How can we empathize with this young lady? How may have this incident affected her? Could it be that, even though she has no idea of who all has seen these images, that by viewing them, it adds insult to injury? How could empathy be used here?
And really we’re probably 80% of the way there. We both agree illegal acts took place. I’m just disagreeing on the last 20%: response actions and how we less involved in the situation view it and what our perspective perhaps should be.
Your opinion is perfectly valid and kind of validated by this but it’s not the right time to claim that just like the heavy, loud and vocal transit user won’t be greeted warmly at a car crash