61–70 of 80 posts
> " In Rwanda, nude photos of 2017 presidential candidate, Diane Rwigara, surfaced on the internet. She said the images had been doctored and were intended to discredit her." This is the crazy part. Why bother "hacking" when deep-faking is such an easy option? At the same time, this allows for plausible deniability even if the photos are real.
How about stop putting nude and intimate photos on your phone? Just don’t take them, period. It doesn’t matter if you are a celebrity or not, if the photos exist then someday/somehow they are going to get out and once they do you will never be able to pull them back. You might not even have a chance to try if you end up in jail. Even if you live in a country that doesn’t care, one day you might accidentally transport…
Victim blaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adults need to be careful in life. No, they don't. Proponents of such world view are those who feel that they cannot compete with regards to merit and talent, so they hope to do so via their "superior morality". Bill Clinton did such an amazing job that he could have had orgies with Victoria Secret models in the WH every night for all I care. Same with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Eric Shmidt, Angela Merkel (Armani male…
>> Adults need to be careful in life. > No, they don't. Atheists like me can go to Saudi Arabia (or Uganda) and say and do as we like without pause for the consequences (unreasonable as they may be) to myself and the people that dependent on me? Come now, this thread is just getting silly. I will have to bow out now.
Honestly, you can. You show the bald eagle in your passport and you'd be looking at a slap on the wrist in all places except North Korea and Iran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having deep fake photos pop up in the internet is going to make most people feel shame.
Probably, but less. Personally I wouldn't actually care all that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Victim blaming.
The onus is somewhat shared. In recent times there has been a massive over correction leading to something akin to the position that the woman can never be wrong. Getting assaulted is bad but if that was preceded by taunting and instigation by the “victim” they share some segment of the blame.
How could have her phone been hacked after creating a profile on a web site?
There was a time when you could root an Android phone to install a custom OS by visiting a website that exploited a vulnerability. It's reasonable to assume that's not the only vulnerability of its kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"wise to have a good think" is a good discussion to have BEFORE and for LATER. AFTER, it is simply victim shaming. "wise to have a good think" is something we do for ourselves. Hacking a person's phone is a violation that one person perpetrates upon another. The first is a personal mental activity. The second is a physical crime. The first is irrelevant now. Now, something real happened. Reality always takes preceden…
It's always worth thinking about what could have been done better by everyone involved, including victims. I don't get this insatiable drive some people have for passing judgement. God forbid if we try to actually understand situations, how they happen, how they could be prevented, etc. instead of merely angrily shouting "IT'S BAD!" 9 times out of 10 I see "victim blaming" being used it's some holier-than-thou moral…
Unless you're talking to Church members, it's not really seen as a moral concern but a simple procedural problem: we can't easily be sure if pornography was produced with willing knowing participants and the economic benefits are not worth the bureaucracy to make sure.
The whole article is an odd scattershot approach of criticizing many different countries without naming specifics of the law and only interviewing the 'victims' without getting any insight into the actual governments---who are democratically elected and literally pay people to respond to these questions.
For example, the Uganda law was dropped[1] and the arrested model never faced any jail time or fines. In the Uganda case, the law went further than any others by criminalizing nudity and 'indecent' clothing regardless of context, which is insane considering nudity is not naturally taboo in our culture (nudity taboos were imported from Christian missionaries). It even criminalized 'indecent' language like songs about sex. It was light-years past a 'anti-pornography' law but it's being lumped in under the same banner because the article is in my opinion lazily written.
The Rwanda case was a politician being shamed---not an example of a law being used against anyone.
Lydia's case has no country attached but she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend to stop posting her pictures on social media. That's a case of the law being used for good, right?
In the Tanzania case, the woman herself is urging the government to take action against the people who illegally posted her pictures [2]. Why is this article using that example as support for the anti-pornography camp?
All said, it just doesn't make sense.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58235637 [2] https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/news/200128885...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a time when you could root an Android phone to install a custom OS by visiting a website that exploited a vulnerability. It's reasonable to assume that's not the only vulnerability of its kind.
Useless after reboot, if you're using verified boot.