Hacked Nude Photos: Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Yvonne Strahovski, etc.

[kgambit]

The last similar case involved the "stolen" pics of Scarlett Johansson's.  Christopher Chaney was indicted on 26 counts under three sections of  18 USC.  Specifically:

 

• 18 U.S.C. § 1028 Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
• 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/hackerazzi.pdf

 

This case could be a lot worse for the hacker since some of the pics of McKayla Merony were taken when she was underage - i.e.it becomes child pornography. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by kgambit

[Bester]

This case could be a lot worse for the hacker since some of the pics of McKayla Merony were taken when she was underage - i.e.it becomes child pornography. 

 

[Bester]

Plus, you know, citing US "law" as a reference, lol...

 

The other day a 15 year old dude went to prison for 25 years for "terrorism", but what he actually did was swatting. Don't get me started on US "laws".

[Volourn]

"n order for something to be theft you must deprive the original owner of it;"

 

No. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission. PERIOD.

 

 

Theft is theft is theft.

[Bester]

No. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission. PERIOD.

 

You find a piece of dog dung on the ground and you take it, now automatically you're a dung thief, PERIOD? Nice logic.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bester

[Volourn]

Nah. because, I doubt the owner would care if you took. On top of that, they likely left it there on purpose because they no longer wanted. Not the case with these stolen pictures which were privately taken and privately owned. Did the hacker/thief have permission to take the photos? NO. Theft.

 

 

In essence, I'd argue the left over dog crap is owned by nobody as the 'owner' gave up their rights to it. On top of that, said 'owner' - depending where you live - could be fined for a misdemeanor crime.

 

In essence, you FAIL at logics et sense commonal.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Volourn

[Orogun01]

Nah. because, I doubt the owner would care if you took. On top of that, they likely left it there on purpose because they no longer wanted. Not the case with these stolen pictures which were privately taken and privately owned. Did the hacker/thief have permission to take the photos? NO. Theft.

 

 

In essence, I'd argue the left over dog crap is owned by nobody as the 'owner' gave up their rights to it. On top of that, said 'owner' - depending where you live - could be fined for a misdemeanor crime.

 

In essence, you FAIL at logics et sense commonal.

So if someone found the pictures in public space then it wouldn't be theft.

[Bester]

Nah. because, I doubt the owner would care if you took.

Same case here. They can't care if I take a look, because they don't even know I exist. They can't possibly care that I looked, because they don't know that I did.

 

 

 

On top of that, they likely left it there on purpose because they no longer wanted.

Same case here again. They likely left those on purpose. I found them on the internet the same way I find dog feces in the street.

 

 

 

Not the case with these stolen pictures which were privately taken and privately owned

Not so. When I found them, they were clearly not privately owned.

 

 

 

Did the hacker/thief have permission to take the photos? NO. Theft.

Well, aren't you cute. Always presuming things. Calling a person a thief and a hacker. The only one who can do that is the court of law, until then the person who leaked the pictures is presumed innocent, and is therefore innocent in my eyes. Hate prejudiced people, they're nothing but bigots.

[Volourn]

"The only one who can do that is the court of law"

 

Nope. I just need. the eprson who did it is a thief and a hacker.

 

 

"ntil then the person who leaked the pictures is presumed innocent, and is therefore innocent in my eyes."

 

According to the law. I'm not the law. I cna deem someone guilty or innocent whenever I damn well please. I bet you have to so don't lie.

[Bester]

The person who leaked the pictures actually bought them. He couldn't know if they were acquired legally or not, there is no way of knowing with these things, but he paid serious money for it. You are really making an effort to be a close minded bigot, aren't you? You're just trolling me.

[Volourn]

I'm talking about the guy who stole the pictures not anyone else. Why are you spamming gibberish?

[Bester]

Somebody stole pictures? Like who? Maybe an ex-boyfriend sold the pictures on the black market. If he was the one who took them, then he's got the copyrights and nothing illegal happened here.

 

And you know what? I'll just attach all Jen's pictures to an email and send it to her so she can reclaim her stolen property. Problem solved.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bester

[Orogun01]

Somebody stole pictures? Like who? Maybe an ex-boyfriend sold the pictures on the black market. If he was the one who took them, then he's got the copyrights and nothing illegal happened here.

 

And you know what? I'll just attach all Jen's pictures to an email and send it to her so she can reclaim her stolen property. Problem solved.

Actually you need consent from the subject to use their image, I think I'm remembering that right.

[kgambit]

Plus, you know, citing US "law" as a reference, lol...

 

Don't get me started on US "laws".

 

why not? - you don't know **** about US laws as you've made painfully obvious in numerous threads not just this one

 

Somebody stole pictures? Like who? Maybe an ex-boyfriend sold the pictures on the black market. If he was the one who took them, then he's got the copyrights and nothing illegal happened here.

 

 

Look up "revenge porn laws" which prohibit the distribution of nude photos without the consent of the model regardless of who took the photos:  they are applicable in California and several other states. 

 

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-revenge-porn-legislation.aspx

Edited September 5, 2014 by kgambit

[Hurlshort]

Plus, you know, citing US "law" as a reference, lol...

 

The other day a 15 year old dude went to prison for 25 years for "terrorism", but what he actually did was swatting. Don't get me started on US "laws".

 

Not really.  

 

The 16 year old actually beat a toddler to death.  So yeah, you are wrong.

[Orogun01]

 

Plus, you know, citing US "law" as a reference, lol...

 

The other day a 15 year old dude went to prison for 25 years for "terrorism", but what he actually did was swatting. Don't get me started on US "laws".

 

Not really.  

 

The 16 year old actually beat a toddler to death.  So yeah, you are wrong.

 

That's it, as soon as we're done with gaming journalism we're going after those guys. Who the ****  thought that was funny?

[Volourn]

"Correct. Theft is theft and it doesn't cover neither identity theft nor digital theft. That's why the phrases "identity theft" and "digital theft" were made."

 

The word theft is right in the name. Omg

 

identity THEFT

 

digital THEFT

 

Thanks for proving my point.

[HoonDing]

 

This case could be a lot worse for the hacker since some of the pics of McKayla Merony were taken when she was underage - i.e.it becomes child pornography. 

 

 

In the Caliphate she's legal either way. Provided she converts.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, even if that girl is over 18 she doesn't look it. Hankering after girls who look underage is still weird.

 

Secondly, you're confusing society with the Daily Mail.

 

Thirdly, stop evading the core question. Why are you so keen on looking at women who don't want you to look at them?

[HoonDing]

Incidentally: http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/09/03/dont-point-that-camera-at-me-man-arrested-for-taking-normal-picture-on-train/

 

[Walsingham]

 

Firstly, even if that girl is over 18 she doesn't look it. Hankering after girls who look underage is still weird.

 

Secondly, you're confusing society with the Daily Mail.

 

Thirdly, stop evading the core question. Why are you so keen on looking at women who don't want you to look at them?

The question is why you are not keen to look at women who don't want you to look at them?

Seriously, it's creepy and weird.

 

 

I admit I laughed at this.

[Bester]

 

Plus, you know, citing US "law" as a reference, lol...

 

Don't get me started on US "laws".

 

why not? - you don't know **** about US laws as you've made painfully obvious in numerous threads not just this one

 

Somebody stole pictures? Like who? Maybe an ex-boyfriend sold the pictures on the black market. If he was the one who took them, then he's got the copyrights and nothing illegal happened here.

 

 

Look up "revenge porn laws" which prohibit the distribution of nude photos without the consent of the model regardless of who took the photos:  they are applicable in California and several other states. 

 

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-revenge-porn-legislation.aspx

 

The world doesn't revolve around you. "California laws" LOL. The guy who leaked the pictures most likely wasn't even american, let alone IN america, LET ALONE IN CALIFORNIA. Your pathetic laws don't apply to the free people from other countries, you need to learn this already.

[Bester]

Firstly, even if that girl is over 18 she doesn't look it. Hankering after girls who look underage is still weird.

 

Secondly, you're confusing society with the Daily Mail.

 

Thirdly, stop evading the core question. Why are you so keen on looking at women who don't want you to look at them?

Hollywood stars are the biggest attention wh***es in the world, and they don't want me to look at them? Please!

Edited September 5, 2014 by Bester

[Nepenthe]

Firstly, even if that girl is over 18 she doesn't look it. Hankering after girls who look underage is still weird.

 

Secondly, you're confusing society with the Daily Mail.

 

Thirdly, stop evading the core question. Why are you so keen on looking at women who don't want you to look at them?

 

You could answer that with Yvonne ****ing Strahovski, but she's said the pictures attributed to her were fake, so in fact, there is absolutely no reason to look at them.

[Malcador]

Firstly, even if that girl is over 18 she doesn't look it. Hankering after girls who look underage is still weird.

 

Secondly, you're confusing society with the Daily Mail.

 

Thirdly, stop evading the core question. Why are you so keen on looking at women who don't want you to look at them?

Ironic to bring up the Mail given your outrage over so many things. I forget though, why do we care why Bester or anyone wants to look at Kate Upton's rack ?