Swoop42's avatar and the ethics of looking

[David]

Note: this thread is not meant as a dig at Swoop42 in any way. I just find it an interesting ethical and philosophical quandary.

For those of you don't know what I'm talking about (and, although this may be overly optimistic on my part, I suspect this will include quite a few of you), this story broke a few days ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/jennifer-lawrence-rihanna-star-victims-hacked-nude-pictures

The results were fairly predictable. Millions of heterosexual men (and perhaps more than a few Lesbians) have found a sudden reason to visit Google Images. Internet forums are full of young men giving each other virtual high fives, with little apparent concern for the breach of privacy that has occurred or how its victims feel about it. Professional hand-wringers are wringing their hands. Lawyers are threatening to sue. Pop feminists on Daily Life and The Guardian are hard at work trying to convince readers that if they so much as see one of these images they've committed an act of rape. Judgemental prudes are blaming the victims, as if the act of taking a nude picture of yourself removes any right to privacy you might have had. Swoop42 has made one of the less explicit photos his avatar. And me? Well, I'm more than a little embarrassed to say that my curiosity got the better of me and I have now committed several acts of rape (well, you know, as much as looking at a stolen photo of Aubrey Plaza can constitute a sex crime). By looking at Swoop's avatar, even inadvertently, so have you. You can probably add Nick Riewoldt and Nick Dal Santo to your list of victims too (where was the outrage then?).

Most people might be less willing to admit to such dubious internet behaviour, but I'm glad I have; because it means there's a little more at stake here. Several opinion pieces have appeared in recent days urging people not to search for these photos, and they have a pretty good point: this is an awful breach of privacy for the women concerned. They took these photos, as they have complete right to do, under the perfectly reasonable assumption that only they and the recipient would see them. By hacking their iCloud and disseminating these intimate photos, someone has committed a serious crime. Those of us who look at these photos are, to an extent, participants in that crime. However you spin it, looking at an intimate photograph that wasn't meant for you is clearly not an ethical thing to do.

But how wrong is it, really? Here, I can't help but think that the Daily Life hacks are guilty of at least slight hyperbole. If looking at someone's private photo is an act of sexual assault, what about looking with sexual intent at people on the street? What about watching sex scenes in films that actors later looked back on with regret? What about paparazzi 'upskirting' Britney Spears and selling the photos to the magazines sitting in your local supermarket? And what if you see a non-sexual photo of someone without their consent?

I think there's a whole layer of complexity here that's not being dealt with by either the frat boys or the moralists. As acts go, looking is a strange one. It's essentially passive. Can it really be a crime to look?

It may not be in this case, but it is if you want to see an IS fundamentalist beheading a captured journalist. I'm not sure I completely understand why this is so when we are permitted to see war footage and run of the mill massacres—some special case "terrorism" law, I'm guessing—but there, looking at the recent videos can apparently land you in court. That seems strange to me.

Looking is not always passive, of course. Viewing an image might give a website a hit, earning it extra advertising revenue. Paying for hacked materials, as has been done in the case of the leaked Jennifer Lawrence video (and there's the dark side of crowdfunding, in case you were wondering...), obviously rewards criminal activity and allows people to profit off others' misery. Sharing the photos perpetuates the violation of the subjects' privacy.

But looking itself, once everything else has been stripped away? What of that? I see it as sitting in an uncomfortable grey area, with no easy solution.

Honestly, objectively, I do think Swoop42 should change his avatar. I also think I should have shown a little more self-restraint and not looked for those photographs. And yet, I don't believe either of us have committed a major transgression. All that matters to me here is ethics, and ethics is at least partially about not harming others. Jennifer Lawrence has been wronged, and a significant aspect of that wrong is her knowledge that her intimate photos are now everywhere on the internet and that many strangers will see them. But that knowledge exists. That wrong has been committed. Perhaps it would be good for your own decency to abstain from a Google image search, but, if that's all you do, you cannot realistically cause these women any further wrong.

At least, that's how it seems to me. What do you think? I think
this is only scratching the surface; there's much, much more to discuss.

[think positive]

There's a meme for people my age that says "thank god we did all our crazy shit before the internet" or something along those lines. It's easy to say "don't post/send things you don't want on public display, because nothing is every truly erased" and "you really don't know who you can trust". But I still vaguely remember being a loved up young thing, thinking "this is it" and being a person for that person, I would not normally be, and later regretting it.

There's been a few celebrity leaks, and not so leaks, Kim K?, over the years, you just gotta wonder why nobody seems to learn the lesson. Special mention for Nick though, he was obviously not posing for that pic (yep I looked!) and the person who kept the photo did the wrong thing.

Hacking is wrong, it's a crime, but no, I wouldn't call it rape. I've only heard a little about it, haven't had time for much news or anything lately, so I just googled now, and I won't tell you what I googled but I got a whole lot of pics of mostly fakes some which were a close resemblance to the actress, but really offensive if it's not you, and you don't want pictures like that taken. So I closed the page, yuk.

They should be able to sue, and sue big time, not just the hacker, but the "owners" of the cloud. They say it's safe. There's a lot of info out there. Just like banking on line, yeah we all do it, but you gotta no the risks, and take the best protection available.

Reminds me of the pics of a topless Kate Middleton, taken with a mega telephoto lens. It's wrong. But also, don't put yourself in that position when you know people would pay a lot of money for the pics. Unfortunately with fame comes the paparazzi.

Those stars are probably pretty hardened to all the bad stuff that comes with fame, but what of young girls who's photos are shown around the local high school by the jock they thought could be trusted? Scarred for life, or maybe even suicidal.

What is really really wrong, is that someone could even think about using the images in a gallery showing. Hopefully legal action stops that happening.

It's a good question David, and another of your pet subjects, role models comes to mind. This just may save some young vulnerable kid from learning this lesson the hard way.

[David]

I think these are all really interesting points, Jo. For me, I don't think the lesson here is that people shouldn't take naked/sexy photos of themselves or even that people should take better care of their data. Unless you think it's stupid to pose naked in the first place, I don't think Lawrence has actually done anything careless or naive here—her account was hacked. It could just as easily have been her diary or her credit card details. She had a right to reasonably expect that her private data would stay private.

Celebrities are just ordinary human beings at the end of the day, with ordinary relationships and sex lives. Sending a sexy photo of yourself to a lover is, for most people, a sweet, affectionate, perfectly healthy thing to do. That these moments of intimacy are sometimes trampled upon by hackers and jealous exes (c.f. "revenge porn") is a real betrayal, in my view—as you say, not dissimilar to someone standing outside your bedroom window with a telephoto lens or video camera.

Once that betrayal has happened, and these photos are in the public domain, what is an ordinary member of the public to do? The 'gentlemanly' thing to do, clearly, is to stay away. But what if curiosity overcomes us? Is it a serious ethical transgression? Should it even be unlawful? Or has the damage already been done? That's what I'm wondering most of all here.

[HAL]

Under what circumstances?

[stui magpie]

Celebrities comparing people viewing nude photos of said celebrity, that said celebrity did not intend to be made public, to said celebrity being raped need to be slapped vigorously across the face with a 5kg fresh halibut until they get over themselves and attain a sense of perspective.

[1061]

TLDNR

[stui magpie]

Geez, sorry. I was trying to be concise.

[swoop42]

Oh David you never fail to disappoint.

The photos below of Jennifer Lawrence are more revealing than my avatar the only difference being they were shot as part of a photo shoot that would have been used by her to benefit her career.

People can't have a problem with my avatar when the subject herself is willing to strip down to less for public consumption.

To be honest erotic pictures aren't my thing anyway. I don't feel any sort of connection with still images.

A Jennifer Lawrence sex video on the other hand.

Mmmmmm.

[Wokko]

The first time an actress does either a topless or nude scene in a movie, the movie probably adds a few million to its bottom line. The actress can probably add a few zeroes to the contract. Once there are shots like these out though... not so much.

Now you know where the 'outrage' has really come from. No surprise the owners of the media/papers/news are the same people who own the movie studios.

[David]

I think you're missing the point there, Swoop. It seems clear to me that it's not so much about her not wanting the world to see a certain body part or half a nipple (although in a society as prudish as the US, that might well be part of it); it's more the fact that these photos, whatever their content, were intimate and probably only intended for the eyes of her partner.

Here's an analogy: you're a famous writer who has spent his entire life putting his thoughts, emotions and experiences into his work. You also keep a diary. Would you think there was a privacy issue with someone stealing that diary and putting it online for everyone to read?

[David]

[swoop42]

[David]

Fair enough.

For those who do, here's a reasonably thought-provoking article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/naked-photos-jennifer-lawrence-violent-videos-internet

[Wokko]

[swoop42]

Let's be honest for some of these women caught up in the fappening it'll be the best career break they've ever had.

Most of them I had no idea who they even were.











And still don't.