After hackers broke into the cloud and tried to sell nude celebrity selfies stored there, readers, print and digital, were sharply divided about expectations of online privacy
................................................................................................................................................................................
People have been sending nude photos since the invention of cameras. The only difference now is that our most-used cameras are on our phones.
My generation (which also happens to be the same generation as many of the celebrities whose nudes got leaked) is one that grew up in the world of social media – a world where we share everything visually.
The celebrities' nude photos show that they are human and they are vulnerable, just like any of us. The photos were most likely sent to someone they loved and trusted. Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton were in or are in committed and long-distance relationships (i.e. Nicholas Hoult and Justin Verlander) when the photos were taken. As humans, it's natural to seek intimacy, especially when you are miles away from someone you love and miss.
The answer is not to stop taking naked photos – we should be able to share intimate photos with those we trust. The answer is to strengthen our security in order to protect photos/personal information and to penalize people who hack into systems and steal information.
Amanda Phuong, Toronto
.........
People, especially celebrities, are idiots if they believe their nude photos are safe. I also think that they sometimes want the publicity that goes with this stupidity.
Kevin Espin, Swift Current, Sask.
.........
Astounding. It's somehow their fault for having their data stolen? "Look, it's not my fault your wall safe couldn't hold up to my crowbar. You were asking for it, this is on you."
Ben Filipkowski, Barry's Bay, Ont.
.........
As far as I'm concerned, social media is basically a platform that enables a horde of self-centred individuals to shower global attention upon themselves by making their words and personal photos potentially accessible to the entire digital world.
Your editorial First They Came For The Celebrities (Sept. 3) states, "You can feel sorry for the intrusion the celebrities have suffered, or you can cynically say, 'Tough luck, that's what you get for being famous.' " I disagree. I would cynically say, "Tough luck, that's what you get for being vain enough to produce nude photos of yourself and making them accessible to the digital world."
Ken Dixon, Toronto
.........
The people that got into these files are juvenile at best. The problem is in the infotech professionals' not enforcing stronger password rules and infrastructure to avoid situations like this. However, people should not put anything on any electronic device they don't want shared. Period.
Adam John Humphreys, Sherwood Park, Alta.
.........
Are we that aghast at nudity that it has to be so overblown?
Naked bodies are pretty commonplace, we all have one underneath our clothes, so why is it so shameful? Bet you're the same crowd that thinks people shouldn't breastfeed wherever they happen to be when their babies are hungry. Do we have to be so bloody Dark Ages?
Terri Valkyrie, Barrie, Ont.
.........
Hmm, 18 nude selfies. What does that say about a person?
Alejandro Le Monjello, Winnipeg
.........
These women were violated and in no way should be blamed for what has happened.
Matthew Lewis, Ottawa
.........
I'm not sure how many bitcoins a hacker might hope to get by hawking pictures of me in a state of undress. But I've got a tip for him before he tries: Don't bother looking on the cloud. If I were foolish enough to have such pictures, I certainly would not store them under someone else's roof.
Michael Moore, Toronto
.........
Regardless of whether you are a celebrity or not, you have to acknowledge that the notion of privacy is dead. People who post photos and other items on social media no longer can be assured that interlopers will not find and distribute them to thousands, if not millions, of others.
Take all the photos you want. Just don't have them on the cloud, your smartphone or other sites for anyone to see.
If you want to share them, personally hand them over or use snail mail – as slow as it may be, it's still reasonably safe.
Sheila Dropkin, Toronto
.........
People are calling the hacking and distribution of these pictures a sex crime. I don't disagree.
What I'm uncomfortable with is the fact that paparazzi photographers have been, just as unacceptably, scrambling to capture celebrities nude in the privacy of their own spaces for decades, yet not too many people cared to call that a sex crime.
Aren't those photographers just as guilty? If I send a nude pic via any kind of digital signal, am I taking the same risk as if I rented a private villa and decided to walk out on my deck nude? Both implied privacy. Anyone who feels badly for Jennifer Lawrence should feel just as badly for any of the literally hundreds of celebrities who have been captured nude by someone else's lens when there was an obvious violation of their privacy in an implied private space. Who came to their defence?
If these leaked photos are what it takes to get people to acknowledge the rudeness of exposing people, I would kindly ask that we also throw in every paparazzi photographer who ever captured someone nude without the person's consent. I consider both a sex crime. I see no difference. "It was private." Yeah, so was my dock last weekend.
Dave Keystone, Toronto
................................................................................................................................................................................
ON REFLECTION Letters to the editor
Putin's Law
I'd like to report a discovery, which I plan to call Putin's Law. The law is very simple: The greater the rhetoric about peace, the greater the belligerence in practice.
The converse, which we could call Obama's Law – but which also could be known as Harper's Law – is also true: The greater the rhetoric about action, the greater the inaction.
Michael J. Wills, Toronto
.........
A way to avoid scrutiny
Re Crime Bill Passes With Mistake (Sept. 5): The Harper government has slammed through a raft of ideology-driven crime bills under the guise of private members' bills because these receive less parliamentary and public scrutiny than government-sponsored bills.
This less-scrutiny approach sound familiar? It's probably because you are remembering important non-budget legislation hidden in the back of giant budget omnibus bills passed by this most underhanded of governments.
Michael Farrell, Oakville, Ont.
.........
Spot that politician
I was taken by your photo of three Canadian politicians' arrival in Iraq (Islamic State – Folio, Sept. 4). After a highly unscientific poll of friends and neighbours, I was fascinated that everyone could ID which was a Conservative, Liberal and NDPer! How? The NDPer: tie loosened, hands in pockets; the Liberal: tie crisply knotted, business-like look. Although many thought the Tory was actually a photo-bombing security-detail member (dark glasses, dark jacket), he was the easiest to ID.
I'll let you fill in any political commentary on your own.
Neil Falkeid, West Kelowna, B.C.
.........
Boy, could she talk
What made Joan Rivers so intriguing was that no person or thing was off limits from her acid-tongued brand of comedy (Comic Genius Or Vicious Loudmouth? – obituary, Sept. 5). She was an equal opportunity attacker. She poked fun at the Holocaust, her husband's suicide, the Pope, 9/11, the Queen, stars, older people and often, herself. She was indeed the Queen of Shock and Poor Taste.
Joan Rivers proved that top-notch comedians could be female, smart, attractive, foul-mouthed and even elderly.
Kenneth L. Zimmerman, Huntington Beach, Calif.