Yeah, tnis is weird.. Right now, this video, it is blue and black-ish gold. When I first saw the photo, it was gold and white. When I read the article again, it was black-ish and blue. Those were on my main computer.. When I checked the same site/pic on my laptop, the dress was definitely white and gold! I had to double-check to make sure I was on the same site as before.. And later today, I checked things with my laptop again, and black-ish gold and blue!

Looks like it it turns to blue, my brain just can't get it back to white.. Gotta check with tablets next...

Pics?

Well your profile pic speaks volumes.

Also I have no need to apologise to @lucky760.

It seems you should take your own advice about reading comprehension - do you even realize that I wasn't referring to your whole post, just a particular statement? I guess not because otherwise you wouldn't be continuing to ramble on about something that I never even implied; show me where I wrote that her situation wasn't a bad thing. There, you see, I didn't.

Her situation is horrible but she is still responsible for the existence of those pictures as they were taken consensually and with her full knowledge. That her trust was misplaced and breached isn't the point of contention here. If you disagree, then consider if Ms Holten or her boyfriend had accidentally lost the phone containing the pictures and some unscrupulous person found it then posted the pictures online. It doesn't change the fact that Ms Holten is still responsible for the existence of the pictures to begin with and she should have retained tighter control over them (keep them on an encrypted hard drive, etc.)

Let's not forget that we are only hearing her side of the story. Have you seen these hateful emails that she speaks of? The details of whether her accounts were hacked or if the boyfriend just uploaded the pics from his phone are vague as well (but an important detail in my opinion.) Unless I missed an article, and that is always a possibility, I didn't see any mention of charges being brought against the boyfriend for an obvious crime - if he indeed "hacked" her phone or accounts, that is a criminal offence. I've also not seen any mention of legal action against the websites that host(ed) the pictures. I'm not trying to imply that she is lying and in all likelihood her ex-boyfriend is a douche, but I like to hear both sides of an argument first and get all the facts.

But I understand you quite clearly now: if you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Got it...you big cyber-bully...

We are assuming her account was hacked but there is very little information from Ms. Holten about exactly where these pictures came from. Some of her posts about the source of the pics states that the pictures were released without her permission while other posts state they were stolen. Did her boyfriend at the time take the pictures with his camera/phone or did she? I think it is more likely that her boyfriend took the pictures, with Ms. Holten's permission, and uploaded them without any hacking being involved. In that case, the analogy doesn't hold up. It does sound better for the media to say she was hacked and it generates more sympathy for her as a victim, but I don't buy it. I just don't believe that every ex-boyfriend is somehow a hacker; sharing your password with someone and having them steal your information does not mean that you were hacked.

The absolute definition of a 'First World Problem'.

Boo hoo, someone stole my nude pics, so i'll take more and release them MYSELF! That'll show them, hear me roar, #takingbackthepower.

Is it wrong to steal pics and then slut-shame someone? Yeah. Is she to blame? No. Should she get over it and just block people from email and social media that are harassing her? YES!!!

I guaran-damn-tee that the women being raped and sold into slavery by ISIS and Boko Haram would slap her silly for getting into a tizzy over someone using mean words at her.

How am I taking this argument too far? History has shown that taking nude pics of yourself and sending them to others is risky. How many leaks have there been that have caused humiliation or worse yet, ruined careers? Plenty. Comparisons to online banking, leaving your house, talking to people, etc, are ludicrous because those are things you need to do to function in modern society. You absolutely do not need to take or send nude pictures of yourself. It's a completely unnecessary risk that has bitten many people in the ass. Do you have the right to do it? Of course, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

Actually, @ChaosEngine's comparison to online banking is exactly analogous to this situation. Her pics were hacked from her account. Thus, the day that your account is hacked and your identity is stolen...why are you online banking? That's a great way to get all of your money stolen. You really should have known better. If you end up homeless with no money, it really was your fault for not protecting yourself better.

You and others are correct that it does indeed present some level of risk to take nude photos of yourself at all, but all things in life present risk. If you don't want bad things to happen to you, maybe you shouldn't ever leave your house, log on to the internet, or talk to anyone. Of course, that's wildly unrealistic. The way that you present yourself makes it seem like you're callously taking this argument too far.

In contrast, @SDGundamX has taken a pleasantly moderate viewpoint on this, and I feel more enlightened from reading his posts and considering the moral ambiguity. I just wish he didn't get snarky at the end, and be 'dismayed' that people would criticize those who take the opposing stance =P.

All of the arguments aside, I appreciated her rebellion against this negative situation, and I hope that this tasteful video does good things for her.

And that's the issue right there. I think you and I are arguing about completely different things. In terms of the person who stole the photos and posted them, yes there is no middle ground--that person 100% committed a crime and needs to be punished.

However, in terms of responsibility of people for putting themselves in the position to be victimized, there is a huge range of possibilities--but often this range of possibilities isn't examined for fear of someone shouting "Blaming the victim!" The link I posted above goes to great lengths to point out that the criminal who commits the crime is 100% responsible for the criminal act (by virtue of having made the choice to commit it) but that the victim can in fact also have contributed to the crime in a continuum of ways starting with not at all (100% innocent, as in a child who is abused) to fully responsible (as in the case of a rapist who is killed by a potential victim in self-defense during the rape attempt--in this case the rapist becomes the "victim" of a shooting that he brought completely upon himself). There is lots of middle ground between these extremes.

Let's examine a simple case:

I am walking down the street in LA during the early evening in a neighborhood that normally has very little crime. A homeless man shambling past me suddenly pulls a knife, rams it into my chest, and steals my wallet which happened to contain several hundred dollars. I think we can agree in this situation I've no responsibility for this incident occurring. I could not have predicted it would happen and there is little I could have done to anticipate or prevent it. I am 100% an innocent victim in this scenario.

Now let's change the situation. I go down to Skid Row in the early evening and start showing all the homeless people there wads of $100 bills and telling them how worthless they are and how if they only got off their asses and worked hard like me they could have money too. Again, I get shanked in the chest and my money is stolen. Am I 100% an innocent victim in this case? It seems a bit absurd to say yes, doesn't it? My actions (choosing to go to an area that is not often policed, at night, alone, and flash money while belligerently accosting random people who don't have a lot left to lose) are directly linked to the stabbing.

Note that in both cases the person committing the crime is still 100% responsible for their own actions--they chose to stab me and steal my money. But in one case I clearly could not have foreseen or prevented the attack coming whereas in the other it was reasonably foreseeable that my actions were going to lead to problems (not necessarily a stabbing but at the very least some sort of altercation, unless the most patient and forgiving homeless people on Earth happened to be gathered on Skid Row that day). Does that mean the stabber in the second case should get a lighter sentence? No. But it does mean I have some responsibility for what went down and can be justly criticized for my actions. I can't hide behind the "don't blame the victim" catchphrase. I still deserve justice, though, despite being an offensive idiot.

Back to the case at hand.

You are correct, the woman did nothing "wrong" in the moral or legal sense, and the person who violated her privacy is 100% responsible for making the photos public. But I dislike the idea that because she's a victim of a crime, her actions can't be criticized. She might not have done anything "wrong" but she did indeed make a huge error of judgement when she decided to snap naked pics of herself and post them to a social network which is known for dodgy privacy practices. Given the state of technology today, one should be able to infer that there is a pretty high risk that racy photos are going to get leaked at some point, particularly if posted online. If you are okay with that risk, go ahead and post them. And if they are leaked, by all means prosecute the offenders. But don't expect people not to criticize you for gambling that nothing is going to happen, especially when there is plenty of evidence to believe the contrary.

Who said people don't have a right to privacy? In an ideal world people would respect that right. But we don't live in an ideal world do we? So it makes sense to assess the risks and take precautions.

Look at it from another perspective. If I constantly leave my house unlocked with all the ground floor windows open when I go out, do I deserve to be robbed? No. But through my actions have I made it exponentially more likely that I'm going to be robbed? Yes. Does that mean the robber should get a lighter sentence if caught? No. Could I have easily prevented the crime from happening by taking basic precautions? Yes. Does that mean the crime is my fault? No. But was I naive to think that no one would ever rob my house? Absolutely, unless I happen to live alone on a deserted island!

It sucks what happened to her. It's not her fault. She deserves justice and I hope they catch the person who did it. The point of my previous post was that anybody taking naked pics of themselves these days--particularly digital ones--is exponentially increasing their risk of a humiliating exposure. That's the reality, whether you think it is "stupid" or not. If a person is not comfortable with that level of risk, they shouldn't engage in the behavior. This in no way implies that a person who has taken naked pics of themselves doesn't deserve justice if they are victimized. But it does imply that they are a bit naive (or haven't been paying attention to current events) if they thought there was little risk in taking naked pics of themselves and posting them online (as this person apparently did on her Facebook page) given the current security situation on the Internet.

Again, this isn't about rights or principles. It's about reality. We live a world where many people don't care about your rights or the law. If you give them the opportunity, these people will exploit you. If you don't want to be exploited, you need to avoid creating such opportunities whenever it is practical to do so. Ideally, we wouldn't have to do this. Ideally, everyone would share the same principles and values and we would all coexist in harmony. But that's not the world we live in.

Also, your analogies are pretty silly. Sending nude pics of yourself to someone is in no way comparable to using online banking. Banks have exponentially more security than whatever messaging or e-mail service you're using to send pictures, not to mention that the person receiving the pics can do whatever they want with them.

And yes, this woman is right. Men do 90% of this abuse. But women have the copyrights on other forms of abuse--at least in America.

And how dare she compare this to rape...or upshotting for that matter? (She did...............................................................) I agree this was dickish and that people should go to jail for it...and if it were my kids I would want to hurt someone. But rape would make me want to kill someone...

Would have been nice if she included that she was not going to get paid for her pics...at least I hope she did not. One thing to stand for these morals, and good for her. Another thing to post porn in protest...

Gonna have to completely disagree. The stupid argument is that victims are just useless turds that have no ability for self empowerment. Also, if we applied "the victim role" to every situation, which it most definitely should be if you favor it, we kind of seem stupid ourselves. Down here in Florida you don't cross the street just because the little man is white and says its okay. You get run the fuck over if you try that shit. No, see, stupid people drive so I teach my children to look both ways; even as adults, despite the fact that this falls in to your idea of blaming the victim. Also, I will teach them not to drink around frat parties or to do it alone. Not because I blame them if they get raped at college. Precisely the opposite. Empower them with facts.

A newspaper op did just that. Hey, they warned, be safe please. And they were blasted...so parents are blaming when they teach the same? We should teach that it's okay for people to be stupid just to spite assholes? That it is on teenage boys not to send naked pics of their girlfriends rather than saying, "Hey kid, don't send naked pics to your boyfriends..."

Please don't say any of that was apples to oranges...because it all applies. Please think rationally. Nobody is saying the victim is to blame--we are simply saying don't walk in a minefield to protest the war.

Having said all that, I think her chosen response is ultimately counter productive generally, even if it does make her feel a little better about herself. The proactive solution is no digital naked pics. But that will take us deeper into moral contemplations, and I think Mr. Chaos has enough on his plate with my previous comment.

No, but they should accept in this day and age that a ton of douches might snap secret pics of them (potenially upskirt shots when the girls are going up an escalator or something), fap to said pics, then upload the pics for others to potentially fap to. Not saying that's right, but it's a possibility that anyone wearing a mini-skirt would be foolish to ignore.

It's a digital world now. As @Jerykk was pointing out, the best way to avoid naked pics of yourself showing up on the Net is not to take naked pics of yourself (and even then some scumbag might install a hidden camera in a changing room or shower and you wind up on there anyway). From jilted ex-lovers to NSA hoovering data to security breaches/password leaks that seem to be making headlines every day, the odds of a naked pic of yourself being made public against your will (whether you're male or female) are exponentially higher these days. I think anyone who takes naked pics of themselves and doesn't expect them to show up online at some point (could be decades from now) is being a bit naive, especially if they are digital pics,