We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Tiger Woods arrested for DUI

aklawitter said:
yeah how dare he show stuff in private
Click to expand...

Nobody said that. But sorry, if you are sending dick pics after all of the ******** that has happened in the last decade with this stuff, you have to expect at some point it could happen to get out.

Right? No. But despite the "Poor Tiger" thoughts from most fans, logic says the entire "It wont happen to me" seems to follow him, except with different results at the end every time.
 
I'm with the "not a huge deal crowd", but seriously, if you are Lindsay how do you let this happen? After the fappening, how are you storing your nudies in anything but the most secure places?
 
Here is an easy way to look at it.
Take the words Tiger Woods out of the story and replace with Donald Trump. Think everybody says the same thing? Poor Donald, he was just doing something in private?

Of course they would...

I honestly don't think it is that big of a deal and his lawyers will handle it. They did for Spieth and it was way more harmless.
 
Off to delete some photos from my phone....
 
Its really hard to fathom Celeb's still do this stuff with phones & pics
 
Really hard year for him...
 
OITW said:
Really hard year for him...
Click to expand...

steviewonder.jpg
 
JB said:
Nobody said that. But sorry, if you are sending dick pics after all of the ******** that has happened in the last decade with this stuff, you have to expect at some point it could happen to get out.

Right? No. But despite the "Poor Tiger" thoughts from most fans, logic says the entire "It wont happen to me" seems to follow him, except with different results at the end every time.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Anymore if you are a celebrity you should almost expect your phone to get hacked, so don't store Richard pics on it. It's not right that they have to worry about it but unfortunately that's the way it is these days.
 
one's wealth or celebrity status does not refute their right to privacy
 
Another non story, only to be exaggerated by some who love drama. Totally uninteresting
 
aklawitter said:
one's wealth or celebrity status does not refute their right to privacy
Click to expand...
Nope, but it does unfortunately multiply their need to guard it.
 
aklawitter said:
one's wealth or celebrity status does not refute their right to privacy
Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement. Your right to privacy is only to the degree that you protect it. Especially in this day and age.

Let me explain. You send a very private picture to your girlfriend, who then leaves it on her phone. She then goes to Starbucks and uses a public access network to browse the internet so she doesn't use her data. Once you do that, you have given up that "right to privacy" as you have opened your information to the public voluntarily. There is even a disclaimer when you connect to said public access network.That is how most of this information is retrieved. Someone "hacks" your phone over a public access network. It's not that hard to do.
 
NewGlfr said:
That's an interesting statement. Your right to privacy is only to the degree that you protect it. Especially in this day and age.

Let me explain. You send a very private picture to your girlfriend, who then leaves it on her phone. She then goes to Starbucks and uses a public access network to browse the internet so she doesn't use her data. Once you do that, you have given up that "right to privacy" as you have opened your information to the public voluntarily. There is even a disclaimer when you connect to said public access network.That is how most of this information is retrieved. Someone "hacks" your phone over a public access network. It's not that hard to do.
Click to expand...

So because of an illegal act by a hacker people loose their right to privacy? Not sure I agree. And you don't have access a public network for someone to steal your info.
 
#Cookie said:
Off to delete some photos from my phone....
Click to expand...

They might be off your phone but they're not gone. :bulgy-eyes:

Mental memory is the only safe option. Plan B is a Polaroid camera, if you can find one.
 
Vortex said:
......Plan B is a Polaroid camera, if you can find one.
Click to expand...

Yup. Couldn't have said it better myself :D. Reintroduction is eminent. It's a celebrity "must have" for those lonely nights when one can't be with the one they love and privacy is a must. It's unfortunate for both of them.

JM
 
Tadashi70 said:
So because of an illegal act by a hacker people loose their right to privacy? Not sure I agree. And you don't have access a public network for someone to steal your info.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point. If you have something you don't want exposed, don't leave it open to exposure. It's not a matter of "right to privacy". There are criminals out there looking to be criminals. Why have an alarm on your car or your house? Why lock your car door or the door to your house? Of course you don't expect someone to steal the iPhone you've left in your car. So why put it in the glove box and lock your doors? THAT'S the point.
 
If you are a celebrity who is stupid enough not to understand that you are a target and leave sensitive information somewhere where it can be easily retrieved by just about anyone, well, expect those nude photos to show up online eventually.

This isn't a Hulk Hogan situation where he had no idea he was being recorded.
 
NewGlfr said:
You've missed the point. If you have something you don't want exposed, don't leave it open to exposure. It's not a matter of "right to privacy". There are criminals out there looking to be criminals. Why have an alarm on your car or your house? Why lock your car door or the door to your house? Of course you don't expect someone to steal the iPhone you've left in your car. So why put it in the glove box and lock your doors? THAT'S the point.
Click to expand...

Didn't miss any point. We own our phones or our photos. Just because some asshat can steal it doesn't mean it's stops being private. A photo on MY phone is mine. It's not open to exposure. My privacy or anyone's privacy must be violated to obtain. THAT'S my point!
 
Tadashi70 said:
Didn't miss any point. We own our phones or our photos. Just because some asshat can steal it doesn't mean it's stops being private. A photo on MY phone is mine. It's not open to exposure. My privacy or anyone's privacy must be violated to obtain. THAT'S my point!
Click to expand...

Criminals don't care. So why make it easy for them? Do you have a password on your Wifi network at home? If so, why?
 
NewGlfr said:
Criminals don't care. So why make it easy for them? Do you have a password on your Wifi network at home? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Nevermind
 
Wake said:
Nope, but it does unfortunately multiply their need to guard it.
Click to expand...

This exactly. The more you have the more steps you need to take to protect it - whether it's Hillary's home server or Linsey Vonn's phone. A fool and his data are soon parted, or at least shared.
 
Tadashi70 said:
Didn't miss any point. We own our phones or our photos. Just because some asshat can steal it doesn't mean it's stops being private. A photo on MY phone is mine. It's not open to exposure. My privacy or anyone's privacy must be violated to obtain. THAT'S my point!
Click to expand...

That is where you are wrong. It is yours, but it is also open to exposure.

Let's say this is not the digital age and you had a printed picture of yourself. You kept it in your home. Is it safer hidden in your home or taped to the interior of the front door? Either way, it's still your private photo and you have rights.

I don't think anybody thinks what happened here is fair, legal or even okay. Just that after what has happened to celebrity phones over the past 5 years that people should be smarter, but here we have another moment of Tiger and "it won't happen to me".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top