celebs hacked, nudes leaked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

Will anyone here admit to actually having jerked off to any of these pictures?

---

raises hand.

i had viewed the fappening imgur link on my phone that vegas1369 had posted. then yesterday i had to drive to a remote location in the countryside. driving home i grabbed my phone to quickly check the tracking details for a package l i was expecting. open my browser and the fappening imgur link opens up with 50 images from my last session.

alone on a straight deserted country road doing 100k's an hour
:whynot

dropped a fat load onto napkins from kfc i had in the glovebox. sfo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

On a related note, the McKayla Maroney and Liz Lee photographs were taken when they were minors; they are child pornography, and anyone who has posted any urls or torrents containing the referenced materials in this thread or any other is quite literally guilty child pornography distribution.

---

I would like Finklestein's opinion on this one.

Google likely had 1000's of copies of the images on their image search, Tumblr had it, imgur had them. Are they guilty too?

---

This is a tough question to answer, as often there's a big difference between violating the letter of the law and being a likely recipient of arrest or prosecution.

The law is, in general, very forgiving toward search engines and websites with user-provided content. As it is impossible for google to monitor every image found by its search bot, they cannot be held liable for child pornography being found in their search results. Same with image hosting websites like tumblr and imgur, where their users post the pictures and it is not realistic for a human employee to vet every single one.

However, these sites do have a duty to remove such content when alerted to its existence. If they do not remove the content within a timely fashion after being notified (and take reasonable steps to prevent the user from reposting it), they can be held liable.

Regarding individuals possessing these photos, it's a very grey area legally. Given the horrendous nature of child pornography, the law tends to be unforgiving toward individuals who distribute and/or collect it. The law is very strict in these matters so as to remove bogus defense tactics such as "I didn't realize it was on my computer", "I didn't know she wasn't 18", or "I downloaded these not knowing what they were, was shocked when I saw it was child porn, and then forgot to delete them."

Still, any successful prosecution requires proving to a jury that the accused was intentionally committing a criminal act. Therefore, if you are on a regular porn site and get a pop-up ad featuring an underage girl, you would never be prosecuted for it, provided that it was clear that's what really happened. However, if other images of underage girls were found on your computer, that would be a different story.

Could you lose your job or security clearance in such a situation? Yes, but more likely because you were visiting porn sites at work, rather than being unfortunate enough to get a pop-up ad with an underage girl.

This brings us back to your original question: Could a site with links to these underage pics be prosecuted for distributing child pornography? In this case, highly unlikely. This is because it was a highly publicized breach of celebrity photographs, and due to the intense public interest, there will be thousands of sites linking to these images. The authorities are not likely to be interested in websites simply saying, "Go here to see them". If they do choose to go after any sites on child pornography charges, it would be the sites where the pictures are posted, or alternately, the users actually posting the pictures.

However, I still doubt that anyone reposting these pictures will see any form of prosecution, unless they were involved in the original hacking or distribution, or unless they were deriving some sort of commercial benefit from reposting them. Otherwise authorities are likely to see this as "lol internets" rather than child pornography, as nude pictures of current adult celebrities at age 17 are much more in the celebrity voyeurism realm than the child pornography realm.

By contrast, if a site was full of links to nude/sexual pictures of 12-year-olds, then it would likely be shut down and prosecuted at some point, even if that site didn't actually house any of the pictures.

I want to point out one other thing.

When the Joe Sebok nude pictures were stolen in similar fashion, the FBI got involved. They did not care much about the hacking, but were instead interested because the hacker was making demands for large sums of money to keep them out of the public view (extortion).

The FBI contacted Dan Druff about these, because they found copies of the pictures on a site that Druff then co-owned. However, recall from Druff's story about the matter that the FBI was not interested in the fact that the pictures were reposted. In fact, the FBI told Dan Druff that they had "no problem" with the pictures remaining there. They were only interested in information on the original hacker/extortionist, of which Dan Druff and his then co-owner had none.

Of course, Sebok was not underage, but it was interesting to see that the FBI took the position that they did not see a criminal act in the reposting of nude pictures stolen via a hacking, provided that it was being done by an unrelated third party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alvin Finklestein

I want to point out one other thing.

When the Joe Sebok nude pictures were stolen in similar fashion, the FBI got involved. They did not care much about the hacking, but were instead interested because the hacker was making demands for large sums of money to keep them out of the public view (extortion).

The FBI contacted Dan Druff about these, because they found copies of the pictures on a site that Druff then co-owned. However, recall from Druff's story about the matter that the FBI was not interested in the fact that the pictures were reposted. In fact, the FBI told Dan Druff that they had "no problem" with the pictures remaining there. They were only interested in information on the original hacker/extortionist, of which Dan Druff and his then co-owner had none.

Of course, Sebok was not underage, but it was interesting to see that the FBI took the position that they did not see a criminal act in the reposting of nude pictures stolen via a hacking, provided that it was being done by an unrelated third party.

---

Would you have taken Druff's case pro bono if the feds came after him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alvin Finklestein

I want to point out one other thing.

When the Joe Sebok nude pictures were stolen in similar fashion, the FBI got involved. They did not care much about the hacking, but were instead interested because the hacker was making demands for large sums of money to keep them out of the public view (extortion).

The FBI contacted Dan Druff about these, because they found copies of the pictures on a site that Druff then co-owned. However, recall from Druff's story about the matter that the FBI was not interested in the fact that the pictures were reposted. In fact, the FBI told Dan Druff that they had "no problem" with the pictures remaining there. They were only interested in information on the original hacker/extortionist, of which Dan Druff and his then co-owner had none.

Of course, Sebok was not underage, but it was interesting to see that the FBI took the position that they did not see a criminal act in the reposting of nude pictures stolen via a hacking, provided that it was being done by an unrelated third party.

---

Would you have taken Druff's case pro bono if the feds came after him?

---

Possibly not, but his twin brother Mark might have done.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/markandersonfinkelstein

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alvin Finklestein

I want to point out one other thing.

When the Joe Sebok nude pictures were stolen in similar fashion, the FBI got involved. They did not care much about the hacking, but were instead interested because the hacker was making demands for large sums of money to keep them out of the public view (extortion).

The FBI contacted Dan Druff about these, because they found copies of the pictures on a site that Druff then co-owned. However, recall from Druff's story about the matter that the FBI was not interested in the fact that the pictures were reposted. In fact, the FBI told Dan Druff that they had "no problem" with the pictures remaining there. They were only interested in information on the original hacker/extortionist, of which Dan Druff and his then co-owner had none.

Of course, Sebok was not underage, but it was interesting to see that the FBI took the position that they did not see a criminal act in the reposting of nude pictures stolen via a hacking, provided that it was being done by an unrelated third party.

---

Would you have taken Druff's case pro bono if the feds came after him?

---

Druff became an FBI snitch over the matter, keep up with the play.

"After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords, and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple’s systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved.”

I can't see the FBI completely looking the other way especially on those who claim to be underage when the photos were taken. It's a weird situation because the under aged celebs had the photos of themselves and not someone who secretly took them or lured them into taking the photos.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/c8dd3dcb8...p7ao1_1280.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

On a related note, the McKayla Maroney and Liz Lee photographs were taken when they were minors; they are child pornography, and anyone who has posted any urls or torrents containing the referenced materials in this thread or any other is quite literally guilty child pornography distribution.

---

I only see 3 pictures of McKayla Maroney, all fully clothed. 2 head shots, 1 photo of her in a bikini.
She originally said all photos of her are fake.

Victoria Justice has said her photos are fake too but she is another lying cunt.
Her photos are 100% real.

Very few questionable photos that appear to be phony.


:lol2

they arent going to 'go after' people for passing around the fappening pics. they are, however, going to use them to create enhanced charges or justify warrants and/or surveillance where they might otherwise not be able to.

that said, you can be absolutely guaranteed that a checksum of the pics in questions will be added to the database used to detect child pornography in the wild.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014...ages-in-email/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

I only see 3 pictures of McKayla Maroney, all fully clothed. 2 head shots, 1 photo of her in a bikini.
She originally said all photos of her are fake.

---

There is, allegedly, at least one pic of her topless. ALLEGEDLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

I only see 3 pictures of McKayla Maroney, all fully clothed. 2 head shots, 1 photo of her in a bikini.
She originally said all photos of her are fake.

---

There is, allegedly, at least one pic of her topless. ALLEGEDLY.

---

Allegedly she's completely nude in the shower in the alleged picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

I think this could be a career killer for Jlaw....especially if the videos come out. She's really the only a-lister here. I haven't really heard of half those women. Too bad Vergara wasn't included.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I'm sure her fan base has increased quite dramatically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fluffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

I think this could be a career killer for Jlaw....especially if the videos come out. She's really the only a-lister here. I haven't really heard of half those women. Too bad Vergara wasn't included.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I'm sure her fan base has increased quite dramatically

---

You're a fucking faggot. What would you know.

*giggling*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fluffer

Couldn't disagree more. I'm sure her fan base has increased quite dramatically

---

You're a fucking faggot. What would you know.

*giggling*

---

Predominantly straight guy who likes to get freaky on occasions, ok

















Just wished that woman had cocks







Oh wait

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheKrypt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abrown83

JLaw video to be leaked soon.

---

My dick is gonna be so raw.

---

fYp

And fluffy manages to ruin all the boners in this thread with just one post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fluffer

Predominantly straight guy who likes to get freaky on occasions, ok

---

Don't want to hijack this thread, but...

:lol

There isn't a single thing "predominantly straight" about you. Forget "predominantly" ... I am struggling to come up with a single characteristic you have that isn't straight out of a gay stereotype.

Let's count the ways:

- Hyper-obsession with fitness and going to the gym, and making sure everyone knows it

- Catty attitude toward others' looks

- Vast insider knowledge of rumors and rumblings within the "gay community", as you always chime in to threads regarding celebrities, and what the gay community thinks about the subject.

- Self-professed expert in "gaydar"

- Highly effeminate writing style, right down to the trademark *giggling*

- Odd refusal to allow your voice to be heard on radio, which I can only assume has to do with some sort of shame regarding a lisp or effeminate sound


I have news for you. "Predominantly straight" guys don't repeatedly get the urge to bend over Asian guys and ram them in the ass. I know you've laid out your excuses before... Men are more willing to have casual sex, men are more willing to get freaky, men are more likely to be really into the sex while women often just go along with it, blah blah blah. But that doesn't matter. That's a bunch of crap. Straight guys don't decide to ride the hershey highway just because it requires more effort to get with women. It doesn't work that way. It's not like choosing fast food today because you don't feel like putting the effort into cooking a meal. You act as if it's totally normal for straight guys to have sex with dudes if they don't feel like going through the trouble of romancing women. If you were actually straight, you would know that's not what an actual straight guy would ever do.

Provided this isn't some sort of gimmick account (and again, if it is, bravo for making a good one), my read on you is that you are a gay guy who still isn't comfortable with what he is, despite being around 50 years old. So you hit the gym several hours per day, force yourself to fuck women while imagining Long Duk Dong from Sixteen Candles, and look in the mirror thinking, "If I have all of these muscles and fuck women, then there's no way I can be a fag."

Keep in mind that this isn't a bash against gay people. We have guys like PLOL who are gay, yet are comfortable with it, and don't have to engage in any kind of ruse that they're actually straight but just occasionally mess around with dick for fun. I also understand when a young man takes a few years to completely accept and understand that he's gay. But seriously... if you're a late 40s gay guy and act like a catty bitch on forums instead of being able to look in the mirror and admit what you are, honestly that's pretty sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

And fluffy manages to ruin all the boners in this thread with just one post.

---

Trust me, my you don't know what you are missing friend,







Sucking cock is IMO much more rewarding than eating pussy,









Rimming ass a close second

 

ok

Verlander's response...yawn.

Quote:

---

"I'm not going to comment on my personal life," Verlander said in the Tigers' clubhouse before tonight's game against the Cleveland Indians. "I never have, and I never plan on it. I keep my personal life personal.
"The focus for me is on the Detroit Tigers. I don't want to take any focus away from this team and what we're trying to accomplish. We're in the middle of a pennant race. We're trying to win a pennant. And all of my focus currently is on doing whatever I can to help our team win our division."

---