FBI, Apple begin inquiries into nude celebrity photo leaks



LOS ANGELES – The FBI and Apple said Monday they are beginning inquiries into allegations that online accounts of celebrities including Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Lawrence and model Kate Upton were hacked, after naked photos of the stars were posted online.

The FBI said in a statement it is “aware” of the hacking allegations and is “addressing the matter.”

This is dreadful - for those women, for their families, and for the souls of that hacker and all the souls whose hardrives will be cluttered with these images.


There are a few good lessons for all of us (and for us to teach our [grand]children):

  1. If you take a nude / semi-nude / provocative / racy picture of yourself, your girlfriend, your boyfriend, your spouse, there is always a good chance that it will be made public. This is hardly the first time such a thing has happened and it will not be the last. (I remember there being more than one scandal with drive-through photo finishing stands back in the days before digital photography).

  2. Digital lasts forever and you will NEVER get the negatives (again, a film photography allusion…getting the negatives meant that no more prints could be made). They ought not to be fooled into thinking that something like Snapchat is safe.

  3. If you have something sensitive posted online (not just pictures, but credit information), particularly with online storage, you probably want to think twice, three times, or four times about the wisdom of such a move.

  • That’s not to say that you CAN’T store something securely, but you would be more than foolish if you don’t have the information secured with some pretty solid encryption and a complex key.

Seriously, we should all be thinking about this ourselves…and talking with our families about this…


There have been so many instances of this kind that it is hard for me to believe how stupid people can be. Fortunately, no such pictures of me exist, and if they did, viewing them online would cause your screen to crack.:smiley:




LOL But how about credit card information or any kind of personal information, such as medical records? With all the hackers out there, hardly anyone who uses a computer is safe.


I think we can agree that with all the real hazards in computer security, worrying about your private pornography is pretty silly.

There is plenty of really serious harm that can be done by hackers. Suppose terrorists get access to medical records and erase just the information about allergies to common medications? The results could be fatal.

There are still a lot of protections on your financial information, especially that the banks cannot hold you liable for their lapses. I have a lot of accounts and I monitor them actively. When I buy from an online merchant and they ask if I want to save my credit card number on their site, the answer is always, NO. I can enter the information again the next time easier than fixing a security breach. I also do not use third party sites that can allow you to view all your financial information in one place. It may seem convienent, but it is risky. I still use Microsoft Money 2004 to keep track of my finances. I have records of all my transactions back to 1994 and it is on my own computer, with a password to login to the computer, and another to login to the program. I use CD’s to backup the information and keep them in safe locations off site. There is no way I am going to put that information in the hands of online strangers.

Other dangers to your information are really simple. If you get an unsolicited automated call from someone who promises to lower the rate on your credit card, but won’t properly identify himself and uses a phony caller ID, you can be pretty sure it is a scam.:shrug: I got five of those calls last week and they would not continue unless they were finding enough victims to make it worth their while.


Some of the precautions you mention are familiar to me and I also follow them. Thanks for the tips!


Of course, when all your “credit cards” are debit cards that decline when there’s no money on them… it’s not such a bad thing.

But this is one very, very good reason I will never do private webcamming under any circumstances. No matter how desperate I get.


If you don’t want nude pictures of yourself appearing on the internet don’t have nude pictures of yourself taken.


Ricky Gervais said exactly the same thing and is getting a lot of flak for blaming the victim.
I agree with both of you. But…not even baby pictures?


If they find the hacker, maybe the hacker can help find the missing Lois Lerner emails.





Is it any wonder God despises pornography? People want it so bad they do this to get it.


The reaction to this has really been interesting.

Almost right out of the chute there was printed commentary about “don’t blame the women” who took, or consented to the taking, of embarrassing photographs. But in order to get there, you have to do three things, which are to assume:

  1. Every young woman photographs herself in this fashion; and

  2. Every young woman shares those photos with somebody, probably male, to whom she’s, well you know.

  3. That’s all normal, and in fact the okay norm.

That’s quite the assumption, and you have to make a big leap to think that somebody so dense as to have such photos in an electronic medium won’t end up having them published in some fashion. This is particularly the case for people whose careers are based, in no small part, upon selling their image. If your rice bowl is your image, why would you be so careless with it? The defense of this conduct shows how debased our society has become. That doesn’t defend the theft of the images, but to suggest that the victims here didn’t set the situation up to some degree is missing a rather obvious point. And the defense of it protects the initial conduct and is only reduced to condemning the embarrassing theft of it for public consumption.

But then something interesting started happening.

As we watch this play out, it might suggest that in some ways we’ve finally hit rock bottom and people are getting a clue. One of the victims denied it was her, which at least demonstrates a sense of shame over the conduct. Having a sense of shame is a good thing, as it shows a retained sense of right and wrong. Another one said she was “embarrassed”, which is also a good thing, because a person wouldn’t be embarrassed if there wasn’t something to be embarrassed about, which in this case is the act of having the photos taken. Good news, really, again.

And the huge societal reaction may be a good thing. People don’t seem to be so inclined to want to look as condemn the theft. So society feels a sense of shame here, and that’s a good thing. Much of the public reaction isn’t so much “don’t steal personal images” so much as it is “don’t expose these women in their shame”. That’s an interesting reaction.

And the last day or so some of the published comments declare the people who are sharing the imagines on sites to be debased. That’s frankly stunning, as the language used is language that we haven’t seen for a long time. So people are bringing out the old standards to declare that the uploading of this sort of material, at least in this set of circumstances, demonstrates a level of personal depravity. And that’s a good thing.

So, all in all, maybe this is a small curve in a turning point. After years in which performers have worn less and less, and in which the roles of female performers has been more and more as objectified objects for males, and in which the portrayal of women has become increasingly scandalous, all of a sudden those doing this, which in at least one of the cases involves the revealing of herself in a way which she’s pretty much already done professionally for pay, is found to be personally embarrassing and generally beyond the pale, and those who engaged in the distribution are being called on the carpet for personal corruption. Sometimes, in our debasement, God turns on the light.




What you say may be true and a desired shift in public decency and morality. However, I think calling out the distributors of the photographs may also be due to a sense of fairness more than depravity, the former one virtue the American public has never completely lost.


I can’t help but think that this is kind of ludicrous. These photos were taken with consent-and uploaded online. Basically-there is outcry because some people consider their porn “private” and not “public”.

Again, it is kind of simple to assume that if a person doesn’t want this content out there, they shouldn’t create it in the first place.


Very true, but this story does give us an opportunity to examine debased conduct of all types, as well as to think about some things we usually do not think of, in moral terms.

For example, setting the inherently sinful nature of examining these photographs, is looking at a photograph that was uploaded from a private source, against the will of the original owner, theft? It might be, particularly in a case such as these, where the subjects of the photos in some cases make their living from selling their images. In the viewing of any such image (assuming we’re not talking about indecent images) therefore sinful? We tend not to think to much about property rights and images that we view, and only in the context of people who take them to upload them.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.