Indeed, I don't care much for the tone of the previous post at all.

That said, I do think it would be wise to have a good think about what would happen if these photos were distributed – either maliciously or accidentally – and if you're prepared to take this risk. Unfortunately too many people somewhat naïvely don't think about this.

"wise to have a good think" is a good discussion to have BEFORE and for LATER.

AFTER, it is simply victim shaming.

"wise to have a good think" is something we do for ourselves.

Hacking a person's phone is a violation that one person perpetrates upon another.

The first is a personal mental activity. The second is a physical crime.

The first is irrelevant now. Now, something real happened. Reality always takes precedence.

That said, how many times did she get her phone hacked and have her photos leaked?

Tricky thing, that...when do we switch to "having been a victim, it's time to have a good think."?

From the article, "she said. “I am losing my mind. I think this is the same person that hacked me before and nothing is being done. I can’t take this anymore.”"

Hmmm........

It's always worth thinking about what could have been done better by everyone involved, including victims.

I don't get this insatiable drive some people have for passing judgement. God forbid if we try to actually understand situations, how they happen, how they could be prevented, etc. instead of merely angrily shouting "IT'S BAD!"

9 times out of 10 I see "victim blaming" being used it's some holier-than-thou moral superiority stuff. I'm not interested in moral judgements, I'm interested in understanding problems and seeing how we can prevent them from happening again. I don't care about any moral judgement good or bad in these types of discussions; that doesn't mean I don't have one, but I see no value in sharing it here.

Yeah. Many crimes can be prevented by avoiding high risk behavior and learning to recognize the signs of a developing violent situation. It doesn't excuse the criminal's actions but it can give us a chance to escape unharmed.

Trying to avoid victim blaming.

The onus is somewhat shared. In recent times there has been a massive over correction leading to something akin to the position that the woman can never be wrong. Getting assaulted is bad but if that was preceded by taunting and instigation by the “victim” they share some segment of the blame.

What? Can you give us some examples?

> What are you gonna do? Shoot me?

> You don't have the guts.

If you challenge a violent criminal like this, you leave him no choice but to shoot you. That goes double if you do it in front of his peers. Either he rises up to your challenge or he loses respect. He's dead if people don't respect him.

People do all sorts of things when they're placed in stressful situations. It's easy to end up making this sort of challenge when trying to drive away an aggressor. Insults, challenges, threatening violence, threatening to call the cops. Sometimes a violent person starts to back down and leave but the victim just has to get that last insult in to teach him a lesson.

Like all people, women are prone to this. Verbal violence can and will escalate a dangerous situation. Sometimes women initiate physical violence against much stronger men: they slap him.

Having worked in the nightclub biz for ~20 years - I have seen situations like these occur many times.

It truly amazes me how much people will push others to commit violence - often doing X or Y multiple times - even when others are trying to quash it - and sometimes it seemed that it just intensified when people were stopped / held back, or the initial situation was otherwise 'stopped'.

You must have some interesting stories!

Yeah, I keep thinking I should write a book on it - especially now that many of the places have been gentrified out of existence - which could also be an interesting part of the book.

If the Oprah show was still a thing it would make for a couple of good segments for sure.

Technically, no. This is someone who engaged in criminal activity and got caught. That her being caught was only possible because of another criminal activity is irrelevant.

This is a lot like a politician being corrupt, but proof of corruption was only distributed after someone broke into his house and stole some files. We would not say that "don't engage in criminal corruption" would be victim blaming, would we?

We can argue about if it is fair to have a law against making nude photos of yourself. We can argue whether we need to prosecute the hacker community more. But we also need to acknowledge that if you don't want to have legal trouble, do not do potentially criminal activities.

Well, it's like going through a bad neighborhood in your expensive car to show off your new expensive watch.

Not your fault you got robbed, but there may have been a way to avoid it.

As a citizen, it is reasonable to expect from government to provide you the ability to drive through any part of the country without risking getting robbed.

If the government does not meet that expectation, it is time to hold politicians (and, where applicable, the police administration) accountable by voting them out.

Is it really reasonable? I struggle to think of any actual examples of a country where you could travel anywhere without risking getting robbed. "Most of the country's territory": sure, but "any part" whatsoever?

It's a noble ideal but we're still not there yet so you can either shout at the Universe demanding it to be fair, or you can to try and live with what we have right now.

I do expect the roads to have no potholes, and car drivers vigilant but I still look where I put my feet when I walk and look the street both ways before crossing it. When I trip on something because I was distracted I first think "Who the hell put that there?", then "Probably should have watched where I was going" second. Am I subconsciously trained to victim-blame myself?

> I struggle to think of any actual examples of a country where you could travel anywhere without risking getting robbed. "Most of the country's territory": sure, but "any part" whatsoever?

In modern, civilized democracies, citizens delegate their right to use vigilante justice and violence in general to the state (in form of police), in exchange for the state's guarantee to uphold the law on its territory.

Well, go and take a stroll at 3am in certain parts of Paris where police almost never manifests and when it does, it's in groups of 10 at least — the results may upset you.

How can a government ensure everyone's safety without sacrificing people's privacy or imposing on their lives?

I would like everyone to be and feel safe, but at the same time I wouldn't want a CCTV and a policeman on every corner of the street.

This is an underrated comment. Many who believe we have a right to be safe don't understand that it's impossible to achieve without sacrificing other fundamental rights (i.e. privacy, liberty).

Sacrificing those rights doesn't even get us safety. At best, it gets us accountability, but it's very much diminishing returns.

One way would be to ensure everyone has their right to a decent life fulfilled (aka, get everyone housed, fed and employed in decent conditions), to reduce the incentives and motivation for people to rob and assault other people.

One of the reason for "criminal careers" is that convictions - especially those for small scale shit like fare dodging or marijuana smoking - follow people around and make it impossible for them to obtain housing and employment. Break that cycle and help people who are in prison to live a crime-free life after release, and crime numbers will drop.