6 ms·

Seriously? You're blaming the victim?

by mabbo 5y ago

ARandomerDude 5y ago
Somebody: "I can't believe it! I like to leave stacks of $100 bills on the seat in my car and my car keeps getting broken into. Outrageous!" Somebody else: "You should probably take or hide the cash when you get out of your car." Offering wisdom for how to avoid a bad situation twice is not the same thing as blaming the victim.
- criddell 5y ago
  As far as wisdom goes, it's pretty weak and probably doesn't need to be said.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    If it didn't need to be said, you wouldn't see "Lock, Take, Hide" signs in many cities.
    - criddell 5y ago
      There's a big difference offering that advice in a areas with a crime problem before anything is stolen than telling a person they should have hidden something after the theft. At that point you aren't being helpful.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I believe that any egregious behavior is on the one that leaked the private data. I don't think that has to be said honestly.
- advisedwang 5y ago
  A better analogy is a mechanic stealing money out of your car. And not money on view either, some place they'd have to look for it like in the visor.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    It still works. I would blame the mechanic, sue if necessary, but it's still good advice not to let any valuable in your car if you lend it to a 3rd party.
beervirus 5y ago
It’s not the victim’s fault. But still… it’s only prudent to take precautions.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Prudence is certainly a choice one can make, but in no way should it be recommended or required. Google is supposed to be trusted with the world's emails, photos, and other Android data backups. If it is necessary to take precautions against Google misusing data, then that cuts to the heart of their business model, and is a material threat to consumers that they should be informed about.
  - beervirus 5y ago
    Prudence shouldn’t be recommended? Lol what nonsense is this?
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    > Prudence is certainly a choice one can make, but in no way should it be recommended or required. risk = probability X severity. If something is a big deal to you, take precautions, even if it's unlikely, because the severity is high. This is why we take huge precaution with nuclear plants, because the likelyhood of an accident is low, but the severity is high. If you have nude on your phone, severity is high. The probability that googles will mess with you is low, but it's good advice to tell you to protect yourself.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      > If you have nude on your phone, severity is high. Incorrect, for societal reasons. For women, the severity of nudes being stolen is very high, regardless of social stature. The majority of nudes published without consent are of women, and the majority of 'revenge porn' nudes published explicitly to demean are of women, and the majority of societal outrage excluding public figures is directed at women. The long-term impacts of nudes being published without consent never fade, and is nearly as likely to result in loss of employment and social stature years later. For men, the severity of nudes being stolen directly correlates with whether they perceive their career or social stature to be at risk if nudes are stolen are shared, as in the majority of cases men are blackmailed for payment before stolen nudes are published. The long-term impacts of nudes being published without consent fades rapidly for private individuals, hinges on their career and social profiles rather than being effectively universal across their gender, and is often disregarded altogether. For public figures, the employment and societal circumstances vary wildly, and the overall risk of permanent harm to men increases considerably; however, the risk of permanent harm to women decreases only slightly, and typically only for women who already publish nudity of their own accord, and thus have already factored in the societal harm of doing so. My time is limited, so here's one contributing citation only: Intimate image abuse in adults and under 18s (2019) https://swgfl.org.uk/assets/documents/intimate-image-abuse-in-adults-and-under-18s.pdf https://swgfl.org.uk/assets/documents/intimate-image-abuse-i...
sebow 5y ago
As far as in: you did not expect that?Yes, you can also blame the victim in that regard. However the number of mistakes along the way is ridiculous: taking nudes in the first place, not wiping/backing-up your data regularly, not using 2fa, etc. These would not be an issue if you would never send your device back to google."Don't be evil" as a motto is just a facade, it's well-known throughout history that if you want to do something evil or bad, you do it in plain sight, especially when the entire globe knows about you. Unless people don't get "hit" by the reality: google is not the saviour of humanity and it has many flaws, many of which >can't< be avoided statistically speaking, considering the amount of employees and people they effectively manage, then no lesson will be learned.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Where do you see blame in this comment? I see advice so others can learn from this unfortunate incident. Hell, she doesn't even use the phrase "should have". I really wish the masses had never heard the term "victim blaming". 95% of the time i see it used, it's nonsensical pearl-clutching insisting that no one can ever take steps to protect themselves.
- Bud 5y ago
  The blame is pervasive through the entire comment. If you can't see that, you need to reboot, install updates, and look again. It was a very brief comment and its ENTIRE CONTENT was a criticism of the victim's conduct and a suggestion about how the victim should alter said conduct (and sacrifice a lot of money) to avoid Bad Things, rather than the right fucking answer here, which is to put everyone involved with this in jail for 20 years and the publicize that Google is being evil again.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    The comment's advice isn't especially intuitive, and as such it's not at all blameworthy to have failed to follow it; I'd likely have done the same thing the victims did. On top of that, they didn't say what the victims "should have" done, and left out the subject of "should". This is easily interpreted as broader advice, instead of criticism of the victims' actions. The comment is completely consistent with the interpretation: "it's unintuitive and thus understandable that the victims didn't do this, but one should eat the cost of devices with unremovable sensitive data instead of sending it anywhere". > If you can't see that, you need to reboot, install updates, and look again I think I'm good with the version I'm running. Apparently it allows me to have enough going on in my life that I don't have the desperate impulse to get a dose of morning outrage from interpreting everything in the least charitable light.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
It's not blame, it's advice. Advice that is strongly needed, because most people think "they have nothing to hide" until they discover than: - they do - they can't
- dahart 5y ago
  You’re right, everyone has a need for privacy, and there is almost always private info on devices people use. So why is “advice” to avoid repair and eat the costs considered a tenable solution? The “advice” would also apply if you ever logged into your bank or bought anything, if you ever read your email, if you have any secret keys or certificates for authentication of anything, if you ever visited a web site or searched for something you wouldn’t want someone else to see, if you have a list of contacts, if you have any personally identifiable information, if you ever worked on something considered confidential by your employer, etc., etc., etc.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    > So why is “advice” to avoid repair and eat the costs considered a tenable solution? It's not an "or" proposition. You can fully push for a society where such behavior is dealt with or inexistant, because that's the right thing to do. At the same time, you can ackownledge this life is full of terrible unfair things, and preparing for them can spare you a lof of pain.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > It’s not an “or” proposition. I agree, but I’m confused; I didn’t make an or proposition, and you followed that statement with one. We can realistically deal with privacy problems using laws, and we cannot realistically ever expect people to never repair devices that have private information on them. Right? There’s also an unfortunate environmental downside to suggesting that people avoid repair.
      - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
        It's about taking precautions in general, not avoiding repair in particular. And deal with privacy problems at the society levels, not just using laws in particular. And it's not "or" them. It's "and".
seabird 5y ago
I seriously think we're at a point where we just need to say "yes, we're blaming the victim", not because we actually are, or think it's the victims fault, but because engaging this line of questioning is a complete waste of time. The person whose nudes were stolen and published did not deserve it and did not ask for it, but it's not productive to tell them (and society at large) that there was nothing they could have done to avoid or mitigate the situation. There are bad actors in this world and we all do things tens or even hundreds of times a day to minimize their impact.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't know how you read blame out of it honestly. I am not blaming anyone aside from the one that uploaded the pictures, I though that was understood. The recommendation to not ever send a device with secret information to maintenance and repair still applies. As I said perhaps the device never reached Google. That is probably relevant for liability, perhaps the delivery service is at fault. It doesn't even have to be a malicious actor, the repair process could expose such images to the technician in some cases.

Seriously? You're blaming the victim?

by mabbo 5y ago

Seriously? You're blaming the victim?

Somebody: "I can't believe it! I like to leave stacks of $100 bills on the seat in my car and my car keeps getting broken into. Outrageous!" Somebody else: "You should probably take or hide the cash when you get out of your car." Offering wisdom for how to avoid a bad situation twice is not the same thing as blaming the victim.

criddell 5y ago
As far as wisdom goes, it's pretty weak and probably doesn't need to be said.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  If it didn't need to be said, you wouldn't see "Lock, Take, Hide" signs in many cities.
  - criddell 5y ago
    There's a big difference offering that advice in a areas with a crime problem before anything is stolen than telling a person they should have hidden something after the theft. At that point you aren't being helpful.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I believe that any egregious behavior is on the one that leaked the private data. I don't think that has to be said honestly.
advisedwang 5y ago
A better analogy is a mechanic stealing money out of your car. And not money on view either, some place they'd have to look for it like in the visor.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  It still works. I would blame the mechanic, sue if necessary, but it's still good advice not to let any valuable in your car if you lend it to a 3rd party.

beervirus 5y ago

It’s not the victim’s fault. But still… it’s only prudent to take precautions.

floatingatoll 5y ago
Prudence is certainly a choice one can make, but in no way should it be recommended or required. Google is supposed to be trusted with the world's emails, photos, and other Android data backups. If it is necessary to take precautions against Google misusing data, then that cuts to the heart of their business model, and is a material threat to consumers that they should be informed about.
- beervirus 5y ago
  Prudence shouldn’t be recommended? Lol what nonsense is this?
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  > Prudence is certainly a choice one can make, but in no way should it be recommended or required. risk = probability X severity. If something is a big deal to you, take precautions, even if it's unlikely, because the severity is high. This is why we take huge precaution with nuclear plants, because the likelyhood of an accident is low, but the severity is high. If you have nude on your phone, severity is high. The probability that googles will mess with you is low, but it's good advice to tell you to protect yourself.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    > If you have nude on your phone, severity is high. Incorrect, for societal reasons. For women, the severity of nudes being stolen is very high, regardless of social stature. The majority of nudes published without consent are of women, and the majority of 'revenge porn' nudes published explicitly to demean are of women, and the majority of societal outrage excluding public figures is directed at women. The long-term impacts of nudes being published without consent never fade, and is nearly as likely to result in loss of employment and social stature years later. For men, the severity of nudes being stolen directly correlates with whether they perceive their career or social stature to be at risk if nudes are stolen are shared, as in the majority of cases men are blackmailed for payment before stolen nudes are published. The long-term impacts of nudes being published without consent fades rapidly for private individuals, hinges on their career and social profiles rather than being effectively universal across their gender, and is often disregarded altogether. For public figures, the employment and societal circumstances vary wildly, and the overall risk of permanent harm to men increases considerably; however, the risk of permanent harm to women decreases only slightly, and typically only for women who already publish nudity of their own accord, and thus have already factored in the societal harm of doing so. My time is limited, so here's one contributing citation only: Intimate image abuse in adults and under 18s (2019) https://swgfl.org.uk/assets/documents/intimate-image-abuse-in-adults-and-under-18s.pdf https://swgfl.org.uk/assets/documents/intimate-image-abuse-i...

sebow 5y ago

As far as in: you did not expect that?Yes, you can also blame the victim in that regard. However the number of mistakes along the way is ridiculous: taking nudes in the first place, not wiping/backing-up your data regularly, not using 2fa, etc. These would not be an issue if you would never send your device back to google."Don't be evil" as a motto is just a facade, it's well-known throughout history that if you want to do something evil or bad, you do it in plain sight, especially when the entire globe knows about you. Unless people don't get "hit" by the reality: google is not the saviour of humanity and it has many flaws, many of which >can't< be avoided statistically speaking, considering the amount of employees and people they effectively manage, then no lesson will be learned.

wutbrodo 5y ago

Where do you see blame in this comment? I see advice so others can learn from this unfortunate incident. Hell, she doesn't even use the phrase "should have". I really wish the masses had never heard the term "victim blaming". 95% of the time i see it used, it's nonsensical pearl-clutching insisting that no one can ever take steps to protect themselves.

Bud 5y ago
The blame is pervasive through the entire comment. If you can't see that, you need to reboot, install updates, and look again. It was a very brief comment and its ENTIRE CONTENT was a criticism of the victim's conduct and a suggestion about how the victim should alter said conduct (and sacrifice a lot of money) to avoid Bad Things, rather than the right fucking answer here, which is to put everyone involved with this in jail for 20 years and the publicize that Google is being evil again.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  The comment's advice isn't especially intuitive, and as such it's not at all blameworthy to have failed to follow it; I'd likely have done the same thing the victims did. On top of that, they didn't say what the victims "should have" done, and left out the subject of "should". This is easily interpreted as broader advice, instead of criticism of the victims' actions. The comment is completely consistent with the interpretation: "it's unintuitive and thus understandable that the victims didn't do this, but one should eat the cost of devices with unremovable sensitive data instead of sending it anywhere". > If you can't see that, you need to reboot, install updates, and look again I think I'm good with the version I'm running. Apparently it allows me to have enough going on in my life that I don't have the desperate impulse to get a dose of morning outrage from interpreting everything in the least charitable light.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

It's not blame, it's advice. Advice that is strongly needed, because most people think "they have nothing to hide" until they discover than: - they do - they can't

dahart 5y ago
You’re right, everyone has a need for privacy, and there is almost always private info on devices people use. So why is “advice” to avoid repair and eat the costs considered a tenable solution? The “advice” would also apply if you ever logged into your bank or bought anything, if you ever read your email, if you have any secret keys or certificates for authentication of anything, if you ever visited a web site or searched for something you wouldn’t want someone else to see, if you have a list of contacts, if you have any personally identifiable information, if you ever worked on something considered confidential by your employer, etc., etc., etc.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  > So why is “advice” to avoid repair and eat the costs considered a tenable solution? It's not an "or" proposition. You can fully push for a society where such behavior is dealt with or inexistant, because that's the right thing to do. At the same time, you can ackownledge this life is full of terrible unfair things, and preparing for them can spare you a lof of pain.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > It’s not an “or” proposition. I agree, but I’m confused; I didn’t make an or proposition, and you followed that statement with one. We can realistically deal with privacy problems using laws, and we cannot realistically ever expect people to never repair devices that have private information on them. Right? There’s also an unfortunate environmental downside to suggesting that people avoid repair.
    - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
      It's about taking precautions in general, not avoiding repair in particular. And deal with privacy problems at the society levels, not just using laws in particular. And it's not "or" them. It's "and".

seabird 5y ago

I seriously think we're at a point where we just need to say "yes, we're blaming the victim", not because we actually are, or think it's the victims fault, but because engaging this line of questioning is a complete waste of time. The person whose nudes were stolen and published did not deserve it and did not ask for it, but it's not productive to tell them (and society at large) that there was nothing they could have done to avoid or mitigate the situation. There are bad actors in this world and we all do things tens or even hundreds of times a day to minimize their impact.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I don't know how you read blame out of it honestly. I am not blaming anyone aside from the one that uploaded the pictures, I though that was understood. The recommendation to not ever send a device with secret information to maintenance and repair still applies. As I said perhaps the device never reached Google. That is probably relevant for liability, perhaps the delivery service is at fault. It doesn't even have to be a malicious actor, the repair process could expose such images to the technician in some cases.