Emma Watson should 'shut up, all this abuse is her own fault' What should you do when a mature and sensible website like The Register (stop that sniggering at the back) offers you an anonymous commenting option? Why, abuse it flagrantly to blame the victim, of course! First, though, before the tidal wave of infuriated outrage clicking the headline reaches the Reg reader in question and …
Perhaps they felt it might be more effective for the poster to discover that in the judgement of the vast majority of their peers they are a ridiculous scrotewit clinging with slithy tenacity to repugnant opinions that bring nothing of worth to any discussion and serve no purpose beyond making them look like a tiresome, self-entitled, plank-faced tosswizard.
i'm sure you would defend their right to say them......Free Speech
Free speech is about interactions between citizens and government. The Register is a privately owned site and is entitled to edit and censor anything that is posted here. Free speech is irrelevant when discussing their editorial policy and how they deal with commentards.
P.S. I wub El Reg :D
Free speech is about interactions between citizens and government...
...in the narrow legal interpritation of one specific 200+ year old foreign document. Which isn't really relevant in this discussion about a website censoring comments.
Which, as others have already noted, the Reg hasn't done.
Most things prefixed with 'mobile' are too large to fit in a pocket. In fact, they're too large to carry. And they often have their own propulsion systems.
Mobile HQ - check
Mobile Dentist -check
Mobile Library -check
Mobile Hospital -cehck
Mobile phone -ORLY?
There's a word for things you can carry. Carryable. But no, I mean 'portable'.
I know a mobile dentist, and I can assure you that although he likes a pie or two, he's perfectly capable of moving himself around without assistance from an internal combustion engine. He's even man-portable, should you happen to roll that way, although you'd need a pretty heroic tailor to define him as pocket size.
He also bends in half at far less than 90lb pressure...
...say the anti-MRA crowd.
Shut up about women being nearly 60% of graduates. Shut up about there not actually being a wage gap (different pay for the same work). Shut up about the gender bias in conviction rates (more convictions for the same crime) and in sentencing (longer sentences for the same crime). Shut up about MGM and the UN's programme of genital mutilation. Just shut up about it all, because women are oppressed and men are privileged.
@vociferous I didn't "forget" that, I didn't mention it because it's not true, and MRAs do not think it's true. However some good research has shown that 40% is a far better estimate than 2%, which anti-men's-rights people use. The 2% figure was an anecdote from an area of New York, and is not statistically significant. Much higher figures have been reported by the military and certain police jurisdictions in studies where false claims were positively identified (not just where the truth was not established, as anti-men's-rights people claim).
Men are not persecuted in every area of life, and nor are women. But for both sexes there are areas where we suffer. Men in the west have more such areas than women, but everyone (including Emma Watson) ignores them (which is a type of oppression in itself). Anti-men's-rights people want to paint a picture of a society where everyone is either in the oppressor class or the oppressed class (inherited from Marxism and based on gender to create a permanent state of revolution), and a beautiful young woman worth £30 million who has a global podium at UN Women is in their "oppressed" class whereas a homeless man is privileged. So she gets attention and he gets nothing. If you want to call that matriarchy, fine. But let's just agree that it's a bad way of looking at the world if your goal is "equality" (we both know you have no interest in equality).
Why deny men equal rights? And when will Daniel Radcliffe speak up for men's rights at UN Men? Not for a long time, because men don't have representation at the UN.
"Wots SJW?"'
Social Justice Warrior. Basically anyone who's not MRA, but especially anyone who in any way sympathizes with any feminist cause whatsoever. Like, say, equal pay for equal work, or that women should be allowed to pilot fighter aircraft in combat.
"I may be too sexist and misogynistic to have heard of it?"
No, you're probably not sexist and misogynistic enough to have heard it. It's used by the kind of men who refer to themselves as "alfa males" and drone endlessly about how unfair it is that it's nearly only men who get convicted of rape. They hang out at Reddit and 4Chan if that kind of thing appeals to you.
Emma shower promise back when she was on her way to getting an education and doing something useful.
Now she's just a Hollywood airhead whining about being threatened with naked pictures. If she hadn't lost gray matter and just became a Hollywood useless person, it might matter.
She is such a huge disappointment and I hope my daughter is never ever like her. My daughter will grow up to have a brain and use it. She grew up with a brain and let it rot. I'd be so disappointed if my little girl ever grows up to be a victim like her.
I love her as an actress but I have absolutely no use for her as a person.
That's funny - I thought she was self-conscious, stilted and wooden as an actress whose only real qualifications for the job were that she was a) available b) willing and c) looked like Hermione Granger, but now she's making a rather splendid grown-up who I hope will go far in the mould of say, Shirley Temple.
....but please not STB's politics. I like to think that at least British actresses do tend more towards the middle of the road/soft left than the Right. Being rich, famous and thinking how lucky you are is so much more attractive than being rich, famous and full of entitlement.
" the threat was fake and was made with the intention of getting 4chan shut down. Does anyone care about that victim?
Dunno if victim would be quite the right word for it. Rantic's site got taken out on Friday; and more sanctions will probably be forthcoming.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/chan-attacks-socialvevo-and-ranticcom-the-group-behind-the-emma-watson-countdown/story-fnjwnj25-1227073194752
@CheesyTheClown
I don't know you or your daughter but I hope she grows up being able to explore all the facets of her personality
That means a fulfilling job she loves, learning about things that interest her and being able to stand up with conviction and promote those issues that matter to her.
If she could add a couple of million pounds onto that then all the better.
'Using your brain' is not all it's promoted to be. I'd rather have children who were happy and did what they loved rather than pursuing studies or a career simply because they didn't want to waste their brain.
Which is, of course, a ridiculous concept - that you can't put your intelligence to good use in all the factors of your life.
If people don't want to be exposed to all and sundry the best way is to never, ever do selfies with anything other than designer clothing on.
If that means putting Blutak over the lens on laptop webcams or otherwise ensuring no hidden cameras (cough infrared strobe /cough) then this is a small price to pay.
Also worth mentioning, never use airport scanners as they are totally insecure and at least one TSA agent was sacked for uploading such pictures to teh interwebz via purloined SD card.
<Cough> Streisland effect </Cough>
Nope, just acknowleding that there is no "security" for celebrities. Wealth and fame are directly proportional to the amount of interest and effort people will put into doing you harm. That's just the nature of the world. It's foolish to try and ingore.
You can either whine that the world should change to suit you personally or you can deal with things.
The masses benefit greatly from the ability to be anonymous.
Agreed. As long as you stay under the radar, you will be of little interest to many hackers and government spooks. Security through obscurity.
But as many of us in the I.T. world know, S.T.O. is really a poor long-term method for keeping things safe. Eventually, somebody is going to cast a really wide net just to see what they can catch. Anyone could become a victim.
Which brings us to victim blaming. The idealists in this world condemn the practice, suggesting that people shouldn't be forced to alter their behavior because of thugs and criminals. The realists in the world condone the practice, suggesting that people should use common sense in dangerous situations because there will always be thugs and criminals who are looking for any excuse to act.
I tend to walk the middle of the road in that debate. We shouldn't have to lock our doors at night. But I do so anyways because I know we'll never be able to stop all of the crooks in the world. Likewise, we should be able to upload compromising personal photos to any private location. But I keep mine in personal cold storage because we'll never be able to stop all of the hackers in the world. Maybe that'll change some day, but I'm not willing to risk it now.
I tend to agree with you - wanting the world to be perfect is fine as a philosophy for action but usually impracticable in day to day affairs.
But I tend not to walk the middle of the road. I ought to have the freedom to do so because cars should avoid me. But many roads are narrow and most drivers are pretty clueless. So I stick to the pavement.
1) I'm no longer buying the "you're blaming the victims" line of industrial grade crap. It's used as a license for people to be stupid or worse, entrap people who would otherwise not engage in questionable behavior. If you leave your door unlocked, you don't get to charge someone with brakting, only trespass and possibly theft. If you leave your car unlocked and it is stolen, the insurance company will refuse to pay you. Yes I'll hold the miscreant accountable for his actions when he's a miscreant. But I'll also hold the victim accountable for being stupid.
2) No, we're stating that if you don't have nude selfies, they can't leak. That's rather axiomatic. Doesn't mean someone won't photoshop up some crap. Truth of the matter is, on this side of the pond, photoshoping nudies was deemed protected speech by SCOTUS.
3) No, that's what the scanner vendors WANT you to think the pictures look like. As I recall, they dumbed down the software to make it acceptable. If you have the raw data and the good software, they can do a whole lot better.
In addition to all of the (justified) outrage that Ms Watson has produced, I don't think I've seen any advice given to the effect that one should be careful what one does with one's private photos, either on line or on hackable devices. Yes, there are creeps out there who will take advantage of some carelessly stored photography. Please make their job as tough as possible by securing this stuff.
In which case we're all fair game for NSA and GCHQ as "the NSA and GCHQ have 'only' been collecting metadata"
For my next trick I shall prove Black is White and get killed on a Zebra crossing
@CheesyTheClown
Oh and as for Emma I would be proud if she were my daughter, good degree, lots of money, standing up for what she believes is right, but I'd forbid her from marrying any Cheesy Clowns
I don't need 'private' photos of my wife/partner, nor she of me. If we want to see each other in a compromising situation the we can simply disrobe and do whatever in front of a mirror! The only need for such photography (especially if you class yourself as a "sill-y-eb") is for future revenge/blackmail so don't agree to it in the first place you numpties. Icon indicates status of anything posted online....
That's you.
One class of people well known for carrying around nude photos of their SO, or exchanging them online, is people in the military, or oil rig workers. It's not hard to work out the reason, and it may well contribute to reduced stress in a relationship.
I think few people would argue that they do not deserve privacy. And rights awarded to one group should be awarded to all unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.
(As for the Sunday Mirror, well, lads, I've never bought your fine publication and I'm never going to, but you really are nasty people. I don't care if a Conservative MP gets caught with his metaphorical pants down, but I do care if he gets caught with his fingers in the till, or touting for US arms companies, or selling off national assets to his mates, because that's relevant. Freedom of speech should apply to things that actually matter, not fluff.)
Why 7 thumbs down, many of my observations were logical.
It does prove a point though, encrypt EVERYTHING even non sensitive data.
This ensures that in the unlikely event of a RIPA request or similar you can hand over the keys one at a time and by all means the Plods can go through your hard disk, but your average criminal will not have the resources or determination to find anything useful.
Also useful is to always refuse initial requests for keys as under the UK Constitution (Magna Carta) you have the right to legal representation which can sometimes be denied as an inducement to hand over everything.
If enough people refuse the law will be changed.
"Also useful is to always refuse initial requests for keys as under the UK Constitution (Magna Carta) you have the right to legal representation which can sometimes be denied as an inducement to hand over everything."
Does the terrorist regulations allow for a long period of incarceration without access to a lawyer? I think that it does. You'll spend a LOT of time starting at your interrogator if you follow your own advice.
"If enough people refuse the law will be changed."
No, only more people will be convicted. It's only when lots of Police Officers get caught (i.e. defrauding their company credit cards) that "there are too many to prosecute."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
