PRIVACY

soft spot
I know
for many reasons
first of all the Princess Diana sad issue
and all the privacy and rights issues
but

what do you think about latest news?

private pics of Catherine Middleton

I think
she was wrong
heavily wrong

she shouldn't have done that
IMO


she is
and wont be ever safe
doing such things
outdoor

I agree with you, IM.

They should have known the lengths
papps will go to get a criminating shot
of them. NO PLACE IS SAFE.

listen
to me seems so odd
that for a mo
I thought it would have been
to cover Herry's thing

but then ....
no
this is even worse!

Hahahaaaaa I agree . I would be very careful .

Maggy wrote:

They should have known the lengths
papps will go to get a criminating shot
of them. NO PLACE IS SAFE.

sadly... but what hit me was the answer of the last mag owner
'my (Danish) princess wont do such things
ever'

Of course, the Duchess of Cambridge was in a private place,
a French Chateau and the photos were taken from about a mile away by a French pap. She's entitled to her privacy and can do what she wants in private IMO.
French paps have NO respect......they wanted to make money from pictures of a dying Princess Diana.

I can agree on the NO respect
but I also think it was someway her fault too

marrying him
things changed

Catherine was perhaps naive in assuming she was having a private moment with her husband, however I believe out of respect for her and monarchy etc, editors should not have published them. Too much Greed not enough decency.

sure
this too
but the first thing is
not do that
you'll never get
in such mess

My question immediately was....
Who tipped off the
French paps ?
A trusted member of staff at Chateau ???

Exactly Joanna, unless paps were stalking them for awhile which they are known to do. Its a shame that she wont be able to relax her guard.

I think she will be able to theminis.
She's a young modern lady with confidence and plenty to occupy her life and, hopefully, even a "shrug and so what" attitude ? LOL

Unfortunately, I won't be around for William's Coronation, but I expect someone will republish those pictures on the day !

I have a feeling that Charles will not be King and the current Queen will hand the throne to William before Charles, Wills and Kate are way more popular than Charles/Camilla - with the Royal family image is important. Just a theory - but you may see the Coronation sooner rather than later!

“I want them jailed”.

William has said about the editors who have published the topless pics.

This was one of topics during lunch today. Somehow I hadn’t noticed this piece of news, or more like nude scandal, before…

Ok, he is the royal; she married the royal that makes her HRH. Being a royal isn’t a 9-5 job. They are living entirely out of taxpayer’s money. Their “job” is to walk red carpets, shake hands, accept flowers and smile for the photographers. How do we know that they exist? Mainly through pictures.

Private place or not? That’s not the point. (Not going to get into juridical jargon.) Wasn’t she schooled for this role for many years before marriage? Did they forget to tell her not to take her bikini top off? How about bottom? Are we going to see her bottomless next? Is prince himself going to be around then also? He is as clueless? They are countries in the world and papers that will print it out. Saying their cultural gap is wide enough to do it. And they are countries where papers are not going to do it out of courtesy, loyalty or whatever to the monarchy. Quite telling…

I don’t understand, never felt a need to be topless…to be seen that way. The most common way of women to get any attention is to undress – pretty pathetic overall.

And to put it in some perspective, most of the celebrity men do not have this problem with their WIFES. It is not common, unless they married a porn star or something…

I think it's a terrible shame.

No woman should be forced to be shown naked (or topless) in magazines unless she wants it so.

And every woman has a right to sunbathe topless in private. If she'd been snorting cocaine or breaking the law, then sure, there would be a need to publish what she does, but this? This isn't anyone's business.

I don't think it was a question of "wanting to be seen that way"
More....not wanting any white strap marks when wearing formal dresses....IMO anyway.

I agree with Katie, she was on a private holiday and as I mentioned before...Who tipped off the "French person with the massive lens"
Not something one just happens to be carrying on a walk !

All done for the love of money... After all this, I hope she sues them and gets some of the money they most certainly received from the mag... Maybe, just maybe, that will stop some from capturing private moments! It should be outlawed! How would that person like it if they were broadcasted all over the world doing their private stuff? I bet not good! Anyone that would do something like that has their own little secrets!

If Kate wants to sunbathe topless (or nude) in private, no one has any right to invade her privacy. What is next, taking a photo of her ?

Celebrities deserve privacy. If they are being photographed in public during a public event, that is just part of the job. If they are photographed privately without their knowledge or consent, then the pap deserves legal action against them. I sure do not want anyone to be photographing me in the privacy of my house.

in the privacy of my house
SURE!!
but they were
anyway
outside....

it's me wrote:I can agree on the NO respect
but I also think it was someway her fault too

marrying him
things changed

I agree.

Royals, Celebrities and Politicians ANYONE who lives and depend
on the support of the common people should have a moral
obligation to them. Young fans who follow their favorite icon and see them intoxicated or exposing their body in PUBLIC can't have a good outcome. They should show the public their appreciation by at least being a positive influence to their kids. (JMO)


(I know I tend to throw in the younglings often but they are the future)

No one should have their privacy violated. What goes on inside closed doors should stay there.


But to me, 'Public' means 'being out in the open' even if it is on private property as long as it is in reach of the public eye. (JMO again)

I totally agree with Maggy.

I don’t see royals as celebrity. Movies stars, authors, artists have accomplished something, they promote their work, they have earned to be in a spot light, one way or the other.

Privacy is an interesting issue. And all the sayings how women have rights to do this and that…
Well, all I can say from this part of the world, if I go to my garden tomorrow topless, thinking this is my private area, my garden, I can do what ever I want, if any of my neighbour would see me like that they would not talk to me again, probably ever.

There is definitely a line, bikinis are ok , but topless no no no. In Saint-Tropez maybe, but I wouldn't do it there either.

To each her own, of course.

This is an interesting topic. What if you were in the privacy of your home and walking thru your house naked. Someone with a long lens takes pictures of you and posts them for everyone to see. How would you react? Would you feel violated? At what point is your life or any ones considered private. I strongly believe that within the confines of a private residence, even out doors, that what you willingly do is private. Don't care who you are. Out in public, that's a different story.

Totally agree with you Bluebelle - well said -

I wont stroll naked
near opened curtains

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't walk naked in the privacy of your house or garden. The point is if you were to do so, would it be ok for people to take photos of you and then publish those pictures in magazines?

[ignore whether your body is beautiful enough or not to be published. This is also irrelevant]

My answer is no. And it doesn't matter who I'm married to, either. Princess or regular person, a woman should not be forced to have her naked pictures published.

I agree Katie with what you say.
When I heard the "public naysayers" saying "well its her own fault"
blah blah blah..... it reminded me immediately of those who say
"Well she was asking for it, dressed like that" about rape or sexual assault victims.
It's such a small minded attitude to take. I wonder if they'd say the same if it happened to someone they knew and cared about ?

Katiedot wrote:It doesn't matter whether you do or don't walk naked in the privacy of your house or garden. The point is if you were to do so, would it be ok for people to take photos of you and then publish those pictures in magazines?

[ignore whether your body is beautiful enough or not to be published. This is also irrelevant]

My answer is no. And it doesn't matter who I'm married to, either. Princess or regular person, a woman should not be forced to have her naked pictures published.

but
we live in a world where
there are
cameraphones
& internet

and ppl buying mags

or you put some really strict rules by law
or it will last as
mere discussion

IMO

I feel like she was in a private location and did nothing wrong. The paps should have a little bit of respect. It wasn't like the cameras were 30 feet away. However, I also believe she could have made some better choices considering her position now and knowing the paps are after her.

Joanna wrote:I"Well she was asking for it, dressed like that" about rape or sexual assault victims.
It's such a small minded attitude to take. I wonder if they'd say the same if it happened to someone they knew and cared about ?

That's right, Joanna!! Nobody has the right to rape or sexually assault you anywhere. Although there are some circumstances that I agree that persons should be fined for wearing indecent clothing in public (I find that offensive). I do not like to see other people's certain body parts.

There was a lot of fuss about google map and privacy issue. What can you do about it? Nothing. Your location, house, garden, even you photographed and published.

Anyone who knows your address can surf your location, see your house and surroundings and possibly you…what kind of car you have… not always but it is possible.

If it is the other way around. What would any mother say, when she is out with her kids and somewhere (in his private area; inside, outside, at the window…) is a naked man to be seen? Would her first reaction be like Oh la la au naturel, this is his privilege? Or what a creep?

Anyway, I think she should have know better…it is a million dollar picture for paparazzi, it is the kind of pic they are after…even a child knows that.

I am sure skilled paparazzi can take bad pictures of anyone, but it surely is hard for them to take revealing pictures that violate your privacy if you do not provide the opportunity.

esatto!

Providing the opportunity is one thing but, when it comes to personal privacy, does this cross the line? The definition of physical privacy includes the ability to hide one’s body not just by using clothing but can also be with partitions, walls, fences, or far away from others! So, I must ask, does this constitute an invasion of a trespassing law? The US has the Fourth Amendment that also determines issues concerning the right of physical privacy. Physical privacy is also about personal dignity. Therefore, if you tread on someone’s physical privacy there is a possibility that they could become a victim of crime or possibly being stalked. Yes, I understand these are the royals but, does that mean laws do not cover them? When has the law become so jaded in the minds of the people? JMVHO

I don't believe in a double standard in regard to privacy. Being a public person IMO still entitles that person to be dressed or undressed in the confines of a private residence without fear of exposure. Knowing that paps are always on the lookout for the money shot is out there, but blaming someone for relaxing anyway one wants is harsh. Publishing compromising photos of anyone, celebrity or not, will always be an issue. So I guess the laws regarding these issues needs to be more clearly defined.

right
with also heavier fines
so to deter

I would like to ask the paps these questions: How would you like it if someone took personal photos of you/family when you thought you were alone? How would you like being followed around and having photos shot of you, and published along with a false gossipy story about the photo? I'll bet these crumbs could not take it. But, then, the public is also guilty in the sense that they buy these gossip tabloids.

BiC....re Google earth. That is a static view and the Street View facility is a one off photograph taken from a moving van all around the country. Anyone caught on camera can request to be pixelated. Also house numbers and car registrations can be pixelated upon request.
I find it very useful, for booking holiday rental homes and for viewing homes for sale. I can thoroughly explore the locality before making a decision.

MM wrote:I would like to ask the paps these questions: How would you like it if someone took personal photos of you/family when you thought you were alone? How would you like being followed around and having photos shot of you, and published along with a false gossipy story about the photo? I'll bet these crumbs could not take it. But, then, the public is also guilty in the sense that they buy these gossip tabloids.

yes
the public is guilty
and I put myself between them


anyway I'm sure this is what scares G
the most

Joanna wrote:BiC....re Google earth. That is a static view and the Street View facility is a one off photograph taken from a moving van all around the country. Anyone caught on camera can request to be pixelated. Also house numbers and car registrations can be pixelated upon request.
I find it very useful, for booking holiday rental homes and for viewing homes for sale. I can thoroughly explore the locality before making a decision.

upon request
only?
hmmmm not good

Of course, it's got to upon request....it would be an impossible
job to pixelate every one photographed.

surely they have to control them when they post
in some way
size resize.... no?
so
why not at that moment?


am I wrong?

It's me : You are right!

I don't have a problem with this, but there has been a public debate over this matter...

@Joanna. I have looked at my Google Street View house photo, and I noticed that the license plates on the cars, and the faces of the people on the street are already pixelated. I think that Google does this automatically, because of privacy issues.

so automatically
I also thought it could be like that
more safe!

Video - George's views on privacy.

Thanks CindiGirl!

MM wrote:@Joanna. I have looked at my Google Street View house photo, and I noticed that the license plates on the cars, and the faces of the people on the street are already pixelated. I think that Google does this automatically, because of privacy issues.

Thanks MM....yes, probably they do it now automatically because of the requests when it first appeared a few years ago.... Work in progress and all that !