Kate Middleton - Nude Pics Circulating!

[Bertuzzied]

too bad the pics were taken with a 1998-type cellphone camera quality. Also once you see them naked it kinda ruins the imagination.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

no, no I am not.

Actually yes you are, you've demonstrated a complete inability to separate your apparent hatred for the Royal family from the concept of an invasion of privacy. If you'd be okay with a similar tactic being taken to get pictures of your mother maybe you'd have a point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The photographer wasn't trespassing on private property so not sure she could claim intrusion of privacy, if you can be seen from outside its your problem, two metres or half a mile it doesn't matter.

If she was sitting in a car, that would be intrusion of privacy as well? Car is a private property too, after all.

Trespassing and invasion of privacy are completely different things, both in layman's terms and legally.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually yes you are, you've demonstrated a complete inability to separate your apparent hatred for the Royal family from the concept of an invasion of privacy. If you'd be okay with a similar tactic being taken to get pictures of your mother maybe you'd have a point.

So to be clear, are upset that she was photgraphed topless or that she was photographed while "off the clock" and on vacation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So to be clear, are upset that she was photgraphed topless or that she was photographed while "off the clock" and on vacation.

Are you seriously having this much trouble with the concepts here? The issue is that someone in a place where there is an expectation of privacy was photographed through the use of essentially a telescope. The clothing, or lack thereof, is besides the point, as is their name or social status.

[surferguy]

For those arguing that she should not have been outside topless because somebody might have been around, a half mile is 800 meters, essentially the equivalent of the Saddledome to the rose and crown on fourth.

I would think that she felt she had enough privacy considering she (or her body guards) probably couldn't see some slime ball in a tree 800m away.

on the other side of the topic you have to give props to the guy who snapped the photo. If we were to judge based on technical merit alone (and leave the intentions to the side) I must say to find your subject at 800m is worth at the very least a nod.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you seriously having this much trouble with the concepts here? The issue is that someone in a place where there is an expectation of privacy was photographed through the use of essentially a telescope. The clothing, or lack thereof, is besides the point, as is their name or social status.

So it's a privacy issue then. So you were disgusted and appalled with all the voyeuristic photos of her in a bathing suit?

Her position comes with many many privaleges. They are not free, she needs to be hypersensitive to these types of situations.

As an aside, culturally for European women, going topless is very normal.

[Sliver]

For her to assume privacy is naive as somebody already pointed out. I have a hard time feeling bad for her as I was crammed in my office working - a place I spend 47 weeks a year toiling while she is working on her tan. If this was 1975 she could probably get away with the shock and indignation. In 2012 I have no expectation of privacy anywhere and I'm a nobody...not sure why she'd think she could prance around outside naked without anybody watching. Especially after the Harry thing like two weeks ago.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If you could live the life of a wealthy celebrity and the only price you had to pay was to not be able to sun bathe nude or walk down the street without getting photographed woult you take it? I would take it in a heartbeat and I don't think for a second William and Kate would trade their lives for ours to get anonymity.

But, why is that the trade off? Why do we let reporters have a lower standard of decency than we expect of each other?

If someone is sun bathing topless in some out of the way place and you stumble upon them you don't start taking pictures.

Think about it in terms you can relate to: Have you ever taken a crap in the woods? Have you ever sex outside when camping or picknicing in the bush?
Those are things most Canadians have experienced from time to time. There is an expectation that privacy will be given if someone happens by.

I think we should hold the press to the same standards we hold one another.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So it's a privacy issue then. So you were disgusted and appalled with all the voyeuristic photos of her in a bathing suit?

Her position comes with many many privaleges. They are not free, she needs to be hypersensitive to these types of situations.

As an aside, culturally for European women, going topless is very normal.

I don't routinely by the Mirror so I have no recollection of bathing suit photos. If they were taken from half a mile away while she was in an area with an expectation of privacy I'd feel similarly.

Btw, the British aren't at all culturally European on that issue.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't routinely by the Mirror so I have no recollection of bathing suit photos. If they were taken from half a mile away while she was in an area with an expectation of privacy I'd feel similarly.

Btw, the British aren't at all culturally European on that issue.

Well you had better get your poison email upto date, because there have been a number of photographs.


As for British women, my time in Europe tells me different. Many younger British women are fine with dropping their gear while on "the continent".

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But, why is that the trade off? Why do we let reporters have a lower standard of decency than we expect of each other?

The tradeoff isn't because of the reporters low standards it's because of the millions of people that purchase tabloids. Three is a large audience in North America, Britain, etc that are infatuated with celebrities which has spun off the tabloid business. The reporters are just cashing in on our need to have to know what the rich and famous do in their everyday lives. It's the price that celebrities pay and its always been this way and it's never going to change as long as common people have interested in the liefstyles of the privileged.

You know there are a lot of popular celebrities that you never see snapped in scandals and that's because a lot of it is based on making sound decisions. Any person tanning nude outdoors even if it's on private property runs the risk of beeing seen unless you remove everyone in the range of photographs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Well you had better get your poison email upto date, because there have been a number of photographs.


As for British women, my time in Europe tells me different. Many younger British women are fine with dropping their gear while on "the continent".

And what does any of this have to do with the discussion?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The tradeoff isn't because of the reporters low standards it's because of the millions of people that purchase tabloids. Three is a large audience in North America, Britain, etc that are infatuated with celebrities which has spun off the tabloid business. The reporters are just cashing in on our need to have to know what the rich and famous do in their everyday lives. It's the price that celebrities pay and its always been this way and it's never going to change as long as common people have interested in the liefstyles of the rich and famous.

You know there are a lot of popular celebrities that you never see snapped in scandals and that's because a lot of it is based on making sound decisions. Any person tanning nude outdoors even if it's on private property runs the risk of beeing seen unless you remove everyone in the range of photographs.

No it hasn't. Tabloid culture as it exists today is a relatively new phenomenon.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

And what does any of this have to do with the discussion?

nevermind.

You and I don't agree.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

nevermind.

You and I don't agree.

Just so we're clear, you'd be okay with someone taking these pictures of your sister/wife/mother?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

Trespassing and invasion of privacy are completely different things, both in layman's terms and legally.

So what? If I take a picture of the Opera House should I ask everyone around for their permission to "invade her privacy"? He wasn't on private property and he snapped a few photos of a scene that could be seen from outside the property. I fail to see how could anyone possibly think he did anything illegal.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Just so we're clear, you'd be okay with someone taking these pictures of your sister/wife/mother?

Listen fella, if my sister/wife/mother was in her position and got all the perks she got, I would make damn clear that they know of the all the perils of the position and took the appropriate steps to avoid putting themselves in this situation.


In short I would ensure they were not naive to the eyes that were always watching them.

[handgroen]

This was much more satisfying than the "kate middleton topless" pic from the funny pics thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So what? If I take a picture of the Opera House should I ask everyone around for their permission to "invade her privacy"? He wasn't on private property and he snapped a few photos of a scene that could be seen from outside the property. I fail to see how could anyone possibly think he did anything illegal.

Seems that experts on French law in this area disagree

French legal experts who work on privacy issues said the couple could have a strong case under French privacy laws if they sue in a French court. Jean-Frédéric Gaultier, a parter in the law firm Olswang, told the BBC that the couple could sue for an injunction to force Closer to withdraw the issue carrying the photographs, and to prevent any sale of the photographs to other publications. They could also sue for damages, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/wo...pagewanted=all