The email exchanges between Rudin, Pascal, and Fincher about the Jobs biopic and Jolie's Cleopatra were fantastic.Quoting number8 (view post)
The email exchanges between Rudin, Pascal, and Fincher about the Jobs biopic and Jolie's Cleopatra were fantastic.
I haven't seen that!
http://defamer.gawker.com/leaked-the...-jo-1668882936
Enjoy!
Someone screenshot this before they fix it: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-9914388.html
Movie Theater Diary
:lol:
What is Amy Pascal's highest education?
I have absolutely no idea. Why do you ask?
Because her grammar is worse than mine.
Yeah, it's bad, but when it comes to email most people don't care in the slightest. I've received emails from professors that look like hers, just quick replies to questions that lacked punctuation and in rare cases, contained spelling errors. It's become akin to texting.
Should we make a thread to discuss the hilarious details of some of the leaks?
Like Sony was apparently planning a Men in Black’ – ‘Jump Street’ Crossover?
Lol wut? I guess I would see that out of curiosity.
Im not sure why its okay to read hacked emails but scummy to view hacked pictures. Whats the difference? Isnt the invasion of privacy equal?
Im uncomfortable.
I would say so.
Movie Theater Diary
Skitch wins.
Thank you, this is precisely what I was thinking as well. :\
Look, I get the sentiment guys, and of course it's definitely an invasion of privacy, but you really see no difference between business emails that show people bickering at each other, and photos of naked women? I'm not saying reading the emails is right, but I'd like to think that there are different levels of sensitive materials, and one VASTLY outweighs the other.
I really don't. The content is irrelevant.
Then may I ask if you believe all murder is the same? All crime? Do you think the current tiered justice system should be abandoned, and all crimes of the same nature should be punished equally?
Sigh, no, and this is quickly derailing into the type of conversation I avoid on the internet. I'm sorry I said anything.
I'm not trying to derail, Skitch. Truly, I'm not. I'm just having trouble understanding how you and others can think that hacked emails with petty business squabbling is the same as hacked photos that present women in such an exposed and vulnerable state for the sexual gratification of others. I'm sorry if I'm being snarky, but I think the difference is so obvious that someone would have to be willfully trying not to see my argument.
I see your argument, I just don't agree with it when it comes to the content of hacked information.
Can you explain why you feel that way?
I don't know...it feels different than a murder or rape example. Its personal information, so its not a violent act. More akin to perhaps stealing, but sure, one should not do ten years for stealing a candy bar. You've made it a no win scenario, because I feel anything I put forth can be turned to these examples. I guess I'm not saying all the crimes are the same, but don't see the difference in seeking one out over the other (as third parties that we are) because one may or may not be less damaging to a person's psyche. Both make me feel like we're voyeuristic-ally invading, and I'm uncomfortable looking through their bathroom window or their office window because I wouldn't want it done to me.
I think the idea is that in both instances, the content is intended to be private, so whether it's petty babble or private photos, we're supposed to be unaware of what lies within either way, and we're basically only deciding afterwards, after those private hacked contents have been revealed, whether or not it's okay to take a look, and ranking the crime on some sort of scale as such. But in both instance, the crime at fault was the same, someone's private, personal business, unintended for the public eye, was exposed.
Anyways, I dunno if I'm explaining myself well enough or not, but I'm pretty much in complete agreement with Skitch. For the individual, depending on what type of personal content of theirs was revealed it may have more of a traumatic effect on them, but either way I would still be upset with anything intended to be personal getting out, and as such I too feel uncomfortable taking a look at the contents of those e-mails, just as I would looking at someone's private pictures.
It's the same problem on principle but not the same one on scale. Private electronic information has been compromised, but all pieces of information are not equal. As a victim, I'd feel more violated if someone snuck into my house and stole my diaries and photo albums than if they stole my business documents.
If you think one is wrong, you have to think both are wrong in order to be ethically consistent, for sure, but you can also vary your outrage.
This makes complete sense, and I don't disagree with anything you've put forth. Perhaps it's unfair of me to feel more at ease looking at one while chastising the other, but the reporting of these events have reflected a societal acceptance of one over the other that I guess I tend to agree with. As an example, many websites have had direct quotes from the emails in their headlines. No website that I'm aware of would have posted the pictures of these women as their headline, instead just informing that the hack took place. That's a reflection of how I feel about viewing them. Is it right? Of course not, but where I guess I disagree with you is that the harm it does to the victim does matter, and the revelation of the petty arguments that take place while trying to get a movie made through hacked emails cannot possibly have the same effect on those whose emails were hacked as the release of naked photos of the women whose phones were hacked. I feel far less scummy having peaked behind the curtain of a movie studio than I would had I peaked behind the curtain of the bedrooms of those women.
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote