======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
I’ve never heard of British reality TV star Helen Wood but she apparently won a season of Big Brother over there. She also blogs for the Daily Star and has a nice little social media following. Well, Wood apparently received a Twitter DM from a random person that included a link to some hacked Emily Ratajkowski nudes that were accessed through her iCloud account.
The sender encouraged her to leak the nudes to the public in an article.
Wood, being a total sweetheart, decided not to share the nudes. After all, it’s a pretty fucked up invasion of privacy. It’s also illegal. Good work, Helen Wood. But instead of sitting on this information with the hopes that the nudes wouldn’t see the light of day, Wood decided to write about the DM interaction, without exposing the Twitter user, as well as inform her readers that she has access to nudes of Emily Ratajkowski that the public has not seen.
She provided commentary about how wrong it is to leak the nudes of someone without their consent. She’s right — it is decidedly wrong.
From Helen Wood’s column in the Daily Star:
Last week, I was pondering along through life, when I received a DM on Twitter. No idea who this guy was, but had a peek all the same out of curiosity.
Turns out, it was a link to Emily Ratajkowski’s iCloud pictures. This clown had inboxed me and asked that I release the full set of naked images in my column. […]
I know there are some demented people out there, but I cannot get my head around how sick it is.
I understand that lads are lads, they have a meltdown over female genitalia, whatever, I also get why they look at these pics when they leak, but anyone applauding it and helping spread it like wild fire, ask yourselves how you’d feel if that was your mum, kids’ mum, sister, girlfriend, or YOU?
I’m all for having a laugh, but there is a line between someone choosing to release pics and what they decide to keep private.
Here’s my question, though: Why was this column necessary? The sentiment in the above excerpt is a good one, but why present it like this?
Why publish the name of the celebrity who has been hacked? An alternative title could be something like this: Hacking Private Pictures of Someone is Fucked Up. Or this: Don’t Leak Nudes of Someone, You Fucking Asshole. You could have gotten the exact same points across under these headlines. Or at the very least, couldn’t she have mentioned that she received the nudes but left Ratajkowski’s name out of it? The self-serving featured image is a bonus, too.
She just launched the nerdiest witch hunt possible in the wake of this situation. She let every perv with a computer science degree know that A) an A-list celebrity’s nudes have been hacked, B) that celebrity is Emily Ratajkowski, and C) if you look hard enough, you can find them and do with them what you will.
Here’s Ratajkowski’s pinned tweet, by the way:
She takes this shit as seriously as any celeb out there..
[via Daily Star]
Image via Twitter/ @Helen_Wood86