Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Mubarak's Earlier Attack on ElBaradei (Via Photos of ElBaradei's Daughter)

Last year, pictures on an unfriendly Facebook account surfaced of Mohamed ElBaradei's daughter, Laila, in a swimsuit. 

The father was furious charging that the Egyptian government was behind  the emergence of the pics, in an attempt to outrage conservative Muslims in Egypt.

The photographs were apparently copied from Laila's Facebook profile and were then posted at another Facebook account under the title "ElBaradei's Family Secrets".

ElBaradei told a local newspaper that he believed the government was behind the Facebook account because he had called for "democracy and economic reform" in Egypt.


  1. Awe, poor little political nutjob...His daughter was caught showing skin...Is that still a capital offence? No wonder evolved people riot.

  2. The older people in the mideast still are not evolved but the young are thanks mostly to the Internet which shows them how stupid and ugly the older people are in their failed SkyGod-based societies.

  3. Actually, the issue isn't whether showing skin is a capital offense or not.

    It's whether someone has a right to take pictures of another person, without permission, and to post them publicly, also without permission, especially when the intention is apparently to cause harm to the targets - whether third parties see it as harm or not.

    I say it's an invasion of privacy, at the very least.

    But then our advanced thinkers have declared privacy outdated....

  4. I agree with Lila above. There should be stiff fines for taking photos of people without their permission and it should be a capital offense to post such photos in public.

    Looks like she was enjoying herself on a nice beach and was very modestly dressed for a beach.

  5. The article says, "The photographs were apparently copied from Laila's Facebook profile and were then posted at another Facebook account".

    If this is true and if she had voluntarily added someone as a "friend" on facebook who subsequently lifted the photos from her page (very common), she shares some of the blame. If her facebook account were hacked, that's another matter. Depending on the TOS, facebook might be the aggrieved party.

  6. Some dubious argumentation here.
    First of all, what's the case against taking pictures in a public place? There are plenty of generic beach pictures floating around on the internet. The notion that it would all be illegal because permission hasn't been asked is frankly ridiculous. And the fact that the person(s) in question are dressed more loosely is not a rational argument, since they are still public places in which one dresses more loosely voluntarily.
    Furthermore, laws should not be based on the motivations of others. In other words, just because a certain country doesn't appreciate half-naked women on a beach, does not mean taking pictures and publicizing them should be "illegal", as it is the puritan mentality that is the problem, and not the taking pictures and showing bathing suit clothed women part.
    Laws should never be based on a collective will or collective mentality. Especially a puritanical one.

    But the simplest thing of all: there is simply no claim to privacy whatsoever if one is in a PUBLIC place. If the thought of 'being seen' in a swimsuit by a multitude of people bothers you, then why are dressing in a swimsuit on a public beach? You can't pick and choose when in such cases you are offended by 'being seen' and then appeal to laws or rights. People have as much right to take pictures in public, as people have to walk around in public. Without any aggression taking place, no one gets to dictate what anybody does in public. And taking pictures of someone in public spaces is not aggression.

  7. @ Cannon

    It's not about puritanism, it's about liberty and coercion.

    Bob English is correct. If she uploaded photos herself to her site and then friended someone indiscreetly, she shares blame.

    However, just because she walks around on public streets, it doesn't mean that a stranger has the right to take her picture, or follow her around to take it, does it? She has some rights over images of her own body - that is simply a property issue.

    If a friend took the picture, voluntarily, then it is a different matter, obviously.

    Talking about "collective mentality" - are you really sure that puritanism is the collective mentality? It seems to me the "voyeurism" and "prurience" is the collective mentality.

    It's not a question of what YOU think about skin exposure. It's a question of coercing or using other people maliciously.

    Of course, the bathing suit is very modest, by Western standards. But in case you hadn't noticed, the West does share the planet with billions of other people who don't share its mores and shouldn't be forced to share them.

    Again, it comes down to whether she put up the pictures herself...which makes it entirely different.

    Personally, I don't see why the whole planet has to see some film star's pudenda, just because one society finds it acceptable. But that's the case, isn't it? And anyone who objects is called a puritan.

    Puritanism isn't the problem. No nuns are out there taking pictures of fully clothed people to embarrass or harm. But plenty of pornographers and blackmailers DO take semi-clothed, nude, sexual pictures against people' will.

    There was a recent case of a woman who was rented a house that came with a concealed camera directed at her bedroom.

    Her landlord was no doubt busy selling the pictures he collected that way. Other criminals even target bathrooms. Paparazzi stalk film stars to catch embarrassing pictures or steal medical information.

    Puritanism isn't the problem, I repeat.
    Complete lack of consideration for other people's tastes, privacy or interests is.

    In many cases, it is simply criminal behavior. This sort of thing is a type of extortion plain and simply.

    Do what I want, or I'll embarrass you..or reveal private information on you....or sue you. If you threatened someone directly like that, you'd be arrested.