# FBI investigating alleged iCloud celebrity hack



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm sure by this point most of you have heard about what's been going on today and last night regarding stolen pictures from celebrities iCloud. 
I will not be posting any links because 1). It's All Over The Internet 2). I'd rather not be banned. 
However I'd like to hear what all of you have to say about this. 
I think it's frightening that it is so easy for someone just to steal what is on iCloud especially because that could be very sensitive information. I've definitely gone through and looked at my security settings since then, not that I have naked pictures of myself on my phone... 

Have any of you been following the live updates on Reddit? I have and all I can say is man, JLaw has some nice tits.


----------



## MFB (Sep 1, 2014)

Just a heads up, there was already a thread on this that got shut. Not sure if it was because of the content/links or what, but this might follow suit as well.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 1, 2014)

Fair enough. 
No one post any links, let's just keep this a discussion!


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Sep 1, 2014)

MFB said:


> Just a heads up, there was already a thread on this that got shut. Not sure if it was because of the content/links or what, but this might follow suit as well.


^ This. Follow the warning.


----------



## SpaceDock (Sep 1, 2014)

This is fairly crazy. I like seeing good nudes, but I wouldn't want celebs them to stop taking nude selfies due to extreme leaks like this.


----------



## Overtone (Sep 1, 2014)

Just another thing that makes me wonder why the only times I ever got sent nudes were on ICQ back in 1999. YES they were women. But srsly it's just confusing... not that I am disappointed, because I think it's kind of trashy, but how is it that casual to so many people to send over topless pics?


----------



## Fantomas (Sep 1, 2014)

Just speaking in general terms here.

I have an android phone I use for work, I am aware of the fact that that Android phone automatically uploads everything to a google service. In fact, I chose to enable that feature because it makes my job easier. (Using Android as an example, I know victims were all using Iphones, but the basic service is the same)
Since I work in a male oriented environment, I receive a lot of questionable pictures that I would not like to be associated with my work account. Harmless pictures, but still not something that would be considered a positive thing when taking my job in to account,

SO I MAKE SURE EVERY BIT OF PORN/UNETHICAL STUFF I RECEIVE IS DELETED IMMEDIATELY (that was before I figured out how to stop it from uploading automatically).

Seriously, how hard is it to figure out that if these kind of pictures are available in anything else than your bedroom nightstand drawer someone will find a way to get them. Especially if you are the focus of millions of people. If you make your living based on your public appearance it would be nice to be professional about risque material.


Anyway, most of us are grown ups here. Wow, I've seen Jennifer Lawrence's tits now, big deal. That doesn't do anything to diminish her acting performance, or make her a bad person.
16 year old's will feel like it's Christmas, but overall this will not (should not) make a big difference.


----------



## Promit (Sep 1, 2014)

Fantomas said:


> SO I MAKE SURE EVERY BIT PORN/UNETHICAL STUFF I RECEIVE IS DELETED IMMEDIATELY ( that was before I figured out how to stop it from uploading automatically).


In the world of cloud computing, "deleted" doesn't mean "gone". Just ask Snapchat users.


----------



## asher (Sep 1, 2014)

Promit said:


> In the world of cloud computing, "deleted" doesn't mean "gone". Just ask Snapchat users.



Maybe Apple should have _actually fvcking protected against fvcking brute force attacks for their cloud system_. This is almost entirely their fault for having awful security.

Like someone (sorry, don't remember who!) said in the other thread, if this had happened to OneDrive (which it probably wouldn't, because MS has their shit together with it), everyone would have their torches and frankenstein rakes out already.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Sep 1, 2014)

So this thread seems interesting enough, but I haven't a clue what anybody is talking about... What celebrity did what? And what is icloud?


----------



## MFB (Sep 1, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> So this thread seems interesting enough, but I haven't a clue what anybody is talking about... What celebrity did what? And what is icloud?



A lot of female celebrities had their naughty photos leaked due to Apple devices being fairly easy to get into


----------



## Randy D (Sep 1, 2014)

Here is a simple solution .......

Don't be a trashy, indecent, poor role model and have nude or lude photos of yourself on your portable devices or on your iCloud and cloud storage. 
Then you have nothing to worry about or lose. Additionally if you are going to have said content beware the repercussions and possible outcomes...... Dumb A..



Cheers

-Randy D


----------



## asher (Sep 1, 2014)

So they're not allowed to send pictures of themselves to their SOs?


----------



## splinter8451 (Sep 2, 2014)

Yes it is so horribly trashy to be horny and send pictures to the person who relieves you of that  come on man.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 2, 2014)

I like how innocent people are being criticized for their private (not public) lives, and yet those doing the criticizing haven't addressed the thieves who actually broke the law, and then distributed what they stole.. 

Stay classy, SevenString.org.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I like how innocent people are being criticized for their private (not public) lives, and yet those doing the criticizing haven't addressed the thieves who actually broke the law, and then distributed what they stole..
> 
> Stay classy, SevenString.org.



Exactly! It's not like they were flaunting the pictures like "OMG everyone look at muh tittiez". 
There was some serious effort to steal these pics and there still is a serious effort dedicated to spreading them. The entire Reddit community is going batsh1t crazy over it. 
Stuff like this is what drives celebrities crazy, personal life on the pedestal doesn't sound appealing to me.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 2, 2014)

Randy D said:


> Here is a simple solution .......
> 
> Don't be a trashy, indecent, poor role model and have nude or lude photos of yourself on your portable devices or on your iCloud and cloud storage.
> Then you have nothing to worry about or lose. Additionally if you are going to have said content beware the repercussions and possible outcomes...... Dumb A..
> ...



Make sure to not let this dumbassery spread through the forum. 

Not even going to add anything because the people above me pretty much covered it.


----------



## Promit (Sep 2, 2014)

Promit said:


> In the world of cloud computing, "deleted" doesn't mean "gone". Just ask Snapchat users.





asher said:


> Maybe Apple should have _actually fvcking protected against fvcking brute force attacks for their cloud system_. This is almost entirely their fault for having awful security.
> 
> Like someone (sorry, don't remember who!) said in the other thread, if this had happened to OneDrive (which it probably wouldn't, because MS has their shit together with it), everyone would have their torches and frankenstein rakes out already.


I said that, actually. MS or Google would be raked over the coals. Apple, everyone just shrugs and continues using their iPhones, because you _have_ to have your iPhone. Which is not to say that any cloud service is perfect, but nobody is really taking Apple to task.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 2, 2014)

I already said what needed to be said in the thread that got canned. Too lazy to type it up again, but I will just say that anyone who blames the victims of the crimes is top shelf, bottom of the barrel piles of shit.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

Randy D said:


> Here is a simple solution .......
> 
> Don't be a trashy, indecent, poor role model and have nude or lude photos of yourself on your portable devices or on your iCloud and cloud storage.
> Then you have nothing to worry about or lose. Additionally if you are going to have said content beware the repercussions and possible outcomes...... Dumb A..
> ...




I agree with this from a common sense perspective.
I'm not addressing any issue of morals.

If it was leaked/hacked then that fact alone proves the possibility of it being hacked/leaked , and then that (the possibility) proves that people shouldn't be using the technology for that stuff unless you're willing to share it with the public . (and please do)



so to sum my opinion up; Serves you right dumbasses!!!


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I agree with this from a common sense perspective.
> I'm not addressing any issue of morals.
> 
> If it was leaked/hacked then that fact alone proves the possibility of it being hacked/leaked , and then that (the possibility) proves that people shouldn't be using the technology for that stuff unless you're willing to share it with the public . (and please do)
> ...



Shit logic. Case and point: credit card hacks like the one this past Christmas, or security breaches like sony's marketplace, which was one of my points made in the last threads. Tech exists to steal credit info and SS numbers, does that mean everyone should refrain from using CC's and applying for jobs online? (Which is frequently the only way to get jobs 'round where I'm from.)


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Shit logic. Case and point: credit card hacks like the one this past Christmas, or security breaches like sony's marketplace, which was one of my points made in the last threads. Tech exists to steal credit info and SS numbers, does that mean everyone should refrain from using CC's and applying for jobs online? (Which is frequently the only way to get jobs 'round where I'm from.)




No it isn't "shit logic". How can it be? The fact that the stuff got out proves that "if you don't want the public to see it, don't trust that there won't be a breach in the system.
That's just plain out common sense.


And yes, that means that if you don't want to accept the possibility of your info getting out then don't use your info online.


----------



## Necris (Sep 2, 2014)

It's not their fault that someone went through a great amount of effort and broke in to a service they thought was safe and stole photos they never wanted released. 

I bet at least few of the people who are blaming them for even having the photos online probably scrambled to delete a few revealing photos of their own after this happened.

Also; f_u_ck this "be a role model" bullshit. 

At no point did any of these women ever agree to be idolized by impressionable children/teenagers.

At no point did they ever attempt promote the idea that taking nude/semi-nude photos and/or videos and sending them to people was something that was ok for a child to do. These pictures were clearly not intended to be seen by anyone aside from the person who took the photos and/or a significant other.

These women did nothing wrong, they are the victims in this.



TRENCHLORD said:


> And yes, that means that if you don't want to accept the possibility of your info getting out then don't use your info online.


Following that logic it's common sense that you should never walk with a wallet unless you're willing to accept that it's your fault if you get mugged and have your money/credit card/debit card/ID stolen.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

Well I'm not blaming them, nor do I even give a shit either way, but if they're too stupid to know that this stuff isn't full-proof, then IMO they're just plain foolish.


----------



## 3074326 (Sep 2, 2014)

Randy D said:


> Here is a simple solution .......
> 
> Don't be a trashy, indecent, poor role model and have nude or lude photos of yourself on your portable devices or on your iCloud and cloud storage.
> Then you have nothing to worry about or lose. Additionally if you are going to have said content beware the repercussions and possible outcomes...... Dumb A..
> ...



Dude, this is such ridiculous thinking. If you had said only don't post your intimate photos on someting like iCloud, I would've agreed. But calling them trashy, indecent and poor role models is way over the top. Are you saying every girl who has ever sent nudes is trashy, indecent and a poor role model? If so, that's absurd. Every girl I've dated for more than a month or so has sent me intimate photos. And ALL of them are good people whom mothers would want their daughters to look up to. Teachers. Nurses. One is an officer in a branch of the military. 

It's just what people in relationships do now.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 2, 2014)

You kinda have to approach it from an "acceptable losses" angle, or by judging risks vs benefits. People use their credit card information knowing (hopefully) that there are people out there doing everything they can to steal and abuse that information, because the benefits of being able to shop online to them outweigh the risk of identity theft.

In this case, a similar thought process might've been used (benefits of digital photography & sharing vs risks of hacking & theft), but I suspect they weren't aware of the _extent_ of the risk. Credit card fraud and identity theft have been around and publicized for longer than cloud storage and smart phones have, so this whole thing might serve as a bit of a wake up call.

Note that I'm not blaming the victims here. What happened to them sucks, and it's not "their fault" someone was a skeezy perv and decided to violate their privacy. I just think that perhaps they weren't aware of the extent of the risk they were taking because they were under an illusion of safety, and perhaps they _wouldn't_ have stored n00dz on the cloud if they truly suspected something like this might happen, at least as easily or on as large a scale as it did. 

Because of that, you can't really say "Serves you right! You should've known better! Of _course_ you could have stuff online stolen from you!" 
It was possible, certainly, but I suspect they didn't realize how _likely_ it was.

People are reacting like the celebrities are on the same level as someone who dives into the ocean wearing a beef wetsuit and then acts all surprised when he gets attacked by a shark, but I think they're more like a pedestrian who has the right of way at a traffic signal being surprised when he's struck by someone running the red light. Yeah, you know when you step out into the street you might get hit by a car, but under certain circumstances you just don't _expect_ it, and you certainly wouldn't blame the pedestrian rather than the light-runner.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 2, 2014)

Who knows, this could also be a good thing. Perhaps it would desensitize the public to celebrity nudes. The fun is lost when it's so easily available. 
On the flip side in attempts to be more risqué we could see an influx in celebrity pornos...


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 2, 2014)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Who knows, this could also be a good thing. Perhaps it would desensitize the public to celebrity nudes. The fun is lost when it's so easily available.
> On the flip side in attempts to be more risqué we could see an influx in celebrity pornos...



It's not desensitizing to celebrity nudes that I see a problem. Hell, I have Bianca Beauchamp, Bailey Jay, and shirtless Chris Hemsworth photos bookmarked. But the kicker is that those particular celebrities released those photos for the public viewing. They gave consent.

In this case, people went to great lengths to hack into personal, private devices to steal these photos. As I said in the other thread, some of the women violated had deleted those photos prior (but not something like a low level format, hence why it can still be recovered). 

I'm willing to bet some of the people here shaming these women for the nude photos have some dick pics floating around somewhere. Just ask Randy.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> People are reacting like the celebrities are on the same level as someone who dives into the ocean wearing a beef wetsuit and then acts all surprised when he gets attacked by a shark, but I think they're more like a pedestrian who has the right of way at a traffic signal being surprised when he's struck by someone running the red light. Yeah, you know when you step out into the street you might get hit by a car, but under certain circumstances you just don't _expect_ it, and you certainly wouldn't blame the pedestrian rather than the light-runner.



Really though as celebrities they should well already know that there are sharks (like the tabloids) in the water, and that their celebrity status itself serves as the beef wetsuit.
Other than that I can agree totally.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 2, 2014)

3074326 said:


> But calling them trashy, indecent and poor role models is way over the top. Are you saying every girl who has ever sent nudes is trashy, indecent and a poor role model? If so, that's absurd. Every girl I've dated for more than a month or so has sent me intimate photos. And ALL of them are good people whom mothers would want their daughters to look up to. Teachers. Nurses. One is an officer in a branch of the military.
> 
> It's just what people in relationships do now.



(...yet another conversation where I feel like I have nothing at all in common with the rest of the human species.)

Count me in the "they're all trashy" camp. I've *never *done it or heard of anyone doing it and I'm a 28 year old liberal atheist.

Most people these days are trashy, even the teachers and nurses.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 2, 2014)

This topic is like some weird inversion of the Vik homophobia topic. 

Instead of defending someone who posted antigay content on his own business site though, it's about attacking those who didn't put anything in public, and instead had things stolen from them and put on view without their consent. 

I just don't get it.


----------



## Alberto7 (Sep 2, 2014)

The fact that these are nudes is completely irrelevant to the fact that the thief/thieves stole *private* property and then distributed it. It could have been pictures of the celebrities on a family vacation and it would have been equally as wrong.

Does it surprise me to see how casually so many people these days just take nudes to send to others? It actually kind of does. Do I think it makes them trashy, indecent, or immoral? Not necessarily. These pictures were never intended to reach the public eye; therefore, they may as well have never existed.

As for the "role model" thing... yeah, no. Not in this case. Tim explained it _*very*_ well in his post on this page. Also, it's not like celebrities take a course in the whole risk and being a role model thing. Fame just kind of happens to most of these people. To illustrate this, a very significant percentage of PhD graduates become university professors. These people are at the top of the academic hierarchy in their specific fields, but most times nobody ever teaches these poor souls how to teach a course to hundreds of students at once. Likewise, chances are that nobody has ever taught celebrities how to manage the different risks that they are exposed to, or even made them conscious of the very existence of some of these risks, after the title of "celebrity" has been arbitrarily bestowed upon them. Some of these risks might be common sense, but some people's common senses work in slightly different ways.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 2, 2014)

Yeah, I'm afraid I can't get on board with the "it's trashy" or the "just don't do it" camps. Let's face it: most of us are kinky, horny humans. We live up to our dirty aspirations behind locked doors and closed blinds, and when somebody tells us that we should not be behaving in 'trashy' ways in the privacy of our homes, we tend to laugh at them and tell them to mind their own business.

The people who stole this information should have minded their own business. To me, there is no difference between a closed blind and a 'secure' site. If somebody snuck into your house and installed a camera in your bedroom to get pictures and video of you bumping uglies, you're not in the wrong for doing it, they're in the wrong for invading your privacy. This is the case regardless of the relative level of security in your home. This was the case a few years ago when exactly this thing happened in the Australian Army. The victim of a crime is not at fault for being a target, even if they made it easy for the criminal, or were just plain ignorant of the technology that made the crime easy. 

I'm disturbingly thankful today that while I had to growl at a few of my students for talking about this event instead of working, at least I didn't have to shout them down for trying to download or share the pictures. There is no way in hell I'm going to let anybody make fun of or exploit somebody who has been victimised - however rich and successful - without making them feel like shit for doing it.


----------



## Speedos (Sep 2, 2014)

hahahahha got to love the internet.
this just happened #leakforjlaw 
more women are actually posting nudes of them to support jennifer using the # above(on twitter and others)... 
the troll who invented this is a genius at pointing out stupid people 
this generation is.... though i have to admit it , this is damn entertaining

#conspiracy alert : in a more serious manner, this is actually a great way to divert the attention from what what is actually happening in the world ( Russia-Ukraine, etc.)

edit : ( to thewaragainsttime and others ) I'm pretty sure that most people know that everything on their ->SMART<-phone is compromised. Each time you install an app or some sort of program it makes you accept some conditions. Nearly all of them have access to your photos, ID , contacts , and actually everything you do on your phone . So now, why is everyone so mad about these images being watched by the population ? lets face it , it's not like they haven't been seen before


----------



## TheWarAgainstTime (Sep 2, 2014)

Getting mad at J-Law and the rest for their nudes getting *stolen* from their iCloud/storage accounts would be like getting mad at someone on the forum for getting their gear *stolen* from their light-security storage unit. Yeah, I get that they could have taken more precaution like making sure the photos never got out past their own phone's hard drive or their personal computers, and the proverbial forum member probably could have rented a safer storage unit and bought a thicker lock, but that doesn't mean that it's _their_ fault. 

Locks only keep honest people out. 

The person(s) we should be mad about are those who went through the trouble and *stole* the photos, then distributed them all around. Back to the forum member, wouldn't you sympathize for the guy who lost his whole rig and a prized guitar and want justice served and the thief caught and tried? I've seen a ton of threads about bands' gear getting stolen out of their trailers or whole van/trailer rigs being stolen, and almost all of the comments are cries for justice and/or sympathy towards the band. I almost never see comments saying how it was the band's fault for playing/stopping in a sketchy city, so why are J-Law and these ladies getting so much shit from so many people?


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 2, 2014)

And almost as importantly, why does anybody refer to her as J-Law?! Seriously, it's really stupid. It doesn't take that much longer to type the name Jennifer Lawrence than the fully idiotic shortened version, and I think it's impossible to say the shortened version without sounding like you're having a stroke.

Sorry for the off-topic, it's just ... goddamn those ridiculous nicknames. I'm not targeting you specifically, TheWarAgainstTime, although, as you acknowledge, your username can be shortened to TWAT. And that's fun, but ... yeah. Let's not do that.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 2, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I think they're more like a pedestrian who has the right of way at a traffic signal being surprised when he's struck by someone running the red light. Yeah, you know when you step out into the street you might get hit by a car, but under certain circumstances you just don't _expect_ it, and you certainly wouldn't blame the pedestrian rather than the light-runner.



This is the best analogy of what has happened I have read so far.

Edit: I think Apple should be being blamed in some way for this too. If you are paying to safely store your personal property with them, even though its digital as apposed to physical, you should expect that the "storage facility" is actually as safe as it can be. Though I will agree with a previous comment that if someone REALLY wants to hack your personal photos, your online bank account etc then if there is even a small chink in the system they will find a way to get what they want


----------



## Sunyata (Sep 2, 2014)

The most important thing this whole debacle has taught me is how fkking obnoxious of a nickname JLaw is.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 2, 2014)

In same way that LiLo, RiRi, J-Lo, ScarJo (though apparently Scarlett HATES that nickname), R-Patz, K Stew.... the list of fcukwit nicknames is unfortunately endless....


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No it isn't "shit logic". How can it be? The fact that the stuff got out proves that "if you don't want the public to see it, don't trust that there won't be a breach in the system.
> That's just plain out common sense.
> 
> 
> And yes, that means that if you don't want to accept the possibility of your info getting out then don't use your info online.



It is shit logic to blame the victim. Have fun staying never going outside. If you go outside, you may be hit by a car or mauled by a bear. You knew the risks when you opened that door! Also, shit, don't eat food! You might choke! That'd also be your fault. Again, you knew the risks!

Here's a better more related one. Javier Reyes had his shit stolen out of his house. He should have known people would want his nice gear and stuff. Serves him right for not having armed guards and bank vault style doors that require DNA samples or some shit to unlock.

Edit: I wrote this on my phone which makes it difficult to go back and fix mistakes. Just a heads up, since after reading it I noticed I sounded moronic. "Staying never" for example.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 2, 2014)

Funny as it seems to me that the mainstream media coverage to this as opposed to when Z list celebs like Kim Kardashian have "leaked" naked pics "stolen" is because this time it involves media darlings such as "...Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence...." or Cat Deeley who in the general publics perception are above this sort of thing, so its a bit of shock to the middle classes and Daily Mail readers of the world that these pictures are out and have been confirmed as true

Also, wonder what the odds are that Jennifer or Kate sell ALL their photos in an exclusive online deal with Playboy or something to officially release all the pictures and then make some money off this in the same way Tommy Lee & Pam Anderson did with their s4x tape? (most money he ever made in one go I remember Tommy Lee once saying!!)


----------



## MikeH (Sep 2, 2014)

Wait, wait, wait...

Some of you are seriously blaming the victims of this for having private photos of their private lives which, by general technological standards, should not be able to be accessed by the public for doing this? Are you f_u_cking mental?


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

Yep.

IDKWTF.

And trashy for basically doing a striptease for their SO in what is normally considered to be privacy.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Yep.
> 
> IDKWTF.
> 
> And trashy for basically doing a striptease for their SO in what is normally considered to be privacy.



Amazing ain't it..... But then stupid is as stupid does


----------



## MikeH (Sep 2, 2014)

And to the people who act as though this is some new phenomenon, people (myself included) have been taking risqué photos and videos of themselves/others for probably close to 50 years now, if not more. The only thing that has changed is the technology.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No it isn't "shit logic". How can it be? The fact that the stuff got out proves that "if you don't want the public to see it, don't trust that there won't be a breach in the system.
> That's just plain out common sense.
> 
> And yes, that means that if you don't want to accept the possibility of your info getting out then don't use your info online.



This is possibly "shit logic" at its finest. 

Wanna know what information about you is online? Everything. Every single goddamn thing you have done on a computer. Every website you've been to, every bank transaction, every picture you've uploaded. Your phone is also online. According to you, I should be able to hack your phone and use its' GPS system to track where you've been and post it online so that criminals know where you are at any time so they can rob your house with impunity. Maybe you shouldn't have had that phone in your pocket.

Using your logic, you shouldn't be able to cry fowl when someone pillages your banking information, post it online and call you a dumbass for being with a bank that stores your banking information in a datacenter. 

Accidentally left your baby monitor cameras wireless access online? Free game. You're too stupid to have not locked that down and you shouldn't scream about it when your kids videos make it into the hands of NAMBLA members worldwide.

Your house has a security vulnerability in it's security system? Tough shit. Someone is going to show up, compromise that system and steal everything you own. It's your fault for putting such trust in a security system that could easily be compromised and you're even more of an idiot because you bought expensive things that other people want. You shouldn't have done that. 

Oh no! You've contracted HIV and gone to a hospital? Unfortunately, your medical records are now in a system connected to the internet. See where this is going?

You're terrified your parents and friends will disown you if they find out you were gay? You've had this private conversation with your friends via text and Gmail because they're out of the country but oops! Gmail gets compromised and your parents are sent the entire thread about you being gay. Too bad for you.

Had a conversation with a possible employer over email about a new job and didn't want your current employer to find out? Well, your ex girlfriend decided to piss on your parade, hack your account and send the entire conversation to your boss. 

I know you're going to attempt to draw some differences between the situations I've laid out and what's happened, but there really isn't any.

If someone is actually blaming the people victimized by this, I sincerely hope you get punched in the face. But hey, you shouldn't have said those things online to make other people mad at you.


----------



## loqtrall (Sep 2, 2014)

Jennifer Lawrence claimed the pictures were fakes. But I saw them, all of them, and they're FAR from fake.

EDIT: If they ARE fake, the guy who created them is a photoshop master.


----------



## Nag (Sep 2, 2014)

I liked the "if you go outside, you might get hit by a car" comparison. While I understand the point, it's not the best comparison IMO.

When you're a celebrity, you should know that people want nasty content about you. Naked pics and sextapes are the media's favourite stuff. So if you're a celebrity, you should know that every single thing you say or do will attract people... paparazzis, hackers, etc. You just have to be prepared for these things, and no it's not easy, no it's not fair, it's just how it works.

Here's what I would compare it to. When the president leaves his office, he's always surrounded by bodyguards. because even if there's no threat, he wants to have protection in case some crazy guy with an assault rifle attemps to murder him. So as a celebrity, if you know you're gonna be targeted all the time, protect yourself and stock your n00ds elsewhere than on the internet, if it's so important for you to 1) have nude pics of yourself and 2) to have them safe.

Now I'm not saying the celebrities are the ones to blame. They're gullible, and they're famous, but other than that they're just normal people (and I'm sure we could find some forum members have n00ds of their girlfriends on some internet picture hosting service). The guy who hacked himself in there and published the pictures is as much to blame, just like the guy with the assault rifle who tried to kill the president.

It's two different things. Some people pay the price for their naivety and others should pay the price for doing actual criminal stuff (like hacking and violating privacy). And it's not the same kind of sentence for both either. Should be shame for the first, jail for the latter IMO.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 2, 2014)

A few thoughts as an old git who has spent >25 years doing IT related shiz - this year being the 20th anniversary of getting my Computer Science degree (hell, I was on MUDs from 1990, and a Gopher - remember that protocol? - client was my final year project)...

1) If it's not stored on a device with an air gap, it's ultimately vulnerable.

2) If something is in cloud storage, you have no idea where that data is, and have virtually no control over the 1s & 0s.

3) Most passwords that people use are guessable, or can be broken if you know personal details. It's way safer to use complex passwords that you make a physical note of and hide that (the reverse of what used to be the recommendation).

4) The way that people use information and communications technology is outrunning the providers' ability to safeguard it. Much of this is psychological (the dev or exec who thinks that they're the smartest guy on the block doesn't expect to be pwnz0rd).

5) The providers of communication technology are providing services that, in many cases, are beyond regulation and often beyond their own ability to scale.

6b) The anonymity that the Internet provides allows people to disconnect their actions with results. Simple psychology - the vast majority of "hackers" & trolls would not do their to their victims' faces.

6b) Those who would do this to their victims IRL now have a global audience.

What I have noticed is that the younger that people are, the more likely they are to take technology for granted, without realising what the implications of this usage actually are, both technically and psychologically.

To put it bluntly, our development of technology has outgrown our ability to sensibly manage. We are subject to evolutionary pressure mentally as well as physically, but the timescale that this works in is in 10,000s of years. The Web has been a thing since the 90s. We cannot keep up.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 2, 2014)

> I liked the "if you go outside, you might get hit by a car" comparison. While I understand the point, it's not the best comparison IMO.


Sort of true, risk vs necessity and all that. Still, to say that "if you just stayed indoors, that car never would have hit you" is absolutely true, and it's essentially what people are saying when they say things like "if they didn't take the pictures, this never would have happened." It's quite literally the same thing.




> When you're a celebrity, you should know that people want nasty content about you. Naked pics and sextapes are the media's favourite stuff. So if you're a celebrity, you should know that every single thing you say or do will attract people... paparazzis, hackers, etc. You just have to be prepared for these things, and no it's not easy, no it's not fair, it's just how it works.


This is also sort of true, though people should have legitimate sit downs with what is and is not okay. Saying "pshaw, it was bound to happen" without demonizing or holding those responsible accountable just perpetuates the behavior. Paparazzi generally (re: not always) act within the law, albeit they exploit certain loop holes and in turn are shitty people. Laws were violated in this case, and even with the sexual element removed, that just is not okay. Basically, it needs to get ingrained in peoples mind that this shit is not okay. As it stands, people are clamoring and ass patting, and that normalizes it. It encourages others to do the same thing. It is sort of expected as a celebrity, but it shouldn't be. And the only way to sway that opinion is to actively get pissed when something big like this happens, not just say "welp, that's what happens."



> Here's what I would compare it to. When the president leaves his office, he's always surrounded by bodyguards. because even if there's no threat, he wants to have protection in case some crazy guy with an assault rifle attemps to murder him. So as a celebrity, if you know you're gonna be targeted all the time, protect yourself and stock your n00ds elsewhere than on the internet, if it's so important for you to 1) have nude pics of yourself and 2) to have them safe.


There's also a level of privacy people have grown to accept. Cell phones are pretty damn new, let alone this whole connectivity thing. It's not surprising that not everyone is intimately familiar with the rapidly evolving tech. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it ....ing sucks that now another level of privacy has been ripped from celebrities.



> It's two different things. Some people pay the price for their naivety and others should pay the price for doing actual criminal stuff (like hacking and violating privacy). And it's not the same kind of sentence for both either. Should be shame for the first, jail for the latter IMO.


They shouldn't be shamed though. They didn't do anything wrong. There is nothing to feel shame about. On the other hand, the violators of law do indeed deserve jail time, or at the very least a hefty fine.

I think the best irl example of this whole thing is the Javier Reyes thing I mentioned above. (and any situation like it.) That was a real world example of what happened here. The only difference is that we demonize robbery more than we demonize e-theft. How is physically knocking down a door somehow worse than picking an e-lock?


----------



## TedEH (Sep 2, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> The only difference is that we demonize robbery more than we demonize e-theft. How is physically knocking down a door somehow worse than picking an e-lock?



Robbery and "e-theft" are not comparable. You could compare the images stolen to "piracy", but not physical theft. From a moral standpoint they're just as wrong, but no physical damage has been done, nor has anything been removed from a place it previously was.


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 2, 2014)

hairychris said:


> (hell, I was on MUDs from 1990, and a Gopher - remember that protocol? - client was my final year project)...


OMG...yes LOL. As well as MUDs/MUSHs

I'm seeing a lot of victim-blaming over this. Celebrity or not, they are people. People that made bad decisions on where to store intimate photos. It doesn't change the fact that someone did something illegal to obtain these photos. 

That's like blaming all the Target shoppers whose credit cards were compromised recently for shopping at Target - "They deserve it b/c they shopped there" Pure victim-blaming bs.


----------



## Overtone (Sep 2, 2014)

My comments were mainly to indicate that I'm an old fart and "don't get" (literally and metaphorically) nude selfies. But maybe that's a couple thing... often one person in the relationship wants something and expresses that they want it, and eventually they get it. I never really felt any need to be asking girlfriends for nude pics. Everything I need to "see" is safe within the Wank Bank.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 2, 2014)

Overtone said:


> My comments were mainly to indicate that I'm an old fart and "don't get" (literally and metaphorically) nude selfies. But maybe that's a couple thing... often one person in the relationship wants something and expresses that they want it, and eventually they get it. I never really felt any need to be asking girlfriends for nude pics. Everything I need to "see" is safe within the Wank Bank.



With you on that. WTF is all that about?

I should probably have added another point on my list emphasizing this complete acceptance of technology as almost part of the personality.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 2, 2014)

Overtone said:


> My comments were mainly to indicate that I'm an old fart and "don't get" (literally and metaphorically) nude selfies.



I'm not an old fart (under 30), and I don't get it either. And it's not "just what people in relationships do". I've been in long-lasting relationships off and on since I was 16 and never was there any good reason to take or send naked pictures back and forth.


----------



## Randy (Sep 2, 2014)

Thread title changed to reflect the more 'grown up' approach to this thread's discussion. I'll allow it, so long as it stays on the points that are being discussed and is NOT "OMG! TETTEHS!"


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'm not an old fart (under 30), and I don't get it either. And it's not "just what people in relationships do". I've been in long-lasting relationships off and on since I was 16 and never was there any good reason to take or send naked pictures back and forth.



It's what _some_ people in relationships do, especially relationships at distance where it's a way to share intimacy that didn't exist ten years ago. And they should absolutely have an expectation that it can remain private, otherwise... you can't trust any of your devices, ever.

It was a fvcking brute force hack. Get your fvcking shit together Apple, this is incredibly embarrassing.


----------



## xzyryabx (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm glad this happened.
I hope it reignites the debate about privacy in the modern age, especially in regards to issues such as the NSA spying; don't forget, the NSA has a while slew of zero day exploits that they are hogging in order to give them the upper hand in doing pretty much what this hacker did. It wouldn't surprise me at all to know that they knew about this vulnerability and kept it to themselves.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 2, 2014)

ITT:
Victim: "Help, someone stole something from me!"
A lot of people: "If you'd just stfu and not be a whore, it wouldn't be a problem."

Where have I heard something like this happen before?...


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 2, 2014)

We made it three pages and this has stayed open, I'm glad we can still have civil discussions around here.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 2, 2014)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> We made it three pages and this has stayed open, I'm glad we can still have civil discussions around here.



Shhhh, you'll jinx it!


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> We made it three pages and this has stayed open, I'm glad we can still have civil discussions around here.



I think it has something to do with the last thread leading with boobies.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> This is possibly "shit logic" at its finest.
> 
> Wanna know what information about you is online? Everything. Every single goddamn thing you have done on a computer. Every website you've been to, every bank transaction, every picture you've uploaded. Your phone is also online. According to you, I should be able to hack your phone and use its' GPS system to track where you've been and post it online so that criminals know where you are at any time so they can rob your house with impunity. Maybe you shouldn't have had that phone in your pocket.
> 
> ...





You just made my point again and again .

It's foolish to think anything you do online is actually private.

Brian agrees with me and then argues about it .





And again, what's with these blame accusations? Why would I blame them when I just flat-out don't care either way?
THEY ARE FOOLS FOR ASSUMING ONLINE PRIVACY. THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You just made my point again and again .
> 
> It's foolish to think anything you do online is actually private.
> 
> Brian agrees with me and then argues about it .



Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flint757 (Sep 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Maybe Apple should have _actually fvcking protected against fvcking brute force attacks for their cloud system_. This is almost entirely their fault for having awful security.
> 
> Like someone (sorry, don't remember who!) said in the other thread, if this had happened to OneDrive (which it probably wouldn't, because MS has their shit together with it), everyone would have their torches and frankenstein rakes out already.





Promit said:


> I said that, actually. MS or Google would be raked over the coals. Apple, everyone just shrugs and continues using their iPhones, because you _have_ to have your iPhone. Which is not to say that any cloud service is perfect, but nobody is really taking Apple to task.



It amazes me how little the backlash always is with Apple. This and the whole mobile me fiasco a few years ago, before the icloud was around, proves how unreliable they are when it comes to managing other peoples data. I'd be extremely hesitant to use them for any sort of backup after this if I had an apple device.



estabon37 said:


> And almost as importantly, why does anybody refer to her as J-Law?! Seriously, it's really stupid. It doesn't take that much longer to type the name Jennifer Lawrence than the fully idiotic shortened version, and I think it's impossible to say the shortened version without sounding like you're having a stroke.
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic, it's just ... goddamn those ridiculous nicknames. I'm not targeting you specifically, TheWarAgainstTime, although, as you acknowledge, your username can be shortened to TWAT. And that's fun, but ... yeah. Let's not do that.



First thing that came to mind when i saw J-Law was Jude law, not Jennifer Lawrence.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 2, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Robbery and "e-theft" are not comparable. You could compare the images stolen to "piracy", but not physical theft. From a moral standpoint they're just as wrong, but no physical damage has been done, nor has anything been removed from a place it previously was.



I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by arguing that theft of intellectual property and data and theft of physical property are different only in what is taken. 

Taking a quick look at the definition of theft, of which piracy is a form:

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to remove the property from the owner's access and/or control.

In this case, it not only falls under the class of "theft," but with sex crime factors attached as well. 

Are you saying that this theft is okay because it's a different kind of theft? Or are you worried that different kinds of theft are viewed as belonging to the same general class, which they do by definition?

Is it me who is confused... or you?


----------



## Explorer (Sep 2, 2014)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> We made it three pages and this has stayed open, I'm glad we can still have civil discussions around here.



Actually, it's only because the rules are being enforced, not because everyone is following the rules.

I for one welcome our moderator overlords.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Are you saying that this theft is okay because it's a different kind of theft?



No, he specifically says that he thinks morally they're both just as wrong, right there in the post you quoted. Sounds like he's just saying they're two _different_ crimes, not that one is a crime and the other isn't.



Explorer said:


> Is it me who is confused... or you?



It's you, from where I'm sitting.

...or it could be me .

It doesn't really seem necessary for him to have brought up what _kind_ of crime it may or may not have been, given that it was clearly a crime, so I also don't really know what the general point was. However, it kinda seems like you're putting words in his mouth there by either intentionally misreading what he said to try to make a point, or having your bias filters on and being somehow able to clearly read what he said.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 2, 2014)

I guess I thought it odd that he was narrowing the harm down to a physical harm, as opposed to any harm. I was thinking that there was a case being built that if there wasn't "physical" theft and "physical" harm, that there is a lesser degree of theft and harm. 

So let me narrow that down:

TedEH, why did you bring up that "physical" distinction? Is it relevant?


----------



## splinter8451 (Sep 2, 2014)

I feel sorry for you guys who have never sexted.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 2, 2014)

^ Generation gaps. Freshman year me and my buddies all had indecent pictures on our phones while my dad had no clue what a nude was. There are some dinosaurs here man.


----------



## Randy D (Sep 2, 2014)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Make sure to not let this dumbassery spread through the forum.
> 
> Not even going to add anything because the people above me pretty much covered it.



Spoke of whom ? Said what? I took no stance of accusation. iCloud info and pics along with every other media type that is digital and network connected is by no means secure and this is something one should think about prior to performing said actions of nudies or self shots. I am in no way a prude or a self righteous individual who themselves hasn't taken a naked pic or two or a DICK photo. I am just intelligent enough to know that if said media is on a network that it may be compromised.....(oh yeah and maybe my ten years as an Intelligence data gathering specialist may have something to do with that knowledge and position). I never thought that i would see this type of close-minded response to my ambiguous statement. It is clear that when you snap a photo it is no longer secure when you iCloud any data it is now open to extraction and compromise. 

So 



try again my friend......


----------



## jwade (Sep 2, 2014)

I just read an excellent piece regarding the whole situation: http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/09/02/a-psa-about-nude-photos/

Additionally, to anyone trying to blame the victims, or referring to them as somehow 'trashy', or indicating that you think of them as being on par with prostitutes: I no longer respect you, even a tiny amount. That kind of mindset puts you in the same camp as rapists, and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

Randy D said:


> Don't be a trashy, indecent, poor role model



Ambiguous, huh?


----------



## Randy D (Sep 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You just made my point again and again .
> 
> It's foolish to think anything you do online is actually private.
> 
> ...



Your absolutly right!!!!!!!!!!! Privacy? are you kidding....


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 2, 2014)

Yeah there's a generation gap 4sure on this one. 
I'm all for punishing the hackers though, just beware that the airwaves are not private and 100% secure, and especially as celebrities they should be more guarded if they care to stay private. 
If they don't care then it's all good for us pervs out here .


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

Or Apple could properly secure their goddamn services.


----------



## Randy D (Sep 2, 2014)

Necris said:


> Following that logic it's common sense that you should never walk with a wallet unless you're willing to accept that it's your fault if you get mugged and have your money/credit card/debit card/ID stolen.



Let me know the next time i can sit at home and get on the internet and hack your wallet while mugging you......lol irrelevant trash......!



Alright i am done with this dumb ass thread i have guitars to worry about 
damn social media hipsters.....oh yeah and that lil funny guy with the dinosaur comment......yeah you know who you are.....kick rocks 

Cheers


----------



## Randy D (Sep 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Ambiguous, huh?




Yes absolutely!



am·big·u·ous

am&#712;bigyo&#862;o&#601;s

adjective (of language) open to more than one interpretation


Cheers

-Randy D


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

ed: nvm


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 2, 2014)

Guys. Listen.

I'd like to take this opportunity to advocate the use of the word "dicktures" when referring to pictures taken of the penis.

In a pinch, I will also encourage the use of "scrotograph" when appropriate.

It'd save time and effort. I'm just looking out for y'all. Let's be problem solvers here.


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Guys. Listen.
> 
> I'd like to take this opportunity to advocate the use of the word "dicktures" when referring to pictures taken of the penis.
> 
> ...



There was a "Pouch or Penis?" thread in the general section of an EVE Online board I was on (the board, not the thread).

Dicktures is good though.


----------



## splinter8451 (Sep 2, 2014)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> ^ Generation gaps. Freshman year me and my buddies all had indecent pictures on our phones while my dad had no clue what a nude was. There are some dinosaurs here man.



Man I'm 24 and I still do it  Pretty sure some of the guys saying it is trashy are around my age. 

Just different opinions, body images.


----------



## Necris (Sep 2, 2014)

Randy D said:


> Let me know the next time i can sit at home and get on the internet and hack your wallet while mugging you......lol irrelevant trash......!



Your reading comprehension must be nil. No-one said anything about hacking wallets.

Trenchlord argued that if you don't want to accept the possibility of your info getting out then you should never use/provide your info online. 

The implication of his post in the context of the thread being that these women have no right to complain that their photos were stolen because the possibility of them being stolen existed.

I'll make things easier for you: "If you don't want to accept the possibility of (negative outcome) don't do (any action action that could potentially lead to the mentioned negative outcome)".

Following that logic if you don't want to accept the possibility of being mugged you shouldn't carry a wallet; in the event you are mugged you have no right to complain because if you didn't want to accept that possibility you shouldn't have brought your wallet out of your house. 

For that matter, if you _really_ didn't want to get mugged you'd be best served by never leaving the house and as such you were basically asking for it by leaving the house.

That is bad logic.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 3, 2014)

Necris said:


> For that matter, if you _really_ didn't want to get mugged you'd be best served by never leaving the house and as such you were basically asking for it by leaving the house.



Even then, you run the risk of having someone break in. Which, you know... you should have expected because everyone knows that everyone has something that somebody else wants, and somebody out there is willing to do anything to get at it. One thing for certain is that the victim deserves blame. Because we all know that if they didn't have those nudes, that guitar, that TV, that *insert any form of private property here*, then that crime never would have been committed.

You know what, while we're at it, screw businesses for displaying their products where we can see and/or touch them. It's like they're begging for people to take it. They should know better than that.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 3, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm all for punishing the hackers though, just beware that the airwaves are not private and 100% secure, and especially as celebrities they should be more guarded if they care to stay private.



On the note of punishment, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the thieves were caught. 

Part of the disagreement in this thread has been around e-theft not being comparable to physical theft. So, let's compare e-theft with e-theft and look at the cases where people have been sued by record companies for stealing music online.

[Please note: I wanted to bring this up earlier, but refrained for a simple reason. Very few bands have tried to sue individuals for stealing music. Many bands, in fact, encourage it. Record companies own the music, whether that is morally right or not, so they're the so-called victims in these cases, and that leaves me not thinking it was a decent comparison until we get to the punishment discussion. So...]

This individual wound up paying roughly $21,000 per song he shared over a P2P service. This is not the only case, and I believe the other cases feature equally ludicrous sums of cash. No physical property was ever stolen, and the amount of money the record companies lost is debateable, largely on the basis that many people who download songs had no intention of spending money on music that the company intended to sell. While in the celebrity case, people are equally stealing a convenience, nobody ever intended to sell the material that has been stolen, even though it might likely have been worth a lot of money. This is part of the reason I think most of us are not bothering to compare e-theft with e-theft. Usually, it involves products that somebody intended to sell, or capital that somebody intended to spend / trade / gain interest on / generally move. None of the celebrities intended to have their data moved.

So, unless the various celebrities plan to claim lost revenue as the basis for having an individual charged (let's face it - the only reason anybody knows what a Kardashian is is a sextape, and it's made them a mint), the charge would probably be invasion of privacy. That might get you ten years prison if you do it via webcam, then again it might not. I'm sure we've all got different opinions on what the punishment 'should' consist of, including a few people that might crassly suggest punishing the thief by giving them a medal, but just like the various results of the music theft cases we'd probably be as incapable of predicting the punishment as any judge would be of determining what would be appropriate without resorting to guess work.



TRENCHLORD said:


> If they don't care then it's all good for us pervs out here .



If they didn't care, they'd be putting sex tapes out already. Again, I refer to a Kardashian (although I'd rather I didn't), throw in a Hilton, and I'm sure others could add to the list. 'Not caring' casts a surprisingly wide net. It's one thing to be able to take the theft in stride - that's maturity and emotional resilience - but it's a whole other thing to care so little for your own privacy and right to separate who you are from what you do that you don't bother fighting shit like this when it happens.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 3, 2014)

splinter8451 said:


> Man I'm 24 and I still do it  Pretty sure some of the guys saying it is trashy are around my age.
> 
> Just different opinions, body images.



As someone who's old enough to be your father I just don't get it.

1) If it's someone that you've already bumped uglies with, you know what they look like.
2) If it's not, then flirting's going quite a lot further these days (when I were a lad it were all trees around here, etc).
3) If you're just after random filth then you don't know how to internet.

and, most importantly,

4) I grew up before the web & smartphones, keep my ear to the ground with the tech industry, and work on the assumption that *anything I post or send could be compromised* (hacked, forwarded, device stolen, etc).

A lot of it's generational... believe me...



EDIT: Just a thought, if it's not being so already, I think that schools teaching a course on on-line issues to kids aged around 10 - 12 would be a great thing.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 3, 2014)

Apparently updated news on the McKayla Maroney pics, she has stated they are fake but apparently her lawyers have now issued a statement that they are starting proceedings for sites to take the pics down as she was under age when she posed for the pictures and so therefore they are saying that the pics actually constitute as child p0rnography

But they also claim the pictures breach Maroney's copyright as the copyright lies with her. Now surely those two statements contradict one another... Are they really arguing that she is the true copyright owner of photos that are deemed child p0rn?? Surely that then means by that argument that her BF who took the pics at the time is liable for prosecution for child abuse/exploitation?? Knee jerk lawyer reaction.....


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 3, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You just made my point again and again .
> 
> It's foolish to think anything you do online is actually private.
> 
> ...



It's called blaming the victim instead of the assailant. Glad you caught that.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 3, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Just a thought, if it's not being so already, I think that schools teaching a course on on-line issues to kids aged around 10 - 12 would be a great thing.



Already a done thing in some circles:

Lawstuff Australia - Know Your Rights - - Topics - Sexting

This is a site that is (I think) aimed at 12-17 year olds in New South Wales (a state in Aus) because ...



Louis Cypher said:


> she was under age when she posed for the pictures and so therefore they are saying that the pics actually constitute as child p0rnography...
> 
> ...her BF who took the pics at the time is liable for prosecution for child abuse/exploitation?? Knee jerk lawyer reaction.....



... kids do this shit. The site warns kids that no governments have changed the laws on child pornography in recent times, so if they sext, they're sex offenders. Every school that I've taught in makes a point of ensuring that students understand that at the very least, getting busted sexting can get them on the sex offenders registry if parents / police decide to press charges, and there's no getting off that list. It's in sex ed classes, there's posters around, and I've even seen it brought up in an English class.

I've also met someone who is on the registry because they shared photos with a partner while they were underage, and they have to explain that to every employer for the rest of their life (not a student or a teacher - things get a little crazy when that happens). It's fucked up because many of us did light criminal shit as teenagers that we can thankfully leave in our pasts, whether we were caught or not. This thing is comparatively indelible: if you're not on a registry for life, you've got to live that life with nudie pics floating around the internets. 

My home state of Victoria made a change to their laws this year, but plenty of people argue that they should have kept it to 'scare kids out of doing it'. Because as we all know, not only do teenagers have a real thing for obeying authority, they're also really awesome at ignoring all those hormones they've got going on.

EDIT: I really can't stress enough that from what I've heard it's not lawyers or politicians that have the knee-jerk reactions. It's parents that refuse to believe that their kids are anything but innocent little angels. Many parents of many teenagers would rather see the young 'defilers of their precious children' slapped on the sex offenders list for life than think even for a moment that their kid took a naked selfie. Unfortunately, and understandably, those teens will go with the lie at the expense of the other kid rather than take the heat from their folks. For once, it's not the lawyers. It's oblivious and unrealistic parents.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 3, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> It's called blaming the victim instead of the assailant. Glad you caught that.



You present a false dichotomy: That we must either consider the victims to be 100% responsible or the thieves to be 100% responsible. That's simply not true, there is a whole spectrum in between your 2 options and the truth lies within that spectrum.

Hot celebs are basically hounded by low-life scummy predators 24/7. They know it and should bear some responsibility to take that fact into account with every decision they make. If you know that there are ruthless evil nutcases out there willing to do just about anything to get to you, then you should probably think twice about letting dudes take naked pictures of you with cum all over your face... 

What I wrote about this on another forum when accused of "blaming the victim":

It's more like parking a brand new Bentley on the street in the middle of the ghetto and leaving it there for years, then being surprised that somebody finally figured out a way to steal it.

Yeah, stealing them is wrong - but you're still an idiot for putting them out there in the first place.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 3, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Already a done thing in some circles:
> 
> Lawstuff Australia - Know Your Rights - - Topics - Sexting
> 
> This is a site that is (I think) aimed at 12-17 year olds in New South Wales (a state in Aus) because ...



I mean mandatory school classes.

Do they do that?


----------



## hairychris (Sep 3, 2014)

Just seen this. Some very good points:

The Fappening Has Revealed a New Type of Pervert | VICE United Kingdom


----------



## asher (Sep 3, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> It's more like parking a brand new Bentley on the street in the middle of the ghetto and leaving it there for years, then being surprised that somebody finally figured out a way to steal it.
> 
> Yeah, stealing them is wrong - but you're still an idiot for putting them out there in the first place.



No, it's really not like that. If the car were parked in the apartment complex's "secured" parking lot and was stolen from _there_, the analogy works.

Stored. On. (Formerly) Secured. Apple. Service.

Yet it's their fault for assuming that the service provider actually secures its service?


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 3, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You present a false dichotomy: That we must either consider the victims to be 100% responsible or the thieves to be 100% responsible. That's simply not true, there is a whole spectrum in between your 2 options and the truth lies within that spectrum.
> 
> Hot celebs are basically hounded by low-life scummy predators 24/7. They know it and should bear some responsibility to take that fact into account with every decision they make. If you know that there are ruthless evil nutcases out there willing to do just about anything to get to you, then you should probably think twice about letting dudes take naked pictures of you with cum all over your face...
> 
> ...



I think i'm approaching it more from a legal perspective, as saying that something like iCloud, which is supposed to be secure storage, will eventually be hacked because that's what hackers do, absolves the assailant or Apple of any or limits the level of responsibility for security flaws that someone exploited to gain access to private information.

In no respected legal theater will a legal authority say something to the effect of "because you left your front door open, you invited criminal wrongdoing into your home, absolving the culprit of (example) 50% of the guilt."

Another one - since you dressed sexy, you invited sexual contact with the perpetrator, absolving him of ##% of guilt with concern of the rape charge. If you didn't want to be gang raped, maybe you shouldn't have worn that sexy midriff-exposing band shirt. 

Or - The United States government or public should not be outraged and demand action that two of their own innocent civilians were just brutally decapitated and displayed before the world because they shouldn't have been there in the first place. ISIS only holds 50% of the blame because the reporters were stupid enough to be there.

Or - Parents of soldiers killed overseas shouldn't be upset with the enemy who killed them because your children were too stupid to sign up for the volunteer army anyways.

Or - "I'm sorry your honor. I realize having photos of myself in a secure cloud storage had the possibility of being hacked, but the victim here who hacked my icloud storage should have realized I would have tracked him down and murdered him for ruining my life by putting my private photos online for the public to see, causing my family to disown me and my employer to fire me for discriminatory reasons (but hey, you shouldn't have been gay in the first place) It's his fault for not understanding that actions have consequences and I believe that I am only 50% responsible for my actions as the victim provoked me and should have expected a violent response to his actions. Your honor, please understand that since the victim should have realized that ruining my life would provoke such a response, I should be absolved of some of the responsibility."

I'm also looking at this from a perspective of a being network security engineer of 20 years and holding a law degree.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 3, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> In no respected legal theater will a legal authority say something to the effect of ...... .....since you dressed sexy, you invited sexual contact with the perpetrator, absolving him of ##% of guilt with concern of the rape charge. If you didn't want to be gang raped, maybe you shouldn't have worn that sexy midriff-exposing band shirt.



Unfortunately this DOES happen in courts of law all too often, (example a high profile FEMALE Judge in the UK last week blamed rape victims for often being too drunk at the time to give lucid testimony for the lack of prosecutions for assault and rape in the UK!) which I think shows the mind set when it comes to this situation that *some people* are able to justify that these celebrities are at fault in some way for what happened. 

TBH it already seems now in the wider media that the actual point this situation shows or highlights which is the slack attitude to security by big multi national corporations with peoples personal eData and the ability for hackers to get whatever they want as they are one step ahead and how can we stop that is being missed and brushed aside in favour of high handed morals and the cult of celebrity. Nothing will happen to Apple/iCloud or the hacker/hackers responsible

Edit: Also no one really gives a sh1t at the end of the day, todays headlines are tomorrow fish n chip paper. 
The pics that came out previously of the likes of Jessica Alba, Christina Hendricks, Olivia Munn, Scarlett Johannson & Christina Augilera. All these peoples careers weren't affected in anyway and tbh most have gone on to bigger and better things not coz OF the pictures but coz they are talented individuals


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 3, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> Unfortunately this DOES happen in courts of law all too often, (example a high profile FEMALE Judge in the UK last week blamed rape victims for often being too drunk at the time to give lucid testimony for the lack of prosecutions for assault and rape in the UK!) which I think shows the mind set when it comes to this situation that *some people* are able to justify that these celebrities are at fault in some way for what happened.



That's why i said "respected." 

I know it does happen and it's incredibly disgusting.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 3, 2014)

Who exactly do you think you are arguing against here?

The legal aspect of things was *never *questioned by anyone in any post here or anywhere else that I have seen.

Put your degree back in your pants and pull out your brain for a moment...

Knowingly putting yourself at an unnecessarily high risk of being the victim of a crime is a stupid thing to do. That does not in any way absolve the actual criminal. Get it?


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 3, 2014)

asher said:


> No, it's really not like that. If the car were parked in the apartment complex's "secured" parking lot and was stolen from _there_, the analogy works.
> 
> Stored. On. (Formerly) Secured. Apple. Service.
> 
> Yet it's their fault for assuming that the service provider actually secures its service?



No.

The secured parking lot is analogous to your own local storage device where one must first gain access to the lot (your house) and then also gain access to the car (your hard drive).

Storing stuff on the internet is more like parking it on the street and locking the doors. Everyone who walks by can easily take a crack at it.


----------



## asher (Sep 3, 2014)

Which is why I said apartment lot - external service provider separate from your immediate control but something ostensibly doing work for you. _And responsible for its own security measures_.

It's not like they were just up on a web page that the URL was only given to one person for.


----------



## jwade (Sep 3, 2014)

You need to stop arguing this as a platform for your hatred of Apple. It's getting really old.


----------



## asher (Sep 3, 2014)

jwade said:


> You need to stop arguing this as a platform for your hatred of Apple. It's getting really old.



I do actually rather dislike them. But that's separate from this being their responsibility.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 3, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> Who exactly do you think you are arguing against here?
> 
> The legal aspect of things was *never *questioned by anyone in any post here or anywhere else that I have seen.
> 
> ...



That I do. You were stating that i present a dichotomy in regards to blame being either 100% on the victim or 100% on the perpetrator and that "the truth lies between that spectrum."

It doesn't matter if the subject matter was a series of nude photos or a series of photos depicting someone being a Brony. I drew comparisons to other situations using the identical logic. 

Celebrities should expect that hackers will attempt to violate their privacy in the same fashion that hackers will attempt to steal your financial and identity information stored on private, secure servers. Its there for the taking if you can hack it and I can guarantee that there are more hackers attempting to breach your financial and personal information than there are hackers attempting to breach celebrity iPhoto accounts. Only difference is that we feel sympathy for the little fella who just had their accounts wiped out from a a national bank that stores their records globally instead of a small town independent union bank (they should have known better), whereas we will practically vilify the celebrities for the same thing. There are ways around having your information/data/whatever from being globally accessible, but you don't expect these institutions to get compromised in the same way these celebrities didn't expect Apple, with billions upon billions of dollars available for network security and vulnerability testing, to get compromised.

It's like using a credit card instead of cash and someone telling you that having your credit information compromised because you used your CC is partially your fault because you were dumb enough to use it. It's not like there are thousands off jerkoffs out there attempting to do this on a daily basis or anything like that.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 3, 2014)

Some have made the case that this is only a matter of copyright violation (often accompanied with the mindset that piracy is justifieable and/or okay).

For those taking that stance, imagine you are the person who broke security and made copies of someone's private sexual content and spread it without their permission.

Now explain how invading that person's privacy and then spreading it without their permission is not a sex crime.

I look at this conversation, and find it striking how much of the discussion is exactly like those discussion where people argue about whether a victim of rape was to blame for being raped. When someone makes a comment about how she (whichever person you choose to accuse) should have taken better precautions against violation, about how she should know that it would happen to her because she didn't keep her sexuality away from prying eyes (even, all make me sick with the justifications for someone to cross that line.

Someone earlier said they now see those who have made such statements here in a new light. 

At this point, I agree. 

And I feel sorry for the people in relationships with such folks, and hope those innocent people never have to hear a speech blaming them for being victims of sex crimes from such folks. 

If someone I knew in real life at this point talked like that, I would definitely warn my female friends and acquaintances away from such a person, because that mindset speaks volumes about that person's boundaries (or lack thereof), and about how some things can be justified by the actions of someone who didn't give consent in any way to this invasion. 

And now back to more rape-friendly justification and trivialization of this, which makes these people even more terrifying to those members of society who don't think that way.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 3, 2014)

Yeah. You're right.

Claiming that certain behaviors are risky is *exactly* the same thing as saying that engaging in said risky behavior makes one entirely responsible for any and all negative consequences.

...and now back to more massive failures in reading comprehension, which makes you people even more terrifying to those members of society who can understand the written word.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 3, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> Yeah. You're right.
> 
> Claiming that certain behaviors are risky is *exactly* the same thing as saying that engaging in said risky behavior makes one entirely responsible for any and all negative consequences.
> 
> ...and now back to more massive failures in reading comprehension, which makes you people even more terrifying to those members of society who can understand the written word.



You really need to address your own failures in comprehending what people write as well as the issue being directly addressed was victim blaming and the ridiculous logic behind shifting the blame to the celebrities for having being "stupid" enough to have these photos instead of the actual perpetrator of the crime. At no point did ANYONE say that what they were doing was actually NOT risky behavior.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 3, 2014)

So you are saying that knowingly engaging in high risk behavior does NOT carry with it some level of ownership in the results of said risky behavior? That's what I'm hearing from you guys...

Getting attacked while wandering through the ghetto alone at night in a bikini and stiletto's with your head down and your ipod earbuds blasting is EXACTLY the same as getting attacked in the middle of a convent? People should take precisely zero ownership in the consequences of their actions?


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2014)

If the possibility of a nude photo of yourself getting out there worries you the only way to avoid something like this as a famous celeb is to simply not take these types of photos. There's simply no way to 100% guarantee your phone or computer data is completely safe. And Cloud storage?? Sorry, but I wouldn't put anything extremely important or sensitive on Cloud storage. Even if you take Polaroid's someone can still break into your house and steal them.

That said, as for the nudity... well the wife and I can on occasion be found in Saint Martin (French/Dutch caribbean island) on the nude side of the beach 100% stark naked. I'm human and so are you, we have the same parts so I don't find it taboo at all. I more admire people that can take such photos of themselves... who likes a prude anyhow?? 


Rev.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Is it me who is confused... or you?



I realize I'm a little late in responding to this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the one confused in this case. The thing I was commenting on (and thus the context that explains what I'm talking about) was quoted in my own comment.

Someone asked:


> The only difference is that we demonize robbery more than we demonize e-theft. How is physically knocking down a door somehow worse than picking an e-lock?



And my response is that robbery is more demonized because it takes something away from the person you stole from, while e-theft/piracy is a copy, and therefore doesn't directly take something away from the victim. (It causes indirect damage, sure, but that wasn't my point.)


----------



## Louis Cypher (Sep 3, 2014)

Whats kinda funny (not haha funny) is the reaction of the media and the celebs and well everyone bout this and even this thread to what's happened and yet compare that to press and wider reaction to the last time Microsoft or Sony got hacked and tens of thousands of people had their billing info and credit card details stolen.... no one really batted an eyelid (less it was them that had their details stolen of course) but as this hack involves naked celebrities..... I work in IT for an online company and few years back we had a mass attack where they created thousands of new accounts using the credit card info stolen from somewhere and started placing thousands of orders, was a fcuking nightmare and the cost in refunds and compensation 

To put it this way, I know what I would rather have stolen and posted on the web/sold.....


----------



## Randy D (Sep 3, 2014)

While I do enjoy a good debate and i respect others opinions i also have to comment that if you would like to leave negative Rep responces for me feel free. But hey at least do it with a bit of tact and a little intellignce and class.....
Comments like "your a f in a =shole" or "dum a" are fine if that is the extent that your frustrated mindset can yield. While you hide behind your keyboard and post like an antagonistic child i will respond with courteous and intelligent rebuttle as that is what these forums are for. (in my opinion) Not for hot headed individuals that can't control their emotions with regard to how a topic or statement makes them feel. 
As i stated a number of self rightous individuals felt the need to comment on my rep yet only one had the testicular fortitude to put his name....Hats off to you ....MIKEH at least you own your statements .... i can respect that.. oh and shout out to Noxon ......the rest of you clowns reply on the board with intelligence and dont waste your time on bad mouthing as it only depicts the gaps in your intellectual ability to articulate and convey with out utilizing ignorance.....

thanks again to all who have helped continue this banter!!!!!



Cheers

-Randy D


----------



## asher (Sep 3, 2014)

Oh look, rep bitching and condescension about intelligence from somebody who is grappling with some basic spelling and grammar.

FYI, negs are *supposed* to be anonymous.

I'm waiting to see this curious and intelligent rebuttal, btw.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 4, 2014)

*mod edit: the rep system is supposed to be anonymous, that's why it doesn't automatically include the user that left it. If multiple people tell you you're being a jackass it's generally a good indicator you should reconsider your behavior even if the people are anonymous*



asher said:


> FYI, negs are *supposed* to be anonymous.



Rep serves no purpose if it's anonymous. An opinion is only as good as the person sharing it.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 4, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> Rep serves no purpose if it's anonymous. An opinion is only as good as the person sharing it.


I disagree, you get the rep you deserve, if you frequently make intelligent arguments or helpful posts then 9 times out of 10 you'll have a positive reputation. If you frequently make hypocritical, idiotic, or misinformed posts then you'll be more likely to have a negative reputation. Of course there are times when people who can't form a intelligent counter argument so they give people anonymous neg rep, sure it's annoying and cowardly but it doesn't make a dent in your reputation if it's largely positive same goes if the rep is positive and your overall reputation is negative. 

TL;DR: At it's heart the rep system works the way it was intended too, sure it has some kinks but it weeds out the bad apples.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 4, 2014)

Public rep bitching is disallowed by the rules, is it not? I suggest diverting from the topic.


----------



## asher (Sep 4, 2014)

That was my point

Here's a Shockingly Easy Way To Skirt iCloud's Two-Factor Verification


----------



## asher (Sep 5, 2014)

Also:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/1936049-post19.html

anyhoo.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 5, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> So you are saying that knowingly engaging in high risk behavior does NOT carry with it some level of ownership in the results of said risky behavior? That's what I'm hearing from you guys...



Before I start, I'm not quoting in order to rebut or disagree, but to try and refine a point.

I'm sure that many, many people consider taking photos of their naked selves in the privacy of a closed room on the assumption that nobody else on the planet has legal / easy access to the resulting files to be essentially risk-free. You and I might disagree with that assessment, but then again, you might consider skydiving essentially risk-free and I might disagree completely (or vice-versa). One of the weird things about our brains is that apart from the fact that many of us get a rush out of engaging in risky behaviour, for most of us, every time we take a risk and find an acceptable outcome, we'll take that risk again. And again. We have entire industries dedicated to encouraging such risks (extreme sports, gambling, in a weird way even open mic nights and karaoke are risk-encouragement events that risk only the embarassment of the performer). And as long as the risk being taken only effects the risk-taker, we don't see it as a bad thing.

People who have spent their entire lives 'storing stuff on the internet' don't see it as a risk, despite constant reminders of the risks involved, for exactly the same reason that people who have spent their entire lives travelling in cars don't consider it a risk: the act of guiding heavy, powerful machines that are fueled by the millenia-old fossilised remains of extinct species at speeds significantly faster than our senses and brains evolved to handle effectively in the event of adverse circumstances has been completely normalised. Of course there's risk involved, but you don't conduct your business every day with perfect vigilance in every action and interaction because the vast majority of the time, not only is nothing going wrong (even though you're driving with one hand, eating with the other, and headbanging throughout the process if you drive the way I do), but the vast majority of the time nobody is going out of their way to attack you while you go about your business.

I think this is why people are saying that 100% of the blame lays with the attackers in this case. It's not that the people who uploaded sensitive data weren't taking a risk at all, it's that the risk isn't that much more risky than many behaviours that most of us engage in every day. Whether my chances of getting into a serious car accident are higher or lower than my chances of having sensitive data stolen from me is not relevant - neither possibility should prevent me from going about my life as long as my behaviour does not threaten the wellbeing of others.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 5, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I disagree, you get the rep you deserve, if you frequently make intelligent arguments or helpful posts then 9 times out of 10 you'll have a positive reputation.



Just catching up on this thread, didn't realize it started turning into a rep discussion. I typically wouldn't feed this further but had to comment on this one small tidbit as it's plain wrong, and I really like you on here Joshua so don't take this personally. No way in hell do people +rep 9 times out of 10 for great comments, they simply click the "Like" button which doesn't give anywhere near the +rep of a positive rep. However, people are so uber quick to neg rep people at the slightest disagreement. I can guarantee if the system here weren't anonymous neg reps would drop dramatically. That said, perfect way to explain it is to simply look at the noise people make when they have a bad experience at a restaurant or with a product, they want to get some form of revenge. When they have a great experience they're far less likely to write reviews than when they've had a bad one. It's human nature, sad as it is.


Rev.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 6, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Just catching up on this thread, didn't realize it started turning into a rep discussion. I typically wouldn't feed this further but had to comment on this one small tidbit as it's plain wrong, and I really like you on here Joshua so don't take this personally. No way in hell do people +rep 9 times out of 10 for great comments, they simply click the "Like" button which doesn't give anywhere near the +rep of a positive rep. However, people are so uber quick to neg rep people at the slightest disagreement. I can guarantee if the system here weren't anonymous neg reps would drop dramatically. That said, perfect way to explain it is to simply look at the noise people make when they have a bad experience at a restaurant or with a product, they want to get some form of revenge. When they have a great experience they're far less likely to write reviews than when they've had a bad one. It's human nature, sad as it is.
> 
> 
> Rev.


Ok, the 9 times out of 10 stat is really just a figure of speech, obviously meaning most likely and while it does happen less frequently than 9/10, there's still a good chance that what you say will resound with someone, the size of this forum increases that chance. That said I totally agree with you on the human nature part and as for great posts getting more positive I propose we remove the like button, that way all the lazy likers will be forced to leave pos rep to show their appreciation. 

BTW, do likes give rep, you kind of implied it in your paragraph above.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 6, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> BTW, do likes give rep, you kind of implied it in your paragraph above.



I can't say with certainty, but I seem to recall reading that likes add a tiny fraction to rep. Thanked threads however are considered a +rep. I of course could be wrong. A mod would be better to ask outside of this thread  All I know is all the hundreds of likes I've gotten haven't done squat towards my bar. Positive and negative reps however have a noticeable affect, mainly when the person giving has a high rep bar. 


Rev.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 6, 2014)

OT: I read this recently on why some pictures that where deleted years ago but where still in the photobomb.

http://i.imgur.com/eZXhuRZ.jpg


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

I read a disturbing comment which uses the same logic which is being put forward as reasonable by some.

If you don't want your babies raped, then don't have babies.

If you can't make sure your babies are 100% secure against rape, then you bear some of the responsibility for someone making the active choice of baby rape. 

I do hope that people find that logic unacceptable.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 6, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> OT:I read this recently on why some pictures that where deleted years ago but where still in the photobomb.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/eZXhuRZ.jpg



Holy shit. If that is seriously the way this went down, then it implies two things: 

1) The assumed 'low risk' assessment by the celebs rings truer because as far as any of them knew, they'd never had anything stolen in the past and had even 'deleted' content. You wouldn't think anybody could take content that to the best of your knowledge doesn't even exist anymore.

2) It means our comparisons and assessments, as well as those of most of the media covering the story, are inaccurate. We've been talking about the thieves as if they're opportunists, but this is some clandestine shit. Trading rings of illegal content tend to be referred to as organised crime, and while the product certainly isn't as harmful to the public as the sort we tend to see in organised crime (assuming the trades only ever involved money or new content), the behaviour is certainly comparable.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 6, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> because as far as any of them knew, they'd never had anything stolen in the past and had even 'deleted' content. You wouldn't think anybody could take content that to the best of your knowledge doesn't even exist anymore.



I for one have been anti-cloud storage since day one, and most people think I'm nuts and it's so awesomely convenient - sure... for music maybe, but I don't want my own personal pictures or documents on some server that who knows... maybe some worker at the server farm is spending his night looking through people's sh*i*t for fun. No thanks. But to this Cloud thing and deleted data... I can't say for sure how Apple's cloud works, but I've had MANY attorneys in my firm come to me with their iPhones with the old, "It says I have no more space for backup" thinking their device is out of space when it's not. Then they proceed to say, "I've deleted tons of photos but it still says there's no space to backup". I then have to educate them about the limited iCloud free storage space and walk them through deleting their backup and creating a new one. So, it would seem deleting off your phone doesn't just automatically sync the deletions to the iCloud. Again, I could be wrong, but in my workplace dealings with it it doesn't seem to sync deletions.

Just for the record, my view is NOT "It's all your fault you whores!", NOT AT ALL as you can probably see from my earlier post. Clearly this was a crime. The only point I've tried to make in this thread is nothing is safe no matter what, digital or hard copy photos/videos, and as a celeb you'll have all that many more people trying to steal them from you.


Rev.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I read a disturbing comment which uses the same logic which is being put forward as reasonable by some.
> 
> If you don't want your babies raped, then don't have babies.
> 
> ...



It's *not *the same, and you have not answered the questions. Rather than attempt to put other people down for their opinions, how about you actually share your own? Let's hear your thoughts:



troyguitar said:


> So you are saying that knowingly engaging in high risk behavior does NOT carry with it some level of ownership in the results of said risky behavior? That's what I'm hearing from you guys...
> 
> Getting attacked while wandering through the ghetto alone at night in a bikini and stiletto's with your head down and your ipod earbuds blasting is EXACTLY the same as getting attacked in the middle of a convent? People should take precisely zero ownership in the consequences of their actions?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 6, 2014)

It is not the same yet in both cases the victims are not to blame.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

So your argument is that anyone who is directly targeted by the actions of another person and is harmed by said actions is at least partially responsible, if not entirely responsible, for the actions of the other party (the aggressor), even if the other party happens to be a complete stranger whom the victim of said actions has never once made any form of contact with previously?

And you've chosen to frame it in the "She had it coming! I mean, look how she was dressed/look where she was/look what she did/etc." defense for rape to top it off. Nice.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> It's *not *the same, and you have not answered the questions. Rather than attempt to put other people down for their opinions, how about you actually share your own? Let's hear your thoughts:



Just because the severity of the crime is not the same does not mean that the thought process behind placing blame is the same.

It is literally the same thought process. Saying that "x" will inevitably lead to "y," (or that "y" wouldn't have happened if the true victim didn't do "x") so anyone doing "x" should expect "y" and that the blame lies with them and not the people doing ....ed things.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

I'd also add that I participate in a high risk behavior, namely I cross a busy intersection multiple times to get to and from classes and to get to work. 

Each time I use the designated cross walk, each time I press the little button multiple times to make sure the pedestrian crossing light works and make sure no cars are coming before I start moving. I've taken the safety precautions I can.

If one day someone decides they're not going to wait because their time is too important, pedestrians be damned, and blows through that intersection and hits me leaving me paralyzed or dead is it my fault because I assumed that today, like previous days, I'd make it across that intersection uninjured and alive after having taken those precautions? 

Should I have known that today would be the day that some asshole would ignore the light or try to beat it? Should I have waited for my next chance to cross just to be safe, if so, how am I less at fault if I get hit crossing then, shouldn't I have waited that time as well to be safe? 

I'm at least partially at fault for the actions of a stranger harming me directly?

Are my options as a pedestrian in your eyes really "become clairvoyant" or "always be partially at fault in the event of an accident"?


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

Necris said:


> So your argument is that anyone who is directly targeted by the actions of another person and is harmed by said actions is at least partially responsible, if not entirely responsible, for the actions of the other party (the aggressor), even if the other party happens to be a complete stranger whom the victim of said actions has never once made any form of contact with previously?
> 
> And you've chosen to frame it in the "She had it coming! I mean, look how she was dressed/look where she was/look what she did/etc." defense for rape to top it off. Nice.



You still fail to comprehend the argument at all.

Show me the post in which I argued that the criminal is not to blame. What is so hard to understand about owning up to the consequences of your own actions? It is possible to recognize that one made a poor choice while simultaneously recognizing that one could not have foreseen that the choice would lead to bad things and further recognizing that the doers of said bad things are indeed responsible for their own actions. It takes two to tango and all that jazz.

...and Explorer and others are the ones choosing to use rape as the analogy for all of this. I would have used pirating music myself, we are dealing with the theft and distribution of digital media and discussing it on a music forum after all.

Riddle me this:

If people are not responsible for anything bad that happens as a result of their actions, are they also not responsible for anything good that happens as a result of their actions?

What exactly ARE we responsible for in this world, if anything?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You still fail to comprehend the argument at all.
> 
> Show me the post in which I argued that the criminal is not to blame. What is so hard to understand about owning up to the consequences of your own actions? It is possible to recognize that one made a poor choice while simultaneously recognizing that one could not have foreseen that the choice would lead to bad things and further recognizing that the doers of said bad things are indeed responsible for their own actions. It takes two to tango and all that jazz.
> 
> ...





They'll never get it Troy.
They've so obviously and completely embraced the whole "victim culture" mentality, and self responsibility is basically dead when that happens .


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

Explain to me how, when a person takes precautions against a negative outcome, like I do when I cross an intersection, they are partially responsible when that negative outcome occurs anyway.

I'd argue that by looking for cars and making sure the crossing light is on, among other things, before crossing the intersection and while crossing I've shown that I don't want to be hit by a car. 

Despite having taken said precautions, though, in your eyes I'm still at least partially responsible when the car hits me because I knew that people get hit by cars on occasion and if I really didn't want it to happen I should have never crossed the street to begin with or put myself in a situation where I needed to cross the street.

That is the core of your argument.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> Riddle me this:
> 
> If people are not responsible for anything bad that happens as a result of their actions, are they also not responsible for anything good that happens as a result of their actions?
> 
> What exactly ARE we responsible for in this world, if anything?



Who said people aren't responsible when something bad happens? It's when precautions and realistic expectations are taken into account. For instance, if someone dives into busy traffic without warning and gets hit, they are to blame, unlike in Necris' example where he pushes the button, looks, etc. 

If they jump into traffic, it was expected that they'd very realistically been hit. If they wait, look, etc, then they're unlikely to be hit. 

These people didn't just put their pictures willy nilly online. The pictures were in an area that was, to their (and most realistic people's knowledge) secure. The failure was not putting the pictures there, the failure was in allowing that security to be compromised.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> These people didn't just put their pictures willy nilly online. The pictures were in an area that was, to their (and most realistic people's knowledge) secure. The failure was not putting the pictures there, the failure was in allowing that security to be compromised.




No.
Reasonable/realistic people new they were not secure, and people living in a fantasy world thought they were secure.
The results prove my correctness on this without any doubt.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> They'll never get it Troy.
> They've so obviously and completely embraced the whole "victim culture" mentality, and self responsibility is basically dead when that happens .



Not true. I burned myself on some hot coffee the other day. I fully acknowledge that I should have waited for it to cool down before trying to take a sip. 

At the same time, a year or two back around Halloween, me and my wife switched banks. We just got our ATM cards. On our way home we went to get some food. Someone managed to lift my wife's wallet from her purse when nobody was looking. It wasn't until after they withdrew a shit ton of our money from an ATM that we found out it had been taken. (later on that night.) I don't feel we were to blame in any way.


----------



## sunung1188 (Sep 6, 2014)

This is why I never trust the 'cloud'


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No.
> Reasonable people new they were not secure, and people living in a fantasy world thought they were secure.
> The results prove my correctness on this without any doubt.



You're ten kinds of stupid if you think that people should feel guilty about personal information being stolen. I sincerely hope to god that you've never applied for a job, credit card, loan, or anything that involves putting information online where it _should_ be secure. You're not allowed to feel like you've been ....ed over if _any_ information you've ever put _anywhere_ gets obtained by someone else.

Again, this was not just willy nilly putting pictures on the internet. It was supposed to be secure. It's clear you're set in your victim blaming ways though, so I'm just going to take my leave. I really hope no personal belongings ever get taken from you, but if it ever does happen it'll be hard for me to ever feel bad for you or someone with a similar mindset. It's depressing that people like you go out and make people who already feel like shit, feel even more like shit. Congratulations, people like you are what's wrong with society.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

^

People know that identity theft happens but people use their credit and debit cards every day without incident. 

Workers at a Chinese Buffet in my area were arrested for identity theft after stealing the credit and debit card information of ~30 customers.

Are they at least partially to blame because they paid with a credit card rather than cash at a restaurant they assumed was safe?

Were those 30 customers living in a fantasy world where nothing bad could ever happen to them or did they have a reasonable expectation of security based on past experience? 

Assuming you aren't handing your card off to strangers or letting friends borrow it, if you continue to use a credit or debit card despite having knowledge of the existence of identity theft are you at least partially at fault in the event your information is ever stolen and used without your knowledge?


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

Actually, the credit card companies and banks DO assume that this will happen - that is why they have policies to deal with it. You as an individual should also have contingencies in place to deal with it. You don't just cry out on twitter that people should not steal shit and hope that it will stop, you actually do something to protect yourself.

I'm curious how Chicken's thieves are so good that they both stole the debit card AND guessed the PIN correctly at the ATM, that is some serious skill or some seriously terrible PIN choice - Do you write the PIN on the back of the card?

The same goes for the ludicrous crossing the street example. No cars were coming when you started walking, therefore you are good to just walk all the way across without continuing to monitor the road? Who the hell does that? A vehicle rapidly approaching an intersection should be easy to spot and avoid, just use your eyeballs...


----------



## tedtan (Sep 6, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> BTW, do likes give rep, you kind of implied it in your paragraph above.



Xaios has this stuff figured out, so I'm quoting him:




Xaios said:


> Okay, time for the entire explanation. Hold onto your butts.
> 
> First things first. The "Like" system and "Feedback" system have absolutely no connection to the Reputation system. Likes are akin to liking something on Facebook. The Feedback system is purely for buying, trading & selling, it has absolutely nothing to do with posting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> I'm curious how Chicken's thieves are so good that they both stole the debit card AND guessed the PIN correctly at the ATM, that is some serious skill or some seriously terrible PIN choice - Do you write the PIN on the back of the card?



The cards were brand new since we were going from the bank to home. The cards came with pre-determined pins that were on a piece of paper the bank gave us, along with our account number and such. (under the understanding that we would change the pin number later when we used an ATM.) We've had things stolen out of the car in the past, so we figured it'd be safest to carry it on our person, and it got lifted from her purse, along with a few other things. Sort of a weird system, but it's how they were. Would have been ideal if they shipped them to our house and not the bank, but even then, mail theft is common so there are scenarios there as well.

We were actually held responsible, and we never got our money back too. We had to switch accounts again, and decided to do away with debit cards in general so it won't happen again. 

The point is that somebody invaded our property and obtained information illegally. There were alternative situations, all of which could have lead to the theft of our account information/money. Stolen out of the car or whatever, but between the bank and home, our pins were illegally obtainable if someone was willing, and we lucked out.

Despite poking and prodding, and involving the police, we never even got to see the security footage from the ATM that they _knew_ the money was withdrawn from. They knew where and what time, but they never allowed us to see the video and the cops either didn't know who was on the video or they never obtained it.

edit: as for crossing the street, you'd be surprised. I've seen many a close call. People texting while driving, talking, speeding, blind corners, lack of obeying stop signs/traffic lights, drunk drivers. I've seen plenty of it all.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> Actually, the credit card companies and banks DO assume that this will happen - that is why they have policies to deal with it. You as an individual should also have contingencies in place to deal with it. You don't just cry out on twitter that people should not steal shit and hope that it will stop, you actually do something to protect yourself.
> 
> The same goes for the ludicrous crossing the street example. No cars were coming when you started walking, therefore you are good to just walk all the way across without continuing to monitor the road? Who the hell does that? A vehicle rapidly approaching an intersection should be easy to spot and avoid, just use your eyeballs...



If going to twitter to complain that your info was stolen is your first line of defense you have other issues that need to be sorted, there I'd agree.
I'd disagree that the fact that someone else was able to steal said info is the fault of the person who it was stolen from. 

Again, handing your debit card to the guy at the cash register isn't some unthinkable occurrence, it's quite common. Is it safer to pay in cash? Yes. 
But I'm not going to say "You shouldn't have done that if you didn't want your info stolen, moron." to a person who paid for their food/groceries/whatever with a debit card, since they've likely used their card many times without any negative consequence and because had little reason to believe that particular purchase was going to be an anomaly.

Do they have false sense of security? Sure, but to me it's understandable why they would have one.

Additionally, I think every single person on this forum knows to look while you cross, I can't think of a single person over the age a 5 who doesn't know to look for cars before you cross the street and while you cross the street. Don't be dense.

The crossing the street example isn't ludicrous to me, since I've actually had a friend killed by a driver while he was crossing the street to get to his apartment, turns out "'use your eyeballs" (and/or ears) doesn't always solve the problem, but I can't expect you to have known that.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

You don't even need to get into these serious examples full of evil people out to get you to illustrate my point. Take a step back and consider this:

You're getting ready to go somewhere. It's sunny outside and the weather forecasts all say it will stay that way all day, zero percent chance of precipitation. You choose to wear little and forego the umbrella.

2 hours later a freak thunderstorm pops up and leaves you drenched, soaking and freezing for the rest of the day.

Who is responsible for your bad day? The weatherman? The guy who made your shoes? God?


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2014)

Can we drop all of the analogies. It isn't going anywhere and y'all are giving me a headache. 

Here's the take away in this situation:


The user assumed, given past performance and personal experience, that their info would be safe on the cloud 
Said user likely didn't know all of their pictures, including the dirty ones, especially if they were taken with someone elses phone, were even on the cloud
User likely didn't know that deleting doesn't really work that well on a cloud drive given the amount of redundancy those systems have to make sure data isn't lost
It isn't reasonable to assume they knew this given the majority of the populations lack of knowledge of basic computer functions, much less more complicated ones like how data is stored or how cloud storage actually works
Despite this fact we all have knowledge that others may not possess, that doesn't make them stupid
They had zero, read ZERO, intentions for any of this to get out to the public so this isn't an act of whoring the media. This is not a Brittney shaving her head incident or a Lindsey going to jail or Janet Jackson flashing her tit for the camera
All of this was stored on secured servers, read SECURED, so it is reasonably assumed by a layperson that their info would be protected, much like how your bank would protect your personal information
Apple holds some of the responsibility for the lack of security precautions to prevent this
The thieves deserve all of the blame for taking it and making it public

Is it dumb to take pictures of yourself? Maybe. The point everyone is trying to make here is that these actors did not create this situation. They did not ask for it to happen nor give anyone the opportunity to let it happen. Technology is completely foreign to most people despite it being so involved in our lives and that's completely okay as likely they have developed skills in other areas that likely you yourself suck at. These individuals are why tech security firms exists, why IT exists, why network security exists, etc. ANYTHING can happen. That's so damn obvious it's retarded anyone is even saying it. Everyday we operate on a certain level of risk. We don't blame most people for getting hit by a non-observant driver or creamed by a drunk driver because they are on the road late at night or people who get mugged. It really isn't reasonable to put so much blame on them for the failings of the security protocols set in place or the actions of the thieves who exploited them.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Not true. I burned myself on some hot coffee the other day. I fully acknowledge that I should have waited for it to cool down before trying to take a sip.
> 
> At the same time, a year or two back around Halloween, me and my wife switched banks. We just got our ATM cards. On our way home we went to get some food. Someone managed to lift my wife's wallet from her purse when nobody was looking. It wasn't until after they withdrew a shit ton of our money from an ATM that we found out it had been taken. (later on that night.) I don't feel we were to blame in any way.



You are to blame for having a "shit ton of money" in an account with a card attached to that account. Big mistake IMO.
Man up and take some responsibility for your mistakes.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Is it dumb to take pictures of yourself? Maybe. The point everyone is trying to make here is that these actors did not create this situation.





Not everyone is trying to make that point.

They certainly did provide the fuel for the situation, so by all sensible logic they did help create it.
Without their idiocy the "situation" wouldn't even exist.



The point isn't to blame the morons, it's to acknowledge their foolishness.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You don't even need to get into these serious examples full of evil people out to get you to illustrate my point. Take a step back and consider this:
> 
> You're getting ready to go somewhere. It's sunny outside and the weather forecasts all say it will stay that way all day, zero percent chance of precipitation. You choose to wear little and forego the umbrella.
> 
> ...


In my eyes? No-one. 

You made a decision based on the information you had, that information turned out to be incorrect and your decision turned out to be a bad one. It happens all the time.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are to blame for having a "shit ton of money" in an account with a card attached to that account. Big mistake IMO.
> Man up and take some responsibility for your mistakes.



Okay, now I know he's just being funny and doesn't actually believe what he's posting. "Your fault for having money in a bank to be stolen..." That was awesome parody of the dumb reasoning on the other side, and a wonderful way to reduce that side's logic to absurdity. 

Thanks!


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Okay, now I know he's just being funny and doesn't actually believe what he's posting. "Your fault for having money in a bank to be stolen..." That was awesome parody of the dumb reasoning on the other side, and a wonderful way to reduce that side's logic to absurdity.
> 
> Thanks!



Debit cards are notoriously poorly insured, many people argue against having them at all and many others argue not to leave more money in an account that has one than you're willing to lose. It is in fact much smarter/safer to not have a debit card and to instead use a credit card that you pay off every month.

...but don't let facts get in your way of trying to put people down.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are to blame for having a "shit ton of money" in an account with a card attached to that account. Big mistake IMO.
> Man up and take some responsibility for your mistakes.



See, this is why we have arguments going around in circles. We all engage in risks to certain levels, and we all draw the line at a different point when it comes to what we think is reasonable and what we think is not.

For example, I would never consider it unreasonable to assume that money you're keeping in a bank account is secure. I would also not consider it unreasonable to assume that you're not going to be pickpocketed every time you go out in public. Through a really shitty convergence of unrelated events, Chicken wound up being pickpocketed on the only day EVER that the information to his bank account was in his possession alongside an access card, and NOBODY was privy to that information. While not every possible precaution was taken, it is not unreasonable for Chicken to think that he can go about his life without being targeted by an opportunist thief. That thief could have targeted anybody in the area (and probably did) - are we saying that if the thief managed to get car keys out of somebody's bag and managed to find the right car that the owner has to "man up and take some responsibility for their mistakes"? 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Not everyone is trying to make that point.
> 
> They certainly did provide the fuel for the situation, so by all sensible logic they did help create it.
> Without their idiocy the "situation" wouldn't even exist.
> ...



So any aspect of one's condition that contributes to their being targeted makes them an idiot, a moron and a fool. Chicken's wife is an idiot for keeping information in a bag, after determining it would have been foolish to leave it in an unattended car, and being that we've decided it's moronic to keep the information online, the best way to 'reasonably' avoid blame in contributing to the situation would be to own one of those briefcases that you can handcuff to your arm and requires a code or fingerprint to unlock. Which, when you think about it, makes it look like you've got something really valuable in a briefcase, which makes you a target (and therefore a moron), and it's somewhat your own fault for bringing attention to yourself if somebody decides whatever's in the case must be worth a lot and shoots you in the head then shoots the locks off it only to find an ATM card and PIN.

This is why blaming the target of an attack doesn't work. No matter what the situation is, you can always find a point of weakness - that's how people come to be attacked in the first place, somebody knew how to exploit a weakness. If you think it's unreasonable to keep large amounts of money in a bank account, that carrying information around is too high a risk, that you're living in a fantasy world if you don't assume that every person around you is out to get you, then that's your decision. But people who choose not to live that way are not "idiots", "morons", or "fools", and they're not at fault when somebody decides to exploit them. If that were the case, then every person who has ever had their house broken into is partially at fault for living in a house, every person who has ever had a car stolen is partially at fault for owning a car, and every old or disabled person who has ever been mugged is partially at fault for being less capable of defending themselves.



TRENCHLORD said:


> They'll never get it Troy.
> They've so obviously and completely embraced the whole "victim culture" mentality, and self responsibility is basically dead when that happens



 Get what? Define "it". Have I embraced a "victim culture" by making the reasonable assumption that I can walk down the street without being attacked for my possessions, just as I have done every other day of my life without being attacked, and then making the 'idiotic' claim that the attacker is to blame on the day it happens? Should I have been responsible for picking the 'right' street (as if I knew in advance that an opportunist was going to be waiting for somebody to come along)? For not keeping my wallet on a chain? For having information and cash in my wallet? For not wearing full body armour, just in case the attacker has a weapon? 

What if the attacker is an inanimate object? Like a wall. It's on a construction site, and there are signs saying that it's a construction site, and this suggests that it's not structurally sound, but other people are walking past the wall without incident, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that it's going to do anything other than continue standing where it has stood for a long time. But then it gets windy. And you get crushed to death. Are you at fault for not walking along the other side of the road? It was obviously the safer choice. No, funnily enough we look to the construction workers and the owners of the site when somebody is made a victim of their negligence, just as we look to an attacker when somebody is made a victim of their violence instead of looking to the victim for being there, just as we look to the thief when somebody is made a victim of their actions instead of looking to those whose money has been stolen. 

If we're really talking about getting people to...



TRENCHLORD said:


> Man up and take some responsibility for [their] mistakes.



... we have to determine who is responsible for any given action. Help me "get it". How does responsibility for a theft lie with the exploited, not the exploiter? Is it really 'more realistic' to keep every aspect of our lives under lock and key at all times in order to remove opportunities, instead of trying to make opportunists realise that it is their responsibility as a human being not to take advantage of others?

EDIT: spelling


----------



## tedtan (Sep 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> All of this was stored on secured servers, read SECURED, so it is reasonably assumed by a layperson that their info would be protected, much like how your bank would protect your personal information



The people who hacked the servers are obviously responsible for their actions, and Apple is obviously responsible for their lax security.

But to play devil's advocate, can we really say that its reasonable to expect a company to actually live up to their security promises when the evidence (banks', major retailers', universities', government agencies', etc. websites being hacked with some degree of regularity and the result being that personal information ends up being leaked to nefarious persons) suggests that expecting that is akin to expecting a politician to actually follow through on his campaign promises (even though that is a pipe dream)?




estabon37 said:


> What if the attacker is an inanimate object? Like a wall. It's on a construction site, and there are signs saying that it's a construction site, and this suggests that it's not structurally sound, but other people are walking past the wall without incident, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that it's going to do anything other than continue standing where it has stood for a long time. But then it gets windy. And you get crushed to death. Are you at fault for not walking along the other side of the road? It was obviously the safer choice.



This isn't a particularly good analogy, estabon, as its not like the wall flew across town just to land on top of you without warning. You were well warned of the risks, chose to accept them and things didn't play out in your favor this time. But you knew you were taking a chance based on walking though a construction site in and of itself, let alone the warning signs that were posted. Yet you chose to ignore the risk and carry on, so you can't pass the blame off in this situation.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2014)

Hacking has long been a problem for info/data that is supposedly "secure", so it's not a new thing. 
There's a track-record of failure in this area, so for anyone to assume it's full-proof secure makes them an idiot.

This whole thread just demonstrates the level of self-coddling and self-victimization that unfortunately exist in today's culture (at least in America).

I for one proudly and fully accept responsibility for anything and everything that happens to me, for me, and even against me, so help me "god" .
Some of you should maybe try that, it's very liberating to know you do have some control over the outcomes of your own decisions.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

Interesting that you assume that those of us who disagree with you will not accept responsibility for our own actions in any way and don't want to.

I haven't seen anyone in here argue in favor of never holding a person responsible for their own actions but rather that the victim blaming mentality you and others hold is far less sensible than you think.


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> This isn't a particularly good analogy, estabon, as its not like the wall flew across town just to land on top of you without warning. You were well warned of the risks, chose to accept them and things didn't play out in your favor this time. But you knew you were taking a chance based on walking though a construction site in and of itself, let alone the warning signs that were posted. Yet you chose to ignore the risk and carry on, so you can't pass the blame off in this situation.



I might have inadequately explained that particular case - I keep assuming people will click links, and I shouldn't. Nobody walked into a construction site, it was next to a footpath. There were signs around advertising the construction company, but it's not as if the people who were killed deliberately wandered into a construction zone past signs that were telling them to wear hard hats and safety gear. They were walking on a footpath that was open to the public, and in theory, they were taking no more risk by walking beside the construction site than everybody else does by walking on a footpath next to a road. An equal analogy might have been any case where somebody is struck by a car and killed when they're on a footpath.

I used the analogy because the circumstances were as benign and featured the lowest risk to the victim as any I could think of. I used it because if you placed responsibility of the deaths on the people who died in that case, you'd be making a pretty ludicrous argument.

Taking a risk as small as walking on a footpath does not necessarily make you accountable for things going wrong, especially if there is negligence on the part of another party, or deliberate harm caused to you by another party. When all you've done is taken the same low risk that dozens / hundreds / thousands / millions of other people around you are taking, it's a bit strange to even call it a risk. This is why even if you ultimately decide that there's no fault on the part of the people who constructed the wall, you don't then decide that a person's death is their fault for being beside it when it collapsed, you just come to the realisation that they were incredibly unlucky, unlike the dozens / hundreds / thousands / millions of other people that passed by the same wall without ever being harmed. With that in mind, I'd say that Chicken isn't accountable for his circumstances because on the surface he took no more risk than any other person who was in the same public space at the time of the theft (he just happened to be targeted and just happened to have something valuable at the time), and I'd say that the iCloud victims aren't accountable because they took no more risk than any other person who has entrusted their data with any organisation, website, or person (they just happened to be targeted and the thief just happened to find their pictures as opposed to absolutely anybody else's).


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 6, 2014)

Necris said:


> Interesting that you assume that those of us who disagree with you will not accept responsibility for our own actions in any way and don't want to.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone in here argue in favor of never holding a person responsible for their own actions but rather that the victim blaming mentality you and others hold is far less sensible than you think.



You argued that the victims do not have one shred of responsibility whatsoever in any case... How can one accept responsibility for one's actions while simultaneously believing that one is a powerless victim who is absolutely NOT responsible for anything?

You have to pick a side, either responsibility lies 100% with the criminal or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then by definition the victim does hold some non-zero level of responsibility. If it does, then you are NOT responsible for your own actions.

What is your belief?


----------



## estabon37 (Sep 6, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Hacking has long been a problem for info/data that is supposedly "secure", so it's not a new thing.
> There's a track-record of failure in this area, so for anyone to assume it's full-proof secure makes them an idiot.
> 
> This whole thread just demonstrates the level of self-coddling and self-victimization that unfortunately exist in today's culture (at least in America).
> ...



Okay, you've been in condescending territory for a few posts now, but this takes the cake. At what point does highlighting the greater responsibility on the part of an aggressor become self-coddling? Shall we talk about actual self-victimisation? Let's discuss journalists actively entering warzones full of people that want to cut their heads off, or shooting range instructors that place powerful weapons into the hands of a child, or people blowing themselves up while cooking meth with volatile chemicals, or John McClane wearing a billboard featuring racially disparaging remarks while standing on a corner in Harlem (which I'm assured is a lovely neighbourhood). You are accusing the majority of the population of being idiots essentially for using the internet, because the majority of the population provide even small amounts of personal information to websites, which in the experiences of that same majority carries no greater risk than any other action they undertake in their everyday lives. 

If we're talking about track records of failure as a basis for avoiding interactions, you have to rule out everything that exists in terms of storing finances, assets, or data. These are things that we all have and need. No perfect system exists, so we can't be blamed for not using it. The people who exploit the weaknesses of the existing systems, on the other hand, can and should be blamed for their aggressive and often misanthropic behaviour. If you genuinely believe that you have a significant responsibility for every bad thing that anybody has done to you against your wishes and without your consent, then you should probably talk to a psychologist. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that. It's genuinely fucked up.


----------



## Necris (Sep 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You argued that the victims do not have one shred of responsibility whatsoever in any case... How can one accept responsibility for one's actions while simultaneously believing that one is a powerless victim who is absolutely NOT responsible for anything?
> 
> You have to pick a side, either responsibility lies 100% with the criminal or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then by definition the victim does hold some non-zero level of responsibility. If it does, then you are NOT responsible for your own actions.
> 
> What is your belief?


I don't believe these women hold responsibility for the actions of others towards them, no. The majority of these women used a service they believed was safe, they presumably tried to use good passwords for that service, a failure on the part of the service allowed others to steal information they had no intention of ever sharing with others. I don't see that as the same as posting their images publicly on Imgur or some other widely used site and then complaining when people are able to view them.

I don't believe any of the examples I gave are the fault of the victim in the slightest. Do I believe that in all cases a victim is guilt free? No, and I haven't alluded to such a belief either.

As hard as it may be to believe, personally, I keep my personal information off of the internet to the best of my ability, pictures included, keep my passwords varied and changed frequently, don't carry more money than I think I need if I'm not willing to lose it, make sure that all of my doors are locked before I leave the house, insure my instruments/gear, among other things. 

Do you wish to argue that despite taking those measures I have not accepted my own responsibility to keep my information/money/property safe or that through my actions I have clearly rejected that responsibility? 

If there is a security breach at my bank, and I find out I am among those whose information was compromised I'll do everything I can to safeguard against my identity/funds being used against my will and without my permission. However, at no point in time will I feel as though I'm responsible for said security breach.

In the event someone breaks in to my house while I'm away no, I won't feel as though it's partially my fault for not buying bigger locks, barring off the windows or whatever. 
I'll do what I can, legally, to get back what's mine. I accept that it is no-one else can or should be expected to go find my stolen items/replace what was stolen if it wasn't insured, or deal with the insurance company.
But again, I don't feel responsible for the break in and theft.

I don't think that's at all out of keeping with my previous posts in this thread.

On a related note I have zero intention of going in to further detail about what I specifically do to protect myself to satisfy a complete stranger on the internet, so I suppose you'll just have to take me at my word.

Also, I feel I've wasted enough time arguing in circles, so I'm going to bow out of this thread.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2014)

In all the examples people have given above I'd say the victim isn't even kind of to blame for what happened. All actions we take lead to events that happen to us. Every. Single. One. It's mindbogglingly stupid to approach an argument from that angle because it is about as obvious as it gets. It really isn't a helpful position to argue from because everything boils down to the same answer and can be applied to even the most heinous acts, of which you'd likely not find the victim to be at fault. 

That doesn't imply at all that we believe people are never to blame either. If I jay walk and get hit by a car I am completely to blame (in terms of guilt, not sequence of events because then the driver would be guilty by merely being the one to do it; again a rather pointless position to be arguing from). If I'm walking on the sidewalk and a car plows me over the driver is completely at fault. There are plenty of cases where it is all or nothing in terms of guilt such as these. We are not implying, or at least I'm not, that it is always all or nothing and that the victim is never at fault for what happens to them. It isn't that anyone is saying someones actions didn't lead to the eventual result. We are saying that this doesn't always pass some of the guilt in the crime off on to the victim. There's a difference between being stupid and being exploited.

There is absolutely no way to avoid risk in life. None. If I keep my personal records in my home they could get stolen. Most homes only have a kwikset door lock (or something comparable) which is ridiculously easy to pick. Takes an amateur only a couple of minutes with the right tools. Can't put your info on the web because "Hacking has long been a problem for info/data that is supposedly "secure", so it's not a new thing." So I guess we'll just keep it all in our heads and only do business at the bank. Oh wait, but someone overheard me at the bank and now has my information or the teller or someone else has decided to misuse my information. Okay, I'll just mail the info in to the doctor/school/whatever. But wait, someone stole my mail from the sorting center. I better keep my money in the mattress at home to avoid my money getting stolen out of my bank. But wait a minute, my home isn't very secure and what if it burns to the ground. Can you see why this notion is just ridiculous. Risk is inherent in simply existing. It benefits no one to even bother approaching a situation from this angle unless you just pick and choose when to apply it (at your own discretion of course).

Can't stress this enough, but I, and likely everyone else, am not implying that we don't physically take part in what happens to us sometimes and I'm not implying that the victim isn't partially or completely guilty for those things happening to them sometimes. In this case, and many of the other examples given throughout this thread, the victim is not at fault for what happened to them. Taking action that starts a sequence of events != fault/blame like your group is implying and the notion otherwise is almost philosophical in nature in its uselessness.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 7, 2014)

There is nothing I could possibly say to put down someone who uses identical logic to that which be be used to justify blaming victims of all kinds of crime.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 7, 2014)

Explorer said:


> There is nothing I could possibly say to put down someone who uses identical logic to that which be be used to justify blaming victims of all kinds of crime.



Compared to someone who uses no logic whatsoever and merely implies that no victim of any crime EVER shares any responsibility whatsoever.

Can you even form an argument of your own?

Your participation in this thread has consisted of NOTHING but indirectly insulting other people's views without providing a single argument.

What do *you *think and why?

Please, share your superior logic - or are you only capable of insults?


----------



## tedtan (Sep 7, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> I might have inadequately explained that particular case - I keep assuming people will click links, and I shouldn't. Nobody walked into a construction site, it was next to a footpath. There were signs around advertising the construction company, but it's not as if the people who were killed deliberately wandered into a construction zone past signs that were telling them to wear hard hats and safety gear. They were walking on a footpath that was open to the public, and in theory, they were taking no more risk by walking beside the construction site than everybody else does by walking on a footpath next to a road. An equal analogy might have been any case where somebody is struck by a car and killed when they're on a footpath.



I follow now, and in that case I agree that the pedestrian would not be at fault. I had assumed a situation where a pedestrian walked onto a path going through a construction site after knowing the risk (the construction sites I'm familiar with are typically barricaded off and have multiple warning signs of the dangers present, so in that case a pedestrian would have to willfully ignore the warnings to be on the path/sidewalk/etc.).


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Sep 10, 2014)

Speaking personally, this is a shame but it's not confirmed that Apple's servers were insecure and had several vulnerabilities it's all theories at this point. But coming from my experience working in the industry and working directly with customers and helping them set their passwords.

People don't do complex and difficult passwords, they just don't. I ALWAYS warn people about this, and in fact use myself as an example of how I change my passwords for everything important in my life on a regular basis. Write it down, keep the notebook safe and have all your passwords safe, or come up with a system like I have and make it easier to remember the complex passwords.

The most common theory is that people used a "Brute force" program to guess the people's relatively easy passwords. So no there wasn't a vulnerability that was exploited due to Apple's negligence. If this theory is true, then Apple isn't at fault, the person who set the password didn't protect themselves properly in favor of a very easy to guess security measure on their account. All Apple could have done is put in place a system that would act on a machine guessing too many times, but EVEN THEN. If the malware guessed it correctly within the security limits there is nothing Apple could have done.

Jennifer Lawrence is awesome, I don't see her any differently than I did before. People from different generations might, parents might, but that's the nature of what a PARENT does. If you can prevent it or point your child away from someone's nude pictures I can't imagine they wouldn't do everything in their power to do so. She still does something that is so common place nowadays that there isn't honestly anything wrong with it.

But how can you as a young person who is doing something like taking nude pictures not look into how it's stored and what you can do to protect yourself? I'm not BLAMING them, I'm just saying if there's an option in your phone that you can turn off so that they're not all remotely saved in a location that you might not want them to be at, why not look into that and turn it off? It'd be something else if the option didn't exist and this was mandatory, and this does in fact turn out to be an exploit of Apple's infrastructure.

Nothing's confirmed yet, so pointing fingers and finding someone to blame because of this happening isn't something anyone should do. The hacker(s) are to blame and they're the only ones who should be.

For all we know it could have been someone working at Apple or someone who had knowledge of their system and took advantage of their position and power. No one knows, so this is all speculation. Pointing fingers at anyone without any evidence of what actually happened is just as bad as victim blaming, just because you see the person afflicted in a better light doesn't mean you should be finding someone to dump the fault on to make them feel better.

When we find out who the culprit is, enjoy putting the blame on that person. This is speaking of the technical side of this situation only, but if we're going into morality and ethics. I haven't seen this much outrage about leaks before, especially several events about people's private life being violated and the "victim" being put to shame for what they did, mocked, or enjoyed with no one calling the FBI to find out or persecute the person who violated the person's rights. Not naming any names, but this has happened recently and always has, and most people never cared.


----------

