More nude photo leaks

[PdYyP1iWeJaWBnlafPe4]

Not saying that it's anyone other than the fault of the Hackers for leaking the photos, but is it really that wrong to say you probably shouldn't leave something as personal and potentially embarrassing as nude photos as something as unsecure as the cloud? I mean, it's nothing but common security options most people should take out of common sense. It's the same reason you should have a password that can't be guessed easily or leave your personal information in a position where it can be potentially stolen easily. It's all a matter of taking simple steps in being proactive, there's just to many assholes out there wanting to take advantage of everyone to not afford the time or effort to do so be it information security, driving, or something as basic as personal safety.

That's the thing. Anytime you say, "please don't post/upload things on the internet if you don't want it public" is met with, "that's victim blaming!" ... no, that's the reality of technology. I'm sorry whoever says, "that's victim blaming" does not understand just how fucking complicated "silicon -> cloud -> silicon" really is. Until people understand the risks of wtf the internet is, we're going to hear a lot of bullshit from people that have no idea what they're talking about ... and they'll truly believe they are correct :-/

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Again, wrong. You assume there is only 1 action possible as a response, and that is hilariously misguided.

* Why can multiple account access to financials be done over the internet for that company without more provisions?
* And if it is a bank, as a consumer, I shouldn't care too much since they're most likely FDIC insured and will offer identity theft monitoring services for free.

Does that mean that the bank is guilt free in what happened? Nope. They have security holes they need to fix. But luckily, that sensitive info is insured and protect by government regulations. Will those evil NK hackers be extradited before Glorious Leader kills them? Maybe, maybe not (most likely not). That's what you're trusting your tax dollars to fund: to protect against government and corporate sponsored attacks that threaten the (digital) infrastructure of our country. Can you show me your insurance for dick pics?

I just honestly cannot envision *any* scenario where private nudes are leaked and those that took the pictures (that never existed before their actions) to have 0% or less than 0% fault for those pictures (which never existed before their actions) being compromised by means of the most complex system of devices that has ever existed in the sum total of all of humanity for all time.

(hint: Polaroid + safe, or share public keys with your spouse)

I've been watching your little back and forth here. I'm gonna give you a very real and somewhat common excuse given for a very serious crime [*Slight TRIGGER warning*]

Let's say some woman is walking down the street, perfectly legal and expected that she should be ok in doing so. She has every right to walk down that street. Nobody has any right to tell her otherwise. Let's put your logic into action... Say a man comes up behind her and swiftly steals her away and puts her in an alley. That man performs a crime. Suddenly that woman has been sexually assaulted, with her rights removed. Her expectation of safety was compromised.

Sure, like the internet and iCloud photos, there's always the chance of them being leaked or stolen, just like how every woman is at risk of being assaulted on the street. With your logic, you're telling us we should blame the victim for walking down the street in the first place, rather than deal with the man who committed the crime in the first place.

And don't bullshit me and say they're not the same and are of different severity. Both are crimes, both are illegal, both are equal to THE SAME form of judgement. I'm not denying there are differences in expectations, securities, and responsibilities between both scenarios. I'm just putting your logic into a different situation/light. Am I wrong with what I've said?

 

[PdYyP1iWeJaWBnlafPe4]

*self-snip*

I've been watching your little back and forth here. I'm gonna give you a very real and somewhat common excuse given for a very serious crime [*Slight TRIGGER warning*]

Let's say some woman is walking down the street, perfectly legal and expected that she should be ok in doing so. She has every right to walk down that street. Nobody has any right to tell her otherwise. Let's put your logic into action... Say a man comes up behind her and swiftly steals her away and puts her in an alley. That man performs a crime. Suddenly that woman has been sexually assaulted, with her rights removed. Her expectation of safety was compromised.

Sure, like the internet and iCloud photos, there's always the chance of them being leaked or stolen, just like how every woman is at risk of being assaulted on the street. With your logic, you're telling us we should blame the victim for walking down the street in the first place, rather than deal with the man who committed the crime in the first place.

And don't bullshit me and say they're not the same and are of different severity. Both are crimes, both are illegal, both are equal to THE SAME form of judgement. I'm not denying there are differences in expectations, securities, and responsibilities between both scenarios. I'm just putting your logic into a different situation/light. Am I wrong with what I've said?

I kinda think you are a bit wrong in what you said, tbh.

You cannot duplicate a human. You can easily duplicate data. Data is information, the representation on a medium differs, but it can be easily be replicated without loss of original. With humans (the physical world), it is impossible to have a perfect clone+conciousness. No human is in multiple places at once in perfect condition (unlike data). That makes movement/duplication/alteration of the subject terribly difficult *in comparison*.

How are they equal to the "same form of judgement" if there are different expectations, securities, and responsibilities? If the context, expected outcome, and individual responsibility is different (as you admitted), then there is no way they are purely equivalent (by virtue of a single variable differing). I explicitly stated it was a non-majority but non-0% of blame. You simple cannot under any circumstance copy or leak that which does not exist. It does not mean that the attacker is correct in any means, but the attacker did not generate nor upload sensitive data to a globally restricted area (globally accessible with the correct passphrase/credentials). If the data is not uploaded to the internet (that is, only kept locally or on an encrypted USB kept at home), no attacker *on the internet* will be able to subvert & access those images.

I mean, seriously, why would anyone put a lock on their house if stealing is illegal? If it's illegal, under no circumstances (according to your logic) should you safeguard against it since after all, it is illegal to steal your possessions. But if it is illegal to B&E + steal, why do people do it? Maybe, just maybe, there are a fuckton of shitbags in the world that have absolutely zero fucks to give with respect to anyone but themselves. Just because one *wants* the world to be all gravy and sunshine doesn't make it so. After all, rape is illegal but women carry mace. Why carry mace if assault and rape is illegal? They shouldn't need to do that. If they carry mace, aren't they saying that it's already futile to trust people at large? Why is carrying mace acceptable but not encrypting your excessively private/intimate data/information?

People can argue this shit as long as they would like, it will never ever remove shitbags from the world. Accounting for shitbags IRL does a lot of good on an individual and societal level, even if it *shouldn't* be needed because of laws (because we all know no one ever, in all time, has ever broken a law).

The people that ***** and moan about privacy and security wrt nudes can almost never (in my personal experience) describe to me how a packet exits my network controller, hits the main server, and comes back. Does that mean that they are incapable of using the tech? Not at all. Does it mean that they have a misguided understanding of what is happening under the hood of their personal-choice-app? Absolutely. There is a line between saying, "this is important information to keep you safe from individuals and governments" and "you are never at fault for anything you do" but that line is pretty god damn wide and to erase that line just because of legality completely ignores human nature and shitbags in general.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Why? What compels a person to take a picture of themselves naked? Surely, if you wish for someone else to view your naked body, you could show them the real thing?

Now, that's perfectly okay, there's no law against being weird, but why store them in unsafe places? Don't get me wrong, it's a sex crime to leak these things, but I would think, after taking a nude photo, you might put a little effort into concealing it? Because everyone should know by now, the digital world is not very secure.

When it was just the iCloud, that was reasonable. You have to store your photos somewhere, and it's not unreasonable to assume they would be safe with Apple. But now Snapchat? Come on, who could ever think that would be a safe place to store lewd photos?

Now, I won't lie: I have some photos on my phone that I would not like to see the light of day. But I put effort into making sure they don't see daylight. People are entitled to privacy, but in this day and age, you have to put some work towards that goal. Use some common sense, just like with those folders on your desktop marked 'stuff'. And unless you absolutely need to - say, for example, to draw in a yardstick for comparison - don't use Snapchat.

My friends (who were dating at the time) swapped nude pics for when they weren't able to see each other for long periods of time. So I understand why people do it.

The thing is, they have every right to do it and expect those images to be protected (especially since this is another case of them deleting the images and the site storing them anyway).

Just wanna put out there, buy it's very nature data isn't "truly" deleted. Doing so is very time consuming and can kill the medium faster.

 

[Vivi22]

Of course, they have every right to do it. But it's well known that most data is never really deleted, especially with cloud storage.

No. It's well known amongst people who are reasonably tech savvy. The average Joe that doesn't care to know about most of this stuff does not know. And frankly, they shouldn't have to since if they deleted something, it should be gone.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Its not about sending nudes to people. These pictures were hacked from Cloud Services my qustion is why would save nude pictures of YOURSELF? Once you've sent the pic why on earth would you keep it? Are these people so narcissistic that they get off on looking at themselves naked?

Pictures they deleted and also I am pretty certain that I-cloud may have uploaded them itself or they may have used that system to send them in the first place.

Some of them ar being big babies about, Jennifer Lawrence especially. Saying that anyone who views the pictures are committing a "sex crime". Is she really so stupid? Why can't they all just laugh it off like Kaley Cuoco from Big Bang Theory? When she got asked about she just laughed and said "oh well whoever got them went through a lot of trouble to see me naked" and just shrugged the whole thing off not bitching and moaning like Jennifer Lawrence and even stupider Kelly Brook who gets her clothes off for a living!

1. That's because it is a sex crime. Non-consensual pornagraphing is illegal. Viewing it is iffy at best.
2. Why should she have to have the same attitudes towards sex as anyone else? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
3. I know I would be bitching and moaning. I guess I'm just an attention whore.

I'm starting to think the whole thing is a HUGE Publicity Stunt. Because most people wouldn't even know about Jennifer Lawrences' pictures if she didn't say anything and made that big speech about how people looking at them are committing a "sex crime". Jen you're a celebrity if you can't handle alll the papparazi, news tabloids and the occasional photo leak then you should retire from acting all together, its obviously not for you. I think she's more mad that some of the pictures show what she really is a stoner idiot who's slightley bisexual and a bit of a nympho. If she kept her mouth shut the whole thing would have been forgotten about she only has herself to blame for making even more people aware of it.

1. FUCKING WHAT? These images were fucking everywhere the day they were leaked. EVERYWHERE. You think it was her complaining that got people to notice and not their aching boners? You have got to be fucking kidding me. You must be new here.
2. If they didn't want to die from lung cancer they shouldn't have worked in our factories! If they didn't want the black lung they should have not been miners! If they didn't want to die in the trenches or blown to smithereens by artillery they shouldn't have joined the army!
3. And of course it ends with a bunch of sexist slut shaming, with just a hint of homophobia. Stay classy Escapist.

 

[freaper]

These hackers are sexual predators, and should be treated as such.

Knee.Jerk.Reaction.

How about selling these photos? Don't you think they'll make quite a bit of money for it?

If they can get to your pictures they can probably get to your codes, don't you think?

OT: Yes, the hackers are to blame 100%. Then again, I lock my doors when I leave the house, because I don't live in a 500-man village where I know everyone and everyone knows me. The internet is just that analogy extrapolated to new heights.