Massive load of celeb pictures leaked

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by photon

Re: online banking, BMO requires an absurdly short password. They MUST be six characters long. I'm shocked that they don't have a serious problem.

They also have two-step verification, although the second one could easily be hacked with social engineering.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Muta

Huh? If you get on the ice, you should know that you could get hit if you let your guard down for even a split second. You take the risks playing the game.

If you use digital devices, you're playing that game whether you know it or not. Account hacking isn't revolutionary news in any way, shape or form.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think when you focus blame on people who actually didn't do anything wrong, you're taking it away from the actual perpetrators of the crime and letting them off the hook. It perpetuates a set of morals where it's okay to victimize someone if there is even a shred of vulnerability.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Wow. What is your problem?

You want to make short-sighted and condescending posts...

I use online banking like a lot of people (lots even use it on their phones). Should I expect my money to get stolen at some point because it's on the internet?

So online banking is stupid and you don't do it?

I believe you. I really do.

... I can stoop to that too. But hey, let's forgive and forget. No need for hostilities. Agreed?

[Canuck-Hater]

With the exception of Jennifer Lawrence

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think when you focus blame on people who actually didn't do anything wrong, you're taking it away from the actual perpetrators of the crime and letting them off the hook. It portrays a morality where it's okay to victimize someone if there is even a shred of vulnerability.

Except that's not what's happening, you are forcing in arguments that simply do not apply out of some misplaced moral authority. It was explicitly stated that the hackers are at fault and are to blame, yes the celebrities are victims, nobody is saying that it was ok.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think when you focus blame on people who actually didn't do anything wrong, you're taking it away from the actual perpetrators of the crime and letting them off the hook. It portrays a morality where it's okay to victimize someone if there is even a shred of vulnerability.

It's not so much a question of who's at fault and who isn't, but more about an element of common sense one needs to use here. Do you need to be taking compromising photos of yourself? Do you really need to do that? Think about what could happen if something went wrong.

[Canuck-Hater]

Not blaming the victim here, but its not exactly a good idea to take pornographic pictures of yourself in the first place.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

Re: online banking, BMO requires an absurdly short password. They MUST be six characters long. I'm shocked that they don't have a serious problem.

They also have this:

http://www.bmo.com/home/about/bankin...ect-you#tabs-3

We will reimburse you 100% for any losses to your Personal Banking accounts resulting from unauthorized transactions through Online Banking.

Some bean counter somewhere decided that it cost more money to put in a somewhat sane password policy than to pay for insurance (or self-insure) to replace these funds.

Ain't no one gonna give Jennifer Lawrence her boob (or whatever) privacy back. Unless the pictures are quite graphic, I doubt it will cause any professional issues at all.

[AcGold]

Supposedly they are incredibly graphic, I feel bad for her. More embarrassing than anything, her kids will be able to see them which is really messed up.

[Chill Cosby]

Are there two different arguments at hand here?

1. You cannot blame the victims
2. Taking nude pictures has an inherent risk associated with it.

These two things seem to be the main points on either side, and I don't think either point negates the other (which might be the cause for the circular nature of the argument).

I think a general truth is that many things one does carries with it risk. People take calculated risks all the time, and often time those risks play a part in the bad things that happen to people. Getting cancer is a risk you take repeatedly in your life, getting to an accident is a risk you take every time you get into a car, you risk getting robbed any time you walk down the street.

I guess what makes me curious, is where the cutoff is. What makes us say to one person "That's terrible that happened to you." and to another person "You knew the risks involved."?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Muta

It's not so much a question of who's at fault and who isn't, but more about an element of common sense one needs to use here. Do you need to be taking compromising photos of yourself? Do you really need to do that? Think about what could happen if something went wrong.

I guess I just don't see how it's any different than any other recreational behaviour. Basically anything you do that's recreational is unnecessary and has the potential for something very bad to happen.

[AcGold]

Don't tell them they knew the risks involved is my opinion, not really helpful after the fact. Tell them before, don't take any compromising photos on your phone. The reason being it's not worth any risk at all. Opening a jewelry store, carrying around money, wearing provocative clothing, playing professional hockey, playing soccer or online banking all have some possible desired benefit. Taking compromising photos on a phone has none really, so it's terrible it happened, don't do it anymore?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Don't tell them they knew the risks involved is my opinion, not really helpful after the fact. Tell them before, don't take any compromising photos on your phone. The reason being it's not worth any risk at all. Opening a jewelry store, carrying around money, wearing provocative clothing, playing professional hockey, playing soccer or online banking all have some possible desired benefit. Taking compromising photos on a phone has none really, so it's terrible it happened, don't do it anymore?

That's a pretty subjective statement, no? How does playing hockey or soccer have more of a desired benefit than taking nude pics of yourself and sharing it with someone you're in a relationship, if that's what the two of you enjoy?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's a pretty subjective statement, no? How does playing hockey or soccer have more of a desired benefit than taking nude pics of yourself and sharing it with someone you're in a relationship, if that's what the two of you enjoy?

You don't see Bill Gates taking photos of his vaults of money containing billions of dollars, do you? No, he has more foresight than that.

[undercoverbrother]

nm

[Erick Estrada]

You people can argue this forever but the bottom line is if you are a celebrity that doesn't want people to ever see them nude there is only one course of action and that's not to take picture of themselves nude and distribute to others or store anywhere but their own secure HD (which is not always safe in some cases). Also lets not forget these celebrities pay their managers $$$ to advise them of how to go about go about their private lives privately. If any of these celebrities had nude photographs stored on a cloud service then their handler should be fired for letting them happen and not educating them as that's what they get paid for. If the celebrity was warned and still did it then well what can you say after knowing the chances existed?

I don't want to get into the debate about what's wrong and what's right because the issue at hand is that it happened and that cannot be changed and will likely happen again as long as there are hackers. As has been said there is a reason you can't see Jessica Alba nude so it's always going to go back to the discretion of the individual.

[djsFlames]

Due to the amount of people going on about this, I looked into it. I'm only going to say, the J-Law photos are pretty graphic, and would be humiliating IF this is something that would bother her.

I personally don't care that much, as it's just a body. Not like we've never seen a naked person before. Doesn't really tarnish her image to me tbh. In fact, I think people are blowing the whole thing out of proportion with the "ohhh her innocence". If she were underage, then yes, absolutely. But she's an adult whose played some sexually suggestive roles on a few occasions. The fact that she has dirty photos isn't exactly earth shattering to see/realize.

I mean, we're the only mammals in existence to clothe ourselves. All the others are running around naked, humping each other in plain sight on a daily basis. Really, who even cares that much.

You upload photos of yourself onto anything and you're obviously comfortable enough with them being there and should know the risks, that you might get burnt. Even on a camera, or an internet-less device, anything can be stolen.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Don't tell them they knew the risks involved is my opinion, not really helpful after the fact. Tell them before, don't take any compromising photos on your phone. The reason being it's not worth any risk at all. Opening a jewelry store, carrying around money, wearing provocative clothing, playing professional hockey, playing soccer or online banking all have some possible desired benefit. Taking compromising photos on a phone has none really, so it's terrible it happened, don't do it anymore?

I think there are pretty real, fun benefits to taking nude pictures of yourself.

Maybe you should loosen up

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Muta

You want to make short-sighted and condescending posts...

I don't see a problem with this post. It's a question I asked you.

Not sure what the problem with post is either. I used the word stupid because you used it in describing uploading nude photos.

Ok so that is probably condescending, I apologize I could have worded that nicer. But I have a really hard time believing you feel sorry for them while looking at the pictures.

... I can stoop to that too. But hey, let's forgive and forget. No need for hostilities. Agreed?

No need indeed....

[jschick88]

Apple says that the mass theft of nude celebrity photos that were released over the weekend did not occur because of a breach in any Apple systems, including iCloud. Apple says, however, that certain celebrities were the subject of targeted hacking attempts that focused on compromising their usernames, passwords, and security questions.

Apple's full statement can be read below.

We wanted to provide an update to our investigation into the theft of photos of certain celebrities. When we learned of the theft, we were outraged and immediately mobilized Apple’s engineers to discover the source. Our customers’ privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple’s systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved.
To protect against this type of attack, we advise all users to always use a strong password and enable two-step verification. Both of these are addressed on our website at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4232.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/2/609...ude-photo-hack