OK, to anyone who thinks the people who had their nude photos stolen, shouldn't have posted them....

[riqster]

"OK, to anyone who thinks the people who had their nude photos stolen, shouldn't have posted them online in the first place, substitute "banking records", or "credit card information" for "nude photos" then think about how you feel about it..."

That is from a friend's FB post. I think he's right.

[el_bryanto]

1. That's why I live in a cave.

Some people will have nude photos of themselves. Some people will not have nude pictures of themselves. Some people who will not have nude pictures of themselves look down on the sort of people who do have nude pictures of themselves.

Bryant

[riqster]

3. I assume I have no privacy. Then I live my life.

It takes away a lot of stress.

[Lonusca]

67. Isn't it amazing your statement is true?

I have a very similar attitude. I didn't always. It is amazing how fast things changed.

Advances can have such a double edged sword.

[riqster]

87. Asimov once said that the advance of civilization was nothing but a decline in privacy.

Not sure of the exact phrase, but it's the gist.

[Blue_Adept]

89. “The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/541755-the-advance-of-civilization-is-nothing-but-an-exercise-in

[riqster]

95. Thanks! One of the Foundation novels IIRC.

I'll click the link later.

[Lonusca]

108. Spot on

It's a tough balancing act. And privacy is always going to come out on the short end.

I try to think of this: Does the post internet generation - say kids in the 15-18 year old range and younger - really understand what privacy is?

[riqster]

110. Ouch. Helluva thought.

[DetlefK]

2. They didn't "post" them anywhere. They had them stored on an external hard-drive.

And that hard-drive was hacked because he had a connection to the Internet. Got that?

[riqster]

4. They posted them to a supposedly secure online/cloud storage location.

Just like financial records.

[DetlefK]

7. Sigh. Let's say, you use a private back-up-server for your laptop/smartphone.

If I hack your server and steal your information, did I really commit a crime? You posted that information on the server. And no server is really safe. Your incompetence is at fault.

Let's say, you write personal data on a piece of paper and lock that paper into a bank-vault. I break into the bank and make a copy of that paper. Did I really steal your personal data? After all, you posted it in the bank-vault. And no bank is really safe. Your incompetence is at fault.

Let's say, you write personal data on a piece of paper and lock that paper into your personal safe. I crack your safe and make a copy of that paper. Did I really steal your personal data? After all, you posted it inside your safe. Your incompetence is at fault.

[riqster]

8. That is the crux of the security piece. Legally, we agree to joint liability with Internet companies

The point of the OP is that there is no real difference between a nude photo being stolen and a credit card number being stolen.

But the vast masses seem to think there IS a difference. I say "bullshit".

[RKP5637]

40. Agree! Information is information. It's the theft of information that should be of concern,

not the content IMO.

[riqster]

61. +1

[global1]

9. I Guess I'm Not Following Your Logic Here.....

If someone steals anything from me - they really didn't steal it? It was my incompetence at fault? Are you saying it's alright to steal and rob? If you say no bank vault is really safe - is anything really safe? If someone breaks into my house? my car? It's my fault because of my incompetence?

There is no culpability on the part of the person that does the breaking in? They're off scott free because of my incompetence? I'm sorry - I just don't follow your logic.

[DetlefK]

11. Exactly.

How can we blame the celebrities for storing personal data in a way that they were told is safe? How can we blame them when the method is at fault?

If we apply the same logic to everyday crime, then every theft can be traced back to someone trusting a method to be safe when it is not PERFECTLY safe. And because no method to prevent theft is perfectly safe, we can always blame the victim for choosing that method.

These celebrities are ultimately just users, just consumers like me and you. They are not in the business of security or IT, so you can't expect them to know each and every weak spot of everything they use. They purchase a method and they expect it to work, taking the guys who sell it at their word. If it doesn't work, then it's the fault of the guys who sold it.

[kcr]

13. I actually thought you were being serious in that post

Before it became clear the point you were trying to make. That's how ridiculous some people are over this whole thing.

[Feral Child]

94. Apologies.

I mistook your thrust. I'll delete my prior post.

[sendero]

18. You can't be serious..

.... "If I hack your server and steal your information, did I really commit a crime?"

If I kick down your door and take your food did I really commit a crime? You should have had a steel door.

Your premise is beyond ridiculous and for the record, YES it is a crime as the dipwad who did this is going to find out.

[riqster]

20. I think the poster was making a point in a snarky fashion.

At least, that is how I took it,

[sendero]

26. Probably..

..... but you never know around here.

[DetlefK]

132. Long live the snark!

[kcr]

138. That's a sign it was snark well done

[sendero]

154. I would say so...

.... sad that I could believe that anyone could actually think that way,but I do

[pnwmom]

75. It is beyond ridiculous on purpose. The poster was taking the logical position to an extreme

to show how ridiculous it was.

[pnwmom]

74. Thank you! You said it very well. n/t

[Feral Child]

93. DELETED, 'cause I was being a reactionary twit.

Sorry.

[pnwmom]

72. "Post" implies some degree of action and intent. It also implies that other people will be viewing.

These women didn't take an action or intend to post these photos. The phones did it for them.

These women had no idea their personal information could be looked at -- and in fact, it did have to be hacked. It wasn't just "posted." I bet the large majority of users of the i-phone don't understand what the cloud is or that the contents of their phones are on it.

[riqster]

86. Post is a word with more than one meaning.

I am posting this message.

My payment posted to the account.

I posted the letter yesterday.

I think the important thing is not the word, but the users' reasonable expectation of the security they were promised by the vendors. PROMISES THAT WERE NOT KEPT BY THE VENDORS. I'll repeat that, (not for you pnwmom, I know you get it): Promises that WERE NOT KEPT BY THE VENDORS

This is why all of the sanctimonious victim-blamers, on this thread and elsewhere, are wrong. The people who placed their files in a place that was sold to them as being secure did nothing wrong. The vendors (Apple, for instance) are to blame.

All the sneering moralists and techier-than-thou types need to STFU. Saying "nude photos are different" is bullshit. Saying "you're stupid for believing Apple" is bullshit.

And it is harmful, because it lets the accountable parties off the hook, and blames the blameless.

[pnwmom]

97. I couldn't agree more, riqster. All this has been classic blame-the-victim bullshit,

with heaping portions of techier-than-thou superiority.

If these are going to be sold as consumer products, then they have to be safe for normal consumers to use. Period.

[riqster]

100. THIS:

"If these are going to be sold as consumer products, then they have to be safe for normal consumers to use. Period."

Damn skippy.

[BKH70041]

5. How about if they're pics of nude people holding their bank statements?

The internet is an open book. If you don't want it out there, don't put it on there. Otherwise you take your chances.

I thought everyone knew this already.

[riqster]

6. The point is the double standard.

All the people (here and elsewhere) who apply "morality" when discussing Internet security.

[BKH70041]

10. I haven't noticed that.

Of course, I can't account for what you've seen. Could you give an example or two? You don't have to give me a link or anything, I trust you'll tell me what you've seen.

I think I know what you're saying when you say "apply morality when discussing Internet security," but if what I think you mean is actually what you mean, I don't see that as being hypocritical on their part given what those who say it base their moral values, which is often their religious convictions.

But until you tell me what you mean, I'm just guessing at it, and I'd rather not do that.

[riqster]

14. Recently, some celebs' cloud accounts were hacked and nude pics posted online.

During the discussions (here and elsewhere ), a goodly number of people said that the celebs should not have stored those nude photos, or even that they should not have taken nude photos in the first place.

The OP points out that we rarely see such victim-blaming when, say, Target gets hacked and millions of people get their card data stolen. Or as DetlefK posits, someone cracks your safe and by so doing robs you.

If we take the security precautions as directed, we have the right to object when a crime is committed against us. It should not matter if the stolen material is cash, information or photos.

I'd also like to mention that all of the stolen images in this case were of women. Had the theft been of women's debit card data, I doubt we'd see the same shaming responses.

Hope that helps.

[BKH70041]

19. Ah, OK.

Well I've noticed those posts also, but would not have framed it the way you are. Theft is theft and is immoral.

However, I think there is some validity to the other side of the argument. I can't control what might happen to me should I make a credit card purchase at a place of business. I can control pics I make. I would no more take pics of myself naked than I would take pics of my debit card with my PIN number attached. I can control that.

[riqster]

22. That is a matter of personal choice, of course.

And I am of like mind.

But, if a service is sold as "secure" and people who make other choices are victimized because the promises of security turned out to be hollow, we shouldn't stand for public shaming of this content but not that content.

[BKH70041]

38. Hopefully there will be some lessons learned.

Way too often our technology outpaces our ability to use it responsibly. Not to get too far off topic, but it reminds me of the ability of the medical field to keep people alive way past the time where their quality of life is virtually nonexistent.

I would prefer people learn from these events and not put things out there of which they'd rather not everyone have access, especially when they have control over it and can almost always completely avoid it taking place (realizing there's peeping tom perverts out there who could take pics without the knowledge of the individual). Because the next "secure" location will turn out to also not be so secure.

[hunter]

35. Are you implying that people who have nude pictures of themselves...

... haven't controlled themselves?

Are you implying that it is some kind of ethical or moral failure to have nude pictures of one's self?

Because that's what it sounds like.

(BTW, there are nude pictures of me on the internet.)

[BKH70041]

43. No.

[hughee99]

45. Do people intentionally keep their bank records on the cloud?

When someone hacks Target, a person has NO control over where Target keeps their credit card data. When someone hacks your cloud account, a person has complete control over what's there. While I don't think that what happened was okay in any way, in the wake of the celebrity phone hacking scandals, I'm surprised more celebrities weren't more weary of the security of the cloud and phone technology.

While some might liken this cracking a safe, given the rash of technology/security issues over the last few years, one might make a better comparison with leaving your keys in your car. Is it okay for someone to steal your car? No. Should you be able to park your car somewhere and not have to worry about it getting stolen? Of course. So leaving your keys in the car SHOULDN'T matter, right? Still, that doesn't make it a good idea.

[BKH70041]

48. Good points.

[riqster]

50. Flawed analogy. The cloud services are marketed as "secure".

So the user HAS taken reasonable precautions. They took the keys and locked the doors.

Not the consumer's fault that the carmaker lied when they said their cars' door and ignition locks would secure the vehicle.

[BKH70041]

52. I think you're missing the greater point.

And I wouldn't bother you otherwise if I think you didn't.

I'm not seeing anyone claiming the "clouds" promise of security wasn't an expected feature of the product. What I am seeing are those pointing out that expected security does not equal real security. Are the victims to blame? No. Given just how unsecure that secure places have turned out to be should they be surprised? I don't think they should be any more surprised than if I were to take a pic of my debit card with the PIN number attached and someone used it to steal my money. What I did was highly inadvisable. I would say the same to them.

[riqster]

59. Well, that assumes a level of awareness on the part of the general public.

I myself keep everything important on a drive that never connects to the Internet, because after 40+ years in IT, there is no trust in me anymore. Plus I know the technology and risks better than 98% of the populace.

I am saying if there were such a pervasive and all-encompassing agreement on the inadequacy of cloud security, your post would be spot- on. But that awareness and resulting consensus does not currently exist.

Charles Schwab, Royal Dutch Shell, and half of all Federal agencies are using the cloud. Along with many other large enterprises.

It's kind of hard to crap on a movie actor or a singer for doing the same thing as major players like that. Never mind the opinion of old techies like me. The message is "Cloud is secure", and when these events happen, why... The victims get blamed, don't they now?

Which reinforces the meme of security.

[BKH70041]

62. Then that's a sad state of affairs.

After all the publicity, especially of late, when hackers have been up to all sorts of mischief.

And victims do get blamed when they put themselves into positions they really should have known better. And yes that assumes an awareness. But I also expect greater awareness from those who are 20 and 25 years old than I do from those who are 12 or 14 years old. A kid doing something like this is almost excusable because they just don't have the experiences of adults. But at some point, you got to draw the line and say "Sorry it happened, but you're at that age where you really had to know it was possible."

[hughee99]

54. Cell phones are marketed as secure as well, but we know from recent news they are not.

No, it's not the consumers fault that car makers lied when they said the vehicle would be secure, but lots of manufacturers say that. Do you know many people who leave their keys in the car? Even if they are marketed as secure, would you trust them?

[riqster]

51. To this:"45. Do people intentionally keep their bank records on the cloud?"

The answer is "Yes." Colleges, businesses, government agencies, individuals, all are storing many terabytes of data on cloud solutions.

Because they have been promised security.

Just like celebs were promised security.

Don't assume consumers are stupid, especially when what they are doing has been sold as secure and adopted by informed users.

[hughee99]

58. Storing many TB of data and storing sensitive information are not exactly the same thing,

and for companies, they're not storing THEIR sensitive information on the cloud, they're storing YOUR sensitive information out there. I'm sure wall street firms are storing all sorts of information on the cloud... but I bet you'd have a hard time finding one that's storing executives' email archives out there.

[Skittles]

109. you can be FOR security and think hackers are CRIMINALS

and STILL think that posting nekked pics is a BAD IDEA <-------- YES YOU CAN

[riqster]

120. Learn what posting means, will ya?

They did not "post nekkid pics." Jesus Christ on a server rack. Posting nekkid pics is like Miley tweeting.

The people you are unfairly talking about did not do that. THEY. TOOK. REASONABLE. STEPS. TO. SECURE. THOSE. PICTURES.

Why, in this digital age, do so few DUers seem to understand basic technology?

Christ on a Goddamned server farm.

[Skittles]

121. LOL

WHATEVER - they got there through osmosis - DON'T PUT THEM ANYWHERE THEY CAN BE HACKED <===== IS THAT BETTER???

[kcr]

125. Guess people shouldn't own valuables at all. Houses can't be fully burlgary proof

So don't put your TVs and jewelry in there.

I really don't get the victim blaming.

[Skittles]

128. no you really don't get it

I'd be embarrassed if my boss saw my.....TV

DONE HERE

[riqster]

131. I get it. You disapprove of nude pics of women.

That is not in any way, shape or form a progressive attitude.

[ann---]

134. So?

There ARE religious people who ARE "progressive" in their politics, but still have standards about modesty. Being liberal does not mean one discards all their religious beliefs or ethics.

(not sure why it showed up as a response to the wrong post - here is the post I was responding to)

riqster (10,519 posts)
131. I get it. You disapprove of nude pics of women.

That is not in any way, shape or form a progressive attitude.

[kcr]

141. That would be the point

That's why no one shames anyone for having a TV stolen.

[ann---]

143. How can you compare

owning a TV that is stolen to owning nude photos of yourself on a computer that are stolen? It is NOT the same.

[kcr]

155. It doesn't matter if they aren't the same

The fact that you think there's this huge difference and it means the victim of one theft has more responsibility than the other is what I take issue with.

[riqster]

130. +1

[riqster]

129. No. Because you are moralizing. And because any location can be hacked.

Be it physical or virtual, somebody can rob it. Leaving "never taking nude pics at all" as the only truly safe course of action.

Puritanical tripe like that is ever so very Republican and Fundagelical. Two schools of thought that I vehemently oppose. I'm surprised to see support for them here.

[ann---]

33. The "morality" question is

not whether it is moral to expect security on the internet. For some religious people, posing for nude photos is immoral. I think they have the right to that opinion, don't you?

[gollygee]

42. It's irrelevant

as to whether they deserved to have their photos stolen off the internet.

[ann---]

64. I know, but it IS

an opinion that should be able to be expressed without "alerting" the powers that be on this forum.

[riqster]

44. Screw those puritanical nimrods. Morals are not precisely equal to laws.

When a law is broken, it is broken. Our individual moral assessments are immaterial to the case.

[ann---]

65. Have you seen anyone

actually SAY that those who illegally hacked the accounts of those celebrities are not wrong? I didn't see anyone say that. But, if someone thinks taking nude photos is immoral because of their religious standards, I believe they have a right to express that opinion.

I haven't seen anyone here say that they DESERVED to have those photos distributed. Only that posing nude is immoral - period - whether you put them online or not.

[kcr]

127. And others can respond to that opinion

They don't have a right to express the opinion unchallenged.

[ann---]

133. I never said

that people don't have a right to challenge another's opinion. That is what discussion IS.

[kcr]

135. That's all anyone is doing.

So I don't understand what your problem is.

[ann---]

136. I don't have a problem

the people who have a problem are those who condemn those of us who don't have the "popular" view regarding this issue as having a problem.

[kcr]

137. But no one is doing that

They're disagreeing.

[ann---]

139. Some are

dong that. Have you not noticed how those who think differently are accused of "blaming the victim" when that is not the case?

[kcr]

140. Well, I disagree. They are blaming the victim.

I'm sorry you feel I'm "condemning" you by viewing it that way.

[hunter]

49. Well then, they don't have to pose nude.

What of it?

They can take showers wearing bathing suits and change their underwear in the dark for all I care.

But they've no business imposing their religious beliefs on others, and this has nothing to do with the issues of creeps who get their sexual thrills by taking what doesn't belong to them.

The guy's who stole these photos are similar to peeping toms and subway gropers.

[pnwmom]

77. Everybody does NOT know this already. If they did, they wouldn't be paying online bills

with their credit cards even from home.

No system is perfect. All systems are hackable, some more than others.

[riqster]

88. Very well put!

[Nye Bevan]

12. I would not store an unencrypted file containing personal financial information on iCloud.

Yes, the hackers are the criminals here. But it's always a good idea to take sensible precautions.

[riqster]

15. Indeed. But blaming the victims is inappropriate.

[ann---]

30. No one blames

the victim for the illegal hacking of their personal accounts. However, it is naive to think things you want private are safe on the internet.

[riqster]

36. People do indeed blame the victims.

And if a neophyte believes the seller when they are promised security, blaming them is likewise inappropriate.

[ann---]

66. Inappropriate?

It's only an opinion. It isn't right or wrong - it's an opinion that in today's world people should know that cyberspace is not safe - period. It's an OPINION - not an ACCUSATION.

[riqster]

69. Depends on how it is phrased by the opinion holder.

E.g, "I would never wear that", vs.

"You're a trashy person, wearing that"

[Skittles]

123. forget it - this one just does NOT.FUCKING.GET.IT.

not at ALL

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. but naked pics is a woman problem, whereas banking is not.

so naturally one is an issue of stupidity and the other is an issue of being a victim to careless corporations.

[riqster]

17. Just so. It would have been interesting had an equal number of male and female celebs been robbed.

If it had been 1/2 and 1/2 male/female famous peeps' nude pics that were hacked and then reposted online, I wonder how the Purity Patrollers would have spun it?

[Generic Other]

24. Maybe gay men and women are not as perverted?

I don't know many women who brag about their stash of hacked photos of nude men.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. i think some men feel entitled to women's bodies in a way that women don't about men

like its something that they have the right to have, but some 'bitch' won't say yes. (or in this case won't just divulge the pics)

[riqster]

31. I think you are correct. Male privilege.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. i dont think this is male privilege per se. i think its just misogyny.

[riqster]

37. Either way, it is not a good thing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. agreed.

[Generic Other]

55. The idea of making a private stash

of purloined pics is to me sordid, but it becomes extra disgusting when it is shared with the rest of the boys. This is where the hatred of women becomes more evident. Once such a man decides a woman has no useful relationship to him, he has no boundaries. What he would likely never think of doing to his mother, sisters, friends, lovers he is perfectly willing to inflict on any woman who he believes falls short of his standards. And he shares his actions with his peers.

There seems to be so much self-loathing at play here. As if the individual is ashamed of his sexual impulses and blames women for his desires. It is this that seems to drive these men. Society's fault all around for hammering home the idea that human sexuality is bad and that one's sexual thoughts are deviant. It messes us all up to one degree or another.

These men think sex is something only "dirty" girls are interested in. And thus a sexually active woman is asking to be treated badly. Even rape victims in the ME are treated like they deserve punishment. Virgin, mother, harlot, crone. The classifications of the human female.

We all need some time out on a psychiatrist's couch!

[LeftyMom]

68. At least one famous man was in the pics (with his famous wife) and nobody seems to be scolding him.

Which just makes the misogyny at the heart of the thing that much more obvious.

For that matter it appears that those images were stolen from his devices and not hers, and nobody's scolding him for being stupid about security. It's telling.

[riqster]

70. Didn't know that. Thanks.

[exboyfil]

21. Agree but it is even more of a violation

almost like the difference between fraud and rape. Anybody who looks at personal pictures when the individual clearly states they do not wish it to be done is akin to a rapist in my book. Frankly anyone who is turned on by such pictures is seriously disturbed. Kind of like going ahead when a woman says no. You get satisfaction out of it you are a rapist.

Note: I am a 50 year old man.

[riqster]

23. No argument there.

[Generic Other]

25. This underlying fact remains

in spite of all the slut-shaming rhetoric. Thank you for the reminder.

[liberalmuse]

27. Comments sections all over the internet

Are teeming with victim-blaming. I saw one yesterday on our local news sight blaming a woman for being burglarized. It's become an American past time, and it's UGLY. Our country is becoming a Jerry Springer audience.

[riqster]

32. 'Struth.

[ann---]

29. Not exactly the same thing

but I can't discuss it because it seems to be against the rules to have an opinion that is not the "popular" one here.

[kcr]

124. You can't?

Doesn't seem like you're stopping yourself. But it isn't as if this is the only place on the internet. If it hurts your feelings when people disagree with you, go somewhere where there are likeminded individuals.

[Agschmid]

39. Yup.

[randome]

41. Credit card information is not deeply embarrassing to some.

Although why anyone would be deeply embarrassed of their own body -when they didn't feel embarrassed taking the pictures in the first place- is beyond my understanding.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

47. You're assuming shame, and I think that is off-target.

If a peeping tom sees me in the shower, I'll be upset. Not because I'm ashamed of my old carcass, but because a violation has occurred. A violation. Of privacy. Of law.

Shame doesn't enter into it.

[randome]

73. Well, if shame doesn't enter into it, then what does?

If someone stole one of my socks, I wouldn't particularly care. Now if that theft occurred inside my home, then maybe I would. But a theft from a publicly available network server?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

78. Sure. If something of value is stolen from my car instead of my house, it is still a violation.

If the theft is of a virtual artifact rather than a physical one, it is still a violation.

Some of the files on my offline drive are worth more than my house.

[randome]

80. You're equating monetary value with emotional value.

I'm saying if something is of truly immense emotional value, then why would you place it on a public network in the first place? I don't understand that.

And I am not saying that those who had photos stolen are to blame. I'm saying why would anyone in their right mind put something of immense emotional value on a public network?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

81. The thing is: they didn't.

These were secured private network accounts that got hacked.

Did you read the detailed news articles?

[randome]

82. Accounts that exist on a public cloud network. Kind of a virtual commune.

If you're embarrassed about something, you shouldn't put it in the commune, even if it's behind a locked door. If you're not embarrassed, then...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

83. Wrong. Private network storage is supposed to be secure. It can be.

If you sell security, you better deliver. Whether it's a safe, bank vault, or a cloud account.

The users are not to blame. The vendors are.

[The2ndWheel]

46. You don't need to take nude photos of yourself to function in society

You sort of need banking records and credit card information to go about your day and life.

While it sucks that anything private gets stolen, be it information or pictures or whatever, it's tough to just play mad libs with each phrase.

[hunter]

57. What does that have to do with this conversation?

I don't need to have a television to function in this society but I'd still be upset if someone stole mine.

[The2ndWheel]

63. It was the comparison made in the OP

Of course the celebrity factor makes this a much more sensational story. I'm sure people have photos stolen all the time, but nobody really cares. Much like someone stealing your TV wouldn't make global headlines. Someone steals the TV's of a few celebrities, that might cause a headline or two, but nothing like nudity.

I don't think you can simply substitute "bank account information" for "nude photos", and it all means the same thing. Both suck if they get stolen, but one is a choice, one really isn't. I'd say it's a poor substitution.

[riqster]

76. Disagree. Theft is theft. It isn't any less so if the victim is female or famous.

[The2ndWheel]

84. Didn't say it was less

Just said nobody would really care if it wasn't about celebrities. Certainly wouldn't be days and days of headlines. Even with bank numbers, we get like a day where it's a story, and then it goes away until the next time it happens.

I'm just disagreeing with that particular substitution. You have a clear choice to take a nude photo or not, but really no choice to have a bank account. Both are private. Neither should be stolen. Each have some sort of value. If something has value, someone somewhere will probably try to steal it.

Since this isn't the first time digital information has been hacked, or the first time someone has stolen something, you can't simply assume 100% security of anything, no matter what anyone says.

[riqster]

85. But to treat cases of nudity and finance differently is a moral judgment.

And that is not our place to do to someone else.

[The2ndWheel]

91. I'm not making a moral judgment

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't take nude pictures of themselves, because it's bad, wrong, or otherwise. They can do it all day long if they want, and put the pictures any place they wish, and they shouldn't be stolen. What I am saying is that taking nude photos of yourself is a choice, and having a bank account pretty much isn't, so I don't agree with the particular substitution in the OP, even though a theft of private material has taken place in each instance.

[kcr]

142. Having jewelry is a choice. Having a television is a choice.

Having a car valuable enough to attract a thief is a choice. Is your point that only theft of things that someone absolutely has to have is blameless?

[Hugabear]

148. What does that have to do with anything?

You don't HAVE to do online banking to function in society either. You can still use the old-fashion method, paying for everything with cash or checks.

But even if someone wants to take naked photos of themselves, and store them in iCloud, Dropbox, or any other online storage - how does that make it okay for someone to hack in and steal their info?

[Politicalboi]

56. We don't get a choice sometimes about our info on the net

But we do make the choice of putting nude photos out there. I don't go looking for or at other nudes. I couldn't care less. They were stupid to put them out there IMO.

[riqster]

71. Victim-blaming tommyrot, and inaccurate to boot.

A number of the users thought they had NOT shared the images, and the provider buried some weasel words in the fine print.

At some point, your attitude would logically lead to putting nothing anywhere, no matter the medium or context. Because the users were "stupid" to trust a business partner.

[Skittles]

79. I agree and I am NOT victim blaming

I KNOW it's the hackers who are the criminals but with all the hacking and breaches you'd have to be very naive putting NAKED pics out there......and the comparison to financial records is ridiculous - there's no logical choice there

[riqster]

92. Crap. That is moralizing and blaming, whether you admit it or not.

Fact: Apple (and others) market their cloud services as being secure.

Fact: The biggest companies and agencies in the world store data in secure cloud storage.

Fact: The nature of the purloined content is not material. Hacking is a crime.

Finally: the guilty parties love posts like yours, because it lets the vendors off the hook and transfers blame into the purchasers.

The posters may be naive, but they did nothing wrong. Criticism is blaming. Stop it, OK, just stop it.

[Skittles]

105. HEY

I just don't think it's a good idea to put naked pictures of yourself out there and OBVIOUSLY I am right so GET OVER YOURSELF!!!

[riqster]

114. That is the point of the OP. Moralizing. It sucks.

These people did not put those pictures "out there". They stored them in an allegedly secure location that was robbed.

And your post proves the OP's point: people treat nude pics differently than other records. People like you. People who write about nude pics but don't act the same way when other info gets hacked.

I say bullshit. I shan't be getting over that.

[cwydro]

101. Yup. nt

[Skittles]

106. I am SICK of the moralizing from people who think the internet will EVER be *REALLY SECURE*

they're as naive as the people posting the pictures!!!

[riqster]

117. If people pay for security, they should get it.

If they get robbed because of bad security, DON'T fucking blame them.

[Beaverhausen]

119. Did these women post their pictures on the internet?

I thought they were saved in their own hard drives?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. SNAIL MAIL and DO NOT PRIVATIZE THE US POSTAL SERVICE !!!!!!

[Feral Child]

90. I agree

w/ you and your friend.

[riqster]

96. Thanks. He has a very laconic style, I envy him that.

[Taitertots]

98. Do you leave your bank info on a cloud service?

Would it be a smart idea for me to start doing it?

It sounds like an insanely stupid thing to do.

[riqster]

102. Banks do. The government does. Major corporations do. Schools do.

The key is to make the providers live up to their promises, not to blame hacking victims.

Hacked systems are hackable because providers like Apple are lazy asswipes. Security isn't hard, and not very expensive.

[Taitertots]

111. Do you? I wouldn't. The groups you listed get hacked all the time.

Why increase the chances that you will have important data stolen?

[riqster]

118. That is the point. Nobody goes all victim-blamey if the NSA gets hacked, for example.

But let somebody's butt pics pop up, and it's blame fucking city.

[Marr]

99. Obviously they shouldn't have posted them. They were stolen.

That doesn't mean the hacker isn't the one to blame, and it doesn't mean he/she shouldn't go to jail. It doesn't exonerate Apple, either.

But they obviously shouldn't have posted the pictures, or believed that they could have total security with digital media. You can't.

[riqster]

103. Horse Shit. Sorry, but that is malarkey.

Systems can be secured. Apple had some holes that were exploited in this hack. A few of those holes went unplugged for YEARS. Apple knew, and did NOTHING.

So while you blame the victims, Apple and its ilk are lying around doing nothing, laughing at the lot of us.

Wake up. Demand better.

[Marr]

107. Nothing is absolutely secure on the internet.

It just isn't.

If thieves steal my money electronically, I can have that investigated and reversed. There's no way to suck these images back out of the ether. So the two aren't exactly comparable.

Apple is to blame for the actual leak here, I don't deny it. They were incompetent, or negligent, or something-- and I hope they have to pay for it.

Still, having said that, even if that particular vulnerability hadn't existed, the data would still be possible to steal. Whether it's from some flaw in the actual code, or users making their accounts easily hackable with bad passwords or malware, or just some pervert sitting at the NSA. The only way to be certain that a piece of data won't be stolen is to not make it digital.

It sucks. But it is.

[riqster]

112. See, that post I have no quarrel with.

It's the double standard that gets applied to content. Finance, ohhhhh, bad hackers. Nude pictures, ohhhhh, stupid honest people.

[kcr]

126. Even if it isn't digital, it could still be stolen

Anything in physical existence can be stolen. You can't stop living your life. Take it from someone who was burglarized and lost valuable things that can never be replaced. It sucks.

[riqster]

153. True. Me, too.

[Warpy]

104. He's expecting girls of 14-18 to have full foreknowledge of love turned to hate,

the hacking of supposedly secure items on one's cell phone, tablet, or computer, and that women are the only ones here getting slut shamed for doing something they shouldn't have when they were innocent and overly trusting teenagers, which is when most of the nudie shots get taken.

Shame on him for continuing the slut shaming and victim bashing.

[quadrature]

113. the internet is like CB Radio

for every one person talking,
hundreds are listening

[riqster]

116. A very good point.

[WinkyDink]

115. I wouldn't cry "Fake!" or "Underage!" with my banking deets.

[Skittles]

122. no one would pay a million dollars for my info either

[librechik]

144. they shouldn't have taken them on their CELLS!

stupid...

[riqster]

145. Incorrect. Apple has already admitted that the users in question took precautions.

They followed all security requirements and were promised a certain degree of security. Apple is at fault, and even they admit it.

Why some DUers still want to shame and blame these women in spite of the facts is pretty clear: misogyny and sexism.

[librechik]

147. yeah, I'm sure, but why trust Apple to protect your naked ass?

there are ways to take photos that don't instantly get digitally placed right next to the cloud for easy uploading, metaphorically speaking. The cell phone is the internet. Use a disposable camera if you must. Though there are privacy problems with that, too.

In fact what the hell is it about people taking nude pics of themselves? They are tempting fate. Don't show off your cooch/cock
to the camera, FGS. Then no problem, kay?

What is the compulsion? Whatever, it's generational, I suppose, but lesson learned right? Take more precautions about being photographed NAKED or just don't.

And by all means, sue Apple! They made all this possible.

[riqster]

149. "Or just don't".

Pretty much exposes a moralizing non-progressive right there.

[librechik]

150. not at all. I have nothing against nudity. Even voluntary public nudity.

No one can argue this was a consensual release, right?

But in the day of NSA and cell phones, I question the need to voluntarily digitize your personal photos and put them where they can get stolen or perused so easily. Sure, they should be protected by Apple. But like I said, why trust your naked ass to Apple? When I send a sexy photo of myself, it's a personal thing and I wouldn't even trust it to the US mails. Hand to hand, so to speak.

But you're right, that's just me. It seems to be a generational thing to take sexy photos on your cell phone and send them around. I don't care, do it, but it seems dangerous, and a voluntary surrender of your right to control the photo, since it can be stolen. Obviously it can be stolen, despite Apple security, so we know that now. Do you want a thief to be able to have THAT? or even Apple, for that matter.

Will you still volunteer to put your naked ass on a connected Apple device? In that case, the mere existence of the photo on digital media is to volunteer to put your ass in public. They have a right to complain, but only to Apple. Read the disclaimer, it goes on forever, but they own the images on that phone. Not you.

Ordinarily these people get paid huge sums to show the ass and boobs. Maybe that's the real issue here, especially among the lawyers. Oh, now THAT's unkind.

[Hugabear]

146. Good one, I'm going to use that.

It's also akin to saying that you should keep all of your money in the bank, that it's your fault if a pickpocket steals your wallet full of cash and credit cards.

[no_hypocrisy]

151. The basic issue is did the consumer have a reasonable, realistic expectation of privacy.

If you posed for the same pictures at a studio that specialized in boudoir portraits, you reasonably expect the photographer and/or the business not to publish your photos and/or sell the negatives without your permission.

Here, it could be argued that Apple/Cloud gave the same implied promise of privacy and their technical flaw inherent in the system allowed a breach.

Another argument could be made of Caveat Emptor, where if you post nude photos, you understand that technology can not be 100 percent certain at this time.

Another issue: Do you assume the risk when you understand that nothing online is 100 percent protected, just gradations of security?

[riqster]

152. I addressed the 100% fallacy here:

Post 76. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5493323

We use that fallacy as a checkpoint in risk analysis sessions.