-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jennifer Lawrence talks about being violated
- Thread starter ReturnOfTheRAT
- Start date
- Status
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
JinjoUnchained
Member
Once again, no one is saying that "it's their fault" for storing personal information in the cloud. No one is blaming the victim here. We're saying that danger exists in the world and you should do everything you can to protect yourself. You see the difference, right?
No, warning people to be careful and protect themselves is like saying don't keep your life savings in an envelope on your kitchen table and then leave the house with doors unlocked.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
You're missing that that's patronizing and solves nothing. The way Seth Meyers presents it is a good way to do it with humor and recognizing the actual problem. Discussing obvious digital safety precautions after the fact just comes off like Captain Hindsighting instead of giving a damn.
faceless007
Member
You might want to go back and read the first few pages of this thread as well as the last couple threads about the hack before stating that so definitively. In particular pay attention to posts by members whose usernames are gray.
What is it with this subject and these tortured analogies that don't apply to any other realm? The cloud is not a fucking house with unlocked doors. These pictures were stored behind security measures and user authentication. The celebrities took the same precautions that every single other iCloud or Google Driver user does; they set passwords and set security questions, which is what these services require everyone to do, but they didn't anticipate that there would be a group of people expending great amounts of effort to break through the locks and steal what was in the safe. If your argument is that they should have used stronger security measures like random passwords, that may arguably be reasonable in hindsight but it's not something that the majority of people do or are expected to know. If your argument is that storing anything in the cloud at all is inherently insecure, see my above post. And then PM me your Google and iCloud passwords because you must not care if anything in them is publicly exposed.
JinjoUnchained
Member
That's why Seth Meyers is a beloved media personality and I'm posting on GAF waiting for traffic to improve
But this isn't Captain Hindsight, digital privacy has been a high profile issue for years. The information is out there. I do give a damn and care about the rights of the violated. I'm more surprised that these celebrity's handlers don't have a better handle on digital safety precautions. What's the point of having agents and managers if they're not on top of things like digital safety and informing their clients accordingly? Of course maybe they did say something and their clients didn't listen, but I'm giving JLaw the benefit of the doubt here. She's supposed to have people looking out for her and that clearly didn't happen.
Fair enough, I didn't read those posts and condemn them as much as you. Hope you don't think I was defending them because I don't.
No, my argument is don't store anything in the cloud that you wouldn't want everyone else to read. I have nothing to hide in my email and smart devices and wouldn't mind if you saw anything there. Of course I'm not going to give you my passwords because I don't know you and don't trust you to not send out a bunch of incriminating messages in my name.
Once again, I'm not blaming the victim or being captain hindsight here. I'm just saying watch your back and protect yourself because cloud storage is not secure.
GoldenEye 007
Member
It is pretty well known on part of the companies that passwords + security questions are not that secure. Brute force and social engineering can defeat a lot of these measures.
So knowing this, the companies are certainly dragging their feet in offering two factor authentication or educating people on the importance of it.
Yes, people trust in the current methods and that's ok. But better measures must be offered by default so these types of attacks become even less commonplace. Until people stop being shitheads, which unfortunately is something that is quite a ways off.
I certainly don't blame Jennifer Lawrence for being hacked. She can post pictures of whatever she wants, and she has a right to her privacy.
With that said, I think celebrities can mitigate the damage done by such photos by not publishing photos that make them look like porn stars.
Yes I understand that boyfriends and girlfriends send sexy pics to each other, but perhaps there's some stuff that should stay on the hard drive.
With that said, I think celebrities can mitigate the damage done by such photos by not publishing photos that make them look like porn stars.
Yes I understand that boyfriends and girlfriends send sexy pics to each other, but perhaps there's some stuff that should stay on the hard drive.
CadetMahoney
Member
To (some) of the ppl having nudes of themselves on their phones thinking they're safe:
In the UK the standard police can demand passwords for anything, and if you refuse it's a crime in itself and it's illegal to tell the press you're being asked for passwords:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/
http://freeanons.org/lauri-love-refuses-turn-encryption-keys-uk-demand-ripa/
"The accused was never charged with any crime other than his failure to disclose his encryption password."
So if some cop stops you on the street for some reason and wants to see what's on your phone behind a password you're sol. "papers nudes please". Just throwing this out there.
In the UK the standard police can demand passwords for anything, and if you refuse it's a crime in itself and it's illegal to tell the press you're being asked for passwords:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/
http://freeanons.org/lauri-love-refuses-turn-encryption-keys-uk-demand-ripa/
"The accused was never charged with any crime other than his failure to disclose his encryption password."
So if some cop stops you on the street for some reason and wants to see what's on your phone behind a password you're sol. "
That's why Seth Meyers is a beloved media personality and I'm posting on GAF waiting for traffic to improve
But this isn't Captain Hindsight, digital privacy has been a high profile issue for years. The information is out there. I do give a damn and care about the rights of the violated. I'm more surprised that these celebrity's handlers don't have a better handle on digital safety precautions. What's the point of having agents and managers if they're not on top of things like digital safety and informing their clients accordingly? Of course maybe they did say something and their clients didn't listen, but I'm giving JLaw the benefit of the doubt here. She's supposed to have people looking out for her and that clearly didn't happen.
I think it makes more sense to look at this the other way around. A very large number of people who have more reason than almost anyone else to care about protecting their data did not take the precautions that are often suggested to be the sorts of things that are reasonable for everyone to do to protect their data. It seems a little weird to conclude that users are the ones who need to change. If even users who have the most reason to behave a certain way and who have people whose job is to advise them about this kind of thing aren't taking these steps, then it's just not reasonable to expect users to take these steps. Maybe you can make some headway by trying to educate people, but surely there's some systemic issue you're missing that's preventing people from doing something that you think would benefit them so much.
I don't really like the leaving-the-door-unlocked analogy, but if we find out that there's an epidemic of people leaving their doors unlocked, even people whose travel plans are public knowledge and who keep piles of cash in their living rooms, it eventually gets really weird to talk about what's wrong with all of these people that they're leaving their doors unlocked. We should not assume that they're being unreasonable; we should seek to understand the reasons they have for not locking their doors. Maybe it will turn out that locking the door is a super-inconvenient process for a lot of people and it's just never going to be realistic to expect them to put up with it. Maybe the right answer is to try to get the people who make doors to change the way they implement locks.
Honestly this is all just an internet security issue to me: namely that internet security is often in adequate and generally confusing to end users. But then, I don't trust "the cloud" to store anything other than music and my vacation pics.
It's gotten really easy to parrot "don't blame the victim!" at any and all issues. I see a difference between "victim blaming" and the very practical advice that you maybe can't trust Apple, etc. to hold your pics.
It's gotten really easy to parrot "don't blame the victim!" at any and all issues. I see a difference between "victim blaming" and the very practical advice that you maybe can't trust Apple, etc. to hold your pics.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I'm pretty sure everyone figured that out on their own after this happened, though.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There's a difference, sure. It's just that often that difference is being pointed out a) via bad analogies and hypotheticals and b) in as patronizing a manner as possible, in order to c) maintain focus on what's really important: Whether or not people on a public forum are bearing full witness to this sort of thing wouldn't/can't happen to them, and why.
At a certain point, it becomes hard to discern whether one is honestly trying to "help" anyone, or whether they're just trying to find new and interesting ways to tell anyone who might be listening how much smarter they are than the famous people they like so much.
Faceless has been pointing out the problems in taking that particular tack rather thoroughly, and his latest post puts even a finer point on it: We're now talking about "unlocked doors" and hypothetical celebrities who don't know how to use their phones or the internet in general, and the particulars of this breach of privacy don't necessarily line up with that picture.
DarkHeartedKill
Member
That is the most amazing comparison ever, I'ma use that.
I do hope this finally gets the attention it deserves and laws actually get passed for this kind of stuff. While I hate the fact that it took until a well known celebrity got hurt by it for the media and people to realize it's a problem, better than the problem never going away. Violating anyone's privacy regardless of sex, social status, etc, in such a manner shouldn't be acceptable, condoned, or defended nor should the victim be blamed. Blaming them for not taking enough precautions to protect themselves is like saying you should always wear a bulletproof vest so you don't die from being shot, if that were to unfortunately happen.
I will admit, I did start out somewhat blaming them by saying that they should have had better security, but I still held the perpetrator accountable. Reading a lot more into it and seeing lots of peoples different views and such hanged that though thanks GAF
. The other thing I don't like about this whole thing(aside from the obvious privacy breach, of course) is how they're trying to sue Google for $100M for not taking the photos down quick enough. Not sure if more news of that has surfaced but just the idea of suing Google for not taking down searches is preposterous to me. Go after Apple the one that had the security hole that got exploited, or the perpetrators that violated your privacy, or even the sites that spread it around. Google is like an innocent bystander in my opinion.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Sure, I think we're all in agreement that Apple is to blame here too for inadequate security. Why haven't they implemented two factor authorization? It looks bad for them either way: either they are so inept that they don't think it's important, or they did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that user security wasn't profitable for them (my bet). I wouldn't trust either an inept or an evil person with sensitive personal information. But I definitely agree that we should all give them shit for what they did and pressure them to improve how they "make doors" or else we'll take our business elsewhere.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
They added two-factor auth a year or two ago.
Edit - apparently only for iTunes. iCloud backups got two-factor in Sept after this happened.
Edit - apparently only for iTunes. iCloud backups got two-factor in Sept after this happened.
I mean I would hope so. I'm not really going to be happy until I see a public shift in perception away from blindly trusting the big tech companies. Users should be demanding better privacy controls AND companies should win by giving it to them.
I agree mostly and I'm trying to avoid the bad analogies as tempting as they are. We can all act smug now ("I'd never be hacked because ______") but I totally expect this is just the tip of the spear: I mean 76M JP Morgan customers had information stolen by hackers this week, what did they do wrong? This is why I view it as a huge issue with the way tech works now.
I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the last guy that hacked celeb accounts and leaked their photos got 10 years. We have the laws on the books to go after them, it's just a matter of finding them at this point.
Terrible comparison though. When you rob a store you lose actual items of actual worth.
TheSpoiler
Member
I'm all for this shit getting canned. Nobody should have to worry about their shit getting leaked, celeb or normal person.
However, what disgusts me is that this wasn't a thing to rally against as a whole until it happened to our beautiful people. I knew a wonderful girl that had her nude pictures shown to everyone in her class, and that fucked her up, rightly so. She thought, with confidence, that her pics would be safe in the hands of that particular dude, and it was distributed throughout 30 people and probably far beyond that.
The same people who looked at her nudes and did...whatever, are rallying with the celebs. Those people are probably a small minority, but their existence irks me to no end. But this is kind of a separate issue, and really doesn't matter in this conversation, so I'll shut up now.
However, what disgusts me is that this wasn't a thing to rally against as a whole until it happened to our beautiful people. I knew a wonderful girl that had her nude pictures shown to everyone in her class, and that fucked her up, rightly so. She thought, with confidence, that her pics would be safe in the hands of that particular dude, and it was distributed throughout 30 people and probably far beyond that.
The same people who looked at her nudes and did...whatever, are rallying with the celebs. Those people are probably a small minority, but their existence irks me to no end. But this is kind of a separate issue, and really doesn't matter in this conversation, so I'll shut up now.
If you had made a topic about it, I would be posting in the same way calling out shithead victim blamers.
Celebrities are just more likely to have stories about them picked up, even if it's something as mundane as what they wore leaving the gym. An unfortunate reality.
That is the most amazing comparison ever, I'ma use that.
I do hope this finally gets the attention it deserves and laws actually get passed for this kind of stuff. While I hate the fact that it took until a well known celebrity got hurt by it for the media and people to realize it's a problem, better than the problem never going away. Violating anyone's privacy regardless of sex, social status, etc, in such a manner shouldn't be acceptable, condoned, or defended nor should the victim be blamed. Blaming them for not taking enough precautions to protect themselves is like saying you should always wear a bulletproof vest so you don't die from being shot, if that were to unfortunately happen.
I will admit, I did start out somewhat blaming them by saying that they should have had better security, but I still held the perpetrator accountable. Reading a lot more into it and seeing lots of peoples different views and such hanged that though thanks GAF
The other thing I don't like about this whole thing(aside from the obvious privacy breach, of course) is how they're trying to sue Google for $100M for not taking the photos down quick enough. Not sure if more news of that has surfaced but just the idea of suing Google for not taking down searches is preposterous to me. Go after Apple the one that had the security hole that got exploited, or the perpetrators that violated your privacy, or even the sites that spread it around. Google is like an innocent bystander in my opinion.
A lawsuit against Apple would get thrown out in minutes. The end user knows what the security is because they set up their passwords etc. when they start to use the service. It would be like suing your bank for inadequate security, even though you knew the safety deposit box didn't have a lock.
It *is* a roundabout way of victim blaming though, like the guy who pointed out that you are making a big fuss about how they should have protected themselves in hindsight. What does that accomplish, other than abet the people who have conducted the thieving? You can have this "constructive discussion" all you want but it's really missing the forest for the trees.
You can say it's wrong to steal until you're blue in the face, but by throwing yourself behind "the victim should have protected themselves" instead of "the thieves should not steal", it is in a sense permitting the thieving to go on. It's the same kind of logic that underlies the "don't get raped" vs "teach people not to rape" argument.
DarkHeartedKill
Member
Apple was supposed to have adequate security to prevent it though. The difference is with the bank you know it has no locks and therefore not secure. However with Apple they have protections against brute force, I think they make you use a mixture of upperase, lower-case, and numbers, etc. So you assume they are taking sufficient steps to protecting your account, and as the provider that offered you that security they, along side the perpetrators should be held accountable in my opinion. However, say that they can't be hold responsible because the end user knowing about the security, Google is no where near being partly responsible and shouldn't be brought into this, unless photos got stolen from Google Drive which I don't think any were. I think they're still under a huge backlog of requests with the whole right to be erased thing.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Oh please. Suggesting that people be vigilant about cyber security is not a "roundabout way to victim blame" or "align with victim blamers" or "permit the thieves". The idea is to raise awareness to protect future potential victims. Whatever hidden agenda you get from an honest discussion on cyber security or the perils of celebrity are entirely your own projection.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
at least your bank has to apologize and pay for additional damages if a breach happened though.
Other companies, that deal in 'questionable' (facebook) products, that is to say, completely unregulated by current global law institutions, have no such incentive to ensure maximum security for their services. Which is not to say they are slacking off or anything, and there is the obvious agency factor involved. People actually want their bank accounts secure, but they don't care about everything else, despite those being near-equal security risks.
that said, I do not use cloud based storage for anything myself, in particular because the terms and conditions make it pretty obvious that anything committed to them can (and will be) used by the service provider. So putting a draft of your would-be novel on them is a no-no. At least under these conditions.
edit:
considering the other topic with the FBI using pics of a real person without asking, I do wonder how long it take before the law is changed though. Will probably take until leaks from politician's phones are confirmed or something.
(no, not nudes * huuuurk * )
A person sending a nude picture to an SO is ok. Stop denigrating people for wanting to send naked pictures to their SOs. The SO didn' leak them.
I can put a thousand pictures of my asshole on my phone, and I have every right to tell any hacker and any scumbag loser who downloads said pictures to say, "fuck you, it wasn't for you".
You, like the rest of these self entitled freepornforall individuals, are 100% wrong about the fact that if you take a picture of yourself, it's okay for anyone to see it.
Keep breaking it down to "if it's on line it's a free for all " ....."if it's on your phone it's okay because you didnt have a pass code" .....if "it's on your camera it's okay cause you didnt keep the sd card to yourself".....if "it's on your camera you should haven't loaded the film".....if you didnt want to take a picture of yourself then you shouldn't have taken a picture of yourself.
The pictures went sent privately to another individual. It was HACKED thought the service.
"know better"
If you knew better you wouldn't post online. Give me your gaf password, your posted it online at some point right? . It's online, it's on the internet. Why do you care if anyone else has it?
kingdoug87
Member
Privacy is worth a lot to most people.
This is what pisses me off too. Its a private matter. Saying that people should not store their stuff on a storage somewhere because they would be hacked is just primitive thinking in this day and age.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
You're stupid if you think people didn't make money off it, and it wouldn't take a super-lawyer to get it proven in court that you lost money, since many female celebrities first nude photoshoot can be worth quite a bit.
What? Fucking stereos and TVs are not "actual worth" when compared to your deepest sense of privacy. Privacy for your own body is "actual worth", not piles of plastic and circuit boards.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
You don't think digital content can have worth? In the simplest example, if I hack your cloud storage and get your credit card information, you are gonna be pissed.
Jennifer Lawrence could have sold those nude pics if she wanted. Or she might have paid money to keep people from seeing them. I'd say no matter how you stack it, even pictures have a value.
This analogy makes zero sense. No, it would be more like people arguing it's their fault if they're storing personal stuff in some public warehouse whose lock could be easily broken.
We take a lot of care in making sure that our valuable physical possessions are stored safely in a trusted place, people don't yet have that kind of mentality for digital things. That doesn't mean she's at fault but it's just another expression of the general issue we have with all this cloud stuff now. The mentality needs to change.
I'm pretty happy that she came out and spoke about it like this. I think there's been a lot of pressure on the celebs to pretend like it was no big deal hoping that it would fade away and everyone would move on like the way Kaley Cuoco addressed it. I wonder if she was being genuine or just putting up a front.
I can't imagine that feeling of violation, the lost sense of security. Everywhere she goes, she has to deal with people that have taken part in it. And you know that every couple of weeks at premieres, events, and just out on the street, some shithead will try to get her to sign one of the stolen pictures. And worse, the feeling of betrayal that people you care about took part in the violation. I wonder how you trust people after that...
I can't imagine that feeling of violation, the lost sense of security. Everywhere she goes, she has to deal with people that have taken part in it. And you know that every couple of weeks at premieres, events, and just out on the street, some shithead will try to get her to sign one of the stolen pictures. And worse, the feeling of betrayal that people you care about took part in the violation. I wonder how you trust people after that...
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
GAH just imagining bolded part makes me cringe and angry for her >___<
CadetMahoney
Member
That will be the nadir of reddit/4 chan posts. And that's saying something.
The solution is simple...do not put any personal photos you wouldn't show the world on the internet...doesn't matter whether it's Apple's secured cloud, or MSFT's secured cloud, or any internet cloud drive...don't do it.
I would NEVER put personal photos online in any format. Home computer on my hard drive...that's the only place they need to be.
There's a HUGE taking things for granted thing going on in our society....e.g, storing things in the icloud. Whether it's sensitive documents or photos...just don't do it.
People do it though because it's a convenience for them...but they're flat out stupid to think that stuff is safe.
I would NEVER put personal photos online in any format. Home computer on my hard drive...that's the only place they need to be.
There's a HUGE taking things for granted thing going on in our society....e.g, storing things in the icloud. Whether it's sensitive documents or photos...just don't do it.
People do it though because it's a convenience for them...but they're flat out stupid to think that stuff is safe.
I have my family photos stored in a secured cloud storage (not Microsoft or Apple, that would rediculous), purely for safety reasons. If my HDD fails, computer gets stolen, or my digital photos get destroyed for any other reason, they'll still be available online.
Those are familyphotos though; those valuable moments you can never hope to get back, I also have no problem with the world seeing how me and my family enjoyed DisneyLand Paris or the frigging zoo. Intimate pictures of me, my GF are stored safely on local devices only. Those are for us alone to see.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
In the end, there simply isn't a solution that most victims of these privacy intrusions will be happy with.
Once a picture is out on the internet, you cannot delete it. Or to be more precise, you cannot delete it unless you live in a totalitarian regime that controls both the internet and the people with an iron fist - and I don't think that's something we should strive for on the behest of victims.
All you can do is to work on the pic-taker's internet security know-how.
Once a picture is out on the internet, you cannot delete it. Or to be more precise, you cannot delete it unless you live in a totalitarian regime that controls both the internet and the people with an iron fist - and I don't think that's something we should strive for on the behest of victims.
All you can do is to work on the pic-taker's internet security know-how.
I'm curious about how this era will be regarded in how we look at privacy. It's hard not to be pessimistic about the future in this regard, especially with how young people are growing up and being gifted access to so much from such an early age. I can only see the prevailing attitudes about privacy being more quaint as time goes on and that really sucks.
The Elite
BOSS
It's going to take maybe another 10 or 20 years for people to get serious about their own internet security. There are criminals out there who are like pigs in shit because the vast majority of society carries around devices with them that leave a huge digital foot print that can be taken advantage of. Sadly, most of those people are completely oblivious to what they need to do to protect themselves either because they don't care to know, they don't think it's their responsibility or the infrastructure isn't there to teach them.
As we hurtle towards a Ghost in the Shell like future with everything being digital and interconnected it's going to be common practice to teach people about their personal security and responsibilities in a digital age. The education will probably start in elementary school as well.
We're going through a fascinating evolutionary change as a society right now but that leaves a lot of people open to being taken advantage of.
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/all/
I urge you to read this. I wouldn't always fall back on online being a safe haven for if you lose your photos. Just have more HDD backups or put them on DVDs, USBs, etc.
I remember reading this. Thank you for posting it.
Some of these same victim blaming people have this false since of security about "being safe online".
Yeah, I don't get how celebs or even non-celebs can be so gullible toward internet privacy. "Well it's Apple icloud, they said it's secure"...so what? I'd never trust them. I don't even trust Facebook where I have some personal photos on my profile...but I know when I post something on FB that it's there for the taking basically, so I'm cautious in what I post.
It really is beyond me to understand how Jennifer Lawerence is this stupid.
The solution to all crime is simple if we place the responsibility on the victim. Had your car stolen? Don't buy a car. Got mugged/assaulted/raped? Cover up and/or never go outside.
See, it's simple!
- Status