Support NeoGAF

[UrokeJoe]

Okay, bye?

We are... Okay you're right... Bye

 

[kehs]

It's a perfect answer for your question. If somebody takes your stuff from a storage facility, either the storage company or an insurer compensates you. This is done precisely because nobody would leave their valuables with them otherwise.



Your analogy fails because using storage facilities is, for reasons I've already mentioned, largely risk-free. Whereas Lawrence uploaded pictures that people go out of their way to steal to a service that people constantly steal stuff from, with the bare-minimum protection of a password and no possible failsafe for if and when someone got their hands on them. The hackers are scumbags and she has a right to be angry, but it isn't at all disingenuous to say that maybe she should've taken some extra precautions.



I have no idea where you would get that from his post. You have a point, but you keep trying to latch it onto completely unrelated discussions.

I largely agree with everything you've said, except for " maybe she should've taken some extra precautions. "

I find the idea of "should have" when dealing with this type of things just not right. Maybe you can expand on it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I largely agree with everything you've said, except for " maybe she should've taken some extra precautions. "

I find the idea of "should have" when dealing with this type of things just not right. Maybe you can expand on it.

I leave my laptop on my car's dashboard. When I get back, my window is smashed in and the laptop is gone. It's not my fault that it was stolen, and I certainly have justification for getting angry, but I probably should have hidden it under the car seat.

It's been a well know fact for years that the Internet sucks at privacy, particularly when you're famous and lots of people are trying to breach said privacy. So while she has every right to be angry, and the hackers have every right to go to jail, she and everybody else should probably not be putting highly sensitive things on the Cloud.

 

[kehs]

I leave my laptop on my car's dashboard. When I get back, my window is smashed in and the laptop is gone. It's not my fault that it was stolen, and I certainly have justification for getting angry, but I probably should have hidden it under the car seat.

It's been a well know fact for years that the Internet sucks at privacy, particularly when you're famous and lots of people are trying to breach said privacy. So while she has every right to be angry, and the hackers have every right to go to jail, she and everybody else should probably not be putting highly sensitive things on the Cloud.

Do you have an online bank account? Do you think you shouldn't put your details in the "cloud" by logging in?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Do you have an online bank account? Do you think you shouldn't put your details in the "cloud" by logging in?

If somebody hacks my bank account and credit card, there are a number of things I can do to avoid liability, so while there's a very real chance that my account will be hacked, the chances of me actually seeing any consequences (beyond the hassle of disputing charges) is extraordinarily low. These safeguards are in place because it's expected that people will be hacking into accounts; Lawrence assumed the opposite and took almost no precautions, so now we have this thread.

 

[kehs]

If somebody hacks my bank account and credit card, there are a number of things I can do to avoid liability, so while there's a very real chance that my account will be hacked, the chances of me actually seeing any consequences (beyond the hassle of disputing charges) is extraordinarily low.

Do you think you shouldn't have logged in to pay your bills, or check your balance because of it?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Do you think you shouldn't have logged in to pay your bills, or check your balance because of it?

No. In fact, quite the opposite: Being able to constantly monitor my account secures me against identity theft, since I can quickly identify fraudulent transactions. These advantages, combined with the safeguards that limit my liability to $50, significantly outweigh the risks, which are almost non-existent thanks to the afore-mentioned liability protection and ability to dispute charges.

What were the advantages of Lawrence uploading her photos? What safeguards did she have in place for when things went wrong? Do you think they outweighed the extremely high risk of the photos being leaked? If the answer to the last question is "no", then you agree that she shouldn't have uploaded them.

 

[kehs]

No. In fact, quite the opposite: Being able to constantly monitor my account secures me against identity theft, since I can quickly identify fraudulent transactions. These advantages, combined with the safeguards that limit my liability to $50, significantly outweigh the risks, which are almost non-existent thanks to the afore-mentioned liability protection and ability to dispute charges.

What were the advantages of Lawrence uploading her photos? What safeguards did she have in place for when things went wrong? Do you think they outweighed the extremely high risk of the photos being leaked?

The advantages of her uploading her photos were her SO seeing them because she wanted them to be seen by him.

Just like it's important for you to see your account balance.

Clearly the the safeguards failed. We're not allowed to say which advantages are better or worse when it comes to privacy. It's privacy of their content. They can do what they want, and they don't have to check to see what they "should have done".

 

[darthbob]

jesus the comments in that article are downright horrifying

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The advantages of her uploading her photos were her SO seeing them because she wanted them to be seen by him.

Just like it's important for you to see your account balance.

Clearly the the safeguards failed. We're not allowed to say which advantages are better or worse when it comes to privacy. It's privacy of their content. They can do what they want, and they shouldn't have to check to see what they "should have done".

Of course Lawrences has the right to do what she wants with her photos. Unfortunately, that right hasn't protected her from having her photos stolen, any more than my right to leave my laptop on my dashboard protects me from criminals who'll break into my car if they know I'm keeping a laptop in it. For actual protection, you have to take precautions, and you can't wave that away by constantly insisting that she has rights.

 

[kehs]

Of course Lawrences has the right to do what she wants with her photos. Unfortunately, that right hasn't protected her from having her photos stolen, any more than my right to leave my laptop on my dashboard protects me from criminals who'll break into my car if they know I'm keeping a laptop in it. For actual protection, you have to take precautions, and you can't wave that away by constantly insisting that she has rights.

There were precautions. Having your doors locked is a precaution.

The example you're making falls apart because it seems like you're assuming that the photos where out there in the open.

As far as I know, these celebs weren't flaunting the fact they had nudes on their accounts. The equivalent of leaving your laptop on the dash. Which by they way doesn't excuse the fact of someone breaking in.

That's my issue with "they shouldn't have done that". It's blaming someone for doing something they have a right to do.

 

[Wazzy]

While it's already been said I'll say it too. It's not the person who's nudes or private photo's were leaked fault. It's the disrespectful and disgusting person who leaked them. It's their own goddamn privacy and it's ridiculous to victim blame.

 

[Volimar]

Wow. Some real gems in this thread. People become semantic and legal authorities when they want to push back against the notion that they took part in a sex crime for "enjoying" someone's stolen private photos.

Everything celebs do like this be it the photoshoot in that article is designed to make them look provocative and make us wanna buy their movies, cant blame average people with the way these people are portrayed as sex icons, thats only natural. As you say lol.

Wow.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

There were precautions. Having your doors locked is a precaution.

The example you're making falls apart because it seems like you're assuming that the photos where out there in the open.

As far as I know, these celebs weren't flaunting the fact they had nudes on their accounts. The equivalent of leaving your laptop on the dash. Which by they way doesn't excuse the fact of someone breaking in.

That's my issue with "they shouldn't have done that". It's blaming someone for doing something they have a right to do.

You would have more of an argument if these were the first nude pics (or anything) stolen off of remote servers, but they aren't. They're hacked all the time, to the point where it's a well-known fact that privacy is a myth on the Internet.

I'll get to the problems with the car analogy later, so bear with me. I have every right to leave my laptop in plain sight of passersby, but I shouldn't do it because locking my doors isn't going to stop somebody who really wants in.

Likewise, Lawrence has every right to store her nudes on the Cloud, but it's been demonstrated time and time again that a password isn't going to stop somebody who really wants in. This would be fine if there were a failsafe for when - not if, when - the password fails (such as liability protection for my credit card), but you can't do that in this case because there's no way to attach monetary value to having nudes leaked. The end result is that the valuables - be it my laptop or her nudes - are only protected by an easily bypassed safeguard. You shouldn't leave valuable things only protected by a single safeguard.


- - -

It is irrelevant that my analogy has the laptop in plain sight, and Lawrence's photos weren't. The criminals broke into her account specifically for the nudes, regardless of whether they were there or not, just like the criminals broke into my hypothetical car specifically for the laptop, regardless of whether or not is was actually a laptop or a cardboard box that just looks like a laptop.

 

[kehs]

You would have more of an argument if these were the first nude pics (or anything) stolen off of remote servers, but they aren't. They're hacked all the time, to the point where it's a well-known fact that privacy is a myth on the Internet.

I'll get to the problems with the car analogy later, so bear with me. I have every right to leave my laptop in plain sight of passersby, but I shouldn't do it because locking my doors isn't going to stop somebody who really wants in.

Likewise, Lawrence has every right to store her nudes on the Cloud, but it's been demonstrated time and time again that a password isn't going to stop somebody who really wants in. This would be fine if there were a failsafe for when - not if, when - the password fails (such as liability protection for my credit card), but you can't do that in this case because there's no way to attach monetary value to having nudes leaked. The end result is that the valuables - be it my laptop or her nudes - are only protected by an easily bypassed safeguard. You shouldn't leave valuable things only protected by a single safeguard.


- - -

It is irrelevant that my analogy has the laptop in plain sight, and Lawrence's photos weren't. The criminals broke into her account specifically for the nudes, regardless of whether they were there or not, just like the criminals broke into my hypothetical car specifically for the laptop, regardless of whether or not is was actually a laptop or a cardboard box that just looks like a laptop.

I'm not arguing the plausibility of the act. I'm arguing, and (knowing how wide the audience is on here) that it's not ok.

I "should" be able to leave my bag in the park while I go to the bathroom. Will someone steal, there's a chance, but they "shouldn't" take it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I'm not arguing the plausibility of the act. I'm arguing, and (knowing how wide the audience is on here) that it's not ok.

I "should" be able to leave my bag in the park while I go to the bathroom. Will someone steal, there's a chance, but they "shouldn't" take it.

I don't think anybody's saying that she deserved to have her nudes leaked. I'm just stating that it's an inevitability if you put them on the Cloud, because people suck and will steal your stuff.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I have no idea where you would get that from his post. You have a point, but you keep trying to latch it onto completely unrelated discussions.

No I don't.

You're doing this repeatedly.

That you don't like when I point it out doesn't mean you're not still doing it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

No I don't.

You're doing this repeatedly.

That you don't like when I point it out doesn't mean you're not still doing it.

Okay, I'll bite. What is "it" and "this"?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I'm not arguing the plausibility of the act. I'm arguing, and (knowing how wide the audience is on here) that it's not ok.

I "should" be able to leave my bag in the park while I go to the bathroom. Will someone steal, there's a chance, but they "shouldn't" take it.

*waits for kehs to be called naive or unrealistically idealist or some such variations of having head in candylala land*

 

[kehs]

I don't think anybody's saying that she deserved to have her nudes leaked. I'm just stating that it's an inevitability if you put them on the Cloud, because people suck and will steal your stuff.

There are numerous people here, and outside of here saying she deserved to have them leaked because she uploaded them.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Okay, I'll bite. What is "it"?

For Christ's sake...

 

[TheRedSnifit]

There are numerous people here, and outside of here saying she deserved to have them leaked because she uploaded them.

Then those people are probably sexists.

For Christ's sake...

Did you forget?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Did you forget?

You're being willfully obtuse right now. You're trying to tell me you really don't have any clue what it is you and others whose arguments you're piggybacking off of have been doing the entire time, even after posters have very thoroughly pointed out EXACTLY what that is (as if you didn't know) and EXACTLY why it's not helpful after this many pages?

I believe this is where my stores of faith in your honesty regarding this conversation and your contributions to it have run out.

 

[kehs]

I believe this is where my stores of faith in your honesty regarding this conversation and your contributions to it have run out.

Pretty much for me as well.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You're being willfully obtuse right now. You're trying to tell me you really don't have any clue what it is you and others whose arguments you're piggybacking off of have been doing the entire time, even after posters have very thoroughly pointed out EXACTLY what that is (as if you didn't know) and EXACTLY why it's not helpful after this many pages?

I believe this is where my stores of faith in your honesty regarding this conversation and your contributions to it have run out.

No, I really don't. Last I checked, we were arguing about what Besada meant in a post, and this new tangent you've gone off on doesn't seem to be related.

 

[Two Words]

Not enough, obviously.

When you lock your house's door and close your windows, that's about as much as you can do. You can't just teleport your house away into another dimension. However, you can simply choose not to upload sensitive information to a remote servers. That's where your analogy falls apart: You're attempting to equate the bear minimum of security - a password - with the highest level of security that many people have access to - their door locks and maybe a security system.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that you lock your car in a public lot, but leave your iPad, your $2000 laptop, and a ton of cash sitting on the dashboard. Sure, you did something, but there was an obvious lapse in security along the line.



You literally said "She was wrong because there are scumbags who'll steal your shit if you put stuff online":



This is what I was arguing. This is what the guy you banned was arguing. People will steal your shit if it's possible for them to do so, so don't put it where they can take it.

You made me a quote for a post I didn't make...


You can also buy alarm systems, guard dogs, video survalience, bar your windows, and re-enforce your door to avoid break ins. Don't see why you'd act as if locking the door is all you can do.

 

[JesseEwiak]

You made me a quote for a post I didn't make...


You can also buy alarm systems, guard dogs, video survalience, bar your windows, and re-enforce your door to avoid break ins. Don't see why you'd act as if locking the door is all you can do.

You could also live 50 miles away from any other human being. Obviously, anybody who lives close to other human beings should just assume their home is going to be broken into.

 

[Mistouze]

You don't need to come up with shitty analogies when the initial situation is simple enough to understand in the first place.

Stealing private pictures and distributing them is bad whatever the circumstances and that's it. Don't be dense.

 

[H.Protagonist]

Much of what I feel has already been said, but these two posts really hit it home.

I don't think she deserved it but...
She didn't do anything wrong but...
Celebrities should expect to have their privacy invaded though...
Only the hackers did wrong here...testosterone...human curiosity...<insert evopsych justification here>
Don't take nudes...

Why should we ever address the toxic attitudes that all conjoined together to violate the privacy of select people? Let's just focus all our collective efforts on how they failed to protect themselves from the insane efforts of people looking to violate their private sphere and how most of us can agree it was wrong but that didn't stop scores of people from downloading and distributing the pictures. Clearly that's not a reflection of screwed up priorities and entitlement taken to it's extreme, nope, let's just sit here and chide the people who didn't put their nudes in Fort Knox or took them in the first place.

...they would rather justify their disgusting actions instead of take responsibility and learn from it.

If you actively sought out these victims photos to see them, you are wrong for it. There's no ambiguity. There's no "my morals are different from yours" bullshit...

...

If you don't feel bad for violating a victim, how are you any different from the others that violate victims without remorse. You would rather argue that there's no physical damage done, emotional turmoil is still damaging to a person.

This is something the world wasn't ready for. Everyone had gotten accustomed to using the internet as some shield to do dirty shit and get away with it~ well guess what? As more and more people get prosecuted for cyber bullying, possession of child pornography and voyeurism, it's only a matter of time before shit like this is enough to get you prosecuted.

It's starting to become harder to be a creep. And rightfully so. People need to know how fucking important consent is and if you want to keep pretending you're doing nothing wrong, you're really gonna be spooked once you start being prosecuted for it.

End of discussion.

I feel terrible for these people that had their privacy violated like that. It doesn't matter who they are or how much money they make. It's a terrible thing to do to somebody. If you sought those pictures out and feel/can express nothing but defensiveness for your actions, there is something wrong with you. It's disgusting.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You made me a quote for a post I didn't make...

Ack, my bad.

You can also buy alarm systems, guard dogs, video survalience, bar your windows, and re-enforce your door to avoid break ins. Don't see why you'd act as if locking the door is all you can do.

I already mentioned alarm systems, and everything else is veering into impracticality for the typical person. Like, can you actually afford a video-surveillance system and a steel-reinforced door?

Your argument goes the other way, of course. Why not post your bank account number on this forum when it's essentially the same thing as hiring an around-the-clock bodyguard service and attack drones? I expect to see that number by tomorrow.

 

[Carcetti]

I feel terrible for these people that had their privacy violated like that. It doesn't matter who they are or how much money they make. It's a terrible thing to do to somebody. If you sought those pictures out and feel/can express nothing but defensiveness for your actions, there is something wrong with you. It's disgusting.

This is pretty much what I feel about this.

 

[Two Words]

Ack, my bad.




I already mentioned alarm systems, and everything else is veering into impracticality for the typical person. Like, can you actually afford a video-surveillance system and a steel-reinforced door?

And if you want to have your photographs available through the Internet for your own means, what are the reasonable expectations beyond using a password?

 

[Two Words]

Something else people are COMPLETELY missing is that whether or not these celebrities had nude photos, their privacy was still broken. People still hacked their account and stole photos. Regardless of what was found, or whether or not they put nude photos on it, there got hacked. Having the nudes didn't MAKE them get hacked. These guys were hacking celebrities even if they didn't know what they'd find.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

And if you want to have your photographs available through the Internet for your own means, what are the reasonable expectations beyond using a password?

You can't. It's technologically impossible. Be careful of what you put online.

Something else people are COMPLETELY missing is that whether or not these celebrities had nude photos, their privacy was still broken. People still hacked their account and stole photos. Regardless of what was found, or whether or not they put nude photos on it, there got hacked. Having the nudes didn't MAKE them get hacked. These guys were hacking celebrities even if they didn't know what they'd find.

What else do you think they were looking for?

 

[Two Words]

You can't. It's technologically impossible. Be careful of what you put online.

Be careful where you buy a house if you don't want to be robbed. If you do get robbed, you should have known better to buy a house there.

 

[kehs]

Your argument goes the other way, of course. Why not post your bank account number on this forum when it's essentially the same thing as hiring an around-the-clock bodyguard service and attack drones? I expect to see that number by tomorrow.

Give me your bank account.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Be careful where you buy a house if you don't want to be robbed.

I would think that owning a house decreases my chances of being robbed.

Give me your bank account.

Why? It's not my argument being taken to its logical extreme.

 

[Two Words]

What else do you think they were looking for?

What does it matter? Even if she had no nudes, THEY STOLE HER PHOTOS. Your "you have to be more careful" argument doesn't even consider this fact. If she had no nudes, they stole her stuff. If she did have nudes, they stole her stuff. Having nudes on there played absolutely no part in being hacked.

 

[Two Words]

I would think that owning a house decreases my chances of being robbed.



Why? It's not my argument being taken to its logical extreme.

Do you know what "if" means?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

What does it matter? Even if she had no nudes, THEY STOLE HER PHOTOS. Your "you have to be more careful" argument doesn't even consider this fact. If she had no nudes, they stole her stuff. If she did have nudes, they stole her stuff. Having nudes on there played absolutely no part in being hacked.

This wouldn't change my argument at all.

 

[Two Words]

This wouldn't change my argument at all.

Hypothetical.

LJ doesn't have nudes. People still hack her and steal other non-nude photos. She complains about this. What do you tell her? She shouldn't use any cloud service for anything?

 

[kehs]

This wouldn't change my argument at all.

That's the problem.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Hypothetical.

LJ doesn't have nudes. People still hack her and steal other non-nude photos. She complains about this. What do you tell her? She shouldn't use any cloud service for anything?

Don't put things you don't want people to have on the Cloud. That said, I doubt she'd care much about people getting pictures of her fully clothed.

- - -

This has all become rather academic, with us just throwing random analogies at each other. If you choose to believe that people won't trample all over your rights and privacy if you make little to no effort to protect them, then good for you, but I have no interest in taking this any further.

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

Hypothetical.

LJ doesn't have nudes. People still hack her and steal other non-nude photos. She complains about this. What do you tell her? She shouldn't use any cloud service for anything?

There is stealing your social security number, passport and other deeply personal items. Then there is stealing your old tv and couch.

She'll still complain, but she won't be violated.

 

[Two Words]

Don't put things you don't want people to have on the Cloud. That said, I doubt she'd care much about people getting pictures of her fully clothed.

- - -

This has all become rather academic, with us just throwing random analogies at each other. If you choose to believe that people won't trample all over your rights and privacy if you make little to no effort to protect them, then good for you, but I have no interest in taking this any further.

You've taken it nowhere. I guarantee you have plenty of information on a cloud service that you don't want others to have. Look how much you have in your emails alone.

 

[kehs]

Don't put things you don't want people to have on the Cloud. That said, I doubt she'd care much about people getting pictures of her fully clothed.

- - -

This has all become rather academic, with us just throwing random analogies at each other. If you choose to believe that people won't trample all over your rights and privacy if you make little to no effort to protect them, then good for you, but I have no interest in taking this any further.

You haven't explained why people shouldn't upload private private picture to a private service. You haven't made an intelligent argument why those people shouldn't try and send pictures to another person.

Your academic reasoning is that oh "it's online who cares." make a coherent argument at least.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Okay fine, one more.

You've taken it nowhere. I guarantee you have plenty of information on a cloud service that you don't want others to have. Look how much you have in your emails alone.

I don't see anything all that bad in my emails.

You haven't explained why people shouldn't upload private private picture to a private service. You haven't made an intelligent argument why those people shouldn't try and send pictures to another person.

Your academic reasoning is that oh "it's online who cares." make a coherent argument at least.

You shouldn't because, if you're a celebrity, people will - will - get it.

Maybe "shouldn't" was too strong a word. How about it's a very bad idea for reasons that are all too obvious right now.



Now I'm done for real. Good day.

 

[Two Words]

Okay fine, one more.



I don't see anything all that bad in my emails.



You shouldn't because, if you're a celebrity, people will - will - get it.

Maybe "shouldn't" was too strong a word. How about it's a very bad idea for reasons that are all too obvious right now.



Now I'm done for real. Good day.

So you won't care if people hack your email and gain access to all the info there and other services it connects to?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I don't see anything all that bad in my emails.

Like ever? No one could hack into your emails and gather info like date of birth / address / full name / social security numbers / bank account numbers / passport numbers / employer identity / children names / parents names / your login and passwords to various websites and.... do whatever they want with the put together information?

Like ever, ever?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

ONE MORE

So you won't care if people hack your email and gain access to all the info there and other services it connects to?

Like ever? No one could hack into your emails and gather info like date of birth / address / full name / social security numbers / bank account numbers / passport numbers / employer identity / children names / parents names / your login and passwords to various websites and.... do whatever they want with the put together information?

Like ever, ever?

Nope nope nope nope. In fact, I'd give you guys the UN and password right now, but I just know you jerks would change it

Celebrities shouldn't take pictures of themselves?

People will get them because of assholes who want to hack, that's not ok.

I'm still searching to figure out what you mean by "very bad idea".

It's not okay, at all. But it's the way things work.

Um, ill-advised, maybe? Not sure how much more clear I can get.