Just an interesting topic to discuss

[nutty]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739215/Jennifer-Lawrence-victim-hacker-leaks-slew-graphic-nude-photos-Oscar-winning-actress.html

I don't care if anyone takes pics of themselves. I would just think as someone famous it probably would not be a good idea.

I have never done it, has anyone here?

[Deleted]

"piece of coding that repeatedly guesses passwords found"

This is what really disturbs me. Today your picture, tomorrow your bank account?
What good are passwords if they can be hacked?

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2014 8:38:58 GMT -5 nutty said:

...

I have never done it, has anyone here?

I have. Want a link?

[giramomma]

Sept 1, 2014 8:38:58 GMT -5 nutty said:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739215/Jennifer-Lawrence-victim-hacker-leaks-slew-graphic-nude-photos-Oscar-winning-actress.html

I don't care if anyone takes pics of themselves. I would just think as someone famous it probably would not be a good idea.

I have never done it, has anyone here?

Pictures yes, put them anywhere online, no.

I don't understand how anyone believes that the internet/online/anything having to do with computers is safe and secure.

This article ran very quietly a few weeks ago. A hospital network got hacked, and 4.5 million got their info stolen, including birthdays, social security numbers, etc.

money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology/security/hospital-chs-hack/

[plugginaway22]

A few of their hospitals are less than an hour's drive from where I live, so it was definitely in the news here.
But what are you going to do? Truly nothing is 100% safe in cyber space, haha.

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2014 9:16:15 GMT -5 plugginaway22 said:

...
But what are you going to do? Truly nothing is 100% safe in cyber space, haha.

Nothing is 100% safe anywhere.

[haapai]

Sadly, I have not.  Cameras required film when I was in my twenties and unless you had a polaroid camera, getting racy pix developed was a true PITA. 

[Opti]

I haven't either, but I'm more interested in will this person be caught

and how much jail time will they receive.

[zibazinski]

Don't worry, no one including the medical staff, bothers to read them anyway. 

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 1, 2014 9:02:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 1, 2014 8:38:58 GMT -5 nutty said:

...

I have never done it, has anyone here?

I have. Want a link?

Does Mrs. billsonboard mind?

I don't understand why, in the 21st century of 24/7 exposure (pardon the pun), any celebrity would take the chance of having anything compromising on line, period. Nothing is sacred, nothing is private and everything is open to hacking and intrusion. Why do they take these chances, given the fact that they are famous? They don't seem to understand that they are not like "regular" folks in that they are more vulnerable targets. I'm not defending the hackers, nor do I support anyone who reposts the photos. It's pointless and cruel on either side. But it's a lesson for any teenager who idolizes these people: before you text or photograph and hit "send," think about this: do you want that out in the public domain, ever?

[Opti]

FWIW, if you haven't read the link, some of the supposed targets are saying

the naked pics are fake and in one case deleted years ago.

[zibazinski]

Just ask Lois Lerner. 

[Opti]

Sept 1, 2014 11:01:34 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Deleting means nothing on the internet. Internet Wayback Machine

It's the equivalent of hiding something behind your back. 

While this is an interesting non-profit, notice it doesn't archive everything and might

miss things because of timing.

If you look at our collection of archived sites, you will find some broken pages, missing graphics, and some sites that aren't archived at all. Here are some things that make it difficult to archive a web site:
•Robots.txt -- We respect robot exclusion headers.
•Javascript -- Javascript elements are often hard to archive, but especially if they generate links without having the full name in the page. Plus, if javascript needs to contact the originating server in order to work, it will fail when archived.
•Server side image maps -- Like any functionality on the web, if it needs to contact the originating server in order to work, it will fail when archived.
•Unknown sites -- The archive contains crawls of the Web completed by Alexa Internet. If Alexa doesn't know about your site, it won't be archived. Use the Alexa Toolbar (available at , and it will know about your page. Or you can visit Alexa's Archive Your Site page at pages.alexa.com/help/webmasters/index.html#crawl_site.
•Orphan pages -- If there are no links to your pages, the robot won't find it (the robots don't enter queries in search boxes.)

Please note that there is a 6 - 14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears in the Wayback Machine.

[Opti]

While I think its wise to not assume deleting things means they are permanently

gone from Internet access, I also think it is wise to not assume everything is able

to be retrieved. How long this non-profit will exist is something to be determined.

Likewise, every web-site has their own backup policies, and if it isn't static content

it is possible to add and delete before a backup window even occurs.

Not sure about the actual case in the OP, but I found another set of caveats

on the Internet Wayback machine website.

Do you collect all the sites on the Web?

No, we collect only publicly accessible Web pages. We do not archive pages that require a password to access, pages tagged for "robot exclusion" by their owners, pages that are only accessible when a person types into and sends a form, or pages on secure servers.

[Artemis Windsong]

I was so humiliated that a scumbag (ex-fiance) took my photo at the swimming pool and had it put in a girly mag. in the 70s.  He wanted to be paid for it; but they put the check in my name, which I refused to even look at.

My Dad kept the check and the mag.  When I found it, I burned it.  The check and the magazine.

I get real touchy about peeps taking my photo when I'm out and about.  Photoshop is not a friend.

[Opti]

Sept 1, 2014 16:08:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

I'm just glad that even when I was young and dumb, I was smart enough to know not to put my face into any pictures that might cause trouble later.

Just because the Wayback Machine doesn't archive it doesn't mean that someone can't right-click "save" and post it somewhere else later.

Absolutely.

In theory these were photos in the cloud behind a password. Not a choice I

would make, but something most people would assume was safe. Given at least

one set was old and deleted, my suspicion is the hacker may have worked for Apple

or at least knew how things were set up.

Its just curious I seem to be the only one discussing the hacker. It should be considered

bad whether its password protected nude pictures or credit card information. JMO.

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2014 11:25:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Just ask Lois Lerner. 

Good one Zib! 

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2014 17:43:13 GMT -5 Opti said:

...

Its just curious I seem to be the only one discussing the hacker. It should be considered

bad whether its password protected nude pictures or credit card information. JMO.

Not sure what there is to discuss. Of course it is bad. 

[Firebird]

I was both hoping and not hoping someone would bring this up.  It's an important topic but the comments I've read on it from certain sources so far make me want to throw up.

The thing that makes me saddest is the way certain people believe that if a woman is famous, she's not "really" a woman anymore - just a piece of meat.  And that if she's been filmed in skimpy clothing before, she's giving everyone a free pass to see every nude image of her in existence.

People - this is rape culture.  Believing that you (general you) are entitled to view a woman's body without her permission is a direct result of living in a society that thinks in the absence of consent, it's okay to just take. 

It's disgusting and it's disgraceful.  These women are victims who have done absolutely nothing wrong.  It doesn't matter that they're celebrities - no one has any right to view these photos (which were NOT posted online, at least not all of them). 

[Firebird]

This article says it better than I can.

m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-click-on-the-naked-photos-of-jennifer-lawrence-20140901-3eo6s.html

"If you deliberately seek out any of these images, you are directly participating in the violation not just of numerous women’s privacy but also of their bodies. These images - which I have not seen and which I will not look for - are intimate, private moments belonging only to the people who appear in them and who they have invited to see them."

[zibazinski]

Thank god the only really bad picture of me is my freshman year of college dancing with a curtain that I thought was my date!! Even then you only see the back of me and I do have clothes on. But that is one I'd rather friends and family not ever see.     But I was blotto.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 2, 2014 10:06:00 GMT -5 Firebird said:

I was both hoping and not hoping someone would bring this up.  It's an important topic but the comments I've read on it from certain sources so far make me want to throw up.

The thing that makes me saddest is the way certain people believe that if a woman is famous, she's not "really" a woman anymore - just a piece of meat.  And that if she's been filmed in skimpy clothing before, she's giving everyone a free pass to see every nude image of her in existence.

People - this is rape culture.  Believing that you (general you) are entitled to view a woman's body without her permission is a direct result of living in a society that thinks in the absence of consent, it's okay to just take. 

It's disgusting and it's disgraceful.  These women are victims who have done absolutely nothing wrong.  It doesn't matter that they're celebrities - no one has any right to view these photos (which were NOT posted online, at least not all of them). 

Unless they have leaked the pictures themselves. 

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2014 10:13:01 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 1, 2014 9:02:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I have. Want a link?

Does Mrs. billsonboard mind?

I don't understand why, in the 21st century of 24/7 exposure (pardon the pun), any celebrity would take the chance of having anything compromising on line, period. Nothing is sacred, nothing is private and everything is open to hacking and intrusion. Why do they take these chances, given the fact that they are famous? They don't seem to understand that they are not like "regular" folks in that they are more vulnerable targets. I'm not defending the hackers, nor do I support anyone who reposts the photos. It's pointless and cruel on either side. But it's a lesson for any teenager who idolizes these people: before you text or photograph and hit "send," think about this: do you want that out in the public domain, ever?

Are you kidding? I'm sure they have them for their portfolio for pete's sake. Honestly I think the only problem here is that they aren't getting paid for it.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

There was a segment on this on this morning's news.  What I found interesting is that it was mentioned that the FBI had been brought in to help track the hackers.

So the way I read this is that if you are famous and hacked, a greater effort is taken than if you are not famous and your bank account is emptied?

[Firebird]

So the way I read this is that if you are famous and hacked, a greater effort is taken than if you are not famous and your bank account is emptied?

Still a crime either way, and prosecuted as such.  But yes, the celebrities obviously have more visibility - which is a gift and a curse.  More attention is drawn to the crime, yes, but WAY more people come out of the woodwork to blame the victims and/or reason that they shouldn't have a problem with everyone seeing them naked.  Because they're celebrities so apparently that's okay. 

The article I linked earlier mentioned that people who downloaded and/or shared the photos could be prosecuted.  So at least people aren't completely hopeless.  Anyone who shares these photos should be prosecuted.  They are actively participating in the crime.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

It may still be a crime, but do you really think this effort to find them would be made for Josie Schmo?  What if she had a stalker who hacked her and spread her images?  It is still a crime, but not near as 'interesting' and I seriously doubt if the same resources would be used.

[Firebird]

Like I said, I agree with that but the kind of attention they're getting for this crime is both a gift and a curse.

No, the police wouldn't look as hard for Jane Doe's hacker.  But Jane Doe also doesn't have to deal with tens of thousands of people talking about what a whore she was for having taken those pictures to hack in the first place. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

But Jane Doe also doesn't have to deal with tens of thousands of people talking about what a whore she was for having taken those pictures to hack in the first place

Because having your entire high school call you slut isn't damaging at all. Can't possibly ruin a regular teenager's life to have naked photos hacked and passed around like it can Jennifer Hudson.

Not sure why exactly Jane Doe shouldn't get her case prosecuted just as heavily as a celebrity. The reason people do these kinds of things is because they know that 99% of the time they'll get away with it.

Might not be what you meant but basically what it sounded like to me is that people with money and fame deserve justice because they happen to be "famous".   For a regular woman it's no big deal because after all she's not "well known", it'll all just blow over and can't possibly ruin her life.

I think the opposite is far more true.  When you have money, power and fame you have the clout to make things go away. 

  Your average teenage girl who has photos circulated of her doesn't have the money to hire big league lawyers to stop people from circulating her photos.  An average teenage girl doesn't have an entire marketing department to spin the situation.  She can't make a big enough stink to get the FBI involved.

So she has to suffer in silence because she's not considered important enough to have the crime against her prosecuted.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Thanks, Drama.....that is it exactly.

[imawino]

Sept 2, 2014 13:23:53 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

But Jane Doe also doesn't have to deal with tens of thousands of people talking about what a whore she was for having taken those pictures to hack in the first place

Because having your entire high school call you slut isn't damaging at all. Can't possibly ruin a regular teenager's life to have naked photos hacked and passed around like it can Jennifer Hudson.

Not sure why exactly Jane Doe shouldn't get her case prosecuted just as heavily as a celebrity. The reason people do these kinds of things is because they know that 99% of the time they'll get away with it.

Might not be what you meant but basically what it sounded like to me is that people with money and fame deserve justice because they happen to be "famous".   For a regular woman it's no big deal because after all she's not "well known", it'll all just blow over and can't possibly ruin her life.

I think the opposite is far more true.  When you have money, power and fame you have the clout to make things go away. 

  Your average teenage girl who has photos circulated of her doesn't have the money to hire big league lawyers to stop people from circulating her photos.  An average teenage girl doesn't have an entire marketing department to spin the situation.  She can't make a big enough stink to get the FBI involved.

So she has to suffer in silence because she's not considered important enough to have the crime against her prosecuted.

I'm not sure anyone is saying Jane Doe shouldn't get her case prosecuted, I think she was just agreeing that they don't always get them prosecuted the way they should.   Yes, for the average 30 something non-celebrity it is probably less publicly humiliating than for someone that now has millions of people searching for those images.  In the case of high-school girls I agree that it is horrible and probably much more damaging to their burgeoning self-esteem.  I will say that in recent years I have at least heard of some of those types of cases (probably just the most egregious ones) being prosecuted pretty zealously and the people who sent pictures of teen girls being charged with distributing child pornography.   

In any case, it's a crime and the blame the victim mentality is disturbing.   I think the goal should be that we are saying that hopefully prosecuting in this case would lead to more awareness and for similar cases involving non-celebrity people being taken more seriously - rather than hoping the celebrity's case doesn't get taken seriously just because some others have not.  That's counter productive.