The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Vindictus on September 01, 2014, 10:08:07 AM
-
I, uh, wasn't sure where this should go, if it should go anywhere at all. It's a pretty serious thing depending on who you ask and I figured it's worth talking about.
If you've been paying any attention to /b/ or specific subreddits, then you would have noticed that over the course of the last day some dude has been leaking heaps of nude pics of celebrities. Users on /b/ have largely responded by asking for more and giving the guy money through bitcoin, some of the celebrity subreddits have been heavily moderated and the whole scandal removed from /r/all. Despite this, a new subreddit was created for the sole purpose of sharing the images, and the guy continues making promises on /b/. It's apparent that he has a lot more content left, although no one knows how he got such a large bank of personal images (most people seem to think he got them from iCloud somehow) or how much longer before he gets caught.
Obviously I'm not going to post any pictures here because they're all pretty explicit. The whole thing strikes me as very creepy, but I'm not surprised this could happen given the naivety of these girls. Taking nude pics and allowing them to be put on the cloud is not a smart move, at all.
-
It could be, he's just very good at photoshop and sticks celeb heads on pornstar bodies. If people are giving him money for this, the motive is obvious.
-
There's a lot of images, some very clearly show the face of the girls involved.
-
I wouldn't be interested in this kind of low res smut.
-
There's a lot of images, some very clearly show the face of the girls involved.
He could still be very good at photo shopping.
-
There's a lot of images, some very clearly show the face of the girls involved.
He could still be very good at photo shopping.
But what if he uses GIMP
-
Jennifer Lawrence for one has confirmed that the pictures of her are genuine. I'm not sure about anyone else.
-
There's a lot of images, some very clearly show the face of the girls involved.
He could still be very good at photo shopping.
But what if he uses GIMP
Then it would look like shit, obviously.
-
I wouldn't be interested in this kind of low res smut.
I researched the topic and can confirm the images are not low res nor appear to be photoshopped.
-
I've heard the guy on /b/ has been found out, but not yet apprehended.
-
I did not look at Kirsten Dunst's pictures.
-
I don't think anyone did.
-
I did.
-
Oops.
-
I am sorry.
-
If there's not any naked dudes then I don't care.
But seriously, I feel bad for all celebrities because they always have to be careful about their privacy. If they're uploading nudes to the cloud then lesson learned, I guess. It sucks but it's a part of the ugly nature of star worship. I may be a perv for sexy actors but I wouldn't intrude on their privacy or pay for anyone to do it. Even seeing candid paparazzi pictures makes me feel icky.
-
It should be common knowledge by now that if your storage for nudes is connected to the internet then it isn't perfectly safe. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Winstead has said the pictures of her were taken and deleted some time ago, so the person who grabbed these pics did some serious perving.
-
It should be common knowledge by now that if your storage for nudes is connected to the internet then it isn't perfectly safe. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Winstead has said the pictures of her were taken and deleted some time ago, so the person who grabbed these pics did some serious perving.
Or they were on iCloud.
-
/r/thefappening now has a thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f7673/lets_make_this_a_worthwhile_endeavour_jennifer/) promoting donations for prostate cancer. It would be nice to see some good come out of this.
-
/r/thefappening now has a thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f7673/lets_make_this_a_worthwhile_endeavour_jennifer/) promoting donations for prostate cancer. It would be nice to see some good come out of this.
Wow, what nice guys.
::)
-
They have some strange priorities.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
Meaning the taking of the photo, not the sexy-time?
-
There are a ton of holier-than-thou articles condemning anyone who looks at the photos, let alone partake in the Fappening. Some even go as far as to call this a sex crime.
-
There is definitely a severe privacy violation, but I can't condemn it any further than that.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
The problem is the item used to take the photo. It was hacked and the pics downloaded
-
There are a ton of holier-than-thou articles condemning anyone who looks at the photos, let alone partake in the Fappening. Some even go as far as to call this a sex crime.
Personally I think it's pretty shitty to look at them, but whatever.
-
There are a ton of holier-than-thou articles condemning anyone who looks at the photos, let alone partake in the Fappening. Some even go as far as to call this a sex crime.
Personally I think it's pretty shitty to look at them, but whatever.
If you're taking nudies then uploading them onto a cloud service... what do you expect? Like Tom said, if you don't want people to see it... don't do it.
-
That's kind of a fucked up mentality though. You're blaming them for having personal sex lives.
Here's the article about it being a sex crime although I don't really agree with that. I do agree that it's not their fault their privacy was invaded but when you're a celebrity you are taking a risk with any nudes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/09/01/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-leak-isnt-a-scandal-its-a-sex-crime/
-
That's kind of a fucked up mentality though. You're blaming them for having personal sex lives.
Here's the article about it being a sex crime although I don't really agree with that. I do agree that it's not their fault their privacy was invaded but when you're a celebrity you are taking a risk with any nudes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/09/01/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-leak-isnt-a-scandal-its-a-sex-crime/
I'm not blaming them from having a sex life at all. ???
I'm blaming them for being stupid. The internet is not safe. I don't care what apple tells you.
If you want to take nudes, cool. Try to keep them contained though, and by all means do not let them migrate to the web. I understand that their rights were violated according to apple's contract, but boo-hoo. You can't call this a sex crime without calling the actual photos a sex crime.
In a civilized world no one would give a fuck about this and it would be a non-issue.
-
I don't blame them for this, it's clearly not their fault. But they do deserve criticism for being so lax with sensitive images, and allowing them to be uploaded to cloud services. Surely you can opt out of such things? Technology can bite you in the ass if you're not careful, hopefully they've learned that.
-
But some people are not very good with technology.
-
It's confirmed. Jennifer Lawrence is all I want or need in the world.
-
But some people are not very good with technology.
Sucks for them. Don't mess with something you don't understand.
Technology can bite you in the ass if you're not careful, hopefully they've learned that.
-
I need to know exactly how these pictures were found before I can make a better argument. Did he hack into webcams, cellphones, email?
-
I need to know exactly how these pictures were found before I can make a better argument. Did he hack into webcams, cellphones, email?
I'm not entirely sure. I've heard mixed things. A popular theory I read was that they were able to hack into their accounts by accessing their phones through an unsecured wi-fi network they were all using at a screening venue.
Here's some more theories. (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-celebrity-photo-hack/)
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
So you're saying that celebrities shouldn't have any expectation to a private life? ???
-
I need to know exactly how these pictures were found before I can make a better argument. Did he hack into webcams, cellphones, email?
I'm not entirely sure. I've heard mixed things. A popular theory I read was that they were able to hack into their accounts by accessing their phones through an unsecured wi-fi network they were all using at a screening venue.
Here's some more theories. (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-celebrity-photo-hack/)
Well if he just guessed passwords then the victim is not at fault at all (unless they gave public hints or something similar). Then it wouldn't be a matter of "learn to technology" and just a matter of them being a high profile celebrity with smart people being dicks. Unfortunately, a lot of celebrities' info is out there so knowing the answer to a security question like "where was your dad born?" is relatively easy to find out.
-
I need to know exactly how these pictures were found before I can make a better argument. Did he hack into webcams, cellphones, email?
I'm not entirely sure. I've heard mixed things. A popular theory I read was that they were able to hack into their accounts by accessing their phones through an unsecured wi-fi network they were all using at a screening venue.
Here's some more theories. (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-celebrity-photo-hack/)
Well if he just guessed passwords then the victim is not at fault at all (unless they gave public hints or something similar). Then it wouldn't be a matter of "learn to technology" and just a matter of them being a high profile celebrity with smart people being dicks. Unfortunately, a lot of celebrities' info is out there so knowing the answer to a security question like "where was your dad born?" is relatively easy to find out.
Yes, but that's not necessarily what happened. I think the hacker got control of their phones, their phones already had all their passwords saved, so it was just a matter of browsing their stuff at that point.
Regardless, no one is saying that being hacked was their fault. Getting hacked is no one's fault. Their fault was storing sensitive material on a cloud server.
-
I need to know exactly how these pictures were found before I can make a better argument. Did he hack into webcams, cellphones, email?
I'm not entirely sure. I've heard mixed things. A popular theory I read was that they were able to hack into their accounts by accessing their phones through an unsecured wi-fi network they were all using at a screening venue.
Here's some more theories. (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-celebrity-photo-hack/)
Well if he just guessed passwords then the victim is not at fault at all (unless they gave public hints or something similar). Then it wouldn't be a matter of "learn to technology" and just a matter of them being a high profile celebrity with smart people being dicks. Unfortunately, a lot of celebrities' info is out there so knowing the answer to a security question like "where was your dad born?" is relatively easy to find out.
Yes, but that's not necessarily what happened. I think the hacker got control of their phones, their phones already had all their passwords saved, so it was just a matter of browsing their stuff at that point.
Regardless, no one is saying that being hacked was their fault. Getting hacked is no one's fault. Their fault was storing sensitive material on a cloud server.
Unless it wasn't stored on the cloud server.
-
Arguments pending until more information is released.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
So you're saying that celebrities shouldn't have any expectation to a private life? ???
If they don't want to risk the chance that their naked photos will be seen by others the best idea is not to take those naked photos. It's not rocket science.
-
There are a ton of holier-than-thou articles condemning anyone who looks at the photos, let alone partake in the Fappening. Some even go as far as to call this a sex crime.
Personally I think it's pretty shitty to look at them, but whatever.
If you're taking nudies then uploading them onto a cloud service... what do you expect?
What does that have to do with how shitty of a thing it is or isn't to look at them?
-
What does that have to do with how shitty of a thing it is or isn't to look at them?
Absolutely everything nothing.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
So you're saying that celebrities shouldn't have any expectation to a private life? ???
If they don't want to risk the chance that their naked photos will be seen by others the best idea is not to take those naked photos. It's not rocket science.
No, it's computer science. Cloud providers shouldn't say that they are secure if they can be so easily hacked.
-
My opinion on this matter is the same opinion I have on the ongoing NSA-Snowden leaks. If you don't want it leaked on the internet, DON'T DO IT.
So you're saying that celebrities shouldn't have any expectation to a private life? ???
If they don't want to risk the chance that their naked photos will be seen by others the best idea is not to take those naked photos. It's not rocket science.
No, it's computer science. Cloud providers shouldn't say that they are secure if they can be so easily hacked.
It's not just cloud providers being hacked. Someone can be looking over her shoulder and see her type in her password. Her phone can be stolen. The person she sends them to can share them with others against her wishes.
Taking the photographs that can be used to embarrass or humiliate you is a stupid decision all around.
-
This really should be an eye opener for everyone about online security.
-
Taking the photographs that can be used to embarrass or humiliate you is a stupid decision all around.
That doesn't make it any less wrong for someone to steal those photographs and make them publicly available.
-
In other news, the numpties on /r/thefappening have had their money rejected by a charity for the second time.
-
In other news, the numpties on /r/thefappening have had their money rejected by a charity for the second time.
Good.
-
It's pretty humorous how angry they get. If you actually gave a damn about donating to these groups, then do it anonymously.
-
They don't want their cum-money.
-
Yeah, good. More money to provide clean water to those who need it? No thanks, sounds gay as fuck if it's coming from people who have looked at nude photos of celebrities.
-
Yeah, good. More money to provide clean water to those who need it? No thanks, sounds gay as fuck if it's coming from people who have looked at nude photos of celebrities.
Hey, shut up.
-
It's pretty humorous how angry they get. If you actually gave a damn about donating to these groups, then do it anonymously.
You can't claim it as a tax deduction if you donate anonymously.
-
There's no arguing with this amazing logic (https://imgur.com/gallery/39mVc), courtesy of the very smrt redditors on /r/funny.
-
There's no arguing with this amazing logic (https://imgur.com/gallery/39mVc), courtesy of the very smrt redditors on /r/funny.
I thought that was hilariously well-done.
-
I don't think it has anything to do with role models. Fuck that bollocks. If celebrities had to be role models then all we'll get is the Jonas Brothers and Hannah cunting Montana before she got hot.
-
Welp, /r/thefappening was finally banned by the reddit admins. Now I get to watch thousands of people berate the admins because /r/picsofdeadkids can exist but /r/thefappening cannot. It's crazy how attached people on Reddit have gotten to those images.
-
/r/picsofdeadkids
...what the fuck
-
I'm not even going to click to find out.
-
Taking the photographs that can be used to embarrass or humiliate you is a stupid decision all around.
That doesn't make it any less wrong for someone to steal those photographs and make them publicly available.
Bad people exist, that is a given. If you drive around with your life savings in $100 bills on your car's passenger seat, don't be surprised and outraged when your car is broken into.
-
Taking the photographs that can be used to embarrass or humiliate you is a stupid decision all around.
That doesn't make it any less wrong for someone to steal those photographs and make them publicly available.
Bad people exist, that is a given. If you drive around with your life savings in $100 bills on your car's passenger seat, don't be surprised and outraged when your car is broken into.
Super cynic.
-
Bad people exist, that is a given. If you drive around with your life savings in $100 bills on your car's passenger seat, don't be surprised and outraged when your car is broken into.
No. The people who steal/hack/cheat must adjust themselves. It's just like when a girl is raped and people say "oh well she shouldn't have dressed like that" I mean, what the fuck? A criminal should have to adhere themselves to society, not society bending over backwards to ensure it doesn't taunt the criminal into crime.
Reddit is full of the same people who cry all the time about their privacy being invaded and then when given the chance to invade another's privacy 80% of the them were all aboard the nude pic train. If I went into an NSA thread and said "well maybe you guys shouldn't have computers and phones so the NSA wouldn't be tempted to record your stuff" I'd be downvoted into oblivion, but when someone says "oh they shouldn't have taken these pictures if they didn't want me to see them" actually has people agreeing? Goddamn imbeciles.
-
No. The people who steal/hack/cheat must adjust themselves. It's just like when a girl is raped and people say "oh well she shouldn't have dressed like that" I mean, what the fuck? A criminal should have to adhere themselves to society, not society bending over backwards to ensure it doesn't taunt the criminal into crime.
Reddit is full of the same people who cry all the time about their privacy being invaded and then when given the chance to invade another's privacy 80% of the them were all aboard the nude pic train. If I went into an NSA thread and said "well maybe you guys shouldn't have computers and phones so the NSA wouldn't be tempted to record your stuff" I'd be downvoted into oblivion, but when someone says "oh they shouldn't have taken these pictures if they didn't want me to see them" actually has people agreeing? Goddamn imbeciles.
This is definitely the argument of rational people. Conservatives, prudes, and victim-blamers are the only ones who think that if you don't want the entire world to see your nudes then you shouldn't take them.
I agree with taking your safety into your own hands by taking precautions, as in not going to a frat party and leaving your drink unattended. But this is not a case where anyone was asking for it. They took private nudes and had them password protected. It's like expecting no one to break into your house and steal your stuff. Sure, it might happen, but it's in no way anyone's fault for owning the house that was broken into.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5fj1n5/star-hack--the-nude-generation?xrs=synd_facebook_090414_tds_17
-
No. The people who steal/hack/cheat must adjust themselves. It's just like when a girl is raped and people say "oh well she shouldn't have dressed like that" I mean, what the fuck? A criminal should have to adhere themselves to society, not society bending over backwards to ensure it doesn't taunt the criminal into crime.
A recently released ex-con is wandering the street and has rape on the mind. He has decided that he's going to rape someone tonight. It's late and he sees several possible targets walk past him. Who is he going to pull into the darkened alley; the girl who is dressed like Marry Poppins or one dressed in a Victoria's Secret Babydoll?
Criminals are going to exist no matter what. A rape attack is the criminal's crime. But it's the girls fault for putting herself in that situation (dressing as she does and walking alone in a seedy area).
Reddit is full of the same people who cry all the time about their privacy being invaded and then when given the chance to invade another's privacy 80% of the them were all aboard the nude pic train. If I went into an NSA thread and said "well maybe you guys shouldn't have computers and phones so the NSA wouldn't be tempted to record your stuff" I'd be downvoted into oblivion, but when someone says "oh they shouldn't have taken these pictures if they didn't want me to see them" actually has people agreeing? Goddamn imbeciles.
Well yeah, it is the NSA's crime for spying on Americans, but it's your fault for putting yourself in a situation which allows others to spy on you. If you don't want someone to read your emails you should send it encrypted, stenographated, or not at all. It's your fault if you send them in clear text and someone unintended sees it. It's not just the NSA who will listen in. There are rival businesses, chinese hackers, foreign governments, etc.
Telephone encryption doesn't really exist in wide adoption, but an answer to that might be to refrain from discussing your illegal ventures or bank account numbers over the telephone.
-
This is definitely the argument of rational people. Conservatives, prudes, and victim-blamers are the only ones who think that if you don't want the entire world to see your nudes then you shouldn't take them.
I agree with taking your safety into your own hands by taking precautions, as in not going to a frat party and leaving your drink unattended. But this is not a case where anyone was asking for it. They took private nudes and had them password protected. It's like expecting no one to break into your house and steal your stuff. Sure, it might happen, but it's in no way anyone's fault for owning the house that was broken into.
There are a lot of reasons for them not to take the pictures. Phones get stolen. Servers get hacked. "Trusted" boyfriends send around pictures to their friends. Ex-boyfriends will sometimes seek revenge.
The crime is with the thief, no doubt. But these girls put themselves into their situation by taking photographs which could be used to embarrass or humiliate them.
-
This is definitely the argument of rational people. Conservatives, prudes, and victim-blamers are the only ones who think that if you don't want the entire world to see your nudes then you shouldn't take them.
I agree with taking your safety into your own hands by taking precautions, as in not going to a frat party and leaving your drink unattended. But this is not a case where anyone was asking for it. They took private nudes and had them password protected. It's like expecting no one to break into your house and steal your stuff. Sure, it might happen, but it's in no way anyone's fault for owning the house that was broken into.
There are a lot of reasons for them not to take the pictures. Phones get stolen. Servers get hacked. "Trusted" boyfriends send around pictures to their friends. Ex-boyfriends will sometimes seek revenge.
The crime is with the thief, no doubt. But these girls put themselves into their situation by taking photographs which could be used to embarrass or humiliate them.
But why should we care? Why does it make the crime any less gross, and why should it be a reason to be less sympathetic toward them? If it was their TV that was stolen you wouldn't be saying that they shouldn't have had such big windows.
-
This is definitely the argument of rational people. Conservatives, prudes, and victim-blamers are the only ones who think that if you don't want the entire world to see your nudes then you shouldn't take them.
I agree with taking your safety into your own hands by taking precautions, as in not going to a frat party and leaving your drink unattended. But this is not a case where anyone was asking for it. They took private nudes and had them password protected. It's like expecting no one to break into your house and steal your stuff. Sure, it might happen, but it's in no way anyone's fault for owning the house that was broken into.
There are a lot of reasons for them not to take the pictures. Phones get stolen. Servers get hacked. "Trusted" boyfriends send around pictures to their friends. Ex-boyfriends will sometimes seek revenge.
The crime is with the thief, no doubt. But these girls put themselves into their situation by taking photographs which could be used to embarrass or humiliate them.
But why should we care? Why does it make the crime any less gross, and why should it be a reason to be less sympathetic toward them? If it was their TV that was stolen you wouldn't be saying that they shouldn't have had such big windows.
If they chose to live in a bad neighborhoods, neglected to put in a good alarm system, and kept valuables in plain sight, yes, it would be their fault.
If you left your iPhone in plain sight at a bar while you left to use the restroom, and it was gone when you got back, whose fault would it be?
-
The person who stole it obviously.
-
"Trusted" boyfriends send around pictures to their friends. Ex-boyfriends will sometimes seek revenge.
Sure, that can totally happen if you date or dated an asshole. But then the woman is giving those pictures to the boyfriend and it's no longer a case of theft. This is just a plain case of theft, not of a douche ex sharing his pictures with his bros.
The person who stole it obviously.
This, always.
Some people have no choice but to live in a bad neighborhood. If they live in a bad neighborhood then they probably can't afford to have a good alarm system. It's not their fault for living in a bad situation and having someone take advantage of it.
It also should be said that it literally makes no difference what a woman wears. Fully clothed women are raped all the time.
-
The person who stole it obviously.
This, always.
Some people have no choice but to live in a bad neighborhood. If they live in a bad neighborhood then they probably can't afford to have a good alarm system. It's not their fault for living in a bad situation and having someone take advantage of it.
It also should be said that it literally makes no difference what a woman wears. Fully clothed women are raped all the time.
Remember that Tom thinks that all poor people can only be poor because they are lazy or incompetent.
-
Remember that Tom thinks that all poor people can only be poor because they are lazy or incompetent.
Oh right.
-
A recently released ex-con is wandering the street and has rape on the mind. He has decided that he's going to rape someone tonight. It's late and he sees several possible targets walk past him. Who is he going to pull into the darkened alley; the girl who is dressed like Marry Poppins or one dressed in a Victoria's Secret Babydoll?
Pretty sure this rape myth was debunked a long time ago.
Oh look it has.
http://www.consented.ca/myths/provocative-clothing-is-a-risk-factor/
-
"Trusted" boyfriends send around pictures to their friends. Ex-boyfriends will sometimes seek revenge.
Sure, that can totally happen if you date or dated an asshole. But then the woman is giving those pictures to the boyfriend and it's no longer a case of theft. This is just a plain case of theft, not of a douche ex sharing his pictures with his bros.
A boyfriend or an ex distributing your photos is a good reason not to take them in the first place, in addition risks of theft and hacking.
There are humiliating pictures of JL on her knees with semen on her face and in her mouth. I think an average girl knows enough by the age of 20 that it's probably not a good idea to take something like that.
This, always.
Some people have no choice but to live in a bad neighborhood. If they live in a bad neighborhood then they probably can't afford to have a good alarm system. It's not their fault for living in a bad situation and having someone take advantage of it.
I started the sentence with "If they chose".
When you choose to do something, with other better options available, the consequences of your bad choice is your fault. Bad people exist, and there is nothing you can do about it except take precautions. If you choose to leave your iPhone on the bar while you go to the restroom, when you find it missing it is your fault. If you leave $100 bills on your passenger seat and you find that your car has been broken into, it's your fault. If you move into a bad neighborhood to save money, even though you could afford to live in a good neighborhood, the consequences of that are your fault.
JL took embarrassing photos of herself, despite the many risks. The humiliation she receives is her fault. She can't remove the bad people from the world. She can't remove the risks. But she could have easily avoided the situation by not taking the photos.
-
Some people have no choice but to live in a bad neighborhood. If they live in a bad neighborhood then they probably can't afford to have a good alarm system. It's not their fault for living in a bad situation and having someone take advantage of it.
Sure, in some cases, people simply can't take care of their homes' security. That's kinda tragic and it would suck if someone blamed them for it. I'm quite convinced none of the celebrities involved are affected by this issue.
This is more akin to leaving the door of your luxury mansion wide open, going for a month-long vacation, getting robbed, and claiming that you have absolutely no share in the blame.
Yes, the thief is the one guilty of committing a crime. There's no denying that. However, it's naive to say that you take no responsibility for the security of your home/data/hot hot porn pix.
-
But their photos were password protected, so the door was locked.
-
But their photos were password protected, so the door was locked.
Well, not really. A bad password is more akin to a door handle. It provides fantastic security assuming the person trying to break in doesn't have hands (Actually, that's untrue. My cat knows how to open doors, being the sneaky hacker that she is).
Our society is just painfully computer-illiterate.
-
Our society is just painfully computer-illiterate.
People can't be expected to all be introverts studying computer science.
Theft is theft regardless. Sure, you can argue that they should have been more cautious but there will always be a criminal who can outsmart or overpower you.
When people shift too much blame to the victim it creates a pretty fucked up dynamic. News channels have focused more on celebrities taking nudes then discussing how this happened or who did it. So little kids at home will learn that you can steal private photos from someone and it's their fault for taking those photos in the first place.
-
Welp, /r/thefappening was finally banned by the reddit admins. Now I get to watch thousands of people berate the admins because /r/picsofdeadkids can exist but /r/thefappening cannot. It's crazy how attached people on Reddit have gotten to those images.
It looks like the final straw in banning it was this:
Moderators of The Fappening started panicking once they realised that nudes of Olympic athlete McKayla Maroney were taken when she was underage, meaning that sharing the photos could result in charges of child pornography.
-
But their photos were password protected, so the door was locked.
Well, not really. A bad password is more akin to a door handle. It provides fantastic security assuming the person trying to break in doesn't have hands (Actually, that's untrue. My cat knows how to open doors, being the sneaky hacker that she is).
Our society is just painfully computer-illiterate.
Oh no, not this shit again. Knowing how to break past password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy, and it's certainly not comparable to not having hands. This is just more arrogant - you know what, I've already said all this. All I need to do is quote myself:
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
The car analogy wasn't a random example, by the way. I've always been amused by how little overlap there is between computer and car enthusiasts, even though many of the arguments that computer nerds make about how their own interest is objectively better and more important than anyone else's could just as easily apply to cars as well as computers. They're both incredibly important. We use them both almost every day. Modern society would most likely collapse without either of them. And yet, precious few nerds would have the slightest idea of what they were looking at if they popped the hood of their car open, let alone know how to fix any problems with it. But of course, that kind of ignorance is totally okay. You're only an incompetent idiot if you aren't a computer expert.
-
Computers are far more ubiquitous than cars. In fact, there are multiple computers in every modern car.
-
But their photos were password protected, so the door was locked.
Well, not really. A bad password is more akin to a door handle. It provides fantastic security assuming the person trying to break in doesn't have hands (Actually, that's untrue. My cat knows how to open doors, being the sneaky hacker that she is).
Our society is just painfully computer-illiterate.
Oh no, not this shit again. Knowing how to break past password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy, and it's not certainly not comparable to not having hands. This is just more arrogant - you know what, I've already said all this. All I need to do is quote myself:
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
The car analogy wasn't a random example, by the way. I've always been amused by how little overlap there is between computer and car enthusiasts, even though many of the arguments that computer nerds make about how their own interest is objectively better and more important than anyone else's could just as easily apply to cars as well as computers. They're both incredibly important. We use them both almost every day. Modern society would most likely collapse without either of them. And yet, precious few nerds would have the slightest idea of what they're looking at if they popped the hood of their car open, or how to proceed with fixing any problems with their car. But of course, that kind of ignorance is totally okay. You're only an incompetent idiot if you aren't a computer expert.
It has nothing to do with technology. Even in the early/mid-1800's when photography was invented, a 24 year old girl would have the good enough sense to know that it wasn't a prime idea to kneel on her knees in the nude and have herself photographed with a man's semen on her tongue.
-
I love it when Tom talks dirty to us.
-
I never heard about the semen photos. Tom, did you pay for the special photos?
-
It has nothing to do with technology. Even in the early/mid-1800's when photography was invented, a 24 year old girl would have the good enough sense to know that it wasn't a prime idea to kneel on her knees in the nude and have herself photographed with a man's semen on her tongue.
I totally disagree. I think human's have enjoyed doing illicit things like this since time out of mind.
-
Welp, /r/thefappening was finally banned by the reddit admins. Now I get to watch thousands of people berate the admins because /r/picsofdeadkids can exist but /r/thefappening cannot. It's crazy how attached people on Reddit have gotten to those images.
It looks like the final straw in banning it was this:
Moderators of The Fappening started panicking once they realised that nudes of Olympic athlete McKayla Maroney were taken when she was underage, meaning that sharing the photos could result in charges of child pornography.
Yeah, looks like they just got sick of constantly moderating the subreddit through banning illegal links to images. The mods couldn't keep it under control so they just banned the whole subreddit. People are still mad now, lol.
-
When are the people of reddit ever not mad?
-
When are the people of reddit ever not mad?
When they are getting karma for reposts.
-
I started the sentence with "If they chose".
When you choose to do something, with other better options available, the consequences of your bad choice is your fault.
Tom, if you chose to live in a bad neighborhood, it's usually because you don't have any better options available.
Bad people exist, and there is nothing you can do about it except take precautions.
They did take precautions. They put their photos in their password protected, encrypted iCloud accounts.
JL took embarrassing photos of herself, despite the many risks. The humiliation she receives is her fault. She can't remove the bad people from the world. She can't remove the risks. But she could have easily avoided the situation by not taking the photos.
Tom, you might just as well say that if you don't want your money stolen, then you shouldn't have any because bad people can steal it no matter where you put it (wallet, bank, mattress, sock drawer, etc.)
-
When are the people of reddit ever not mad?
When they get to repost celeb nudes in their own corner of the Internet apparently.
-
But their photos were password protected, so the door was locked.
Well, not really. A bad password is more akin to a door handle. It provides fantastic security assuming the person trying to break in doesn't have hands (Actually, that's untrue. My cat knows how to open doors, being the sneaky hacker that she is).
Our society is just painfully computer-illiterate.
Oh no, not this shit again. Knowing how to break past password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy, and it's certainly not comparable to not having hands. This is just more arrogant - you know what, I've already said all this. All I need to do is quote myself:
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
The car analogy wasn't a random example, by the way. I've always been amused by how little overlap there is between computer and car enthusiasts, even though many of the arguments that computer nerds make about how their own interest is objectively better and more important than anyone else's could just as easily apply to cars as well as computers. They're both incredibly important. We use them both almost every day. Modern society would most likely collapse without either of them. And yet, precious few nerds would have the slightest idea of what they were looking at if they popped the hood of their car open, let alone know how to fix any problems with it. But of course, that kind of ignorance is totally okay. You're only an incompetent idiot if you aren't a computer expert.
It's really a little more like the difference between having a handle lock which can be opened using a card or having deadbolts which need a skilled hand. Someone can run scripts to force a password, especially since iCloud apparently didn't lock you out after x number of attempts. It's easier to force that password when it is a name or word, especially something that is readily known by the public. This is why a combination of upper case, lower case, numbers and special characters is suggested and that they be in no particular order and something not easily guessed. You don't have to know the process of hacking an account to know good ways to safeguard one.
-
It's really a little more like the difference between having a handle lock which can be opened using a card or having deadbolts which need a skilled hand. Someone can run scripts to force a password, especially since iCloud apparently didn't lock you out after x number of attempts. It's easier to force that password when it is a name or word, especially something that is readily known by the public. This is why a combination of upper case, lower case, numbers and special characters is suggested and that they be in no particular order and something not easily guessed. You don't have to know the process of hacking an account to know good ways to safeguard one.
Actually, a password comprised of a random phrase is much harder to guess (and easier to remember) than a password made of random characters. Computers aren't people, there is no difference between "clocktower" and "cl0Ckt0W3r" to a computer, even "1308DFAS:LN" is the same thing speaking from an information standpoint. The only time random characters come into play is during a dictionary attack, which would still take months to work if you used six random words out of the dictionary in no particular order (especially slang or personal made up words that are easily remembered). Even worse, if you use some latin or even a brand name, most dictionary attacks would take years or more at full throttle.
Besides, many services such as Apple's iCloud aren't attacked in that manner (it's akin to going to a bank and using a jackhammer to open the vault). Many services you use have vulnerabilities that make the strength of your password irrelevant.
-
Oh no, not this shit again. Knowing how to break past password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy, and it's certainly not comparable to not having hands.
I agree. Knowing how to break password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy. I never claimed it was.
See, it doesn't matter how many times you post your response if your response is retarded. Knowing how to pick locks is not a good measure of knowing how to safeguard your home. Knowing to actually lock the doors when you leave, on the other hand, is a measure of knowing elementary shit.
-
Locks keep honest people honest. Determined criminals will always find away around or through any security system. That doesn't mean that it's the victim's fault when locked up things get stolen.
-
Locks keep honest people honest. Determined criminals will always find away around or through any security system. That doesn't mean that it's the victim's fault when locked up things get stolen.
Exactly.
These pictures were password protected. Maybe it was a weak password but even if it had been better protected there would still be someone who could hack it.
-
Oh no, not this shit again. Knowing how to break past password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy, and it's certainly not comparable to not having hands.
I agree. Knowing how to break password protections is not a good measure of computer literacy. I never claimed it was.
See, it doesn't matter how many times you post your response if your response is retarded. Knowing how to pick locks is not a good measure of knowing how to safeguard your home. Knowing to actually lock the doors when you leave, on the other hand, is a measure of knowing elementary shit.
I accept your pedantic correction - knowing how to enact proper protection is not the same thing as getting past said protection. However, a password protection is a lock. It may be a lock that you think is trivial to get around, but it's not comparable to leaving your door unlocked or open.
-
By Tom's logic, any victim of any crime is the cause of that crime by not stopping it. There's always something one can do to better protect oneself from criminal activity. "You could have prevented it by not doing x" is a stupid way to look at causality in this instance. The cause of a crime is the person who commits the crime.
Leaving your phone on a crowded restaurant bar isn't anything at all like having private photos stolen from a computer. Still, the person who leaves her phone on a table isn't the cause of the theft of her phone. The cause of the theft of her phone is the person who took something that doesn't belong to her. The fact that thieves invariably exist doesn't legitimate theft at all.
Frankly I think it's troubling that some believe that vulnerability actually legitimates immoral, unethical, or otherwise forceful behavior, rather than making it more despicable.
It's been said several times in this thread that y'all aren't saying that the thief did nothing wrong, just that the victim also bears responsibility for the theft by creating the stolen goods. That's like blaming a painter for creating a work valuable enough to be stolen from her. It makes no sense. Obviously creating a valuable painting is not behavior that minimizes the risk of stolen paintings. In the same way, creating a nude photo is not behavior that minimizes the risk of stolen nude photos. That's just a truism. And it doesn't have anything to do with fault or blame or causation.
-
I accept your pedantic correction - knowing how to enact proper protection is not the same thing as getting past said protection. However, a password protection is a lock. It may be a lock that you think is trivial to get around, but it's not comparable to leaving your door unlocked or open.
Okay, so you think my analogy isn't that great. I disagree, but that's not important. Regardless of whether we compare it to a door handle or one of these padlocks
(http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/724/425/374/374425724_463.jpg)
it's still something that wouldn't be seen as reasonable if it didn't have to do with computers. It's only okay because we're talking about computers, and those are scary and we should never learn anything about them. They should just work and big bad mean people should go away.
Until that attitude changes, we're going to see incidents like this happen all the time (some louder than others depending on who the victim is), and "technology analysts" on TV will drive the narrative with this sort of nonsense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz5i171h_no
-
(http://i.imgur.com/gWngBjI.gif)
-
Haha, a grown woman who's never heard of 4chan! What a drooling retard, amirite?
-
Haha, a grown woman who's never heard of 4chan! What a drooling retard, amirite?
Considering she's not just a grown woman but a professional news anchor reporting a story that involves 4chan, which is one of the most infamous websites on the internet, yes, she should be expected to at least know that it isn't a person.
-
I hate that 4chan guy. He's such a dick.
-
She's a reporter, Saddam. It isn't hard to use the fucking iPad they give you to type in '4chen' and see what the hell she's talking about. Their tech analyst could have at least done that if he was that ignorant too. If they're that lazy with things that are easily Google-able, how lazy are they with reporting that actually matters and is somewhat complex?
But I'm happy they at least gave us that humorous .gif.
-
Haha, a grown woman who's never heard of 4chan! What a drooling retard, amirite?
ITT: Saddam does not understand the concept of expository dialogue.
-
It's pretty easy to bump a deadbolt lock as well. But if people lock their doors then they should totally expect someone to break in. They are really just asking for it unless they research all about home security systems in their spare time.
Even with a home security system you can still bump a lock and steal what you want before cops get there. Serves them right for relying on the home security system to protect them.
-
It's pretty easy to bump a deadbolt lock as well. But if people lock their doors then they should totally expect someone to break in. They are really just asking for it unless they research all about home security systems in their spare time.
Even with a home security system you can still bump a lock and steal what you want before cops get there. Serves them right for relying on the home security system to protect them.
No, look, this is really simple. If you're a retard about your security, you take partial blame. If you're reasonable but not an ultra expert, you're off the hook.
There's a reason I'm talking about door handles and plastic toy padlocks and not deadbolt locks. What they did was the former. What I'm asking for is the latter. I'm asking for basic computer literacy. If blowing my statement out of proportion to make a shitty strawman attack is the best you can do then I consider my point conceded.
This applies to quite a few things in life. If you eat a shitton of raw chicken that's been lying around outside the fridge for a couple of days, you're a retard and are partially responsible for your food poisoning. That doesn't mean you must be an absolute genius chef and know everything there is to know about the amazing world of spatulas. It just means you should know enough to be able to take basic care of yourself.
-
It's pretty easy to bump a deadbolt lock as well. But if people lock their doors then they should totally expect someone to break in. They are really just asking for it unless they research all about home security systems in their spare time.
Even with a home security system you can still bump a lock and steal what you want before cops get there. Serves them right for relying on the home security system to protect them.
No, look, this is really simple. If you're a retard about your security, you take partial blame. If you're reasonable but not an ultra expert, you're off the hook.
There's a reason I'm talking about door handles and plastic toy padlocks and not deadbolt locks. What they did was the former. What I'm asking for is the latter. I'm asking for basic computer literacy. If blowing my statement out of proportion to make a shitty strawman attack is the best you can do then I consider my point conceded.
This applies to quite a few things in life. If you eat a shitton of raw chicken that's been lying around outside the fridge for a couple of days, you're a retard and are partially responsible for your food poisoning. That doesn't mean you must be an absolute genius chef and know everything there is to know about the amazing world of spatulas. It just means you should know enough to be able to take basic care of yourself.
If the shitton of raw chicken that's been lying around the fridge was given to you in the form of a burrito by Taco Bell, do you still take responsibility? (This is a terrible analogy, which is the point)
I think the real point to be made here is that when things like this happen, the first question people ask is "what was she doing to deserve this" rather than "what asshole did that to her". That's pretty messed up, regardless of the details.
-
If the shitton of raw chicken that's been lying around the fridge was given to you in the form of a burrito by Taco Bell, do you still take responsibility? (This is a terrible analogy, which is the point)
No, but that's not what happened here. They (hopefully) picked their own passwords and set up their own backups. If they paid someone computer-illiterate to do it for them, then that person shares the blame too.
I think the real point to be made here is that when things like this happen, the first question people ask is "what was she doing to deserve this" rather than "what asshole did that to her". That's pretty messed up, regardless of the details.
But that's not what I did at all. When I joined this thread, I essentially said: Yes, the thief is the one who's guilty here; but that's not something you or me can fix. We can't magically erase thieves from the world to protect ourselves or others. I then continued: It's naive to say you take absolutely no responsibility if you failed to protect yourself; because that is something you can affect, and in this particular case it's very easy.
I'm not saying they deserved it, I'm saying they take partial responsibility.
-
So having a password isn't enough in this situation?
I'm not sure what retarded computer illiterate thing you're referring to. You're berating their computer skills so much that they may as well have put these nudes on a private Facebook album only friends can see and got upset when someone who wasn't their friend found them.
REGARDLESS of this argument we still come back to the point that even if they were a bit safer someone still can hack it eventually because they're models and actresses. Not to imply that they're stupid but they probably don't spend time reading programming books.
-
If the shitton of raw chicken that's been lying around the fridge was given to you in the form of a burrito by Taco Bell, do you still take responsibility? (This is a terrible analogy, which is the point)
No, but that's not what happened here. They (hopefully) picked their own passwords and set up their own backups. If they paid someone computer-illiterate to do it for them, then that person shares the blame too.
I think the real point to be made here is that when things like this happen, the first question people ask is "what was she doing to deserve this" rather than "what asshole did that to her". That's pretty messed up, regardless of the details.
But that's not what I did at all. When I joined this thread, I essentially said: Yes, the thief is the one who's guilty here; but that's not something you or me can fix. We can't magically erase thieves from the world to protect ourselves or others. I then continued: It's naive to say you take absolutely no responsibility if you failed to protect yourself; because that is something you can affect, and in this particular case it's very easy.
I'm not saying they deserved it, I'm saying they take partial responsibility.
I have to say, I am a litter better than average on the computer literacy front and I have no idea what could be done to protect my smartphone better than a password. You may judge me as retarded, but that is not the case. It seems like you do not have a good perspective on what the average user of computer's and technology knows.
-
So having a password isn't enough in this situation?
No, what the actual password is is quite important too.
I'm not sure what retarded computer illiterate thing you're referring to.
A number of things. Very poor passwords and putting these sort of files in distributed "cloud" storage with backups are things that apply to them as much as they would to anyone else. Additionally, I would argue that they should have realised that these sort of pictures may be desirable/sought after due to their celebrity status and encrypt the files.
You're berating their computer skills so much that they may as well have put these nudes on a private Facebook album only friends can see and got upset when someone who wasn't their friend found them.
Yes, that's exactly right. From the perspective of someone who has an understanding of how this shit works, the two actions are only slightly different. The fact that they seem very different is one of the reasons we need basic computer literacy education right here and right now.
REGARDLESS of this argument we still come back to the point that even if they were a bit safer someone still can hack it eventually because they're models and actresses. Not to imply that they're stupid but they probably don't spend time reading programming books.
Well, yes and no. Perfect security doesn't exist, the only computer that cannot be hacked is a computer that's been unplugged, and so on, and so fort... but:
Suppose they encrypted the files. This really isn't difficult, with the tools available it's just a tiny bit more involved than making a ZIP archive. Suppose they used a good encryption algorithm for the purpose and a sufficiently long key (most tools will do that for you - no knowledge required). Suppose they were very careful no to let the key to those files leak (this is the hardest part - it doesn't require that much computer knowledge, but it requires you to learn certain behaviours). In this hypothetical scenario, even if the files were stolen, they would be completely useless to the hackers. Their chances of decrypting them would be slim, too (it would literally take decades if not hundreds of years, depending on your budget).
Of course, that method is not perfect. It can be circumvented if someone simply gets their hands on your key. It would, however, make this sort of leak very, very, very unlikely.
I have to say, I am a litter better than average on the computer literacy front and I have no idea what could be done to protect my smartphone better than a password. You may judge me as retarded, but that is not the case. It seems like you do not have a good perspective on what the average user of computer's and technology knows.
No, no, that's precisely what I'm saying. The average user of computers doesn't know enough to support their elementary needs. We need to start educating people. We've allowed a level of ignorance that we wouldn't allow with anything else.
-
I have to say, I am a litter better than average on the computer literacy front and I have no idea what could be done to protect my smartphone better than a password. You may judge me as retarded, but that is not the case. It seems like you do not have a good perspective on what the average user of computer's and technology knows.
No, no, that's precisely what I'm saying. The average user of computers doesn't know enough to support their elementary needs. We need to start educating people. We've allowed a level of ignorance that we wouldn't allow with anything else.
I can get behind that.
-
We don't know what the passwords were so we can't judge their strength.
Again, it's easy to bitch about computer illiteracy when it's something you love. I think knowing history is extremely important when it comes to government but governments don't give a damn about historians.
-
We don't even know if password strength was a factor in this case. It's possible that the victims' credentials were intercepted when they used them while connected to a public network, in which case it wouldn't matter what the password actually was.
Nevermind, maybe. A few sources claim that the passwords were indeed brute forced. If that is the case, then we basically know with certainty that the victims had terrible passwords. By the way, did you guys know that SMF 2.0.7 automatically censors your own password? Try it! **********
-
Jlaw123
-
Again, it's easy to bitch about computer illiteracy when it's something you love. I think knowing history is extremely important when it comes to government but governments don't give a damn about historians.
The difference here is that history didn't suddenly (over the last 50 years or so) become a major and inseparable factor in every aspect of society. Technology did. Not having a basic understanding of technology is crippling, history - not so much. Meanwhile, history is quite prominent in (European) school curricula, while technology is largely ignored (although this is now slowly changing, thank fuck).
We don't even know if password strength was a factor in this case. It's possible that the victims' credentials were intercepted when they used them while connected to a public network, in which case it wouldn't matter what the password actually was.
Nevermind, maybe. A few sources claim that the passwords were indeed brute forced.
Yeah, I admit, I'm working with the assumptions that these sources are correct. If they're not, a large chunk of my argument is moot; but not the bit about encryption. All my saucy nudes are encrypted, you see. ;) ;) ;)
-
Mine aren't. Yaaaayayayaya someone's gonna hack me and it's all my fault!!!!!!
-
********* WOW! It really works!
-
Mine aren't. Yaaaayayayaya someone's gonna hack me and it's all my fault!!!!!!
I'm uploading them to imgur as we speak.
-
123456 Crap!! >:(
-
Crap!! >:(
-
Computers are far more ubiquitous than cars. In fact, there are multiple computers in every modern car.
ubiquitous
-
If I'm waking down the street, and somebody shoots me in the face, I should of had a bullet proof face.
The ease of a crime does not make the victims responsible.
Also, I'd like to bitch about computer literacy people who don't know about cars or economics or specialized fields that make the world go ronud.
-
Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development. I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.
-
Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development. I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.
Yes, exactly. Most of us, at least in the western world, use computers in our everyday lives. It's not just becoming inescapable, it already has become inescapable. I'd actually venture to say that they're more prevalent than cars at this point, and if that's not the case yet, it very soon will be.
Most of those who own or otherwise use a car know how to drive one well enough not to cause frequent accidents. Most will have the sense to wear a seatbelt (and, in fact, it's the law in many places to wear one). Most of those who have a bank account understand the concept of an overdraft limit and know better than to cross it. They also know not to write their PIN right on the surface of their debit/credit cards. For some reason, the same does not apply to computer users.
This doesn't mean you should know every single thing about computers, or cars. It doesn't mean you should be an expert, a programmer, or anything like that. The sad reality we're facing right now is that many people think that some very basic computer-related tasks require said expertise. In the least serious of cases, this means that someone will pay me a disproportionate amount of money for half an hour of my time. In more serious cases, computer-illiterate people will go to www.bankofamerica.com.freepornsite.ru/moneystealingpage.asp and find themselves robbed blind.
Back in high school, I held a small talk about phishing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing) and tried to explain to people how a little bit of basic scrutiny can protect you from most attacks. While some people appreciated it, I ended up being heckled by a few people in the room, who felt it was appropriate to tell me that this kind of knowledge is reserved for nerds with no lives. I asked one of them if knowing how to avoid an obvious scam is really something that only boring nerds should know. His response? "No, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about boring programming stuff". Needless to say, I didn't mention programming throughout the talk at all.
-
Computers aren't people, there is no difference between "clocktower" and "cl0Ckt0W3r" to a computer
So if I set my password to "cl0Ckt0W3r" and enter "clocktower", it will work? You have this backwards. A person can interpret "clocktower" and "cl0Ckt0W3r" the same way, but a computer won't.
-
Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development. I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.
Yes, exactly. Most of us, at least in the western world, use computers in our everyday lives. It's not just becoming inescapable, it already has become inescapable. I'd actually venture to say that they're more prevalent than cars at this point, and if that's not the case yet, it very soon will be.
Most of those who own or otherwise use a car know how to drive one well enough not to cause frequent accidents. Most will have the sense to wear a seatbelt (and, in fact, it's the law in many places to wear one). Most of those who have a bank account understand the concept of an overdraft limit and know better than to cross it. They also know not to write their PIN right on the surface of their debit/credit cards. For some reason, the same does not apply to computer users.
These analogies are still terrible.
These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety). If they had written their password down somewhere or told people their passwords then it would be like writing your PIN on your debit card. And this isn't related to phishing at all.
So they did have the very basic in computer safety (a password). If they had just put the pictures on their public facebook then it would definitely be their fault. If they uploaded the pictures onto a public site that they just thought was private, then it would be their fault.
-
These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety).
No. And the reason we need education is so that people stop thinking that bullshit like this is correct.
-
These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety).
No. And the reason we need education is so that people stop thinking that bullshit like this is correct.
Fine, it's more like a deadbolt lock then. That shit doesn't keep you safe at all but it makes people feel safe. It's still no one's fault for using it and getting harmed from an intruder.
I see what you're saying, you think people should have some basic computer education. That's fine. Computer education courses are becoming more common in schools. However, none of the blame is on the victims just because they didn't protect their stuff as you said they should have. It's not their fault in the slightest.
If they had better security would this have happened? Maybe not.
If they had never taken the pictures would this have happened? Definitely not.
Did they fall for an obvious phishing scheme? No.
Did the hacker see their passwords written somewhere? No.
Did they just use crappy passwords with no other security precautions? Yes.
Are they at all to blame for someone taking the time and effort to hack into their poorly protected accounts? Nope.
-
Fine, it's more like a deadbolt lock then.
No, now you're even more wrong. It's a shitty plastic padlock at best. A pink, heart-shaped one, with a My Little Pony logo right on it. And yet people think it'll do the trick.
However, none of the blame is on the victims just because they didn't protect their stuff as you said they should have. It's not their fault in the slightest.
If a person dies in a car accident (which they didn't cause) because they didn't wear a seatbelt, it's partially their responsibility that they died. They put themselves in a dangerous situation purely by their own choice.
-
No, now you're even more wrong.
Definitely not. It's really easy to bump a lock. Seatbelts are more useful.
If a person dies in a car accident they didn't cause because they didn't wear a seatbelt, it's partially their fault that they died. They put themselves in a dangerous situation purely by their own choice.
Being in a car wreck means you didn't pay attention to something happening. You are an activate participant. If someone rear ends you hard enough and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you fly through the window, and die then it's not your fault. The driver of the car that didn't stop would be charged.
I believe you have to be an active participant to receive any blame. If someone fell for an obvious phishing scheme then I would be more willing to agree with you. It's possible to be in a dangerous situation and not receive any blame.
-
I think the real point to be made here is that when things like this happen, the first question people ask is "what was she doing to deserve this" rather than "what asshole did that to her". That's pretty messed up, regardless of the details.
But that's not what I did at all. When I joined this thread, I essentially said: Yes, the thief is the one who's guilty here; but that's not something you or me can fix. We can't magically erase thieves from the world to protect ourselves or others. I then continued: It's naive to say you take absolutely no responsibility if you failed to protect yourself; because that is something you can affect, and in this particular case it's very easy.
I'm not saying they deserved it, I'm saying they take partial responsibility.
Oh, I'm not talking about you. I'm speaking very broadly about a trend I've noticed in situations such as this one. The question of who's really to blame is uncomfortably prevalent imo. I'm of the opinion that the questions we ask are more important than their answers, and there's something to be said for what order in which we ask our questions.
-
Definitely not. It's really easy to bump a lock. Seatbelts are more useful.
We won't make any progress on that front until you become computer-literate, so I think it's best we drop that.
Being in a car wreck means you didn't pay attention to something happening. You are an activate participant. If someone rear ends you hard enough and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you fly through the window, and die then it's not your fault. The driver of the car that didn't stop would be charged.
Yes, I made the mistake of using the word "fault". I meant to say "responsibility". You take responsibility for your own security. If you don't and just expect big bad meanies to go away, well, I'll gloat when something bad happens to you.
It's possible to be in a dangerous situation and not receive any blame.
Sure, if you don't do anything that directly puts you in it (getting rear-ended is a great example of that). Now, setting a password is a conscious action. It's one that usually comes with plenty of warnings. If you ignore those warnings and opt for a terrible password, you actively put yourself in a dangerous situation. You are an active participant, by virtue of the fact that you became a participant through your action - that is a logical tautology. Just because it's not as severe as falling for a phishing scam doesn't make it not an action, or not your responsibility.
-
To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily. This is simply not the case. I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password. Basically I would be guessing blindly.
The deadbolt analogy seems pretty apt to me. It is secure enough that you need above average knowledge to open it without the key or you need to be willing to go extreme lengths to do so without the key.
-
To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily. This is simply not the case. I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password.
You download a piece of software and press "go". Not exaggerating. No knowledge required. Just like a pink plastic MLP lock, you may need to spend a very short period of time planning and applying your approach, but there is no higher knowledge to obtain on the subject.
-
To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily. This is simply not the case. I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password.
You download a piece of software and press "go". Not exaggerating. No knowledge required.
Well yes there was:
You download a piece of software and press "go".
This is what people are saying. To you this is second hand and you do not even think about how easy it is for you, however this solution literally did not even occur to me. So the problem is not as trivial as you make it, but yes, an increase in computer literacy would be a boon.
-
Well, that's because we literally need to start teaching kids to use Google. These things are trivial and basic. That they're not commonly known is exactly my problem.
-
That sounds just a tad easier than buying a 999 key and bumping a lock to me.
But you finally conceded in that they're not at fault but they could've taken more responsibility which I will agree with.
-
That sounds just a tad easier than buying a 999 key and bumping a lock to me.
Yes, which is why I insist on rejecting your lock analogy in favour of my "shitty plastic padlock" one. Mine is simply closer to the truth.
But you finally conceded in that they're not at fault but they could've taken more responsibility which I will agree with.
I never claimed they're at fault. I misspoke in my recent message and corrected myself shortly afterwards (If you look at the timestamps, I actually edited my post to replace the word "fault" before you posted your reply). Consult my first post here:
Yes, the thief is the one guilty of committing a crime. There's no denying that. However, it's naive to say that you take no responsibility for the security of your home/data/hot hot porn pix.
-
Do we actually know the specifics of the theft?
-
Do we actually know the specifics of the theft?
No.
-
There's a lot of speculation around the subject, but according to AnonIB, it was a dictionary attack.
-
I've heard that some phishing may have been involved as well.
-
There's a lot of speculation around the subject, but according to AnonIB, it was a dictionary attack.
So they had easy passwords?
-
There's a lot of speculation around the subject, but according to AnonIB, it was a dictionary attack.
So they had easy passwords?
Unconfirmed.
-
Emma is next.
http://www.emmayouarenext.com/
-
I'm skeptical of that. Not only because faggots on 4chan, but why would it have taken this long to leak Emma pics? I doubt they have hers, if she's taken any at all.
-
Regardless of its veracity, God people are fucking creepy pieces of shit. The fucking name of that website alone is disgusting, treating it like some epic reveal is...ugh. I fucking hate people sometimes.
-
Emma is a man hating feminist
-
Regardless of its veracity, God people are fucking creepy pieces of shit. The fucking name of that website alone is disgusting, treating it like some epic reveal is...ugh. I fucking hate people sometimes.
qft. I'm seriously grossed out by this shit.
-
Don't you think it's kind of silly to be offended by something created expressly to offend you?
-
Emma is a man hating feminist
Untrue, if she hated men, she would not be dating them.
-
Don't you think it's kind of silly to be offended by something created expressly to offend you?
Actually, it seems that reaction logically follows, if your premise is correct.
-
Don't you think it's kind of silly to be offended by something created expressly to offend you?
Actually, it seems that reaction logically follows, if your premise is correct.
It's like somebody shouting "Look! I'm being offensive!" without doing anything else, and people shouting back "Yes, it's working! We're offended! Offend us harder!". It's silly. It's basically just consciously allowing yourself to be trolled.
-
Clearly, the only solution is to not be offended.
-
Obviously you're allowed to be offended by whatever. You can get mad when EJ says dumb things or when Yaakov says racist things, but you will be wasting your time and energy. Even if whoever is responsible for that website does have pictures of Emma Watson, they would have very little power if nobody were offended or cared.
-
I'd care. Emma Watson is going to marry me one day! >:(
-
Merry you?
-
Ugh. Marry! I pressed the wrong button. She is going to marry me. I hope she merries me too, she has a nice mouth, but that's just along the route to marriage.
-
Thork is gonna get Ginger Seconds.
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
-
Help. I've been thorked and I can't get up.
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
Face it, she snogged Rupert Grint first. You'll have to kiss a woman who kissed a ginger.
-
It's like somebody shouting "Look! I'm being offensive!" without doing anything else, and people shouting back "Yes, it's working! We're offended! Offend us harder!". It's silly. It's basically just consciously allowing yourself to be trolled.
Why? I don't know what's so crazy or self-manipulative about me expressing what I think about these kinds of people. It's not like I'm slaving over this, weeping and streaming tears from my eyes as I sullenly attempt to pull myself together amidst the newfound sorrow that's burrowed deep into my soul. I just think the kinds of people that would do this shit are horrible fuckwads and wanted to say so.
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
Face it, she snogged Rupert Grint first. You'll have to kiss a woman who kissed a ginger.
She's an actress. She does stuff like that so me and her can retire into a life of luxury in the near future. She kisses that beast, but she thinks of me (well a guy exactly like me. she hasn't met me yet, but when she does she will be astounded how close I am to the man in her dreams). So don't bad mouth my woman! >o<
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
Face it, she snogged Rupert Grint first. You'll have to kiss a woman who kissed a ginger.
She's an actress. She does stuff like that so me and her can retire into a life of luxury in the near future. She kisses that beast, but she thinks of me (well a guy exactly like me. she hasn't met me yet, but when she does she will be astounded how close I am to the man in her dreams). So don't bad mouth my woman! >o<
But I wasn't badmouthing her. I was simply saying how unfortunate you are if you wish to pursue her.
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
Face it, she snogged Rupert Grint first. You'll have to kiss a woman who kissed a ginger.
She's an actress. She does stuff like that so me and her can retire into a life of luxury in the near future. She kisses that beast, but she thinks of me (well a guy exactly like me. she hasn't met me yet, but when she does she will be astounded how close I am to the man in her dreams). So don't bad mouth my woman! >o<
But I wasn't badmouthing her. I was simply saying how unfortunate you are if you wish to pursue her.
Pursue her? Don't be absurd. I won't be able to stop her dry humping my leg. I just need to say hi and hide my new braces from her.
-
Don't you think it's kind of silly to be offended by something created expressly to offend you?
I didn't say offended, I said grossed out. And no, it isn't silly, because what it offends in my is my hope for humanity.
-
Don't bad mouth me and my woman! >o<
Face it, she snogged Rupert Grint first. You'll have to kiss a woman who kissed a ginger.
She's an actress. She does stuff like that so me and her can retire into a life of luxury in the near future. She kisses that beast, but she thinks of me (well a guy exactly like me. she hasn't met me yet, but when she does she will be astounded how close I am to the man in her dreams). So don't bad mouth my woman! >o<
But I wasn't badmouthing her. I was simply saying how unfortunate you are if you wish to pursue her.
Pursue her? Don't be absurd. I won't be able to stop her dry humping my leg. I just need to say hi and hide my new braces from her.
Then head to a Harry Potter convention and be done with it.
-
It's like somebody shouting "Look! I'm being offensive!" without doing anything else, and people shouting back "Yes, it's working! We're offended! Offend us harder!". It's silly. It's basically just consciously allowing yourself to be trolled.
Why? I don't know what's so crazy or self-manipulative about me expressing what I think about these kinds of people. It's not like I'm slaving over this, weeping and streaming tears from my eyes as I sullenly attempt to pull myself together amidst the newfound sorrow that's burrowed deep into my soul. I just think the kinds of people that would do this shit are horrible fuckwads and wanted to say so.
Don't you think it's kind of silly to be offended by something created expressly to offend you?
I didn't say offended, I said grossed out. And no, it isn't silly, because what it offends in my is my hope for humanity.
Fair enough. We simply have different ideas regarding what it means to be offensive (or grossed out), obviously. I tend not to be offended by words alone, especially if it seems like they're chosen specifically to elicit a negative reaction from as many people as possible, which is what I believe is happening here.
Even if there are nude photos of Emma Watson and they are leaked, I still wouldn't personally be offended. I would recognize the gross violation of personal privacy and that the immorality of the perpetrators, but I wouldn't have any emotional reaction. The same thing happens to people everyday. Most of them just aren't as famous.
-
Emma is next.
http://www.emmayouarenext.com/
A TH*RKING HOAX!?!? :'( >o<
-
And no one was surprised.
-
So...it's a hoax of a hoax?
-
I don't understand what they were trying to accomplish.
-
They were trying to stir up outrage to get 4chan shut down.
-
and shut down 4chan.
This is what I'm confused about. How?
-
and shut down 4chan.
This is what I'm confused about. How?
Probably the same way that they shut down Pirate Bay. Oh, wait...
-
If internet hate machine didn't get 4chan shut down, nothing will.
-
The "shut down 4chan" agenda is actually also a hoax. This was a classic double hoax.
-
The "shut down 4chan" agenda is actually also a hoax. This was a classic double hoax.
They played us all like fiddles...
-
They were trying to stir up outrage to get 4chan shut down.
No, they were pretending to try to stir up outrage to get 4chan shut down. Or at least, that's what the latest articles on the subject seem to be saying:
http://www.businessinsider.com/emma-watson-naked-photo-countdown-hoax-2014-9
But I wouldn't be surprised if there's some whole new twist on the story by tomorrow.
-
It appears they hoaxed a hoax in order to generate click bait. And it worked.
-
Whatever the real reason, I'm just pissed that I don't get to see Emma Watson nekked. >o<
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
That seems irrelevant. Emma Watson is grown up now, and she is an attractive woman. You don't need to be familiar with the character she portrayed when she was younger to see that.
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
That seems irrelevant. Emma Watson is grown up now, and she is an attractive woman. You don't need to be familiar with the character she portrayed when she was younger to see that.
Yes, but a big part of the obsession with her is the ongoing crush that young males have had on her since Harry Potter.
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
That seems irrelevant. Emma Watson is grown up now, and she is an attractive woman. You don't need to be familiar with the character she portrayed when she was younger to see that.
Yes, but a big part of the obsession with her is the ongoing crush that young males have had on her since Harry Potter.
Maybe it's a big part of your obsession with her, nerd.
-
Oh damn, I've been caught. Emma Watson will never date me now.
-
Certainly not while Thork is still a contender.
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
She's been legal since Half-Blood Prince, so why not?
-
Not to insult you, but aren't you a bit too old to have grown up wanting to pork Hermione?
She's been legal since Half-Blood Prince, so why not?
Been legal since she was 16 for me ;)
-
She's been legal since she was 13 in Japan.
-
She's been legal since she was 13 in Japan.
12 in Vatican City.
-
She's been legal since she was 13 in Japan.
12 in Vatican City.
That is a MILF in Vatican City.