Slashdot Mirror
Responding to Celeb Photo Leaks, Reddit Scotches "Fappening" Subreddit
4chan might have introduced a DMCA policy, but Reddit goes farther: VentureBeat reports that the online community known as The Fappening has been dissolved by Reddit, in response to its use in posting and sharing many of the photos leaked from dozens of celebrities.
This isn’t the first time Reddit has decided to take action to ban certain questionable communities from its site, as its previously killed other subreddits like Creepshots for similar invasions of privacy as well as banned well-known power users shown to enable such actions. ... Reddit system admin Jason Harvey (aka “alienth”) attempted to cool some of the fuss by starting that discussion about why the company decided to ban the subreddit. Most of it boils down to Reddit waiting too long to speak up about it before making the decision to ban, while assuming its users would mostly understand why it took place. ... “If Reddit is truly to be a platform that’s open in any way, it needs transparency when (heavy handed) actions such as these are taken,” said Reddit user SaidTheCanadian in response to Harvey, while also suggesting the company create a “public log” of sorts showing all banning actions as well as explanations for each instance of a banned community. “I don’t want to be part of a community where community voices are silenced without meaningful notice or explanation. (No one really does like that secret police feeling.)”
Yishan Wong, the chief executive officer of Reddit, has tried to explain why the site has not banned certain subreddits (sections of the website where users share items connected to a specific topic) despite banning the subreddit which contained the stolen pictures of nude celebrities.
In a Reddit thread under the title “Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul” [sic], Mr Wong wrote: “I did not say ‘we won’t ban any subreddits ever’. I said that we don’t ban subreddits for being morally bad. We do ban subreddits for breaking our rules, and one of them is repeatedly and primarily being a place where people post copyrighted material for which valid DMCA requests are being received.”
Essentially, the company refuses to ban subreddits for being “morally bad” but will if they break any laws or any of the website’s own rules.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/...
Most of the celebs listed already been seen naked..
How about telling those celeb sluts to stop taking naughty selfies, or at least not uploading them all to The Cloud (tm)?
Puritanical American blaming the victims. It's the same argument as telling rape victims they shouldn't have worn short skirts.
You can probably get them easily by searching for "fappening" on a torrent tracker. But the point is this has gone way beyond news for nerds or stuff that matters. We've covered the leak before here on slashdot, and there was one interesting aspect, namely that Apple would allow brute force dictionary attacks (and claimed there was no security issue, while patching it at the same time), but covering how reddit is banning a "community" known as "The Fappening"??? What next, articles analyzing the artistic merit of the average 4chan post?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Don't wanna be strangled? Don't have a neck. Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car. Stealing is wrong no matter the context.
How about grasping that I can do with my body whatever I want. Upload my photoes where ever I want.
But you may not download, upload my photos anywhere! You shall not hack my account! Regardless if it is my private PC at home or my cloud storage!
What about telling those people who get shot every year not to stand in front of a killer wiht a gun?
What about telling everyone who get mugged or rubbed not to have a $600 iPhone with him, or a $2000 laptop or not $1000 in cash. It is all their fault if they get deprived from their 'property'!??
You attitude likely comes from your desire to see the nude pics of those women yourself ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Only if you think blame is a 100% sum game. It isn't. Uploading nude selfies to the cloud is stupid and naive. However the victims being stupid doesn't absolve any criminal culpability from those who hacked their account and stole the photos.
namely that Apple would allow brute force dictionary attacks (and claimed there was no security issue, while patching it at the same time)
There was never any evidence that the hacking was from brute forcing findmyiphone. It was only ever a theory.
Your last sentence is pretty close to an ad hominem. The GP post is probably a troll. So why I'm posting here is beyond me. Maybe I'm bored.
Here's the thing. It's true that in a perfect world, you should have complete control of what happens to the stuff you post, just like you should have complete control over what happens to your body.
This isn't, unfortunately a perfect world.
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
When it would never have happened if you'd just not gone?
Protect yourself. Don't do stupid stuff. At the end of the day, you do have *some* control over your circumstances. Don't give up that control just because someone else does something stupid too.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Uploading nude selfies to the cloud is stupid and naive.
It's not like they actively did so. It's simply an online backup, which is enabled when setting up the phone. You can opt out, but of course backing up is the recommended action. And quite rightly so. There is more chance of people being harmed by losing all the photos of the kids when a phone dies than there is of the account being hacked and photos being taken.
Consider also that the technicalities of a backup are beyond most non-technical consumers. Which is the group most people, including celebrities, fall in to.
Again, blaming the victims is just wrong.
You can do it but it's still stupid and naive and pointing that out does not mean we do not think those who hacked the account shouldn't be sued and punished. The victims being naive is never a mitigating circumstance but it does not mean third parties shouldn't point out the victims were stupid. That said, I hope the crackers get caught.
He didn't say it was, andy more than he said it was murder. It was examples of three different crimes.
What next, articles analyzing the artistic merit of the average 4chan post?
Since most 4chan posts are done for neither fame, nor money, I would argue that they are the only true form of art.
*ducks*
Indeed. This is not zero-sum. Just because a bad actor does something reprehensible does not mean that there is not an opportunity for education on how to reduce your risk. Don't crack. And don't put yourself in a situation where it's likely you will *be* cracked.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
What about telling those people who get shot every year not to stand in front of a killer wiht a gun?
Quite frankly - if someone is getting shot every year, I would have no problem telling him he's probably not making the best choices.
#DeleteChrome
Unfortunately, you live in the real world where your laptop is going to be stolen out of your car if you leave it visible on the front passenger seat while you go shopping in the mall. The thief is responsible for committing the crime and you didn't deserve to be the victim of that crime, but you *are* responsible for the circumstances which made it possible by not taking reasonable precautions like keeping your laptop out of site (or out of your car entirely).
Passwords, door locks, security systems, and safes exist for a reason.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Rather than use safe practices liberals always cry blaming the victim.
Wow! It's a matter of left/right politics now?
No, it's the same argument as telling people that if you want something to remain private and within your control, don't stick it on the internet. Believe it or not, you can be *both* the victim of something *and* an idiot for not taking better precautions to protect yourself from being the victim of it.
... After 3 to 6 attempts, your account requires additional authentication to login. You automatically get sent to Iforgot.apple.com for all new requests.
It wasn't a brute force attack nor was it recently patched unless you think 'years ago' is recent.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
We are talking about victims of crime here, not victims of accidents.
Being an idiot, not being fully aware of what needs to be done for good security, and being to blame, are 3 completely different things.
A victim may well have been unwise in various ways. That does not make them in the slightest bit to blame. Because if you allocate them a percentage of blame, you must therefore reduce the blame from the criminal. And the criminal's blame is 100% - only they chose to to the crime - no one made them.
False equivalence. Minus 50 points for slytherin.
It's more like blaming somebody who was killed in a car accident that was somebody else's fault after they chose to wear their seatbelt, but design flaw they weren't aware of made it ineffective.
Making copies is not stealing.
setting aside matters of law (in which copying IS stealing in some contexts whether you think it's right or wrong)... from an ethical perspective, I would say that hacking into someone's private account and downloading their shizz is stealing.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud.
check your fly; your participle is dangling.
This kind of people have government-approved full access to the (potentially naked) selfies of all underage girls of the entire world, celebrity or not, and they surely abuse of it. And are supported for doing that.
What about telling those people who get shot every year not to stand in front of a killer wiht a gun?
Quite frankly - if someone is getting shot every year, I would have no problem telling him he's probably not making the best choices.
at the very least if they survive annual attacks it's hard to keep calling the attacker a killer
Another one of the legions of coward victim blamers. psssttt having there image stolen was not there fault at all. It was 100% the fault of the scum coward who used the bug apple should have never had to fix in the first place. Its the fault of the web site who published the exploit allowing the scum coward an easy way to brute force someones account. Its the fault of server providers for not educating its customers that the service is not secure and that storing anything private should be though about hardly before uploading. Put fault where it belongs not where its the easy thing to do.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data. Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
This was more the case of "Don't want your car stolen? Don't leave the windows down and doors unlocked". The thief still has to hot wire the car, and he/she still takes the lion's share of the blame, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it is really stupid to leave your car out like that.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But telling people not to upload sensitive yet unessential information is good advice. The error is not in taking sexy photos, but in trusting online services to be secure or that they will back their customers. These big companies have clearly show time and time again they will do neither. The first thing Apple did was lay all the blame on the users.
Stating law or supporting victims may make you feel good, but they don't actually solve the problem. We already know the people who engage in this activity are immoral, and likely outside legal reach. Candid photos of celebs will always be prized. Relying on morality instead of advocating sensible ways to protect yourself is like pushing abstinence in schools and ignoring condoms.
The thief is responsible for committing the crime and you didn't deserve to be the victim of that crime, but you *are* responsible for the circumstances which made it possible by not taking reasonable precautions like keeping your laptop out of site (or out of your car entirely).
The second use of the word responsible doesn't belong there. It's a good idea to lock your car door. It's a good idea to not leave the laptop there. But you have no responsibility to do either. And if you don't do either, and the laptop is taken, the thief still has 100% responsibility for their crime. Ease of committing the crime isn't a mitigating circumstance.
Passwords, door locks, security systems, and safes exist for a reason.
Sure, they have a practical use. But thankfully there is no legal, moral or any other responsibility to use them.
Kill yourself.
Unfortunately me and you are of a tiny minority. Reddit should not have been suspired by its users comments because the vast majority were victim blamers not victim supporters. IMO Reddit took way too long to act, you don't need a reason or excuse to do the right thing.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Understatement of the decade.
Bullshit. Your analogy is obviously flawed.
It is not as if these celebrities were going around displaying or advertising the fact that they had nude photos of themselves, anywhere, so on that basis, likening the theft of those photos to walking around a dangerous neighborhood with expensive property is absurd.
It's also not about the risk factor. Individuals, regardless of celebrity status, should not have to be IT professionals in order to feel that their personal electronic activities are secure, no more than you should not have to live in a fortress in order to have a reasonable expectation that you won't be murdered in your sleep. It is only our responsibility to the extent that commonly understood and practiced precautions are taken. That's why we have programmers and security professionals in the first place: they get paid to do the things that non-technical people cannot be reasonably expected to do for themselves.
You also mistakenly assume that these celebrities were sufficiently tech-savvy to know how cloud storage works, that photos are stored on a remote server by default, and that they should have known to disable that feature in advance. Hell, I've been using iOS since the first iPhone and even though I've checked and double-checked, I *still* can't be sure that I've got such features disabled on my account. How am I supposed to be absolutely SURE that it's not happening? I just have to trust Apple.
The bottom line is that you can try to shift the blame on these hapless celebrities for being incompetent (by your standards), but the fact of the matter is that even after the occurrence of theft, the continued propagation of those pictures cannot be blamed on the celebrities themselves: that blame solely rests with those prurient individuals who only care about sharing dirty photos and choose to justify breaking the law by saying that it's someone else's fault. No, it's YOUR fault for downloading the photos in the first place. That someone else committed a crime, or that someone else's incompetence made those photos available does not absolve you of your part, if you are so insistent on apportioning blame so finely as to accuse the victims for not taking the precaution of being their own security experts.
Maybe the victim is a cat.
#DeleteChrome
Is it wrong to cite the bad choices that a rape victim may have made, in a specific circumstance, like getting blackout-drunk in a semi-private party while surrounded by people that the victim might not know very well, when the nature gathering itself has helped whip up those in attendance into a higher state of sexual interest?
In that kind of circumstance the rapist is 100% at fault for his actions, but that doesn't mean that one can't cite additional responsibility on the part of those that took away their own self-control. The expression, "boys will be boys," is misinterpreted. It's not an excuse, it's a warning. The only behavior that one can control is one's own. Regardless of how illegal, unethical, or immoral an act by another may be, their behavior is not something that you can control. If you don't want to be a victim, don't make it easy to become a victim, as the law will only serve to prosecute afterward, not to protect in advance.
In these circumstances, the very existence of the profession paparazzi combined with all of the tabloids that have significant circulation should already be a warning that like it or not, as far as the public's concerned their bodies are not off-limits. Add in previous incidents where private photos have been published and redistributed, and you already have a known threat. Throw in lessons that we're taught as children about the inherent untrustworthiness of others, the lack of knowledge and understanding of the technology that they're using, and the flaws in that technology that aren't even understood by those that developed the tech, and you've got the recipe for what happened. And while it's wrong, while it's immoral, unethical, and probably illegal, it will continue to happen as long as people want to see these stars without their clothes on. There's no excuse to make one's self vulnerable to this, and unfortunately without an understanding of the technology and vigilance with regard to it for as long as the images exist, this kind of thing will always be a risk.
In short, don't take naked pictures if you're not comfortable with them being exposed at some point. You cannot truly protect yourself from them being redistributed.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
All this fuss, because the victims were famous. If someone posted naked pictures of any of us on the internet, the police would laugh at us. Would the FBI get involved? Would subreddits get deleted? Hell no... If there's any great tragedy in this whole mess, it's that it highlights the class divide in this country. If you're famous, you get more rights than the rest of us.
Thousands of people have their nude photos leaked to the net every day. Reddits FULL of them. Suddenly now it's a big deal. I've no sympathy for these people, not because it's their fault, but because this is just a small dose of what it's like to be normal. Cry me a river.
Coincidentally, 100% of all people who write "100% sum game" have no clue about what that phrase could mean if it had any meaning at all, 90% of all people who write "zero sum game" know absolutely nothing about game theory, and 89% of all statistics are made up ad hoc.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data.
Uh, GP didn't say he never uploaded photos to iCloud. He said he does NOT upload photos he doesn't "want distributed widely" to iCloud.
Basically, it's a good piece of advice generally: if you have very sensitive data that you'd like to keep private (whether it's financial data, passwords, nudie photos, whatever), it's probably best to keep your own control over that data. Devices that are attached the internet and which randomly transmit your data to other computers there are NOT guaranteed to be secure.
Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
The ONLY place you have your photos of your kids is on your phone and on iCloud? I have electronic copies of photos I care about shared via a syncing utility (not based on commercial servers or services) on at least four different computers, with at least two different computers in different locations running backups daily.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
I probably shouldn't get involved in this discussion either, but I'm pretty sure that GP is NOT placing any blame on the victim, especially since he explicitly said that.
In case you've never thought about this, it is in fact possible for a number of factors to be preconditions to a criminal act without all of them being "responsible" for the criminal act. (You might consider reading some philosophy on the nature of causality here.)
Or, to take this to a less controversial topic, let's say that I observe that you keep arriving at work on rainy days with your clothes soaked. I carry an umbrella in my bag every day, just in case.
If I told you that I found things worked out better for me in terms of not having wet clothes when I get to work by carrying an umbrella with me, would you conclude that I've "allocated responsibility" for the weather to you? Of course not! That's preposterous. The weather is the weather, and you're not somehow "responsible" for causing the rain if it rains on you and soaks your clothes.
But carrying an umbrella might help. Suggesting that you could carry an umbrella is not "blaming the victim" of the rain -- it's pointing out that reasonable precautions can sometimes help to avoid bad situations.
I know that if I were a famous actress or something, and I knew that nude photos of me would be desireable by some sick hackers out there, I'd take extra precautions. That's not "blaming the victim." That's recognizing that evil people are in the world, and that's crap, and those evil people are 100% to blame for their stupid actions... but sometimes it's a rainy day, so preparation could help. I frankly feel very bad for those women whose privacy was violated here -- and I think it's really, REALLY important to talk about how to prevent such things in the future, which includes education about how to perhaps avoid dealing with these bad guys in the first place.
I absolutely get why the OP who started this thread sounded offensive by saying this was "overblown" or something. I do NOT get why you feel the need to attack someone (GP) who is talking about reasonable precautions to take to avoid being taken advantage of evil people in the world. In an ideal world, those evil people wouldn't exist... and I could let my doors open at night, post my financial passwords and data on a public website, and store my stash of cash on my front porch. But we all recognize that bad people will take advantage of situations like that. We all take precautions. Observing what sort of precautions might be helpful in certain circumstances is not "blaming the victim."
I disagree for the simple fact it that people are being misled into thinking there personal property is safe on their services. And that still isn't a reason allowing victim blaming. Your making an excuses to allow yourself face to blame the victims. I could state 10 reasons why Apple should take all the blame and be right about it but im not going to. I don't need to save face I don't blame victims. Cowards blame victims.
Jack of all trades,master of none
In that kind of circumstance the rapist is 100% at fault for his actions, but that doesn't mean that one can't cite additional responsibility on the part of those that took away their own self-control.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
There's nothing wrong with advice to people about what ways they can minimise risk. But the time for that is before the crime, and the people to do that to are people that are in danger. Raising it after the crime, amongst a group of people who are not renowned for having photogenic bodies, reveals that it is just reducing the blame allocated to the criminals, and that's wrong.
These people had no responsibility not to take nude pictures; no responsibility not to have them backed up on line, and bear no part of the blame for the crime of them being hacked.
Which is not the same thing as it being less risky not to do those things.
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
Then when is the appropriate time to raise it?
After that hacking incidents in 2012 when Blake Lively, Scarlett Johansson, and other actresses found their private naked pictures redistributed?
How about when Vanessa Hudgens' photos and Hayley Williams' photos were redistributed before that?
How about when Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian had video of them having sex released prior to that?
Be they technological faults or human failings that led to the information getting out, there's an established pattern that large portions of the public want to see this stuff, and that some who are motivated will go through significant amounts of effort to make it happen. If it exists it's at risk of being exposed. The only certain way to prevent it from being released is to not create it in the first place. The only close-to-acceptable way to create it and not have it be at risk is to not use a digital means.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Back in the depths of the medieval period (the early 1990s), when the large (Fortune 50) company I worked for first connected its user base to the Internet, they gave a piece of advice about emails, which, IMHO, applies in spades to any online storage (whenever someone says "the cloud" you should always mentally replace it with "someone else's servers") or site. It went something like this: "don't put anything in an email [replace that with 'online' for today's environment] that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Are you ready to take responsibility for the next real world victims who might have been willing to protect themselves despite it not being their responsibility in happy ideological lala-land, but who didn't know how to or weren't even aware of the danger because your knee-jerk "victim blame" reaction suppressed that information and finally managed to alienate the last one who would have been willing to help?
On a slightly (un)related note, on some website there recently were some very vocal habitual "Victim blamer! MRA!"-screaming hypocrites apparently living in homes without mirrors wondering where that backlash of "SJW"-screaming came from and why "social justice" could have become(!) an insult and how the environment and the "discussions" have become(!) more hostile.
And to reply to this, since I forgot to in my previous reply, if you know a part of town at a particular time of day is known for muggings and you go there during that time of day and get mugged, then you bear some responsibility for not using that grey matter between your ears to evaluate and minimize risks to yourself. So yes, you are to blame if you knowingly put yourself into circumstances that lead to bad things happening to you.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Don't show your white ass in the ghetto if you're allergic to fists, blades or bullets.
Racist much?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
A lot of kids browse the website and I have an issue with them having access to many images that in other media contexts such as movies, magazines or television they would be considered illegal. Additionally, some images that are posted by users to /r/gonewild seem to be of under age girls. I wonder why an attorney general somewhere hasn't taken this on. I have been thinking about calling mine.
Reddit needs to clean up its act and require age verification for some subreddits, And stop profiting off illicit pornography and images (like they did with the recent leaked celebrity photographs). Other social media sites can rein it in, so can Reddit.
Stop shirking your responsibilities as a parent. If you feel the need to censor what your children see or hear, then do it. But don't expect the rest of the world to do it for you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
How about at a time when you are not attaching it to a particular victim or victims, in order to allocate blame to them.
The only close-to-acceptable way to create it and not have it be at risk is to not use a digital means.
The only close to acceptable way to protect yourself from being mugged is not to carry any money or valuables. Do you carry them?
You're failing to differentiate between responsibility and choice. You have no such responsibility. If you were to walk through that part of town and you were not mugged, did you do something wrong?
Moves like this will just drive them underground, where its harder to stop.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've got three girls. I don't have a life anymore if I can't live with the fact that girls are human beings with sexuality being a part of it.
Instilling shame is not helping my wife and me in trying to give them other goals in life because shame is the one thing that heightens sexual connotation.
Consider also that the technicalities of a backup are beyond most non-technical consumers. Which is the group most people, including celebrities, fall in to.
They wouldn't be if the phone wasn't a deliberately arcane restricted POS.
Because some other type of phone would require you to understand the technicalities of a backup? Sounds like the kind of phone most non-technical consumers wouldn't use.
Or because, with some other type of phone, the technicalities of a backup would be simple enough for non-technical consumers to use?
From what I've been reading, some of the models were under 18 when the photos were taken, which makes those photos child pornography. Hosting, linking to, uploading, distributing, possessing, or downloading those particular pics is illegal. "Child pornography" is a whole other level of illegality to "stolen pics," with much heavier penalties.
As far as the argument that "Nobody cares until it happens to a celebrity," sometimes a famous case that happens to a celebrity is what people need to get them to start caring about an issue. A lot of people started caring more about AIDS once Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury died. Nobody really knew what ALS was until Lou Gehrig got it, and it ended his baseball career and then his life. While the events themselves are regrettable, I think it's great that this has started a dialog about stolen pics and revenge porn. Look, there are plenty of people who willingly place themselves on display. Why fap/shlik it to stuff that was posted nonconsensually?
... because using a password that anyone can guess means it was guessed by brute force? Thats what you're saying, right?
Show the proof it was brute force, not silly speculation. The account lockout procedure has been in place for several years across the board. Its not something they just added last week.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
And I was making 1 million trillion billion dollars a year until September 1st as well. Because once something is posted to slashdot, it must be true ... and nothing posted to slashdot never gets thoroughly debunked ... ever ...
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
*sigh* No, not racist. Not blaming the rape victim. Not justifying smart phone theft. Not telling people it's OK to take advantage of idiots. Not even telling you not to bungee-jump or not to go and provoke people where you're less than welcome. I am telling you to be aware of the risks you're taking and to make sure you can handle if the risks materialize. I am telling you that my attitude towards the criminal doesn't depend on your stupidity, but my empathy towards you depends on the risks you took and for what reason you took them.
So. Not a bigoted jerk? You just play one on /., eh? Fair enough. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Uploading nude selfies to the cloud is stupid and naive.
[...]
Again, blaming the victims is just wrong.
I would not call it "stupid and naive", but perhaps "imprudent" for people (and celebrities in particular) to (a) have these types of photos, and (b) have them uploaded anywhere. The main problem is (a) though.
And saying that that it was unwise to create these types of photos (especially if you're famous) is not blaming them.
None of these celebrities did anything wrong, and none of them probably deserved for this to happen for them. But they did increase their risks. At least for me, that is what I mean by "imprudent" in having these types of pictures. I often go by the saying "three may keep a secret if two are dead" which is why I'm generally OCD about having my name entered into a database.
And it does not even have to be malicious people that would lead to these types of photos to leak: just ask Hayley Williams of the group Paramore about posting to Twitter.
Seriously: if you're going to don't want the data to spread, don't generate it. And if you are going to generate such types of bytes, at least make sure it's deniable (e.g., masks/no faces in photos).
Yes, it was a brute force attack. Apples now trying to cover it up by claiming "If only you had a better password." Which may be true, if their passwords had been 50 characters long it would have taken the brute force attack a lot long to complete. But the fact of the matter is, Apple forgot to put in an X number of wrong attempts = account locked, procedure in... or it wasn't working properly and people exploited it.
In cryptography, a brute-force attack means that you don't know anything about the password, but just try all the billions of possibilities. Assuming that a password character can only be a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and 10 other characters, and assuming that a password has exactly 6 characters, you would have to try on average (72^6)/2=69657034752 passwords. Assuming you can do 100 tries per second, that would still take more than 8062 days, or more than 22 years on average. Note that I'm being very generous in my assumptions here.
In other words, unless there was another weakness, a brute-force attack was impractical, even without any limit on the number of attempts.
What probably happened was that the passwords were indeed weak. If you know your victim has a dog called 'fido', you can try if she used that name in her password, and in my example you only have to guess two more characters. That only takes seconds or minutes. The attackers may call this brute force, but that's misleading.
Since when are we not responsible for our own choices?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data. Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
Or maybe he encrypts shiat he considers to be too sensitive himself before handing it over to someone else for safekeeping?
At least that's why I have huge unencrypted backups for most stuff, but also a small encrypted one for more sensitive crap or why client data goes to an encrypted partition.
That definitely doesn't mean I wouldn't be angry should the family Christmas pictures from the unencrypted backup end up on the web or that I deserve it or couldn't have valid complaints against a backup service. But I, personally(!), would consider it a low enough risk because of lack of interest by others and someone looking at them being not big enough of deal to not trust some reputable service provider to keep them reasonably safe.
Basically expected value of damage = probability * damage and then it's up to each person to decide what they want or can afford to risk.
For example, normal family pics could go to icloud or whatever, but since I'm not an exhibitionist, you bet that personal sex pics would join banking info and whatnot in an encrypted-by-me backup - if I were to backup those at all.
Conversely I don't keep piles of cash under my mattress and don't really care if someone at the bank looks at my bills or if the bank or their insurance gives me replacements instead of the exact bills I gave them should some of them "leak" during a robbery.
Speaking of family pics: I guess your advice to your 14-year-old would be "Sure, go ahead, make sex tapes and send them to your true love of two weeks; it's not your fault if they end up being passed around the entire school and the ones doing it would be criminals and probably even prosecuted for CP. With everyone in agreement that this isn't your fault, why could you possibly mind this happening? Someone worried about your potential suffering recommending against making those or uploading them to someone else's computer is just a puritan victim blamer trying to control you sexuality."
It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with Reddit's allowing or disallowing such subreddits - the only real issue is that the mods are total hypocrites. They ban this subreddit and have banned another one or two in the past ONLY because there is lots of bad press; yet they allow subreddits such as /r/photoplunder which is the EXACT same as TheFappening except it doesn't have FAMOUS people with press and lawyers but it is nothing but stolen cell phone pics of women. /r/realgirls/ is the mostly the same. And there are many more. This isn't a matter of do you think the pictures should or shouldn't be posted, it is Reddit saying that posting stolen pictures is totally wrong and banning a subreddit but NOT banning other threads that are EXACTLY like the banned sub just not having 1. famous people with lawyers complaining and/or 2. the press clamoring about the other subreddits. Hilariously, everytime Reddit has had stories in the press about certain subreddits being so bad, they have proclaimed their piety and the evil of said subreddit and banned it; but ONLY IF THERE IS BAD PRESS. No press, well then let that it fly. The issue is that Reddit should simply pick a side and stay true - either ban EVERY SUBREDDIT that breaks the supposed Reddit rules or don't ban any subreddits and fight.
The examples I gave ware successful in demonstrating a high-risk situation vs a low risk one, and that adults should be able to assess these sorts of situations properly.
Nowhere did I suggest that people be IT professionals, as it's not about the cloud nor any other intricate technicality, but I simply stated that you should flat out not create documents of any sort that can be damaging to your image, if that image is important to you. Someone hacking your account, someone stealing your phone or laptop, you forgetting your phone at a park bench, you accidentally sending them to the wrong person and a myriad of other reasons should discourage you from putting yourself at risk without any real benefits. Those people have spectacularly failed at that, so part of the blame goes to them, as well as to the people who violated their privacy, if we want to be realistic.
You called them hapless, you accounted them no responsibility, essentially treating them as non-people. Is that really the right way to treat healthy adults?
Finally, your post makes it sound like I'm on some sort of a crusade against them or as if I were defending the people who both broke valid laws and violated someone else's privacy, which I absolutely did not. Your excessive defensiveness and offensiveness stems from your own issues man, don't put that on me.
Why do you want to put so much responsibility on the victims?
Are you a criminal?
Required reading for internet skeptics
It's more like blaming somebody who was killed in a car accident that was somebody else's fault after they chose to wear their seatbelt, but design flaw they weren't aware of made it ineffective.
It's the "I don't need a seat belt, the car has airbags." situation.
And then the victim sues the manufacturer of the car driven by the driver who caused the accident.
So the manufacturer silently recalls all those cars (they were distributed to drivers for free, in exchange for watching commercials) and melts them into slag.
Along with anything that the drivers may have left inside.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Wrong-think.
If nude photos aren't protected, how about a law firm's documents in a $138 million dollar lawsuit?
How about military secrets?
How about your bank account?
Dumfucks like you miss the point entirely.
The Internet is broken. The answer isn't to quit using it, as you suggest ... the answer is to fix it.
It will be fixed eventually, but certainly not by dumfucks like you.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist.
No it does not.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing. Which is not the case.
That is why a statutory rape charge is not a possible charge if both persons who are engaged in consensual sex are adults.
Responsibility means that one is responsible for one's own actions.
And yes, if one's actions endanger others they ARE responsible for the results of those actions.
Like someone going out to sea in a storm, falling overboard and causing millions in damage to haul their ass out of the water.
The fault is not implied in one's responsibility, but in the results of their actions for which they are responsible.
In the case of pictures and reddit and the deletes, celebrities have a responsibility to act like responsible adults.
Responsible adults don't leave their naked pictures online. Period.
BUT!
The burden of their fault there is suffered solely by their reputation and their "good name".
Which is why they are making demands on account of this being "a copyright issue" and not something else, like invasion of privacy.
The responsibility for breaking into their accounts and taking and sharing those photos on the other hand belongs solely to those who did the breaking in/stealing/sharing.
And so does the fault. For every one of those acts.
The responsibility for them being ABLE to do that rests on the host service which the celebrities in this case were using.
Same as the responsibility of reddit for providing their users with tools and ability to share those images.
After all, if there was no responsibility there, celebs would have no one to ask to pull down those photos, but the people who actively share them on reddit.
And, we are back to celebs and their responsibility for demanding that reddit removes those images - causing reddit to remove entire subreddits, thus encroaching on freedom of speech of EVERYONE using those subreddits.
More responsibility and more fault for both.
There are various responsibilities, various faults and none of them are a zero sum game.
Some are a matter for the legal courts to determine the blame, some are judged in the court of public opinion, some will not be judged at all.
But there is plenty of responsibility and fault to go around.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
in which copying IS stealing in some contexts whether you think it's right or wrong
No, it's not.
It's copyright infringement.
Unless you're talking about trade secrets.
Which is again not stealing. It might be trademark or patent infringement though.
Calling any of that stealing is like calling drawing blood, or any other easily renewable bodily fluid, murder.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
That's not Apple shilling. The brute force vulnerability was there, but it's worth pointing out that there is not evidence that was what was used. So there may be another vulnerability for Apple (and iPhone users) to worry about. That's the opposite of shilling for Apple.
Quite frankly - if someone is getting shot every year, I would have no problem telling him he's probably not making the best choices.
Yes, yes, I know, but it is difficult to find a job when I'm not in the country entirely legally, and have a wife and eight children to feed. Nevertheless, I do very much appreciate your concern and advice.
-- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
Is it wrong to cite the bad choices that a rape victim may have made, in a specific circumstance, like getting blackout-drunk in a semi-private party while surrounded by people that the victim might not know very well, when the nature gathering itself has helped whip up those in attendance into a higher state of sexual interest?
A rapist is a rapist. A rapist might make a decision which victim to choose and the actual victim acting differently might have made the rapist choose a different victim, but it was the rapist's decision to rape. And what kind of sicko wants sex with a "blackout-drunk" woman? If that's what you want, why not invest in a blow-up doll?
So, after a week of the two subreddits being the defacto clearing center for this whole event, and verified traffic of hundreds of millions of visits per day, the esteemed admin decices to pull the plug. Well done, this is now completely contained and the leaked pictures and videos are gone from the internet.
Reddit can also rest easy knowing that celebrities will appreciate their lightning quick response to legal threats, responding in well under 200 hours. I bet Jennifer Lawrence will do an AMA any day now.
We can also rest easy knowing that classy places like /r/SexyAbortions, /r/CuteFemaleCorpses, and /r/WhiteRights intact.
You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case. A joke comes to mind: Woman dancing with her date: "Do you like to dance?" Man: "Yes, very!" Woman: "Then why don't you learn how?"
I don't necessarily disagree with OP's general point. It is important to be aware of your surroundings, and it is a good idea to keep your personal safety in mind -- unless you have a personal bodyguard, no one else will. However, I did take exception to OP's bigoted comment ("Don't show your white ass in the ghetto if you're allergic to fists, blades or bullets."), so I called him/her on it. No hidden agenda or ad hominem at all. If OP doesn't want to be considered a bigoted jerk, a good start would be not to make bigoted comments.
I'm curious. You say, "You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case." Please provide examples. I frequently post as me, so if I have such a propensity, it shouldn't be too hard to show. I disagree with your assessment. The body of my posts is my evidence. Prove me wrong. How's that for name calling, friend? Have a nice day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I'm a dreamer too, but absolutely secure yet seamlessly usable remote storage seems as likely as peace on Earth and goodwill towards everyone.
what about copying someones private diary. or confidential information.
Is it wrong to cite the bad choices that a rape victim may have made, in a specific circumstance, like getting blackout-drunk in a semi-private party while surrounded by people that the victim might not know very well, when the nature gathering itself has helped whip up those in attendance into a higher state of sexual interest?
I think it's definitely wrong when talking to or about a specific victim. They feel horrible enough already.
On the other hand, such talk probably has a useful place in rape (or violence in general) prevention education, for example. The advice can do good only when given in advance.
I agree with the moral bit, but what about insurance? My stolen bike wouldn't have been covered if I hadn't presented all three keys as rudimentary proof that the bike was locked. (The key wouldn't come out while the lock was open.)
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a slut either. I do think making promises of faithfulness to one's partner(s) and then breaking them is wrong (mutually renegotiating the rules is fine of course).
It's not like they actively did so. It's simply an online backup
An online backup tool - that they willingly installed - did the transfer. Anyone that uses such programs should really keep in mind what such a program does.
Granted, cloud-backup providers are acting irresponsibly in failing to express the risks of using their system.
blaming the victims is just wrong
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say the victims failed to take sensible basic steps to protect themselves.
Don't care how many celebrities got their nude selfies exposed, nor various websites' responses, nor that at least 1 celebretard was underage when she took her pix.
If the person who coined 'fappening' comes to San Diego and drops me a line, you get 1 free beer.
And Apple did patch the API within a day or so of this story breaking. It has not been proven or disproven that this is how the photos got stolen. Some phone pics were obviously taken with an Android phone. "What's your dogs name" type password recovery 'attacks' may have been used. There are lowlifes who collect and trade/sell nude pics, sometimes just for the lulz. Some of the pics may have been copied from online accounts from years back.
Stealing is wrong no matter the context.
Except when it applies to a Law Enforcement Backdoor, right? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... right?
Nevertheless, women are raped at parties where they're blackout-drunk. To me, the solution is to not get drunk to the point that one loses all control of one's faculties.
Compare to this current debate. If naked pictures are being stolen from technology that is beyond the understanding and control of the user, don't take naked pictures with technology that's beyond the understanding and control of the user.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's exactly the point that I, and others who feel the same as I do, are trying to make. There's nothing we can do for the current crop of victims. What we can do is to point out how bloody stupid their actions were, and how others need to not follow these same actions if they don't want to find themselves in this exact same situation.
The women featured in these leaks are already massively publicly famous. This isn't slut-shaming someone unknown, dragging them into the limelight. This is pointing out how the high and mighty have unwittingly assisted in bringing themselves down, and how conditions that they never thought of have led to this.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There is a significant flaw in this reasoning. Responsibility is not unidimensional. If responsibility was always unidimensional then victim blaming would always be wrong. However, because we have multiple agents capable of making decisions this creates a situation in which responsibility is multi-dimensional. Consider an incident from my teenage years.
I went to the grocery market one evening. I was trying to purchase ground beef. There was no ground beef on the shelf. I asked the deli clerk if it was possible to get some. She informed me that she'd have to go in the back and make some. After a few minutes of waiting, I heard some screaming coming from the back room. She came out of the door screaming with her hand bleeding. She had just cut off part of her finger. I felt awful. I had done nothing wrong. However, it was because of my request that she had lopped off part of her finger. Thus, my choice was responsible, to some extent, of this happening.
The situation of the photos is like this in reverse. The perpetrator was responsible. He bears 100% of the ethical responsibility for his actions. However, it might be the case that we can expect the celebrities to bear some responsibility. Were they aware that nothing on the Internet is secure and that their photos were being store on a server connected to the Internet? If so, then they can bear some of the "practical" responsibility while bearing none of the ethical responsibility.
The word you're looking for is right there in the sentence you wrote. It's copying, not something else. Unless you deprive them of the diary or information, it's not stealing. If I sneak into your garage and copy your car, have I stolen it?
This argument is retarded and so are you.
It's called being a realist, you moron. Reality isn't always pretty, or politically correct.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
[snipped]
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid. The rapist still get's 100% "at fault" for rape. The victim get's $SOME% "at fault" for being stupid.
You're making a silly claim - that people should be absolved of all responsibility even when they take risks. Sorry, no. While the criminal is still 100% to be blamed for the crime, that doesn't prevent us from saying "what a stupid twit " for the victim taking unnecessary risks.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
There is nothing rational in your argument. We can (and do, as a matter of fact) call the criminal 100% guilty of the crime and call the victim $X% guilty of stupidity. This in no way endorses the crime, as you seem to think, especially in the case of rape.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
4chan: Art for Fuck's sake.
How would you feel if you found out Bill Gates had had $1B stolen from an online account because he'd used the password billy1 to safeguard that money?
I would laugh my ass off then wish I had tried it first.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
If your goal is to prevent someone you love from getting into that situation, recommending that they not wear a short skirt and walk through a bad part of the city at night wouldnt be "blaming the victim". It would be pointing out that there are unwise things you can do that are liable to get you into trouble.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong. If I walk through the Bronx in expensive close flashing a wallet full of money, I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices. That doesnt mean the mugger isnt at fault, just that I bear a little responsibility for making poor choices.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do. Or, you can engage with reality and realize that some things that you do will create problems for you.
I have a desire to walk through the bronx wearing the Matthew Lasko suit, wearing a rolex, and flashing hundred dollar bills. Its not MY fault if I get mugged!
Well, I guess it depends how you define fault, but it IS really dumb...
I think between Reddit and Slashdot Im developing a severe allergy to political correctness.
Did you just call me politically correct? You've gone too far mate...
Assuming that a password character can only be a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and 10 other characters, and assuming that a password has exactly 6 characters, you would have to try on average (72^6)/2=69657034752 passwords. Assuming you can do 100 tries per second, that would still take more than 8062 days, or more than 22 years on average.
Using a dictionary attack will cut that time WAY down, if the targets used words as passwords.
But if anyone couldn't grasp the monumentally obvious reasons they did this... then maybe those people are just too creepy for their own good.
I was a little surprised at how butthurt redditors got over this issue. First, the reddit admins made the decisions they did to ban the things they did for legal, not moral reasons. It's illegal to distribute somebody else's copyrighted pictures, some of which qualify as CP. They must honor DMCA takedown notices, which they were receiving from the celebs' lawyers or else they lose safe harbor protection and open themselves up to being sued by said celebs' lawyers. This is a no-brainer.
Morally, it is wrong to break into somebody's account, to copy their private photos, to distribute them, posses, or look at them. Using the word "morally" is usually tricky because different people have different moral standards. That said, I don't know of any moral framework that permits such behavior. Golden rule? Nope. Any religious moral standard? Nope. Kant's categorical imperative? Nope. Not even utilitarianism because it doesn't maximize the good for all involved. There's basically no way to say that it's not wrong to distribute these pictures.
Yet, the reddit groupthink is completely butthurt over the reddit admins refusal to let them use reddit as a platform to conduct illegal and immoral acts. And it's easy to see this is the predominate view on reddit. Just go to the threads the admins made about their decisions. All the top rated comments are opposed to the admins' stance. I posted in agreement with the admins and was downvoted into oblivion. And yet redditors pretend to be these enlightened liberals. They love wagging their fingers at racists or sexists or capitalists or hypocritical Christians or US foreign policy or the NSA scandals. Hell, they're opposed to the NSA's activities because of privacy concerns, yet they gleefully invade the privacy of the victims of these break-ins.
And you would think when told "no you can't do this," they might say "aww shucks" and be chagrined at being called out for their shiteous behavior, or at least shut their traps and slink away to trade the photos on bittorrent instead. But no, they're vocally butthurt, angry at the reddit admins, that their "free speech" is being infringed upon, because they're not free to invade someone else's privacy. What the fuck? It's like a peeping Tom, busted, screaming at the cops because "I have every right to hide in the bushes and peep through somebody else's windows!" No. Not only is it morally wrong to peep on somebody else, but it's illegal to be in their bushes! There's no legal or moral justification for their behavior and they're angry at being called out about it! What the hell?!
I'm just kind of stunned. While I didn't think redditors would be paragons of virtue, I thought they at least had some common decency. Apparently not.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
True, but as I said I was generous in my assumptions anyway. In reality the alphabet is larger, Apple must have a minimum password length of at least 8, and I really doubt that you can do 100 tries per second. I therefore am very sceptical that even with a dictionary attack you can get very far, at least not without choosing a specific dictionary for your victim. And if you do that it is no longer a brute-force attack.
As I wrote in an earlier discussion, I know very few websites that impose a limit on the number of login attempts, so it is not reasonable to suddenly declare this an epic fail of Apple. It is good they plugged the hole (although they could just block you for an hour after three failed login attempts), but guessable passwords must have contributed to this.
Oh, and does /. impose such a limit?
Don't wanna be strangled? Don't have a neck. Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car. Stealing is wrong no matter the context.
So you're right, I don't want my car stolen. And while I understand the point that you are making, I absolutely do take precautions to mitigate my risk of auto theft, and I bet you do too. I don't park my car on the street in certain parts of town, for instance. Neither do I leave my keys inside nor leave the doors unlocked nor leave my bike racks on it. Do you do the same, or similar? I bet you do, and if not, then you should.
In an ideal world, such precautions would be ludicrous. Why should I have to pay attention to where I park my car or whether or not I lock the doors? Stealing is wrong, goddamnit, and nobody should do it! But, it seems people do steal, even though it is wrong.
We don't live in an ideal world, so we have to deal with the world where we do live. And that means taking some steps to manage our risk of suffering criminal acts against us. The victim is not at fault, of course, but being not-at-fault doesn't take away the pain of having been victimized.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
"Intellectual property" is called property for a reason -- it is protected by legislation from copying, which is akin to stealing. You are stealing potential wealth from people who may chose to sell copies.
That's why it is called property: because taking it (via copy) is stealing, thabks to legislation. Do not devolve into semantics. because it "works around" the word "stealing".
There is no point there you are trying to make.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If I remember correctly, the attackers were able to work out the answers to the account's "secret questions" because, you know, celebrities, and thus change the password. So, if you call that a brute force attack... I'd be very surprised to learn that a true brute-force, or a dictionary attack was employed. Very surprised.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
It's called being a realist, you moron. Reality isn't always pretty, or politically correct.
Reality? If you actually viewed the world as it is, rather than how you think it is, you'd realize that each individual makes their own choices, and each individual should be judged independently of every other individual. Judging whole groups of people based on their skin color, socioeconomic status or other characteristic is self-deception at best and bigotry at worst.
Since you likely grew up in a lily white suburb, all you know about "the ghetto" comes from rap lyrics and news reports, you likely have a very skewed idea about it. What is more, by adjudging an entire group rather than dealing with individuals as individuals, you show yourself to be quite the bigot yourself.
tl;dr, You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You will hardly find a city/region in Europe where you can not walk around like that. :)
On the other hand, that was not the point. The point is, mobile phones automatically put back ups into the cloud, you have explicitly to deactivate that. The other point is, in a free country I should be allowed to do what I want. Unless I harm someone else. Blaming the victim, for what ever, makes no sense in a free country. Oh, you are not in a free country, but you simply don't grasp how many freedoms you miss!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
IMO, it's 33% of a roughly 3x larger pie.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
copying someones private diary
Copying.
confidential information
Copying confidential information? Or just reading it?
Copying a single copy is unauthorized copying. Sharing it would be copyright infringement.
The confidential part just adds possible unauthorized access if done without consent of the (living) person to whom the information belongs.
Not necessarily though.
Copyright and confidentiality of information don't necessarily belong to a same person.
And some confidential info can not be copyrighted - like PINs, passwords, various identifying names and numbers, medical records...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong.
Didn't say it was. I simply said that you can't go greater than 100% on blame. And the criminals already have 100%. There may be multiple criminals n which case multiple people get blame.
I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong. This misuse of language goes back to childhood, so can be difficult to shift.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault. I'd hate to live in your world if it works differently.
Since for ever. If I chose coffee rather than tea, it's not a case of responsibility. I don't have to answer to anyone for it. There is no right or wrong.
For sure some choices do include responsibility. In this case the choice of the criminal to do the crime.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block. Saying responsibility implies fault if you do the wrong thing is NOT saying responsibility = fault. I did not say they were a single thing.
Insurance companies are no different from bookmakers. They accept bets. And via the insurance contract they get to set the rules by which the bets are settled. Their rules and morality are not at all in line.
That particular angle you described is bizarre though. If you'd left the lock at home, or had it in your backpack, you could remove the key and show them. Or you could simply buy another lock to get the keys. It sounds like it's simply a matter of trying to make it more of a pain in the ass to claim.
An online backup tool - that they willingly installed - did the transfer.
No they didn't. It's built into the OS. It's asked about when first setting up the phone, but you can't blame people for following the recommended options. Most people are not geeks and don't know the implications of everything they do, and should be able to rely on the recommended options from a reputable company. Indeed, despite this news story backing up *IS* the best thing.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say the victims failed to take sensible basic steps to protect themselves.
It's a nuanced thing. Doing so at the time of the news of the crime in 99% of cases comes across as blaming the victim, and most of those cases, intentionally so. It's no different from saying a rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt. And I would hope you wouldn't do that.
No one is victim blaming - if a girl gets blackout-drunk at a private party with people she doesn't know very well then she isn't guilty of being raped, she's guilty of being stupid.
You blamed the victim right there. You THINK the distinction you make makes it OK, but it doesn't. Even if she were stupid, IQ is not morality. You aren't a better person for being clever and a worse person for being stupid. There is no guilt on the victim here. You are just wrong.
Tell me, in your opinion would she still be guilty of stupidity if she went to a party and wasn't raped? What penalty should she pay for this guilt of stupidity where no one was hurt and everyone had a great time?
"Intellectual Property" is called property for a reason - it confuses the issue and makes illegitimate copying look more like stealing. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and is covered under the appropriate laws, which are not the laws that cover stealing. By legislation, copyright infringement is not stealing. It is sometimes referred to as such, but it misses an important feature of theft: it does not deprive the legitimate owner of anything.
I can "steal" potential wealth by giving something a bad review. That isn't illegal. There's no material difference to the copyright owner whether Joe makes an illegal copy rather than buy one, or tells Fred it's crap and dissuades him from buying a copy.
I'm not condoning copyright infringement, but you are (a) confusing things that should not be confused, including the law, and (b) weakening the arguments against copyright infringements in much the same way that "Reefer Madness" weakened arguments against use of illegal drugs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You understand the issues, and have decided which photos you want on iCloud. That's good. Not everybody understands the issues or the technology. No cloud provider that I've noticed explains these in simple terms before allowing cloud storage. Celebrities, by and large, aren't tech-savvy, and use what stuff they've bought in ways appropriate to how they think it works.
In other words, they took nude selfies, and did what seemed reasonable with them, believing there was adequate security in the services provided.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Just to clarify about the lock, it was welded to the bike's frame. It might have been possible to get extra copies of the key made though, but that seems like insurance fraud. (IANAL)
http://tldrwikipedia.tumblr.co...
It is YOU who grew up in a lilly white suburb. All you know about minorities was spoonfed to you by liberal publications. You likely rebelled against your conservative parents and embraced all things liberal. I on the other hand grew up in numerous different places, and know that reality is often not politically correct.
It is YOU who grew up in a lilly white suburb. All you know about minorities was spoonfed to you by liberal publications. You likely rebelled against your conservative parents and embraced all things liberal. I on the other hand grew up in numerous different places, and know that reality is often not politically correct.
I grew up in NYC in the 1970s, bud. We had a street gang who made my block their home (along with all the others in my neighborhood). My elementary and junior high schools were at least 65% minorities. You have no idea what you're talking about, boy. And I do emphasize the word boy.
Forget political correctness -- people should be judged on their individual actions, not on some arbitrary characteristic such as socio-economic status, the location of their home, or their skin color. That's not political correctness, that's maturity and personal responsibility.
Yes, I know you're a troll, and you failed to get a rise out of me. Please, carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong.
Im using the definition of "fault" that means "contributed to the result of", or more simply "responsibility". Your bad decision contributes to the result that you got mugged; had you not made that decision, the mugging would likely not have happened.
You seem to be confusing "was immoral" and "at fault". You can share some degree of fault by provoking-- intentionally or not-- a crime. You share a very small part of that fault (as you werent the one committing the crime), but you do share some degree of responsibility.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault
Then you live in a fantasy world. Entrapment is illegal for a reason; the provocation of a crime does not put 100% of the fault with the one committing the crime.
Actually I got quite a rise out of you, douchbag. Anyone can be anything they want on the internet, hence you are not from New York. Well, an upstate suburb perhaps.
I did not say they were a single thing.
Nor did I. I said you conflated them into a single entity, by implying the relation of one with the other.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.
And further attaching the entity of "blame" to that entity, through the reasoning presented, where you use "fault" and "blame" as if they are the same thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block.
I hope that you don't talk to people in real life "in computer terms".
Someone might "allocate" a fist to your face for "allocating" something to them.
Here's a hint.
Human social life, including communication, i.e. language, is NOT computer code or algorithms.
It's more closely related to metadata.
That is why statements like
and
instantly evoke VERY different images and emotions, despite identical letters and pronunciation.
There is hidden metadata.
Same way, because someone along the way attached the "i" metadata to one of those, the i-Product_Name is automatically understood with only one of those statements.
Someone spent a lot of money and time to establish such a metadata relationship.
A conflation of Apple with i-Product_Name.
Which is the same thing you did, when you've established through your reasoning of "Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.", and further talk of "allocating" fault, but deallocating "blame".
You've conflated or bundled the issues of "responsibility", "fault" and "blame" into a single issue.
The compiler built into the human brain does not throw errors when you fail to define a variable before use - it guesses and attaches "like to like".
Which is why you can talk about "fault" and interchange it for "blame" later on, without noticing the problem that causes.
I.e. You conflate them into a single idea.
Which is NOT the greatest of your errors. The idea of it all being a zero sum game is.
Your "100% or less allocation" is a faulty way of thinking about the issues at hand.
Metadata relation is not quantity-dependent. It's relation-dependent.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens