I think you've stumbled onto an interesting business idea for Apple. Surely if you earn enough money and your public image is what you bank, allowances for a certain "higher" level of security for data would be worth the money. Much the same as physical security - who other than celebrities (including the rich due to the innate nature of idolization) pay people to look after them and their property?
What's the criteria on that, though? When are you famous/rich 'enough' to be eligible for that extra layer of protection?
No. Same as any premium subscription service (pricing). Yeah, hackers will target what accounts they can get into and release the information. However, it will not create the shit-storm that this evidently has if it is the girl next door in a small town. Just my $0.02.
No, it does not come down to that. No one here wants people to not take pictures of their boobies. But there is NO REASON to put them on iCloud, Amazon Cloud, Dropbox or anything else. What it comes down to is "Know your phone and iCloud settings." That's all anyone is saying. For anything. It's like getting a house and not knowing how to lock the door. Learn to lock the door. Also for any one you who think celebrities are normal people who live by the same rules, look at any news story regarding them committing crimes, being found with drugs on them, drinking under age, etc. They don't get treated like Joe Sixpack with any life event. Also, visit LA for a good week, talk to the people that live there. Celebrities are not the same, because then you're saying "Oh the President should be treated just like everyone else." No he's the fucking President. He got their by people's political votes, celebrities got there by people voting with their money.
Actually, it does. Check out the paparazzi sometime, and the legal defense they get to employ for harassing celebrities. Celebrities actually give up some of their personal freedoms and expectations of privacy, legally, because of their fame, compared to those that aren't. But let's be perfectly clear here, I'm not saying their right to privacy should change, I'm saying their EXPECTATION of privacy has to change. Couple of points I'd like to make that make this different than some of the examples people are using (like having their house broken into, etc). Physical Barrier To Entry: Some people are talking about this being the same as breaking into a house, but it's not. If I wanted to, I could "attack your privacy" right now, sitting here in my robe and bunny slippers, casually sipping on my Bailey's and coffee. This kind of "cyber crime" can target anyone in the world, from anywhere in the world. The only real defense you have to that is to not make yourself a target, and to minimize the effects of such a breach (as in don't take pics that you don't want leaked). In order to break into your house, I have to actually spend money and do something about it, such as fly/drive to your house, and put feet on the ground. An online attack? Too fucking easy. That's not a good thing if you're a hot chick with pics you don't want people to see. Emotional Barrier To Entry: There is an emotional/clinical separation that occurs with cyber crimes, because it's just text on a screen when you're coding, and the goal becomes almost clinical in nature. You're physically removed from the scene of the crime, so you don't feel any physical sense of danger, and you can stop and leave whenever you want without any immediate repercussions. Not so with a physical crime. If you were told that these same pictures were printed out and sitting on JLaw's kitchen table, would you go look at them? Odds are that all of you would not, because there is a greater sense of personal danger to yourself. You're also separated from dealing with the target on a personal level, unlike if you encountered the person in their home while you were breaking in. Public Image: In the case of Kate Upton, her only reason for fame is that people lust after her and fantasize about fucking her. Period. She's not an intellectual, she's not an artist, she's not a musician, etc... she has tits that everyone wants to see and daydream about motorboating. She pays people more in a month than you all make in a year to foster and create that desire nationally and globally. Let me say that again, she PAYS people to get you to lust after and desire to see her naked. Every picture you see of her on the cover of a magazine does nothing more than make you want to see more of her in less clothing inside the magazine. She's not famous by accident, she's famous because of the PR firm and the carefully crafted marketing strategy employed by those people to get people lust after her. To some degree, JLaw also trades on her sexuality and character to be popular, but it still kind of targets that "oh would I like to be with her" fantasy. This makes them an incredibly easy target. The point I'm making is that I feel badly for them, personally, for going through this shit, because I'm not a fucking monster... I feel empathy for people in pain. BUT. What the fuck were they thinking? This is the real world, and regardless of the laws and best intentions, you have to protect yourselves against reasonable outcomes. They intentionally set themselves up as an easy and desirable target to millions, and they (or more properly, their "people"), should have protected themselves better. You better believe that over the next few months EVERY celebrity will be hiring professional tech advisers to protect them against this kind of thing, and rightly so.
What you are suggesting is not only heinous when applied as a moral standard, it is objectively wrong or at a minimum misapplied in terms of the law. See, for example, here: "Celebrities are entitled to the same general right of privacy that entends to all individuals.... However, consent in the general sense does not justify invasions into every aspect of an individual's life.... This waiver should be rgarded, however, as a limited waiver, restricting the press to examining and exposing only that information that has some bearing on the individual's position in society" Your invocation of paparazzi is muddling public and private spaces. Paparazzi take photos in public spaces. They do not sneak into people's dining rooms to take photos of them eating private dinners. They are no less legally protected in their personal home and effects than you or I are. Any allusion to paparazzi would be fair if the stars had accidentally left printed out copies of the pictures in a public space. But they didn't. These photos are fundamentally no less private than had they been stored within the celebrities houses. The rights of paparazzi in with respect to public photos simply aren't relevant here. Some houses are easier to break into than others. Some cars are easier to steal than others. Some banks are easier to rob than others. So what? It doesn't make it any less objectionable. A thief is a thief is a thief. How easy or difficult an act is doesn't change its moral character. You can claim this is merely a pragmatic stance and not a moral one, but that flies in the face of statements like this: We get accountants because managing that much money effectively is difficult, and sometimes better done by professionals. The primary purpose of accounts isn't to prevent theft. So this is not like an accountant at all. There is very little difference between that quoted statement and claiming that a woman in an alluring dress had it coming. Or that, since a man wore a nice suit, you have no pity for him when he is mugged.
This discussion is frustrating to me, as a man. I think in terms of solutions. If a problem presents itself, I try to fix it, the best I can. I attempt to empathize with a person’s position by putting myself in their shoes. For example, Me: “I'm a woman who’s going to a party where alcohol is involved. I better bring someone I trust so in case I get drunk and may either do something I'll regret later and/or keep perverts away from me.” The takeaway I seem to get from women is “Why should I have to drag someone along in order to have fun? Men should stop being Rapey McRaperson.” Me: “I agree 100%. Rape is awful and should never happen. You shouldn't need to have a buddy system in order to protect yourself. However, the fact remains is that there are are people out there who don't share that viewpoint and are looking to take advantage of women who are intoxicated. By safeguarding against that, you reduce the chances of being assaulted.” Women: “I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO EXTRA STUFF BECAUSE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ARE SHITTY! STOP BLAMING VICTIMS FOR BEING RAPED!” Me: “As I said before, you absolutely SHOULDN'T have to do extra stuff and I’m NOT blaming victims! But until we live in an age where sexual assault completely disappears, doesn't it behoove you to protect yourself, just in case?” Women: “VICTIM BLAMER RAPE APOLOGIST MRA” And round and round we go.
What part of this is so hard to comprehend? Should it happen, and be condoned in any way? No. DOES or WILL it happen, because that's how the world works? Yes. Should someone who is saying "hey, look at and lust after me!" on a global scale take more care than "average" people? Yes. Do they have to? No. But don't be surprised when shit happens if you don't take that into account. You walk around the back streets of the ghetto at 3am? I don't. You want to know why? Because I'd be putting myself into a position where, regardless of the rules of society and what is right or wrong, I'm more likely than not to encounter people who don't follow those rules and will fuck my shit up. As a result, I will take it upon myself to NOT be an idiot and will therefore no put myself into situations where that can happen.
I'm probably over-simplifying, but couldn't this be avoided if, like every girl who's sent me a nekkid pic, and every amazingly awesome TiBette who's posted in the boobie and booty threads, they didn't include their faces in the pics? The person who they intend to see the pics would know it's them, and despite us basically knowing what Upton looks like topless already, she/they could still plausibly deny it's them when they inevitably get hacked. One thing I'll definitely do, should the time come, is tell my hypothetical wife to tell my hypothetical daughter to fucking NEVER include her face in any pic she wouldn't be comfortable showing on social media. Likewise, I would tell my hypothetical son that if he ever shared a pic of a girl that was intended only for him (let alone hacked pics, though that's unlikely anyways, him being my son), I would be the first to turn him in.
No one I've encountered is opposed to greater security. I've never heard someone suggest that one shouldn't carry mace or use better passwords. If that were anyone's belief, I'd be very surprised. But there is a difference between voluntarily adopted wise behavior, and imperatives. It is a different claim to go from "mace is a good idea" to suggesting that the degree of "pity" someone deserved is someone's proportionally related to the number of above-and-beyond-normal-standards preventative measures they have undertaken.
When you intentionally foster that behaviour and do nothing to protect yourself against the realistic outcomes, you can't just be pissed when it happens, and personally, I do think you should take part of that responsibility. In the case of a young girl in high school who sends her boyfriend a sexy pic that then goes viral and crushes her world, I feel huge amounts of pity for her because she was just being a stupid kid and it blew up out of any reasonably expected scope. Kate Upton is a specifically manufactured global sex symbol, and I don't feel as badly for her when it happens, because she should have taken better care. If you're a lion tamer and get attacked by the lions, you can't really be all that surprised that it happened.
The idea that Upton "fosters" theft by just being so damn sexy is part of the problem. She goes to work and does her job. This is not part of that job. You'll also eliding the difference between doing nothing and engaging in what normal people consider sufficient preventative measures. The door was effectively locked; this amounts to suggesting that a burglary victim didn't buy good enough locks. Rather than the agreed-and-bargain-for outcome of a lion tamer doing the job he signed up for, this is more akin to placing a lion in the tamer's bedroom and watch what happens, because hey, he basically does that in his work life, right?
Your analogy is stupid and mine is better. It's like people breaking into a chef's house and stealing his food, because "hey, he cooks for me for money sometimes, he must love feeding people!" To be clear, the above analogy is way better than your lion thing CowMorebell
You completely read what Nettdata said incorrectly, double for Nom. What he's saying is that said lion tamer, knowing he's increasing the chances of being attacked by a lion by being a tamer and putting himself in front of a lion, should have extra lion protection gear and be aware of how it works. When they do not put on lion protection gear or learn how to use it, part of the responsibility is on the lion tamer. Now time for the ultimate analogy double down. Nom this is for you. If a regular person cooked a ton of food and put it in the fridge, no one cares. They probably wouldn't have to put a lock on their fridge, because even if it is great food, no one cares. If Bobby Flay cooked a bunch of food then put it in his fridge, went on a bunch of TV shows talking about how great his food was, promoted how great his food was and told everyone "Yeah you like this food don't you? Hmm, it's so tasty." Then someone broke into his fridge, it's fair to say "The person who stole his food is wrong and should face consequences, but given his career, shouldn't he have put a lock on his fridge?" Yes he should have put a lock on his fridge to protect his food, because he all he does is talk about and show how great his food is, to the world. For the slow people. Analogy explanation. Version 1: Bobby Flay = Kate Upton. Food = Sex. Version 2: Bobby Flay = Celebrity. Food = Being crafted public image that says "I'm likable, you should like me and pay money to consume all the things that I get paid to do so I can get paid to do more of them."
Do you have no fucking reading comprehension? She doesn't foster theft, her marketing team fosters the desire and lust, because that's how she gets paid. When that stops, so do the paychecks. That, in turn, makes her more of a target than someone who is just "damn sexy". I swear, some of you people are fucking retarded. But please, tell me again how suggesting that people take a realistic view on the world and the role they are intentionally making for themselves in it, and then take steps to prevent themselves from being fucked over by it is such a fucking crazy idea.
No, I really understand this, I'm just saying that it's still fucked up that people are going in and stealing his food. It's double fucked up if that food is private and sentimental, and I wouldn't be telling him to "suck it up" because he's famous. I promise you I completely understand that "PROTECT YOURSELF" argument.
Well you can't even see her face in the fuck video or the splooge on her back shot. Obviously she was taking care not to reveal too much if she were ever to be hacked. Tip of the penis to you Miss Upton for taking proper precautions.
And everyone agrees with those two points. It sucks, the person that robbed them is horrible, but a few easy clicks and this wouldn't have been a thing. Also, WHO REALLY NEEDS NAKED PICS ACCESSIBLE FROM ANYWHERE? Hell, I barely need my vacation photos accessible from anywhere?
There's really not any more pictures coming out, is there? We're just going to argue morality of the hacking and security from here on out.