All sorts of people, not just celebrities, do these sorts of things as I'm sure you know. And AFAIK, kids ARE already often told not to do these sorts of things. But then again, we all do stupid stuff -- when we're told not to.
That's why we need more education, but education is so slow to respond to how technology changes culture and with most parents being techtarded they are simply not equipped to even understand the possible dangers until it's too late or go overboard by limiting technology that could end up stunting a child's growth in a society. It's nearly impossible to get a chance to clean the slate and start over and I feel helpless solve that issue outside my limited family structure.
That's why we need more education, but education is so slow to respond to how technology changes culture and with most parents being techtarded they are simply not equipped to even understand the possible dangers until it's too late or go overboard by limiting technology that could end up stunting a child's growth in a society. It's nearly impossible to get a chance to clean the slate and start over and I feel helpless solve that issue outside my limited family structure.
While I completely agree with you on the education issue, this is also a problem that is caused by people simply never believing that "it could happen to them." So many people make so many mistakes with that sort of thinking -- well, that and alcohol.
While I completely agree with you on the education issue, this is also a problem that is caused by people simply never believing that "it could happen to them."
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
The issue is indeed confusion between public and private. What people don't understand, and why we keep seeing stuff like this and will likely continue to see stuff like this in the future, is that as soon as any pictures or video leave your control, they are no longer private! It's as simple as that!
Combine that with the fact that people don't understand when you take a picture or video with a cell phone (or rather, any internet-connected device), it may not even be under your control from the minute you take it, and definitely isn't under your control the minute you upload it anywhere or send to anyone.
People feel like they can post "privately" on facebook, or send "privately" to their friends via email, etc. But NOTHING sent out over the internet is truly private unless you are in complete control of the data and/or it's encrypted from end-to-end. Normal people, and celebrities are completely clueless about this, so we will always have silly days where this stuff gets exposed to the world.
It's kind of like "Darwin's Law", but, well, okay not really... other than the part where "stupid people do stupid things".
1) Yes, the Jennifer Lawrence pics are real. And apparently the Mary Elizabeth Winstead ones are too, judging by her response.
2) As hot as I find J-Law, I have no interest in seeing these pics, and taking part in a crime. Her privacy and beyond, and that of anyone else who was legitimately hacked, was violated and the people who did it are pond scum. I really hope that J-Law uses some of her extensive (~$40M at last count) resources to hunt this disgusting sleaze down, and have the law smacked down on him like a house on a witch in the Wizard of Oz.
I can see the new Samsung commercial now, touting Knox. Starring some ditzy blond as the iPhone user and some hip, fresh cool guy as the Samsung guy. Where have I seen that before, hmm? (Open on three people riding a ski lift...)
If we're talking about 100 celebrities and it's an actual hack of Apple's iCloud servers then it's likely there is a whole lot more user's information that was also stolen. If not, then it's most likely directed hacks targeting week security.
It might not be, passwords have been taken from numerous other hacks e.g 1.2 billion passwords here:
Some have been exploiting the Heartbleed bug in SSL. If the celebs use the same passwords for different sites, someone can just login to other sites. One person at least partially responsible for this very real leak has been identified and has been asking for bitcoin payments to release more pictures. They apparently haven't had as many donations as they'd hoped so far. They worked for a web company so potentially one of the company's clients had a site that celebrities used.
This is a pretty big news story, I'm surprised AI doesn't have an article yet. The official title of the leak is The Fappening and involves dozens of celebrities, hundreds of images and a handful of videos.
The problem with things like this is everything is tied to Apple: the phone, the software, the services. Even if it wasn't their fault with security, people will see it as their fault. The grainy low light pictures are definitely their fault.
Some have said of more professional shoots at least that they liked having media of how they looked at a young age. Celebs that had the shoots done later in life regretted not having their youthful bodies captured. You don't get it back again and memories fade. It's the same deal with pregnancy photos.
Most I suspect will simply be to give their partner something to think about instead of pictures of someone else when the urge cycles round again.
Indeed! Samsung spends 10x as much as Apple on "marketing". Samsung hiring celebs to tweet from their iPhones we knew about. Now we know where some more of this money is going.
It makes sense that Visa and Master card and AMEX are all included.
The question now is how does Apple make money and how much?
I believe outside of the US Credit Cards are only used for the larger expenses. If Apple can get smaller retailers on board these CC companies will be happy to give Apple 1/3 of their revenue, ? 1%. The massive scale of iPhones in use will bring in the bucks for Apple. And if not, Apple is known to make their products more and more useful, direct profits aren't always measurable.
I know there are people bringing up the point that NFC in the iPhone 6 would make the mobile payment game exclusive to the new hardware, but the "iWatch" has been rumored to include NFC also. While its true then that the iPhone 6 could be used as a standalone device to make payments, what if the "iWatch" does indeed include NFC, and they also fitted in the Touch ID sensor under the screen as seen in previous patents. I could see it working as the "iWatch" wouldn't need a physical home button, and Touch ID isn't tied to a hardware button. It would simply be turned on and brought up on the screen to ID the user once a tap to pay event is started. Then this whole mobile payment initiative wouldn't be exclusive to only the iPhone 6.
Visa, MasterCard, and Amex do seem like basic prerequisites, so this is unsurprising news. I honestly expect we will see Discover in that mix as well.
Apple is the proverbial 10,000 lb gorilla - if Apple indeed does roll out a payment system, it would be unwise for any of the major providers to decline such a partnership.
TouchID!
I am interested in this thread despite the diversion of hacked celeb pics ... Maybe they should implement a TouchID system on iCloud ... Seriously!
TouchID ... And the NFC/iWallet/iTunes infrastructure (whatever) to support it for major credit card purchases ...
Did you ever consider why the cc companies inundate you with free offers, interest-free transfers and introductory offers, checks, cashback rewards ...
There are at least 2 ways the cc providers make money:
processing and transactions fees charged to merchants for using the cc service -- usually a minimum transaction charge and a percent of the price of the merchandise
Interest rates charged to customers when they do not pay their monthly balance in full (very high interest rates)
In fact, even if you pay your cc balances in full (and get a month of free float) the cc providers want you to use their card because of the transaction and processing fees charged to merchants -- the cc providers receive these fees immediately, and in a way have free float use of that money.
Case in point, a relative got her first credit card. a Visa card through B of A -- with a $2,500 limit. Her plan is to use the card to build a credit history -- but pay the balance in full each month to avoid interest charges ... and over time, raise the credit limit, while taking advantage of any cashback rewards.
An interesting thing is this: B of A / Visa offered a $200 one-time, introductory, cashback offer after she spent the first $1,500 of her $2,500 limit. And, bang, as soon as she reached $1,500 (easy) she got an immediate $200 credit (instant gratification). She continued to use the card approaching the limit, and earning small cashback rewards on select purchase. She got her 1st bill and paid the balance in full (harder) so there were interest fees.
Hmm ... The cc provider was willing to give her $200 off -- if she purchased merchandise worth $1,500.
Why?
Because they make money every time she uses the card -- and maybe a time will come that she will not be able to pay in full -- and incur interest charges ... a win / potential big win for the cc provider ... Duh!
Why am I wasting your and my time? We could be looking at celeb pictures!
Consider: What other provider gives you money off an expensive purchase -- so you will use their basic services (and potentially use their expensive. extra services)?
Why your smart phone carrier -- that's who ... Also, Duh!
TouchID ...
Getting right to it ... Finally!
Because of TouchID and the supporting infrastructure -- the new iPhone 6, new iPads (and maybe the iWatch) are the only devicesthat can securely support the services offered by the credit card companies.
The services that cc companies want you to use so much that they are willing to pay cash off on the purchase of expensive merchandise ...
In effect, the cc is subsidizing that expensive purchase ...
Why, wouldn't the cc companies be interested in subsidizing the purchase of iDevices -- which facilitate and promote the use of their cc services?
We can get one of these new-fangled [I] fingerprint [/I] remotes so that we can sit in front of the [I] TeeVee [/I] and buy things without ever leaving the recliner ...
Yes, Clyde ...
I've already done the gift shopping for 2015 and am thinking about Easter 2016 ...
Comments
That's why we need more education, but education is so slow to respond to how technology changes culture and with most parents being techtarded they are simply not equipped to even understand the possible dangers until it's too late or go overboard by limiting technology that could end up stunting a child's growth in a society. It's nearly impossible to get a chance to clean the slate and start over and I feel helpless solve that issue outside my limited family structure.
That's why we need more education, but education is so slow to respond to how technology changes culture and with most parents being techtarded they are simply not equipped to even understand the possible dangers until it's too late or go overboard by limiting technology that could end up stunting a child's growth in a society. It's nearly impossible to get a chance to clean the slate and start over and I feel helpless solve that issue outside my limited family structure.
While I completely agree with you on the education issue, this is also a problem that is caused by people simply never believing that "it could happen to them." So many people make so many mistakes with that sort of thinking -- well, that and alcohol.
Or completely fake since Victoria Justice says the photos aren't really her.
It's hers. Trust me.
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
Good point.
I think that's an extension of education in both what they record on a digital format both privately and publicly, and how they understand and execute security of their digital content.
The issue is indeed confusion between public and private. What people don't understand, and why we keep seeing stuff like this and will likely continue to see stuff like this in the future, is that as soon as any pictures or video leave your control, they are no longer private! It's as simple as that!
Combine that with the fact that people don't understand when you take a picture or video with a cell phone (or rather, any internet-connected device), it may not even be under your control from the minute you take it, and definitely isn't under your control the minute you upload it anywhere or send to anyone.
People feel like they can post "privately" on facebook, or send "privately" to their friends via email, etc. But NOTHING sent out over the internet is truly private unless you are in complete control of the data and/or it's encrypted from end-to-end. Normal people, and celebrities are completely clueless about this, so we will always have silly days where this stuff gets exposed to the world.
It's kind of like "Darwin's Law", but, well, okay not really... other than the part where "stupid people do stupid things".
Interesting that it's only celebs that got "hacked", and that there wasn't a massive data breach against other users (i.e. everyone else)
Maybe it was, but posting my photos on some dodgy website just won't attract anyone.
1) Yes, the Jennifer Lawrence pics are real. And apparently the Mary Elizabeth Winstead ones are too, judging by her response.
2) As hot as I find J-Law, I have no interest in seeing these pics, and taking part in a crime. Her privacy and beyond, and that of anyone else who was legitimately hacked, was violated and the people who did it are pond scum. I really hope that J-Law uses some of her extensive (~$40M at last count) resources to hunt this disgusting sleaze down, and have the law smacked down on him like a house on a witch in the Wizard of Oz.
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Thank you.
It might not be, passwords have been taken from numerous other hacks e.g 1.2 billion passwords here:
http://news.sky.com/story/1313779/russian-hackers-pull-off-biggest-data-theft
Some have been exploiting the Heartbleed bug in SSL. If the celebs use the same passwords for different sites, someone can just login to other sites. One person at least partially responsible for this very real leak has been identified and has been asking for bitcoin payments to release more pictures. They apparently haven't had as many donations as they'd hoped so far. They worked for a web company so potentially one of the company's clients had a site that celebrities used.
This is a pretty big news story, I'm surprised AI doesn't have an article yet. The official title of the leak is The Fappening and involves dozens of celebrities, hundreds of images and a handful of videos.
The problem with things like this is everything is tied to Apple: the phone, the software, the services. Even if it wasn't their fault with security, people will see it as their fault. The grainy low light pictures are definitely their fault.
Some have said of more professional shoots at least that they liked having media of how they looked at a young age. Celebs that had the shoots done later in life regretted not having their youthful bodies captured. You don't get it back again and memories fade. It's the same deal with pregnancy photos.
Most I suspect will simply be to give their partner something to think about instead of pictures of someone else when the urge cycles round again.
It makes sense that Visa and Master card and AMEX are all included.
The question now is how does Apple make money and how much?
Surprised you didn't implicate Samsung
Indeed! Samsung spends 10x as much as Apple on "marketing". Samsung hiring celebs to tweet from their iPhones we knew about. Now we know where some more of this money is going.
I believe outside of the US Credit Cards are only used for the larger expenses. If Apple can get smaller retailers on board these CC companies will be happy to give Apple 1/3 of their revenue, ? 1%. The massive scale of iPhones in use will bring in the bucks for Apple. And if not, Apple is known to make their products more and more useful, direct profits aren't always measurable.
TouchID!
I am interested in this thread despite the diversion of hacked celeb pics ... Maybe they should implement a TouchID system on iCloud ... Seriously!
TouchID ... And the NFC/iWallet/iTunes infrastructure (whatever) to support it for major credit card purchases ...
Did you ever consider why the cc companies inundate you with free offers, interest-free transfers and introductory offers, checks, cashback rewards ...
There are at least 2 ways the cc providers make money:
In fact, even if you pay your cc balances in full (and get a month of free float) the cc providers want you to use their card because of the transaction and processing fees charged to merchants -- the cc providers receive these fees immediately, and in a way have free float use of that money.
Case in point, a relative got her first credit card. a Visa card through B of A -- with a $2,500 limit. Her plan is to use the card to build a credit history -- but pay the balance in full each month to avoid interest charges ... and over time, raise the credit limit, while taking advantage of any cashback rewards.
An interesting thing is this: B of A / Visa offered a $200 one-time, introductory, cashback offer after she spent the first $1,500 of her $2,500 limit. And, bang, as soon as she reached $1,500 (easy) she got an immediate $200 credit (instant gratification). She continued to use the card approaching the limit, and earning small cashback rewards on select purchase. She got her 1st bill and paid the balance in full (harder) so there were interest fees.
Hmm ... The cc provider was willing to give her $200 off -- if she purchased merchandise worth $1,500.
Why?
Because they make money every time she uses the card -- and maybe a time will come that she will not be able to pay in full -- and incur interest charges ... a win / potential big win for the cc provider ... Duh!
Why am I wasting your and my time? We could be looking at celeb pictures!
Consider: What other provider gives you money off an expensive purchase -- so you will use their basic services (and potentially use their expensive. extra services)?
Why your smart phone carrier -- that's who ... Also, Duh!
TouchID ...
Getting right to it ... Finally!
Because of TouchID and the supporting infrastructure -- the new iPhone 6, new iPads (and maybe the iWatch) are the only devices that can securely support the services offered by the credit card companies.
The services that cc companies want you to use so much that they are willing to pay cash off on the purchase of expensive merchandise ...
In effect, the cc is subsidizing that expensive purchase ...
Why, wouldn't the cc companies be interested in subsidizing the purchase of iDevices -- which facilitate and promote the use of their cc services?
Duh!
.
.
.
We can get one of these new-fangled [I] fingerprint [/I] remotes so that we can sit in front of the [I] TeeVee [/I] and buy things without ever leaving the recliner ...
Yes, Clyde ...
I've already done the gift shopping for 2015 and am thinking about Easter 2016 ...