ZombieSupaStar
Member
Well at least their not Hitler....yet.
Can we talk about the apparent iCloud break-in?
- Thread starter Mr.Mike
- Start date
- Status
He'll have a bunch of pizza deliveries coming at least.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Candy bar feature phone it is.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
so this guy potentially has way more that he hasn't yet released? i wonder if he'll release everything before he gets caught
There's millions of people on reddit. Those people are not necessarily the same.
That's actually very subjective. The person is still in control about what's in the picture. The woman on the subway isn't
NekoFever
Member
No one's sure. There was an iCloud security vulnerability fixed around the time of this leak, which some are taking as evidence, but at the same time there are indications that the leak was from another source or multiple sources (e.g. Dropbox documents among the photos, videos in there when iCloud doesn't upload videos, Android phones in some of the pics).
Yep. You don't poke 4chan, cause they poke back, and being a Redditor? This guys gonna get destroyed.
Also, what the flying fuck is going on in this thread? All this pedophile comparison talk? Wat?
Check some of the tech news sites. It is the running theory of the compromise
I just popped into this thread and have no clue about the context of this conversation, but my immediate reaction to this post: "WTF....it's not."
So they're quite happy to host photos of the dead from the MH17 plane crash in all its horrifying gratuitousness, but a bit of tit and arse is beyond the line? That's Two Words levels of logic.
Pretty sad. American celebrities have much more PR power than the dead.
To be honest I doubt it's him. He was born and bred on 4chan, he knows how they operate.
Plus if he was capable of such large scale heinous hacking he'd cover his tracks. We might be looking at a hacked alt account which he has built a decent believable bio for over time. This was years in the making...I doubt he'd really be caught in the first 48 hours.
SteveWinwood
Member
civilstrife
Member
My assertion is that it is functionally the same as a subway upskirt.
That person never intended to have anyone see their genitals. Whether they took photographs of themselves or not is irrelevant if those photographs were private.
A private photograph in a "sexy pose" is not consent to be porn for the masses.
I'm not sure what 'functionally' means in that context. It's a moral issue, and everyone must deliberate on it themselves. For some, the context of the source of the photography weights in on the issue, for others it won't, neither party is objectively correct.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
No it isn't.
You seem to have confused your perception of events and the opinion you've derived from it to be objective truth. Which is immensely egotistical.
C'mon now. That's not at all what I was getting at. There are a few orders of magnitude in the degree of harm being inflicted between the two.
"Pictures of children are shared without consent; pictures of celebrities are shared without consent, therefore it's comparable". That's what I got out of it.
Oh, and it's the true true, so don't even try to argue against it.
There seems to be a lot more evidence that these materials did not come for iCloud (android, videos, etc) than there is that they did come from iCloud (a patch the same day which could be coincidence).
Until there is evidence, I will assume this is more anti apple bias in the tech journalism community.
Until there is evidence, I will assume this is more anti apple bias in the tech journalism community.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
Even if the exploit for this was the vulnerability listed on the first page, it still would have eventually happened if these passwords were this weak. Low and slow always wins out.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Eh we don't know that. Switching my scenario to the girl taking it and someone finding it on her phone would be more equivalent. That's still different then a picture of her being taken without her knowledge vs distributed without her knowledge.
I never said it was okay. I said they're not equal. Don't turn into Two Worlds.
You are right in the sense that both victims of child porn and celebrities have had their privacy violated, and that they did not consent to the sharing of the photos.
But one similarity does not make them identical. Maybe to you it seems they are the same because you place a lot of weight on privacy, but let me outline how they are different.
- Children cannot consent to the original photograph either. Most of the celebrity photos were likely self-taken or taken with consent. In other words, yes the privacy of celebrities has been violated by the sharing of the photos, but the initial sexual act was likely consensual. This is a huge difference.
- Children are implicitly more vulnerable. Sexual abuse on children is one of the most universally reviled acts. Celebrities are largely adults, and while they may suffer embarrassment or even social anxiety as a result, the impact on their future lifestyle is likely less than a child suffering from sexual abuse (including child pornography). Society has generally agreed that the punishment should fit the crime -- read about the "glass jaw" argument.
- Some of the celebrities have consented to sharing nudity (or something very close) in other formats. For example, nude scenes in "artistic" movies or some of the fashion worn. I agree that's not identical to consent of sharing nude photos, but I think it's worth bearing in mind when determining the "intensity" of the privacy violation.
- In addition, it can be argued that celebrities are aware of the risk of nudes spreading. It's been well established that the public has a strong appetite for celebrity nudes, even at the expense of privacy. Assuming the original photos were performed with consent (as opposed to voyeur shots with a telescope lens or upskirts with a foot camera), the celebrities were aware of the fact that there is a chance they could be spread. This happens all the time with jealous ex's, but it could be as simple as losing the phone while past the lock screen.
Of course, the celebrities should have legal ways to seek recompense, which they do. And depending what's involved, Apple itself could probably have legal grounds for a civil suit. Maybe there's even criminal grounds (copyright? anti-hacking laws?) but I'm not an expert on that.
However, it is not equivalent to child pornography, and as you experienced above, to most posters may not even be comparable. The privacy concerns are secondary to the consent of the original act in my opinion. Unless the celebrities are also underage, but to my knowledge they were not (though I have not seen the photos myself or even aware of who was leaked).
And I agree paparazzi laws need to be reevaluated or enforced, but again it's not the same as child pornography.
Nah, this guy must have been new, either first time on 4chan, or in his first few months of browsing. The first thing you learn on 4chan is to not post ANY traceable details.
But, yeah. Doubt this guy did it, but he'll still get destroyed for trying to pull a fast one on 4chan.
I thought these would be as "tame" as many of the other leaked photos we've seen before. Wow was I wrong, some of those are rough. Upton/Verlander and Lawrence in particular.
Oh god. Seriously? Some of these photos are INTENSELY private. In fact, one of the artists (to my knowledge) has never done nudity and one would say her photos are the roughest of the bunch.
This is crazy justification.
Pepboy said:
Oh god. Seriously? Some of these photos are INTENSELY private. In fact, one of the artists (to my knowledge) has never done nudity and one would say her photos are the roughest of the bunch.
This is crazy justification.
Is this unprecedented? 300k accounts, wow.
Dragonborn
Member
I don't get it, deleting them will only bring them more attention and the pics will get even more exposure. They surely can't possibly believe they can contain this. If I were them, I'd just let people go wild, they'll get tired of it and move much faster that way
Yeah, I'm not sold on it being him. But, 4chan will still send pizza deliveries to his house because they can.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
I can only imagine how this conversation would go in prison.
Guy A: So, what are you in here for?
Guy B: Grand theft auto and robbery. You?
Guy A: Manslaughter and a DUI. What about the new guy here?
New Guy: I leaked nudes of Jennifer Lawrence on the internet.
Guy B: 4chan get you?
New Guy: Yeah, I thought we were cool, but then I asked for bitcoin and things got weird.
Guy A: WHELP.
Guy A: So, what are you in here for?
Guy B: Grand theft auto and robbery. You?
Guy A: Manslaughter and a DUI. What about the new guy here?
New Guy: I leaked nudes of Jennifer Lawrence on the internet.
Guy B: 4chan get you?
New Guy: Yeah, I thought we were cool, but then I asked for bitcoin and things got weird.
Guy A: WHELP.
I think this post was mostly very good, with the exception of this part.
Even if these specific women had appeared nude in films, and as far as I know JLaw never has, I don't believe having given permission for people to see you nude in one instance means people have any right to under any other circumstances.
I do find it kind of funny that Kirsten Dunst was amongst the victims though, given you can just see her naked in Melancholia if you'd ever cared to do so.
This isn't the time for it, but I'd be interested to see a thread on here discussing people's view on sites that highlight and share nude appearances of celebrities.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It is absolutely vile that people are insinuating that just because they are celebrities they should have known better than to take pictures of themselves.
Sounding a bit like good old fashioned victim blaming.
Sounding a bit like good old fashioned victim blaming.
Icloud is capable of backing up your videos too
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1766
Most of the images have come from Apple devices.
The Dropbox PDF found in some of the share stuff just seems to be people creating throwaway accounts to share the Fappening. Saw quite a few links last night. Don't think it's what the celebs used to store their goodies.
Some where also resharing through Google drive.
I think you mistook my argument. I was trying to separate the photos from child pornography and outlining why. That was not a justification for why it's "okay", but rather why it differs from child pornography. I still think it's liable to a civil suit and may have criminal implications.
Though I do find it odd that you seem so outraged but still seem to have viewed the photos...
It's probably not a good idea to take naked photos of yourself period, celebrity or not.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
androids mostly use MP4 container for their video, so if the files are .MOV most likely it is from an iPhone.
I don't think deleting the tweets will cause this to get more exposure. "hundreds of pictures of naked celebrities!" is enough of a draw.
Twitter is simply doing their due diligence, but it's unexpected. I don't think they've ever done anything like this before.
Let them go wild at the victims expense.
I understand your concerns, and it's a very legit one to have. There's a great possibility this could backfire. But they have to do something. They can't let these people affected by this just suffer through it without trying to take some action.
Eh?
Everyone should know what they're getting into when they take nude pictures of themselves.
If you're aware that they might leak and are happy to take them, go for it.
You don't have to be a celebrity to use common sense.
The perpetrator is the one to blame but you have to be smart about things.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
You don't get to decide how a couple expresses love for one another within the private confines of their relationship.
I've myself done the very same thing, and I would react just like Jennifer Lawrence if someone had nefariously gained access to pictures & videos intended for my girlfriend (and vice versa.)
The Elite
BOSS
If you look at these pics you're like Hitler watching Shirley Temple movies.
When you put your pictures online it's safe to consider them as public. Unless if you take serious security measures.
THat's not the lesson you should be taking from this. Switch to Android now, or all of your sensitive info will inevitably become public domain.
They didn't put them online to be publicized tho. Most don't.
Of course not. Everybody has the full right to make stupid decisions themselves.
Saying "It's probably not a good idea" is not the same as "no one should ever be allowed to do this". This kind of thing happens to non-famous people all the time and there is no outrage. It's a risk you take when you're taking and sending naked pictures of yourself and sending them digitally. There would most definitely not be a thread this long if this leak was just dealing with non-celebrities.
- Status