ICloud turns dark and stormy for many A-list celebrities

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravy, who you or I to say that Jennifer Lawrence or Selena Gomez no longer wanted those pics? You may consider them 'trashy', but they were in iCloud, not a trash folder.

Several of the actresses have said they were deleted off their phone. I don't know much about "the Cloud". Are they deleting them off their phone but storing them up in the cloud? Can you delete something out of The Cloud as well?

Look, here's an easier suggestion: keep some things so private that they only exist in the memory of you and your wife, and then fade like tears in the rain when you do.

Not sure if letting criminals dictate which personal freedoms you use or not is a good policy.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Look, here's an easier suggestion: keep some things so private that they only exist in the memory of you and your wife, and then fade like tears in the rain when you do.  

Or an even easier suggestion: chastity belts and closed legs.

At this point it's not entirely clear how these pictures were obtained.
I'm guessing Apple is really hoping it won't be shown beyond a doubt that they were stolen off the iCloud.
One theory is that a lot of these photographs were stolen in a much more straightforward manner: by attending a location (beit a restaurant, club or bar) which had a public wifi netwerk and was a known celebrity hang-out. On such an unsecured location, it should not be too difficult for someone with the proper nous to lift nearly all of the data off the phones of the people present and connected to wifi.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/23/steve-o-nude-celebrity-photo-leak-challenge-hackers/

JACKASS star Steve-O is daring hackers to steal his nude photos. I'd be more worried about that big black Labrador(?) behind Steve O biting my schnitzel off than some hackers obtaining the pictures. Besides, we've all seen a drunk Steve-O openly urinating on a red carpet premierie, so I think it's safe to say the value of "hacking" his nudes is significantly devalued. Plus, they have to be pix of someone other people want. Steve-O is....how do I say this delicately: old, used, shriveled, washed-up and sexually undesirable.

I doubt it. The hackers seem to be horny, straight teenage guys.

Salomé wrote:

No, I believe that is where the pictures were eventually leaked, but the underground network communicated by some other means. In any case, these are all just theories.

It could very well be a normal message board, like this one, with private forums. I know what those are like, having been a moderator on an adult site.

x

Jennifer Lawrence speaks out.

Quote :

OCTOBER 7, 2014

“I was just so afraid. I didn’t know how this would affect my career.”

That’s just the beginning of what Jennifer Lawrence has to say about her stolen-photos saga in the cover story of Vanity Fair’s November issue, the digital edition of which will be available Wednesday, October 8, and which hits newsstands in New York and Los Angeles on Thursday, October 9.

Lawrence originally met with V.F. contributing editor Sam Kashner on August 13. News broke that hackers had stolen personal photos of her and posted them online on August 31—two weeks after the interview and a month after her July 29 cover shoot with Patrick Demarchelier. So Kashner followed up with Lawrence’s team in hopes of giving the actress “a chance to have the last word.”

“I could just sense after having spent a little time with her that she would come out swinging,” Kashner tells VF.com.

The 24-year-old actress had not previously commented on the incident, but she spoke to Kashner at length about the anger she felt. “Just because I’m a public figure, just because I’m an actress, does not mean that I asked for this,” she says. “It does not mean that it comes with the territory. It’s my body, and it should be my choice, and the fact that it is not my choice is absolutely disgusting. I can’t believe that we even live in that kind of world. ”

She had been tempted to write a statement when news of the privacy violation broke, she says, but “every single thing that I tried to write made me cry or get angry. I started to write an apology, but I don’t have anything to say I’m sorry for. I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.”

Lawrence also addresses the legal ramifications of the hack. “It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime,” she tells Kashner. “It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That’s why these Web sites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it. It’s so beyond me. I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”

In the cover story, the Hunger Games star vents her frustration not just with the offending hackers but also with those—including people she knows—who viewed the images online. “Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

Lawrence also shares a message for the tabloid community: “You have a choice. You don’t have to be a person who spreads negativity and lies for a living. You can do something good. You can be good. Let’s just make that choice and—it feels better.”

Lawrence speaks of the wrenching moment when she had to call her father about the hack. “When I have to make that phone call to my dad and tell him what’s happened … I don’t care how much money I get for The Hunger Games,” she says. “I promise you, anybody given the choice of that kind of money or having to make a phone call to tell your dad that something like that has happened, it’s not worth it.” She allows herself to joke a little about that terrible moment: “Fortunately, he was playing golf, so he was in a good mood.”

With her words now out in the open, the F.B.I. on the case, and a billion-dollar franchise to carry over the finish line, Lawrence seems to be regaining her footing.

“Time does heal, you know,” she tells Kashner. “I’m not crying about it anymore. I can’t be angry anymore. I can’t have my happiness rest on these people being caught, because they might not be. I need to just find my own peace.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/10/jennifer-lawrence-cover

"It is a sex crime."



That's right, Jennifer. This is on the same level as forced sodomy, molestation or beating the piss out of someone and fucking them in an alley.

Thank you for opening our eyes.

x

Well a crime did occur when those photographs were stolen from her and posted all over the internet. Which is something a lot of people seem very happy ignoring.

Where does this weird collective delusion come from?

x

Yes, because those two things are exactly alike.
So protection of privacy does not extend to the personal information and photographs of celebrities?

x

Salomé wrote:

Well a crime did occur when those photographs were stolen from her and posted all over the internet. Which is something a lot of people seem very happy ignoring.

Where does this weird collective delusion come from?

It's a computer crime, not a sex crime.

A pimply-faced pervert hacking into an obviously shoddy cloud storage server is not the same as beating a woman to near-death while sodomizing her in an alley. Feminists on Twitter can say it's the same all they want, but it never will be. Ever. Plus, who actually believes that they have any privacy today?

As Ambler mentioned, what's to be done about the millions of people who viewed these images? Does Jennifer want them punished, as well? According to her, we are talking about a sex crime. Shouldn't these people be viewed as accomplices? Big Jen probably thinks it's comparable to a group of men jerking off while they watch a woman being beaten and raped.

She's confused and not that articulate. I say, charge the guy who stole the pics, the first-hand distributors (not literally, since it's the web) and the twats at CelebrityJihad, but that's it.

BTW, although the 'stranger in alleyway beating and sodomizing a woman' image is vivid and powerful, most reported rape occurs in the home, and the perpetrator is usually known to the victim. You've probably heard that, but it's worth bringing up.

Largo's Shark wrote:

...most reported rape occurs in the home, and the perpetrator is usually known to the victim. You've probably heard that, but it's worth bringing up.

Of course. Another example that makes Lawrence's hairbrained idea of a sex crime seem even more ridiculous.

Salomé wrote:

Yes, because those two things are exactly alike.
So protection of privacy does not extend to the personal information and photographs of celebrities?

She didn't *DESERVE* what happened to her, but she shouldn't be surprised either. She made herself a target of this hacking by photographing and videotaping the most intimate, private details of her life and then *HOPING* nobody would ever discover it. That's an awfully big risk to take. Some things simply don't need to be videotaped: urination, defecation, sexual intimacy. Some things aren't meant to be shared with others. But I digress. And yes, I'm blaming the "victim".

She goes on to say:

"Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body."

She's sending mixed messages here; essentially she's saying that it's her body, her choice, her right, her call to decide when, and where, people get to look at her acting all slutty, but as long as she's calling the shots about being used and degraded, then she has all the power and all the control and she's comfortable with letting people see this part of her (like her Vanity Fair pictures). It's when people have taken that choice away from her that she begins to feel like a used whore. How can she, with a straight face, grace the cover and inside pages of Vanity Fair with her tits hanging out and a cock(atiel) in her hand, and demand that people take her seriously and not view her as a sex object???!??! Really? LOL! That's modern feminism for you; the idea that you can act like a slut *AND* expect that no one will ever slut-shame you. You can't traffic in sexuality and paradoxically expect that people won't view you as a sex object and be willing to do whatever it takes to dig up filthy pictures of you. Paparazzi used to dig through celebs trash cans in the 80's to find dirt on them; now people hack cloud storage units. The methods have changed, the reasons have not.

The problem is, we don't live in 1954 anymore. You can't engage in this sort of behavior and expect for it to remain hidden and secret. She was stupid and naive to ever think standing over a cell phone and taking a picture of her twat wasn't going to be of interest to someone. We can bitch all we want about privacy, but that train left the station a long time ago.

Yay, teach that uppity bitch her place!

Am I the only one who hasn't looked at the pics? Really couldn't care less. If something isn't meant for me I don't need to see it. And it's only the peeps in the pics who decide who's going to see them and when their privacy is violated, nobody else. There's plenty of porn out there, I don't need leaked stuff, or that revenge stuff either. Getting off on it would make me feel like a sick tosser. Course, I am a tosser, but a healthy one.

Looking at these pics is hardly rape. But it's no healthy, clean and innocent thing either. Bit smelly and sticky, not in a nice way.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Just saying you can't put the genie back in the bottle. You might charge the guy who stole the pictures originally, but what about the millions who have viewed them - including you - and the thousands who have reposted?

We're all going to have to reexamine our attitudes to privacy and IPR. I work in publishing and I'd say 70% of the meetings I have are on this subject. None of us know what the fuck to do about it and we're all watching our privacy and livelihoods disappear down the plughole.

The world changed and we're all playing catchup.

Why would you assume I have any interest in rummaging through the seedy underbelly of the internet for someone's stolen, private photographs?

x

Well I don't see it as separate from the state-mandated invasions of privacy.
Which is why I find it so odd that the same people who would balk at their own personal emails and documents possibly being read/archived/indexed by intelligence agencies would have little issue with garden variety internet criminals stealing personal pictures. Merely two different pages of the same book.

The wider change in society is of course how digitalization has made all of this so very easy. The rest of it is just Murphy's law.

x