Can't be Apple.
both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook told everyone that Apple was brilliant and everything Google did was bad.
It must be Google at fault.
Twitter's top policy bod has refused to dismiss claims that people who tweet the leaked private photos of naked female celebrities are having their accounts suspended on the social meeja site. The company's Nu Wexler told The Register: We do not comment on individual accounts, for privacy and security reasons. Our rules …
er..why not? What is wrong with pictures of naked humans?
It might be worth asking yourself why any culture finds our default state or primary purpose of existence to be in any way scandalous?
The hacking element is obviously criminal, and for most of us, just validates our scepticism of "the cloud" as a cure-all to data management.
Have to say that makes more sense than actor Jude Law which was all I could come up with flicking through the crappy mags, or 17th century economist John Law.
I suppose by that contraction we should call anonymous cowards 'acow' or 'anco' or something. MiSo Windows. TReg. I can see the fun in it, and thanks for the clue. The term was used as if I ought to know, and now I know!
"Have to say that makes more sense than actor Jude Law which was all I could come up with flicking through the crappy mags, or 17th century economist John Law."
I heard there was this thing called Google on the interwebs. If you type in JLaw, only one person comes up as a result.
How's an Apple ID different from any other password? If you sync your nude pics to Google Drive the same can happen if someone gets hold of your password.
Celebrities are generally not known for their expertise in computer security, and don't realize the risks in using the same password for everything. This will make them realize it, but it'll be forgotten by many by the time this happens again a year or two from now.
"..Celebrities are generally not known for their expertise in computer security.."
And those guys / girls / neighbours / John Kerry / grannies...no one is expert here.. sorry for 'them'.
It's not all about hacking or why Apple (or the source) couldn't ensured safety. It's about the INVALID EXPECTATIONS AND TRUST in CLOUD. They can rain anywhere.
The lesson is that if you are making your own smutty postcards, use a Polaroid. That way you are only vulnerable to the physical theft and/or a colour photocopier until such time as you burn them. Having these things anywhere other than in your possession is a risk. And then burn them anyway or keep them to sell when your career is over and you are desperate for the money.
The secondary lesson is that the (frequently unannounced) shared/clouded-by-default setup of many phones is a really bad idea. As is sending said filth to anyone, regardless of how trustworthy you think they are. Maybe there is a market for camera-blinding skin patches or tattoos. I was going to say 'ban everything with a camera in it' whilst in the nudd but nowadays that's almost the same as 'ban everything'. Edit: with a 'yes I know this is a bad idea' override button.
Dunno about polaroids; but it would certainly be a reasonable precaution to move photos you don't want to escape off internet-facing gear and onto a non-connected USB drive if you have any sort of public status.
Ricky Gervais caught a lot of flak for tweeting "well don't have nudes on your phone" then, or some such; but I agree with him to the extent that accepting some megacorporation's bland assurances of "yeah it's secure" is a mistake.
Ricky Gervais caught a lot of flak for tweeting "well don't have nudes on your phone" then
Why? What sort of narcissistic twit keeps nude pictures of themself anywhere? What do they do with them, show them to their mates in the pub "hey, look at this one, you can hardly see my breast enlargement scar".
"keeps nude pictures of themself anywhere"
You're assuming they deliberately kept the pics. They could have taken them for a laugh one evening with their partner, and then deleted them immediately, but they auto-synced to iCloud before they were deleted.
If they're not tech savvy, they may not have realised the significance of their iCloud/photo stream setup. I've seen very tech-savvy people make mistakes with similar things like dropbox.
Edit: Also. Cloud storage providers will often recover deleted files for you if you ask them. Even if they're gone from the trash folder in your cloud drive. I know Box do, and it's an infuriating risk when I'm trying to keep data secure on their service.
I think we should separate the content of the pictures from the hacking.
We all have genitalia, and anyone who expected celebrity versions to be gold plated or replaced by a set of vestigial limbs is going to be disappointed. It turns out that Kate Upton's frippy is pretty similar to an ex-girlfriend of mine - ooh what a surprise!
The nature of the pictures is not what is important in this story.
Most readers of this site are experienced in (& cynical enough) of technology to not trust our most embarrassing peccadilloes to a random 3rd party repository.
Sadly rather than uplifting the general population's understanding of computing, we have dumbed down computers & devices. 20thC sci-fi novel vs. economic reality. :(
The problem with this story is that the media is going to shoot their load over the content of the pictures and everyone will ooh and aah along with the Daily Fail, before going home to ooh & aah just as scandalously with their chosen.
No doubt some idiot will suggest they shouldn't take nude pictures of themselves. Why the hell shouldn't they?
My question would be why shouldn't people be able to take pictures of themselves naked? I think that is the default state for a human and nothing anyone should be shocked, offended or ashamed of.
"No doubt some idiot will suggest they shouldn't take nude pictures of themselves. Why the hell shouldn't they?"
That's not the issue as such. The point is, don't take nude pictures of yourself IF you don't ever want anyone to see them. No problem with the pics but I, and I suspect most sensible people, have a problem with the stupid attitudes when these pics end up leaked.
...i think one of the 'Actresses' is the one who played the blue shapeshifter in 'xmen first class'....she was fairly nudish in that so why the hubbub? As far as Mr J Law is concerned, if the rumors are true then the only way we're going to see his 'GENITALIA', is if we can Re-Task the Hubble Space telescope and point it directly at the photo...the Hubble is good, but i don't know if its that good?
No. Just no.
Twitter isn't a publisher, it is a communication tool. Users can use it to direct others to content published elsewhere. Its self-imposed length restriction makes it pretty useless for actually publishing anything (and I believe the guy testing the waters by trying to register copyright on a tweet has had no luck to date).
Google Search isn't a publisher, it's...a search engine. (I'm not sure how to highlight the difference if it isn't obvious to you.)
The common point between them is that Twitter and Google themselves aren't determining the content you see - you, the user of their services, are.
This post has been deleted by its author
Doing fheir best to bury it, being their pals at apple..
Washy wording that lumps all cloud services as one.
"Experts have raised concerns over the security of "cloud" storage sites following the leak of intimate pictures of celebrities.
It is understood some of the images were obtained from services such as Apple iCloud that back up content from devices on to the internet."
You know if this were Google it be woldbe a totally different ballgame...
Given that at least one of the victims says the images were deleted long ago some these images may have been copied and kept secret for years. It seems likely to me that someone has gathered together a lot of other people 'secret store' of images. Maybe hundreds of password guesses by hundreds of different pervs some of whom struck lucky a few times over a long period of trying.
my guess in that this is less of a single huge hack that represents some huge security breach but a gathering together of the usual drip feed of unwise/unlucky celebs privacy invasion that represents poor password security.
The victims are celebs with media reputations to protect, so it is likely that at least some of them are lying when they say the pictures are fake. The victims are also celebs rather than techies, so it is likely that at least some of them are making false statements (about deletion, for example) without even being aware of it.
With all due respect to the celebs concerned, I don't think we can believe a word they say.
As has been noted, the 'celeb' stuff is tame. Amusing term 'The Fappening' though I can't imagine anyone actually fappng to them (okay, I'm being disingenuous there. The 'net is full of strange stuff people clearly do toss off to; I just can't understand it, to the point of wondering if I'm really awake). 'Celeb' stuff is always tame. I look because I just can't bring myself to deny the existence of something for the purposes of moral outrage. I want to know every aspect of the world around us, even if only to choke back the vomit having learned that is something that, okay, I know it exists, now I want to never see it again. So I downloaded a torrent.
For starters - of the ones I've seen - the only one I've heard of is Lawrence. So, 'Celeb' is an accurate description, at least in the modern age. I suppose part of me hopes to see vain, clueless, talentless types getting a degree of come-uppance, i.e. exposed for what they are in every sense - and there is some of that. But there are also collections that are tasteful and that viewing does feel like an invasion of their privacy. It is like The Fappening divides into two distinct phenomena: grown-ups expressing their love in a spirit of unashamed exploration of their human sensuality, who are self-assured enough to admit the shots are genuine - and, I'm guessing here, are genuinely talented; and silly little girls essentially 'flashing' who, having been caught out, are crying - unconvincingly - 'fake!' and - guessing here, again, who's only 'talent' is being young, reasonably good-looking and who's entire career is a consequence of standing in front of cameras for the rest of us to look at (and pay, for the privilege). I feel like I've witnessed something tawdry where the leaking of the former are concerned. As for the latter I can't help thinking 'fuck 'em!' (just not in a literal sense, as in the entire torrent, Kate Upton is the only one who meets my own, er, demanding requirements. Kelly Brook would too, but her pics weren't there).
It seems to me the ones crying 'fake!' are the ones who could be unceremoniously dumped off the gravy train for the kind of non family-friendly thing we can now see them getting up to. So its all about the money; they're calling 'fake!' before their market does.
I googled them to see who they are and one - I forget her name - is doing Justin Beiber? WTF??? I know about the appeal of bad boys - been one myself! But Beiber isn't a bad boy. Now, even as I find myself thinking, really, she deserves everything she gets, I can't help feeling sorry for her. She needs help.
I realize I'm not being entirely neutral in my analysis - but then, that's why I'm not a High Court judge!
Thank you for throwing yourself selflessly on the grenade of "looking, so the rest of us don't have to"...
"Celeb", I've long concluded, means "someone who isn't as famous as they think they are, or want to be". Genuinely famous people are called "famous", not "celebrities".
On the one hand, "vain, clueless, talentless types" are entitled to some expectation of privacy, and this kind of thing breaches it whether the photos are real or not. But on the other hand, I can't help but wonder if at least some of them aren't quite glad of the publicity - to the point, in at least a few cases, where they would've added their own photos to the collection deliberately, if they could work out how.
It seems the current best guess for the source of the images is not a single hack or security breach, but a ring of people who have been privately trading hacked images for many many years, probably using a variety of methods (brute force iCloud would have probably been involved, but I imagine most of them would have been via social engineering methods considering these people have a lot of public information to enable this kind of thing). There have been rumours around for ages regarding a 'buy in with new photos only' private ring.
This is backed up by a few accidental leaks of partial photos in various forums in the past, the fact that some of the leaked photos have been confirmed as deleted ages ago, and the wildly varying quality, naming and sources of the various images.
The person/people responsible for the actual leak has probably not been involved in the actual hacking of most of the images released, although I imagine he'll be mercilessly tracked down either by 4channers doing it 'for lulz', or the FBI.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020