GL understanding the next contract you sign then.
I don't plan on using your comprehension when I sign it, think I'll be ok
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Celebrity iCloud Accounts Compromised by Weak Passwords, Not iCloud Breach
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't plan on using your comprehension when I sign it, think I'll be ok
This is just got worse : http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/05/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photos-be-displayed-exhibition
Of course, Apple dies this breach... like how they like to deny anything. However, its probably not even a hack..
A simple password that gotten into by someone is not a really hack at all is it ? The presumption by all companies, is use good passwords. And if the user chooses not to, how is that a hack if it gets into ?
Its like saying "I'm gonna take all the door knobs of my house, but i'm still secure because the doors are pushed to shut"
Just looking at this from another view.
Of course, Apple dies this breach... like how they like to deny anything. However, its probably not even a hack..
A simple password that gotten into by someone is not a really hack at all is it ? The presumption by all companies, is use good passwords. And if the user chooses not to, how is that a hack if it gets into ?
Its like saying "I'm gonna take all the door knobs of my house, but i'm still secure because the doors are pushed to shut"
Just looking at this from another view.
TMZ has an article that says the FBI is looking into whether at least 4 of the women gave up their log in credentials because they responded to phishing emails posing as Apple. One of the oldest tricks in the book. If that turns out to be true for most, if not all the people, then Apple isn't at fault.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/04/kate-...hotos-lea-michele-jennifer-lawrence-phishing/
Plus, people on TMZ who saw the photos said the ones of Kate Upton were in a folder full of pics and videos of OTHER women so it was probably her boyfriend, Justin Verlander's account that was accessed, not hers. A girl in one of the videos actually says his name. Letting someone ELSE take porn photos of you is another mistake people make with their privacy.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/04/kate-...hotos-lea-michele-jennifer-lawrence-phishing/
Plus, people on TMZ who saw the photos said the ones of Kate Upton were in a folder full of pics and videos of OTHER women so it was probably her boyfriend, Justin Verlander's account that was accessed, not hers. A girl in one of the videos actually says his name. Letting someone ELSE take porn photos of you is another mistake people make with their privacy.
Last edited:
Not sure if you should use the word fault in that context. The criminal will always be just that, the bad guy, guilty of breaking the law. However the victim has exhibited a fault if they so willingly make mistake or an error as these woman did. They have a responsibility to protect their data and themselves and failed to do that. Their fault lies in their ignorance and irresponsible behaviors.
So how may crimes or people being hacked does it take for a someone of such a high profile to recognize putting such high value data on a third party site that they know has been hacked or can be hacked up there? What's their role in protecting themselves? Even the FTC warns people of what THEY can do to protect themselves. I think these actors own a fair share of responsibility here. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0272-how-keep-your-personal-information-secure
Not true. Fault by definition is a weakness; a lack or deficiency; to commit a mistake or an error. These actors CREATED the weakness in their own protections by
1. taking these vids/pics in the first place. Not a smart move. Especially when other people are involved.
2. by putting data they absolutely didn't want to leave their possession on a third part cloud site that they were ignorant about or had a deficiency in how it operated both T&C's and proper usage of the service. THEY made serous mistakes and errors in insuring there private data was protected.
Are they a criminal? No. Are they victims? Yes. However they are RESPONSIBLE for putting themselves in a less than protected position. As a parent, I am RESPONSIBLE for protecting my children online. At age 18 that responsibility becomes theirs. They don't get to just blame others if they are NOT RESPONSIBLE.
----------
You're correct that the victim isn't responsible for the actions of the criminal. Just the same however, NO ONE ELSE is RESPONSIBLE for the actions/poor decisions of the Victim made. That's their role in this. They were ignorant, reckless, dumb, etc...and they own that. Crimes happen everyday, but we all have a responsibility to OURSELVES to not be so ignorant, reckless & dumb with whatever it is that is valuable to us, weather that's personal property or our own security & safety.
Agree. The actors here do have a responsibility for THEIR actions. Hopefully they will learn from them.
It's not a matter if they were "asking for it" it's a matter of whether they were sufficiently responsible for their own actions that led to what happened.
To your scenario, if someone willingly moves into a well known high crime area (online world), stands out as a high value target (sexy actresses) and keep target rich valuables inside their home (nude pics/vids), knowing bad guys (hackers) are constantly after them and those valuables, then THEY (the victim) have a role to play in making those poor choices that led to them being victimized. All those actions are on them the victim.
We can agree to disagree and you can blame who you want, but let's step back and see if those same irresponsible people do the same thing again. Will be that dumb a second time?
Last edited:
I heard that the hackers got access to Miley Cyrus' iPhone and distributed/leaked scandalous pictures of Miley fully clothed and with her mouth shut.
Miley was not happy. Her lawyers will be pressing charges to anyone that distributes those pics.
Miley was not happy. Her lawyers will be pressing charges to anyone that distributes those pics.
Very good, thank you. Please, might you add a kigo?
Graham, in autumn, (5)
forty-nine and three quarters, (7)
distressed by own boobs. (5)
forty-nine and three quarters, (7)
distressed by own boobs. (5)
Sorry but the celebrities deserve everything they get when it comes to this stuff. You wanna be famous and worth millions then you will lose some of your privacy and you'll be a target for hacking. Give up the fame and fortunes and this won't happen again. Tough cookies.
Or, don't post nude pictures of yourself onto some server in a remote location where it can be hacked. I guess rich doesn't mean smart, does it? DUH?
Or, don't post nude pictures of yourself onto some server in a remote location where it can be hacked. I guess rich doesn't mean smart, does it? DUH?
How much more do we have to hear about things like this before you actually pay attention? How long has it been since there has been a month where someone famous *hasn't* been hacked in some form or another? Or do you only pay attention when there's nudity involved?
Not at all. I pay attention to any form of hacking that could potentially harm my family, friends, or myself. This is the first big celebrity hack that I have heard about in a long time. My point was that if it were "so easy" to hack, as another user claimed, then we would be hearing more about this. Not sure what's so confusing about that.
Then they shouldn't be uptight about other people seeing them.
This doesn't really make sense. Have you ever been naked in front of someone? Yes? Was your expectation that no one but that other person would see you naked? Yes?
The same is true for taking pictures of yourself, naked or otherwise. You take them to send to *one* person (presumably...), you should be able to reasonably expect it will stay that way. Yes, there's always a chance things will get out, but just because something *could* happen doesn't mean we ought to forgo doing things.
If we all thought like that none of us would ever get out of bed in the morning for fear of being hit by a car.
----------
Yup. And anyone with a lot of money deserves anything that comes to them, because if they weren't rich, people wouldn't envy them and want what they have.
Oh, wait, that's not reasonable either is it
Or, don't post nude pictures of yourself onto some server in a remote location where it can be hacked. I guess rich doesn't mean smart, does it? DUH?
Not everyone is aware that what they're taking pictures of is automatically uploaded. I'd bet 80-90% of the population doesn't really realize it. Does that make them stupid? Not necessarily. Just ignorant of something.
We all know what we know, and have our areas of interests. I suppose an ichthyologist could call me a moron for not knowing the difference between a marlin and a swordfish (a swordfish has, like, a sword, right..?) even as he unwittingly uploads his fish pictures to the cloud. Doesn't make either of us fools.
People tend to think other people stupid for not knowing about things that they themselves have interest in. Yet if they didn't focus on that particular aspect of life, they wouldn't know it, either. This isn't really part of "general knowledge."
You could argue that they should know about the tools they use, but then it could be argued that you probably couldn't name the code names or describe the pinouts of all the ICs in your iPhone, either.
Sorry but how does being naked in front of someone can even be close to sending someone a picture or video of you naked. In one case there's nothing they can do to spread or share your nakedness with someone in the other there's pretty much almost anything they can do to do that. They are certainly far from being equivalents or even similar in that sense.This doesn't really make sense. Have you ever been naked in front of someone? Yes? Was your expectation that no one but that other person would see you naked? Yes?
The same is true for taking pictures of yourself, naked or otherwise. You take them to send to *one* person (presumably...), you should be able to reasonably expect it will stay that way. Yes, there's always a chance things will get out, but just because something *could* happen doesn't mean we ought to forgo doing things.
If we all thought like that none of us would ever get out of bed in the morning for fear of being hit by a car.
----------
Yup. And anyone with a lot of money deserves anything that comes to them, because if they weren't rich, people wouldn't envy them and want what they have.
Oh, wait, that's not reasonable either is it
Not everyone is aware that what they're taking pictures of is automatically uploaded. I'd bet 80-90% of the population doesn't really realize it. Does that make them stupid? Not necessarily. Just ignorant of something.
We all know what we know, and have our areas of interests. I suppose an ichthyologist could call me a moron for not knowing the difference between a marlin and a swordfish (a swordfish has, like, a sword, right..?) even as he unwittingly uploads his fish pictures to the cloud. Doesn't make either of us fools.
People tend to think other people stupid for not knowing about things that they themselves have interest in. Yet if they didn't focus on that particular aspect of life, they wouldn't know it, either. This isn't really part of "general knowledge."
You could argue that they should know about the tools they use, but then it could be argued that you probably couldn't name the code names or describe the pinouts of all the ICs in your iPhone, either.
I agree with your first paragraph. (the implication you made) But not the 2nd. If you are sending pics thru the internet and you don't want people to see them, you have a problem. Either just in general or in what you think the internet is.
From under the MacRumors news article about the first part of the recent interview by Charlie Rose:
Neither the press release, nor Cook's discussion in that first part of the interview, struck me as dismissive there are joint investigations, not yet a conclusion.
Neither the press release, nor Cook's discussion in that first part of the interview, struck me as dismissive there are joint investigations, not yet a conclusion.
Hi there, friendly neighborhood 1Password support here
I want to point out that the article you link to was written in 2012, nearly two and a half years ago. A lot has changed since then, particularly since the article you link to discusses 1Password 3 for iOS and not the new 1Password 4 for iOS.
Absolutely none of that article applies to 1Password 4 for Mac or iOS. The entirety of the encryption side of things has changed.
When this article was published we posted a blog article about it, you can read that here:
http://blog.agilebits.com/2012/03/16/strong-security-requires-strong-passwords/
and
http://blog.agilebits.com/2012/03/30/the-abcs-of-xry-not-so-simple-passcodes/
Then we followed up with some improvements to 1Password 3 to help protect your data, the announcement was here:
http://blog.agilebits.com/2012/04/09/1password-ios-pbkdf2-goodness/
I'd suggest reading those as they talk about a lot of details in that Elcomsoft report that aren't super obvious in their report. Though, once again, none of it applies to 1Password 4.
If you have any questions I'd be happy to discuss with you or you can contact us directly via email and I'll let you discuss with our security expert who will happily explain anything you might want to know about how 1Password works from a security perspective.
Sorry. I had not checked this for a long time. Thanks for the response