“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
The most trolliest sites ever made in the history of mankind. Pretty much up there with reddit.
These sites are the ones people go to to have their brain cells fried.
The "hackers" themselves weren't even that smart. A glitch on Apple's part simply allowed them to try as many times to get the password as they want (normally the account locks after X tries).
Sorry about that little aside, it was just in case people here didn't know what these sites were.
As for the OP...
Lawrence, upton, rafael, etc. are all morons for:
#1 having nude photos in the first place (what's the point?)
#2 putting said photos on any kind of internet storage (you got looks, but clearly no brains)
#3 whining that this happened
-----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is
Admittedly, as I ALREADY SAID, a lot of my musing and expression of my thoughts on this is based off other things I've read be it on my facebook feed, articles, or other forums.
One particular person I was dealing with on another forum (and likely shaped some of my heated response here) who said not a peep about the privacy issues of the sterling case but whose suggested this "invasion of privacy" is a "non-consexual form of sexual violence" ala rape. An "invasion of privacy" that should make us "terrified". That "privacy is everything" and that it's "repulsive" that people seem to not be bothered by this because "women are hot so it's okay". That anyone seeking out these pictures in any way are "engaging in violence against a womans body". That this invasion of privacy is an act of "psychic violence which constitues a form of assault".
If this is one's views on "privacy" in this issue, and your views on "privacy" on the Sterling issue were "that's too bad, but..." at best, then I call "bull****" on the notion that your care is about "privacy" and not something else. This isn't like stubbing your toe in both cases, but one you fall down the stairs. This is like stubbing your toe in both situations, but one you fall down the stairs and say next to nothing about the toe and in the other you act like you just got sliced in half from your toe to the tip of your head with a long serated knife.
And this persons responses and attitudes hasn't been that much off base with some of the random comments I've seen on my facebook feeds or some of the various articles headlines and excerpts I've seen linked about this.
The disconnect between this and the sterling case, when one is simply going on about "privacy", is the width of the grand canyon which is why I roll my eyes at the screams of some about "privacy" when it's crystal clear and transparent that they give two ****s about privacy from a principled level, but rather they believe privacy should exist on things they morally don't have an issue with and could care less about it on things they morally do.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
This is all rather amusing. We ignore hacking going on daily that affects peoples finances and lives. Some people even CELEBRATE certain groups of hackers...especially if they can 'stick it to da man!'. But we are supposed to be outraged because a hacker found their way into nude photos and videos of 'starlets'?
Does anyone NOT know by now that EVERYTHING you put on your phone or computer (if said device is connected in any way to the network) is visible and in fact fair game?