Celebs iClouds hacked

1151618202130

Comments

  • gold2040gold2040 Posts: 3,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Here's hoping the leaker is in Kazakhstan somewhere

    Life in ADX awaits him
  • couchpotato2011couchpotato2011 Posts: 1,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gold2040 wrote: »
    Here's hoping the leaker is in Kazakhstan somewhere

    Life in ADX awaits him

    Apparently it's not one person but a whole host of them. It could take a very long time to track them all down, if at all.
  • SambdaSambda Posts: 6,185
    Forum Member
    CRM wrote: »
    Funny how nature disagrees with you.

    Presuming, if you are male, you have a full beard. Also presuming, whether male or female, you have head hair down to your waist. If female, you've never worn make-up. And I do hope you never cut your nails, and walk around naked and don't wear deodorant.

    If no? Funny how nature disagrees with you.
  • CRMCRM Posts: 11,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Damn, that Kate Upton is a very well put together young woman... Not that I've been studying the pics or anything.

    :blush:
    She has a weird body. Not for me.
  • CRMCRM Posts: 11,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sambda wrote: »
    Presuming, if you are male, you have a full beard. Also presuming, whether male or female, you have head hair down to your waist. If female, you've never worn make-up. And I do hope you never cut your nails, and walk around naked and don't wear deodorant.

    If no? Funny how nature disagrees with you.
    Yawn. You do know there's a good reason why we have pubic hair? Maybe you'll realise this when you grow up.
  • alanwarwicalanwarwic Posts: 28,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    This is why cloud services are risky. ..
    Indeed, and it dos not help that too many users are encouraged to be clueless.
    They unlikely knew the risks, everything being nothing but rosy in that particular garden.

    I have known many a data server going 'tits up' and serving up wrong data.
    As a user I have even had a large transport company randomly serving me other customers real data and travel history instead of mine.
  • SambdaSambda Posts: 6,185
    Forum Member
    CRM wrote: »
    Yawn. You do know there's a good reason why we have pubic hair? Maybe you'll realise this when you grow up.

    Yawn. What's that got to do with an inexpert attempt to remove it (especially since this includes overflow from the area where most women might consider it tolerable i.e. visible even in a normal swimsuit)? Ms JBF obviously disagrees with you, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to remove it in the first place. If you're going to do a job, do it well.
  • CRMCRM Posts: 11,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sambda wrote: »
    Yawn. What's that got to do with an inexpert attempt to remove it (especially since this includes overflow from the area where most women might consider it tolerable i.e. visible even in a normal swimsuit)? Ms JBF obviously disagrees with you, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to remove it in the first place. If you're going to do a job, do it well.
    You have way too much time on your hands to ponder over issues like this. Maybe start up a course on Pubic Hair Maintenance? :)
  • fefsterfefster Posts: 7,388
    Forum Member
    dizzie wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure that's the answer to everything! I'm sure Becca Tobin, barely a month after losing her long term boyfriend to a tragic early death (unexplained, NON-drug/alcohol related, heart attack) is just fine, because she just also lost her job on Glee - in which she was a minor supporting character - because the show changed direction. So, hey, finding that private photos of her have been stolen should just be gravy, because she earns a little bit more than the average income. She's not JLaw, she's not raking in millions, but she should just 'get over it' right? Jennifer Lawrence is also, according to you, not entitled to any sense of violation or allowed to be upset - because she's rich? Yes, that's how it works! [sarcasm]

    Here's the real deal, erotic photographic and pornography have existed for as long as the mediums have. Seriously, Victorian explicit photos were a thing - they just didn't have ways of mass distribution! They cater (mostly) to men, who are the sex most receptive to visual imagery. These women, who are the victims of the hacker, will rarely have been taking these photos just for themselves. Many will have been in committed, exclusive relationships, and those pics/videos simply form part of a normal, healthy sexual relationship.

    The reason everyone is blaming the women for the photos is simple - misogyny. Men will not accept responsibility for this, even if (as I suspect) some of the photos didn't actually come from female-owned phones. It's telling that not a single male celebrity has been targeted in this way. There's been surveys done that prove the majority of all sexual images sent by phone are from men, who are posting nude selfies of themselves in vast numbers. Tell me why this hacker - who must have trawled through many, many celeb owned phone records - didn't locate and use celeb male nude images? Of course - because people wouldn't be quite as outraged. They would, instead, laugh and poke fun, but the inference would be that the guy wasn't terminally damaged by the existence of such photos, and he'd most likely be lauded as a 'stud', if there was graphic proof of a sex life.

    The whole situation is disgusting - only because peoples' attitudes to these women, who are body-confident, sex-positive and trust that they can indulge in a (quite frankly) harmless aspect of sex by documenting it, have had privacy stolen from them in a completely appalling way. I hope they find the bastard (and I guarantee this isn't a woman!) and prosecute to the strongest degree possible. it sounds like there is an ongoing thing with this person trying to shop additional images for huge sums of money. Hopefully, that greed will lead to ways to trace them.

    Well said! You are a hero.

    I should say though, that these celebs were:

    1. Blameless victims

    And

    2. Totally stupid and vain

    The two things are not mutually exclusive.
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Apple is actively investigating as opposed to 'sitting on their arses and waiting till it goes away' I guess.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    IvanIV wrote: »
    Apple is actively investigating as opposed to 'sitting on their arses and waiting till it goes away' I guess.

    They're probably only doing it for their own benefit really because this sort of security breach will harm them as a brand and damage confidence in whether or not their service really is secure.

    They can't risk a mass migration of customers to Android or Windows really - I suspect legal action from the affected celebrities is a lot further down the list of priorities.
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We'll see a lot of PR bullshit flying in all directions, but I think regardless of what actually happened some mud is going to land on them anyway. It's iCloud where it happened, not OneDrive or Google WhateverTheyHave. One could avert most of such attacks with 2 step login, I think we'll see Apple pushing it more strongly on their customers.
  • Rich_LRich_L Posts: 6,110
    Forum Member
    Waiting for Apple to try and find some way to sue Samsung in all of this ;)
  • tony-wtony-w Posts: 487
    Forum Member
    Rich_L wrote: »
    Waiting for Apple to try and find some way to sue Samsung in all of this ;)

    Well they could have been using Samsung drives in a RAID array on the server....
    I have no sympathy for the 'celebs' in this media distraction of a story.
    If you fail to RTFM and your phone is syncing to iCloud then you have no one to blame but yourselves.
    Another reason to avoid Apple products like the plague!
  • gulliverfoylegulliverfoyle Posts: 6,318
    Forum Member
    Tip for everyone

    buy a phone with a sdcard
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tip for everyone

    buy a phone with a sdcard

    what if someone steals the sdcard and uploads the pictures ?

    who's fault is it then ?
  • JackappleJackapple Posts: 854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I dont get why you'd want to take a photo of your face covered in muck anyway, thats the first thing, the second is, like's been said already, buy a feckin SD card at least that cant be hacked!
  • gulliverfoylegulliverfoyle Posts: 6,318
    Forum Member
    what if someone steals the sdcard and uploads the pictures ?

    who's fault is it then ?

    you misunderstand im not blaming the victim

    in a ideal world we could not have locks on the doors of our houses, but we dont live in a ideal world.

    its about access, if you put your data on the cloud then its open to others to get at from anywhere in the world with internet access

    if its on a sdcard then they need physical access so unless someone knocks you on the head or you lose it they dont.

    and if you enable encryption on the sdcard its extremely hard to access
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dizzie wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure that's the answer to everything! I'm sure Becca Tobin, barely a month after losing her long term boyfriend to a tragic early death (unexplained, NON-drug/alcohol related, heart attack) is just fine, because she just also lost her job on Glee - in which she was a minor supporting character - because the show changed direction. So, hey, finding that private photos of her have been stolen should just be gravy, because she earns a little bit more than the average income. She's not JLaw, she's not raking in millions, but she should just 'get over it' right? Jennifer Lawrence is also, according to you, not entitled to any sense of violation or allowed to be upset - because she's rich? Yes, that's how it works! [sarcasm]

    Here's the real deal, erotic photographic and pornography have existed for as long as the mediums have. Seriously, Victorian explicit photos were a thing - they just didn't have ways of mass distribution! They cater (mostly) to men, who are the sex most receptive to visual imagery. These women, who are the victims of the hacker, will rarely have been taking these photos just for themselves. Many will have been in committed, exclusive relationships, and those pics/videos simply form part of a normal, healthy sexual relationship.

    The reason everyone is blaming the women for the photos is simple - misogyny. Men will not accept responsibility for this, even if (as I suspect) some of the photos didn't actually come from female-owned phones. It's telling that not a single male celebrity has been targeted in this way. There's been surveys done that prove the majority of all sexual images sent by phone are from men, who are posting nude selfies of themselves in vast numbers. Tell me why this hacker - who must have trawled through many, many celeb owned phone records - didn't locate and use celeb male nude images? Of course - because people wouldn't be quite as outraged. They would, instead, laugh and poke fun, but the inference would be that the guy wasn't terminally damaged by the existence of such photos, and he'd most likely be lauded as a 'stud', if there was graphic proof of a sex life.

    The whole situation is disgusting - only because peoples' attitudes to these women, who are body-confident, sex-positive and trust that they can indulge in a (quite frankly) harmless aspect of sex by documenting it, have had privacy stolen from them in a completely appalling way. I hope they find the bastard (and I guarantee this isn't a woman!) and prosecute to the strongest degree possible. it sounds like there is an ongoing thing with this person trying to shop additional images for huge sums of money. Hopefully, that greed will lead to ways to trace them.

    Absolute rubbish! I'm beginning to think that you hate men. If celebrities want to take raunchy photos of themselves, fine. They need to make sure that the image stays on the device after they've taken the photo and not uploaded to a cloud service.
  • SirMickTravisSirMickTravis Posts: 2,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    Absolute rubbish! I'm beginning to think that you hate men. If celebrities want to take raunchy photos of themselves, fine. They need to make sure that the image stays on the device after they've taken the photo and not uploaded to a cloud service.

    But they were still hacked. If someone had intimate photos f themselves in their house and these were stolen, would you have sympathy? Or would you just say that it was their own fault because the photos were lying around and the house wasn't as secure as it might have been?
  • dizziedizzie Posts: 4,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    you misunderstand im not blaming the victim

    in a ideal world we could not have locks on the doors of our houses, but we dont live in a ideal world.

    its about access, if you put your data on the cloud then its open to others to get at from anywhere in the world with internet access

    if its on a sdcard then they need physical access so unless someone knocks you on the head or you lose it they dont.

    and if you enable encryption on the sdcard its extremely hard to access
    All those data safety tips are useful and absolutely the thing to do if you wish to eliminate, almost entirely, the risk of a 'non-contact theft'. The thing is, everyone has some aspect of their online life that isn't secured to the absolute maximum - whether it's a choice they make, or it's something they have to live with in order to use that particular service/function. The analogy with the locks on our houses is useful - everyone has locks, do you know anyone who lives in a property that doesn't?! But, some people have burglar alarms, security cameras, motion detector lights and steel reinforced doors! Some people have a Yale lock, and a Neighbourhood Watch sticker! Do we blame the people who have more basic locks on their doors if they are the victims of a burglary, and do we say their loss of possessions was entirely their own fault? No, because we also live in a world where victims of crime are just that and the people who broke into their house are the criminals. Lots of people are overcautious and perhaps that's the way it should be, but let's not berate and blame those people who took the standard security levels of a device, and made slightly naive assumptions about it's effectiveness.

    A crime has been committed here - and everyone is just a little bit wiser today than they were before this happened. But it is NOT the fault of the people who had private things stolen from them. BTW, that's the other thing that's really pissing me off about this - almost every report about this issue has used the phrase 'leaked photos' in their headline, or in discussing it. They're not leaked, they're stolen. But, in using that word, they are insidiously implying that the celeb was some kind of willing participant in assisting the hacker to reveal their intimate photos. Calling it a leak - and we all know what celeb leaks are actually like - removes some of the criminal element from this case, and that should not be done, at all. At least the FBI are now starting an investigation - and the press, when talking about their participation, are now starting to frame articles around the 'crime' words. That should have happened from the start.
    Absolute rubbish! I'm beginning to think that you hate men. If celebrities want to take raunchy photos of themselves, fine. They need to make sure that the image stays on the device after they've taken the photo and not uploaded to a cloud service.
    Really? Pointing out the sheer number of female victims of this crime, and how it's being perceived by the public, and you automatically think 'oh, man haters'! I suspect that simply using the word 'misogyny' in my post is some kind of red flag to certain types - it certainly did for you! If this was a list of 101 male celebrities, I absolutely guarantee that the past dozen pages of condemnations about these women's preferred sexual practices, choice of partners and (FFS!) pubic hair grooming would NEVER have happened. That, I'm afraid, is misogyny. Not nice to be pointed out, but you should still hear it!
  • dazbdazb Posts: 3,247
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The way i see things the people who hacked these celebs might as well release what they have after all the FBI are onto it now either way whats the point in holding onto what you have.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dazb wrote: »
    The way i see things the people who hacked these celebs might as well release what they have after all the FBI are onto it now either way whats the point in holding onto what you have.

    The FBI? Doesn't the USA have more important things to worry about than some pictures being stolen?
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But they were still hacked. If someone had intimate photos f themselves in their house and these were stolen, would you have sympathy? Or would you just say that it was their own fault because the photos were lying around and the house wasn't as secure as it might have been?

    If they had kept the images on their home computer, that would have been better.
  • clonmultclonmult Posts: 3,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    you misunderstand im not blaming the victim

    in a ideal world we could not have locks on the doors of our houses, but we dont live in a ideal world.

    its about access, if you put your data on the cloud then its open to others to get at from anywhere in the world with internet access

    if its on a sdcard then they need physical access so unless someone knocks you on the head or you lose it they dont.

    and if you enable encryption on the sdcard its extremely hard to access

    That is a very simplistic view.

    For a starter, if you have an iPhone (nothing wrong in that) an SD card isn't an option. You'd have to connect to your PC (assuming you have one) in order to backup images.

    And of course SD cards have been known to become corrupt and lose data - you'd still want another level of backup if the pictures are important to you.

    iCloud or some form of cloud based backup makes total sense. A friend made a mistake of not having her pictures backed up and her iPhone went seriously screwy and lost everything. If it had been backed up in the cloud, then she wouldn't have lost anything.

    Until we know the precise details of the hack, if there was a security flaw discovered in iCloud, or if it was a "simple" social engineering hack most of the talk flying around about these pictures is useless speculation.

    For my own pictures, I just use my PC as backup. Never use private cloud storage. Closest is whatsapp, and I've had ex's send me pictures - so there's a probability that whatsapp has those stored somewhere .... but they aren't celebs so aren't likely to be targeted. Any copies I had have long since been truly deleted.

    And having recently had Facebook delete a whole album (same thing has afflicted thousands of other users), I'm thankful for not relying on any form of cloud storage.
Sign In or Register to comment.