Jennifer Lawrence leaks broke the internet today.

[bawksy]

One hundred percent of the blame is on the criminal. People that blame it on the cloud usage remind me of the people who blame the woman for getting raped because she was showing cleavage with the shirt she was wearing. NO idiots, she wasn't asking for it. It's still, and always will be, the rapists fault.

Stop looking at the world as so black and white. It doesn't have to be just one way or the other. Yes, it's a crime to hack people's shit. Yes, the hackers are 100% in the wrong. But an ounce of prevention, like using a strong password, goes a long way towards protecting yourself from these dickwads.

If someone breaks into your car, they're 100% in the wrong, for sure. But if you left your car unlocked with a GPS unit on the dashboard, you're still a fucking idiot. I would even say you were "asking for it", even though it in no way justifies the criminal act.

The world is not a perfect place, and no amount of education, laws, slut walks, or societal change will ever remove all the bad eggs from the population. It's up to each of us to do what we can to protect ourselves.

Pics related.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

One hundred percent of the blame is on the criminal. People that blame it on the cloud usage remind me of the people who blame the woman for getting raped because she was showing cleavage with the shirt she was wearing. NO idiots, she wasn't asking for it. It's still, and always will be, the rapists fault.

Stop looking at the world as so black and white. It doesn't have to be just one way or the other. Yes, it's a crime to hack people's shit. Yes, the hackers are 100% in the wrong. But an ounce of prevention, like using a strong password, goes a long way towards protecting yourself from these dickwads.

If someone breaks into your car, they're 100% in the wrong, for sure. But if you left your car unlocked with a GPS unit on the dashboard, you're still a fucking idiot. I would even say you were "asking for it", even though it in no way justifies the criminal act.

The world is not a perfect place, and no amount of education, laws, slut walks, or societal change will ever remove all the bad eggs from the population. It's up to each of us to do what we can to protect ourselves.

Pics related.

 

[AmberCutie]

Yes, the hackers are 100% in the wrong. But an ounce of prevention, like using a strong password, goes a long way towards protecting yourself from these dickwads.

Thanked, because this statement is true for digital security these days.

 

[MrRodry]

Leaked nude photos of Lawrence, Upton headed to art gallery

:naughty:

 

[mynameisbob84]

Do we know that they didn't use mega-super-secure-passwords? That they didn't have super-duper-elite internet security? The world is a shitty place and there's nothing wrong with using things like this as an opportunity to educate people on the importance of internet security. But if all that discussion boils down to is "they should have known better than to take nude pictures and store them online" then that accomplishes very little.

If a cam girl were to have private family photos that she had stored online hacked into and shared in Lounge, there'd probably be a fair bit of sympathy for her. And if someone were to start a thread here pointing out that they should have known better than to store those photos online and ultimately brought this on themselves, the OP probably wouldn't be met with much in the way of agreement.

So while I think stressing the importance of online security is a good thing, I can't get behind the "she should have known better" mentality in good conscience :twocents-02cents:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Do we know that they didn't use mega-super-secure-passwords? That they didn't have super-duper-elite internet security? The world is a shitty place and there's nothing wrong with using things like this as an opportunity to educate people on the importance of internet security. But if all that discussion boils down to is "they should have known better than to take nude pictures and store them online" then that accomplishes very little.

If a cam girl were to have private family photos that she had stored online hacked into and shared in Lounge, there'd probably be a fair bit of sympathy for her. And if someone were to start a thread here pointing out that they should have known better than to store those photos online and ultimately brought this on themselves, the OP probably wouldn't be met with much in the way of agreement.

So while I think stressing the importance of online security is a good thing, I can't get behind the "she should have known better" mentality in good conscience :twocents-02cents:

According to these two guys from ARS technica, and the Cofounder of Crowdstrike a cybersecurity that works with celebrities,the short answer is yes we do know they used weak passwords,and didn't use two factor authentication. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/celebrity-photo-hack-happen/

Celebrities need to be more security conscious than average person, same thing as camgirls. Celebrities actually have the means to hire a security consulting which in this day and age means cyber security also. It doesn't mean that guys who did it aren't criminals, but the amount of sympathy they should get is less cause they weren't smart.

 

[weirdbr]

According to these two guys from ARS technica, and the Cofounder of Crowdstrike a cybersecurity that works with celebrities,the short answer is yes we do know they used weak passwords,and didn't use two factor authentication. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/celebrity-photo-hack-happen/

And it has also been reported somewhere (forgot the location) that one of the possibilities that the FBI is investigating is that some of those celebs fell for phishing attacks. Which is not surprising - most people can't identify if an e-mail is coming from the real Apple/Google/Yahoo/Hotmail or from someone pretending to be that company, which is why you should never give out your password to anyone that asks for it out of the blue.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

According to these two guys from ARS technica, and the Cofounder of Crowdstrike a cybersecurity that works with celebrities,the short answer is yes we do know they used weak passwords,and didn't use two factor authentication. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/celebrity-photo-hack-happen/

Celebrities need to be more security conscious than average person, same thing as camgirls. Celebrities actually have the means to hire a security consulting which in this day and age means cyber security also. It doesn't mean that guys who did it aren't criminals, but the amount of sympathy they should get is less cause they weren't smart.

According to an article I read a day or two ago (I'd give the reference, but it's somewhere buried in my twitter feed and I'm don't think I can go back far enough to get it.), Apple's Cloud actually doesn't "enforce" their two-factor authentication anyway, by which I believe they meant that they don't actually check the second security code even if you opt in to using it. Not all of the victims were iPhone users, but some were.

As to being "smart," well first off, some people just aren't all that smart. That doesn't mean they deserve to be victimized. Your can only use the brain you were born with. Secondly, even very intelligent people who are not all that involved with computers may not be as aware of internet issues as people who are heavily involved. A very busy person who works in an entirely unrelated field probably doesn't see a lot of this stuff very often. Yes, you should be careful to the extent you're aware it's an issue and that you know how to do it, but it's not really reasonable to expect eveyone to realize what hackers are capable of. Absolutely, the word should be spread about what precautions should be taken, but ultimately, we probably need more people dedicated to defeating this stuff. Hey, at least it could mean some more jobs.

One note unrelated to the above, I would not characterize what was done in this case as a "leak." I'd call it theft and distribution with malicious inent. I think it makes a difference to say that because word usage can have a big impact on how the public perceives something. The fact that this happened to celebrities doesn't make it more of a big deal; it just makes it a bigger news story. The same and worse has be done to other people who weren't celebrities. I'd say it's time to take this seriously, even if that might mean "feeding the trolls" by giving them attention initially.

 

[Shaun__]

I wonder what people would be saying if someone had cut a hole through a wall and stolen the pictures that way? Would people be saying they should have reinforced their walls with rebar?

 

[AmberCutie]

That doesn't mean they deserve to be victimized.

I don't know why people take "man, some extra security can go a long way to avoid this sort of thing" and turn it into "they deserved it".

I don't think I've seen a single person say that directly.

 

[Misono]

One one hand, this is a disgraceful invasion of privacy. On the other hand however...

Sorry. The other hand is currently busy.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I wonder what people would be saying if someone had cut a hole through a wall and stolen the pictures that way? Would people be saying they should have reinforced their walls with rebar?

Well if 20 other celebrities had their peeping Tom photos posted on the internet using that same technique,then yes I would expect that.

I don't normal lock my house, because locking the 4 doors, isn't sufficient. I also had to close 10 windows, since it takes roughly 5 minutes (I've done a few times) to get in via a window. It is a pain in the ass to do so and it makes the house too hot. However, a couple of years ago a neighbor told me that there were two break ins on the street. Guess what for the next several months I did exactly that.

Jennifer made $34 million last year, if she had spent $10K on a security consultant and even partially followed his/her advice. No nude pictures on the internet.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

That doesn't mean they deserve to be victimized.

I don't know why people take "man, some extra security can go a long way to avoid this sort of thing" and turn it into "they deserved it".

I don't think I've seen a single person say that directly.

I was referring to "the amount of sympathy they should get is less cause they weren't smart." It's not quite "they deserved it," but it's in that general direction.

 

[Just Me]

That doesn't mean they deserve to be victimized.

I don't know why people take "man, some extra security can go a long way to avoid this sort of thing" and turn it into "they deserved it".

I don't think I've seen a single person say that directly.

I think most people mean well when they say that but it is still victim blaming.

It is no different than when people say "If she only didn't drink so much that night or didn't wear "those" clothes," she could have avoided being raped. The focus should always be on the criminal and not on what the victim could have done different to avoid a situation. You can see the change in thinking happening as rationalizations and victim blaming for rape is a lot less "normal" these days, which is a good thing.

I feel it is human nature to look for and comment on ways to avoid bad things that happened to someone else so I understand there are generally good intentions when these statements are made.

 

[bawksy]

The focus should always be on the criminal and not on what the victim could have done different to avoid a situation.

Again with the black and white. Why can't it be both?

 

[Nordling]

The focus should always be on the criminal and not on what the victim could have done different to avoid a situation.

Again with the black and white. Why can't it be both?

It's not about black and white. It's about two separate aspects of the fuck'n universe. One is about crime, the other is about prudence.

It's prudent to not leave your life savings on your front lawn in small bills.

It's a crime to steal someone's money, no matter where you find it...the fact that it was made easy does not mitigate the criminal's guilt. If you wish to discuss prudence, fine but it's a different subject.

 

[bawksy]

It's not about black and white. It's about two separate aspects of the fuck'n universe. One is about crime, the other is about prudence.

It's prudent to not leave your life savings on your front lawn in small bills.

It's a crime to steal someone's money, no matter where you find it...the fact that it was made easy does not mitigate the criminal's guilt. If you wish to discuss prudence, fine but it's a different subject.

If they're different subjects, then how come whenever you try to discuss the subject of prudence, people accuse you of blaming the victim and defending the criminal?

 

[PepperoniPiz]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brend ... -pictures/

What if the hacker had discovered a private video showing an actress or singer saying something racist or homophobic? And what if he had published that video instead of the nude ones? Would you still be outraged by his encroachment into an individual's private space, or would you congratulate him for exposing celebrity prejudice?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

That doesn't mean they deserve to be victimized.

I don't know why people take "man, some extra security can go a long way to avoid this sort of thing" and turn it into "they deserved it".

I don't think I've seen a single person say that directly.

I was referring to "the amount of sympathy they should get is less cause they weren't smart." It's not quite "they deserved it," but it's in that general direction.

Well lets review during Fappening
A 2nd brave journalist was beheaded on film, despite his mother's tearful plea for mercy
The death toll in the Ukraine war hit 2400 including many civilians. But appears there maybe a real cease fire.
The Ebola epidemic has reached a crisis stage with 2000 deaths, more than 4000 cases reported and is growing exponentially.
In Iraq ISIS, killed thousands including shooting prisoners of war typically after making the strip naked and humiliating them, stoned civilians for infractions of Sharia law. They also literally crucified (with crosses, nails etc.) and put their heads on stakes of various non-believers. A real life King Joffrey tactic.

Trigger Warning Game of Throne level ugly images. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/meast/syria-bodies-crucifixions/
In the biggest crisis of all the death toll in Syrian civil war approached 200,000, with 3 million refuges in other countries, and 6.5 million Syrians internal refuges (1/3 of the country).

So considering that on ACF and on my camgirl none of the other victims got any sympathy, and Jennifer Lawrence got plenty, you'll forgive me for not jumping on the bandwagon. #firstwoldproblems

 

[Gen]

You could always start a thread about those things if you want to talk about them. Camgirls generally don't tweet about political events, war, death because of the constantly affirmed idea that camgirls are for fun, a break from the rest of the world. It'd be hard to go from talking about the crisis in Syria to hyping people up for a cum show.

Stolen nudes are less depressing and more relatable for many of us. I wouldn't take Twitter or ACF silence as a sign that people don't care or know about other issues.

 

[Nordling]

It's not about black and white. It's about two separate aspects of the fuck'n universe. One is about crime, the other is about prudence.

It's prudent to not leave your life savings on your front lawn in small bills.

It's a crime to steal someone's money, no matter where you find it...the fact that it was made easy does not mitigate the criminal's guilt. If you wish to discuss prudence, fine but it's a different subject.

If they're different subjects, then how come whenever you try to discuss the subject of prudence, people accuse you of blaming the victim and defending the criminal?

Maybe if you brought up the topic of prudence afresh, and not in the context of a current crime?

 

[zippypinhead]

People like to talk about how stuff like this isn't important, how it's simple distraction, and other things, more important things like death and mayhem should be in our constant focus. I disagree. In the U.S., entertainment is a massive industry, representing half a trillion dollars in annual trade. Movies and music alone equal about fifty billion dollars in export revenues. Economically, in the U.S., entertainment is massively important, and events that have an effect on the industry cannot be ignored.

Jennifer Lawrence's bare tits might seem trivial on the surface, but really, it's an event that has had an effect on the industry. We have to remember that, despite all this talk about her humanity, to the industry, she's also a resource and an investment. She didn't just spring up one day and accidentally become America's Sweetheart -- one of the most exclusive and coveted unofficial titles that a person could aspire to in entertainment. She's been part of the entertainment machine since she was a teenager. Over the last near-decade, millions and millions of dollars have been spent grooming her and cultivating her image into what it is today. It's telling that a dozen or more stars have had their photos leaked at this point, but really the only person people seem intent to talk about is "JLaw" (so cool, she gets a shorthand nickname!) She's the big fish. She's the one that counts. A compromise of her finely-tuned image is a compromise of a major investment within an incredibly lucrative and powerful industry.

We'd like to smugly believe that this shit doesn't matter, but in America, money and fame matter. I mean, just look at all the discussion this has sparked. You think it doesn't matter? Then how come we can't shut up about it?

 

[Nordling]

People like to talk about how stuff like this isn't important, how it's simple distraction, and other things, more important things like death and mayhem should be in our constant focus. I disagree. In the U.S., entertainment is a massive industry, representing half a trillion dollars in annual trade. Movies and music alone equal about fifty billion dollars in export revenues. Economically, in the U.S., entertainment is massively important, and events that have an effect on the industry cannot be ignored.

Jennifer Lawrence's bare tits might seem trivial on the surface, but really, it's an event that has had an effect on the industry. We have to remember that, despite all this talk about her humanity, to the industry, she's also a resource and an investment. She didn't just spring up one day and accidentally become America's Sweetheart -- one of the most exclusive and coveted unofficial titles that a person could aspire to in entertainment. She's been part of the entertainment machine since she was a teenager. Over the last near-decade, millions and millions of dollars have been spent grooming her and cultivating her image into what it is today. It's telling that a dozen or more stars have had their photos leaked at this point, but really the only person people seem intent to talk about is "JLaw" (so cool, she gets a shorthand nickname!) She's the big fish. She's the one that counts. A compromise of her finely-tuned image is a compromise of a major investment within an incredibly lucrative and powerful industry.

We'd like to smugly believe that this shit doesn't matter, but in America, money and fame matter. I mean, just look at all the discussion this has sparked. You think it doesn't matter? Then how come we can't shut up about it?

Because people prefer the trivial over the really important?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

People like to talk about how stuff like this isn't important, how it's simple distraction, and other things, more important things like death and mayhem should be in our constant focus. I disagree. In the U.S., entertainment is a massive industry, representing half a trillion dollars in annual trade. Movies and music alone equal about fifty billion dollars in export revenues. Economically, in the U.S., entertainment is massively important, and events that have an effect on the industry cannot be ignored.

Jennifer Lawrence's bare tits might seem trivial on the surface, but really, it's an event that has had an effect on the industry. We have to remember that, despite all this talk about her humanity, to the industry, she's also a resource and an investment. She didn't just spring up one day and accidentally become America's Sweetheart -- one of the most exclusive and coveted unofficial titles that a person could aspire to in entertainment. She's been part of the entertainment machine since she was a teenager. Over the last near-decade, millions and millions of dollars have been spent grooming her and cultivating her image into what it is today. It's telling that a dozen or more stars have had their photos leaked at this point, but really the only person people seem intent to talk about is "JLaw" (so cool, she gets a shorthand nickname!) She's the big fish. She's the one that counts. A compromise of her finely-tuned image is a compromise of a major investment within an incredibly lucrative and powerful industry.

We'd like to smugly believe that this shit doesn't matter, but in America, money and fame matter. I mean, just look at all the discussion this has sparked. You think it doesn't matter? Then how come we can't shut up about it?

Because people prefer the trivial over the really important?

Yup exactly.

Partly cause I like to look at naked pretty girls, but mostly cause I thought it actually demonstrated a significant security hole in Apple's and Google's cloud services. It didn't, so I lost interest. I honestly don't think it hurt her or the various studios financially. Her first nude role might be worth less, but the publicity is good. I am sure she feels violated, but in the global scheme of things it is just hard for me to get worked up over it.

 

[zippypinhead]

Simple awareness is not a virtue. I'm aware of all this "important" shit that's going down in the world, and boy does it all suck, to be sure. But what does being aware of all the death and mayhem going on around the world really get me, aside from a constant, underlying sense of general anxiety? All these death tolls? My existence has absolutely no effect on those numbers, whatsoever. And, if we're being honest about things, those numbers have absolutely no effect on my day-to-day life, either, whether or not I'm aware of who and how many people were horribly killed or maimed that day. Talk about pornography. That gruesome shit is as pornographic as anything else. Some people call it important, I call it misery porn. We all have our ways of getting off, I guess. Personally, I prefer nipples to beheadings.

 

[weirdbr]

If they're different subjects, then how come whenever you try to discuss the subject of prudence, people accuse you of blaming the victim and defending the criminal?

You have to be careful when talking about prudence, specially in a situation like this where there's a very fine line between victim-blaming and talking about being prudent.

People like to talk about how stuff like this isn't important, how it's simple distraction, and other things, more important things like death and mayhem should be in our constant focus. I disagree. In the U.S., entertainment is a massive industry, representing half a trillion dollars in annual trade. Movies and music alone equal about fifty billion dollars in export revenues. Economically, in the U.S., entertainment is massively important, and events that have an effect on the industry cannot be ignored.

Personally this is really important to me (and should be for everyone else) mostly because of the repercussions around privacy and security of personal data (regardless of type of data - be it financial, health, clothed or unclothed selfies, etc) on the cloud. It's inevitable that sooner or later local data storage will become the exception rather than the norm and the way that cloud companies are behaving is not ideal..

For example, Apple insists that it was a targeted attack (sure, it was), but still the way they have implemented their security controls has only helped those attacks be successful:
- their systems return different results for 'this account doesnt exist at all' and 'this account exists but you used the wrong password';
- their systems had no rate limiting for failed authentication attempts;
- their systems support two-factor authentication.. But even when it is enabled, it's not enforced on all cases.

And the worst part of all - their Terms of Service (like any company's) pretty much protects them from lawsuits related to all those faults, unless you can convince a judge that your data being stolen was facilitated by their actions (or inaction) and that the company failed their part of the Terms of Service due to that (which is a high standard to prove - most judges have no idea about technology.. I only know one US judge that understands the problem [the one that presided the Sun Microsystems vs Google case related to Java] and that's because he studied a bit of coding/computer science on the side)

 

[Nordling]

Simple awareness is not a virtue. I'm aware of all this "important" shit that's going down in the world, and boy does it all suck, to be sure. But what does being aware of all the death and mayhem going on around the world really get me, aside from a constant, underlying sense of general anxiety? All these death tolls? My existence has absolutely no effect on those numbers, whatsoever. And, if we're being honest about things, those numbers have absolutely no effect on my day-to-day life, either, whether or not I'm aware of who and how many people were horribly killed or maimed that day. Talk about pornography. That gruesome shit is as pornographic as anything else. Some people call it important, I call it misery porn. We all have our ways of getting off, I guess. Personally, I prefer nipples to beheadings.

Agree, I prefer nipples to beheadings too. But beheadings are also not the only important things. So is the updated Cosmos, the TV miniseries with the most wonderful Dr. Tyson. So is climate change. So is a really great book, movie or play. While viewing a passing star's nipple may be a great way to spend a day, is it really all that important in the total scheme of things? That such diversions exist, I will admit is very important. Life would suck if everything was serious, and nothing rattled our prurient side a bit in our day to day lives. Scandal is fun! Rumors too! But one particular star having her nipple displayed will not bring down the economy.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Personally this is really important to me (and should be for everyone else) mostly because of the repercussions around privacy and security of personal data (regardless of type of data - be it financial, health, clothed or unclothed selfies, etc) on the cloud. It's inevitable that sooner or later local data storage will become the exception rather than the norm and the way that cloud companies are behaving is not ideal..

For example, Apple insists that it was a targeted attack (sure, it was), but still the way they have implemented their security controls has only helped those attacks be successful:
- their systems return different results for 'this account doesnt exist at all' and 'this account exists but you used the wrong password';
- their systems had no rate limiting for failed authentication attempts;
- their systems support two-factor authentication.. But even when it is enabled, it's not enforced on all cases.

And the worst part of all - their Terms of Service (like any company's) pretty much protects them from lawsuits related to all those faults, unless you can convince a judge that your data being stolen was facilitated by their actions (or inaction) and that the company failed their part of the Terms of Service due to that (which is a high standard to prove - most judges have no idea about technology.. I only know one US judge that understands the problem [the one that presided the Sun Microsystems vs Google case related to Java] and that's because he studied a bit of coding/computer science on the side)

It is of only modest important to me, I've accepted that you have no privacy on the internet and got over long ago.. Apple fixed the unlimited attempts (there I times I need 10 times to get the right combo of user name and password) so only have 5 shots before being locked out is concerning to me. There is no evidence that any of the celebrities use 2 factor authentication. My preference is not to use 2 factor other than for financial information. Now if was a celeb with nudes on the cloud I'd have a different view probably. Most of us pay either nothing or very nominal amounts for cloud stoage so it unreasonable to expect the companies to assume any liability. Try sue a bank if the contents of your safety deposit box are stolen.

I think the only lesson learned was use strong passwords, and if you are person who has high visibility than take additional security

Oh and we also learned that celebs have nice boobs and other body parts.

 

[weirdbr]

It is of only modest important to me, I've accepted that you have no privacy on the internet and got over long ago..

Well, one thing is privacy on social networks and browsing/advertising (which seems to be going very much towards the 'no privacy at all' side of things, thanks to rich white guys who believe they have nothing to hide making the choices *cough*google plus*cough* or just horrible privacy controls *cough*facebook*cough*) and the other is privacy of 'non-social' personal data, such as medical/financial (the obvious ones) and anything else that you or I want to be private. And even on the former case where it might seem that the fight is lost, it's only because people haven't fought against it for a while, but the trend is slowly reversing (see all the complaints that the EU privacy agencies are handling now).

Apple fixed the unlimited attempts (there I times I need 10 times to get the right combo of user name and password) so only have 5 shots before being locked out is concerning to me. There is no evidence that any of the celebrities use 2 factor authentication. My preference is not to use 2 factor other than for financial information. Now if was a celeb with nudes on the cloud I'd have a different view probably. Most of us pay either nothing or very nominal amounts for cloud stoage so it unreasonable to expect the companies to assume any liability. Try sue a bank if the contents of your safety deposit box are stolen.

If Apple went for the 'too many attempts = locked out' approach, they have done it badly, again. All you need to do is slow down the attacker enough to make the cost of the attack too high, for example by requiring a captcha after 5 invalid attempts. Sure, you can use a computer to try to solve the captcha (or use the low-tech approach of hiring an army of people from India/Africa/China to solve the captchas for a very low price per captcha), but then an attack that was 'free' from the monetary point of view suddenly has a cost either in money or in more time. And while it might annoy a real user like yourself that might need multiple attempts to remember the password, it doesn't slow you down much - you probably would spend some time anyway thinking of which password to try next..

Now, in terms of how two-factor authentication should be done to be useful and not annoying:
- if you are authenticating with a device that you haven't used before (new laptop, new browser, new phone, whatever) - you must provide a 2 factor authentication code. For really critical cases (like banks and systems that store medical data), it should always require the 2 factor code; for others, they should allow you to say 'trust this device/browser/computer because it really is mine!' (Google phrases it as 'dont ask me for another code for this device for another 30 days' IIRC. When those 30 days pass, it just asks you for the password and code again)
- if you get locked out, it should prefer to unlock you via the use of the two-factor authentication module *on top of something else*.. Like getting you to answer your security questions and giving a valid two factor code. That way, it still requires the 'what you know' part and the 'what you have'.

I think the only lesson learned was use strong passwords, and if you are person who has high visibility than take additional security

The thing is - you never know that you might have higher visibility/desirability to be hacked. Did you know that just for being a system administrator you can be targeted, not by random hackers, but by governments? I knew the chinese did that, but not that the US and UK did it too (thanks Snowden for making me aware I might be a target just thanks for my profession... Hi Mr/Ms NSA agent that might be reading this :angry4: )

 

[SoftMochi]

There's actually a really refreshing thread about this on reddit right now.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrollXChromosomes/comments/2f40xb/scumbag_reddit_jlaw_scandal_edition/

It kind of makes me sad that people don't feel bad about it. Is it just because she's a celebrity? What if it was your sister, cousin, or best friend who had her PRIVATE PERSONAL nude pictures leaked to the ENTIRE INTERNET against her will by some turd who was making money off of them. I bet a lot of people would feel differently about it then.

I feel like some people are subconsciously more bitter towards celebrities than they are towards 'normal people', because they feel like celebrities are so lucky and lead such seemingly amazing lives altogether, it won't hurt them as much.
As in, 'she makes millions per year, so it's not that bad'.
I can kind of understand where they're coming from when some multi-millionaire socialite/actress has her $1000 handbag stolen. It doesn't hurt her as much as it would hurt someone who's saved for years to buy it. But you obviously can't apply that logic to getting your nudes leaked. That's bound to be a cripplingly embarrassing situation for ANYONE who's not a sex worker, no matter if they're rich and famous or not, along with the added knowledge that no one will ever forget this.
When things like this happen to a normal college girl, you can bet that in a couple of years, no one in her close environment will talk about it anymore. People will just let it go eventually, the photos might even get lost. Whereas for someone like Jennifer Lawrence (or Ariana Grande, or Victoria Justice, or Mary Elizabeth Winstead, ...) people will likely still occasionally be bringing these pictures up 10 years from now, on IMDB or celeb gossip sites and such, in case these women are still somewhat relevant then. And I'm predicting a great career for Jennifer. So she won't ever get rid of this topic completely. People won't stop talking about her nudes, and sharing them, until her career is over.

So when someone on reddit goes "lol yeah I bet she's crying herself to sleep, rolling around in her millions" I can't see the logic anywhere in there. How does her money make what happened any more acceptable or any easier for here -.-
But yeah, I think that's the reason people think it's OK. :/

The reddit thread Noelle linked to has some great comments by the way.

Not surprising to see how people would apply that logic if it’s the only thing that makes sense to them

Since JL can swim in her bank account, it means buying a brand new private jet solves whatever embarrassment, anger, stress, and grief that came with her scandal. Seems like tunnel vision see’s the wealthy as immune to emotional distress since “money cures all woes,” when that’s far from the case. The Robin Williams suicide was a big indicator of that, yet some insensitive people stated how they couldn’t feel any remorse for him.

While no one hasta feel sorry for Lawrence from a financial standpoint, people can still feel bad for her as a person. People need to get it out of their heads that the rich should no longer qualify for compassion after suffering through a mishap.

I LOVE Jennifer Lawrence and it's unfortunately that this occurred to her. I hope she can find a way to overcome this. The FBI is on this case. I think those who truly admired her and her work won't have an altered/negative impression of her.