Celebrities File Lawsuit Against Google for Nude Picture Leaks
In retrospect of the ongoing celebrity nudie leak I'd like to know why the company who authored the alleged software the hackers were using - Elcomsoft Phone Password Breaker, EPPB (allegedly used regularly by law enforcement http://tinyurl.com/pmzf78r) is not being sued for allowing the software to be publicly accessed for questionable motives? Right, it was evidently written by a Russian firm.
How can Google be expected to comply with such a massive takedown notice? Why is Reddit not being named in the spread of these images accross the web? Might be too soon to say that, but it seems they should have been named first. I'd like to hope it is not been named in suit due to ongoing investigations by law enforcement.
Why would it not be locked down with a 256-bit (enter techie-propeller-speak here) uber-digit key and signed authority certificate before being abused so easily?
Not only Apple or Google, but ANY company offering cloud storage should do a much better job of educating it's ecosystem users of the value of solid password generation and management: http://ars.to/10uz7VE
Seems this might be abused more than publicized based upon the fact any law enforcement officers with access to this type of software would be prone to abuse. I doubt there is a prompt for a warrant ID or court authorizing code that is creating a pathway for oversight. Thinking back to the suburban Philly school district remotely enabling iSight cameras on student's Macs in 2010 - http://bit.ly/Jl6YKC if the admin was required to enter some sort of code to enable this activity, the code would log the user and client info and be tracked and reviewed by someone with oversight authority.
How many users since iPhone 6 was released (over 10,000,000 per the PR reports) have clicked through the setup wizard and made mistakes with the security on their new shiny iCloud due to inexperience? Adding a Tips app to the OS is a start but there really should be more emphasis on security outside of enabling TouchID or forcing two-step authentication which is still opt in at this point.
The cloud provider is providing the "superhighway" and users need to be more educated before getting in the vehicles traveling upon this "superhighway."
Are the celebrities innocent? I think not, we must be held accountable for our personal decisions. I think the lawsuit is brought out of (family) shame and embarrassment, "someone has to pay for this." Celebrities are way easy targets, they live in "public" and they tweet photo of "Chickie the dog," inadvertently revealing possible password reset security answers. Why could they not take naked selfies the old fashion way? Using a Polaroid and placing them in a locking metal box under the bed with the 'toys' like our parents did?
Interesting to note only female celebs were exposed. Not many 15 year olds in their parent's basements are proactively efforting toward accessing iCloud backup pictures of Tom Cruise's junk.
So today we read about law enforcement having 'discussions' with Apple and Google over encryption of our data on our devices. http://ars.to/1rHL88e and as long as the web speeds are fast and they do not pass laws like SOPA, we allow it to continue. "Who watches the Watchmen?" By creating the back door, providers risk access by those who do us harm in the name of those who want to protect. Who will be held accountable for the access by those who watch and prevent the ocasional abuse? But is not a warrantless search the worst abuse of all in our Republic?
When will we assert domain over our digital lives and privacy? How can we win the battle when the government uses big guns to force providers into compliance with their motives - http://tinyurl.com/k7q93oh Whether real or imagined threats, abuse will occur even with some sort of oversight. But considering the speeds in which the technology evolves, there is little time for oversight as the powers that be are slow to understand many of the concepts of said information evolutions. Just Say No to the cloud!
When will the first story of how an elected official was forced to support legislation because someone was able to tap into their digital life and threatened to expose them for something they rather keep private? "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" It may seem a bit to alarmist or sic-fi but this a real concern of mine, much more than some Hollywood flavor of the month exposing her privates making it into the public domain. Of course if it were my photos or those of my offspring, I'd be demanding millions of dollars too. Someone has to pay for that shame but we muggles have a small voice.
Per this guy, the celebs are innocent and have the right to keep those images private and the breach is a sex crime. I have no desire to share my thoughts on that aspect however I'm not sure that is in the ToS however, for any cloud provider. http://onforb.es/1q2KMs9
Per Mr. Mendelson; "the issue is that these women have the absolute right and privilege to put whatever they want on their cell phones with the expectation that said contents will remain private or exclusive to whomever is permitted to see them just like their male peers."
There is no statement in any vendor's terms of service granting ANY user, male or female "expectation that said contents will remain private or exclusive". As a matter of fact, I'd bet it's almost the opposite. These "victims" feel as if they are above the Muggles and this guy is an apologist for their irresponsibility. "It is not Ms. Ritter’s or Ms. Dunst’s responsibility to protect their own property from theft."
WHAT? Your data's security is relative to how seriously you take that security. Unless there is a legal or non-legal entity out there deliberately hacking into your stuff. What provider is going to put verbiage the above in their Terms of Service, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, Google, Yahoo?
I bring up again the possibilty of someone breaking into our parents home and stealing, then posting, the polaroid photos they had locked away. Our digital information needs the same level of protection our tangible information recieves.
Someone has to pay! Google will pay with money, probably via a large sum of money to a good charity. The rest of us will continue to pay with our own privacy and security, or lack thereof.
