Electronic literacy the only real defence against hacking

Totempole

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
3,879
The men (and they’re all men) downloading and sharing these photos are doing something fundamentally wrong.
A very bold statement with no backing whatsoever. Also highly likely to be factually incorrect. ;)
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
7,472
I'm not going to delve into the (un)desirability of certain other issues here such as certain items being on a cloud or what should not be. Let's say it was confidential business documents.

What we can do is take electronic literacy a lot more seriously than we currently do. None of the celebrities targeted in this attack are stupid. In fact some, like Jennifer Lawrence, are intelligent. But intelligence is no defence against a subject you don’t care to understand.
Easy saying it. But why not then insist anybody coming near anything resembling a button (or an Apple product) do an online certification first. Insist that companies do full disclosure of how their products work while we're at it to avoid some future statement that might say "but you should have known the x-th ALXMin FDIR sector should never be a opposite to the delta of the JHGF ...". Maybe they all know how Wireshark/tcpdump works, what war driving is, how too reverse malware damage, analyze the packed bit ... Oops, no wait: Then some of us would not have jobs and we'd be sued for reverse engineering. Then the corporates would also not be able to sell so easily.

The thing is this: It's easy blaming a user for something they did not know about nor could have foreseen. First there is a brand loyalty and trust (very misplaced sometimes) that big corporate X will always do the right thing and are simply infallible. The more tech savvy may see things a bit realistically. I'm extremely glad that Jennifer Lawrence is extremely intelligent, but that's irrelevant apart from implying that other users aren't.

The bottom line is, were an Apple salesman asked how secure their cloud is prior to a sale and this incident, you would have heard it's impenetrable. While it may be (but probably isn't) impenetrable, sometimes the problem is not with the user either, but those linked to the user. The user is also placed between a rock and a hard place. What if my phone is stolen? Why, simply use this little app and you can even see where it is, disable it etc. Yet on the flip side large corporates with their extreme desire to invade our daily lives with extreme tracking has forced us to disable features like geotracking etc, rendering that little app unusable. Ever seen what is imported automatically if you enable a Gmail account on your Android phone? There we go down the slippery slope again.

The more cynical have a saying "There is no patch for human stupidity". The realist knows that even at a stage the most intelligent and cynical party will make a mistake. The likelihood of that mistake occurring is directly proportional to the complexity of the product. And let's be honest, our little pocket rockets are quite complex and powerful with many hidden features, some by design, some not.

But blaming the end user for using features mandated in products is easy and probably the corporate plausible deniability.
 

Ryansr

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
3,960
This should be obvious to anyone by now, even if they have not acted on it yet.
 

cfilorux

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
862
It is so because I say it is so

The starlets whose privacy was invaded did not deserve it,
I would have been interested to see a discussion of this part of the statement. I know they could have prevented it, but I am really interested to know why it is that they did not deserve it.
 
Last edited:

Space_Chief

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
12,950
I would have been interested to see a discussion of this part of the statement. I know they could have prevented it, but I am really interested to know why it is that they did not deserve it.
I don't think anyone deserves to have their privacy violated. If they put something in a private account it's obviously their intention it was meant to be private. Had the uploaded those pictures to their public Flickr album it would have been an obvious indication that they wish to share that stuff with the world.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
15,526
Electronic literacy isn't needed. Not being an idiot is needed. The celebs who had pics and vids stolen had incredibly basic passwords. End of story.
 

_TrXtR_

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
811
Alistair Fairweather is a sexist pig. :D

Really... yeah younger girls are going to take pictures of themselves with cum on their faces... and we will blame the men for that... somehow we will find a way to make men look like the bad ones in this, because thats what men are.

Alistair is a P***y.

Pretty bloody stupid.

'Merica (and their sheep)
 

_TrXtR_

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
811
I would have been interested to see a discussion of this part of the statement. I know they could have prevented it, but I am really interested to know why it is that they did not deserve it.
No one deserves it. Unless you feel revenge should be dealt out to those who make mistakes?
That is like the whole road rage mentality of trying to extend someones mistake into something more severe.
 

Spontaneous Interruption

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
383
Electronic literacy isn't needed. Not being an idiot is needed. The celebs who had pics and vids stolen had incredibly basic passwords. End of story.
I suppose conversely one could say that Apple should not allow their users to have incredibly basic passwords but I suppose the definition of incredibly basic passwords is debatable.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
15,526
I suppose conversely one could say that Apple should not allow their users to have incredibly basic passwords but I suppose the definition of incredibly basic passwords is debatable.
It's not really debatable though. You can check the degrees of entropy for a password. Low entropy = possible to brute force. 'Ilovemustard' is a crap password, for example.
 

Spontaneous Interruption

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
383
It's not really debatable though. You can check the degrees of entropy for a password. Low entropy = possible to brute force. 'Ilovemustard' is a crap password, for example.
I somehow doubt most smartphones users check the degrees of entropy for a password before they use it but I see your point. Is that your example of an incredibly basic password? Because for some folks I know that would be a rather complex one :D
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
15,526
I somehow doubt most smartphones users check the degrees of entropy for a password before they use it but I see your point. Is that your example of an incredibly basic password? Because for some folks I know that would be a rather complex one :D
I'm not saying you should check passwords before using them - it's just a means of determining precisely how good a password is. Anyone who uses common sense and has decent alphanumeric passwords should be fine. To carry on my previous post, '1<3Mu5t4rd' would be an amazing password. It has 63.75 bits of entropy and would take 4.92 million years to enumerate.
 
Top