I don't think it will hurt anyone's careers. In fact, I can think of at least two people whose careers were launched or boosted by leaking of their private videos.

That said, the fact that anyone's career could be hurt for doing something *everyone* likes to do (and nobody would be here without) is sort of absurd. I mostly blame our puritanical values and expectations, especially of women, but of men as well. Women who directly express their sexuality are labeled as "sluts," and men who do the same are labeled as "pervs." And yes, it's become more acceptable than it once was, but it's still generally frowned upon. This is a disservice to everyone, really, all to keep from offending people who were raised to be ashamed of the very act that created them. But the truth is that the world runs on, if not sex itself, the pursuit of sex. It's only awkward when we make it awkward.

There's a difference between incidental and deliberate exposure. By your logic, it's ok to intentionally hit dogs because they run in front of cars every day anyway.

That said, looking at the photos intentionally is not, in my opinion, causing direct harm, nor is it driving demand. To say it is would be like arguing that pictures of dead bodies fuel demand for murder. It already happened, and not looking doesn't change it.

From my perspective, it's simply immoral. If it violates your morality, then don't look. If it doesn't, then check them out.

By the way, the desire for privacy and the desire to see other people's secrets are not mutually exclusive. It's our desire to see the things that other people want to hide that underscores the importance and value of privacy. It's nobody else's business what I do in my own home, or what photos I took on my phone, as long as I'm not violating the law.

Further, there's a difference between my neighbor violating my privacy out of curiosity and the government peeking at my journal to decide whether or not I belong on a secret watchlist. My neighbor cannot legally take away my rights and freedoms; the government can. My neighbor can be prosecuted; the government (generally) cannot. That's why evidence that's been collected or presented in violation of evidentiary rules is, or is supposed to be, excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.

One more side note: If these photos happened to show illegal activity, the government *would* be able to use them as evidence, as they were obtained incidentally.

Another perspective, re: Zoe Quinn.

if you read more feminist writing, you will discover that feminists are just as opposed to the stereotyping of men in these commercials as they are the stereotyping of women.

True, but if you pay attention, you will discover that's typically little more than lip service, often included as a coda, or twisted to blame the victim.

Evolution isn't a theory; it's an observation. That it is responsible for speciation is the theory. That's why Darwin's book is called "On the origin of the species," and not "Evolution."

Interestingly, global warming is also an observation. That humans are the driving force behind this is slightly debateable, in the same way that it's still slightly debateable whether your kid is actually your kid after the second DNA test confirmed it. (Congratulations, BTW!) Yes, your baby momma could have setup an elaborate trick, or aliens could be playing a huge practical joke on all of us. (With the climate, I mean, but obviously they could be responsible for the baby too.) But in the meantime, we should accept the available evidence as useful for decision-making purposes. And by that I mean a few people will form a cult, and the rest of us can carry on under the relatively safe bet (but not absolute certainty) that the Hale-Bopp comet is not hiding the mother ship.

At least that's the impression I get by reading the news. I can't remember the last time I heard an attack described as "simple" or "straightforward." It's never "the hackers just tried a bunch of words until one of them worked," or "turns out that if you type '); then a computer will often happily do whatever you tell it," or "if you give it a very long list of letters, sometimes the computer will start doing whatever you tell it." No, it's "the hackers used a sophisticated technique to plow through layers of security."

Although I'll grant you, that 'sophisticated' bit does sound a lot better. Maybe I should sprinkle that word around my resume.

Welcome to the late 90s.

Social engineering - not the same thing as hacking the bricking/remote wipe protocol.

Your original post didn't restrict itself to protocol attacks, even tangentially. There are no "extra points" for using one method over another.

At any rate, the law permits the user to opt-out of the technological solution, so that's the protection, not the fact that the protocol is secure (which is unknowable/unprovable). If someone is uncomfortable with it, they can disable it. Although disabling a disabling feature might be a double negative.

FWIW, the term "snuff film" was coined to reference not just a video which merely shows death -- even intentionally -- but one which was created for the purpose of entertainment, usually for sexual gratification, and sold for profit.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/...

iPhones have had the ability to be remote wiped for a long time. Yet I have not heard of a pandemic of hacker-led mass bricking of iPhones.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/...

Now you have.

That's because games themselves are eligible for very limited IP protections.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/f...

I've met some rednecks who fit that description as well. And, hell, some idiots with no accent at all. Poor communication skills are poor communication skills -- it's certainly not something that's either exclusive to, or endemic of, non-native speakers.

And FWIW, I've found that most people who can't understand accents tend to be poor communicators themselves.

Exceptional workers don't need H1Bs. H1Bs are not designed to bring talent to the US; they're (ostensibly) designed to meet a temporary demand that cannot be adequately met by the domestic workforce. That's why they are temporary permits. Talented workers get first priority in immigrating, and I welcome them along with you. I welcome anyone who immigrates here, TBH. More power to them. But that doesn't change the fact that H1Bs are being exploited, and it's negatively impacting the labor market for citizens as well.

I'll admit that Noone's work hasn't exactly been Oscar material, but she's pretty hot, and her producing skills might not be bad. I say it's worth a try, at least.

He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.