If you cannot even trust the platform, then how does your logic work?

Can't trust cell phone cameras. By definition it's a camera attached to a communications device. It's designed to share that photo.

Can't trust storing it on a PC as PCs are connected to the Internet in the overwhelming majority of instances.

Can't even store on many modern-day cameras, as they're communincations-enabled.

...and all of these devices are designed to communicate with each other in as transparent a means as possible, specifically to facilitate sharing pictures, videos, etc between the devices that create them, and the devices best able to display them. Then there's the issue of automatic cloud backup on any of these devices, where the camera or phone might not be configured to do it, but the computer or tablet might, as soon as it has retrieved the photo or video.

Then there's the whole point of a picture, looking it at it. Typically that means more than just the picture-taker looking at it if the photographer and the subject are the same person (ie, selfie), or the subject is not the photographer, then the subject is trusting that the photographer won't leave the image vulnerable to all of the possibilities above, and won't intentionally share it as well.

For all we know, none of these women's accounts were compromised. Their boyfriends, husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends accounts could have been, or those people could have shared the photos with others, and their accounts were compromised.

I guess what it comes down to is, if it exists, it could be evidence. The only solution is to not let it exist in the first place.

Fact of the matter is, tech-types who should know better still struggle with digital security and lose; laymen don't really have a chance. These women are actors and singers, not computing professionals, and they probably don't have a clue how to choose good passwords for things that are important, don't have an understanding of how the tech that they're using works, and thus are completely vulnerable. As long as they're willing to take naked pictures of themselves then they're going to be targets, and would be regardless of the medium in which the photos were taken. They could be 35mm, polaroid, 3.5" floppy on a Mavica, whatever, as long as they exist then someone is out to find them. It could be the guy developing film, it could be someone going through the garbage that finds an accidently-tossed polariod, it could be someone attempting to hack a local personal computer.

The only winning move is not to play.

There are millions of photos of naked women out there that can be viewed wiithout violating anyone's privacy.

Strictly speaking, while there are lots of paid model/glamour photos, there are also lots of leaked/shared/stolen photos of women that probably didn't want their images shared with the world too. So short of paying for the images from sites that only publish photos that they took themselves, you're probably still going to be violating someone's privacy.

Since when has Apple prided itself or even claimed strict security? They claim pretty hardware and perhaps strong integration with their other products for interoperbility, and based on the numbers of prototypes that have been accidentally left in public places, they don't even maintain good security on those.

That is, your identity is literally worthless if there's no money on the attached "prepaid" card.

Heh. Kind of like how if you want to do anything with significant amounts of money in the United States, they require that you allow them to do a credit check on you first?

Neighbors were getting solar put on their roof. We figured it wouldn't hurt to talk to the salesman since he was there. He wanted to run a credit-check on us. We laughed in his face. We'll consent to a credit check only when we're at the stage of seeking to actually borrow money, and basically that means only for the purchases of vehicles and real property, and we do it on our terms, through our bank, in advance, not on the terms of some merchant and certainly not through their financing people.

Most people here don't do that. They will go in cold, without having any sort of in-advance approved financing from a lender that they already have a relationship with, and will get screwed. Makes me wonder if this situation in Nigeria will work out the same way for the vast majority of people there, as they won't have sought in-advance to get the backing they need, and will ultimately pay more for whatever because of it.

That job was desktop support. So, if no trouble tickets were assigned, there was nothing to do. We didn't have permissions to raid the queue either, so if a manager didn't assign a ticket then one couldn't really take the initiative and find new tickets to do.

It's Panasonic's direct competitor. CT-30W52. True it's Component only, not HDMI/DVI, but so far that hasn't been a problem. The Blu-Ray player has component (heck, it still has S-video!) and the PC has a component card in it that works fine.

If the image size were a lot larger then perhaps it'd be an issue, but we don't even have cable. We watch the news, some sitcoms including several older ones that were never high-def to start with, some sci-fi, etc. Works fine.

The old TV, a 25" Magnavox, died one day when an IC finally popped and left a greasy black stain on the circuit board where it used to be. We'd had that TV for close to 15 years at that point and were basically okay with it, TV isn't that big of a part of our lives.

Or if they shared the photos with a paramour or significant other, if that person saved them on a Mac...

What it comes down to is, if you don't want naked pictures of yourself to end up for all the world to see, don't take naked pictures of yourself. Famous or not, just don't do it.

Yes, it's wrong for someone to seek to steal your nude photos, but pragmatically people want to satisfy their prurient interests. If you're famous and if your beauty was in large-part responsible for getting you there, you've created incentive for those fans to want to see more. That's why programs like Entertainment Tonight, Extra, and TMZ can make a living, because people want to satisfy their prurient interests with you. Some like Paris Hilton and Mrs. Kanye West and the rest of the Kardashian family have managed to exploit that successfully in the past, and others like Miley Cyrus are trying very hard to exploit that now, and unfortunately their antics have helped to make it acceptable, to an extent, for this invasive phenomenon to stand.

Once the genie's out of the bottle it's over. Apparently Lawrence's lawyers are threatening to sue or refer for criminal prosecution anyone that shares the photos of her. I very much doubt they'll have a lot of luck though, even if the original source of the leak is found. If anything they're just going to make it worse via Streisand Effect.

And for those that say I'm blaming the victim, yes, I am blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the leaker and the culture of invasiveness that makes these leaks so incredibly desired, but I am blaming the victim. Would you go walking through a part of town known for muggings during the time of day or night when those muggings are most likely to happen? Yeah, it's wrong for the mugger to attack you, but armed with the knowledge that you're placing yourself in undue risk you'd generally avoid doing that because the only behavior that you can control is your own. Same thing applies here. It's 100% wrong for someone to fraudulently obtain access to your account and your cache of nude photos of yourself, but you know that if others know they exist they'll certainly try, or if you're famous you know that they'll try just to see if they exist in the first place, so despite the very much known risk you've put yourself in a position to become a victim. Don't do that.

I live around three or four major reservations and have visited others. Poverty among the people governed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is far, far worse than the poverty of just about any other group, and in part it stems from the policies of the BIA.

There's a little known fact that if land granted to individuals is not worked, lived on, or otherwise improved by those individuals, being effectively unclaimed the BIA auctions it off, and anyone, not just Indians, can bid. The buyer can't necessarily open-sell that land, but given that it's rural farming or ranching land they can profit through its use, and it can be inherited. Worse, the BIA doesn't assign contiguous chunks to family groups, The father's land may be one area, the mother's another, and the childrens' bits spread out. The land not-worked eventually becomes a patchwork of non-native land among the native land in the reservation.

So, first we take away their use of their original lands so we can have them. Then we slaughter large numbers of them them and confine them to 'reservations', then we start taking away the reservations. Yeah, they're so getting special treatment and benefits...

Honestly, I don't think that the power consumption is a big deal compared to what the purchase price at the time would have been for that LCD I was looking at, and given the strengths tend to balance each other out (both are 1080, tube is interlaced, LCD isn't, tube has better contrast and refresh rate, LCD would have been slightly larger picture in the same space with a smaller border, tube has better sound, LCD has slightly better fine quality) so the price and long-term durability won out. Certainly over the course of many years I may spend more in electricity for the tube than for an LCD, but at the time the tube was almost free, and will outlast the LCD, so I would have to replace that LCD with another TV when it gives out.

I'm a big fan of things that were quality when they were new, as used things later. A TV that was close to $2000 might just beat the pants off of a TV that's $500 now, even after the paradigm shift.

There are two problems with even the S-VHS VCR... First, there's no digital tuner, so I can't watch one thing while recording another thing like I used to, and second, even the S-VHS format isn't nearly as good as more modern stuff. AT BEST I'll get 480i out of it.

I've got a butter-yellow WE2554, a couple of those ubiquitous beige WE2500 models, and a black WE2500-variant with a redial button.

I'd really like a red 2554. It would look cool out in the workshop where the butter-yellow one currently hangs.

Yeah, considering the VCR and all...

You know, you an upgrade from that Western Electric model 500 (the ubiquitous rotary) to a Model 1500, or if you want * and # the Model 2500, for basically free...

All but two landline phones in the house are from Western Electric. The 900MHz cordless Uniden with the overized buttons and red LED blinking call indicator and the alarmclock phone in the bedroom are the only outliers.

Back when they expected to lease the phone to you for 50 years, they built a phone that would last for 50 years.

Yep. I've had too many providers go away on me with little or no notice that I don't consider storage on someone else's equipment viable. I see it as a great way to end up screwed, and with a "free" service, absolutely no recourse.