Their ISP and storage costs will increase to handle the new format and you have to pay for that somehow.

At least they have 4k content.

You're still failing at point #2. Why was there insufficient security? Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password, but then you said this:

And what is precisely why you don't get this. This is an either/or case. Either there was a vulnerability on the part of the cloud vendor, or the end users handled their passwords improperly. Given the number of people involved, it seriously points to the former.

According to 'blame the victim' mentality, you shouldn't send your e-mail address around and it's your fault you're getting spam.

So when a cloud vendor says "we store your photos securely and have your privacy as our #1 goal" or whatnot, that's equivalent to putting photos in an envelope and putting them in a post office? I don't think so. Try another analogy.

It's not black and white at all. A crime was committed.

This is like the old joke of the guy going to the doctor and saying "my arm hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "then don't do it!". You're the doctor.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht...

If my account was hacked then that's not the same as leaving my house unlocked. I had a password on it and someone picked the lock.

I guess that's the answer if you blame the victim.

This is dumb on the level of 'blame the victim' dumb. Should everything online be a cost-benefit analysis now?

You know who should be in trouble? The person/people who stole the photos in the first place

If I have naked selfies printed out in my house[*] and someone comes in and steals them, I won't get "well you shouldn't have naked photos of yourself in the house". I get "hey, they stole items from you!". You don't blame the person that made the lock. You don't blame the person if they left the house unlocked. Breaking and entering is a crime. Full stop. There may be other issues if the criminal acquired a master key or picked the lock, or the lock was faulty to begin with, but the blame lies on the person that walked in without authorization and stole property.

What I do with my personal equipment and how I store it and how it can be accessed isn't your business nor do I have to justify myself to you about it.

[*] I do not. You are welcome.

I went straight there... but a year ago I hadn't heard of hacker-style CTF, and I would expect many other visitors haven't either. The comments bear either that or 'everyone is a troll' out.

To get the true impact correct, I think you need to change the last couple of lines to: "All pages containing the name of every actress / actor named in this suit will not be indexed and we will not pay Google Ad revenues on those pages so we don't financially benefit from any possible images. Thank you and happy Googling!"

I do sympathize with each and every actress and this must be a nightmare, but with all the security breaches on the internet (cards, SSN, etc.), how can you think your pictures would be safe? Worse, they are in an industry that treats its own techs (FX workers) with about the same respect that programmers get even if the movies that make them famous are not possible without them (see everything about "Life of Pi"). Why would data be safe?

Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Based on http://earthquaketrack.com/bd-... (linked from TFA), I count five quakes in the last 3 years that are moderately close. (I'm counting the red, blue, and pink markers to the left, and orange and brown a little to the east; the latter are a bit questionable.) All of them are in the 4s in magnitude.

As a rough estimation (admittedly one that will probably diverge exponentially in any error), if you increase the magnitude 1 level, you decrease the frequency by a factor of ten. So five 4s in 3 years means you'd expect one in the 5s every 6 years or so, and in the 6s every 60.

Now, a moderate 6 quake is at the point where you have to explicitly build to resist earthquakes. So from this (very, on a number of axes) rough guess, it seems like they definitely need to consider the possibility... but it's also not something that is likely to present a huge challenge or anything.

> especially since they all say the exact opposite.

I always find it funny how conservative talk radio hosts seem to like pointing out how much more intelligent they and their listeners are than everyone else, almost as if they think that by saying it enough, it will make it true.

There's no monopoly on intelligence on either side of the isle, and regardless, a right and noble idea supported by stupid people is still right and noble. Arguing that an idea is stupid because it's supporters are stupid is invalid.

Like them or dislike them, the VA has had electronic patient records since the 60s. They've had this nailed so well their software is in use in many hospitals around the country.

The mainframe market is VERY lucrative.