Interesting but nothing to do with what happened. The victim's accounts were cracked. It's like they bought a padlock, a really expensive padlock from a reputable company that claimed it was secure. Turns out there was a huge flaw in its design (no limit on password attempts) and criminals got in to their private photo albums.

Nothing to do with the devices being "designed to share". They were designed to be secure. Every account needs a password, encryption is used for communication, Apple make a big deal about how secure it is. Padlock icons everywhere.

As for not fully understanding the technology, that's the norm. Like most people I don't fully understand the inner workings of my car, but I drive it anyway. I know enough to safely operate it, and apparently so did the victims here. The flaw was in allowing infinite password attempts against their accounts. If the attempts had been limited to 3 it would have been game over for the crackers.

Publishing nude photos of people in a private setting that they clearly never intended to be public is obviously a sex crime. It's no different to taking up-skirt photos or installing a hidden camera in a hotel room. There was an expectation of privacy, and a right to dignity and privacy. The photos are sexual in nature, published for sexual gratification.

No need for an analogy, there are companies which gather data on people without their consent and are regulated by the law: credit rating agencies.

The law requires them to not report certain information they have, like old bankruptcies that the law considers no longer relevant. Banks are not allowed to use knowledge of old bankruptcies when evaluating customers, and credit reference agencies are not allowed to report them.

That's a hopelessly inefficient way of doing it. Contacting every site, in an age where most just repost material from each other, would be like trying to go to every library in the country to remove their microfiche copies of old newspaper articles. Must better to simply make the information hard to find. That had the added advantage of allowing someone really looking to still find it, if it happens to be important in the future.

I'm sure the victims trusted the police to put a stop to these leaks and arrest those responsible, instead of allowing them to continue for weeks and to affect so many people.

You may trust the legal system to stop you losing money, but the reality is you would be seriously screwed if your bank was hacked. You might get the money back eventually, but not without a lot of hassle and probably a lot of incidental loss due to not having any funds available.

Do you have your private email on the internet? How about your online banking, is that on the internet? It's a question of trust. You trust your email provider and bank to keep your stuff secure. These people trusted Apple and other cloud providers.

Personally I think 2 factor authentication should be pushed on users much more than it is. Google has had it for years, and now Apple has it too. Every user should be asked to set it up.

The difference here is that the victims trusted Apple and other providers when they said their services were secure.

Do you trust your bank to keep your money and personal details secure? Do you trust the shop to have secured their credit card payment system and not leak your card details to hackers? Are you fucking stupid for trusting them? Would you advocate not using banks or credit cards to avoid becoming the victim of a crime?

In Japan people to leave their doors unlocked. In many places the normal way to visit someone's home is to just walk in the front door and then call out to get their attention. Delivery persons will often leave packages inside your front door. People have garages that are actually car ports without any kind of door, and store all sorts of expensive stuff on full display.

When someone does get robbed, blame goes firmly to the low life that robbed them. I asked some people about that, saying that in the UK the victim would be blamed for making their stuff easy to steal. Japanese people were shocked. They likened it to a recent incident where a blind girl was kicked and pushed over by a cowardly attacker in the street. Naturally you wouldn't blame her for being blind.

They do want people to see those photos, it's just that they want to control which people and not have them published for all to see on the internet.

Sexuality is a big part of life, especially when you are young. Wanting to feel sexy, and to share your sexuality with others is natural. The mistake was to trust big companies like Snapchat and Apple when they said that the photos would be safe and only viewable by the people the creators selected. We are not that naive, but you have to appreciate that for most people they trust private companies to look after their private data every day, e.g. banks, health care providers, online shops, their employer etc.

Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.

Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid but it also reduces their earnings from work. The result is that people either don't have children (see Japan for why that is bad), or put work first and are bad parents, or just lose out financially and are less able to provide for their children. Of course, becoming a parent is a choice and a labour of love to some degree, but the current situation is unarguably bad for all involved.

You illustrate the problem for women quite well. Businesses only value what makes them money, where as many women do things that don't create wealth for the company but are vital for society. Of course some men do to, so it's really a problem for both genders, but tends to affect women more commonly.

If a woman needs to finish work on time to go pick up the kids while the other men in the office can stay on and put in some overtime then from the business' point of view the men are more valuable. From society's point of view it needs children and would prefer them to be well brought up, so the job of collecting them from school is equally or more valuable than the overtime. Problem is the reward for doing this important job is less pay.

The way to fix it is to change the way business evaluates it employees. It is of benefit to men as well, either helping them pick up the kids and not get punished for it or helping them go home on time without feeling that they have to put in overtime to be valued. More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.

You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.

If you really want to help then the first thing to do is stop focusing on the "radical feminists". Talk about the issues, not the individuals you disagree with.

I'd also say it's worth looking at men's liberation too. Most guys are horribly repressed, obsessed with living up to the ideal of the "real man" rather than being happy with themselves. Women got past that in the 60s when they rejected the 1950s housewife ideal.

Funny, I saw this story and knew it would provide ammo for people who use phrases like Social Justice Warrior. Way to go, moron.