I agree with your assessment, but I would not be at all surprised if he didn't actually exhaust all of his internal options before going public either.

I *would* be surprised if things are as cut and dry as either side would have us believe.

While that's true, this article strikes me as more of an excuse to bash Comcast than an actual harm. In particular, there are no actual names used, no recordings provided, and no fact-checking. This makes me skeptical from the start. But even assuming this really happened, and that it happened the way it was described, and that the guy wasn't proxying other traffic and/or running an exit node, there's still no report of an actual consequence. If the user in question is claiming that returning Comcast's call is a consequence, then please allow me to apologize on behalf of Comcast, with whom I have no affiliation. I am willing to shoulder 100% of the blame and criticism on their behalf.

Likewise, to anyone who has ever returned a phone call of their own free will only to find that the reason for the call was not of a congratulatory or rewarding in nature, I apologize. This includes, but is not limited to, people who were advised to "come in to discuss test results," whose "payments have not yet been received," or whose girlfriend really needs to "talk" over dessert. Life is not always sunshine and unicorns, and I am sorry that you had to go through that! This is a safe place where you can talk about your feelings. Just let it out.

I actually can't relate to the characters at all. I'm all for self-deprecating humor (unless it's fishing for compliments under the guise of humor), but the show isn't about nerds laughing at themselves; it's about non-nerds laughing at nerds, and nerds not "getting" what's so funny.

A show like Futurama or even Silicon Valley is more for nerds, and doesn't apologize for making jokes that most people won't actually get. They laugh at themselves as well. Although Silicon Valley is only moderately funny, IMO, it's still better done.

Let's be honest -- the Big Bang Theory isn't about laughing with nerds; it's about laughing at nerds.

Most of it looks explanatory to me. "We don't hate Zoe because she's a woman; we hate her because of her actions, and that she tried to play the 'gender' card." (I have no idea who she is, so I have no bone in this -- I'm just paraphrasing the comments I've seen.) That a woman has hatred directed toward her does not automatically make it misogyny, even if sex-related insults are used. Using insults of any kind to belittle someone is, of course, wrong (although I'm certainly guilty of that from time to time), and using threats is wildly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal. I'm not defending any of that.

What I am trying to say is that the people disagreeing do not seem to be misogynists -- literally people who hate someone just for being a woman -- and calling then that is both a straw man and doing a disservice to actual cases of misogyny. If there were death threats against a man (politicians get them all the time), do we call that misandry? Even if words showing hate for men are involved? We don't. (And we shouldn't.) We can focus on the wrongness of the actions without creating a false narrative.

I wasn't talking about the women; I was responding to the comment I replied to WRT the comments that are upvoted on Slashdot.

The hypocrisy of third wave feminism should, at the very least, be pointed out, and it's a straw man to call doing that misogynistic.

No, it's never going to happen. It costs money to carry inventory. Stores are not warehouses.

4chan got mainstream attention long, long before now -- first by association with Anonymous in 2007.

I'm not sure whether you didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it. In the first case, here it is again:

Obscurity isn't *absolute* security, but it is a useful layer to have.

In the second case, that's about as clear as I can be, so you're on your own.

There's no reason you can't obfuscate your identity though. Obscurity isn't *absolute* security, but it is a useful layer to have, and may have prevented these attacks. (Although we can't be sure until the source or sources are identified.)

This is, apparently, a common misconception. Banks are *not* liable for being robbed. The FDIC covers deposits (up to $250k), and *nobody* covers safe deposit boxes unless you specifically purchase insurance. If you're storing irreplaceable items in a bank, you should absolutely research their security, as well as their disaster (fire/flood/earthquake) mitigation strategies, if any.

And there are no liability disclaimers posted in banks either. Drawing attention to that fact generally isn't good for business, so they just let naive people believe what they want.

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.