It's a single fool with a gun, not a group.

But J-Law is not an anonymous nobody that only a very small number of people want to see naked.

She is not most users, she's a special case. Her risk is not the same, she's much more visible, much more desired.

It's not just a sample of random numbers, there's value attached to these images, and the value of most user's images is much lower than the value of those who are professionally attractive. Something of greater value is obviously at a greater risk of unauthorized access than something of average value.

To be fair, I know what "kill -1" is for and I've never used it on purpose. Of course, that's because "kill -1" comes from the school of "fixing" the symptoms of the problem without understanding what's actually causing it.

Doesn't work for anything that changes a kernel data-structure. Only code-path changes. As a sysadmin, do you spend the time to know the difference?

But are they constructing additional pylons?

Especially since, how would you discriminate between discrimination and outright greed?

That's exactly the problem. Doubt. A team like that needs good morale. Doubt your boss, drop the ball. Err pardon the expression.

I don't think our opinions are that far apart. I don't think we should ever have heard that conversation. The problem was that was a circumstance that couldn't have been unheard.

Anyway, I think we're starting to go in circles here. But I did want to say thanks for the discussion and that I hope you have a good weekend coming up.

I'd find it troubling if my boss hated me for reasons he should not be and may be under-paying me and a select group of my coworkers as a result of it.

Every year that goes by this just gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Soon your private chat is going to be picked up by somebody at the next table wearing Google Glass. Then the line will shift. And so on.

"what is your position on the forced sale of the clippers?"

Recording and leaking that audio was wrong. Since it was made public, through no fault of the NBA, it had to be dealt with. It wasn't a "what the US believes" sort of thing, it was an "oop, this got complicated fast, and our players may quit" sort of thing.

I do not believe the forced sale of the clippers is correct. I believe transmission of these photos is fine. this is what they deserve for their blind faith.

These two statements contradict each other. Sterling knows phone conversations can be recorded. He also knew he had an agreement with the NBA to behave. His blind faith lost him the Clippers. Now if you disagree with that statement we're actually a little closer to seeing eye to eye. We probably have differing ideas about where the line of liability should be drawn. Perhaps "phone chats are private but data on the cloud isn't", or something like that. The problem I have with that line of thought is the line between 'phone chat' and 'on the internet' is getting blurrier every year. Worse, we are not all masters of every domain we cross. You may know how to be safe on the internet, that doesn't mean you're super smart and are also super safe at getting your car repaired or at knowing when to use interest-free credit cards.

In either case you've got somebody who did something wrong. It sounds like tough-love right up until you're bitten by it.

I'm not talking about the bank with the bad security, I'm talking about the people actively sharing my love letters they know they don't have permission to send and how that weakens their position on certain topics.

"You're advocating privacy through self-control."

No, I'm not, I'm suggesting that the behaviour in question is damaging the value of privacy. By behaving as though celebrities have no expectation of privacy one thing you're not doing is strengthening the privacy of everybody else.

One of the reasons privacy is important is that you don't want somebody, be it the government or some random stranger, having something they can use against you. I don't have any problem with conceding that the NSA's behaviour is a much bigger deal, but when you break things down to their basic components the philosophy is still very much the same whether it's about extorting money or punishment for having that political bumper sticker on your car.

It's also possible to advocate something like privacy and immediately start fapping over unethically acquired photos because a lot of blood has left your brain. Take a guess which category this particular behaviour falls into,

It would be a better idea to just not download them. Oh, who am I kidding, nobody cares about privacy while they're holding their dick in their hand.

You get a shot at seeing boobies and all the sudden all those complaints you have about the NSA peeking at your files goes flying out the window. When that's brought up all the sudden we've got something worthwhile to spend our mod-points on. Cute.

Let me make this simple in case there's a post-fap-clearer-head lurking around this area of the thread: No, you do not have a good reason to acquire those photos. Yes, you are a bad person for grabbing them and sharing them. No, modding my posts down does not make me wrong about it. You lot, and you know who you are, are despicable.

Why is this comment modded off-topic? Not only is it perfectly on-topic, but it also illustrates why you assholes that are seeking to aquire these photos really shouldn't be!