Forgot your password?

Comment: Behavior (Score 4, Interesting) 173

by fyngyrz (#47801883) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

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

The logic works fine. Platforms can work fine too. Society, however, doesn't. So that part is up to you.

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

Exactly right. Buy a DSLR if you require discretion in photography. Ensure it does not have network connectivity (some do... Canon 6D, for instance.) If you take an image with a cellphone camera, be aware before you ever shoot it that you can have no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever. It goes further than that, too. When using a smartphone, again be aware you have no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever with regard to texts, voice conversations, video conversations, email, your location, billing, logging and so one for every service the phone provides you (or others) with.

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

No. If you want to store something that requires discretion, then you require a non-network connected PC. There's no inherent need to connect a PC to a network. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Nor is there a need to construct a PC with bluetooth, wifi and so on. Nor is there a need to leave a PC in a generally accessible location and/or condition. These are all user choices. Make them wrongly, and your security is compromised. But they are not inevitabilities. There's a lesson here: just because others do something in some particular manner does not mean that you have to do so.

> 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

Again, no. This is also user choice. You are responsible for the consequences of your choices, and for knowing the things you need to know to make those choices well. The key here is to be informed enough to make the most correct choices. "It's typical" is not a metric that binds anyone in any way. If you embrace such a thing, you either choose to do so or you are so ignorant that you know no better, in which case anyone who trusts you with data that requires discretion is making a serious mistake.

The images I have taken or otherwise created that I have *decided* you may see are here. The ones I have *decided* you may not have access to, you will never, ever see, barring use of military levels of force. These conditions were quite literally trivial to instantiate and maintain. Think, choose, easy implementation, all done.

> 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.

The issue isn't account centric. It is behavior centric. You must identify data that needs protection; you must identify the trustworthy in regard to both persons and systems; you must control distribution; you must employ discretion and ensure that your knowledge is up to the task of seeing all these things through. If you cannot do these things, you are (at the very least) a potential victim of your own limitations. And you should probably fix that. :)

Comment: Use case is the issue (Score 2) 173

by fyngyrz (#47801649) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

To be fair, there's the good Cloud and the bad Cloud.

No. There isn't. There's good use of cloud and bad use of cloud. If it's not a problem for random people, business entities, criminals and governments to have access to your data, then cloud storage can be convenient and harmless. Using cloud for storage of anything personal, proprietary, secret or dangerous is outright stupid. Marketing bullshit aside, you are putting your data in multiple-someone-else's hands and you have *zero* control over where it goes from there. There is no assurance of security whatsoever. There never has been. It is extremely unlikely there ever will be.

These truths extend to your own use of storage. Storing information on your boot drive can expose it to others if the machine ever needs repair and you cannot do the work yourself and you let the machine out the door with the boot drive and/or backup drives still installed. Connecting a machine with information on any attached storage device to the Internet creates a risk constructed of a very long list of possible errors whose genesis can be traced to the author(s) of your operating system and/or your own security procedures. Allowing others physical access to your machine can expose your data. Even the possibility of physical access to your machine, regardless of your authorization, can do so.

Most people don't understand security, and have not learned to be discrete, and are very poor evaluators of who, and what, are actually trustworthy. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where the gullible fall into the trap set by marketers claiming things like cloud storage are "safe." We can't fix this without specific education on the matter, and with a school system that can't even graduate people who can read and write well, the required understanding of secure data handling will almost certainly remain in the realm of the sophisticated technical person. And the clouds will continue to precipitate data the owners wanted to remain undistributed to many places it wasn't expected to go.

Comment: Wrong idea. (Score 3, Interesting) 173

by fyngyrz (#47801497) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

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.

No. What it comes down to is who, and what, are trustworthy. Cloud services are not trustworthy. Some people are not trustworthy. This doesn't just apply to images; it applies to financial information (banks are not trustworthy), to your behavior in public (those other people at parties are not trustworthy) and so on.

There's no need to give up intimate entertainment. You just need to learn to be discrete, and this means very carefully evaluating who, and what, are trustworthy. I will grant that in the face of all the cloud propaganda, the social networking tsunami, the government's drive to list everyone and everything, and people's innate tendency to gossip, this may no longer be obvious, but discretion is, in fact, one of the key characteristics of a mature and healthy personality.

If you don't want something repeated, don't say it. If you don't want it shared, don't share it. But you can still do it. From there, the advisability of "doing it" becomes a question of one's morals and ethics -- and perhaps the law. While the law is often completely wrongheaded, we must always remember the amount of power in the system's hands.

Discretion: That's what is at the core of all of this. Not self-censorship.

Comment: Re:Where are these photos? (Score 3, Informative) 173

by jo_ham (#47801115) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

Not by default at all - you have to specifically add the photos to iPhoto and then turn on iCloud in system preferences.

Downloading pictures off a camera/usb stick/android phone can be done with Image Capture, and this does not put them on iCloud, just into folders on your computer.

Adding them to iPhoto is what puts them onto iCloud, and only if you turn it on - when you set up a Mac for the first time it asks you if you want it switched on (and prompts for an Apple ID).

If you use Aperture or iPhoto you can still keep things local only - there's a checkbox in preferences that turns off the iCloud sync.

Comment: Payback (Score 1) 284

Check this cops bank account.. Did RIAA happen to make a 'healthy' deposit to his "defense fund"?

Not saying all cops are bad of course, but reading non-emergency content while driving down the road is irresponsible and he should be held responsible.. Taking out ex-Napster management due to an accident, smells fishy.

Comment: Re:Bad business practice (Score 1) 135

by drinkypoo (#47800913) Attached to: Australian Consumer Watchdog Takes Valve To Court

or the client did not exit cleanly and is in a possibly corrupt state.

It's too bad that Valve is too incompetent to open config files and the like read-only, so that this doesn't happen. What year is it, anyway? Also, if your client isn't already in offline mode, then you get to sit around holding your dick for minutes until Steam times out.

Comment: Re:Inevitable (Score 1) 825

by evilviper (#47799321) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Make all the noise you want... Obama has still done the job better than Bush could claim, and the results show that, undeniably. Bush was no deterrant, and utterly toothless in the face of Russians invading a neighboring country. I expect Obama will handle Ukraine much better.

It makes perfect sense for you to bring McCain into this... Since he's never been in-charge, you can make up your fantasy world about his presidency, unconstrained by pesky little facts and actual actions and results.

Comment: Re:Maybe, but maybe not... (Score 1) 198

by drinkypoo (#47798885) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

Usually, after a certain number of complaints, the system automatically blocks the content, and the original poster has to challenge the block.

Many Facebook users have noted, as I did when I was using it, that political content would often fail to post without explanation. Not only would the URLs fail to thumbnail and link, but I'd actually go back and read my posts and URLs had actually been stripped off of the political content, while the test bullshit I added in to prove the point was still there.

Comment: Re:Painkillers, HA! (Score 1) 206

by drinkypoo (#47798873) Attached to: States Allowing Medical Marijuana Have Fewer Painkiller Deaths

I assume the medical pot folks have a clue, and they say it tests quite a lot stronger than in the past -- more than six times stronger on average:

So I followed the links down and this is based solely on seized material. There's a zillion ways that could be improperly representative, especially since the volume has gone up so sharply. The figures became more useful year-on-year, and appear to become most reliable once you have hit around a couple thousand seizures. That is, if you look at the minimal available data with a critical eye, and not simply inclined to accept it.

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann