As to the personal side of the money angle, if I don't follow good practices like attempting to protect my PIN, then perhaps I deserve the headache associated with having to deal with the bank to get the matter resolved.
On the other hand, naked pictures are personal, and the argument can be made that the continued distribution is further victimization when the pictures were made in private and were redistributed without permission. It gets murkier when one considers the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject, but if the distributor is not the copyright holder then in the past, the subject has been considered a victim.
On the same vein, this is not the first time that celebrities have had their personal photos redistributed by someone other than the subject or the photographer. Off the top of my head, Kat Dennings and Scarlett Johansson were recent victims of this, and there have been numerous redistributions of private photos unauthorized by both the photographer and the subject, and more still that were unauthorized by just the subject, such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
If they were taken off of an Apple server/service, then yes, Apple might bear some culpability, but based on what I've seen, Apple is no worse than anyone else, they all fail. The entire industry needs an enema, everything from the communications protocols that our data transfers happen on to the user credential policies is flawed, and that includes the servers, services, and underlying code that makes it all work.
You've shown negligence, not malice. To me this is clearly negligent homocide. I see no evidence of murder (intentional homocide) much less malice aforethought. This doesn't mean they aren't there, but you haven't even started to make that case.
We'll never get there because fundamentally, we like dirt, scandal, sensationalism, dirty laundry, whatever you want to call it. That fundamental vulnerability will always cause someone to seek-out other vulnerabilities, and every technology has them.
No. The only way to hope to (re-?)establish order and honor in the police is to hold them to the very laws they are expected to enforce. If there are no consequences when they disobey the laws, then they will continue to become more arbitrary, dishonorable, an untrustworthy.
For that matter, they should be held to a higher standard. A police officer should be held more stringently to obedience to the law than a normal citizen, and the punishment should be harsher (though not by too much) when they break the laws.
That they are not is quite clear, so their powers should be reduced, because they have been repeatedly shown to not be trusted with the ones that they have. For this reason I am in favor of requiring a camera that they cannot disable to be upon them at all times, and that malfunction of the camera should mean that they are not paid for that period AND that an independent investigation of the case is launched. It should record sound as well as video, and should be immediatedly transmitted to a secure read-only cache. Also, they should be on leave without pay from the instant the camera is disabled until it is repaired.
This is clearly an onerous requirement, and if the police had been shown to be at all trustworthy I wouldn't consider anything this strict. They have, however, shown that they cannot be so trusted.
Also, any action that they take while the camera is known to be non-operational and they are in uniform should be considered taken "under the cloak of authority", i.e., if they commit a crime, there is an additional penalty because they are fraudulently claiming to represent the law. Because of this the camera should be equipped with a soft beep that plays intermittently while it is operational, and a louder chirp that plays intermittently (once every 2 sec.?) while it is non-functional. Perhaps the chirp could encode the camera id, so that others recording in the area would have information as to which one.
OK, then *I'll* say that the supervisor who said that was legal superior and ordered police to follow it should be charged with
The fact that this is a part of a pattern of behavior means that I don't think he should be exonerated even if the evidence were to show that in this particular case the bicyclist *did* swerve out in front of him.
More than a decade ago my pickup truck was stolen out of the parking lot of the apartment that I lived in. I didn't have a steering wheel lock or other immobilization device on it and per my parents' advice only had liability coverage, as it was an older truck and only worth a couple-thousand dollars Unfortunately I had also just been laid-off, and couldn't afford to buy another vehicle and left with none. I bore at least some responsibility as I did not make an effort to see how theft-prone these trucks were, did not use anything to make the vehicle a harder target, and didn't have the insurance necessary to deal with it. My parents also accepted some blame in that the insurance situation was their idea, and they let me borrow a vehicle until I found work, then they bought me a cheap vehicle and I paid them back as I could afford to.
Blaming the victim does not mean demonizing the victim. It means there's an understanding that the victim took unnecessary risks and suffered the consequences of those risks when the odds fell against their favor. This is a cruel world that we live in, and while it's nice to think that maybe some day people won't commit acts against each other, that is never going to happen and we all have to do our part to protect ourselves, as again, we can only affect our own behavior, not anyone else's.
My home is connected to the street network. That doesn't mean I expect anyone with access to the street to have access to my home.
The real issue here is trusting Apple to manage the lock on your front door.
That my house is connected to the street network is why I have locks on my doors, a fence around my backyard, locks on my windows, curtains and blinds on my windows, and a security system. I follow my own due diligence to attempt to keep people out by making it hard for them to know what stuff I have, as difficult as possible for them to get in such that they have to break laws in the act, and I have a means of detecting if they force their way in otherwise.
It's wrong of people to attempt to steal my stuff, but just because it's wrong doesn't excuse me from making an effort to ensure that it doesn't happen.
Imagined? I doubt that. From what I read in the summary it sounded like they were pissed off when their old programs couldn't read the new file format. To me that sounds fair. I don't think very highly of breaking backwards compatibility. It's occasionally necessary, but extremely more rarely than it is done. Usually it seems a strategy to force a purchase of new versions. And to me that sounds like abuse of a dominant market position. (I'd say abuse of monopoly, but somebody always thinks that means there aren't any competitors.)
Stop. This is the fault of allowing users to use devices with no training. Standard I.T. data security ON THE PART OF THE USERS would have prevented this. If you dont understand the device you are using, seek training, or dont put sensitive info on it. Its not ok to be a moron in the Information Age.
I used to feel that way, but I don't think it works that way anymore. There's too much tech to be able to keep up with it, even for computing professionals. There are too many things that we're dependent on that we only get to see as a black box. There are too many vulnerabilities constantly discovered and often times left unpatched (Heartbleed anyone?) that are out of the user's control.
Yes, there are some things that the user can control, but there are plenty of things outside of that control, and plenty of other things that stop working if the user doesn't allow various services to be turned on or available. In some ways it's our own Chilling Effect, but those are the breaks when one wants to foist interconnectivity on everyone and everything. It means now that everything is potentially subject to review by everyone else.