You are both right and wrong. The police yes....however the DA and Sheriff are often both elected positions, meaning that they do have certain "requirements" if they want to be re-elected, and often respecting civil rights is unpopular with the populace; and a LOT of people are willing to give them a pass for violating rights if they come up with even a flimsy excuse.
Rather than building one from scratch, you could buy a box that's certified to run Linux. Unlike the old days, I find that nowadays you really can't build a box any cheaper than you can buy one from companies like Lenovo or HP, and Lenovo has several boxen that are "Linux ready."
Personally I think my box-building days are over. I no longer play video games, so all I'm really interested in is a fast CPU and a PCI16 slot for my "silent" (no fans) video card, and audio and networking that are supported by Linux (which is pretty much everything Lenovo sells; I haven't looked into HP -- I don't like their reliability ratings.)
Regardless, I couldn't come up with pricing any better than about $800 + tax + shipping no matter how I scrounged, and that was only for a Core i5, not a Core i7. It's about another $150 to bump up to an i7, but I don't *need* a quad i7 for what I do. I'd *like* one, but I don't *need* it.
I think I'd get more of a performance boost out of using my PCI video card to offload the memory access from the CPU channels than I would out of bumping from an i5 to an i7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If he hadn't been showboating he might have managed to stay anonymous enough to be left alone.