Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on November 24, 2013, 04:13:59 pm
-
The title is very blunt. I have no other way of wording a correct subject for this topic. I do apologize.
Anyway, here's an article about a mom finding out that her kid's computer had been hacked and that pictures on that computer had been posted to the internet, and then that mom hunting down the people responsible (http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835).
it's one of those "People are horrible" and "people are awesome" stories.
-
I just love these kinds of stories. Ordinary people who rise up against evil and win. Mess with enough people and you'll eventually mess with the wrong one. Let's hope they put this guy away for a long, long time, and that they find this "Jones", if it is even one single person, and get them too. I think she is worthy of being called a hero and a saviour.
-
And here I was expecting something about the new stupid law British PM Cameron's come up with... and preparing to do the old "prohibition just drives them underground" spiel.
But I guess that's not what's being discussed here. Carry on then.
-
Stephen Harper's government recently tabled legislation to crack down on this stuff. Apparently it comes with sweeping police surveillance powers, among other things.
-
I am not sure how to feel about the whole thing.
On the up side, I am certainly glad that the people behind this whole thing finally crossed someone who had the gall to to strike back and snatch a victory.
On the other, I am pissed off that the whole situation was even given the chance to exist.
The whole ordeal reinforces my belief that the Internet is a Quasi-Ring of Gyges.
I certainly hope this woman's efforts do not loose momentum and lead to preemptive and damage control responses. The Internet has changed the world and the way society works down to its very roots. We need to make the law keep up.
-
I'm not sure how I've never heard of this before, but holy crap is this a disturbing practice. Glad to see people rising to the occasion (and Anonymous coming down on this guy was a nice cherry on top).
-
i probibly would have handled it the redneck way (with a shotgun), but i suppose this will have to do.
-
it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.
-
i probibly would have handled it the redneck way (with a shotgun), but i suppose this will have to do.
This
Only since I don't have a shotgun, I'll have to settle with rifle
-
it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.
Seconded. Good hustle, HLP, pretty impressed with the lack of sexist commentary so far. Would do ol' mate Battuta proud.
-
it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.
I'm pretty sure it is. Just that no one in law enforcement took it very seriously. Almost everything involved would be a cause for a civil suit that would result in Moore living in the gutter even without the actions that are criminally liable.
If you really want to get Moore though, you only need to find a single victim who is under 18. Prison won't go easy on him once he has a prosecution for distributing child pornography.
-
GO MOM! GO GO GO! :D
What a badass! The perfect mom to have in that kind of **** situation!
-
Seems the 'professional life ruiner' can't take it like he gives it. The ultimate sign of a coward.
-
Of course he can't. Sociopaths, and other people thriving on inequality, rarely are able to handle things if the tables are turned on them.
-
it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.
Seconded. Good hustle, HLP, pretty impressed with the lack of sexist commentary so far. Would do ol' mate Battuta proud.
i would, but there is already porn of me (and somone's wife) on the internet, so i aint got no excuse.
-
Be "leery"??? :wtf:
I hate idiots.
-
it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.
I'm pretty sure it is. Just that no one in law enforcement took it very seriously. Almost everything involved would be a cause for a civil suit that would result in Moore living in the gutter even without the actions that are criminally liable.
If you really want to get Moore though, you only need to find a single victim who is under 18. Prison won't go easy on him once he has a prosecution for distributing child pornography.
From the article:
The consensus was that revenge porn was largely untested in the civil courts, while criminal laws were nonexistent, except in the state of New Jersey.
.
Then again, you are probably referring to the hacking people bit, but this particular practice of uploading sexual images (which were most likely taken with the consent of the subject) after a break up isn't, specifically.
-
In addition to the hacking, the charge Moore demanded to take photos down could easily be spun as blackmail for a start. By refusing to take down images from hackers he could easily be charged with receiving stolen goods too. Basically there was quite a long list of things a creative prosecution lawyer could have stuck him with. How much would actually stick is another matter but probably enough to send him to jail.
-
Wait one. From This article (http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-05-16/news/hacker-is-anyone-up-hunter-moore-fbi/full/).
Just as troubling was that publishing these nudes was a legal act. Is Anyone Up branded itself as a "revenge porn" site, encouraging angry exes to send, anonymously, their former partners' nudes. Many people did. So the breasts, penises, and asses on Hunter Moore's site were, the story went, supplied by avenging cuckolds, embittered former friends, and other people with scores to settle. Because this content came from third-party users, Moore wasn't legally held responsible, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the same powerful shield that prevents Facebook (or the Voice, for that matter) from being sued for what users post.
-
Of course he can't. Sociopaths, and other people thriving on inequality, rarely are able to handle things if the tables are turned on them.
My understanding of sociopathy (which came from something 'tutta posted a long time ago. Interesting circumstances for it to be relevant.) was that not all are bad and that they usually fall into two groups. Those that choose to follow the morality of society and those that don't. There is a higher concentration of sociopaths in first responder services. Request maybe not demonize them/make sweeping statement?
Sorry for off-topic. On-topic: Sometimes I am disgusted at my gender (Ironic I know, as I just made a sweeping generalization after I pointed out one above). If you wanna get your rocks off to stuff on the internet fine. I've done that, I don't think it'd be a sweep to say most men I know have at least once. However working for a business that does this hacking and posting violates every strand of morality I have. That is unconscionable. The mob who follows such a man as Hunter Moore on twitter and jeers at the victims is worse. But what I find most unconscionable is the individuals who fire the victims/refuse them employment or the friends who disassociate for circumstances outside their control. That I truly do not understand. As an employer I would have asked the victim in question about the origin of such material. If it was hacking, then I would have offered my support and my apologies. If it was self posted (Which the article says does not happen often) or posted by an Ex then I would again offer my apologies and support. Whether a pic was given to the ex is not my business. It should have no bearing on my business. I do know what it is like to be the owner of a small business. I was the only manager of my families's small business for 2 years, and I pretty much ran it.
-
It was not only males that used the site, vengeful women did so as well.
As for the whole dissociation thing, I think it falls down to the same reason (I believe) people chastise rape victims: They could easily see themselves in that very situation, and it horrifies them so much they feel the urge to cut all ties to that possibility, no matter how illogical the response may be.
-
Wait one. From This article (http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-05-16/news/hacker-is-anyone-up-hunter-moore-fbi/full/).
Just as troubling was that publishing these nudes was a legal act. Is Anyone Up branded itself as a "revenge porn" site, encouraging angry exes to send, anonymously, their former partners' nudes. Many people did. So the breasts, penises, and asses on Hunter Moore's site were, the story went, supplied by avenging cuckolds, embittered former friends, and other people with scores to settle. Because this content came from third-party users, Moore wasn't legally held responsible, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the same powerful shield that prevents Facebook (or the Voice, for that matter) from being sued for what users post.
I was pretty appalled by this whole thing, until I read that article:
The people got "hacked" by social engineering. These idiots were stupid enough to make even two-factor-authentication useless by giving the hacker the code.
That kind of stupidity deserves it.
I feel bad for those who got their pics uploaded by their exes though. That kind of behaviour is unbelievable, because it's somebody they trusted, not some random idiot asking for their personal data.
-
Any behavior that contributes to the already disparate victimization of women, however 'stupid' the behavior may be, will only make the situation worse for the average woman. (INSERTED AFTER THE FACT) There is another thing for them to fear, another avenue for victimization, and another device for turning a simple mistake into something that will unalterably change a life. (/INSERTED AFTER THE FACT) I personally wonder if societies tendency to destroy people's careers over nude photos may be something that suppresses women more to begin with. Why does having an image of one naked destroy their reputation?
-
its sort of an unofficial unspoken agreement that its something decent people dont do. when someone says taking nude pictures of yourself is disgusting most people would rather keep their mouth shut than express their distaste at what was said in order to better conform to the group. its like in politics, all the power goes to the person with the loudest mouth (and in this case it was those associated with moore that stirred the up all the ****).
-
I personally wonder if societies tendency to destroy people's careers over nude photos may be something that suppresses women more to begin with. Why does having an image of one naked destroy their reputation?
This. The guy is a real asshole and I think there should be some kind of law against this. However, it is not him that ruins peoples lives, careers and embarrasses them. It is the ****ing society, with slut shaming and pervasive sex negative attitudes. In an ideal world revenge porn would not even be a big deal not because it would not happen, but because nobody would care. But we dont live in one, do we.
-
I was pretty appalled by this whole thing, until I read that article:
The people got "hacked" by social engineering. These idiots were stupid enough to make even two-factor-authentication useless by giving the hacker the code.
That kind of stupidity deserves it.
NO.
Seriously. Just don't even start. Hundreds of people harassing your employer with your pictures just because you fell for an social engineering trick exploiting a sense of goodwill and the desire to help one other?
Get a ****ing grip.
-
I was pretty appalled by this whole thing, until I read that article:
The people got "hacked" by social engineering. These idiots were stupid enough to make even two-factor-authentication useless by giving the hacker the code.
That kind of stupidity deserves it.
I think that's very harsh. But that's not why I'm here.
Now I may well have understood this wrong, but from what I read, the two people didn't give up their info to some random person. The first girl got hacked some other way then saw her account being used to pilfer that dude's account, and the second, her friend had been hacked, so she thought she was talking to her friend.
-
I was pretty appalled by this whole thing, until I read that article:
The people got "hacked" by social engineering. These idiots were stupid enough to make even two-factor-authentication useless by giving the hacker the code.
That kind of stupidity deserves it.
I feel bad for those who got their pics uploaded by their exes though. That kind of behaviour is unbelievable, because it's somebody they trusted, not some random idiot asking for their personal data.
In case you didn't get the hint, the fact that these people fell victim to social engineering does not mean that they share the responsibility. What you are doing is called "blaming the victim", and I would suggest you stop doing it.
Just because someone has weak locks on his doors does not mean he shares the blame if someone enters his home. Just because someone wears revealing clothing does not mean it is ok to harass her.
We can't all be super aware of the risks inherent in social networking. It falls to us to educate others how to avoid such situations, and offer our assistance to those who got victimized, but what we do not do is point the finger and say "You deserved it because you're stupid".
Is this clear enough, or do you want me to elaborate some more on why what you are doing is utterly, completely stupid?
-
Sorry, I should have put that differently:
I read the article and was surprised to find people considered the "hacked account"-source for the nudes worse than the "sent to somebody who uploaded them after breakup"-source.
To me, this is backwards:
If it were actual hacking, instead of social engineering, I'd agree, because you couldn't protect yourself if the websites (mail providers) were insecure. But in this case it's not the websites that are insecure.
So, if you wanted to prevent your pics from being posted you would have to change the following things in your life:
If it's your ex uploading them, you'd have to stop trusting anyone (who could you trust more than your SO?). I consider this inhuman.
If it's your account being hijacked, you'd have to stop being an idiot with your network security. I consider this basic sanity.
-
If it's your account being hijacked, you'd have to stop being an idiot with your network security. I consider this basic sanity.
And I consider your comments on this issue another thing entirely. Just drop it, okay? Don't blame the victim.
-
If it's your account being hijacked, you'd have to stop being an idiot with your network security. I consider this basic sanity.
And I consider your comments on this issue another thing entirely. Just drop it, okay? Don't blame the victim.
Not gonna drop it.
I'm not blaming the victim any more than all of you who are going "Oh, they shouldn't have trusted the person they had sex with to keep their nude pictures confidential", I'm just blaming a different set of victims.
-
If it's your account being hijacked, you'd have to stop being an idiot with your network security. I consider this basic sanity.
And I consider your comments on this issue another thing entirely. Just drop it, okay? Don't blame the victim.
Not gonna drop it.
I'm not blaming the victim any more than all of you who are going "Oh, they shouldn't have trusted the person they had sex with to keep their nude pictures confidential", I'm just blaming a different set of victims.
No one is going "Oh, they shouldn't have trusted the person they had sex with to keep their nude pictures confidential" so perhaps you'd like to reframe your point?
-
No one is going "Oh, they shouldn't have trusted the person they had sex with to keep their nude pictures confidential" so perhaps you'd like to reframe your point?
Really? Am I the only one who reads that woman's words as "Well, sucks for all those people who were sluts and sent pics of themselves to their significant other, but look: My daughter isn't a slut (just stupid) and doesn't deserve to be treated like them!"
She's playing right into the hands of that creep who built the site.
-
Really? Am I the only one who reads that woman's words as "Well, sucks for all those people who were sluts and sent pics of themselves to their significant other, but look: My daughter isn't a slut (just stupid) and doesn't deserve to be treated like them!"
She's playing right into the hands of that creep who built the site.
I for one don't remember her saying anything resembling that. Maybe you could point out some bits which made you think so.
-
Citation needed, and minus several points for sleazy misdirections: you said "all of you who are going [Bull****] ", now you are saying she said that.
And no, she doesn't say any of that ****.
Are you going to reframe what you said or are you gonna "stick" to your... ahhh... story?
I'm being a little insistent here because I have little patience for these kinds of shenanigans. First you blame the victim, then you reinforce that you are *only* blaming one kind of victim, then you handwavingly accuse the thread commenters of doing the "same" but to the other kind of victim, then you shift this accusation to the mother in the article (nowhere to be found at all, so another fabrication)...
Dafuq man, help me out here because I am having trouble reading what you are actually trying to say, there's too much bull**** in the comms.
-
Reframe isn't a word in this context. I'm going to lock this due to bad spelling and grammar