Body & Soul0 min ago
Ricky Gervais
He makes valid point - these celebrities only have themselves to blame
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joeluke. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
RR are owned by BMW and their cars look like tanks. But the same principle would apply if Woody Allen owned a Beetle and drove himself; he has to get around town somehow. Yes, people are entitled to privacy. I look forward to the day when AB is hacked and the world can see who actually posts some of these threads...
you never know, CD, when it's discovered that you are actually Keira Knightley... But the fact remains, you're entitled to anonymity. A list of some ABers and their emails did go public once, as I recall - not hacked, someone at AB Towers just forgot to turn out the light before leaving on Friday night.
you never know, CD, when it's discovered that you are actually Keira Knightley... But the fact remains, you're entitled to anonymity.
------------
I totally agree. In order to maintain that I have ensured that there are no pictures of me bo!!ock naked(sorry ladies) to be found anywhere that a hacker might look.
Celebrities have enough weirdos to be dealing with, why leave them some ammo to be found?
------------
I totally agree. In order to maintain that I have ensured that there are no pictures of me bo!!ock naked(sorry ladies) to be found anywhere that a hacker might look.
Celebrities have enough weirdos to be dealing with, why leave them some ammo to be found?
-- answer removed --
Icannot agree that perceived careless and /or stupidity means that you deserve to have your privacy invaded.
As rather colourfully advised, a solid gold bust of the ex PM is not carte blanche for someone to raid your home - and it is the principle of care versus invasion that is under discussion.
Yes celebrities should be more careful where they store private items, yes there are hackers out there, but again, lack of thought does not entitle criminal activity which is then excused by someone's idea of what carelessness or stupidity is involved.
I cannot agree with RG on this one - or the posters who support his view.
As rather colourfully advised, a solid gold bust of the ex PM is not carte blanche for someone to raid your home - and it is the principle of care versus invasion that is under discussion.
Yes celebrities should be more careful where they store private items, yes there are hackers out there, but again, lack of thought does not entitle criminal activity which is then excused by someone's idea of what carelessness or stupidity is involved.
I cannot agree with RG on this one - or the posters who support his view.
If, when you bought your phone, Apple said ...
Would it be okay if we kept a record of everything that you ever do with your iPhone?
Copies of your photos, details of all your contacts, a record of wherever you have been, etc ...
... on a giant computer at our office in America, along with everyone else's information?
You'd say NO WAY !!
But when they say ...
What if we called the giant computer at our office the "iCloud" ?
Everyone goes Yaaaaay, bring it on.
iCloud users ... they're all mad!
Would it be okay if we kept a record of everything that you ever do with your iPhone?
Copies of your photos, details of all your contacts, a record of wherever you have been, etc ...
... on a giant computer at our office in America, along with everyone else's information?
You'd say NO WAY !!
But when they say ...
What if we called the giant computer at our office the "iCloud" ?
Everyone goes Yaaaaay, bring it on.
iCloud users ... they're all mad!
Andy I think you maybe have twisted the views of the supporters of RG on this thread. I don't believe anyone has said they deserved to have their privacy invaded just stupid to put it there in the first place. We all know anything can be hacked. If you leave a hundred quid on your doorstep then you must take partial blame if it gets pinched. That doesn't mean you deserve it.
// If you leave a hundred quid on your doorstep then you must take partial blame if it gets pinched. That doesn't mean you deserve it //
Good analogy!
The fact is, the iCloud is not secure.
It isn't.
It just isn't.
Apple will say ... ah haah, we have clever computer people, to protect your security.
Well, so do the CIA ... and they got hacked.
So do the Pentagon ... and they got hacked.
125,000,000 people have got their information stored on iCloud. That is a huge, tempting bait for the hackers.
Every single hour of every single day, there will be thousands and thousands of people working on ways to hack into the iCloud.
Would you seriously add your own details to the big pool of bait?
Good analogy!
The fact is, the iCloud is not secure.
It isn't.
It just isn't.
Apple will say ... ah haah, we have clever computer people, to protect your security.
Well, so do the CIA ... and they got hacked.
So do the Pentagon ... and they got hacked.
125,000,000 people have got their information stored on iCloud. That is a huge, tempting bait for the hackers.
Every single hour of every single day, there will be thousands and thousands of people working on ways to hack into the iCloud.
Would you seriously add your own details to the big pool of bait?
Prudie - "Andy I think you maybe have twisted the views of the supporters of RG on this thread. I don't believe anyone has said they deserved to have their privacy invaded just stupid to put it there in the first place. We all know anything can be hacked. If you leave a hundred quid on your doorstep then you must take partial blame if it gets pinched. That doesn't mean you deserve it."
I think your analogy is flawed.
Putting £100 on your doorstep would, by anyone's measure, invite the theft therof, but as you say, you would not deserve that.
I don't think that compares with a storage system that I am sure is purported to be secure, and I think a user could resaonably expect a degree of security for their material.
So the idea that putting private material into a storeage system that is then hacked means that people were foolish for putting material they wanted to store securely, doesn't realy add up.
I think your analogy is flawed.
Putting £100 on your doorstep would, by anyone's measure, invite the theft therof, but as you say, you would not deserve that.
I don't think that compares with a storage system that I am sure is purported to be secure, and I think a user could resaonably expect a degree of security for their material.
So the idea that putting private material into a storeage system that is then hacked means that people were foolish for putting material they wanted to store securely, doesn't realy add up.
