Looknsee Photography wrote:
Lawrence's Nude Photo Hacker Sentenced to Prison.

I agree that this fellows actions were a violation of privacy, and I think his sentence is appropriate.

Of more interest -- despite claims to the contrary, iCloud accounts are not secure (or secure enough).

Finally, two of my many mottoes:  Never show a camera anything you don't want photographed and Any photograph nowadays can wind up on the Internet at some point.

Now I wonder when they are going to sentence big corps for hacking into our personal data? Such as big boys like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Adobe, just to name a few.

I am all for death sentence.

Chuckarelei wrote:
Now I wonder when they are going to sentence big corps for hacking into our personal data? Such as big boys like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Adobe, just to name a few.

Paranoid much ?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I agree his actions violated people's right of privacy. 

There are cases of celebrities who have killed people due to drunk driving, etc. and gotten off lighter, so I'm not sure if I agree the sentencing is appropriate.

I'd be careful - that's a hell of a slippery slope to go down.

More likely, the sentence (which probably won't be served in full anyway)was meant to send a message.

PHP-Photography wrote:
Paranoid much ?

Apparently you don't have firewall monitoring in your computing.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
There are cases of celebrities who have killed people due to drunk driving, etc. and gotten off lighter, so I'm not sure if I agree the sentencing is appropriate.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning.  What sentence would be appropriate?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Lawrence's Nude Photo Hacker Sentenced to Prison.
despite claims to the contrary, iCloud accounts are not secure (or secure enough).

The way I understand the case, the accounts were not hacked. It was the users were hacked by making them essentially give up their account information via phishing. No matter how tight a company makes their their security, no matter how much encryption you have on the files, if the user gives up their account information, the account will be compromised.

You can have a steel door that's bullet proof, bazooka proof, atomic blast proof, and zombie proof. If you give up the key, they're going to get in.

Todd Meredith wrote:
My question is would the sentence be the same if the person whose images were supposedly hacked not been a celebrity?  Had it been an every day person, would the person committing the act have gone to prison, would they have gotten off with a lighter sentence or would the court have heard the case at all?  Money drives the judicial system.  The more one has to push their agenda, the more serious the act against them is perceived to be.

That's my concern as well.  Not so much the sentence, but the disparity in sentencing.

Todd Meredith wrote:
My question is would the sentence be the same if the person whose images were supposedly hacked not been a celebrity?  Had it been an every day person, would the person committing the act have gone to prison, would they have gotten off with a lighter sentence or would the court have heard the case at all?  Money drives the judicial system.  The more one has to push their agenda, the more serious the act against them is perceived to be.

If an way you are correct. However, you're asking the wrong question. J.Law, et. al., had the resources to follow through with the suit. Their case weren't given special treatment because they were celebrities, but because they had the resources to follow through.

Too many times, the average Joe doesn't have the time, money, resources to follow through. All too often, they would need to weigh the cost of missing a day of work against their need to show up in court to be a witness. How many of us can afford to hire a lawyer just to stay on top of the District Attorney assigned to our case, when the D.A., has a caseload so heavy he would just rather plead out a deal.

Yes. J.Law's place in the society played a role, but only because her place afforded her the luxury of making sure her case was not just swept under a pile of other cases. The hacker wasn't given a higher sentence because of J.Law's status. But he wasn't given a lower sentence, because of J.Law's status.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Too many times we've seen celebrities receive treatment by the courts that the common man would never receive.  Take Martha Stewart, for instance.  Had that been you or I, I truly believe we'd still be in the can.  At the LA County lock up, celebrities are kept in a separate wing, given a brand new jumpsuit and have privileges the average prisoner doesn't.  You and I get thrown in there, we'd get a recycled jumpsuit someone else had worn and thrown through the laundry and no 235 channels. 

My point is the disparity in how that sect of society - those with money and fame - are treated in comparison to the rest of us.

I totally get your point.  I’ve read of many celebrities who are drunk driving and kill someone, but never spend a day in prison.  Martha Stewart is a similar example.  People who invade a celebritie’s privacy getting 6 months to 10 years according to the article, doesn’t seem proportional.   I have a hard time believing if someone invaded my privacy and posted naked pictures of me online, they’d serve 6 months to 10 years.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

I totally get your point.  I’ve read of many celebrities who are drunk driving and kill someone, but never spend a day in prison.  Martha Stewart is a similar example.  People who invade a celebritie’s privacy getting 6 months to 10 years according to the article, doesn’t seem proportional.   I have a hard time believing if someone invaded my privacy and posted naked pictures of me online, they’d serve 6 months to 10 years.

I agree with your way of thinking on this. 

I can't imagine anyone doing something like that to anyone.  It's just wrong, no matter how you look at it.  As for anyone posting naked pics of me online, I'm not sure Animal Planet has a category for that and I'm not talking in a good way.  LOL!

All the best to you.

Todd Meredith wrote:

I agree with your way of thinking on this. 

I can't imagine anyone doing something like that to anyone.  It's just wrong, no matter how you look at it.  As for anyone posting naked pics of me online, I'm not sure Animal Planet has a category for that and I'm not talking in a good way.  LOL!

All the best to you.

Invading someone’s privacy is illegal and those who do so, should face consequences.   I guess the thing that seems screwed up to me is that allowing someone to be seen nude is considered a worse crime than something like manslaughter, (especially if it’s a celebrity.).   If society wasn’t so hung up on sexuality and nudity, such photos being seen by the public wouldn’t be an issue.   

While I sometimes value privacy, I sometimes wonder if society would be better off if we didn’t have such expectations of privacy and were forced to confront that people are in fact nude under their clothes and are in fact sexual beings.   

Again, I also think it’s unfair that invading a celebrities privacy should carry a worse penalty than a non celebrity.  I think gender is also an issue.  I have a hard time believing hackers posting nude photos of Harvey Keitel would receive 6 months to 10 years.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Invading someone’s privacy is illegal and those who do so, should face consequences.   I guess the thing that seems screwed up to me is that allowing someone to be seen nude is considered a worse crime than something like manslaughter, (especially if it’s a celebrity.).   If society wasn’t so hung up on sexuality and nudity, such photos being seen by the public wouldn’t be an issue.   

While I sometimes value privacy, I sometimes wonder if society would be better off if we didn’t have such expectations of privacy and were forced to confront that people are in fact nude under their clothes and are in fact sexual beings.   

Again, I also think it’s unfair that invading a celebrities privacy should carry a worse penalty than a non celebrity.  I think gender is also an issue.  I have a hard time believing hackers posting nude photos of Harvey Keitel would receive 6 months to 10 years.

You make some very good points in your posting.  I agree there's a hang up about nudity but I also believe that there needs to be limits on public nudity.  There's a real difference between being nude in the privacy of your own home and, through some invasive manner, someone gets in and takes images of you and walking around with boobs or your junk hanging out in public just because you feel like it.  If we accepted the fact that everyone is nude at some point every day of their life and teach our children that's it natural within reasonable constraints, the world would probably be much better off.  I'm not sure the whole "I'll breast feed wherever I want!" is helping things at all but a woman sitting on a bench with a shawl over herself feeding her child is a natural and wholesome event.  People should recognize that on all sides of the equation.  Showing some class in how and why one is doing it is the key to it becoming more acceptable in society, as well as educating our young about the true facts of life.

As for anyone posting nude pictures of Harvey Keitel....please, my eyes, my eyes...LOL!

Zack Zoll wrote:
More likely, the sentence (which probably won't be served in full anyway)was meant to send a message.

If, in an ideal world, justice is blind, then the length of a sentence should not vary depending on whether the government wants to "send a message".