How To Keep Photos Of Your Naked Body Off The Internet

How to Keep Photos of Your Naked Body Off the Internet

If you've been conscious at any point during the past 48 hours, you've probably heard about the slew of raunchy celeb selfies making their way around the internet. It didn't have to be that way; despite all appearances, you can keep your naked body off the internet. Here's how.

1. Don't take photos of your naked body.

While not really practical advice in this day and age, it's worth noting that abstinence is the only 100 per cent effective way to avoid photos of your naked body on the internet. Still, we can't live in fear, and we have a right to take as many naked pictures of our naked selves as we want. So let's see what other options are out there.

2. If you must take photos of your naked body, don't put them on the internet.

Encrypt them on your hard drive. Make prints in your own private dark room. Stick to charcoal and passion. There are countless ways for you and your loved ones to bask in your naked glow without uploading photos to the internet. All are still riskier than just not taking photos in the first place (you'll never know until it's too late if a jilted ex-lover is particularly vengeful and/or has a 4chan account), but still far safer than what comes next.

If you really must share intimate photos of yourself — and why wouldn't you, you're resplendent — here are the best precautionary steps you can take.

3. If you must put them on the internet using a cloud service:

A) Enable two-step verification.

We've said it time and time again, but it's a fact that can't be stressed enough — set-up two-step verification on anything and everything that offers it. Especially the cloud services you likely upload all your most precious files to.

It's really the best possible way of protecting yourself against brute force attacks. With two-step, anyone attempting to log into your account from an unknown device will have to enter a code (normally sent to your phone) before gaining access. And fortunately for you, nearly every big internet service out there now offers the highly necessary feature. After all, it's a safe assumption that if any of the recently hacked celebs had two-step set up, that would be one less name on the list.

B) Encrypt your files before uploading.

This way, even if someone manages to get their hands on your precious, bare-skinned data, they (in most cases) won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Encrypting a select set of files (in this case, jpegs that showcase your danger zone) is wildly easy, meaning there's no reason not to do it.

Services like Boxcryptor work directly with major cloud services, so all you have to do is drag your soon-to-be-secret files into a special folder, which will then encrypt them before sending them off to your cloud client of choice. The only way to decrypt the files is with your very own secure key, meaning that anyone swiping files from your Dropbox or iCloud account would be fresh out of luck.

4. If you must put them on the internet using social media:

A) Well, first of all, don't.

This is undoubtedly the easiest way to ensure the exposure of your naughty bits to the entire world (see: Carlos Danger). But if you were cursed at birth, have taken a vow of Snapchat, or just really like making poor life choices, there are some ways to help yourself.

B) Namely — surprise surprise — two-step verification.

Sorry to repeat ourselves, but seriously. It's a (usually) mild hassle that can end up saving you a world of hurt. Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr — they all have two-factor, which means there's no reason for you not to hop on board the safety train.

C) Remember that ephemeral social media isn't quite as fleeting as it sounds.

Snapchats are never really gone, and of course, there's always the possibility that someone could take a screenshot of your snap. Not to mention the slew of potentially creepy apps that let you open Snapchats without ever telling the sender. Just say no to Snapchat sexting and its ilk. It's not nearly as safe as it wants you to think.

5. If you have an iPhone, just deleting the photo from your phone isn't enough.

It may seem convenient to have your photos automatically sent to the cloud above any time you snap a pic, but that same convenience can come back to bite you. As Jérôme Segura, a senior security researcher at Malwarebytes, explained to us over email:

Some celebrities thought they had deleted sensitive photos from their Camera Roll and that therefore they should be gone. This shows once again how technology can come back to haunt us. Who hasn't lost pictures or music because of an automating syncing of their device with a computer or the cloud?

Similarly, the non-obtrusive back up system kept pictures in people's Photo Stream, a separate collection that is synced across multiple devices. For many, deleting the pictures from there as well and forcing another sync on a clean backup may not have been obvious.

6. If it's already out there, you've got options.

The worst has happened, some corner of the internet is plastered with your unattired form, and you want it gone. Unfortunately, at this point, you're probably never going to be able to wipe the image from the internet entirely. But you can minimize the damages.

If you wind up on an actual porn site, they will generally be good about taking down photos as requested. And if you end up somewhere less friendly (i.e. revenge porn websites) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is at your service. There are even places that will do the leg work for you, like End Revenge Porn, though you can always just head straight to the DMCA's website to request the takedown yourself.

And if all that still doesn't work, the police will be ready to step in if needed. All of which, while occasionally necessary, is a huge hassle. So if you decide to snap some nude selfies to share with whomever your heart desires, go right ahead — just make sure to protect your saucy pics ahead of time. Because that is one hard mess to clean up.

Picture: Tara Jacoby


Comments

    "4chan account"

    Really?

      Yeah gizmodo! 4chan users have a spotless record, leave them alone!

        4chan doesnt use an account system. Its not that they cannot or should not bash 4chan, its simply that they should get their facts straight.

        It was more the point that 4chan doesn't have accounts.

          You must be new. Deleting your system32 files and sending a low low price of $9.95 to your nearest anonymous associate will gain you a 4chan gold account.

              ▲
            ▲ ▲

            But really, the files were leaked by a hacker to 4chan, it would be similar to leaking the files to facebook or instagram.

            I think points 1 and 2 really sum it up nicely tho

            Last edited 03/09/14 11:54 am

    1. Don’t take photos of your naked body.
    While not really practical advice in this day and age...

    What?!? not practical advice in this day and age?!? Look, here's the only real, 100% infallible advice you can get: When you take a naked photo of yourself, assume the world already has access to it. Be at peace with that. Fat body, skinny body, gender-queer body, it's just skin and it's all part of nature's beauty.

    I know this is all very "let's hold hands and sing kumbaya" hippy advice, but seriously: if you can't find a way to be comfortable with the whole world seeing that photo, put the camera down.

    NOTE: At no point did I say that these celebs "got what they deserved", nor did I say that the hackers are blameless. But this is the internet - so go ahead and twist my words that way in the comments below:

    Last edited 03/09/14 10:25 am

      Beat me to it - "not really practical advice in this day and age" .

      If it's impractical for you not to get your parts out in front of a camera, you should be reexamining your life.

      Because people like having fun, the most pressure often comes from loved ones and being horny leads to bad judgement calls. It's about as practical as not having sex.

        No, it's not. It is much, much easier than that. If you like having fun, buy a Frisbee and go the park. If you want everyone in the world to see you naked, take photos of yourself nude.

          I'm not saying it's impossible but it's like saying 'well, if you don't want to get your luggage stolen never travel'. Life is meant to be enjoyed. Sometimes in the process of having fun, trying new things and generally enjoying yourself you go down regrettable paths. Bad judgement calls and mistakes trusting people are made in the heat of the moment.

            No, it's nothing like that. Luggage is an essential part of travel, taking nude photos of yourself is not an essential part of anything. It is more akin to "if you don't want to catch an STD, don't have unprotected sex", in that the risk is probably quite small, the benefit likewise, but the consequences make it a huge deal.

          Well, at least your username is appropriate.

      This exactly. Did a double take when I read that.

      Yeah, it's rucking fidiculous - everytime someone says the obvious "well shit sherlock, if you don't want them getting out, just don't take nudie cellphone pics in the first place" this somehow becomes 'victim blaming'. No - I'm not blaming you - I'm just suggesting for NEXT time - it might be PRUDENT to try this ...

        Apparently I am not allowed even to suggest that it might be their own fault. It seems the only valid opinions are those that align with the moderators of the site. Gotta love free speech, don't ya?

      In more general terms, never do anything with digital media (including email and SMS) that you aren't OK with making public.

      That email privately criticising your boss may leak. Your facebook expose of your night of drunken excess will be seen by your future employer. That SMS pic of your face wearing outrageous makeup will be seen by your mother.

      Leaks may be deliberate (spouse publishes it to spite you, or a hacker cracks your acount), accidental (eg. accidentally included in an email Cc:ed to somebody you don't want to see your email) or a mix (family includes a pic in a facebook post that you didn't want made public). You can be sure that if you never, ever see a leak of material that's private to you, then you are very fortunate indeed.

      It's not really possible to do this on a blanket basis (sometimes if you're working, you may need to be privately critical of somebody else, for example) but you should always keep it in mind. At the very least, disable automatic upload to the cloud for anything that isn't either critical or (your HAVE to have a backup) or trivial (nobody other than you cares about it).

    Everything stops at the first point. Anything beyond that and you're being a dumb ass and deserves what comes next.

      Bull Shit.
      Just because someone takes a photo of something doesn't mean that they should automatically assume that photo will be available to everyone in the work, irrespective of content. That's as stupid as someone producing a list of ways to avoid having your car stolen, the first option being "don't own a car" and you saying "that's all anyone needs to know".
      There has been enough of this bullshit moralizing 'you deserve what you get' crap for the last few days. Pull you stupid head out of your arsehole and think through what you are saying.
      Jesus.

      Edited for flow.

      Same goes for you @anthem81
      Edit 2: actually, the same doesn't go for you @anthem81 - my bad

      Last edited 03/09/14 11:12 am

        Thank you! Someone with a brain!

          Lol.

            Don't fly in a plane. Anything beyond that and you're being a dumbarse, and you deserved to die when it crashed.
            Don't cross the road. Anything beyond that and you're being a dumbarse, and you deserved to die when that guy hit you while he was texting.
            Don't breath. Anything beyond that and you're being a dumbarse, and you deserved to die when that terrorist cracked open the mustard gas.

            This is your "logic" at work. You're an idiot.

              Again, you miss the point

                I've got the point firmly in grasp.
                That is the logic that's being used here. X has an associated risk, the worst possible outcome has happened so it's your fault for doing X in the first place.

                The only reason this discussion is being had is because it's famous people with naked photos. You feel it's justified because you think you're smarter than them when it comes to internet security. "This would never happen to me because I know all about internet security. Serves them right for being so stupid."

        I agree with trishool, I’m pretty sure the people that take these photos think they are not going to be spread, but you know what – they get spread all over the place in the end, it’s going to happen..

        ultimately It’s their fault that their pictures ended up on the net, sure enough it was the hackers that sped up the process but again eventually they potentially would of somehow
        Ended up on the net. These people that take nude photos take them because they want to send it to someone, that someone usually ends up sharing them and it just snowballs.

        Not to mention that celebrities by now should know that hackers will target them for valuable and personal info, They have all this money yet they fail at simple common sense.

        Tl:dr It’s inevitable.

        Last edited 03/09/14 11:29 am

          Of course they think they are not going to be spread. That's because the first thing people think when they take a photo is not "Well, I guess the whole world is going to take this then, hey". Because why should they? Sure, if you're posting the pics somewhere which is intended to provide others access (e.g. Facebook) then it is unsurprising if someone downloads the pic and shares it. It still isn't inevitable if Facebook staff are not dodgy, your 'friends' are not arseholes, and your privacy settings are reasonably restrictive. However, Facebook is for sharing and so sharing happens there.
          The same doesn't apply to iCloud, Dropbox, Google Photos (when pics are private) and so on. They are intended to be private. Hell, we're not even talking about cloud services here, just taking the damn pic.

          Your representation of the analogy is incorrect. The original analogy was derived using an easy structure:
          If you don't want X to be stolen you shouldn't have X
          Original X: nude self-pics
          Substituted X: car

          Addition:
          These people that take nude photos take them because they want to send it to someone, that someone usually ends up sharing them and it just snowballs.
          Can you read their minds? Maybe they took the photos because they just wanted to look at them. Maybe they did want to send them to someone else. So what? If we were talking about a mode-of-transit attack here then maybe that would matter, but we're not.

          Edit 2:
          My position (one of many) is that cloud providers should be legally liable for data leaks, including if those leaks are through compromise of user accounts if the service didn't use best-practice account management. If you're offering 'secure' storage, you shouldn't be able to indemnify against your security being broken.
          (Note that in this case, the criticism is about not notifying users of account access via a side channel)

          Last edited 03/09/14 11:32 am

            Even if they took the photo's the no intention of sending them there is still and always a chance that they could have their phone stolen or left behind , it happens to everyone at some point. Would you feel comfortable keeping sensitive data on your phone, the phone that you carry around everywhere, that has access to public Wi-FI networks etc..

            My phone is secure with access to remote wipe if needed however I still choose not keep sensitive data on it because there is always a chance someone could still gain access to it, It may be unknown to me in how they gain access but all I need to know is that it can happen, in the end it comes down to common sense.

            Next time if they want to for whatever reason take naked provocative pics of themselves use a normal camera.

              I do carry sensitive data on my phone. It is in an encrypted store on the device, and the device itself is encrypted. I am aware there is a non-zero risk there, but for practical reason I basically have to wear it. I need to be able to do things using that data wherever I am, and over a network.
              Not only that, my phone has apps which I use for banking. It also has access to my e-mail, and I use that to send tax information to and from my accountant. Do I encrypt those e-mails? No, because I can count on one finger the number of people I know who use e-mail encryption or signing, and that is including me.

              I have pics of my family that I wouldn't want distributed from significant events, but sometimes the drives on which they reside are connected to my computer because I maintain backups, add photos, and so on. The drives are encrypted, but there is always a risk that a compromise of my computer could expose those pictures.

              These risks are unavoidable, in part because of the complexity of security and partially because there is a tradeoff between utility and security.

              I agree that you can't provide perfect protection for users, and indeed targeted phishing attacks are probably the most dangerous of all because they rely on weaknesses in user knowledge supported by technical weaknesses. It is virtually impossible for a company to protect their users from that, but there are a bunch of recommendations for trying: for example, notification being sent to your device when a new device accesses your account and so on. Some of these are often not implemented, for which I hold the storage providers responsible.

              Anyway, that's enough blah from me for one go.

          So, nobody has a right to expect privacy because "it's inevitable" that no matter what, it's going to end up on the internet? Are you even listening to yourself?

            Yes, the method that these people used to do such a thing makes it highly likely, It's not impossible because of how they stored the data - it's still a risk.
            I specialise in this type of thing as It's what I'm employed to prevent.

            Yes, I feel sorry for them but at the end of the day it’s still their fault even if it was a venerability with icloud, there are certain measures people must take in order to prevent things like this happening and they failed to do those.

            Last edited 03/09/14 12:10 pm

              "Yes, I feel sorry for them but at the end of the day it’s still their fault"

              No, the only person at fault here is the hacker who illegally got hold of the photos and distributed them on the internet. Don't conflate "not taking enough precautions" with "being at fault". They're two very different things. If you're walking down a dark alley and get mugged, it's not your fault for walking down the dark alley. Sure, it may have been wiser to take a well lit street, but that still doesn't mean it's your fault.

                Don’t take risky pictures of yourself using a well-known venerable device
                When first setting said venerable device, don’t allow data to be duplicated onto an external storage service.
                The device gives you choices, it’s up to the end user to make the right ones.

                Large corporations use Cloud services for some data storage, but why don’t they keep sensitive information on them?
                - Because it’s a risk, they CHOSE not to store sensitive on such a medium because they know it’s not ‘secure’

              A) Vulnerability. Venerability is a completely different word.
              B) It's not "their fault". It's 100% the fault of the person who hacked their accounts and stole them. How is this SO difficult for you people to understand?

              If the person who has hacked their accounts did not do it in the first place, none of this would have happened. The photos would still be locked safely away in their iCloud accounts and we'd be none the wiser. It is 100% the fault of the person who has accessed the data illegally. End of story.

                No you are wrong,

                it is not 100% secure. you don't get it, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that keeping data on a medium such as a cloud service is never 100% secure.

                Keeping important info on your phone is not 100% secure.

                If it was 100% then people like me won't have a job.

                Last edited 03/09/14 1:11 pm

                  It doesn't matter if it's 100% secure or not! The have a right to expect that the security that is in place is not circumvented.

                  If a multinational hosts their sensitive data with a company that has a 99.99% secure location, someone then finds that .01% vulnerability and steals their data, who's fault is it? The hacker who's stolen millions of dollars worth of data or the multinational for not providing enough security?

        That's as stupid as someone producing a list of ways to avoid having your car stolen, the first option being "don't own a car" and you saying "that's all anyone needs to know".
        Your comparison is not equal. The risk and end result of having your car stolen are both low and the fact that you have a safeguard (car insurance). End result, get a new car from car insurance claim. However if you have a smart phone and various cloud backup services, then there's a good chance (50% say) of you having your phone stolen or lost. You also have a risk of your cloud service being compromised (either with or without the phone in someone elses possession) if they can hack your account. Not to mention the pain of recovering accounts, the embarrassment if those nudies end up in the wrong hands (or sent to your co-workers/family/friends or being spread all over the internet in general), losing other pictures/memories, etc etc etc.

        Seriously bro if you cant see that, then the only person with head/anus problem is you (and possibly evo666 by the looks of it).

          Your point about car insurance is a good one - we do hedge against out cars being stolen.
          People also hedge against their phone being stolen in a variety of ways: for example, putting a PIN on their phone. Look at how people react when a PIN bypass appears for a device (as it has before): they go crazy. Why? Because when something is meant to be secure you expect it to be secure.

          Apart from that, returning to your original comment:
          Everything stops at the first point. Anything beyond that and you're being a dumb ass and deserves what comes next.
          I see there where you say 'on a phone', or 'and upload to the cloud', or any variant thereof.
          Wait, no I don't because you didn't say them. If you want to make broad, sweeping statements feel free but don't get uppity when someone points out that your comment is fucking stupid because your comment is fucking stupid.

            Wait, no I don't because you didn't say them. If you want to make broad, sweeping statements feel free but don't get uppity when someone points out that your comment is fucking stupid because your comment is fucking stupid.
            Dude considering how many comments you've made in this thread, I'd say that the only person here that is acting fucking stupid is you (and highly likely @evo666 as well). Stop behaving like as if the only persons viewpoint that is valid is yours. And stop acting like its pictures of your mothers hole that was spread all over the internet. Seriously you are a major douchebag (you too @evo666). How about trying to get your point across in a mature manner without the sarcasm and name calling? Or would you like me to maintain the assumption that standards dont exist?

            for example, putting a PIN on their phone. Look at how people react when a PIN bypass appears for a device (as it has before): they go crazy. Why? Because when something is meant to be secure you expect it to be secure.
            If youre dumb enough to expect your digital device to be secure 100% of the time, blindly believing the OS/phone manufacturer, then you'd be "fucking stupid" (as you'd say). Reality is a big kick in the balls compared to anyones expectations of security and privacy on an INTERNET CONNECTED DEVICE THAT CAN EASILY BE STOLEN AND HACKED.

            I see there where you say 'on a phone', or 'and upload to the cloud', or any variant thereof.
            It is pretty much implied as the whole subject matter of this article is relating to digital photography/smart devices/cloud services. Oh sorry, didnt realise I had to spell it out for you, your highness :-P (This is where you should personally feel "fucking stupid").

            Seriously, dont be dumb about smart devices and digital nudies. They are just like oil and water - they dont mix.

              Oh, there are people other than me presenting valid viewpoints.
              You're just not among them.

              Last edited 03/09/14 1:42 pm

                Self righteous much? Or douche much? Take your pick. Im betting on both for you though.

                  There is actually a considerably longer and more detailed stage-by-stage response stuck in moderation at the moment. You might want to save some insults for when (and if) that gets approved.

                  @trishool
                  Aww, you broke my feels. You big meanie.
                  That, and showing up your comments as the idiotic babbling they are is its own reward.

                  Last edited 03/09/14 6:44 pm

              @trishool
              Sorry for my previous brief response: I was just running out the door.
              Anyway...
              Stop behaving like as if the only persons viewpoint that is valid is yours.
              Mine is certainly not the only valid one. It is just that there are also a range of really, really stupid viewpoints too.
              And stop acting like its pictures of your mothers hole that was spread all over the internet.
              What kind of stupid argument is that? I've seen people complaining because they thought that celebrities were getting treated differently in that this was being reported. This is like the opposite: we shouldn't be bothered by the events because they are celebrities. Unless there is some fundamental underpinning of the arguments that changes because they are celebrities (and I don't think there is, although the risk profile changes) then it would be more ethically inconsistent for me not to be pissed off just because they are celebrities.
              Seriously you are a major douchebag (...).
              Aww, my feelies.
              How about trying to get your point across in a mature manner without the sarcasm and name calling?
              Believe me, I'm not being sarcastic when I say your arguments are stupid. However, I'm certainly not saying you are stupid. It would be a pretty unusual case for me to draw that conclusion for discussion on a single topic.
              If youre dumb enough to expect your digital device to be secure 100% of the time, blindly believing the OS/phone manufacturer, then you'd be "fucking stupid" (as you'd say).
              This is a reasonable point, and @poweredbyme has brought it up too (and it sounds like s/he works in the netsec industry). It makes things more complicated. Clearly, nothing is 100% secure all of the time, but behaving as if virtually no device can be trusted at all is not a workable solution. In that case, I'd be forced to manage my photos on a network-disconnected computer in a faraday cage (in case someone is using a tempest device) in a soundproof room (in case my computer is hacked using high-frequency sound). If I wanted to share my photos on social media, I'd have to burn a writable disc (because I can't risk that a USB drive I connect is affected by BadUSB or similar, and I can't bring another device into the faraday cage inside the soundproof room in case it is compromised and is used as an attack vector. Of course, I would never be able to allow another computer to connect to my camera, or ever use the memory card in another computer, in case they got infected by something that then went to my protected machine and subsequently leaked data. You see the problem?

              There is a balance between risk and utility, and that goes for a whole range of aspects of life. Driving carries risk, but we don't tell people who are in a car accident that they shouldn't take the risk of driving (generally). Eating out carries risk (you could get food poisoning and die) but we wouldn't tell someone that they shouldn't have eaten out.
              We do expect people to take some precautions, but the way we think about that depends on the events. If someone isn't wearing a seatbelt, hits a tree, and is injured then we might think that they should have been wearing a seatbelt. If that same person isn't wearing a seatbelt and gets t-boned by a drunk driver being chased by police then we would probably be much more sympathetic and the seatbelt would feature less in our thinking. Similarly, if someone ate at a really, really dodgy food joint where there were cockroaches on the walls and got food poisoning we might think that they should have known better than to eat there. However, if the front-of-house was shiny and clean then we would probably think differently.
              The same goes here. If someone didn't have a PIN on their phone and left it in a bar and the images were retrieved that way, we might suggest it would have been prudent to have the PIN. Not that not having a PIN makes the person who took the phone and distributed the images in that hypothetical any less responsible or any less of a douche. It is (in my opinion) clearly ethically wrong for someone to find that phone and then distribute the images, even if there was no PIN. The blame here is not with the person who left the phone or didn't have a PIN. It is certainly unfortunate that they didn't take better precautions in this hypothetical story, and some may feel a bit less sorry for them as a result (rightly or wrongly) but the fault is in no way alleviated at all from the person who took and distributed the images.

              Reality is a big kick in the balls compared to anyones expectations of security and privacy on an INTERNET CONNECTED DEVICE THAT CAN EASILY BE STOLEN AND HACKED.
              Easily stolen and hacked? Stealing may be straightforward, but you must be looking for information in different places to me if you think that hacking a locked iPhone is easy, or something that just anyone can do. That's why there is a big kerfuffle when PIN bypasses and the like are found - because these devices are not easy to hack.

              It is pretty much implied as the whole subject matter of this article is relating to digital photography/smart devices/cloud services. Oh sorry, didnt realise I had to spell it out for you, your highness :-P (This is where you should personally feel "fucking stupid").
              Actually, since the article is a list of points and every single point after the first is about cloud services, saying:
              Everything stops at the first point.
              is about as close to explicitly excluding the relevance of the cloud service aspects of it as you can get without having actually having appended to the end of your initial comment 'whether a cloud service is involved or not'.

          The point that you and some others here seem to be missing is that even if you have a bunch of nude photos of yourself on your phone and in the cloud, and let's say your phone gets stolen or your account get hacked, and the thief shares all your nude photos on the internet, you are still not at fault! The ONLY person at fault here is the scumbag who illegally accessed your photos and shared them. Regardless of whether their behaviour was risky or not, to say the victim here "deserved" what they got is completely moronic.

          See above points. Remove your head from your arse.

            no need to get so upset about it, we are all having a perfectly good augment/debate. Refrain from taking it personal and abusing others

            Last edited 03/09/14 1:10 pm

              Who's abusing? "Having your head up your arse" is a colloquial phrase to suggest someone isn't thinking correctly because they're blinded by their own bias. I'm simply following the tone of this particular thread. vj9c9 suggested that trishool should remove their head from their arse. trishool suggested that the vj9c9 and I may be the ones with that problem. vj9c9 and Dman provided the points I would make in my defence, so I suggested trishool read the above and, hopefully, peer out from behind their own bias (their arse).

              But nice try.

              Mea culpa. I do think I brought the foul language to this particular party (stepping it up from the original 'dumb ass' comment by trishool).

        What a terrible argument. They're not discussing ownership of an object, they're talking about a "bad" action. *Bad as in not the smartest, not "wrong".

        A better car example for point 1, would be not leaving a car in a bad neighborhood.

        It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds that placing anything where other people can get to it is a risk. Look at the literally hundreds of sex tapes that have popped up over the years, or the numerous hacks/leaks of data from the PS network, credit card details, store information etc.

        Don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to take naked pics and store them somewhere, and I think the hackers deserve to be prosecuted if they can be found. But common sense is common sense... When they first started talking about storing data on the cloud years ago I remember thinking what a terrible, insecure idea.

          I've mostly argued this elsewhere, but I'll respond in summary. I hope that's ok.
          The example with the car was not about ownership or control per se. Rather, the idea was to communicate that just because A may be effective at preventing B, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to expect people to do (or not do) A in order to to prevent B.
          With the car example: not having a car does prevent your car being stolen, but it is not a reasonable thing to expect people to do in order to avoid car theft
          Similarly, not taking photos of your naked body (and note here that the original post was not discussing cloud storage or anything else, but specifically referred to only that first point being important) does prevent nude photos being stolen, it is not a reasonable expectation for people to stop taking photos of their naked body in order to stop the photos being stolen and distributed.
          That's my opinion, anyway: saying "if you take photos of yourself naked you're a dumbass and deserve what you get" (meaning, in the context of this case, you deserve to have them stolen and distributed) is placing an unreasonable expectation on people in order to avoid the outcome. If you start adding things like posting to Facebook, then the equation rapidly changes, of course.

          The various hacks are big problems, but we don't expect people to stop using credit cards because credit card systems get hacked: we expect credit card companies to get themselves sorted, and make them liable. Similarly, I think we should have higher expectations for cloud storage providers, and they should be liable for data leakage or loss that is attributable to insecurity on their part, or failing to implement best practices for data security.

          There will always be cases where a user is tricked, such as phishing e-mails, but with good planning and design even the consequences of someone falling for phishing e-mails can be mitigated.

            Sorry, mate, but "not taking photos of your naked body" is not only reasonable, it is sensible. What are the consequences of it? Zero. Moreover, what are the benefits of doing it? Also zero, unless you enjoy masturbating while looking at photos of yourself, I suppose. (Personally, that would be instant "soft-on" stuff for me.) And surely taking nude photos of yourself is textbook Narcissistic behaviour? I sincerely believe anyone who does it probably needs help.

        Sorry, vj9c9, but I think Jennifer Lawrence and dozens of others would disagree with you today. The stolen car thing is not a great analogy, as owning a car is not nearly as stupid as taking nude photos of yourself. There are many good reasons for owning a car, there are no good reasons for taking nude photos of yourself. I'd suggest it is more in line with being told not to leave your keys in an unlocked car if you don't want it stolen. Or a better analogy might be not wanting to catch an STD but having unprotected sex and being told "don't have unprotected sex, end of story". In each of the three cases, the level of stupidity involved is roughly similar.

    Not taking photos is the first step and the only way to actually ensure it doesn't happen, but if you do, please don't take them on a phone. Those things are already connected to the internet.

    A reason that people might want to take photos of themselves in their birthday suits would be to keep progress updates on various medical issues. (e.g. If a female wants to keep track of breast problems, or keep a reference point for later on when they feel they might have a problem)

    Telling people not to take naked photos is like saying "the best way of avoiding pregnancy is to not have sex". Correct, but no one's going to do it.

      Yeah though they could take preventive measure like wearing protection, pills and contrception injection etc...

      Like they could have maybe not used a smart phone to take said pictures?

        The difference is that contraceptive measures have a direct cause-and-effect relationship on getting pregnant, e.g. using a condom directly blocks your sperm from reaching the egg.
        Taking photos on a smart phone in and of itself does not cause your private pictures to leak out onto the public internet. A third party has to come in and access them somehow, and then distribute them. This third party is who is at fault, not the person who took the photos.

        They all took preventative measures. It's called a password and they all used it. Whether or not that's the "best" measure of protection is irrelevant.

        No contraception is successful 100% of the time but are you going to turn to the people for whom it doesn't work and say, "Well, it's your own fault!"? No, you're not. Because you'd look like a massive dick.

          Using a password that's "password" is not prevention >_

            As I said, whether or not it's the "best" measure of protection is irrelevant.
            I agree that using "password" isn't great, that doesn't mean that these people deserved to have their private photos spread around the world.

              It doesn't matter if it's 100% secure or not! The have a right to expect that the security that is in place is not circumvented.

              If a multinational hosts their sensitive data with a company that has a 99.99% secure location, someone then finds that .01% vulnerability and steals their data, who's fault is it? The hacker who's stolen millions of dollars worth of data or the multinational for not providing enough security?

              It would be both parties.

              1 - because hacking is illegal.
              2 - Because they chose to store data on a unsecured medium, which is why this won't happen in the first place (if it was a "multinational")

              You are talking to someone who deals with this on a daily basis

                99.99% secure is hardly "unsecured". Given that there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof security system, that means that the company who had their data stolen would always be at fault for any sort of security breach. I don't buy that at all.

                  I would never claim a system is even close to 100% secure I would be lying to clients if I did.
                  Companies follow proper procedure for data retention and it all starts to how they do these procedure ie like where important data is stored.

                  Sensitive data is never stored on a portable device let alone a 3rd party service "cloud".

          If I found someone's phone which has a pass-code on it, I could still get in if I wanted to, there are many many around such measures.
          meaning it's not secure. your arguing on very basic points.

          Contraception is not 100% successful.

          No Contraception company has ever stated %100 prevention.
          Condom's can break.
          The Pill might not work or be taken wrong.
          The implant injection might be rejected by the body.
          There's still a chance however it's unlikely - in regards to sex, this argument no longer applies to the photo leakage issue that we are talking about.

            You're right. It doesn't apply because in that case, there is nobody at fault. Nobody has worked surreptitiously to circumvent the security measures someone has implemented.
            If someone has poked several holes in your condom, you use same and you get someone pregnant, who's fault is that? Yours for not checking every single condom under an electron microscope or the person who has actively worked to undermine the security measures you've taken?

            It's pretty simple really.

            Really? I was under the impression that the current iOS release+update had no known PIN bypasses.
            Android, I imagine it is much more likely because apps can disable the lock screen (leading to problems like this)

              Yeah that is true,

              At work we are able to bypass the pass code using an application made by Apple.
              though i'm sure enough there is a pirate version around somewhere.

                Does that require the device to already be associated with a company account or something? I'm just curious, because I have a passing interest in knowing the security limitations of the various devices.

                Mainly being an Android user, there are a whole bunch of security frustrations I have to face that iOS users don't have to. For example, if I'm running a custom ROM (setting aside the need to trust the source code I'm compiling, because I can't audit it all myself) then the ROM will typically include a 'recovery' which allows someone without any passcode to apply a patch to my system partition. They can't change my data partition because it is encrypted, but unless I switch to a kernel which doesn't include the 'recovery' then there is nothing I can do to prevent someone patching my device OS.
                Even if I do remove the recovery and bootloader-lock the phone, an attacker can get the unlock code from Sony if they have the IMEI and then unlock the bootloader and install a new kernel which includes the recovery (or just overwrite the system partition itself).

                That's the trade-off with flexibility, I guess.

                tl;dr; for the second part: If your phone can have the bootloader unlocked, then you can never safely let your phone out of your sight unless you re-flash the OS afterwards.

                Last edited 03/09/14 3:25 pm

                  Yeah, it pretty much works the same way with how you mentioned with Android, I'm not exactly sure on the finer details on how it does it though, it's pretty locked down since it's not meant for consumer grade issues.

                  In saying that, re-enforcing my argument for those who think said devices are not vulnerable and 100% secure, it's not.

                  YES it's unethical and wrong to STEAL personal information from someone YES it's also the hacker's fault but at the end of the day IT'S still the USERS fault for putting SAID CONTENTS on a VULNERABLE device.

                  Put it this way, this is a very simple extreme scenario.

                  For example -

                  A General who is in charge of nuclear warheads is carrying around the launch codes and location of said nukes on his 'password' protected phone.

                  A spy breaks into his house and steals his phone, gains access to the classified information and eventually launches a nuke against some country.

                  The media will blame the spy for doing such a thing since it was the spy that stole the information and launched the nuke. However on the BACK END, the military had procedures IN PLACE for carrying such information around like NOT carrying that type of classified info on a phone, ultimately it was the General's fault that the information was obtained because he failed to follow the correct procedure in CLASSIFIED data retention, there were many other options available to the General yet he though that
                  "Well my phone has a password, what could go wrong?!"

                  BOOM.

                  Image is almost everything when it comes to a celebrity, it's their reputation. Putting something on a phone that can potentially ruin your career is stupid in the first place.

            "If I found someone's phone which has a pass-code on it, I could still get in if I wanted to, there are many many around such measures".
            That still doesn't mean it's the phone owner's fault for using a pass-code. It's your fault for purposefully trying to get into their phone without their consent.

      Are you serious? When I read about this, the first thing I thought was "why would anyone take nude photos of themselves?" Seriously, why would you? It is the stupidest thing ever and it would never have occurred to me in a million years. In fact, it's not only stupid, it's weird. Granted, it's not as weird as the number of videos you see of teenagers masturbating in front of their web-cam on any and every porn site you go to but it's still weird.

    I put photos of my naked body on the Internet and nobody wanted to look at them :(

    Damn you Jennnifer Lawrence!

    Did anybody else giggle when they read boxcryptor?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now