back to article Naked Scarlett Johansson pic snatch bloke gets 10 YEARS

A US man who hacked into the email accounts of celebrities including Scarlett Johansson and Mila Kunis and later leaked their nude photos has been sentenced to 10 years in prison. Former office clerk Christopher Chaney, who claims he was "addicted" to spying on celebrities' private lives, leaked naked pictures of the shlebs to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

It won't happen again

Well not now you're going to be inside for the next decade anyway.

4
1
Facepalm

Re: It won't happen again

10 years for 28 counts of "hacking" (don't know if this was just a case of guessing default passwords or something more complicated) seems a bit much - doesn't that put it on a par with murder?

22
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: It won't happen again

No, because (in the UK at least) you get life for murder, even if you get out, you're on "life licence" and can be recalled to prison if you are charged with any crimes or possibly even cautioned.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: It won't happen again

doesn't that put it on a par with murder?

All I know is that it creates a nice precedent for when they catch Pierce Morgan, and I cannot deny I'm really, really looking forward to that. The blunt truth is that he broke the law and got punished for it. Given that they lost out McKinnon they will need some other people to make an example of, there are ever more idiots online who think that not being physically there when committing a crime is enough to keep you out of jail..

4
0

Re: It won't happen again

As I recall the accounts were on services such as hotmail and gmail. He requested password re-sets by answering security questions such as DoB, mother's maiden name, etc.

Once into the account he configured it to forward all e-mails to himself, so when the password was changed again by the legitimate user he continued to receive the e-mails. Which in turn gave him fresh celebrity e-mail addresses to play his trick on.

3
0

Who?

> All I know is that it creates a nice precedent for when they catch Pierce Morgan

Who?

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Who?

The tabloid newspaper editor who played James Bond.

13
0
Silver badge

Bit harsh 10 years

Especially when you consider all the positive publicity she got out of it!

2
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bit harsh 10 years

Plus, they were pretty poor quality- disappointing!

3
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: It won't happen again

"on par with murder".

That entered my mind too. Of course, some celebrities seem to get less for murder.

I know this is complicated, and if there was an icon for "shut up" I would not post anything about this.

Still I think we must be in the middle of some nightmare caused by the law being behind the reality. (This is of course always true.) Still if a celebrity steps out of her house naked and is photographed by some paparazzi, then yes, there is a difference, but why do we believe that anything on our computer is behind the door if we haven't got a clue about how to keep the door shut. No answers only questions. And what in fact is the value of a nude picture, is it more or less, compared to, for instance, her medical data. Clearly it's wrong to enter anybody's computer, but still, 10 years. I would be still in prison had I been caught sneaking on naked girls on the beach as a kid. One post to be deleted, but still 10 years. It does not compute.

6
3

Re: It won't happen again

Well, it's a shorter sentence than first degree murder in the U.S. (you can get silly sentences of 300 years there) but it might as well be. You might get less jail time for a rape, though.

Others are watching this. When you start dealing out holier than thou, brimstone and fire, long sentences for non violent crimes, many crimes may just become violent to eliminate witnesses or potential snitches, as well as arresting officers. (look at drugs in the U.S., for example) Criminals might as well keep fighting, there's very little incentive to surrender and face the music.

America is a really nice place full of happy people.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: It won't happen again @Grogan

>you can get silly sentences of 300 years there

You can also get a sentence such as life plus 35 years.

What do they do with the inmate for the 35 years after death?

3
0

The tabloid newspaper editor who played James Bond.

I thought that was Roger Moordock.......

0
0
Gold badge

Re: It won't happen again @Grogan

What do they do with the inmate for the 35 years after death?

Zombie film extra?

1
0
Pint

At this time of year...

...We remember a Man who thought nothing of his own freedom and instead sacrificed himself for the greater good of all mankind.

A man who looked inside, broke down barriers others thought insurmountable and revealed to all the true glory that we had all yearned for but never dared dream to experience.

Raise a glass to him.

Thank you Jesu...

WAIT WHAT?! SCARLETT'S JUBS?!? 10 YEARS?! <faints>

12
2
Trollface

Hnnh hnnh hnnh

He said "snatch"

fnaar fnaar

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Snatch Pics

I misread the headline as snatch pics, and was then disappointed to read that they only showed boobies.

8
0

Re: Snatch Pics

:-)

I suppose things might have been different had he snatched snaps some snitch snapped of snatches.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

10 years.

Good.

4
24

Re: 10 years.

Ahh Mr Reynolds, so nice of you to join us.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

A ridiculous quote

A BBC article about this affair contains a truly stupid quote from Holy Moly founder Jamie East: "If you don't want them online, don't take them".

No, what is private should remain private unless it serves society, but - as Leveson has shown - privacy laws are useless unless enforced and people get slung in jail.

This thus strikes me as a good start, from an unexpected corner..

8
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: A ridiculous quote

I totally agree - if I had some photos of me naked on my front room table and someone managed to open the door to my house, even if it wasn't locked, then plastered them all over the Internet I would rightly be mighty narked. It doesn't change it if the photographs were stored in an online service.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: A ridiculous quote

Actually the privacy laws are perfectly fine, the police just refused to enforce them until they had no choice in the matter. Everyone new that NotW and others were breaking the law but the police and the politicans stead fastly refused to do their jobs until the whole hacking Millie's phone.

No one gave two craps in the UK if celebrities phones or email or anything else was hacked because there's an over whelming opinion that Celebrities don't deserve a private life. So even though the papers and magazines were breaking the law on a daily basis nobody did anything about it. More or less systematic and chronic corruption of our law enforcement and political systems.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: A ridiculous quote

new/knew

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: A ridiculous quote

I must have been reading someone else's op when I commented

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: A ridiculous quote

Yes you'd be narked at how stupid you'd been for:

(a) Taking such photos

(b) Leaving them on the front room table, where your parents etc could have easily seen if they'd popped round, found the door open and just walked in!

(c) being the kind of tool that leaves your front door open.

The punishment for being so stupid is of course having your pics plastered around the internet.

2
3
Gold badge

Re: A ridiculous quote

Umm - if you think it's right to punish people for being stupid you really need to get your worldview adjusted.

To me, you only beat people over the head when they should know better, it's wrong to punish a cleaner for not being a rocket scientist.

It's a shame it's not listed as a Human Right, but I think we are all entitled to make the odd, possibly stupid mistake, and we should allow for others to do that. Otherwise, let a fault-free idiot throw the first stone - and thus declare himself a liar..

1
1
Thumb Down

Re: A ridiculous quote

Surely none of the "10 years - good" armchair hanging judges really believe that you'd get 10 years in jail if it wasn't a sleb's tits. I'd like to see a girl from a more ordinary background go to the cop shop & tell them someone posted a pic of their tits online - especially in the US, where they don't even bother to investigate rape* half the time, and get any response at all.

This guy got 10 years for lèse majesté, slebs being US royalty

* - NY Times - Outrageous-Policies-Toward-Rape-Victims

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Err...

What the article didn't mention was that the nine felony counts in the plea bargain were for wiretapping and unauthorised access to protected computers.

Wiretapping is treated rather more seriously in the USA than just accessing someone's computer. Ten years seems a bit harsh, but this was premeditated and not just a case of accidentally stumbling on something. He is also accused of stalking, but this seems to have been dropped. All in all, he seems like a potentially dangerous person.

5
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Seems very harsh, if I had pics stolen like this, I would want the criminal to face financial penalties, and community punishment, not time in jail.. Jail time wouldn't teach him anything except how to be a bigger criminal..

3
2
Silver badge
Alien

Also...

...how to take a shower very, very quickly.

<<< His face after taking a shower too slowly.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Err...

It's not just theft of pictures, it's wiretapping, which is really rather serious. Although yes, 10 years does seem a bit harsh, but there is very little information about why it's such a sentence.

1
0
Devil

@MrXavia

You have to ask yourself "Are you claiming for pics of you" as you nudies on the internet might hard to find in a google search.

On a more serious note.

I think its absolutely fucking stupid to claim we cannot gain privacy online just as we do offline. We use these bullshit sayings about anyone can see anything on the internet, but this is bullshit. It only like this because the industry lets it be like this.

What needs to be answered is should companies provide the facility to protect user privacy or should you leave it to the person to do their own. I am sure this is where the "open internet" argument will be thrown in, but there is a difference between the free FLOW of information and right to PROTECT or (have protected) your own information.

We here might have the knowledge to protect ourselves on this board, but I would argue its not us that need the protecting...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @MrXavia

We here might have the knowledge to protect ourselves on this board, but I would argue its not us that need the protecting...

That's exactly what I do for a living, and yes, I have no time for people like Schmidt either (he's got a nice couple of European problems coming - he's only seen half of them so far).

I have absolutely no problem with asking people for details in exchange for services, but calling that "free" is the biggest lie of all, something that people only discover after their details have for instance been used for identity theft..

0
0
Flame

Re: Also...

Its an absolute fucking disgrace that male rape is considered legitimate punishment (only in the US) for ANY offence that merits jail time as well as the jail time. Its not even a crime in some states to rape a man or has only very recently been criminalised. They have zero right to call themselves a civilised modern democracy until they do something about this.

0
0

10 years

over here you could have abused several children for that sentence. bit harsh IMO.

4
1
Facepalm

Re: 10 years

That's not strictly true. Over here you'd be given an OBE, lots of money, your own TV show(s) and a caravan in the grounds of an a school for wayward girls.

19
1
Gold badge

Re: 10 years

Ouch. Harsh but true.

0
0
Childcatcher

Re: 10 years

I almost thought the 10 years was a bit harsh myself, until I read the last sentence of the article. It appeared he quite liked children as well........ so fuck him. as for the "over here" I think sabba pretty much covered that ;-)

0
0
FAIL

But...

...email isn't really private. Just as SMS / MMS isn't really private. Email goes via any number of relays are held on any number of SMTP / POP3 servers ready for delivery to the next node in the relay chain (and for audit purposes). You have no control over who views the content. SMS I understand uses similar principles although I stand to be corrected on this. If you want something to remain private - encrypt it or don't send it via open transports in the first place.

3
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: But...

I think you have a reasonable expectation that people won't go nosing around all the queued up mail on a POP3 server or recording all the mail that goes through an SMTP server. In the same way that I have a reasonable expectation that the postman won't go through my mail.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: But...

You should have a reasonable expectation that a postcard sent through the mail may be read by someone other than you. You should have the same expectation for email - it's as secure as a postcard.

Anything you wouldn't put on a postcard shouldn't be put in an email.

6
6
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: But...

> Anything you wouldn't put on a postcard shouldn't be put in an email.

Nice motto when the door closes on you for 10 years.

1
3
ACx

Re: But...

My snail mail goes through many relays: post box, van driver, sorting office, van driver plane, van driver, local office, postman. I do not *expect* my post to ever be opened.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: But...

@Tom 38 - I disagree - while it's not as "seucre" sending a postcard, it's certainly not sending the information in the open. The card is placed in a postbox, from there to the point it is put through your door it's in the custody of the Royal Mail. The text may be visible, but it's really not the done thing for posties to read it, in fact if you had a reasonable proof that someone did read it, it would be a disciplinary matter. That's not to say that it isn't sensible to use an envelope, should you want to make sure your communication stays private.

Again, email goes through a series of trusted providers, or at least the vast majority does, where one has a basic expectation of security and privacy.

I used to work as a backup administrator - I had access to restore any of the files in the company and have a good nose round. I didn't do this because, it's not the right thing to do, I could be fired or prosecuted for doing so and I'm not a stalking sociopath like the guy who was sent down seems to be

2
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Paris Hilton

Re: But...

You are missing the point...when i send stuff by snail mail by putting it in an envelope I am, to some degree, encrypting it. Hardly secure encryption I agree. More security through obscurity. But I have to assume that there's a risk that the contents might be compromised - like the £10 that went missing from a card I received the other day and which had obviously been sliced open (but that's another matter). Now whether I'd send a photo of my girlfriend's private parts via snail mail is one thing (and, to be honest, I'm not sure I would) but I certainly wouldn't send them via email unless they were encrypted. Yes, you might hope you have a right to be privacy but be sensible - humans are, by nature, nosey bastards. And in the same way that you wouldn't walk your 14 year old daughter stark bollock naked down the street and hope that all the neighbours will refrain from looking I wouldn't expect you to send pictures of her via email either. If you, then more fool you. This kind of attitude is the reason why people can sue for twisting their ankle on an uneven pavement. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS PEOPLE. FFS.

And no, I don't condone the fact that this idiot snooped the mail in the first place. He got what he deserved - actually he probably got a damned sight more than he deserved since 10 years seems a little excessive.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: But...

@Sabba - This is someone who has broken into online mail services. He went out and did it in a premeditated manner, the photos were secure and I daresay encrypted as well, he just obtained access to the service that was hosting them. This is just the same as someone breaking into a house and taking the contents from the locked building. It is not a question of personal responsibility for one's actions, the images were stolen by someone who seems to have gone to great lengths in order to do so.

2
2
Childcatcher

Re: But...

@AC - I agree and as I noted I don't have a problem with his being punished. If you note, my issue was with people sending personal information (photos etc) via public transport and then wondering when it gets out into the wild. The fact that it hasn't been disseminated for public consumption does not mean it has not already been viewed by any number of 'curious' people.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: But...

Interesting point ACx, but who the fuck is talking about your mail being opened?

I'm positing "email is secure as a postcard". A postcard does not need to be opened to be viewed. A postcard makes its way through many postal systems. In any of those systems, the operators of the system, could, if they so wanted, view the contents of that postcard. The postcard can then be delivered, and there is no indication that the postcard has or has not been read by anyone else.

You might think that posties would never do that, they have no purpose to look, that it would be a disciplinary action if they did.

Compare this to an email. An email does not need to be marked as "opened" to be read. An email makes its way through many postal systems. In any of those systems, the operators of the system, could, if they so wanted, view the contents of that email. The email can then be delivered, and there is no indication that the email has or has not been read by anyone else.

You might think that SMTP admins would never do that, they have no purpose to look, that it would be a disciplinary action if they did.

You can dislike it, you can down vote me as much as you like, email is demonstrably similar to a postcard in snail mail, whilst people use it as a secure person to person communication tool.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums