back to article '4chan may be just a sysadmin who knows his way around', claims so-called expert

This week’s tech news was dominated by the online publication of naked photos of celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Ariana Grande, which were posted online by an anonymous hacker who apparently sourced the images from Apple’s iCloud. The pictures of 17 celebrities were posted to 4chan by the hacker, who claimed …

  1. Dave Bell

    I do find myself wondering just how much protection the usual security questions add to any website. My bank gave me a very narrow range of choices that were all on public records associated with me.

    Would Miley Cyrus remember hers? Would she pick a dumb password? She might be ignorant, rather than stupid, on such things. She gives an answer that gets her mentioned in The Register.

    1. Mullerrad
      Devil

      You could lie to your bank about your mothers maiden name!

    2. jaduncan

      This should be a hint to you that you're picking passwords that should be anything save the actual data.

    3. Bush_rat

      Security Questions

      I've heard a /very/ strong case for these being treated as passwords. For example, the maiden name question about your mother is a typical one. Instead of saying "Mary" or what ever, use something only you know as the lie, like "Taco Burger".

      The flaw is if you forget it you're in a pickle, but it means for each question the hacker has for all intents and purposes another whole password to crack/steal.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    False analogy

    "We wouldn’t stand idly by if paintings worth hundreds of millions of pounds were being stolen from the National Gallery"

    Taking of a single instance, unique copy is theft. Copyright infringement is akin to taking a photograph of it and looking at it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: False analogy

      Your analogy is totally false too !

      In fact copying for personal use is usually accepted as not being copyright infrigement...

      The whole copyright issue is centered on commercial use of the copy...and that's a different story

      To expand the metaphor copyright infrigement is:

      1) taking a photograph of a unique piece of art in a gallery.

      2) Printing and selling postcards with that picture and making a nice profit

      3) Without giving a penny to the artist who made the piece.

      What you are stealing and abusing is the livelihood of the original artist/creator !

      1. Bleu

        Re: False analogy

        Your argument is silly.

        1. If the reproduction is clearly of a space and not a copy of the work itself, it is a photograph of a place.

        2. If the work is old enough to be beyond the scope of legal protection, the original creator is dead and descendants and gallery operators are filthy rich through the corrupt system of our time, there is no reason to be ashamed of taking a photograph.

        3. Earlier conventions are dropped, people suggest that photos of buildings have some kind of copyright, this idea seems to be centred on Noo Yawk (surprise, Senator 'kawpyrite should be eetoinal' Sonny Bonobo was not hispanic). I take many good photographs, but if it has a building in it, the point will be the play of light on it, emphasising its ugliness, or its beauty in a particular light.

        One grandparent liked Sonny and Cher, so as a child I liked the sounds, but between Cher's Autotune and plastic surgery adventures and Sonny's 'eetoinal kawpeeroit' mania, I can see the mediocrity of their music.

        Those architects who claim rights to photograph or sketch their buildings should be locked in stocks outside them and loudly mocked for at least three hours, the only motive of the photographer or sketcher, if they have an eye, is in all cases to capture an image of the 'creation' in a particular light, to emphasise the ugliness of it, or to make a contrast with the surroundings.

        4. You are screaming about protecting creators, but only on behalf of the very wealthy. I take great photos, among other things (this little rant included in 'other things', but I don't mind contributing on the Reg. gratis, because they sometimes used to have good articles, which I read), damned if I will upload them or any other creative work to a 'soshul' site.

        On that point, indy and small-scale group creators, and the rape of their production by the Googles and Facebooks and Twitters, the current Internet is most horrid.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: False analogy

      "We wouldn’t stand idly by if paintings worth hundreds of millions of pounds were being stolen from the National Gallery"

      But we would have rules making it illegal for a visitor from a region 3 country viewing a painting in a region 2 gallery. Even if it had been originally stolen from their country by us.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      False analogy

      "We wouldn’t stand idly by if paintings worth hundreds of millions of pounds were being stolen from the National Gallery"

      Taking of a single instance, unique copy is theft. Copyright infringement is akin to taking a photograph of it and looking at it.

      1. Sean Timarco Baggaley

        Re: False analogy

        Er, no. Copyright infringement is just a fancy name for counterfeiting.

        It's still wrong. It just has nothing to do with stealing paintings by long-dead artists from a publicly-funded gallery. (If nothing else, the quote is a perfect illustration of why politicians should never be allowed to have any real power.)

        Counterfeiting is wrong for the exact same reason printing duplicate banknotes is wrong: it devalues the item. The more money you print, the less that money is worth. The more copies you make of a copyright-protected item, the less value each individual copy has. In effect, you're reducing the value of the work the creator made, which in turn reduces their ability to sell it.

        The fact that computers make this kind of counterfeiting easy is irrelevant. Most crimes aren't that difficult to commit: It's not that hard to point a gun and shoot people, or grab a knife from a kitchen drawer and stab someone with it. Dropping a few grains of poison into a cup of tea isn't technically all that difficult either.

        However, most people tend not to do so. Because most people aren't arseholes.

        1. dan1980

          Re: False analogy

          Copyright infringement is NOT equivalent to 'counterfeiting'.

          With copyright, what is being 'taken' is not any physical goods, nor is a fake copy of an original being made. Whatever the EFFECTS, the action that is being taken is not akin to counterfeiting.

          Copyright is the assignment of rights. The specific rights granted varies by type of work, location and other factors.

          The most fundamental right granted by copyright is the exclusive right to produce copies that work. Quite simple, really. In practice, you delegate certain portions of that right to third parties such as publishers and, in many cases, then receive payment.

          When you infringe on copyright, you infringe on the rights holder's exclusive right to copy that work. You are not 'stealing', your are not 'counterfeiting' and you are not 'pirating' (whatever that even means).

          The infringement can be relatively mild, like making a copy for your own use (e.g. of a rented movie), or it can be rather severe, which would involve making illegal copies and then distributing them for personal gain. And of course there are many shades in between, like making a copy of a CD you own for a friend (which could be considered 'distribution').

          What should be criminal is another question but whatever the answer, that crime is not theft and should not be considered or proclaimed as such.

          It is important to note that copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether the work is distributed for a fee or not. A 'free' ebook or music track still has copyright protections. What this means is that any definition of copyright that involves talk of rights holders being deprived of potential sales or decreasing the value of their works is faulty as it excludes or otherwise de-emphasises works which are not distributed for money - or not distributed at all.

          The recent celebrity nude photo releases show this very well. Reproducing these images is, in addition to a violation of privacy, a breach of copyright. If (e.g.) Jennifer Lawrence takes a photo of herself, she is the authour of that work and therefore the automatic rights-holder so reproducing it is infringing those rights.

          There is no devaluing and no lost sales of the works as they were never going to be published*. You might argue that Jennifer Lawrence herself has been devalued and may loose out, financially, from this, but that is beside the point as the copyright is on the work itself and not the subject.

          * - Well, that we know of. We can proceed anyway as it is rather likely that at least some of these celebrities did not intend to ever publish these photos.

        2. Tenacal

          Re: False analogy

          "However, most people tend not to do so. Because most people aren't arseholes."

          While that may be a big part of the reason (especially in murder examples) there is also the inherent fear that you will get caught and punished.

          With regards to copyright infringement there is very little to actually be scared of. You pirated a few films? All you can expect is a letter saying "please don't do that again".

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    4chan is a sysadmin

    Of course 4chan is the famous chinese sysadmin Fo Chan... I met him last week at the CIPC* in Las Vegas with Tom Twitter, Paul Facebook, Boris Google and Nigel Register... !!

    *CIPC (CNN Imaginary People's Conference)

    1. Bleu

      Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

      Ho, ho.

      In real life, he has recently done interviews with major media.

      As a pseudonymous character on the Internet, direct statements go back six or so years.

      Don't comment when you haven't a clue.

      1. Flawless101

        Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

        He's also done TED talks, and a, pretty interesting, AMA on Reddit. He's hardly a secret, why would you make these comments. :|

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon
          Coat

          Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

          4chan - is there a hackers name registry where I can see if this is taken already?

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

      Hey,

      Nigel Register really exists.

      http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Nigel/Register

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

      4chan is actually an AI - Siri's evil twin

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

        I thought Siri's evil twin was Cortana?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Coat

          Re: 4chan is a sysadmin

          'round these parts, those two are both evil. Only Googlelocks is virtuous.

          I'm going....

  5. TheSkunkMonk

    There was a reason why mainframes were ditched for standalone systems, and a reason why personal images werent put on the net be it secure server or not. Just going to keep happening until people take care of there own backups and dump this silly thing we call the cloud.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. dan1980

    Copyright as theft (pure and simple) . . .

    "Copyright infringement is theft, pure and simple."

    This kind of statement is exactly the problem here. Whatever else it may be, copyright infringement is not "simple". It is a battleground surrounded by a minefield.

    Copyrighted works are not the same as physical goods and the publishers of those works understand this. That's why EULAs are there. What you are buying is a license to use a work under specific conditions. That is why the exact same work - say, a movie - might be covered under different licenses with different costs. One license is for home use, another is for public display. These two licenses will have vastly different costs even though the 'work' remains the same.

    And, if 'normal' items and copyrighted works are so clearly different, why treat them the same?

    In the end, copying a CD is no more theft than stealing a CD from store is copyright infringement.

  8. Hollerith 1

    Miley

    She's not wrong. All those things do hurt your brain.

    1. dan1980

      Re: Miley

      "She's not wrong. All those things do hurt your brain."

      Doesn't make the redirection from drug use any more convincing.

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: Miley

        "Drug use" is such a perjorative term when it shouldn't be. I know so many people who regularly take drugs it's not even funny.

        I used to use nicotine daily, although I gave that up a decade ago. I only take ethanol a few times a week (I can give up any time I like), although I will admit I am a heavy user of caffeine several times a day. It is practically impossible to live on this planet without taking something which classifies as a drug, especially given the availability of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol over the counter.

        If someone says they don't take drugs I usually just laugh at them, and when they look at me funny I point out that I'm a language pedant, and what they meant to say was "I don't take controlled substances". The vast majority of drugs are not controlled substances, and many are taken daily by people who vehemently "wouldn't do drugs".

        1. dan1980

          Re: Miley

          @NumptyScrub

          Perhaps, but then I do not consider it so. I have friends who take various drugs as well. And of course, depending on your definition, many of the substances people inject everyday can be considered 'drugs'.

          Regardless, there is no definition by which marijuana is not a drug. It is, plain and simple, and the interviewer was asking a question about the potential effects of that drug to someone who admits to using it. I don't care a fig if Miley Cyrus or anyone else smokes marijuana - best of luck to them - but the question was asked and not answered but instead redirected with a bit of whataboutery.

          It's her life and she can choose to answer or ignore whatever questions she wants. All I was pointing out was that her response about all the other things she asserts as damaging to one's brain was not an answer to the question and no amount of damage from any other factor reduces any potential damage from smoking marijuana.

          1. NumptyScrub

            Re: Miley

            I'm not saying her misdirection wasn't obvious, I was mainly taking the opportunity to point out that your statement context was implying "drug use" and "controlled substance use" were interchangeable. From a medical and scientific perspective, they should not be, or I'd have to put every person in this company into rehab for their caffeine habit, myself included ;)

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Numb nutted hypocrite

    " But I don’t agree with them. We don’t look at any other crimes and say 'It’s such a big problem that it’s not worth bothering with'. We wouldn’t stand idly by if paintings worth hundreds of millions of pounds were being stolen from the National Gallery".

    Meanwhile, there is talk of crimes like burglary and other likewise offences being treated as "non serious" and essentially de-criminialised.

    So, once again, the paymasters decide WHO or WHAT gets treated as a criminal / offence.

    Frankly, i car more about my car/house being robbed than some fucking 500 year old painting or some auraul excrement CD from "Nobodys INC et-al" being plastered all over the pirate bay...

    Twat.....

    1. dan1980

      Re: Numb nutted hypocrite

      "We wouldn’t stand idly by if paintings worth hundreds of millions of pounds were being stolen from the National Gallery . . ."

      Surely not, but neither would you refer to such a crime as being the same thing as copyright infringement.

      And so if you wouldn't equate theft of unique and near-priceless art from a secure location where they were being displayed to the public as being the same thing as copyright infringement, you shouldn't consider someone copying a movie and posting it online to be the same as theft.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Copyright is not theft... but it's not legitimate

    Copyright infringement is not theft, in the sense that it does not deprive the owner of their own copy of the work. The whole 'copyright is theft' message comes from the media producers themselves.

    However, copyright infringement does mean that the owner of the work can't make (as much) money from that work. You can say 'so what' or 'they are rich anyway' 'till you are blue in the face, but that is the fact of the matter and that is what copyright protects.

    As with any product, you either want it at the asking price or you don't. Making up stories to justify taking a copy without paying for it is juvenile.

    The truth of the matter is that it is just so easy to copy music and films and so you do and then justify it to yourself after the fact. I doubt many of you spend hours photocopying the Harry Potter books instead of buying them, even though any argument you put forward about the music industry can also be applied to JK Rowling. It's purely self justification for getting something you want.

    As for fair use, copyright allows for copying a product for private non-commercial use, but this means copying your CD to your MP3 player for example, not copying your mate's MP3 files so you don't have to buy a copy yourself.

    So - to all those commenters trying to justify copying in the thread above - get over yourselves and accept that you just do it because it's easy and you don't want to pay what is being asked of you.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      FAIL

      Re: Copyright is not theft... but it's not legitimate

      "So - to all those commenters trying to justify copying in the thread above - get over yourselves and accept that you just do it because it's easy and you don't want to pay what is being asked of you."

      I'm not sure I read any posts in the thread above that tried to justify copying, but there were a lot that discussed the difference between copyright infringement and theft.

      Here's something else for you to fail to parse..

      "Reading is not thought, but comprehension requires you to think."

  11. BoldMan

    "However, copyright infringement does mean that the owner of the work can't make (as much) money from that work. You can say 'so what' or 'they are rich anyway' 'till you are blue in the face, but that is the fact of the matter and that is what copyright protects."

    Except the people to whom copyright infringement REALLY affects aren't rich. A huge amount of copyright infringement isn't AGANST big media businesses like BBC etc, its done BY them. Every time the BBC erases the metadata of an uploaded photo taken by a member of the public, they are enabling copyright infringement. The people who are affected by copyright infringement are freelance photographers as well as you and me who would have a perfect right to ask for compensation for use of our copyright material, except the big media companies would parade an army of lawyers against us to defend their infringement.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The guys at 4chan and Anonymous must be killing themselves laughing at the quality of the media experts and analysis which has been published on this.

    It must have made the whole thing so worthwhile. It's certainly been making me laugh!

    And Miley Cyrus? The only thing that hurts Miley Cyrus' brain is being asked to spell "M-I-L-E-Y C-Y-R-U-S"...

  13. Donkey Molestor X

    4chan did white van!

    Don't these rookies know? You don't stop 4chan with special characters in your "password". You get curtains and a dog!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon