(August 7, 2017 at 9:45 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But thats what we are saying. You can use the "if you dont want ______ then don't do ________," for anything. Everything has a certain level of risk, and we have to weigh the level of risk. Recently here, someone just died and 7 others seriously hurt in a fair ride accident. The ride broke apart in motion. Not a single person is saying "wellp, they shouldn't have ridden the ride!" Again, you have to weigh the level of risk. Celebrity or not, there is nothing at all reckless about taking a nude photo of yourself, in your home, with your password secured phone. Just as there is nothing reckless about getting on a carni ride. There is no unreasonable level of risk in doing either of those things, to where you'd be a complete idiot for doing them and deserve what's coming to you. Sometimes shit just happens and you're the unlucky one. Sometimes your house gets broken into. Sometimes your shit gets stolen. Sometimes you get into a freak accident. I dont think what she did was unreasonably risky at all. It was her phone and her secured account. We never imagine our house will get broken into either, but when it does no one says you were stupid for not having MORE security. It is perfectly acceptable to lock your doors and assume youll most likely be ok without getting an alarm system, bullet proof windows, and a safe room. Sure, you can get all those things, and you probably will after you get robbed the first time. But it wasn't at all your failing for not having them in the first place.
Well, I'm saying that a celebrity is at a higher risk of this happening to them, so they should use better security measures. Better than what is available for the common folk, at least.
Picking up on your home security example... I'd say the security measures should be proportional to the assets you're not wanting to share with ill-intentioned people.
You do expect a bank to have a very difficult to break in vault. You don't expect the bank to use a standard wooden door to protect its money.
I'm not saying it's the bank's fault that it gets its money stolen... but the bank should take certain measures to deter or completely prevent such theft from occurring in the first place.
It's the reality we have. It doesn't matter how immoral it is to steal money... it happens and needs adequate security to be prevented.
Sure, the celebrity may be slightly tech ignorant and expect the password protection provided by their phone's software to be enough. But, given the stories that surely float around that crowd, they should know that account hacking happens (mostly through social engineering, than actual brute force password hacks) and thus they should try to invest in securing their assets accordingly.
