UPDATED WITH APOLOGY: Does anyone else on DU lock the doors to their house and car?

[MannyGoldstein]

UPDATE:

Spider Jerusalem points out that storing iPhone photos on iCloud is something one needs to opt out of. That's just #%^*ed up.

Based on this, I withdraw my original post and apologize.

Original post is below.

-------

Keep money in the bank instead of in piles of cash in the living room?

I keep reading that there's nothing wrong in using cloud Internet services to store photos that we don't want others to see. I'm completely in agreement that victims shouldn't be blamed for crimes against them, but I think there is such a thing as using one's head to reduce risk. If I leave gold bars on my lawn and they get stolen...

[CBGLuthier]

1. You really like sideways analogies, don't you.

All things in life are not the same.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Computer systems get hacked all the time.

Tens of millions of credit card numbers stolen every year, identity theft, and all the rest.

Is it not obvious that the cloud is a significant privacy risk?

[Agschmid]

15. It should be obvious.

But I still use it.

[fishwax]

43. sounds like using credit cards is even riskier

I remember how when Target had all that data stolen half the commentary was about the dangers of not using cash.

[sendero]

54. Do you really expect..

.... the average phone user to have a clue about any of this? Many who think they are technically savvy don't.

Bottom line: someone broke into a computer that was not theirs and stole stuff. That is a crime by definition and I hope the shitstain that did it goes to jail.

[DontTreadOnMe]

67. Yes, an average phone user SHOULD have a clue

most accounts that get "hacked" are because of POOR password choices... ones that are easy to "guess" with computer scripts.

A good online strategy with any passwords is to use a combination of upper and lower case, AND a number AND a special character.
That makes the password about ONE MILLION times hard to crack.

Notice that many websites now will warn you when you create passwords, it will say "weak" password.

Having a weak password is just plain stupid. But hacking is ALWAYS a crime, and there should be harsh penalties. But then again, cops who commit crimes get days off paid.. so go figure. Black Americans who shoplift get executed.. white Wall Street felonies get wrist slaps.

[yeoman6987]

32. For some reason I lock th car

But keep the front door unlocked. I live in a gated community. I suppose with a false sense of Security

[Xipe Totec]

2. Banks have electronic services and some banks use cloud internet facilities

So even if I don't use the banks electronic access, the fact remains that my money is accessible on the internet.

We may argue about the level of security provided on the internet by a bank vs a personal data vault, but that's only a mater of degrees, not genre.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. But if the bank gets hacked, the bank normally eats the damages

That's been my experience.

[hlthe2b]

4. Meh... I just let the neighbor next door I just met keep my millions in their basement lockbox.

naturally.... What is the point of this thread?

[Gormy Cuss]

5. Banks get robbed. Is that a good reason to keep your cash in the living room? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Which is more likely to get robbed?

And who eats the losses if the bank's robbed?

[Gormy Cuss]

10. So you think your bank analogy is faulty, I take it.

Before regulation, the depositors ate the losses when the bank was robbed. Even today the high level depositors are expected to eat some loss when the bank fails.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. What's the more likely scenario?

Gotta put the money somewhere.

[dsc]

31. only if they are idiots

you get 250k insurance per account. thus one just has to keep accounts at or below 250k

[Gormy Cuss]

58. You're reacting to whether it's prudent to keep more than the insured amount in the accounts.

I was stating the fact that there is an expectation that depositors will lose the uninsured amount.

[Chan790]

13. I don't eat the losses if my house is robbed.

Travelers does. That's what having theft protection on home insurance is for.

[randome]

8. I've used this analogy a few times the past week or so.

If I left my wallet filled with cash on a public sidewalk and returned to find it gone, the thief would still be a thief but I would be an idiot for putting it there in the first place.

(Never mind that I rarely keep cash on me.)

(Somewhat in agreement with MannyGoldstein? Something is broken in this world.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agschmid]

16. Quick call the repair person!

[randome]

17. I don't think something like this can be repaired. Best to pretend it never happened.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uben]

48. ..then technically I'm a thief

....I found a wallet in the middle of the street last week. Of course, I stopped and picked it up. It had a $11 in it, a DL, and three credit cards and a debit card. No phone number to contact, just an address in a town 30 miles away. This was the Saturday two days before Labor Day. It had the place where the guy was employed, that was the only other means of contact. But, being LAbor Day weekend, they were closed.
I drove the 30 miles to the address on the DL on Monday. No one was home, so I contacted the local PD and turned it in to them to return to the fellow. So, technically, I was a thief for a couple of days, although I had every intention of returning it.

This is the fourth wallet I have found in my life. Each was returned to it's owner intact. I have lost two wallets myself. One was returned, minus the $200 cash, and the other was never seen again.

In reality, I was not a thief at any point. Even if I had kept the wallet and its contents, I was not a thief because I did not take it, I found it. There is no law saying it is against the law, or requiring me to return it. But, I have morals.

[randome]

51. No, you're not a thief. That wasn't my point at all.

You're talking about missing property, as opposed to property deliberately left in the open.

You could even say those who broke into Apple's iCloud are not thieves, either, since they merely copied what was there.

Obviously I don't agree with that, I'm just throwing it out as an odd juncture to the issue.

Making an effort to return someone's property is an entirely different thing. If someone had broken into iCloud to see if they could, then sent messages to the photo owners to demonstrate how unsecure it was, that would be about the same as you returning someone's wallet.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uben]

59. Oh, I totally agree

I would have felt like a thief had I not returned them. I don't lie, either. That has gotten me into a few scrapes over the years, but it kept my integrity intact.

[randome]

65. I've found that being honest and straight-forward usually lends a measure of strength.

No matter the short-term 'loss', if any, you have, as you said, your integrity.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Chan790]

9. I don't.

I have no need to lock my house, there's never nobody there. I think I can safely count on the hired help to call 911 if a stranger walks into my living room and starts taking stuff. I have a car service so I don't have a car to lock. I keep my on-hand money in a hidden safe on the premises. The majority is with my financial advisor, I assume he uses a bank for what of it is not currently tied-up in investments and fungible assets.

I don't care who looks at my nudie pics either.

Don't buy gold bars, let alone leave them on the lawn; gold is overvalued currently and has no price-durability if the world fell apart tomorrow. They'd be worth less than toilet-paper...people need toilet-paper more than they need shiny metal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Hell yes.

I had a break in a few years back. The police came, basically did nothing, and told me to be sure to lock my doors and windows.

You can't trust other people to 'look out for you', even if they promise they are, or are indeed paid specifically to do so. It's a nasty world out there, and its up to you to take as many precautions as you can to minimize your chances of becoming a victim of a crime of opportunity. That's not 'victim blaming', any more than it is to say 'the sick wildebeest gets eaten by the lion' is blaming the sick wildebeest for being eaten. You want to stay 'healthy' so the lion goes after some other wildebeest, rather than you.

[Hemmingway]

18. Police are not obliged to protect you.

That's a common misconception. The courts settled that matter long ago.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Get a personal defense firearm and make your residence an unappealing target for break-ins. That's about all you can really do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. No, but I kind of thought we paid them to actually try to solve crimes.

Not an attempt at 'dusting for fingerprints', 'canvassing the neighbourhood' to see if anyone saw anything, etc.

Just a shrug and 'it's up to you'.

[Hemmingway]

63. Did you provide serial numbers for items stolen?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. In that particular burglary attempt

our guard dogs chased them off before they managed to steal anything - it was B&E, but no robbery.

The last time anyone actually managed to steal anything from me was a couple of decades back, during college in another town, and what was stolen was of minimal value.

Still, I kind of think even failed burglaries should be checked out in a wee bit more detail.

[cwydro]

73. Police actually solved a crime when my bike was stolen.

An extremely expensive one.

Funny, the night it happened I saw the guys (did not know them, but a very small town and recognized them.) I even saw where they went with the bike because they lived fairly close by, and I chased. I saw them go over my fence. and my dog and I ran after them.

I am white. I am female. The thieves were Hispanic. They were male. The police were Hispanic. The police were male. Hugely Hispanic town. The police were dismissive of me. Nothing happened. But I made the report. Descriptions, serial numbers, photos of bike etc.

One year later, the same two assholes were caught in a major theft ring...bikes, boat motors, electronics (this was in Florida). I was called (because of my earlier report) and because they found my bike, and I IDed the guy on a 9 photo lineup. I have a great memory for faces.

Thief admitted it in court. Huh. I got $200 restitution for a $700 bike that was never the same.

So they do solve crimes. But all sorts of things wrong that night it happened.

So, there ya go. All kinds of interesting tidbits to study in that story.

It's a true one.

[Bjorn Against]

35. Firearms don't make your home unappealing for a break in, they are very commonly stolen items

Most break-ins happen when people are not home, firearms will provide no defense but they will provide the thieves with something else to steal.

[MineralMan]

14. Which Manny wrote this?

Whichever one it was should think longer before writing. Everything gets stored in the cloud, which is purported to be secure. That it is not is not the fault of the people storing their data there. Blaming the victim is never logical.

Some folks take compromising photos of themselves, for whatever reason they wish. Those photos get stored somewhere. There is absolutely no data storage method that is 100% secure. Thieves attempt to steal data on a constant basis, and sometimes they manage to do so. The blame goes to the thieves, not the victims.

Yes, I lock my doors and my car. Yes, I keep my money in the bank. I hope that's secure enough, but I know that a thief can break a window or use common locksmith tools to access my car or home. I also know that thieves have attacked banks, too. It's the thieve's fault, not mine, if they do that and access whatever is valuable to me. Not my fault.

Victim blaming is a logical error, Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. So you happen to lock your doors,

but if you didn't, that would be fine.

Do I have that right?

[MineralMan]

23. Again, your logic is flawed.

I do lock my doors when I'm not at home and at night. So far in my life, nobody has ever attempted to come into my home to steal anything, but I recognize that possibility. Still, I also recognize that locking my house will not prevent a determined thief from gaining access. I pay a goodly sum each year for homeowner's insurance, which will cover my possessions should that ever happen.

I also don't take naked photos of myself and store them in the cloud. That's because I don't take naked photos of myself at all. However, I do use cloud storage for other data. I recognize that it is not 100% secure, and some of that data could cause me problems if it were stolen. But, it's also on my PC at home, which is subject to being stolen, of course, just like everyone's PC is at risk.

There is no risk-free way to safeguard anything, Manny. Again, it is not the victim who is to blame, but the thief. Every time. We all risk theft of our property, no matter what safeguards we use. If a thief wants it, it is vulnerable. Data, money, expensive possessions. If any of those things are stolen, the thief is at fault.

We use reasonable means to attempt to prevent the theft of our stuff. If it is stolen anyhow, we are not at fault. The thief is.

Once again: There is no 100% safe way to protect anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I'm not sure that you answered my question.

Can you summarize your answer in a sentence or two?

[MineralMan]

33. No, I can't.

I'm not sure I understood your OP, either. Can't you just say what you mean in a sentence or two?

Your OP is victim blaming. It is that simple. It is that wrong.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. So you answered something you didn't understand without asking for clarification?

Ok.

[MineralMan]

50. You may remember my first post in this thread.

I asked you which Manny was writing. You didn't answer, and now you expect me to answer your question? It ain't happening, Manny, and besides, I did answer your question. You just didn't bother trying to understand my answer.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. There's a significant problem with that as an analogy

in that Apple's iCloud is something one has to opt out of; cloud backup of photos etc is enabled by default (which in terms of security is a terrible idea; things like that should be opt-in, not opt-out).

[gvstn]

28. This is it exactly.

Not everyone reads all the fine print, in fact there is no fine print because you don't get a printed owner's manual with your new iPhone.

I think most of these hacked people didn't realize ALL their photos were being copied to Apple's servers for backup. They took a couple of photos and thought they were only on their phone. They deleted them when ready, not realizing that a copy had been stored on Apple's servers.

The opt in rather than opt out approach is a good idea. Or an app for taking selfies that keeps them "private" until they are moved to the common photo storage area of the phone would be another solution. Either way it should be stressed by Apple or any other phone maker that you should have to manually move your photos to a particular place on your phone if you want them to be backed up to their servers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. Bad design indeed.

But I never had to 'opt out' from the iCloud, because I never first 'opted in' to an iDevice.

[emulatorloo]

41. No, was asked whether I wanted to use iCloud or not.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. You're right, I'm wrong.

Oops.

You do need to,decide during setup, but it's misleading. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads up.

[Chathamization]

56. No, it doesn't seem to be enabled by default, but it does ask you if you want to use it or not

Apparently.

My phone doesn't have it on and I've never turned it off; but I clicked the no option for most of the set-up stuff (and other stuff that I probably don't have to hit no for).

[spanone]

22. blaming the victim while claiming not to blame the victim....interesting

[sub.theory]

53. That's exactly what this is

It's more of the "how could you be so stupid?" blaming of the victim. Since these women had their secured accounts hacked, they shouldn't have been so stupid as to have their nude pictures there. It's their fault.

There's also the very closely related blame: "how could you be so slutty?". It's been just as common to hear that these women shouldn't have been taking nude photos if they didn't want anyone to see them naked. It's their fault.

These are the same accusing questions demanded of far too many women victimized by rape or sexual abuse, and it simply subjects them to additional abuse and victimization. This entire bullshit argument that they should have been more careful and utilized better security is more of the same. Sadly, it's so deeply entrenched in our society that many even in DU can't seem to understand they are doing it.

Manny, this crime has nothing to do with internet security! This is about consent! Your entire post isn't about helping to guide women to being able to better protect themselves, like a self defense course. It's blaming them for being victimized. Can you see that?

[Chathamization]

24. So you've been telling everyone to avoid Gmail? N/T

[MannyGoldstein]

26. For anything they badly want to keep personal,

absolutely.

[Chathamization]

38. Meaning most things if you're being targeted by a malicious individual, making Gmail worthless

No online banking, online shopping, correspondence pertaining to work, and even a lot of personal correspondence. You'd probably have to relegate it to some light e-mail chatter account, but even then you'd run the risk of a friend e-mailing you and saying, "by the way, could you look after my dogs while I'm away next week?"

Of course, there's even danger with using USPS, considering the amount of my neighbor's mail I receive (and the amount they receive of mine).

[MannyGoldstein]

39. It depends on what you want to badly keep personal

In my case, that's very little - mainly information that others have entrusted me with, such as their medical history.

[Chathamization]

45. I'd imagine most people want to keep bank information personal. But even if you keep things off the

cloud, hell, off computers all together there's no guarantee that it'll be kept personal. This is hardly the first time a nude picture or sex tape of a celeb was leaked. Johnny Carson has a sex tape from the 70's that just went on the market. "Don't record anything you want to keep personal" doesn't even work, because people can and do get photographed/taped without their knowledge.

So it's much more of a sliding scale than a binary "stay off the cloud" message. Though my guess is most people are a bit lackadaisical when it comes to information security, almost goes the full "cabin in the woods lockdown" route.

[daleanime]

25. Have to disagree with you on this one....

wrong is still wrong. Stealing from some one is wrong, doesn't matter how easy it was. If I leave $20 out on a counter-top and you stop by to visit, does that mean you can take it?

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Of course it's wrong.

I apologize if I impled otherwise.

[daleanime]

64. Sorry, hope I didn't come across as mad, but...

I had a guy take the very same line with me yesterday.

Asked him if I pulled out a $20 bill and he snatched it away, wouldn't that be theft?


His dead pan response? No, if you wave it in my face, I've got every right to take it.

[Bjorn Against]

29. The cloud is locked

You can not access a person's data on the cloud without a password or the ability to hack. Just as the lock on the door of your home can be broken, the lock on the cloud can also be broken but the person who breaks the lock is committing a criminal act.

[Silent3]

36. It's often a touchy issue when you suggest precautionary measures against victimization.

One example where it isn't very touchy is if, say, you advise someone against leaving their wallet hanging out of their back pocket while walking crowded city streets, or advise someone to keep their house locked up while on vacation.

It is unlikely that this will generate a response about how "what we really need to do" is teach people not to pickpocket, or teach people not to enter houses that are not their own.

The more the victimization is about sex, however, the more this former kind of response results.

In an ideal world, you could put your wallet anywhere you like, leave the doors to your house wide open, and nothing bad would happen to you. If something bad does happen, it can certainly be said that the real blame belongs to the pickpockets or the intruders.

Similar things can be said for other kinds of risks, the people who take advantage of your vulnerability, and whether people are "victim blaming" or not when they advise precautions to reduce the odds of becoming a victim.

[herding cats]

37. Your analogy is off.

Items on iCloud are behind a locked door. Thieves break in and steal things, just like they break into locked cars and homes or rob banks.

[frazzled]

40. Remember Fotomats?

The Cloud seems safer than your local Fotomat used to be. Where you could get reported to the authorities for pornographic photos, or have them stolen. The only virtue of those days was that there was no Internet on which to spread them virally. But if you lived in a small town, things got around.

[djean111]

52. I think that Gmail recent turned someone in to the authorities because they were emailing child porn

pictures. I think there is no privacy whatsoever, even with locks. Of course, fantastic to catch the child porn guy, but the implications of every picture being analyzed is a bit daunting.

To carry Manny's analogy out further - if a thief breaks into your locked house, you are foolish to even own anything of value, knowing it could be stolen at any time.

[randome]

55. The pictures are analyzed without human intervention until the code detects something bad.

There is at least that measure of security, in that -so far as we know- random Google employees are not 'spying' on our emails.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[tblue37]

46. But I have read that pics taken with an iPhone are automatically

uploaded to iCloud. Is that true? If it is, then many people wouldn't realize that their pics are there. Also, in such a case, they might think they had deleted them. Trumad posted a story about being shocked to find an unfortunate pic on iCloud that he had actually deleted a minute after he took it, thus assuming it was gone for good.

[WinkyDink]

47. I have a Kindle Fire HDX 8.9" When I delete a photo, it prompts "Delete from Cloud?"

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Yeah, see my updated OP.

Incredible.

[Chathamization]

57. If you select "Use iCloud" it does, but the prompt tells you that

However, I think a lot of people might just hit yes to everything during set up without thinking about it. Or they read the description, think "oh, that sounds useful" and decide to use it, then forget what it's doing a few months later.

[sufrommich]

60. Every single one of these "excuses" for the hacked

photos of over 100 women is another excuse for why women should curtail their lives in a manner that most men would find unimaginable.Women aren't akin to your bank account.

[abelenkpe]

61. Remember when the economy crashed

and millions of people lost value in their 401ks and jobs and had their homes foreclosed and there were all these holier than thou right wingers on TV and the internet saying those that lost were to blame for making bad decisions. Bad investments, bad decisions in home purchases, bad decisions in choice of career. That their lack of knowledge and foresight was their own damn fault and they were a bunch of whiny babies for complaining. And remember how the majority here at DU looked at those right wing pundits as a bunch of heartless bastards? That's what I think of those blaming the victim in this case as well. You and many of the the older wiser more computer savvy members of DU may have been aware of the possibility that cloud storage was insecure. But not everyone shares your knowledge and to look down on someone who has been the victim of a crime for their lack of knowledge and foresight in a field that is not their area of expertise is really quite despicable.

[hunter]

62. I don't lock my car. Windows are expensive and glass does not protect valuables.

My debit card is frequently useless. I usually don't have any more money than a couple of coins and crumpled bills in my pockets.

In our house anyone who passes the dogs' inspection is probably okay. If I had a habit of shooting any strangers I found stumbling about in the dark I'd be a notorious mass murderer. Around here the only things thieves want are guns, drugs, money, and maybe jewelry. Televisions are ten bucks at the Goodwill Store and worthless on the streets. Our family photos and art, which decorate most walls of our home, have little or no market value. (Maybe half the people in our family have tried to make a living as artists. They don't keep the stuff they can sell...) Our prescriptions are not the sort that have any street value. (Woohoo! Generic blood pressure and psych meds nobody takes for fun.)

And, alas, nobody is trying to steal my naked pics. The photos when I was young and hot are among the millions floating about the internet. But nobody cares about those either, as they were digitized in a time when two bits per pixel and a color index were high technology.

The problem with our prudish consumer economy is that people grossly overestimate the value of some things, and grossly underestimate the value of other things.

Gold bars and stolen celebrity snapshots are overvalued and common human decency is undervalued.

There are so many good looking people on the internet who want you to see them naked, for money or simply because they are exhibitionists, that it's sad and creepy to go looking for stolen pictures. Peeping toms are pathetic, internet photo thieves are pathetic, and people who post intimate photos and movies of ex lovers or party drunks are subway groper creepy.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have nice things. Naked pictures of a lover or a wallet full of twenties are nice things. But when they are stolen, under any circumstances, no matter how lax the security, any adverse ethical or moral judgment rests entirely upon the thief.

It's not unreasonable to have naked pictures, and it's not unreasonable for an unsophisticated technology user to believe their photos willl be kept secure by a password in the "cloud."

[daleanime]

66. +1

[postulater]

68. Car when I'm out of the neighborhood, but house only when gone overnight.

[mercuryblues]

69. thing is

their storage was supposed to be locked, as in locking doors etc. Someone picked the lock and broke in. You would be hard pressed to find someone who blamed a homeowner for having a nice TV and someone broke in and stole it.

[alarimer]

71. These services need to be more secure and they can be.

I think companies just don't want to spend the money on securing the data.

[Katashi_itto]

72. I want to know why Obama hasn't called for Airstrikes on the Cloud.