Explain something to me, /g/.
When celebrities get hacked and the hackers release private photos of them to the whole world, /g/ loves it: not only does /g/ approve of the release of the photos and share them themselves, but they also laugh at the celebrities for not successfully securing their data.
On the other hand though when the government hacks known drug dealers who have tried to hire hitmen to kill rivals, /g/ loses its shit: it cries about privacy, and says that even though the dealer didn't successfully secure their data the privacy of that data has to be respected.
>>51691799
>Silk Road bust was about privacy
>>51691799
Celebrities are people who enjoy being in the spotlight, so they are being hypocritical when they want "privacy".
>>51691895
Drug dealers are breaking the law, so they are being hypocritical when they don't want to be "imprisoned".
>>51691799
Because they're rich and famous, so they deserve it.
You're not rich and famous, and yet your privacy is being taken away.
Ross Ulbricht DID successfully secure his data- however, he was busted while he was logged in.
There are other things that are wrong about that case, like a person being investigated for being DPR comes to the FBI and says that he can get them the real Ulbricht, who then gets Ulbricht to log in as DPR.
>>51691799
>government
>hacks
Putting into place a mass surveillance program that spies on every single American while costing hundreds of millions of dollars,preventing exactly 0 terrorist attacks, and jeopardizing our tech industry's credibility/leadership, is quite different than using the password reset feature on an Apple account.
>>51691945
Yeah, they are. What's your point?
>>51691945
Your mouth is filled with cocks, so you are being hypocritical when you dont want to be a "huge cockjuggeling faggot".
>>51692134
this t︂b︂︂h f︂︂a︂m
>>51691799
>/g/ loves it: not only does /g/ approve of the release of the photos and share them themselves, but they also laugh at the celebrities for not successfully securing their data.
When has this happened? You realize that /g/ is multiple people, right?
>>51692134
lold
>>51691799
Hypocrites. Hypocrites everywhere:
>>51691895
>>51691996
The anonymous hacker known as 4 Chan did not have the resources that a government has. Skids exploiting obvious security holes is one thing, while the government can spend billions of dollars systematically working to weaken encryption, install backdoors, etc.
So when something like this happens to a celebrity people laugh because they were careless enough to have their nudes stolen by basement dwelling skiddies online, whereas the government is making it harder for people who actually know about and put effort into security to keep their data private
>>51691799
I don't think /g/ has a problem at all with the .gov hacking legitimate criminals or terrorists
>/g/ is only 1 person
>>51691799
The government doesn't need to hack. They have mandatory back doors built into hardware and warrants to force cooperation. People loved celebrity hacks because for the first time they didn't have to jerk off to fake nudes.
>>51691799
Only you are whining about scum of earth drug dealers getting put in their place.
Its the right thing to do, quit whining.
>>51691799
>government hacks known drug dealers
>>hacks
its not so much hacking when they waltz into every single tier 1 ISP with a gag order and order to let them tap every line or setup a black room.
its also not hacking when they install their certificates in root CAs and disrupt the chain of trust.
needless to say a number of the precursors to the events leading up to that bust of which made it possible are not hacking and are also technically not legal under their given powers. but nobody is going to make a peep about this as long as checks continue to be signed and arrest quotas for the for profit prisons continue to be made.
>>51692134
holy fuck
>>51691799
who is this semen demon?
>>51692134
Fucking savage
>>51692134
R E K T
E
K
T
>>51691799
I want to bury my nose in that cleavage
Because if some hackers get nudes, no big deal, only those who are hacked are affected.
If the government collects data on all citizens and works to erode privacy, then we all suffer and the effects on free speech are chilling.
>>51691895
Is this a real opinion
>>51693561
Scarlett Johansson
>>51691799
>bad skin
Fuck that I see some nice titties.
>>51691945
Unless of course they don't agree with the laws in the first place.
You argue like a redditor.
Celebrities get paid a shit ton of money for doing basically nothing. I always bask in the suffering of those overpaid, sheltered retards.
>>51691799
It's about time you learn that anon: people mostly care about themselves.
>>51692148
oh shit filter is gone?
baka desu senpai kek
>>51696379
Fuck
The average /g/entooman will never amount to anything and because of this, they enjoy seeing when successful people have a bad time, especially when it's something they themselves can easily prevent.
The /g/entooman is more like a drug dealer in the sense that they will never amount to anything and most of their friends are fake.. Because they can associate well with this, they get asspained when it happens to those dealers.
Also, celebs have tits, dealers do not.
You're combining like 3 different topics.
The celebs weren't hacked by the government. The government (or hired private contractor) actively watching your every move is not the same thing as a private citizen hacking into your shit.
Also, /g/ isn't one person. We don't all condone the whole fappening thing.
Ulbricht got a life sentence, but the hitman charges were actually dropped. He got that life sentence for drug trafficking, money laundering, etc. If the hitman charges were included, then I would say he deserved that life sentence. For all the other charges, I'm not sure his sentence was fair. Seemed more like a case of making an example out of someone.
>I replied to a bait thread
>>51691799
>When celebrities get hacked and the hackers release private photos of them to the whole world, /g/ loves it: not only does /g/ approve of the release of the photos and share them themselves, but they also laugh at the celebrities for not successfully securing their data.
Not everyone has the same views as a horny 13 year old. I personally think these private photos were in bad taste. I've seen a few just from being posted but have never sought them out from pure curiosity. I just don't give a fuck. I'll never get to slip my 7 inch meat loaf between ScarJo's tits, so why should I even care?
I do laugh at them for using exploitable apple services, something I would never do of my own free will.
>>51691799
>known drug dealers who have tried to hire hitmen to kill rivals
but anon, i don't fap to shit like that
Government is something who all fund when private hackers are not, government is obliged to respect our privacy (at least in US law), hackers are not and are legally sued about that.
Concerns about Silk Road were mainly about the Tor protocol, personally I don't give a shit about drug dealers.
The majority enjoyed celebrity leaks because we have a hard on about the celebs and we could masturbate furiously, I could have a concern if the male celebrities' pictures were leaked but my dick can't do that about Kate Upton's juicy tits and Lawrence's hot pussy.
>>51691799
Who is this seman demon?
>>51691799
Actually /g/ bandwagoned with the rest of the techblogs in bitching that it was apple's fault. Most knew how stupid it was but this board can't resist a good circlejerk.
>>51692134
Oh..shiiiiiiit
>>51696379
>>51696385
>>51691799
Nope. They should be monitoring drug lords, they are monitoring us instead.
>>51691799
is she going to learn how to act, now that she's getting older?
>>51691799
I laugh at people who complain about their privacy not being respected because I always try to warn others about the dangers of not securing personal things. I wish it didn't have to come to this point for them to realize it, and hope they now agree with the cause against the government or any other private corporation that hoards personal data.
>>51691799
Boobs > privacy > government
>>51691895
No. Their professional life is about being in the spotlight. That doesn't mean they can't have a private personal life. They deserve the same privacy as the rest of us.
>>51698339
you forsake that right when you decide to go out and act like an idiot. Lots of celebs have proven they don't do anything crazy while they're out, so people leave them alone.
>>51691799
Maybe /g/ doesnt really approve it. Just likes to jerk off to photos that have been released?
>>51697932
You don't need to know how to act when you got
C O W T I T S
O
W
T
I
T
S
Also, the difference is we love to see celebrities fuck up, especially around here. Technological prowess is one of the few things that we have that they don't so it's nice to see them suffering for their lack of knowledge AND in the case of the last big leak, using Apple products.
Sorry if I'm incoherent, I drank way too much last night /lifejournal
/g/ loves things like the fappening for two reasons:
1. Shows the world why privacy is important in vivid detail
2. tits
>>51691799
Where are the Scarlett Johansson nudes, OP? Stop being a faggot and post them.
>>51691799
People have double standards
Deal with it kid
The dick doesn't care about privacy
I can't fap to drug dealing evidence
>>51692134
FUCKING SAVAGE
>>51691799
her tits were amazing
