Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 381 posts

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#321

Post by WalterBright »

potatolicious wrote: post #319
WalterBright wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has entered programming language design. It's not longer "educate the programmer so he doesn't make stupid mistakes", but "design the language so that stupid mistakes are detected by the compiler". Mechanical verification is far more reliable than hoping people don't make mistakes.

Yeah, the "you should wipe your phone!" and "you should never keep sensitive data on your device!" chorus seem to be missing the point entirely: We can design devices and operating systems to be safe by default in the same way we are now designing programming languages to be safe by default. There's no reason why the data should have been recoverable from a bricked phone without the user's authentication. We really c…

The goal in the D programming language is to allow the programmer to do unsafe things (no way to implement malloc() in safe code!), but it is not by default and isn't going to happen by accident. The programmer will have to positively do something.

It's also done in a way that a programming manager can mechanically verify the absence of such code. Exceptions can be flagged for special review. Often there are safe ways of doing the equivalent.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#322

Post by potatolicious »

WalterBright wrote: post #321
potatolicious wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the "you should wipe your phone!" and "you should never keep sensitive data on your device!" chorus seem to be missing the point entirely: We can design devices and operating systems to be safe by default in the same way we are now designing programming languages to be safe by default. There's no reason why the data should have been recoverable from a bricked phone without the user's authentication. We really c…

The goal in the D programming language is to allow the programmer to do unsafe things (no way to implement malloc() in safe code!), but it is not by default and isn't going to happen by accident. The programmer will have to positively do something. It's also done in a way that a programming manager can mechanically verify the absence of such code. Exceptions can be flagged for special review. Often there are safe way…

Yep, and I think we should apply the same principles to consumer technology. You should be free to do unsafe things - but it should not be possible to accidentally do unsafe things.

It should be harder to have your photos be unencrypted on device, accessible via any USB connection, than it is to have them to be entirely inaccessible at rest.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#323

Post by Johnny555 »

lliamander wrote: post #310
Johnny555 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely that you should be able to take nude photos of yourself, but I still wouldn't use a phone to do it -- my phone's pictures get backed up to the cloud automatically, and even if they didn't, the phone provider is probably the least likely risk that I face. I am probably more at risk from some rogue app that I installed on my phone. When I have done this in the past, we did it the old fashioned way --…

It seems people are mad you took reasonable precautions.

Probably got too close to "victim blaming" for the crowd here.

Being able to trust your hardware/software is important, but also knowing why you can't (for now, maybe not ever) trust your hardware is also important - maybe more important.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#324

Post by WalterBright »

potatolicious wrote: post #322
WalterBright wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal in the D programming language is to allow the programmer to do unsafe things (no way to implement malloc() in safe code!), but it is not by default and isn't going to happen by accident. The programmer will have to positively do something. It's also done in a way that a programming manager can mechanically verify the absence of such code. Exceptions can be flagged for special review. Often there are safe way…

Yep, and I think we should apply the same principles to consumer technology. You should be free to do unsafe things - but it should not be possible to accidentally do unsafe things. It should be harder to have your photos be unencrypted on device, accessible via any USB connection, than it is to have them to be entirely inaccessible at rest.

Yes, it's a sound rule in general.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#325

Post by q1w2 »

betwixthewires wrote: post #19

I've worked in these contract cellphone repair/refurbishment facilities many years ago, the big warehouses where telecoms and manufacturers send these warranty phones to be triaged and repaired, and let me tell you, something like this is not surprising at all. Most of the people there did good work, but all it takes is one. Personally I'd never send my phone in to repair, and I'm skittish about buying any refurbishe…

I had a friend who worked in a place like this and he admitted that they regularly went through people's albums specifically to look for nudes/videos. Especially if it seemed to belong to a young woman. It was routine - to the point that looking for nudes became boring.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#326

Post by [deleted] »

joshgachnang wrote: post #243
IncRnd wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the fault lies with the person who posted the images online. That person also violated state and federal laws. There is no doubt about that. However, most people wouldn't knowingly leave nude images of their spouse on the car's back seat when getting the car serviced. In many ways this is similar. Edit: For people who think I'm blaming the victim, I am not. I thought that was clear, since I blamed the thief…

The phone was broken in a way they couldn't wipe it according to the post. Bad assumptions here.

[deleted]

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#327

Post by tpmx »

ilamont wrote: post #281
betwixthewires wrote: post #19

I've worked in these contract cellphone repair/refurbishment facilities many years ago, the big warehouses where telecoms and manufacturers send these warranty phones to be triaged and repaired, and let me tell you, something like this is not surprising at all. Most of the people there did good work, but all it takes is one. Personally I'd never send my phone in to repair, and I'm skittish about buying any refurbishe…

Years ago I had some friends who worked in a local photo shop, and once I stopped by and they showed me around. This was in the days when 99% of the population developed film and made prints by dropping off the little canisters at such shops with an order form. It usually took a few days to get them back. Everyone made assumptions that the process for developing photos was anonymous and private - you dropped off a ca…

One Hour Photo (2002), starring Robin Williams. (I might rewatch it, it's been a while.)

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#328

Post by ARandomerDude »

criddell wrote: post #47
ARandomerDude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody: "I can't believe it! I like to leave stacks of $100 bills on the seat in my car and my car keeps getting broken into. Outrageous!" Somebody else: "You should probably take or hide the cash when you get out of your car." Offering wisdom for how to avoid a bad situation twice is not the same thing as blaming the victim.

As far as wisdom goes, it's pretty weak and probably doesn't need to be said.

If it didn't need to be said, you wouldn't see "Lock, Take, Hide" signs in many cities.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#329

Post by na85 »

vadfa wrote: post #224
VortexDream wrote: post #4

I'm sick of people, so I'm not going to read the inevitable comments that are going to come. Look, face it, some people like taking nude photos of themselves and they like sharing them with their partners. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's not their fault if something like this happens. People should be able to feel secure in the tech that they use, in the companies that they entrust their information…

>Look, face it, some people like taking nude photos of themselves and they like sharing them with their partners. Look, face it, actions have consequences.

Hopefully Google suffers some consequences.

My money is on nope, however.

Re: Pixel sent to Google for replacement. They used it to post wife's nudes online

#330

Post by na85 »

giaour wrote: post #242
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take digital photos that you don't want the world to see. I don't like seeing "don't victim blame" taken as gospel. Blame isn't a simple binary thing. Every time a company is hacked we don't line up to defend their shoddy security practices even though they are a victim.

This is a really bleak way to look at digital devices and their role in the world. Should you only write things you want the world to read on a computer, and for everything else, just use pen and paper?

Actually yes, sadly.

Even HN won't let you delete your personal comments.

Post reply on HN