Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
wired.com
Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#2The part about naming a price making it illegal... wow. I spent most of the article wondering how it wasn't clearly extortion. I mean going with something like "I was just telling the person that we had a leaked porn tape of theirs, we didn't expect them to feel obliged to pay us money, we didn't say that it could otherwise fall into the wrong hands"... what a scummy way around it. It is extortion in all but name.
Maybe some hn'ers who trade in exploit discovery could shed some light on how this in tech, as I guess it is maybe similar legal territory?
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#3The part about naming a price making it illegal... wow. I spent most of the article wondering how it wasn't clearly extortion. I mean going with something like "I was just telling the person that we had a leaked porn tape of theirs, we didn't expect them to feel obliged to pay us money, we didn't say that it could otherwise fall into the wrong hands"... what a scummy way around it. It is extortion in all but name. Ma…
In my experience the hacker usually gives you the exploit for free, but asks for a bounty. Aggressive ones may say that you should pay them with the implication that they may name and shame you if you don't.
Others will only agree to share the exploit if you pay, but I have always assumed that it is a scam or a really lame vulnerability.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#4>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent.
Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#5The part about naming a price making it illegal... wow. I spent most of the article wondering how it wasn't clearly extortion. I mean going with something like "I was just telling the person that we had a leaked porn tape of theirs, we didn't expect them to feel obliged to pay us money, we didn't say that it could otherwise fall into the wrong hands"... what a scummy way around it. It is extortion in all but name. Ma…
In my experience the hacker usually gives you the exploit for free, but asks for a bounty. Aggressive ones may say that you should pay them with the implication that they may name and shame you if you don't. Others will only agree to share the exploit if you pay, but I have always assumed that it is a scam or a really lame vulnerability.
Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I guess the latter kind is closer to the above.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#6>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
> Why would anyone think otherwise?
The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent.
Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#7>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
> Why would anyone think otherwise? The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent. Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on th…
Fair enough.
I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would anyone think otherwise? The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent. Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on th…
Fair enough. I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
Yeah, anyone doing this, even if they believe it to be legal, must know they are doing wrong.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#9Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#10Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.
The box office cares. The celebs that have signed multi-movie or multi-year contracts care. A leaked video clip will mean they are dropped from a project, costing them and the production millions. Hate and debate "cancel culture" all you want, the reality is that it exists. Any footage of extreme misogynistic activity will derail a celeb's career.
The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel. And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use. If a your movie is shooting in Vancouver would you risk a celeb with a cocaine problem crossing that boarder ten times a year?