Jennifer Lawrence nude photo thief pleads guilty

[steven36]

Congratulations, Jennifer Lawrence, et al: one of the Celebgate nude-photo thieves has just pled guilty to invading your private life.

 

 

According to a statement from the US Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Ryan Collins, a 36-year-old married father of two from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, pled guilty on Tuesday to a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

 

In a plea agreement he signed in March, Collins also agreed to plead guilty to one count of unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information.

 

In a statement sent out in March, prosecutors said that Collins snagged celebrities with a phishing scheme that gave him illegal access to over 100 Apple and Gmail email accounts.

 

The government hasn’t identified Collins’ targets, but we know that the massive 2014 leak included images of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Gabrielle Union, Kim Kardashian, and Kirsten Dunst, among dozens of other female celebrities.

 

From November 2012 until the beginning of September 2014, Collins sent phishing emails that looked like they were from Apple or Google.

 

The emails asked victims to provide usernames and passwords.

 

When his victims complied, Collins used their login credentials to access their email accounts, from which he stole nude photos and videos. He also used an unspecified application to download the entire contents of their Apple iCloud backups.

 

This isn’t over yet

 

So far, investigators haven’t uncovered any evidence linking Collins to the actual leaks. Specifically, they haven’t found evidence of Collins having shared or uploaded the stolen images.

 

He illegally accessed at least 50 iCloud accounts and 72 Gmail accounts.

 

Collins isn’t the first to attract investigators’ attention in their ongoing work to uncover the culprits behind Celebgate.

 

Last June, the FBI raided the Chicago home of Emilio Herrera, alleging that he’d breached thousands of private iCloud accounts.

 

In January, Gawker reported that the feds had raided yet another Chicago home in October 2014: that of Ed Majerczyk.

 

Court documents fingered Majerczyk, another Chicago man with a similar laundry list of cloud-based invasions, as its top suspect in the Celebgate investigation.

 

We haven’t yet heard of any charges being filed against either of the Chicago men.

 

The maximum sentence for Collins’ crimes is five years in federal prison, but maximum sentences are rarely given out. Prosecutors and Collins’ defense team agreed to recommend that he face a prison term of 18 months.

 

Sentencing is still to come.

 

The Source

[luisam]

Though account hacking is a cybercrime, I feel that ·years in a federal prison is not the best punishment  for someone who accessed "celebrities" private accont to steal photos. Jennifer Lawrence should not be really happy to share her nude pics for FREE and her privacy was violated but she is not an innocent litltle girl pictured by some hidden pedophile stalker. Actually she let a team of photographers to take them!

This kind of people should be candidate in first lnstance to a really sever and intensive course on ETHICS and MORAL until they really recognize that what they've done is not a game or a joke and then a mandatory term, yes, maybe as long as 2 - 3 years,  of community service related to computer education. I really can't understand why in US they prefer spending millions to keep detained for years people instead of trying to re-educate them and using them to do something useful

[steven36]

42 minutes ago, luisam said:

Though account hacking is a cybercrime, I feel that ·years in a federal prison is not the best punishment  for someone who accessed "celebrities" private accont to steal photos. Jennifer Lawrence should not be really happy to share her nude pics for FREE and her privacy was violated but she is not an innocent litltle girl pictured by some hidden pedophile stalker. Actually she let a team of photographers to take them!

This kind of people should be candidate in first lnstance to a really sever and intensive course on ETHICS and MORAL and then a mandatory term, yes, maybe as long as 2 - 3 years,  of community service related to computer education. I really can't understand why in US they prefer spending millions to keep detained for years people instead of trying to re-educate them and using them to do something useful

She never been nude on film , I'm  a big fan of her and i  understand how she must feel  .  How would you like it if you was in a LDR and was cybering on cam with  you're partner and some idiot snagged you  and posted it  all over the internet . Just because there  Celebrities dont mean you can treat them like shit  and sell nude pictures of them because you have no real Job . These are real people and they have feelings too. And if you want see someone nude go watch porn , There's plenty of people willing to do it for money .But you should respect people  who dont want to be seen nude wishes .

 

Quote

 

Criminal Penalties for Email Hacking

WrittenJ. Hirbyand Fact Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff  

 

 

Email hacking is one of the most common instances of cybercrime these days, and it is one of the most severely penalized. Depending on the circumstances of the offense, the nature of the charges in some jurisdictions and the intent of the prosecution, the unauthorized access of email accounts can be handled as a misdemeanor or a felony with additional civil liabilities. In other words, the penalties for hacking email accounts can be severe.

 

 

Law enforcement investigators and prosecutors these days are focusing on motivation and intent in relation to computer crimes. For example, the unauthorized access of a computer network as a prank may be considered a class B misdemeanor in Connecticut; this means that a defendant could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, which could be reduced to a term of probation. In the same state, however, a third-degree computer crime that causes more than $1,000 in damage could lead to five years in prison.

 

Crimes Related to Email Hacking

In the United States federal justice system, an email hacker may face the following criminal charges:

Computer fraud
Identity theft
Wire fraud
Obstruction of justice

 

It is important to remember that certain charges that may seem ancillary to the case can actually be crucial; for example, an email hacker that tries to erase his or her tracks may have a hard time trying to disprove the obstruction of justice charge.

 

Civil Liability

In addition to facing prison time, monetary fines and terms of probation, individuals charged with email hacking may also have to deal with civil lawsuits. In California, for example, an individual who accesses an unprotected or poorly secured email account without actually deleting or altering data may be able to reduce the charges down to invasion of privacy for the purpose of avoiding a prison sentence. This does not clear the individual from being pursued as a respondent in a civil lawsuit filed by the owner of the account or network hacked.

 

Computer crimes and unauthorized use of networks may prompt a plaintiff to ask for relief from actual damages, court costs and attorney’s fees. If the court finds that the respondent acted maliciously, the amount of the monetary award to the plaintiff could be tripled.

 

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/criminal-penalties-for-email-hacking/

 

 

Quote

 

Why It’s Immoral, A Sex Crime And A Violation Of Civil Rights To Leak Someone Else’s Nudes

What adults do in their private lives is their own business. If they want to take nude photographs of themselves for private or personal use, that is their decision and their right.

Likewise, if they want those photos to be posted online or published elsewhere, that is also their right.

In the past couple of weeks, this issue has come to the forefront of public discussion. A number of nude photos of various celebrities have been leaked, including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton.

Moreover, shortly after Emma Watson gave an incredible speech on feminism and gender equality at the United Nations, reports started surfacing that hackers wanted to punish her for her convictions by releasing nude photos of her.

This turned out to be an elaborate hoax, however, but it is a sign of a more troubling trend in our society.

Perhaps the worst part is that the threats weren’t surprising, as there is an evident backlash against feminism and the conversation surrounding gender equality.

Furthermore, there are a lot of seedy and misguided individuals out there. These people see women as objects, and are a testament to the fact that we desperately need feminism.

In other words, trying to degrade the movement for gender equality by attacking someone’s gender is exceptionally oxymoronic. Any time that someone is criticized or attacked on the basis of his or her sexuality, it provides more evidence that society desperately needs a reeducation on gender.

Correspondingly, as Watson so eloquently put it during her speech:

For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

For the purposes of this conversation, her mention of “social equality” is particularly important. In essence, a man’s body image is rarely, if ever, used as a point of attack against his beliefs or place in society. Unfortunately, the complete opposite is true for females.

Thus, regardless of whether or not the threats against Watson were real, it’s disconcerting that there are people out there who feel they need to attack a woman’s sexuality in order to diminish her convictions and public standing.

Unfortunately, there are not enough laws to protect individuals who fall victim to online harassment or “revenge porn.” Indeed, there have been many disgusting instances in which disgruntled ex-boyfriends have posted nude photos and videos of their past girlfriends online without permission. What’s worse, they usually get away with it.

Cyber harassment is real, and it’s a very poor reflection of our society.

Therefore, there is never a justifiable reason to post nude videos or photos of women without consent, particularly if these photos have been obtained by illegal means (hacking).

Clay Aiken recently stated, “Anybody who takes inappropriate pictures of themselves deserves exactly what they get.”

No, Mr. Aiken, you are wrong on so many levels — it’s never the victims fault.

Here’s why:

1. It’s Immoral

Violating someone’s privacy is not only a violation of human rights, it’s simply wrong. We all deserve a space in our lives that no one else can access, at least not without permission.

This is particularly true for women, who are frequently sexualized in popular culture and celebrated for their physical attributes rather than their personalities and capabilities. Likewise, women already endure enough harassment, threats and physical violence in the real world, they certainly don’t need it online as well.

There is really no difference between hacking people’s personal devices and breaking into their homes. Either way, you are violating their personal space, and both are illegal.

Moreover, how would you feel if a stranger took your most personal moments and shared them with the world?

Perhaps it’s even worse when people do this to friends or former significant others. What kind of a petty and pathetic individual would you have to be to take nude photos of your ex and post them online for millions of other people to see?

No one deserves that, regardless of how badly that person may have hurt you, you don’t want to stoop to that level.

Revenge porn is wrong, plain and simple. In some places, posting nude photos of other people without permission could lead to a fine or criminal conviction. Thus, it’s not only immoral, it could land your ass in some serious trouble. Simply put, don’t do it.

2. It’s A Sex Crime

If a person takes nude photos of someone else and posts them online without permission, it’s a form of sexual assault.

Let’s put it this way, by posting, or even threatening to post, nude photos of people without permission, you are using their sexuality to attack their public image. Hence, you are sexually assaulting them by attempting to make them feel ashamed for something that is as natural as breathing.

Moreover, it takes the lowest and most cowardly person to attack someone else anonymously on the Internet. It’s even worse when it relates to this individual’s private life and sexuality.

If you have a problem with a person’s beliefs, fine, find a way to logically argue against them, and don’t hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Be courageous enough to stand up for your convictions, you might even learn something in the process.

Don’t take a person’s gender, which isn’t a choice by the way, and use it as a form of insult. This only proves your own ignorance.

3. It’s A Violation Of Civil Rights

When it comes to the Internet, it’s true that we have to permit a relative amount of freedom of expression. The web, after all, is meant to be a place for people to exchange information and ideas. Yet, freedom can be taken advantage of when left completely unregulated.

Correspondingly, University of Maryland legal scholar Danielle Citron worries that people are too dismissive of these issues.

In essence, people seem to argue that online harassment of women should be expected, so people should not be making such a big deal of it. In her view, this is akin to the dismissive attitude surrounding the harassment of women in the workplace in the 1960s and 70s.

As Citron puts it:

What we’re talking about isn’t mean words, like ‘you’re ugly,’ the sort of things that are meant to hurt peoples’ feelings. We’re talking about online harassment that takes away victims’ life opportunities.

Harassment is accomplished with true threats, privacy invasions, involuntarily disclosed nude photos, and reputation-harming lies. We’re talking about systematic harassment that destroys peoples’ lives and careers.

A prime example of this is that of Anita Sarkeesian. Two years ago, she started a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter in order to create a video series surrounding the objectification of women in video games.

Consequently, a number of people on the web started attacking her with graphic rape threats and other violent scenarios. People have even threatened to kill her family and come to her house.

At what point do we say enough is enough? This is unconscionable.

Unfortunately, it’s often very difficult to narrow down exactly who is doing the harassment when it occurs online. Perhaps this is another reason people don’t take it very seriously, as it would take law enforcement officials a great deal of time and effort to locate these individuals.

However, Citron is working vigilantly to change this. She wants to ensure that violating someone’s privacy via the Internet is punishable by law:

I’ve been working with lawmakers, in particular in Maryland. I worked very closely with the ACLU in Maryland. What we together came to was a narrow understanding of a crime, which involves the intentional disclosure of sexually explicit images, the knowing invasion of privacy.

…It’s the initial privacy invader who really is culpable in terms of the specific intent of the crime.

Luckily, Citron feels that the public attitude towards “revenge porn” and cyber harassment is shifting; most people now seem to agree that this is disgusting and wrong.

Yet, there is still a great deal of work to be done, as many of the more recent online attacks on celebrities and other women have proven.

The Internet should remain a free entity, but within reason. When you allow too much freedom, it becomes subject to abuse. Freedom in any arena should allow individuals to flourish, with practical measures in place to ensure that people are also free from harassment and harm.

http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/never-post-nude-photos-without-permission/773429/

 

 

[Chatman]

steven36,

As a lawyer, I thanks to God that you're not Judge, or you're not among jurors.

[straycat19]

50 minutes ago, Chatman said:

As a lawyer, I thanks to God that you're not Judge, or you're not among jurors.

 

As a professional, I believe in taking care of my problems personally and not involving legal entities, such as police or bottom feeding lawyers. There is no justice in a courtroom any more.  Jail doesn't stop a hacker or any criminal from repeating their crime, but death does.  

[steven36]

Lets not bring religion into this  guys or lets not attack each other there's no need for it here .

[Batu69]

Unnecessary & off topic posts has been removed.

[VileTouch]

well, you know what they say: tits or it didn't happen.

[pc71520]

13 hours ago, VileTouch said:

well, you know what they say: tits or it didn't happen.

That was awesome. 

[Chatman]

15 hours ago, straycat19 said:

Jail doesn't stop a hacker or any criminal from repeating their crime, but death does.  

The penalty is applied depending on the seriousness of the offense. One who has stolen a chicken from his neighbor's yard, can not be punished as severely as the one who killed one person.
Even if the role of re-education of the punishment is not always achieved by imprisoning criminals, we have no right to  take the law in our own hands, without involving legal entities.

Also, applying the death penalty for any crime, is itself a crime.

If we proceed in this way, we can no longer talk about justice but about a barbaric revenge.

[steven36]

23 minutes ago, Chatman said:

The penalty is applied depending on the seriousness of the offense. One who has stolen some photos of someone's computer can not be punished as severely as the one who killed one person.
Even if the role of re-education of the punishment is not always achieved by imprisoning criminals, we have no right to demand the death penalty for all crimes. If we proceed in this way, we can no longer talk about justice but about a barbaric revenge.

I know  a guy who cut someone throat , who got off free , because he claimed he was drunk and in a  blackout (temporary insanity ) I know another guy who killed 2 people and injured another he is already out of jail for years. So not everyone who kills someone goes to jail for along time it just depends.   In the UK you can get 10 years for pirating on the internet  its like up 4 years in the USA. . They done said in the 1st post what this guy is facing 18 months. they should of gave him at lest 5 years if they give pirating groups in the USA 4 years for just posting movies online

[Chatman]

12 minutes ago, steven36 said:

 

steven36,

I do not understand why you always copy the contents of the commentary whom you comment? Are you afraid that I could deny what I wrote above, or what?

[steven36]

13 minutes ago, Chatman said:

I do not understand why you always copy the contents of the commentary whom you comment? Are you afraid that I could deny what I wrote above, or what?

I dont understand why you say, that if i was the judge and jury  but you did  it was already posted in the 1st post what they want to give him , hes done did a plea bargain  and pleaded guilty hes just waiting on his sentence hes already done been  found guilty . If you cant stay on topic and debate right  i dont got time too fool with you  

[Chatman]

38 minutes ago, steven36 said:

I dont understand why you say, that if i was the judge and jury  but you did  it was already posted in the 1st post what they want to give him , hes done did a plea bargain  and pleaded guilty hes just waiting on his sentence hes already done been  found guilty . If you cant stay on topic and debate right  i dont got time too fool with you  

It was a joke! Even if you can't understand a simple joke, please, don't jump to my throat for that!

And do not forget! Fans do not do the justice, but the Court and the Law! You can not take the place of the judge and the law, questioning their decision. You are a humble citizen who must obey the judgment of the law, even if you like it, or not.

[steven36]

1 minute ago, Chatman said:

It was a joke! Even if you can't understand a simple joke, please, don't jump to my throat for that!

And do not forget! Fans do not do the justice, but the Court and the Law! If you want a true justice, then you can not take the place of the judge and the law, questioning their decision.

Look man the laws were you live are not even the same as were i live  i dont need  no one to preach  the law too me who claims hes a lawyer  from some other country  you did not practice law  in  the USA . And here unless you're rich and can  afford  the best lawyers the best you can do is cut a plea bargain and plead guilty because court apportioned layers are crap and you may as well not have one. But someone rich like OJ Simpson  with money  got away with murder  . This is the USA you're talking about were real justice fails a lot of times.

[Chatman]

1 hour ago, steven36 said:

i dont need  no one to preach  the law too me who claims hes a lawyer  from some other country...

First of all, I don't like your word ”claims”. I do not claim, I am indeed what I said that I am!

Please consider my presence on this forum as a personal pleasure, or as a way for me to clear the mind, and not as an opportunity to assign to me some quality that I would not have it .

Secondly, you should not talk to me as if I were a lawyer obscure from a country at the end of the world. I practiced law in the European Union, not in Somalia, or Congo.

From May 2015, I am member delegated to the European Commission for Social Dialogue in Brussels.

During my career, and I was unhappy with the court decisions sometimes. But being unhappy is one, and to challenge the role of the legal act is something else.

[Pequi]

On quinta-feira, 26 de maio de 2016 at 7:13 PM, Chatman said:

steven36,

As a lawyer, I thanks to God that you're not Judge, or you're not among jurors.

I agree. People should realize that ANYTHING they upload to "The Cloud" can be seen by third parties.

If you are stupid enough to think "The Cloud" is "private", quietly face the consequencies. Don't squirm and cry later.

PS they forgot to mention Cuoco also uploaded her photos to the (IMHO) public domain.

Thanks, Cuoco. Got me in a Big Bang mood.

;)

 

[flitox]

23 hours ago, Chatman said:

First of all, I don't like your word ”claims”. I do not claim, I am indeed what I said that I am!

Please consider my presence on this forum as a personal pleasure, or as a way for me to clear the mind, and not as an opportunity to assign to me some quality that I would not have it .

Secondly, you should not talk to me as if I were a lawyer obscure from a country at the end of the world. I practiced law in the European Union, not in Somalia, or Congo.

From May 2015, I am member delegated to the European Commission for Social Dialogue in Brussels.

During my career, and I was unhappy with the court decisions sometimes. But being unhappy is one, and to challenge the role of the legal act is something else.

so you are one to blame to that shitty EU they are building us???

[Chatman]

flitox,

If you have read the rules of this forum, you had to know already that political views have no place here.

[flitox]

i'm sorry to hear you cant stand jokes but you have to admit that this EU (which is in the 1st place a great idea) is turning more and more into some utter shit... which anyway bring us far away from miss lawrence naked pics

[Jordan]

You lost the subject guys.

Please stop arguing about personal matters and keep debating about the subject of this article.

[HandyPAF]

Regardless of whether or not someone was penalized for the crime, the fact remains that her pictures were put on the internet which means they will always be on the internet, somewhere. A prime example would be the softcore pictures/video that Cameron Diaz did in her early career. She may have gone to great lengths to have that media taken down but those pictures/video still exist somewhere on the internet and on someones computer.

 

Not only is it humiliating for someone to do such a thing but the damage is irreversible, no matter what punishment was dealt or what monetary compensation was awarded. Nothing can undo what has been done.