Scarlett Johansson's hacker gets 10 years

[Neil]

Does this sound a little extreme to anyone? OK, a pretty nasty infringement of their privacy? But TEN years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20763788

[aaron2]

10years is very extreme as the person was just a hacker not a terrorist or killer! But it is an example for others

[bassman]

Ten years is indeed too extreme. If she wasn't famous he wouldn't have even been prosecuted....

I would like to take this opportunity to thank this guy, though. :lol:

[AcesandEights]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank this guy, though. :lol:

Agreed, but he had a good thing going and pushed it waaaay too far, got sloppy and now has to pay the consequences. But where Scarlett Johansson is concerned I'd just plead temporary insanity.

[MinionZombie]

Yep, a decade is far too extreme a sentence (there's worse criminals getting far less than that as a matter of routine).

Yes, it is an invasion of privacy - but I'm sure we've all had a gander at the pics anyway ... if they weren't available, we wouldn't mind one jot, but when you dangle nudie pics of a fit-as-fook actress in front of your cursor, you're bound to click on them - admit it. :sneaky:

Anyway, there definitely needs to be something done to tighten up prosecutions for this sort of thing - it often feels like the law is really trailing behind the digital age, and even when it tries to catch up, it just doesn't have the resources to cope (e.g. in the UK the law is being re-jigged regarding offensive statements published on social media, partly due to the sheer volume of investigations they had to launch specific to that type of thing - more than 2,000 such cases, with more than 1,200 convictions).

I would say though that, if I was a fit-as-fook actress, I wouldn't be taking nude pictures of myself on my mobile phone. I wouldn't be doing so on any device. Kinda weird how, even with all the sex tapes and hacked pics out there, that famous people are still doing it. :confused: