Topic: [2014-09-02] Hacker claims to have Jennifer Lawerence sex tape (Read 3874 times)
Don't send money or support some scrub who steals pics of people and tries to resell them people. If that was you or someone close to you how would you feel about this? The best thing everyone can do is ignore this guy and people will get the hint the isn't acceptable.
September 04, 2014, 01:45:02 PM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Maybe if Jennifer Lawrence was actually in it. ANd I don't see how this could be a publicity stunt for anything. Just hackers doing what hacker do. Suppose bitcoin will get some free press from it but not exactly the type we want.
Well,Cameron Diaz had some pics leaked today and surprise, surprise she's in the film
Did she? Source? She seems to have spoken out about the hacking / breach of privacy recently but not heard of her being actually targeted.
Sorry to get your hopes up,no such pics
, it appears she is taking advantage of the leak to promote the film,bit rough anyway September 04, 2014, 08:32:49 AM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Maybe if Jennifer Lawrence was actually in it. ANd I don't see how this could be a publicity stunt for anything. Just hackers doing what hacker do. Suppose bitcoin will get some free press from it but not exactly the type we want.
Well,Cameron Diaz had some pics leaked today and surprise, surprise she's in the film
Did she? Source? She seems to have spoken out about the hacking / breach of privacy recently but not heard of her being actually targeted.
September 03, 2014, 04:24:53 PM
This is heavy publicity for that hacker, these two words "Jennifer Lawrence an sex tape" yield some of the highest search/click rates IMO, maybe the hacker will say something like "sponsored by bitcoin" to bring us some of the attention.
September 03, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Maybe if Jennifer Lawrence was actually in it. ANd I don't see how this could be a publicity stunt for anything. Just hackers doing what hacker do. Suppose bitcoin will get some free press from it but not exactly the type we want.
Well,Cameron Diaz had some pics leaked today and surprise, surprise she's in the film
September 03, 2014, 11:54:10 AM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Guess you from the UK then.
--> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_inf+Has been out since 16th of Jun 2014
Still bad publicity for BTC to the ignoramus's out there, who do not understand the technology.
September 03, 2014, 11:35:48 AM
You would be stupid to ask payment in bitcoin.
No you wouldnt. You'd be stupid to use any other form of payment. Nobody will know who the money belongs to and where it went if you're smart enough with it.
these girls are so stupid to store that kind of pics on their phones AND upload it in the cloud (even when that happens automatically)
If they wernt aware that they were auto backed up it really wasnt their fault.
most of these women show their body all the time half naked and earn alot of money with it. i dont care about their feelings.
September 03, 2014, 11:19:50 AM
Hollywood doesn't really have anything to gain here.
Au contraire. Millions of people are now abuzz over those otherwise-unknown starlets. That's worth money to whoever produces their stuff. I'd never seen or heard of any of them before this story broke and I can almost remember some of their names now. Not only that but I'm wasting my own time joining the buzz over something I don't care about in the slightest rather than paying attention to things I do care about. Nice marketing win for somebody! We are all very manipulable, especially when we think we are not.
September 03, 2014, 08:09:49 AM
I'm intrigued that a flaky nude-starlet-pix story has legs (sorry) in this era of widespread (sorry) free porn. It seems very old-fashioned - Hollywood manufactured scandal, circa 1945 - but hey, if people fall for wardrobe malfunctions in the 21st century then why not give it a try. I'm even more intrigued that some media voices keep trying to turn it into a BTC story.
In today's news.... Woot!
In today's news.... Woot!
I'm not really buying that. I very much doubt this is a manufactured scandal as Hollywood doesn't really have anything to gain here. And I also think you misunderstand the public's desire for celebrity tittle tattle. Just look how thirsty people are for any hint of salacious celb gossip or even a petty nipple slip. This is the jackpot of that. Sad really.
September 03, 2014, 08:06:17 AM
Why would a bunch of starlets keep nude pix on their phones and/or in the cloud? Surely the only reason to put them there is so they can be "discovered" and "revealed" at some appropriate time in some appropriate way.
I'm intrigued that a flaky nude-starlet-pix story has legs (sorry) in this era of widespread (sorry) free porn. It seems very old-fashioned - Hollywood manufactured scandal, circa 1945 - but hey, if people fall for wardrobe malfunctions in the 21st century then why not give it a try. I'm even more intrigued that some media voices keep trying to turn it into a BTC story.
In today's news.... Woot!
I'm intrigued that a flaky nude-starlet-pix story has legs (sorry) in this era of widespread (sorry) free porn. It seems very old-fashioned - Hollywood manufactured scandal, circa 1945 - but hey, if people fall for wardrobe malfunctions in the 21st century then why not give it a try. I'm even more intrigued that some media voices keep trying to turn it into a BTC story.
In today's news.... Woot!
Maybe because they didn't even know they were there. Mary Elizabeth Winstead seemed to be perplexed at how someone had gotten them seeing as she 'deleted' them a long time ago.
September 03, 2014, 06:57:16 AM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Maybe if Jennifer Lawrence was actually in it. ANd I don't see how this could be a publicity stunt for anything. Just hackers doing what hacker do. Suppose bitcoin will get some free press from it but not exactly the type we want.
Why would a bunch of starlets keep nude pix on their phones and/or in the cloud? Surely the only reason to put them there is so they can be "discovered" and "revealed" at some appropriate time in some appropriate way.
I'm intrigued that a flaky nude-starlet-pix story has legs (sorry) in this era of widespread (sorry) free porn. It seems very old-fashioned - Hollywood manufactured scandal, circa 1945 - but hey, if people fall for wardrobe malfunctions in the 21st century then why not give it a try. I'm even more intrigued that some media voices keep trying to turn it into a BTC story.
In today's news.... Woot!
September 03, 2014, 02:40:22 AM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
Maybe if Jennifer Lawrence was actually in it. ANd I don't see how this could be a publicity stunt for anything. Just hackers doing what hacker do. Suppose bitcoin will get some free press from it but not exactly the type we want.
September 02, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
well the film 'Sex tape' has just come out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1956620/
coincidence
September 02, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
You would be stupid to ask payment in bitcoin.
No you wouldnt. You'd be stupid to use any other form of payment. Nobody will know who the money belongs to and where it went if you're smart enough with it.
these girls are so stupid to store that kind of pics on their phones AND upload it in the cloud (even when that happens automatically)
If they wernt aware that they were auto backed up it really wasnt their fault.
September 02, 2014, 10:14:37 AM
these girls are so stupid to store that kind of pics on their phones AND upload it in the cloud (even when that happens automatically)
September 02, 2014, 08:32:42 AM
Publicity stunt, I assume. (But whose?)
September 02, 2014, 07:37:04 AM
You would be stupid to ask payment in bitcoin.
Transactions are on the blockchain and movement of the coins can be traced, up to the point, where the mixers are being used. {Then the courts will be drawn into this, to try and "force" them to reveal the route to the final destination.}
They should not have "video taped" or "photographed" themselves in the first place, now they making a huge deal out of this. {Once it's out there, it's public domain}
The fact that BTC was used, is irelevant, because it's just another method to pay someone. {Only difference, it's faster}
Transactions are on the blockchain and movement of the coins can be traced, up to the point, where the mixers are being used. {Then the courts will be drawn into this, to try and "force" them to reveal the route to the final destination.}
They should not have "video taped" or "photographed" themselves in the first place, now they making a huge deal out of this. {Once it's out there, it's public domain}
The fact that BTC was used, is irelevant, because it's just another method to pay someone. {Only difference, it's faster}
September 02, 2014, 04:39:46 AM
This should probably be in Off Topic.
The article does actually mention bitcoin several times. Maybe op should include that since the headline seems to just suggest Paypal:
Quote
"People wanted s*** for free. Sure, I got $120 with my bitcoin address, but when you consider how much time was put into acquiring this stuff (i'm not the hacker, just a collector), and the money (i paid a lot via bitcoin as well to get certain sets when this stuff was being privately traded Friday/Saturday) I really didn't get close to what I was hoping."
"Mainly because of the extra bitcoin spammers spamming their own address.. taking my original posts and passing them off as their own to try and get bitcoin.. but also because of the skeptics. I proved I had s***, but people wanted more and more for free. Well, f**k, you can't get everything for free sometimes," he added.
"Mainly because of the extra bitcoin spammers spamming their own address.. taking my original posts and passing them off as their own to try and get bitcoin.. but also because of the skeptics. I proved I had s***, but people wanted more and more for free. Well, f**k, you can't get everything for free sometimes," he added.
September 02, 2014, 04:33:41 AM
This should probably be in Off Topic.
The article does actually mention bitcoin several times. Maybe op should include that since the headline seems to just suggest Paypal:
Quote
"People wanted s*** for free. Sure, I got $120 with my bitcoin address, but when you consider how much time was put into acquiring this stuff (i'm not the hacker, just a collector), and the money (i paid a lot via bitcoin as well to get certain sets when this stuff was being privately traded Friday/Saturday) I really didn't get close to what I was hoping."
"Mainly because of the extra bitcoin spammers spamming their own address.. taking my original posts and passing them off as their own to try and get bitcoin.. but also because of the skeptics. I proved I had s***, but people wanted more and more for free. Well, f**k, you can't get everything for free sometimes," he added.
"Mainly because of the extra bitcoin spammers spamming their own address.. taking my original posts and passing them off as their own to try and get bitcoin.. but also because of the skeptics. I proved I had s***, but people wanted more and more for free. Well, f**k, you can't get everything for free sometimes," he added.
September 02, 2014, 04:24:21 AM
This should probably be in Off Topic.
Jump to: