On the off chance that there is one thing that this most recent infringement of online protection shows us, it is that — in the expressions of Scott McNealy, the CEO of Sun Microsystems, in 1999 — "You have zero security at any rate. Get over it." 

Regardless we haven't gotten over it, and even in this propelled time of dependably on, I don't know we should. The sweet nothings that Mr. Bezos was sending to one individual ought not have transformed into tweets for the whole world to see and, more regrettable, that most everybody expected were O.K. to see. 

Some in the media have concentrated on the likelihood that there would be aftermath for Amazon from the Bezos separate, recommending that Ms. Bezos may try to control and change the organization. I knew them both in the beginning of Amazon's history, a history in which Ms. Bezos was very present and critical. While things can transform, I would be totally shocked by both of them enjoying any sharpness that would hurt the organization. However, we utilize this as a reason to gaze at their private lives in any case. 

Clearly, the pattern of permitting the outside to see within is anything but another one — chatter and its newspaper manifestations, just as tell-alls and all the ratty bazaars like it, were creeping around a long time before the advanced age at any point unfolded. Yet, the pattern has quickened over the most recent couple of years, as methods for correspondence have changed and multiplied. It's too simple currently to overlook that probably a portion of our expressions are not implied for open utilization. 

How were Mr. Bezos' writings discharged into nature? Was his telephone hacked? Assuming this is the case, for what reason would he say he was not utilizing encryption? In the event that he did secure his online selfies, did somebody by one way or another get screen captures of them and send them around until one of the beneficiaries dropped a dime to The Enquirer? Assuming this is the case, would anyone say anyone is protected? 

No, we are definitely not. 

Some portion of the issue is the United States does not have any genuinely toothy protection law. We don't imagine that we think security is something to be ensured, and there are no ramifications for uncovering another person's close to home shortcomings made into so much information.