Katie Hopkins is an odd creature.
The former UK Apprentice contestant has carved a peculiar career for herself by continually saying ever-more objectionable things to the media. Sometimes she’s classist, sometimes she’s racist, sometimes she’s both.
The press lap it up, of course, by reprinting her comments, giving her own column, or inviting her onto the mid-morning TV sofa to enrage viewers. The newspapers and TV are in cahoots with Katie – they give her a platform and help her increase her infamy as a pantomime villain, she gets them clicks and viewers’ eyeballs.
How long she will be able to continue her career as “Britain’s Biggest Bitch” remains to be seen. It’s a tricky situation for her, as she always need to be *more* outrageous to ensure that the press don’t get bored with her. At some point, it’s going to be tricky to outdo herself… and then the media will find her less interesting.
What she’s done, therefore, is open a Twitter account from where she can directly address her half a million followers with her views on, say, whether failed prime ministerial candidate Ed Milliband looked like he was on the autistic spectrum.
But, oh dear, someone hacked outspoken Katie’s Twitter account this weekend. The attacker deleted her past tweets, posted an unflattering picture, called her “Jiggly Jaws Katie”, and claimed to have a sex tape of the controversial television personality.
The idea that Katie Hopkins could have a sex tape and not have already released it to the media seems unlikely to me, so I think we can discount that possibility.
As Virus Bulletin editor Martijn Grooten commented:
“Not easy to hack Katie Hopkins’s Twitter and tweet even more outrageous things, but someone did try”
Of course, things could have been worse. The hacker could have posted links to malicious content from the popular account, and attempted to infect visiting PCs or phish their credentials.
Katie Hopkins might be wise to review her security settings, and consider enabling Login Verification to better protect her Twitter account.
Of course, maybe Katie doesn’t care that her Twitter account was hacked. The news of the hack has filled the tabloid press so I imagine she’s thinking – mission accomplished!
It seems to me that the best thing of all to do if you find Katie Hopkins’ views – on everything ranging from red-haired children to Islam to obesity to children’s names – offensive is to simply ignore her.
Katie Hopkins craves publicity, so don’t give her any attention if she upsets you.
And yes, I realise that I’m writing about Katie Hopkins and possibly adding to her fame in a very minor fashion, but then – because I understand what she’s doing and why she’s doing it – I don’t take her seriously, I think she’s irrelevant and she doesn’t make my stomach turn.
Unlike, say, Piers Morgan.
"… so I imagine she's thinking – mission accomplished!"
I was thinking the same thing (for that matter, you could see how such people would stage this type of event). It is highly likely she isn't bothered; those who lust for attention don't really care what kind of attention they get as long as they get it (the more the merrier). The fact they want all that attention will only bring negative attention but negative attention is still attention and attention is positive in their mind. The fact there is drama to it makes it even better for them (I use the word 'them' in what some might call a derogatory sense but also as more than one person). I wonder if she'll eventually (publicly) brave insulting another religion, specifically one that starts with a 'j' …
Too bad the hackers didn't say write something credible enough to look like it really came from her but outrageous enough to get her fired from her yellow press job.
The hackers should have posted apologies to the many people and groups she has offended.
That would have really pissed her off and quite likely got her sacked.
Never heard of her before I read this article. So, yeah…I guess it really is "mission accomplished".
Anyhow, based on the kind of publicity ho' she seems to be (based purely on what I've read here, mind you), the first thing that came to mind was that she faked the hacking. It would fit.
Graham
Your have allowed your own prejudices to cloud your judgement here.
Stick to what you know and write about security.
This personal attack makes you as bad as her.
How did I attack her personally? Her own promotional material calls her the “Biggest bitch in Britain”.
Maybe he is colour blind and therefore didn't realise it was a link (or he is using links/lynx and therefore didn't see the different colours [although it has other ways of showing .. links … so I don't see how], in which case I give him credit for dealing with modern websites and it …)? Alternatively he ignored context, read what he wanted to, or simply wanted to do what he stated you shouldn't do to others: attack you (which you could argue his likening you to her as an attack, especially because it is based on something he claims you did but you didn't). I imagine there are many possible explanations including that you DID attack her. Except you didn't.
Edit: of course, she would probably like it if you did. But as you already pointed out, you know that it is what she would want and is not at all your point of this (even though she could easily enough, and probably does, interpret it as positive drama and attention).