This is not a productive line of reasoning, and mostly acts as a red herring in this entire discussion. The security of AWS has absolutely nothing to do with the security of the CEO of Amazon, even if AWS is a product of Amazon. You can sell the best basketballs and be a terrible basketball player at the same time.

One would hope that (a) Bezos doesn't have unrestricted access to AWS and that (b) whatever access he has uses multiple forms of authentication.

well it's a lot easier to "hack" one person's iCloud account (in reality you just need a well placed personal assistant or employee at apple) than an entire cloud infrastructure without being noticed

Okay, I'll bite: how would a single employee at Apple do this?

1. Receive anti-social-engineering training saying they absolutely shouldn't do X.

2. Do X.

IME if you are a part of an org/feature-specific security team at a team at large company you will be made aware of potential security flaws before they are fixed and merged in prod... so if some employee at apple learned "hey, auth tokens are being leaked in the usage data" they could hack basically anybody if they wanted to before the fix was merged and deployed to the public

And that's why there's demand for private, on-premise cloud. Hip startup don't care about your data. Some boring companies do.

Sort of destroys the entire definition of "cloud", doesn't it?

> If the CEO and Founder of AWS can be easily hacked by Saudis

Was he actually hacked? Saudi LEO could've easily got those pics from Apple legally.

how would that work?

Mohammad the Bonesaw comes to Apple's Rhiyadh office and orders them to surrender Jeff's d*picks, and obliges them to comply