Thread 106031871

Which one of you did this?

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/tea-dating-app-hacked-by-4chan-user-over-72-000-users-verification-selfies-leaked-101753468688303.html
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/tea-dating-app-hacked-by-4chan-user-over-72000-users-verification-selfies-leaked/ar-AA1JiUtJ

>>106031871 (OP)
>>dating app
kek, its a doxxing app

do they just randomly blame anything on "4chan user"? How is such a claim even authenticated?

>>106031890
this

>>106031871 (OP)
>legacy data systems
Users should sue the company for apparently using outdated insecure tech. Not a lawyer so I don't know, but he just told too much with that line.

Why are companies allowed to run outdated shit?

>>106031921
Every company has legacy systems. Even the freshest startup is running some shit the first jeets they hired cobbled together before they got VC money.

It probably was some pledditor who is trying to blame us, like with the fappineng.

神様だった

>>106031932
Not in production no
this app is not from a decade ago. there are laws in every country to use the state of the art security and have security patches installed.
don't defend the company and make journalists who might read this board think they were okay running old tech. this is a technologist board and the company fucked up and they try to arm wave and distract. he admitted knowingly the use of "legacy data" systems.
journalists should write about this instead so the company can get sued by the victims. i will always side with the user. even if I find the users morally wrong and despicable.
this was preventable. they want to fame this on some incel now because it was prone to happen anyway.

>>106031949
>It probably was some pledditor who is trying to blame us, like with the fappineng.
This, I'm so fucking tired of the boogeyman 4chan. Anyone who uses /g/ should know we are too incompetent unhireable neets.
Why is reddit always framing this site?

Journalists will really take any opportunity to make the smallest distinctions in language to spin any narrative they want
Because the app was for women and was abstractly based around dating, they're allowed to call it a "dating app", which is technically true if you interpret it a certain way grammatically. Truly despicable.

>>106031957
> this app is not from a decade ago. there are laws in every country to use the state of the art security and have security patches installed.
There's no such law in the US

>>106031871 (OP)
>https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/tea-dating-app-hacked-by-4chan
Now we'll have tourists from whereever the fuck Hindustan is asking for bobs and vagene.

>>106032003
hindustan is India sir

>>106031871 (OP)
Why did they keep the verification selfies stored?

>>106032008
Weren't they calling themselves Bharat now?

>>106031985
>There's no such law in the US
Except in California. Where you can also cancel a gym membership with a button rather than registered mail and ID. I'm sure Californian users can sue in this case.

>>106032015
this

>>106031871 (OP)
>self tea-bagging app compromised by the hacker known as 4chan
Yeah what? I know times are dry but still.

>>106032015
A better question is why do they have verification selfies in the first place?
This app is targeted toward normalgroids. If they're trying to screen for "real women", that's problematic, since can't anyone identify as a woman (even if they obviously don't look like one)?

>>106031985
Of course they have. Every country has that, because technology advances.
Imagine hiring an electrician. Imagine that electrician installing some 80 years old shit that is not specifically forbidden by law, but against current lived standards. Imagine getting electrocuted by it.

When this goes to court, the court will compare his actions to "what a responsible electrician would do" and he will get convicted for it.
And a law that covers this case, will cover such a security breech as well.
Every country needs such laws, because otherwise you have loophole for murder.

>>106032017
Hindustan is the Hindu-speaking part of Bharat

>>106031973
>Anyone who uses /g/ should know we are too incompetent
that's why the original thread was on /pol/. Kind of sad that the literal worst board is more technically competent than /g/, but oh well.

>>106032050
Except that reasonable software companies typically DO have legacy shit

>>106032055
>the literal worst board is more technically competent than /g/
Well shit, people here really just talk to local models and LARP a healthy relationship with their GPU wife, handholding them in a text chat.
We are not the monster the media is trying to make the users here.

Women are mostly harming themselves these days.

>>106032050
Nigga you're delusional, there's no such laws in any country.
There are safety standards and shit, but if a system is perfectly functional and is not breaking any safety, ecology etc standards, there's nothing stopping you from using it. In fact a lot of government and corporate stuff is running on ANCIENT systems because replacing them completely would cost millions of dollars and would need at least few weeks fo complete shutdown, not to mention compatibility with olf software and hardware.
We need to ban children that try to speak about legality of something not only without knowledge about how law is actually functioning, but without even basic common sense.

>>106032070
>>the literal worst board is more technically competent than /g/
You're assuming the instigator isn't a /g/ user who simply went to /pol/ to get more traction and attention because the hack was politically-motivated culture war slop

>>106031871 (OP)
>a guy who downloaded the permanently stored IDs off of a PUBLIC URL is a HACKER
>the IDs meant for verification were PERMANENTLY STORED
>the guy posts it on 4chan
>article title: "HACKED BY 4CHAN"
mfw

>>106032086
>mixed nigga child

kek

>>106032078
NTA but governments using ancient systems are typically doing so behind closed networks behind firewalls with modern software and intrusion detection at the edge
If they were actually running outdated unsupported software in a public-facing way and just eating exploits, someone would certainly be in trouble for negligence

>>106032083
you are baselessly speculating because you experience cognitive dissonance about /g/ being as incompetent as 90% of the threads reflect

glow harder feddie. maybe you can trick scom low iq schizophrenic or autist into saying something so you have a patsy.

what's next? lee harvey oswald shot kennedy? please glowie shut up

>>106032094
>reddit spacing

>>106032094
Go back

>>106032103
>out of real arguments already
/Q.E.D.

>>106032086
It's all so tiresome.When did watching app traffic qualify as hacking?

>>106032108
"heh you are a fed" is not an argument thoughever

>>106032086
kek

>hacked
>public firebase storage bucket
>hacked

totally hacked 4chan today by accessing the website using a browser #31337 #zer0c00l

>>106032023
the people running platforms like these are always terfs, as well as a good amount of those that support them

What stops one from signing up with AI generated pictures and adding green flags to yourself?

The way this turned out makes me think the app was a giant honeypot in the first place and the guy just left the loicenses up for grabs "accidentally". In any case, good riddance. It's a despicable app, you don't have to be a chud to see that.

>>106031871 (OP)
8@5ed 1337 #@xx0r

>>106031871 (OP)
No one on /g/ could have done that.
More importantly it wasn't hacking.

Maybe they should care more about apps not storing private information more carefully. But who I'm kidding, every website will soon start asking for ID proof no matter the country and everyone will be able to access your information.

>>106032078
Maybe the word "negligence" helps you.

>>106031871 (OP)
>dox random man
>get doxxed
>cry

Is doxxing okay when women do it?

>>106032310
ofc and if you say otherwise you are sexist

>>106031871 (OP)
so an app that doxes men got hacked and doxed the women and they're mad?

>>106032234
Yet it's the top app on the app store and I can't find anyone criticizing it for being transphobic
I just think it's funny how little normalfags put up with troons. Everyone pretends to support them but whenever there's a real perceived serious issue (like le dangerous men in dating) nobody is there for them, not even the ultra-social virtue signalling normalfags who use apps like this.

>>106032316
the literal truth

>>106032281
It was probably another sharty chad

>>106032078
>Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Either a person’s actions or omissions of actions can be found negligent. The omission of actions is considered negligent only when the person had a duty to act.
>Negligence is a foundational concept of tort law. Some primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether a person’s conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the conduct would result in harm, the foreseeable severity of the harm, and the burden of precautions necessary to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. The following five elements may typically be required to prove negligence:
> The existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed the plaintiff
> Defendant’s breach of that duty
> Harm to the plaintiff
> Defendant’s actions are the proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff
> Defendant’s actions are the cause-in-fact of harm to the plaintiff

>>106032310
Only if the victim gives the ick

>>106032341
lmao

>>106031871 (OP)
>teabag app

>>106031871 (OP)
>we don't know how it happened which is why we're "conducting a probe", but we swear we know who it was based on where it got posted
It should be legal to beat people who assert stupid shit like this

>>106031890
Doxing has one x you troglodyte.

>>106032234
>terfs
How the fuck did you end up this unironic?

>>106032419
Pretty sure the implication is that they're checking logs to see where the first unauthorized access was, and then they'll forward that to law enforcement to get subpoenas

>>106032431
TERFs are a real thing anon.

>>106032449
With the exception of a few, these are just extremely mundane normal looking women

>>106032454
Nice bait

>>106032478
>t. has never in his life seen women making mundane expressions, women without makeup, or women over the age of 25

>>106032478
He's right. The average woman is ugly as fuck.

>>106031902
Anything can be blamed on 4chan now to gain updoots among the reddit leftist crowd. They’ve been like this for years now.

>>106032525
4chan being anonymous, requiring no registration, having no way to find out what posts someone has made, and generally only requiring a 2 minute wait for literally anyone to make a post, makes it trivial for someone who has never made a post here before to post something "bad" and just make it 4chan's problem
there's no way to know if the person who posted it has been here before, or is a regular, much less represents the average 4chan user, but they always make it out like that. not that this is an issue for me. being anonymous, i won't be judges for being associated with the hacker known as 4chan

>>106032449
We call them 3dpd for a reason.

>>106031902
>do they just randomly blame anything on "4chan user"? How is such a claim even authenticated?
Right, it was nightcoreremixmix (yt/@nightcoreremixmix5210/videos) and others. You know, the one guy who has a bunch of XML files and non-EXIF metadata that weren't included in the main 60GB torrent.

>>106031902
This place is run by the gorillion eyes agencies and secret societies so they use this place like diddy lube extra in Hollywood

So that explains the sudden influx of newfags.
You better apologise.

>>106031871 (OP)
immediately went to the 'farms to download the leak, because /g/ is fucking worthless and busy arguing with a mentally ill janny about iPhones

Thank you, s(n)eeders.

>>106031876
>>106031871 (OP)
There's a decent chance they did it themselves for viral marketing.

Although I think it was actually posted to lainchan not here.

>>106032454
Cool, all the girls in my social circle are a good deal above average then. They look nothing like this even without makeup and shitty front-camera lighting.

>>106033322
I was in /pol/.
/pol/ made a pyhton script to scrape their firebase bucket.
Jannies shut it down when the first pics were getting posted, but that didn't stop anons.

Just because you are wallowing in shit in your worthless existence on /g/, doesn't mean that nothing related to tech is happening outside of it.

>>106031921
>using outdated insecure tech.
They were using modern tech. They just configured it wrong. I think the company meant it was the old version of their own system which would actually be worse if it were true since that means they left all this stuff in the public and then *never cleaned it up* because they have no process for safely shutting things down. I don't think it's true though, this looks like it was the *current* production system at least from the outside.

>>106032454
>>106032478
>>106033326
They are normal looking in a multicultural society. All of them are racially ambiguous. Even the ones you would call niggers, are only mulattos, rather than what you would see in Africa.
This makes them mundane and bellow-average, if your standard is a non-mixxed part of society. The front camera and no-makeup makes them swiftly fall into the ugly category.

>>106032070
what a shitty graph

hmmm sounds like this 4chan is a dangerous website that is actively seeking to do violence to women, please vote for it to be banned

>>106032449
Man, some of those are absolute hampigs.

oh no that sucks

>>106031871 (OP)
It wasn't me mister FBI.

>>106031871 (OP)
>woman-only dating app
do they accept "women"?

>>106034056
they use selfies for verification, so evidently not

>>106034084
Like it or not, there are plenty of passing trannies. So yeah, they do, if you look good enough.

>>106031973
Same reason we used to frame ebaums, probably.

>>106032015
Either because they're retarded or they were making a database to use/sell at some point.

>>106034107
there's only a handful who could fool someone at a glance, probably not a big issue. also the kind who put that much effort into it probably aren't the kind of men who they want to keep off the app in the first place

>>106034166
It's mostly done in photos where it's easiest to stage. If they required video proof or even just showing hands, it'd be game over for a lot more.

>>106032122
>thoughever
That's not a word, Shakespeare.

>>106031871 (OP)
>Women only dating app
Wtf is wrong with pajeets? Can't they get anything right?

>>106034166
Some of them are just born with androgynous features and look convincing either way. Sure, it's not a ton, but there are millions of trannies in the US alone, so in absolute numbers, it's probably several 10ks or even 100ks.

>>106034328
seething and rent free

>>106031871 (OP)
>confirmed unauthorized access
>look inside
>bucket never requested any authorization or identification at all

>>106032231
It's illegal If you entered someone's house just because he forgot lock the door

>>106032078
No, he is right, several countries do have laws requiring data to be safe. The only thing is that it doesn't need to be state of the art, the standard is set by laws but the standard base is a reasonable man in charge of his own business. For example the US and banks still use floppy disks but ofc that data isn't easily accessible by outsiders so it actually IS safe from hacking as long as it is not networked, you need physical access to it

But if they leave copies of the floppy disks laying around then it's not safe and they could get in trouble

>>106032231
>Zero Cool
Damn you're old :D

>>106031871 (OP)
>hacked
Wasn't it a public db?

>>106031902
>4chan user
>4chan user = Anonymous
>Anonymous = Unknown
>Unknown person = Anonymous = 4chan user

>>106034407
devil's advocate; legally speaking there's no difference. if you enter someone's house uninvited you can be charged for trespass regardless of if the door was locked or not.
not a lawyer though, there's probably some distinction regarding reasonable means of preventing unauthorised access, but my point is that if you access something you don't know you're allowed to/know you shouldn't, then it could would be considered unauthorised access

calling it "hacked" is bullshit though

Losers because of the app
>roasties
>normal men
>4chan because it got blamed for this
>the retarded staff
>the faggot ceo
>anyone that got their ip exposed while downloading the pics (maybe use a vpn)
Winners
>lawyers
>men who found out their girlfriend is shit
>the man who made the map
>the man who made teaspill
>4chan because it got blamed for this
>anyone that just uploaded a wall
>gamers
>single men
Anyone missing?

>>106034613
Nailed it.

>>106031871 (OP)
>>106031902
>>106032281
>>106032525
>>106032590
>>106032680
>>106033322
>>106034521
it was first posted on /pol/, you retards
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/511313558
>>106019348

>>106035123
Thank you

>>106034444
It's still not hacking you utter moron.

>>106031957
The law says to not leak customer data, it doesn't say anything about how you ensure that doesn't happen. Software isn't like construction, there's an infinite number of ways to do things so you can't have "building codes for software."

The reality is the technology they used *does* have SOTA security they were just too stupid to turn it on.

>>106032055
>that's why the original thread was on /pol/. Kind of sad that the literal worst board is more technically competent than /g/, but oh well.
It's been like this for at least a decade. /pol/ schizos get way more motivated than anyone here. /g/ is for burnt out crud devs to do editor flamewars and asking which version of airpods to buy.

Did they find posts or just pictures?
If all I wanted were one or two selfies of women I could scrape Facebook.

>>106032054
Hindi, Hindu is a religion.

>>106034613
>gamers
>single men
What did i win?

>>106035589
oops
Although that explains why no one called me a pajeet for posting that

>>106035529
It's really a nothingburger as far as substance goes. It's more the principle of the matter that's interesting.

>>106035667
>the principle of the matter
Everyone knows it's spiteful losers who play games like this anyway. The principle of the matter is that involving yourself in any of this probably means you're not good at socializing.

>>106035727
That's the kind of mean-spirited, underhanded generalization that got us where we are now. If you were a woman, you would have posted that instead on Tea.

>>106032546
They found this out during the Sarkeesian days and just kept milking that cow.

>>106031890
OED, the definitive dictionary, uses one "x" for "doxing."

>>106033406
How is it shitty? It's clear the rate of single women has grown consistently since the 1990s.

>>106034613
>Winners
>Married men
They don't have to worry about random roasties commenting on his dating life.

>>106035478
>>106031985
>>106032078
>no such law
>Didn't even bother to look

It does exist, The California Consumer Privacy Act and California Civil Code establishes a duty (thus, an obligation) to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures. It doesn't say how, it simply requires that it must be done

>Any consumer whose nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 1798.81.5, or whose email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to the account is subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business' violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect the personal information may institute [...]

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-150/

>>106031871 (OP)
Roasties BTFO

>>106035900
the scale gives the illusion that a 5% difference is like a giant leap. also it only differentiates between "single" and "married". this graph may be a joke.

>>106035900
not him but the entire scale is 7 percentage points its the most lazy thing out of the how to lie with statistics playbook

>>106036019
>>106036033
How would you improve the chart?

>>106036056
maybe have a proper scale for starters. and kinda do something about the whole "every women in the US is either single or married and nothing in between" thing

you know the fact that you had me summarize my comment tells me you should be way more critical about stuff you find on the internet.

>>106036146
> maybe have a proper scale for starters.
If by "proper scale" you mean adding a zero baseline, then the change would be barely visible, and there would be no point in creating the chart. The current scale is fine because it shows the rate changes clearly. The chart could've provided more details on the demographic measured: Is it *all* men and women? A sample? That context is missing.
> kinda do something about the whole "every women in the US is either single or married and nothing in between" thing
If the article is about marital statuses, then "single" and "married" are fine, albeit oversimplified, categories to use. They are valid categories under the Census Bureau, which provided the underlying analysis by the Commerce Department and Wells Fargo Economics.
> you know the fact that you had me summarize my comment tells me you should be way more critical about stuff you find on the internet.
I asked how the chart could be improved. You responded with vague suggestions; not really the pinnacle of criticism.

>>106036429
cope and you know it

>>106031871 (OP)
I like how they call this a “hack” when it’s really just the result of programming so bad that a first year college student would get an F if he did things the way they did.

>>106036511
I accept your concession.

>>106031921
In an ideal world, there should be a security test for these things, where you need certification before you can handle sensitive data. As it stands I don't really trust the US government to do this test, they're all too old/technologically inept for it.

>>106031981
ive seen multiple journos frame it as a 'safe space' for women

>>106031871 (OP)
>hindustan times
DO NOT REDEEM SAAR

>>106035133
Thanks for linking.
Sent me down a 6 hour rabbit hole.

>>106035133
I thought it was a Japanese dude that leaked it.

I'm sure it wasn't me XD XD XD

>>106036019
>only differentiates between "single" and "married"
Because it's showing trend lines you moron. You don't need to show dating, engaged, and widowed to see such an obvious shift from marriage being the norm to not being married being the norm.

Which one, /g/?

>>106031871 (OP)
Good morning SAAR!

>>106040559
There's also a ton of people in ambiguous de-factor marriages now that would be missed

>>106035133
There is no text which would have been useful as hard proof of libel, not to mention no way to correlate verification photos (the user account) to images posted in comments/posts/threads about men. And ironically, because he blew too early, this means the proof will never come to light both due to tighter security and users and/or the corp deleting shit to protect themselves.
This """hack""" is a case of a skiddie blowing his load way too early. Compare this to the recent 4chan hack where the sharty hacker spent weeks sniffing around instead of just dumping the jannie board straight away.

>>106040559
hey moron try to add up the two numbers. the graph implies that every single woman is either single or married which is obviously FALSE. the graph has FALSE data. it's literally fake news
>oh but it doesn't matter because you know what they mean!
you can't imagine how much i hate you stupid cattle with no standards of quality as long as it supports your team. why not start making up the numbers as well?

>>106031871 (OP)
The amount of these retards that uploaded their entire ID is amazing.
I saw one that used her credit card to block her address.
The back of her card.

>>106040559
relationships where they don't "get married" are on the rise as well, many people don't see the point
so no, you can't assume anyone not married is single or vice-versa