Anonymous
ID: 4WeESZGt
7/26/2025, 7:20:24 PM No.511433263
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/us/tea-safety-dating-app-hack.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna221139
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
New York Times, NBC, BBC And Tea themselves are all starting to report that the “hack” was “unauthorised” and that the images were “stolen” after a “4chan call to arms.”
I want to reiterate that the photos were not stolen, no hacking was involved, there was no unauthorised access and that the public was authorised to access the URL without a password.
The fact that they are all very clearly using terminology to try and appeal to a legal setting is laughable, and most of these articles are being written by women who are likely users of the platform themselves who are pissed off about the leak.
This will undoubtedly be used to try and blame the person responsible for leaking the database URL instead of blaming the people responsibly, which is the careless team over at Tea who authorised the entire world to access their app’s database.
The sooner somebody can tell the media these facts, which are substantive by solid evidence, the better.
>It can be evidenced that the URL was publicly accessible, that no unauthorised access occurred, and that this resulted from sheer ownership incompetence.
Nothing about this was 4chan’s doing. 4chan did not plan this. 4chan did not orchestrate it. A link was simply posted on it, that people had already gained access to long ago. A publicly accessible URL which was accessed tens of thousands of times prior, was posted to 4chan. That is the extent of their involvement.
Every major news source has got the story completely wrong.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna221139
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
New York Times, NBC, BBC And Tea themselves are all starting to report that the “hack” was “unauthorised” and that the images were “stolen” after a “4chan call to arms.”
I want to reiterate that the photos were not stolen, no hacking was involved, there was no unauthorised access and that the public was authorised to access the URL without a password.
The fact that they are all very clearly using terminology to try and appeal to a legal setting is laughable, and most of these articles are being written by women who are likely users of the platform themselves who are pissed off about the leak.
This will undoubtedly be used to try and blame the person responsible for leaking the database URL instead of blaming the people responsibly, which is the careless team over at Tea who authorised the entire world to access their app’s database.
The sooner somebody can tell the media these facts, which are substantive by solid evidence, the better.
>It can be evidenced that the URL was publicly accessible, that no unauthorised access occurred, and that this resulted from sheer ownership incompetence.
Nothing about this was 4chan’s doing. 4chan did not plan this. 4chan did not orchestrate it. A link was simply posted on it, that people had already gained access to long ago. A publicly accessible URL which was accessed tens of thousands of times prior, was posted to 4chan. That is the extent of their involvement.
Every major news source has got the story completely wrong.
Replies:
