Here is the link to the orginal thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1qwo9u8/removed_by_moderator/
The hacker should send Trump an Epstein Island invite … the old pedo pervert may have a stroke from it.
Well, it’s Reddit. What did you expect?
Epstein is alive and well.
He got us good… mother trucker.
Are you stupid? Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to post anything anywhere? Just because the post is about Epstein doesn’t make it appropriate to post in that subreddit. And just because it was removed doesn’t mean the mods removed it, let alone that they might have an Epstein-related agenda in removing it. Just look at the automod response in that deleted thread. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jokes on you, shame is my kink sauce.
Former Reddit mod of an NHL hockey team and a Canadian province before Reddit purged me from their site. I can say with confidence that the sub mods including myself removed a lot of important content that didn’t fit the sub. There were other subs like /r/hockey or city subreddits that would have been better venues for what they were posting and still got backlash in the modmail.
We’re trying to help run a community and keep it central to the subject matter at hand. We understand this is important but if it doesn’t fit in the framework of the sub, it isn’t allowed.
You probably can’t post a funny comic strip in /r/politics.
Let’s see some names. Time to burn these sadist pedo billionaires.
Wag your finger too hard at them and they’ll banish you to Venezuela
We already have a ton of names. Nobody is getting burned.
hunter2
*******
Huh?
remember the windows 7 activation key?
Nobody hacked anything
People found account credentials and tried using them. Nothing nhogh tech here
That is hacking.
No hacking is circumventing the security…if you send out the password it is really bad secops. Stop selling negligence of a party as hacking.
Hacking is gaining unauthorised access to a system.
can’t unauthorize if he’s dead.
No, that’s just the definition that dumb fucks use to justify punishing people for their own stupidity. Unauthorized access and whatever you do with it is completely independent from HOW you gain access. And using legitimate credentials is not hacking. Obtaining the credentials may be done by hacking, but if they are just negligently tossed into the world, it’s not.
Same as losing your house keys and having someone use them to enter your house is unauthorized entry and violation of a set of laws, but it is NOT breaking into a house.
Nope, that’s the literal definition.
Not to worry though - I see lot more dumb fuckery in your future.
Now dance!
Many hackers agree that the best way to hack someone is through social engineering to just have them tell you your password.
My favorite is when this security researcher showed on camera how she did it. She took out her laptop and pulled up a soundboard. She pretended to be mom with a crying baby, and begged the customer support to change her account email and reset her password. When they did try to ask for some verification, she played the baby crying sound effects louder. Feeling bad for her, they did what she asked and she “hacked” into the account.
Wow, is that a young Kevin Roose?
Hacking is very wide and can include things like this. It does not have to be as technical, hard or clever as most gatekeep it to be.
Source: 20 years of experience in the space
ex. password stuffing brute force is hacking
Plugging somebody’s nipples on a car battery can be hacking.
Hacked your mom last night
I am sorry i could not resist
Password1233 is her password, it was bound to happen.
The second 3 is not as smart as she thinks
Unauthorized access to a computer system is hacking. It’s trespassing.
Its technically hacking due to it not being your account. Unauthorized access.
That’s still not hacking. It’s “unauthorized access” like you said, or “gaining access”. Hacking requires bypassing some security measure or obtaining access through some technological or social engineering means.
Or having the FBI leak your password and you using it without authorization. Legally it 100% falls under hacking in the USA.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
First sentence. You don’t have to have stolen the password, if you login to another account, and someone proves you did, you can be charged if they want to pursue it.
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
We can rule out “illicit” because the FBI published the data publicly. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by “unconventional”, which I don’t think qualifies here. A government agency published the credentials, which means no one had to do social engineering, sneak into an office, reverse engineer anything, or even guess a person’s birthday.
Now if this somehow went to court, a judge might rule that this qualifies as hacking, but my opinion is that it doesn’t.
that’s still hacking. hacking is gaining unauthorized access to a system through:
- social engineering
- cypher breaking
- brute force
of the three the first is BY FAR the most common and efficient. it’s also the least sexy so they don’t make movies about it and the public perception is that it’s something else
I agree with what you said. This also wasn’t social engineering. The password was just there and available.
Also, the excellent and amazing movie Hackers features plenty of social engineering.
Also, I didn’t say “excellent” and “amazing” sarcastically. It really is an under rated movie.
It was there, doesn’t mean it was for you. If you found a car with the keys in it, would you steal it or realize you shouldn’t do that?
Yeah but if I did, no one would say I hotwired the car.
Its still grand theft, hotwired or keys. That’s the whole point 😅
It was there, doesn’t mean it was for you.
Look, I’m not arguing about whether this is illegal or not. I’m arguing about the literal definition of the term “hacking”.
It’s just like walking into a strangers house without permission where the door is wide open is technically illegal, but it can’t qualify as “breaking and entering”.
Is it a nice car?
The door was unlocked, officer!
Richard chase vibes
Richard Trenton Chase was an American serial killer, cannibal and necrophile known as the Vampire of Sacramento, the Dracula Killer and the Vampire Killer, who killed six people between December 1977 and January 1978 in Sacramento, California. All of Chase’s victims were chosen at random. Wikipedia
Well yes. It would be “unlawful entry” (or whatever it’s called) versus “breaking and entering”.
you’re taking this splitting hairs to the moon today aren’t you, little troll.
Talk about a hard derail to burry the lead.
The thing everyone wants to see to dethrone this racist pile of shite and you’re over here like “it’s pronounced potato, not potato.”
you’re taking this splitting hairs to the moon today aren’t you, little troll
Troll? Where the hell are you coming from?
The thing everyone wants to see to dethrone this racist pile of shite and you’re over here like “it’s pronounced potato, not potato.”
So you have an issue with me arguing that people gaining access to this information are not breaking the law?
Unauthorized access is hacking.
Doesn’t matter if a person has a computer with no password at all. If you are on their computer and you are not authorized to use their computer that is a crime.
So your claim is that if I sit down at a computer that isn’t mine and has no security measures in place, and then open a file, that I have legally “hacked” the computer?
The minimal definition you can fall back to is “unauthorized access”. But now you have to establish and argue that an unsecured computer/system is off limits to everyone except the owner. Which then opens up a big can of worms with network connected devices, and demonstrates that such basic and literal verbatim interpretation doesn’t work in reality.
That’s not ‘my claim.’ That’s the law.
You can call it hacking or whatever. The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
No, the legal definition is this:
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
So this wasn’t illicit, because the FBI publicly published the data. So the argument has to be made with “unconventional”. This is what I disagree on.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
That’s illegal. There’s a law for that. There are also laws that protect digital assets in a similar way, and they fall under Cybercrime.
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Calm down there, Epstein.
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
You suck at rage baiting. I’m advocating for exposing more of the emails and not letting people refer to it as “hacking”, and you’re so enraged by someone disagreeing with you that you literally call that person “Epstein”. I know mental health care isn’t much of a thing in the US, but please find some help. For all our sakes.
If i give someone my bank details and passwords and they empty my account, can I claim I’ve been hacked?
No.
What part of “unauthorized access” is so difficult for people to understand?
How is authorization determined?
Probably by giving out your account details.
You can. You violated the TOS by sharing the details, making it exceptionally easy for them to hack you, then they did.
You violated the TOS by sharing the details
A TOS violation is not the same as breaking the law. If that were the case then every single person on the face on the planet would be a criminal.
You didn’t break the law, just violated a contract. The user you gave your credentials to violated the law, because the contract you signed stipulated that permission for them to access your account was not yours to give. That means they accessed your account in an unauthorized manner, which meets the definition of hacking.
I am not trying to argue the merits of what does and doesn’t constitute hacking, but these terms have objective, legal definitions in the jurisdictions they’re taking place. We don’t have to like or agree with those things, but it doesn’t change the current situation that has them set up this way.
Removed by mod
Legally it’s called hacking.
The base legal definition of “hacking” is “unauthorized access”. Then the trick becomes establishing “unauthorized”. The reason this matters is if a website is publicly accessible, then it’s assumed to be authorized even though it’s not explicitly stated by anyone. However, you are accessing information on a computer system you do not own and were not given explicit permission to access.
Now let’s say in the HTML or JS there’s an endpoint to a backend server that’s not directly exposed via online searches or page links. And through that link you are able to expose sensitive data that’s not shown on the webpage.
Now, how is the definition of “unauthorized access” or “hacking” applied here?
Edit: yes this is splitting atoms, but that’s the world of legal definitions
Bro, stfu and move on. Its “hacking” in every legal definition.
Don’t like being wrong, eh?
@FBI this guy has illegal shit on their computer. Probably child porn.
Maybe “hacking” in the CFAA sense
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something because no one here has mentioned the obvious:
Did we acquire the full unredacted set of his emails ?
From what I remember, the guy said that not much was left and most of the emails were deleted
Seriously, wouldn’t this be kind of huge news if we suddenly had access to the evidence they tried to hide? Too bad this is a news article and someone probably changed the password by now.
There’s no news on it and I have to assume it’s because if that is the full unredacted email there’s probably a ton of CSAM. If so it’s technically illegal to own and anyone who is downloading it might be opening themselves up to arrest or legal challenges, even if they’re a journalist.
I would presume IF this is a full release of the Epstein GMail account, and IF it’s not a honeypot op of some kind from CIA/IDF/SVR/whoever, and IF it’s legit… then this is big. Nearly all American news orgs have been gutted though, and I doubt any billionaire that owns the news orgs would be ok with having their wealthy cohort exposed.
Whoever might be investigating this would almost certainly keep quiet until all of their ducks are in a row because the second they publish, they’re going to be arrested for CSAM. Unless they’re in a country with no extradition treaty with the US. And even then they’ll be subject to extraordinary rendition cause Trump don’t care about US law, why would the lack of an extradition treaty stop him?
It’s ridiculous that evidence of the crimes they committed is going to be used to arrest anyone who tries to uncover evidence of who committed those crimes. By ridiculous I don’t mean I don’t think it will happen. I think you are right about that.
I mean, I know there are some people who would definitely do the wrong thing and that’s why it needed to be released carefully to avoid this kind of mess and why normally this kind of digging would be done by the government or trusted investigators, but it’s troublesome because the established power structure (regardless of party) are some of the same people who committed these crimes and we clearly can’t trust them to do the right thing.
Soooooo, reading someone’s password then using it is “hacking” now?
Yours,
Schwim, Master HackerYes?
That’s basically how most “hacking” works through social engineering and phishing.
I like that this is the important part, the thing that people are annoyed with. Pff, loser, did you even use the terminal? Fake ass bitch.
Do these emails even matter given that be wasn’t self-hosting?
That’s always been hacking lol.
Multiple major dictionaries seem to define computer hacking as: “to gain unauthorized access to a computer network, system, etc.” or something similar. So yeah, it seems that using a password you found somewhere to access an account that isn’t yours would indeed be considered “hacking.”
Basically 80% of the “hacks” in the world find ez password get on lan create admin
Yes. It’s also a series of felonies. Having a persons username and password does not give one permission to access the account anymore than having possession of someone’s house key allows one to legally enter the home.
Yeah, much of “hacking” is lamer than the movies show.
Rami Malek did a decent job of making “real hacking” look cool in Mr Robot
That was mostly the production crew who took a lot of time to use real hacks and UIs to recreate them live.
I was moreso getting at the social engineering bits. But yea the writing and production was well done for sure!
Bro completely destroyed that poor man’s life
Legally speaking unfortunately.
If you can read, you’re now a hacker. Which means a good percentage of Trump voters can’t hack.
Email, dental hygiene, spelling, reality. They just can’t hack a good many things.
It’s hacking as soon as it’s uncomfortable for someone with power.
Always has been.
Edit: wow, downvotes. Care to explain?
Bro, I just hacked MYSELF
Bro.
Bro
Somewhat, yeah. A lot of hacking is like that along with social engineering
So every other child rapist’s name gets redacted but they can’t even do a scan for passwords?
Apparently the word “don’t” can also be found redacted.
Because they did a regex for Don(.)T and didn’t bother to check
They did bother to check, they are just sloppy. It seems like it’s more that one slipped through the cracks. There are plenty of unredacted “don t” in the files. Looks like they did blanket redactions of “Don T” (and other Trump related names) and then went through manually and unredacted false positives to cover their tracks. But they missed one. It’s still a smoking gun, though, as there’s literally no reason to redact “don t”.
They were so busy hunting for the rapists they completely forgot about passwords…or we’ve got some decent folks weaponizing “incompetence”
I’m convinced they used AI to redact everything, and didn’t double back and check them until after a particular page made headlines.
I’ve seen numerous videos where they program a script to remove the 5-6 different ways “redactions” were added and they make no sense from a technical stand point, leaving me to believe that someone non-technical told AI exactly how they wanted to redact, and then put those files in their outbox.
They uploaded the Bash 3.3 reference manual and even that had some redactions so your theory is almost definitely correct
Yea this is highly likely… I can’t imagine how they made it this far being so… Fukkin dum
More likely they were busy redacting Donald from the files - or mark them “Top Secret”.
Hunter2
All I can see is *******
yep, no matter how many times you type hunter2, it will show to us as *******
††††***†‡
they just assumed it was one of hunter biden’s kids and waved it through
Did anyone scrape and archive the contents?
Surprised a Lemmy instance doesn’t have it honestly
If they’d stop talking about Linux or posting furry porn for a minute they would.
/s
No /s needed here
I love us
Thanks but I’d much rather see furry porn and Linux BS over here at pawb. If you want Epstein and his CSAM, you’re free to keep it over there at .world.
The mods have posted a followup about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1qwt4pb/epstein_deleted_posts_and_our_thoughts_moving/
It’s insane that you’re one of the only comments actually responding to the post itself. I’m starting to think Lemmy is being taken over by bots even worse than Reddit.
Smaller populations make it easier to form social bubbles, I suppose. And this community in particular is focused on not liking something, so it’s easy to throw out a quick “ooh, I hate thing!” To get some positive engagement.
