Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Founder Accused of Hacking Into Rivals' Email

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-we-in-bitter-tears-did-sow dept.

The Courts 261

An anonymous reader notes a long piece up at BusinessInsider.com accusing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg of hacking into the email accounts of rivals and journalists. The CEO of the world's most successful social networking website was accused of at least two breaches of privacy. In a two-year investigation detailing the founding of Facebook, Nicholas Carlson, a senior editor at Silicon Alley Insider, uncovered what he claimed was evidence of the hackings in 2004. "New information uncovered by Silicon Alley Insider suggests that some of the complaints [in a court case ongong since 2007] against Mark Zuckerberg are valid. It also suggests that, on at least one occasion in 2004, Mark used private login data taken from Facebook's servers to break into Facebook members' private email accounts and read their emails — at best, a gross misuse of private information. Lastly, it suggests that Mark hacked into the competing company's systems and changed some user information with the aim of making the site less useful. ... Over the past two years, we have interviewed more than a dozen sources familiar with aspects of this story — including people involved in the founding year of the company. We have also reviewed what we believe to be some relevant IMs and emails from the period. Much of this information has never before been made public. None of it has been confirmed or authenticated by Mark or the company." The single-page view doesn't have its own URL; click on "View as one page" near the bottom.

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And you thought Mob Wars was nasty (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396018)

Lawyers throughout the US just had orgasms....

And what will the Register say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396032)

Facebook Founder Accused of Hacking Into Rivals' Email, Bitches.

Re:And what will the Register say? (4, Funny)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396248)

If at all possible, they'll use the word "boffin" in there somewhere, too.

Re:And what will the Register say? (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397156)

I'll get my coat, it's the one with the ww2-era spy-plane plans

1st.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396034)

poke

What's that saying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396064)

Oh yeah: "Timber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Wow.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396078)

just wow.

So will he get a mug shot now? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396080)

So will he get a mug shot now?

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396310)

It's a civil case.

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396824)

Unauthorized access sounds criminal to me. Penalty ceilings probably go way up too, and Zuckerberg's billions are probably starting to look tempting.

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396838)

If it happened in 2004, the statute of limitations is long gone.

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (1)

sthomas (132075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396996)

IANAL, but the window of limitations for criminal prosecution doesn't begin until the crime is (or should have been) discovered. Just because it was hidden for so long doesn't mean he gets away with it.

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (4, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397126)

Good thing you are not a lawyer, it's from the date it was committed.

The point of such statutes is because after a long time has passed, the defense is less able to form a coherent defense since a lot of the evidence is gone.

Re:So will he get a mug shot now? (2, Informative)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397146)

Actually, it can also be the case that the statute of limitations applies when the crime was discovered, not necessarily when it was committed. I am told this is especially so if they're trying to convict someone of "habitual criminal". I only know of this because a friend had to file embezzlement charges against an employee who had been stealing from him for longer than the statute of limitations and he was able to get them convicted of the entire string of crimes stretching back several years.

In civil court one only need look at The Knack v. Run DMC where it's been since 1986 but The Knack are able to sue, so far, because they claim they knew nothing of the song "It's Tricky" until recently despite its massive popularity at the time.

Serious Allegations (5, Insightful)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396090)

This is a serious allegation. With all of the information Facebook aggregates, they potentially could unlock many people's emails and various other accounts with the family and personal information. Lots of people use simple things like their pets or parents birthdays as those reminder question answers, and Facebook could easily hold all the correct information to gain access to those accounts. If this case is proven true, I can see some new laws on how companies with this kind of information have to structure and protect it. Hopefully people will wake up and stop putting their personal information where Facebook and others can see...

Re:Serious Allegations (3, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396156)

What about all the e-mails, calendars, documents and what not else that people store with Google? Are they no less to be wary of?

Re:Serious Allegations (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396516)

Yeah but Google is different. They are nice. They do no evil, right?

Re:Serious Allegations (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396852)

wow. who wasted their fucking mod points on insightful. Google is the NSA and the NSA is Google. Wake up, Google is just as evil as all the other multinational corporations.

Re:Serious Allegations (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396982)

Whoosh.

Re:Serious Allegations (5, Funny)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396986)

Do they have sarcasm on your planet?

Re:Serious Allegations (2, Funny)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397034)

Do they have sarcasm on your planet?

Sarcasm?!!

Sarcasm is prevarication and prevarication is sarcasm. Wake Up! Sarcasm is just as evil as all the other rhetorical devices.

Re:Serious Allegations (0, Offtopic)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397044)

Who wasted their mod points on "Interesting"?


Slashdot seriously needs a "-.5 Woosh" mod.

Re:Serious Allegations (4, Informative)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396654)

Don't forget the facebook Friend Finder asks for your email account password to log into your email account automatically and match your contacts against the facebook user base. Although they promise not to keep that password, they could.

Re:Serious Allegations (2, Insightful)

Draykwing (900431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396826)

Why do you think that when I used it, I changed my password, gave them the changed one, and immediately after changed it to a third, unrelated password?

Re:Serious Allegations (5, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397188)

Because you're Jason Bourne?

Facebook users get what they deserve (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396680)

Web 2.0 has proven itself nothing more than a private takeover of the public infrastructure of the net. FB wants to displace everything from email to irc. If people want to commit their information to sharks who want to mnetize their personal information, they get what they deserve.

Re:Facebook users get what they deserve (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396756)

go back to bbs muds, neckbeard microprick assburger.

Re:Facebook users get what they deserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396946)

go back to bbs muds, neckbeard microprick assburger.

Show what you know. I play Trade Wars.

Re:Serious Allegations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396682)

in case you guys need another reminder on NOT putting your personal information out there:

http://www.pleasrobme.com

Re:Serious Allegations (1)

im_dan (887241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397060)

typo in your url points to an ad farming website
http://pleaserobme.com/ [pleaserobme.com]

Re:Serious Allegations (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397170)

and yet again, WHOOSH

Re:Serious Allegations (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397248)

My only question is, the alleged hacking took place in 2004, how does it take until 2010 for it to be presented as news on Slashdot?

Ai (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396094)

He probably can write a book about what he's gonna face now.

Re:Ai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396464)

And with a bit of luck, he's going to make an awful lot of new "friends" where he's going.

Re:Ai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31397132)

He probably can write a book about what he's gonna face now.

I can't take pity on men of his kind, even though he'll now take it in the behind. Email hack!

Different password (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396142)

This is why I use a different password on facebook than anywhere else.

Actually it was when my account started spamming wall postings with links to Chinese drug sites I changed my password to something unique, but still, virtually the same thing.

Re:Different password (5, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396178)

And what if all those other sites have a admin that can't be trusted? It's really not about facebook this issue. It's about broken trust and you can't really protect yourself against it. At least not if you want to use their services.

Re:Different password (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396800)

Correct. http://lastpass.com/ [lastpass.com] is one of very few cloud services that actually understands that for me to have trust in them they must design the infrastructure accordingly.

There ought to be more than a few people at Slashdot working with cloud companies. I'd love to hear some explanations as to why they believe "oh don't worry, your data can only be seen by our admins and we trust them!" should satisfy the needs of a large corporation :)

Re:Different password (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396866)

You trust that site (or any site) with all your passwords? Ouch.

Re:Different password (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396910)

Feel free to study how it works before replying ;) They have all my passwords - encrypted. They cannot decrypt them.

That's how cloud services should work.

Re:Different password (1)

funkyhat (837117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396998)

All it would take is for the JS that powers the site to be modified to send your passphrase(s) back to them. If at some point they wished to go back on their word not to ever look at your passwords. At that point you'd be safe until the next time you needed to log in to retrieve a password.

Re:Different password (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397068)

"If" is a very powerful word. There are many possible "ifs" that can protect against an evil cloud service provider as well (hashed snippets of code, client side verification of updates etc) if we would feel the need.

The point is, it's not possible for a rogue admin at Lastpass to sneak a peek (or copy) user data. At most cloud companies, it's routine.

I'm somewhat amazed this isn't a huge topic for discussion in the SaaS space.

Re:Different password (1)

hughperkins (705005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396922)

Given that the admins in a cloud company have access to the guest os's memory, there's no way of fundamentally making the infrastructure secure enough that you don't have to trust the admins.

You can encrypt stuff all you like, but things will be in the guest os's memory in an unencrypted state, at least some of the time.

Re:Different password (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396958)

That depends on the type of service. Agree, some cloud services do need to perform manipulation of client data - but not all. Those that don't only need to expose APIs but allow all manipulation to take place client side, with client side decryption (just like lastpass).

Moving from symmetric to asymmetric cipher would increase the amount of services that can be encrypted even further. Yes, it would be computationally more expensive, and storage requirements would increase, but it would at least mean that cloud services (I'm looking at you, Yammer) would be a viable solution to running everything internally.

Re:Different password (1)

swimin (828756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396978)

I just looked at the link. The unencrypted passwords are intended to never exist on last passes servers, the encryption and decryption is done locally.

Re:Different password (2, Interesting)

hughperkins (705005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397094)

I was basically thinking about services such as Amazon EC2 et al, and the possibility of outsourcing computing power from inside an organization into the cloud, and my observation that such an organization cannot really escape having to trust the administrators of the cloud facility, since there is no way of securing a cloud server's memory against the cloud organization's administrators.

Yes, Lastpass does not fall into this category at all, and seems potentially secure.

Re:Different password (5, Interesting)

Bronster (13157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396384)

Facebook also had a thing "give us your gmail or hotmail password and we'll log in and retrieve your contact email addresses and offer you to add them as friends if they have a Facebook account already" - presumably they stored those passwords as well.

Re:Different password (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396668)

Facebook also had a thing "give us your gmail or hotmail password and we'll log in and retrieve your contact email addresses and offer you to add them as friends if they have a Facebook account already" - presumably they stored those passwords as well.

And I had a thing, "Anyone who asks for your password is lying. Don't give it to them. And if they say they really need it, don't do business with them."

Of course, it was 1989. But the neckbeard taught me right.

Re:Different password (3, Interesting)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396926)

Yeah, Linkedin.com also asks for passwords to your multiple email accounts to scan them for contacts. Wow. What a gold mine that could be. If there's an email addy that they don't know or a name they don't recognize, they could start spamming them for registrations and, potentially, saying a friend or colleague provided your email address to us thinking you might be interested in joining our social club....

Re:Different password (1)

chimpo13 (471212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397238)

I don't think they stored the passwords (even so I changed my password after letting fb have it), but I'm pretty sure they keep track of everyone you have emailed. I started a work email and it suggested most of the same friends. Even though it was in a different country with a slightly different name. Unless of course, they figured someone with the rare last name of "Smith" must know all the same people.

Re:Different password (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396884)

So what you're saying is that you use the same password for everything else? I guess that means whoever guesses your email password now also has your online banking password...but whew, your Facebook account is safe. :)

Stupid Users (3, Informative)

muphin (842524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396168)

using the same password for their email account as they do with their social networking sites then people should expect to be compromised.

I suggest you use 4 types of passwords, one for accounts that wouldnt effect u much, one for email, one for social sites and IM, and one for bank accounts; with none of the passwords having anything to do with each other, e.g redball, orangeball,greenball... or whiteball, soccer, redflag ... as this limits the guess work.
this "hack" was probably just stupid curiosity which will probably get him arrested, and once that happens he will loose a lot of control of the company.

Re:Stupid Users (5, Insightful)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396220)

Actually, Facebook directly asks you for your email password so it can "Automatically connect you to others" through your ISP information (phonebook, etc.). They get quite clever with it, even using the ISP's logo, making it seem like it is an official service of the ISP.

This goes a bit beyond, "stupid." This is a confidence scam.

--
Toro

Re:Stupid Users (5, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396550)

using the same password for their email account as they do with their social networking sites then people should expect to be compromised.

I suggest you use 4 types of passwords, one for accounts that wouldnt effect u much, one for email, one for social sites and IM, and one for bank accounts; with none of the passwords having anything to do with each other, e.g redball, orangeball,greenball... or whiteball, soccer, redflag ... as this limits the guess work.

Supposedly they did,

"Here's how Mark described his hack to a friend:

Mark used his site, TheFacebook.com, to look up members of the site who identified themselves as members of the Crimson. Then he examined a log of failed logins to see if any of the Crimson members had ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. If the cases in which they had entered failed logins, Mark tried to use them to access the Crimson members' Harvard email accounts. He successfully accessed two of them."

this "hack" was probably just stupid curiosity which will probably get him arrested, and once that happens he will loose a lot of control of the company.

I have no idea whether this stuff it true or provable, but if the article is accurate this wasn't curiosity. This was some seriously immoral/dishonest stuff.

Re:Stupid Users (4, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396992)

Mark used his site, TheFacebook.com, to look up members of the site who identified themselves as members of the Crimson. Then he examined a log of failed logins to see if any of the Crimson members had ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. If the cases in which they had entered failed logins, Mark tried to use them to access the Crimson members' Harvard email accounts. He successfully accessed two of them.

This is why I always have an "OH &*#$#^!" moment whenever I accidentally enter the wrong password into the wrong form. It's a mad rush to change the password to whatever service/server the password really belongs to. Thankfully, it's usually different usernames...

In soviet russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396190)

book faces you

Not Really Surprised (5, Insightful)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396238)

When you look at Facebook's dismal history of privacy policies and changes, it's really not that surprising. A person with flawed ethical standards tends to do unethical things.

Re:Not Really Surprised (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396794)

Best comment on the story.

While we must note, that accusations are only accusations. I could accuse you of rape right now. Wouldn’t make it a single bit more true.

But Zuckerberg to me has no better moral standards than a criminal. You know. Like an agent of some totalitarian state. Or like someone who steals other people’s identities for a living.

I really want Facebook to die and be replaced by a version that honors privacy. Something with an ethical code.
Oh, even better: A P2P social network. Wouldn’t that be something?

Re:Not Really Surprised (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396934)

A person with flawed ethical standards tends to do unethical things.

Gross abuse and misuse of electronic communication has been a staple of Government and Corporations for the better part of 170 years, starting with the telegraph system.

The only difference between then and now is that communications channels have become decentralized.
The ability and desire to tap into those systems still exists and has never gone away.

Breach of privacy (5, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396278)

Kinda puts his comments that "No one has any reasonable expectation of privacy anymore" into a whole new light, doesn't it?

Re:Breach of privacy (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396822)

Nah. Same old light. I kinda expected him to do even worse things.

And that’s why I am very cautious, since all that happened, is somebody accusing him. It’s illegal to leave out the “accused” (e.g. in newspapers) in Germany for a very good reason.

Let’s see how it turns out in court.
It could just still also be a competitor who tries not-so-nice methods to get some of Facebook’s user share.

Re:Breach of privacy (2, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396954)

Very true; let's be careful not to forget he is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how likely this may seem given his recent words and actions.

mo3 ugp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396300)

What else? (2, Funny)

spruce (454842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396324)

Did he offer to buy the Caprica Bucs as well?

Re:What else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396460)

Brilliant.

He'll Probably Get Off Easy (4, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396338)

A friend once made the observation that no big-time, fast-track success story in the world of IT ever makes it without doing something that gets them into serious hot water at least once. Once they do that, they offer a bunch of mea culpas, make a few donations here and there, then make bank. (The slow-track success stories don't usually fit that theory.)

This is a bit different, seeing as he's already made bank, and it's a skeleton coming out of the closet, but I still think he'll get off easy.

Remember, it's not how much justice you can get, it's how much you can afford.

Re:He'll Probably Get Off Easy (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396620)

In fairness, in the corporate world there are so many pitfalls that it's essentially impossible to navigate through them all without a strong team of lawyers and accountants.

Laws in America are so complex and vague that the average american commits three felonies a day [wsj.com] . The same difficulties apply to companies. Even something as straightforward as paying a CEO takes legal specialists dedicated to that specific area of law. Even think of the difficulties of complying with Sarbanes Oxley from an IT perspective. It takes time to set up all the infrastructure, and if you were a startup, you may not even have had a dedicated sys admin. Then suddenly you have all these regulations you have to comply with.

Not that I'm trying to excuse Zuckerberg. If he was stealing other people's emails, he should go to jail, a much better candidate for jailtime than Terry Childs.

Re:He'll Probably Get Off Easy (3, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397164)

Yeah so many pitfalls like accidentally hacking into people's email accounts using stolen passwords.

Is that something like the woman falling on your cock and you accidentally raping her?

Now I understand the Facebook Privacy guidelines (1)

viraltus (1102365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396366)

No wonder.

Nice hottie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396376)

Mail Online has a better article, because the third pic in the article is of a hottie using a laptop to browse Facebook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Of course, she's even prettier naked:

http://www.crestock.com/image/2137917-diamond.aspx [crestock.com]

Color me surprised... (4, Informative)

xlsior (524145) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396378)

He isn't exactly known to believe in privacy in the first place, after all:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy [guardian.co.uk]
The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Talking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25-year-old chief executive of the world's most popular social network said that privacy was no longer a "social norm".

Wasnt Mark (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396398)

Was Chuck Norris [slashdot.org]

n00bsauce (3, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396406)

The hilarity would be if his tracks could be traced down through their own system's perverse logging, maybe then would he regret his company's policy of practically 100% data retention. Pwned Mark Fuckerberg. Pwned.

Sad if true. (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396434)

Sad if true. Although Silicon Valley Insider is one of the least reputable blogs on the net.

Re:Sad if true. (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396684)

I've always thought of it as Google's mouthpiece.

This just in (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396436)

The CEO of the world's most successful social networking website was accused of at least two breaches of privacy.

In related news, something about hacking some email accounts as well.

New business card? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396480)

I'm a black-hat hacker...bitch.

inside job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396482)

gotta love the rogue admin

That's the issue with all those 'cloudy' things (2, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396490)

The issue is my ASS: Availability, Safety, Security.

I want my apps and data to be accessible at all times. Even when I'm off-line, or they are, or somethings dies in-between.

I want my data to be safe, which means off-site, off-line backups.

I want my data to be secure, which means no hacking. For every high-visibility CEO that gets caught, how many 3rd-world subcontractors' trainees don't ?

More to come (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396522)

Expect a lot more of these stuff.

The people who start social networks are a different breed than those that cooked up tech startups of past decades.

Well Duh! (2, Funny)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396528)

And this is why don't provide any site any more information that the bare minimum that it needs.

Nah. Facebook is a scam.

Now excuse me, I've got to update my status.

temporary password (1)

zlel (736107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396532)

i wouldn't entrust my passwords to a third party website, but if i had to do it, i guess i would have to change my password temporary, let the third party site access my account with the temporary password, and then change it back. but i've always felt very awkward that facebook is one website. Is it possible to make a distributed/cloud version of it using some form of client-side decryption, so that nobody "owns" any of the information in its entirety?

Some financial insiutuion are already using this (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396672)

There are certain online stock broker, who use the same technique. In order to make a deposit directly with a bank account, this service needs to verify that you are the true owner of the bank account. This can be done by entering your bank account online user name and password. You only have to do this once however. So I change to a temporary one, confirm the bank account with the broker, and change it back.

Re:Some financial insiutuion are already using thi (1)

bkgood (986474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396812)

They can't just do it the way, say, PayPal, does it and make a very small debit (or deposit) with a unique authentication key in the memo line? I've done this with a couple of different companies, and I really can't imagine doing it the way you describe, it just seems silly. Just accounting for all the different ways a bank could do an HTML login process (mine will ask you a series of personal questions if you haven't authenticated with the same computer recently and told it to remember the computer) would be a nightmare.

Granted, they way PayPal now does the above process reeks of dung, as they process a small debit with the key and when you authenticate they credit that amount to your PayPal account instead of sending it back to your bank, but that's just an implementation detail.

Here's my thought... (1, Redundant)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396560)

ANYONE who's silly enough to use a primary e-mail address where anything important lands for any social networking site is a fool. Hotmail, gMail, et al exist for a reason....If Suckerberg wants to read my Hotmail that's linked to my Facebook account, feel free. It's all facebook related trash anyway....since it's one of my many throwaway mail accounts, used for such activities.

Re:Here's my thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396760)

Anyone on slashdot who does those things is a fool. Regular users are not slashdot readers.

I hope you're not an IT guy, because if so, your attitude towards the people you are supposed to educate and support needs some work.

Reason #1352... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396598)

...to avoid using Facebook.

Re:Reason #1352... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396870)

Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. What's Slashdot doing looking at my junk, anyway?

Rob Malda likes cock.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396646)

Since when copy/paste a password is considered hacking?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396814)

Since unauthorized access to anything computer related was equated with hacking.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397004)

Since unauthorized access to anything computer related was equated with criminal activity.

There, fixed that for you. Not all hacking is bad, nor is all hacking criminal activity.

no surprise (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396694)

Anyone familiar with the mechanics of Facebook's rise to prominence should not be surprised at the alleged ethical and legal violations. Zuckerberg et al. hacked and social engineered their way into dozens of college freshman admit lists so they could be the first to get new students online. This is not speculation. The "virality" of early facebook was not viral at all, it was good old fashioned spam to ill-gotten mailing lists.

MARK ZUCKERBERG IS A JEW (1)

wi11yhill (1310025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396740)

I don't expect anything moral or honest stuff come out from him. He use the Talmud as his holy book.

Some excerpts of the Talmud:

Erubin 21b: Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Moed Kattan 17a : If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Non-Jews are Not Human. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men"). Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").

Sanhedrin 58b: Jews are Divine. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, THE GENTILE MUST BE KILLED. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

Sanhedrin 57a: O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews. A Jew need not pay a Christian ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Baba Kamma 37b: Jews Have Superior Legal Status. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Baba Mezia 24a: Jews May Steal from Non-Jews. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a: God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Sanhedrin 57a: JEWS MAY ROB AND KILL NON-JEWS. When a Jew murders a Christian ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b: Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Baba Kamma 113a: Jews May Lie to Non-Jews . JEWS MAY USE LIES ("subterfuges") TO CIRCUMVENT A GENTILE.

Yebamoth 98a: Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b: Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b: Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in Shabbath 104b it is stated in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud that Jesus' mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

Sanhedrin 43a Jesus ("Yeshu" the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Gittin 57a . Says Jesus is being boiled in "hot excrement".

Sanhedrin 43a . Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"

Rosh Hashanah 17a . Christians ("minim") and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Shabbath 116a (p. 569). Jews must destroy the books of the Christians. Israel Shahak reports that the Zionists burned hundreds of New Testament books in Occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).

Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl. (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as that child is over nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b . When a older man has intercourse with a girl it is nothing because her virginity will grow back.

Yebamoth 59b . A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a . States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Gittin 70a . The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."

Gittin 69b (p. 329). To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dogs excrement as it loosens the limbs."

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Menahoth 43b-44a . A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave.

Shabbath 86a-86b . Because Jews are holy they do not have sex during the day unless the house can be made dark. A Jewish scholar can have sex during the day if he uses his garment like a tent to make it dark.

Gittin 57b . Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. (Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews).

Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed"). This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).

On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Rabbi Kahane who has stated that his view of Arabs as "dogs" is "from the Talmud." (Cf. CBS "60 Minutes", "Kahane").

Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldsteins philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against "goyim," a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Re:MARK ZUCKERBERG IS A JEW (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397206)

Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

SaaS will suffer for this (1)

waTR (885837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396744)

The problem with what has been alleged is that it now gives more ammunition to those against SaaS over the web. On the other hand, it makes it all the more important that these companies be forced to use SSL for login sessions.

On a side note, this sounds way too stupid to have actually occurred. If Mark actually did these things, I feel much more confident in my own intelligence (in comparison to his own, and what I previously thought of it).

Uh, where's the hacking? (2, Interesting)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31396776)

It took me about 10 minutes to skim through the backstory, but it's pretty sparse on the details and supporting evidence.

"Instead, he decided to access the email accounts of Crimson editors and review their emails. How did he do this? Here's how Mark described his hack to a friend:"

Oh, a friend said Mark said... right.

"Nevertheless, during 2004, Mark Zuckerberg still appeared to be obsessed with ConnectU. Specifically, he appears to have hacked into ConnectU's site and made changes to multiple user profiles, including Cameron Winklevoss's."

"At one point, Mark appears to have exploited a flaw in ConnectU's account verification process to create a fake Cameron Winklevoss account with a fake Harvard.edu email address."

It "appeared" that way? According to whom, and based on what?

Seriously, the whole article is a long string of "it looks like" and "he said she said Mark said" with nothing to back any of it up.

Re:Uh, where's the hacking? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397064)

he said she said Mark said

So wait, Mark's not He or She?

Nothing about this is surprising (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31396804)

This doesn't surprise me, only confirms what I've thought about Zuckerberg.

1) I believe he stole Facebook from the ConnectU founders. I believe the assertions that he was hired as a developer and dragged his feet while forming his own company which eventually became Facebook.

2) I believe he has no scruples when it comes to Facebook users' data. He has publicly stated that he knows what's best for "his" users and this arrogance shines through every time the UI is abruptly changed.

3) I believe he will do whatever he pleases with users' information. I don't think that privacy laws provide guidance to him but instead are constraints that he will bypass given any opportunity.

I'm pleased to see that he is being publicly exposed - I doubt anything will come of it - but am glad for him to be seen as he truly is, an arrogant and unscrupulous bad person. This latest revelation may finally send him where he belongs . . .

banking.

Dentasmile Md (0, Offtopic)

brude (1761818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31397186)

Script Kidd if you use other peoples programs to steal password .Hacker if You do it by yourself. Denta Smile Md [ezinearticles.com]

Not to be an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31397246)

Not to be an ass but I have to play devil's advocate here. How in the hell are we supposed to take what they say at face value? Supposing it really did happen, where's the evidence that proves they didn't make these dumbass mistakes on their own?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>