‘Zoombombing’ Is a Horrifying New Trend | Hacker News Reader

‘Zoombombing’ Is a Horrifying New Trend

thecut.com

26 pointsfinphil37 comments

Open articleView on HN

Related discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22774049

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22762173

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22742565

"Zoombombing is a type of cyberattack"

Uh, I guess. Assuming prank calls are a "cyber attack" as well.

Edit: Okay...emailing awful images and videos then. It's rude and all, but "cyberattack" just isn't the right word. Put a password on your meeting.

On video you could for example show a child very extreme images of violence. I think you could seriously harm someone in just a few seconds doing that. Not the same as phoning someone.

Having a hard time understanding why prank calling someone and threatening sexual violence against them not being not a big deal.

I think you're somehow right, it's just that society is used to phone and potential jokes whereas they expect web stuff to be more secure and intimate. It's more relative psychology.

> Having a hard time understanding why prank calling someone and threatening sexual violence against them not being not a big deal.

I don't really think I said that, did I. You're either imagining something I didn't said or you're deliberately misrepresenting.

I said:

> Not the same as phoning someone.

And it's not the same. It's surely far more harmful to be able to show someone an image than just audio. You can literally do everything you can in audio in video, and then more.

You don't have to listen to me - I think you'll find that flashing someone is prosecuted more severely than an obscene phone call in most societies.

Also, threatening sexual violence is never a 'prank' - don't do that.

Drawing genitalia on the screen is immature but isn't really sexual violence. It's a little disrespectful towards rape victims or abuse victims to feel that action is on the same level. It's a prank..

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said it wasn't a cyberattack. Crashing my car into an electronics store isn't "hacking" either.

Not saying it can't be harmful. But "cyberattack" just isn't the right word.

I can email awful images to you too.

It seems like that would be cyber harassment and attacking someone.

Cyberattack has an existing meaning, and it's not that.

Cyberattack is a fairly generic term (as is anything "cyber-"). Just intentionally joining a Zoom room you're not supposed to be in/know about is probably "unauthorized access to a resource" and thus a "cyberattack" according to some definitions, and mainstream media, school administrators, ... are going to use those kind of definitions.

E.g. random definition pulled from merriam webster dictionary:

> an attempt to gain illegal access to a computer or computer system for the purpose of causing damage or harm

One can argue that there's not enough focus on the attack on a system here, but I'm not surprised it's used that way.

That's a matter of perspective. If someone is critiquing you and you don't like it, you can easily twist that to say you were attacked and effectively shut down conversations you don't agree with.

I would assume if someone was sending "awful images" via email it's probably meant to be malicious and probably not a critique.

Maybe they are attacking your sexual conservatism.

Not saying it means that is OK, but the decision is not clear cut either.

You better stay away from social media/youtube I see some awful images not even child related. I remember the operation channel doing eye surgery during dinnertime. It's hard to get your innocence back but as you mature you can handle the odd open heart surgery while munching away.

What ruins police is their day is endlessly looking at these photos that each new photo is another child.. it can feel hopeless. You can't compare it to someone dropping a dick pic in your zoom sharing screen ruining you for life. Most people's mental state can handle a brief gross moment.

We quickly forget that not even 120 years ago it was common for kids to be helping their parents butcher chickens and have at least one of their siblings die of a horrible disease.

Humans are more robust to shock than our cozy modern world might have us think.

It is, like you said,the non-stop barrage of horror that crushes people.

I distinctly remember being a bit shocked when I was ~6-8 and my great-grandfather smacked the fish I'd just caught on the gunwales of our boat. sudden, violent, but I pretty quickly realized "well yeah, I guess you do have to kill the fish at some point".

Though I did get messed up by a Discovery channel documentary about spontaneous human combustion when I was a kid. Mostly because I didn't get to finish it.

I guess mild forms of such, technically speaking.

There's definitely a difference between yelling profanities at someone and flashing them. A video call is different than audio and I believe it would be disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Is there a difference? I feel the claim that there is one is a bit perverse, and that any line that one would try to draw between the two would completely fail to be non-arbitrary.

a naked guy joining a school lecture or someone in a virtual AA meeting encouraging people to drink is much more than a prank.

I think this is an argument about "type" rather than severity. if I call you and threaten your life, it's a very severe offense, but it's not phreaking.

Weak on the cyber but possibly quite strong in the attack.

That I agree with.

Some of it seems like cybering to me.

People will come to the wrong conclusion and suggest that Zoom should have defaulted private from the get-go.

However, it is almost certain that default public was a key contributor to meteoric rise.

I'm on a couple facebook groups for teaching during this and some people are freaking out about this. Lot's of FUD spreading around when some of my peers do not seem to be very technologically savvy and stressed during this.

I can see why K-12 teachers would be worried about it but I teach college and if it happened in one of the classes I teach I would probably laugh.

I understand that the broken people of the world are largely responsible for the tragedy of the commons, but naked men joining online classes full of school children really does go beyond the pale. And I mean really? You zoombomb a class full of little black kids to scream the n-word at them?

Do people like this have nothing better to do with their lives than making the world a terrible place for everyone else? This is getting ridiculous.

Sorry if this sounds fatalistic/cynical, but surprise surprise, people are terrible!

I often hear people say that there are more good people than bad in the world, and that the bad are often over-represented: that's just wishful thinking.

I held a retail job for a little over 3 years before escaping, in quite a well-off town, which was known for being "such a nice place". It would be excessively generous to say that 20% of the people that would come through our doors were decent human beings; even now I can still remember the faces of all of the "good" customers because they were so few and far between that encountering them was almost a shock. A majority of our customers were bitter, rude, cruel, and painfully indignant and self-unaware.

Working retail, especially clothing, seems to be one of the easiest ways to become disillusioned with humanity.

Nothing like picking up a pile of clothes in a changing room covered in feces to brighten up your day.

Oh yea I've heard plenty of horror stories with clothing shops too; I worked at a chain very similar to CVS, one of the smaller stores in the district but some of the highest foot-traffic. My only solace from and during those times was that many of the people that I worked with and met through there were truly amazing, and I remain great friends with most of them today--it's definitely an environment that can evoke a brothers-in-arms type of feel

To be fair, what do you expect a customer to do in case of an emergency of that kind? What would you do?

To literally deal with their own shit! At the very least pay for it and dispose of it yourself.

I thought the law considers it to be store property. You don't ask your guests to pay if they accidentally break something in your house.

> the law considers it to be store property

So we can call it vandalism then. And I would certainly ask my guests for some reparations if they defecated on my clothes/floor and then walked out like nothing happened, and I certainly would not invite them back!

Vandalism would imply intention. If it is the case, you are absolutely right.

They just don't think it's harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com