Hacker News Reader

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

This assumes the breached password occurrence was known in advance and, from what I have read so far about this, was not the case with the 23andMe accounts.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

And how would they know that when the access was done via the correct user/pass combo for accounts where the users chose not to enable MFA?

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

It wasn’t from the same system. It was from a botnet. The account credentials were leaked on Tor. Is haveibeenpwned omniscient? Do they know about every breach out there without fail?

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

If was indeed a DB leak, as claimed, some sites will have emails/hashes/passwords/last know login location/ip potentially. It’s not a stretch to think that a botnet could run from not only the same country but even the same region or city as the last known login or IP cluster.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

It’s not lazy or negligent on the part of the website when they offer additional security and users choose not to use it. 23andMe asks multiple times for users to set up 2FA and apps like 1Password and Bitwarden recognize that it’s available and prompt users to set it up.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

To borrow your analogy, though, Facebook (23andMe) didn’t leak anyone’s data. That’s the issue with your position.

Also, the turfer comment makes you seem like a conspiracy theorist. There’s nothing untoward or off about the replies you’ve received so far that is off enough to suggest astroturfing.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

Do you share your banking info with complete strangers? If not, why would you share your DNA with them and be surprised that they could do something stupid, foolish, or reckless?

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

That is a great analogy.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

They weren't from the same place. It was from a botnet over the course of several months.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

It is an option. Every user has the option to setup MFA when they set up their account. The fact that people reused their passwords and chose not to setup MFA is not 23andme’s fault.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

Yes. I could have been clearer but didn’t think that was a sticking point.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

Someone gains access to a DB for a site (through any variety of means) and then goes on Tor and tries to get people to buy their list of credentials.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

Because the breach wasn’t on 23andMe. It was on another site.

The only way you’d be affected by this is if you used the same password on multiple sites (where one of those sites actually had a breach) or if you shared your DNA profile (since it is opt-in) with someone that reused passwords. In the latter case, only the info you shared with that person would be accessible to someone using a compromised account.

In other words, if you shared your info with someone you didn’t know and didn’t trust, your info can be used by bad actors.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

That’s not at all what it’s like. This is like using the same PIN for your work lock and home lock and then blaming the lock maker when thieves from work got into your house because they found your address in the stuff they stole from your work.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

They shared their info with a compromised account. If you didn’t share your DNA matches with the other person, you would have nothing to worry about.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

You couldn’t but the access they have to your info is limited to only the info you shared with an account that reused their password from another site. If you’re not sharing info with people you don’t know or trust, you’re ok.

dpkonofaon 23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached

There was no brute forcing done. The credentials were from other sites that were leaked via Tor and the users on 23andMe used the same email/password combo. That’s why you don’t reuse passwords, when possible.

Nothing on 23andme’s end failed unless you consider someone using a correct user/pass combo while not being the owner as a fail on the part of 23andMe rather than the end user.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

The complaint is that liberals are reporting conservative viewpoints they disagree with. If the school was doing that, why would the liberals be self-censoring? You’re not making any sense.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

>If we were applying your logic, we'd conclude that clearly society/the police don't have a policy of catching robbers.

No we wouldn't. My logic is that we'd have stats regarding how many crimes were documented, whether they were solved or not. And, as you've shown, we do.

No police department will have a 100% closure rate but that doesn't mean at all what you're claiming should be the conclusion based on that fact. The conclusion would be to look at how many cases of free speech issues were reported and what was done as a result. Transparency is what's needed, not misleading and inappropriately applied surveys.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

It does. FIRE asks students how they feel about free speech. It has nothing to do with what actions schools have actually taken and what their policies are.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

How is that in any way materially different from my point? The survey still isn't about what actions any of the schools have taken or whether the schools' policies allow for free speech. That makes it completely irrelevant in a discussion about whether the President of the school was committed to free speech. The survey asks students their opinions. FIRE actually has a separate tracker for disinvitations and, based on population sizes and breakdowns by political lean, conservatives request more disinvitations than should be expected for the population of students that consider themselves conservatives.

>A second ago you said that

Yes... and I also said that, as someone else pointed out also, it was irrelevant to a private university that is allowed to remove anyone from campus that it wants. Allowing Westboro to stay on campus shows that their policies on free speech extend to objectionable speech regardless of what ideology is stating it. That's not the same thing as students choosing not to invite or hear views from people whose views are readily available on the internet nor is it the same thing as student opinions overriding the actual actions of schools.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

They literally have a policy that allows students to say things that are considered objectionable and, unless you have examples where they've violated that (disinvitations are not censorship of student speech as the invites are external), you'll need to do better than just "No they don't!".

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

FIRE's free speech index is hardly definitive. It asks students about how they feel, not about actual, verifiable support from the school. The survey uses questions like "Would you be opposed to a speaker with x view coming to campus to speak" and then base the results on how the students responded, not based on whether or not the school actually restricted students' speech. Additionally, disinvitations are measured as well despite not being examples of student speech being censored.

Harvard clearly scored poorly but it seems like they only scored poorly because the students aren't ok with viewpoints that are non-inclusive or borderline hate speech. It has nothing to do with the school's policies or positions on free speech and what is or isn't allowed.

dpkonofaon After 34 years, someone beat Tetris [video]

That’s what I think makes the Tetris feat so incredible. There’s no cheating needed. This is being done on the base game after something like 40 years.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

They are allowed on campus. Harvard is a private school and can ask anyone to leave the campus for any reason.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

Yes but, as someone else pointed out, Harvard is a private school that takes federal funding. The Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t affect them either way.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

None of those things are examples of students being censored. Disinvitation and protesting are themselves protected activities. This doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

It does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t...

It needs to something that a reasonable person who directly heard the speech would interpret as a “true threat” to a person or group. In the case above, the defendant made a claim that he was going to “set his sights on LBJ” if he was drafted and they “ever gave [him] a rifle”. He threatened to shoot a President of the US and his speech was found to be protected because of the qualification mentioned above. Two prior courts found him guilty and the Supreme Court reversed the decisions.

dpkonofaon Harvard President Claudine Gay resigns

That’s irrelevant unless you have examples of this being the case at Harvard.