
4Chan launches embarrassing attack on devout Christians on Facebook - mgcreed
http://thenextweb.com/2009/08/22/4chan-launches-attack-christian-evangelists-facebook/
======
rossriley
For those who haven't heard the story the details were pulled from a Christian
dating site db.singles.org which had a query parameter injection
vulnerability.

The vulnerability allowed you to navigate to a person's profile by entering
the user id and skipping authentication.

Once you got there the change password form had the passwords in plain text.
Someone wrote a scraper and now the entire database is on Mediafire and
contains thousands of email/password combinations.

~~~
brown9-2
Thanks. Glad to see some actual info on the attack, as the real article and
most comments in this thread are devoid of any.

------
pbhj
Now we find out that HN is really full of the immature that think it's
hilarious to break into peoples stuff and vandalise it, just to see if you can
make them cry.

I genuinely thought people here would have more compassion and sense of
decency than 4chan.

~~~
jacoblyles
Human beings are a clannish people. Acting badly towards an unpopular group is
seldom frowned upon. If the victims were some popular group, I am sure there
would be outrage rather than lulz.

Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians.

~~~
sho
_"Acting badly towards an unpopular group is seldom frowned upon."_

Your argument is disingenuous. Some groups are unpopular for good reason -
because they do bad things, or make society worse for everyone else. When
these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper and
healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.

If you were to hear someone at a party loudly proclaiming the inherent
criminal nature of blacks, would you afford him the normal respect upon
encountering him later? Would you be terribly upset if you later heard that
his web page had been hacked? I think not. He's not from just another group,
one which happens to be randomly unpopular. He's from an inferior, dangerous,
poisonous group and the more society can do to make such groups feel
uncomfortable continuing in their ways, the better.

Christians, I'm afraid, are one of these groups. Even today, in 2009, they are
continuing in their insane anti-science, anti-education campaign to throw the
world back to the dark ages. Attempting to delegitimise evolution. Denying the
fossil record and the age of the world, and by proxy all of geology,
astronomy, and many other sciences. Campaigning against equal rights for gays.
Opposing important medical research. Trying to weaken the boundary between
(their) church and state. Encroaching on free expression. The list goes on and
on.

It benefits society for damaging groups such as this to be reduced and one day
eliminated. One of the tools we have to do this is that of humour/humiliation
- to turn the group into a laughing stock. 4chan are simply the volunteer
actors in this instance. You might not approve of their specific methods, but
it's a job which needs to be done one way or the other and anything is better
than nothing.

 _"Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians."_

Two millenia later, it's a disgrace upon humanity that there's still even such
a thing as Christians. But yep - still whining.

~~~
olavk
> When these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper
> and healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.

Can you back that up? My impressions is that mob persecution of unpopular
groups typically only makes them stronger and more comitted (as long as you
don't perform outright genocide against the group, of course).

Anyway, you jump from disagreement with a viewpoint (criminal nature of
blacks, creationism) to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and
deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob.
I don't know what this line of thought is called in English, but I don't think
it is something nice. If I happen to disagree with your line of thought (and
indeed find it dangerous to society), would that make it okay for me to throw
rocks through your windows in the middle of the night?

(Just read your profile: "Part of the cancer that is killing Hacker News". I
suspect I have been trolled. This is why we cant have nice things.)

~~~
sho
You haven't been trolled, I added that as a joke in response to previous
accusations of trolling! That said, I was definitely in "devil's advocate"
territory, I just didn't like the GP's attempt to blithely equate all possible
groups.

 _"mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger "_

"Mob persecution" is going way too far. I meant general disapproval, not rocks
through windows. And I disagree it makes them stronger. The example I am
thinking of is unemployment, which is pretty looked-down-upon in most western
cultures. You're not going to be lynched for being unemployed, but do you
proudly admit it at parties? No. That is the kind of "soft pressure" I
advocate being placed on the religious, not outright oppression.

 _"you jump from disagreement [..] to the conclusion that a group is
"poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from
the anonymous mob"_

Again overstating my claims. Not "any kind of random harrassment and
persecution", of course. Instead, fairly mild teasing and a general air of
disapproval.

~~~
pbhj
You say he is "overstating [your] claims" yet you wish the death of all
religious people? You flame and then smother so that you can flame once more
it seems.

~~~
sho
Hm, rereading it now, I admit I could have put that better. I didn't mean the
elimination of all religious people, ie. by death, I meant the elimination of
religion. Just like when people say they want to eliminate poverty, they don't
mean they want to kill all the poor people.

However it was poorly put, so apologies for the confusion.

------
mrcharles
Another solid reason why you should never use the same password for multiple
sites. To do so, you are effectively trusting every single site in the chain.

I read enough HN and Codinghorror to know that many sites have no clue how to
handle passwords in a secure fashion.

~~~
nailer
I stupidly got caught out a few years ago when Reddit left all their passwords
in plain text, and then got hacked. I was dumb enough to have been using the
same password on Paypal at the time, not quite understanding how Paypal was
linked to my bank account.

------
gojomo
Will 4Chan someday evolve into Vinge's 'Friends of Privacy', filling the net
with lies to create doubt about all the revelations available online?
(Personal info chaff, of a sort.)

('Friends of Privacy' is a anonymous mass group in Vinge's _Rainbow's End_.)

~~~
jff
No, if anything they'd become the opposite of the 'Friends of Privacy'. I've
browsed /b/ a bit; they like few things better than exposing the personal
information on some personal vendetta or merely 'for the lulz'. I like lulz as
much as the next guy, but phone harassment and impersonation are not so much
lulz as simply criminal.

------
tvon
4Chan, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

(to borrow from Obi-Wan)

~~~
ltbarcly3
Yes, mocking people on the internet and making dirty jokes is certainly the
pinnacle of human depravity. The KKK? Neo Nazi's? No, the most wretched people
are giggling undergrads, sitting in dorms, trying to gross each other out.

And quoting Star Wars? \- Go outside. \- Walk to the library. \- Read a book.

Repeat until you stop day dreaming about owning a light saber or riding
shotgun with Han Solo.

~~~
tvon
As gloob figured out, it was primarily a joke, though I find your vehement
disgust with my use of a Star Wars quote to be a bit disturbing. Besides, sci-
fi nerds generally read a lot so the library bit doesn't even make sense...
and who wouldn't want to own a light saber (though I can't say it's something
I actively daydream about)?

However, in defense of my statement, 4chan is the only place I've ever seen
photos of a nude, decapitated woman posed in sexually suggestive positions,
and it would probably take you 5 minutes of browsing /b/ to find drawings of
girls under the age of 10 having sex.

(edit: typo)

~~~
justin_vanw
But they didn't take those pictures, or kill the woman. They didn't even know
them, or much about them probably. They found a picture on the internet, and
they posted that same picture to another part of the internet. Truly moral
outrage should ensue.

Since you are a sci-fi fan, here is a sci-fi reference.

Neo takes the blue pill. He finds out what the 'real' reality is, behind the
bullshit fabricated reality. The stuff about the dead lady? That actually
happened. Stuff far worse happens every day. If that makes you uncomfortable,
or outraged, or whatever negative emotion you are expressing, you are just
angry at reality. Don't blame 4chan.

~~~
gloob
I'm reasonably sure you are the person closest to being outraged about
anything in this discussion, heh. He was being funny, not raving about how
4chan is the root cause of all evil. And in any case, the fact that actively
evil people exist independent of 4chan is orthogonal to whether the site is
legitimately "a hive of scum and villainy."

------
spooneybarger
this is simultaneously awful and hilarious.

~~~
jacoblyles
I don't understand how it is hilarious, though I've been told my sense of
humor is a bit odd.

Inflicting pain and embarrassment on complete strangers by stealing their log
in information and violating their privacy - is that your idea of a good time?

Empathy pro-tip: ignore who the target was, and pretend the attack happened to
someone close to you. How does that make you feel?

~~~
jrockway
_How does that make you feel?_

If my friend had a fake message posted under his or her account, I would
probably not feel all that bad. The issue of password reuse aside, it is
really not a big deal. "Haha, my account got hacked, I didn't actually have
sex with him!" and that's the end of it.

Some people try to add wayyy too much meaning to their lives...

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_Some people try to add wayyy too much meaning to their lives..._

Yeah, those people who have some kind of standards and live their life for
some higher purpose, they're really taking this entire living thing way too
seriously. They should just laugh it off when somebody takes their identity
and has them say things they never would.

Did I get that right? Is that what you're saying?

~~~
sho
You sound like you're trying to be sarcastic, but read plainly that sounds
pretty reasonable. Especially since $DEITY would, being omniscient, know all
about the deception and not dock them any Heaven Points.

Hell, isn't being oppressed what religious people like? They should welcome
this as an opportunity to show their unconcern with worldly things. $DEITY
will be most impressed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of his
tests.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Sorry -- you're spinning off into religion-land. That's not what I'm saying at
all.

I'm saying that the entire purpose of a life, any life, is what value you give
it. If you like trees, or unicorns, or puppies, or whatever -- that's really
all you have: your definition of yourself. For somebody to assume your
identity and make statements that go against everything you stand for --
whatever your value system -- that's about the worse thing you can do to a
person, save actually physically harming them.

This has nothing to do with religion or Christianity, except, I guess, that
people think it's funny to pick on Christians in a way that would be
reprehensible if done against any other group. Would you like to imagine what
kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People who are
retarded?

It's obvious that these "jokes" wouldn't be funny at all. Why the brain freeze
when it's done against Christians?

~~~
sho
You can't separate the religion out of it. This kind of joke wouldn't work
against anyone else. It's only because of their bullshit "hard line on
(something allegedly bad)" or from making a big deal about their piety and
"clean lifestyle", that they're susceptible to such pranks in the first place.
Reasonable people unconcerned with maintaining a squeaky clean image would
indeed just laugh it off.

I think it's fine to mock stupidity in all its forms, so the archaic
superstition of religious belief is fair game. I'd be equally fine with
mocking racism, homophobia, any other religion, etc - all of which, you'll
note, would also be susceptible to this kind of attack. Coincidence?

Anyway I think you're well aware of my views from other discussions so I won't
repeat myself.

 _what kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People
who are retarded?"_

Christianity is a choice, unlike membership in the other groups you've
mentioned. That changes everything.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You said you wouldn't repeat yourself yet you can't seem to help it, eh?

Let's say I choose to believe in the Great Pumpkin. I mean I really believe in
him. I've got the wall stickers, posters, the book of the great pumpkin --
everything. Now -- aside from your predilection for belittling people who
don't live up to your intellectual expectations, do you think it's right for
you to take over my FaceBook account and start a long diatribe about how the
Great Pumpkin sucks?

Don't you see how that's worse than just being an asshole? You're taking over
somebody's persona on the net and making them trash their own value system.

That's not civil conversation. That's not even mocking people you think are
stupid. It's a whole other level of nastiness altogether.

~~~
sho
_"do you think it's right for you to take over my FaceBook account and start a
long diatribe about how the Great Pumpkin sucks?"_

I can't believe I'm hearing this. Yes? Of course? I mean, I don't condone
people hacking FB accounts, of course. But why do you think a belief as
ridiculous as that deserves any protection whatsoever?

I'm not really singling out Christianity, either. If someone hacked a known
homophobe's Facebook account and posted photoshopped pictures of them sucking
cock, or got into a racist's account and started talking about their black
girlfriend, I'd applaud, and couldn't give a damn about "making them trash
their own value system".

And the funny thing is, if the opposite occurred and, say, a right wing
nutcase hacked my FB account and could say whatever they wanted - they
couldn't really do any damage, because my entire self-image isn't founded on
maintaining some ridiculous social façade. It would be an embarrassing
security lapse, possibly provoke some mild teasing from friends and family,
and life would go on.

=======

UPDATE: Man, I am a really bad debater. I'm coming across pro-vandalism and
anti-peaceful-tolerance here. Despite my views on religion that's not what I
wanted to say; my argumentative position is drifting towards the extreme to
oppose Mr. Markham. If I were a better debater, I'd be able to resist that -
we're well into "devil's advocate" territory for me by now.

I do not condone these attacks. I wanted to make the point that I don't
consider these attacks to be particularly hurtful or serious, and that anyone
who is seriously upset "when somebody takes their identity and has them say
things they never would" should lighten up.

I got a little too far into "asshole mode" above too. I won't change it now
but actually, I wouldn't support defacement of this Great Pumpkin believer's
page. Why? Because my whole _actable_ complaint against religion is that it's
intolerant. I strongly oppose religious superstition, of course, but that's
not a legitimate reason to take action against them. Simply being stupid is
not evil, in and of itself. Intolerance, however, is the actable offence and
that's what legitimises attacks upon religion. Now if the Followers of the
Great Pumpkin had a political agenda against other segments of the worlds'
population, that would be a _casus belli_.

I would like to say, though, that if you hold beliefs that seem to make you a
favourite "lulz target" then you should probably re-examine them.

~~~
kaa2102
"I would like to say, though, that if you hold beliefs that seem to make you a
favourite "lulz target" then you should probably re-examine them"

The only way to not be a target is to believe in "nothing". He who stands for
nothing will fall for anything. That's not a good way to live.

~~~
sho
Hm, I don't think so. For example, if someone strongly believe in freedom of
speech, I can't see how that would be an easy target for the kind of mockery
seen in today's pranks.

The whole idea of (today's) "lulz" is to make people who are defensive about
something react in a completely over the top manner. Rational people are
rarely defensive and don't tend to overreact, so they are rarely targeted, and
it would be a failure if they were. Hence, if you have a belief that tends to
make you overreact defensively when teased about it, it is probably flawed.
That was my point.

------
DanielBMarkham
One of those jokes that's really funny -- as long as you're not the one
getting trashed in public.

~~~
billswift
If you wouldn't laugh at getting hacked like this yourself, then you really
need to get a life.

------
aw3c2
As painful this might be for the victims, I enjoy when online social networks
"explode" into people's faces like this.

------
sev
If you read the replies on the screenshot, you notice the OP's sister posts a
message (granted, we don't know if it's for sure the OP's sister, but it is
implied). The interesting part is that the last name of the "sister" is not
blurred, whereas the OP's is. Maybe she's married and has a different last
name though.

------
benreesman
God bless those little /b/tards.

~~~
TheElder
Your comment is childish, unnecessary and is liable to start flame wars.

~~~
vaksel
/b/tards is what 4channers call themselves

------
eob
Come on guys (and girls). 4Chan pranks on HN? Leave it for reddit.

------
ctbarna
The evidence of 4chan's involvement here is kind of shaky.

~~~
DanHulton
Christ NO, are you kidding? I was browsing 4chan when threads about this shit
started going up. They are pretty clearly behind it.

I was just wondering when it would hit the MSM and then HN.

Not very long, it turns out.

~~~
pyre
4chan is just a message board. A forum if you will. Unless you're saying that
the administrators had a hand in this, then '4chan' isn't behind it.

That's like saying that 'Hacker News' is behind something just because a bunch
of Hacker News users used a thread to coordinate some sort of attack. 'Hacker
News' isn't behind anything unless pg/ycombinator/etc somehow had a hand in
it.

4chan is nothing but a medium for information shared between people. And to
try and group the entire 4chan userbase under the term '4chan' is an effort in
futility. There is a very wide and varied group of people that frequent 4chan.
Keep in mind that many people visit 4chan _without_ ever visiting /b/ or
/r9k/.

~~~
DanHulton
A good point, and I can't understand why you're being modded down for it.

But that said, it's generally understood when someone says "4chan did it",
it's shorthand for "dickhead Anons on 4chan's /b/ did it."

~~~
pyre
The problem is that when these stories reach the mainstream media, '4chan did
it' leads to the assumption that everyone associated with 4chan had some hand
in this attack. If these things reach the mainstream media enough, then it
will just be a rally cry to 'take down 4chan' without anyone putting much
_actual_ thought behind it (much like the people whose only argument against
government healthcare is "but it's socialism... I don't want no socialism in
my guberment" while those same people will violently oppose getting rid of
welfare payments/social security/medicare -- which are all 'socialist'
programs).

Not trying to be some sort of grammar nazi or something about this, but I
don't want stories like this getting to the mainstream media just to turn
people against places like 4chan based on reporting that is lacking in the
specificity to tell people that only _part_ of the 4chan userbase is
responsible for these attacks.

------
jrockway
There is another thread in this article asking how I would feel if this
happened to a friend. The answer is "I don't care". I thought a bit about how
this would make me feel if it happened to me, and the answer is "I don't care,
because I don't use Facebook".

I then thought about what would upset me, and I realized that I would be upset
if someone edited my blog and added random technical inaccuracies.

Then I realized that I digitally sign all of my blog posts, so this is
mathematically infeasible.

(Example post: <http://blog.jrock.us/articles/App::Persistent.pod/raw>)

~~~
noamsml
Unless you accidentally publish your private key online (longshot, but still).

------
Steve0
This is the typical way to 'use' 4chan. One of the few guys there with a bit
of knowledge breaks into something, gets a list and then his job is done. Post
the list to 4chan and have that community wreak havok with it. 4Chan is a
semi-intelligent botnet.

