
In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010) - ljk
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3/
======
dmerfield
Facebook’s response to this story is revealing:

> "We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources
> who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg
> with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard
> for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from
> a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives
> of over 400 million people."

You get a similar argument in the recently leaked ‘Boz memo’: please ignore
our unethical behavior, instead focus on how many users we have. Growth at any
cost is justified.

~~~
loup-vaillant
They're playing the status game. "Rewrite history" and "dated allegations"
serve mostly to slander whoever made those claims. Then they raise
Zuckerberg's status by pointing out his achievements.

They're effectively saying the accusation isn't valid because Zuckerberg is
nobility and the accusers are not.

~~~
flippyhead
This is called the ad populum fallacy. Trump uses it all the time.

~~~
mygo
Yep.. some people think he’s dumb but I’m not so sure about that. We think
that when someone is full of fallacy that they simply don’t know any better,
but what about the alternative? You can _use_ fallacies as an effective tool
to further your aims. We are so vulnerable to them that we must be educated
about them to be able to fend them off. If the audience isn’t educated on how
to identify and fend off the fallacy, it will be effective.

~~~
profalseidol
Yep, it can win you the Presidency. Also prior to Trump's win, he was a very
successful salesman with probably the best in sales talk.

------
peacetreefrog
On the one hand, this is a very shitty thing to do. On the other, he was young
and dumb and FB was very different than it is today.

I suppose it could be red flag and indicate larger character flaws that have
leaked into how FB operates now, but I'm personally glad I'm not being judged
today for everything I did when I was 19.

~~~
mainthread
Some people get life in prison for things they do at 19.

~~~
bmpafa
If they lacked the foresight to be born wealthy and enroll in an ivy league
college, that's their fault.

Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often.
Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about
an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery
when his friend killed someone.

Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people
salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved."

Anyway, thanks for mentioning this point.

~~~
user982
_> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post
about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during
robbery when his friend killed someone._

You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what
actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed
by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death.

The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the
idea of justice. ([http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-
down-25-...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-year-
plea-deal-gets-sentenced-to-65-years-instead-and-laughs.html))

~~~
sangnoir
> The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a
> shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death.

What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in
Alabama.

~~~
JackCh
Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but
the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a
Felony Murder rule.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine)

~~~
sangnoir
Here's an image showing lynchings (what you call "disreputable histories"):
Alabama earned it's disrepute, which is why I wasn't surprised.

I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these
"histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have
not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts.

Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.

~~~
JackCh
>"firmly in the past"

That's something I never said, or even implied.

If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you
object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It
certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're
reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm
well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage
for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way
did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable
specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you
needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught.

The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder
doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than
allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a
typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true
scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder
doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking
for a fight. That's disappointing.

>"histories"

English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I
believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the
history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment)
you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories".

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history)

For instance:

>Alabama has a _history_ of civil rights violations.

>Alabama and California have _histories_ of suppressing labor organizations.

~~~
sangnoir
> Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama
> being a typical southern state

Ahh, I see where we're crossing lines. I was writing off my _lack of surprise_
at this occurring in Alabama. I would have been more surprised if this had
happened in San Francisco, which as you said, has the same law. I'd love to
see how frequently it's enforced by location as uneven enforcement is a thing,
especially as societal attitudes shift but the laws are yet to be revised (see
possession of small amounts of drugs in certain jurisdictions).

> ...I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for
> a fight.

I was merely rebutting your accusation that I took a "cheap shot". The first
half-sentence in your initial reply has no substances, and serves no other
purpose except to antagonize. I would have been grateful had you replied with
just the second half instead.

> English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong...

I wasn't attacking your grammar, I was suggesting that the reasons leading to
my lack of surprise are very much in the present.

------
propman
Yeahh we need regulations on Facebook. The fact that he retains a majority
voting share in the company, the fact that I now have zero trust in Zuckerberg
AND Sandberg into doing the right thing, AND that there is no viable
competition/users are too psychologically entwined to make the decision to
detach from Facebook means the only checks and balances left against this
unscrupulous individual is the US government. Unfortunately 80% are in his
pockets, but that's the best bet we have.

What's stopping him from using his master access to obtain any info he needs
for a presidential election? Trust? Trusting him?

~~~
danielrhodes
Maybe nothing, but in practice this would be hard to do. Access to this data
would amount to material support from a company to a presidential campaign
which under campaign finance laws would need to be reported and scrutinized.

Additionally, Facebook is not just Mark Zuckerberg and likely the company
would not like the data being used that way because it would risk their
relationship with their users, which is far more important than Zuckerberg
being president.

~~~
r3bl
I get what you're saying, but considering what we've witnessed in 2016 and how
ethics, honestly and law no longer plays _any_ part in the White House, what
used to be unimaginable to me, now is.

That being said, I could see the future in which the next elections are a full
blown, all-gloves-are-off one year long fight between Trump (Republicans) and
Zuckerberg (Democrats). Partially because Zuckerberg really does seem like
he's aiming for this with its actions, and partially because Democrats don't
really seem like they've learned their lessons from two years ago.

Now I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen, nor claiming that it's
inevitable, nor that the chances of it actually happening are anything but
minuscule, but I wouldn't be _too_ surprised if such thing actually happens.

~~~
tgragnato
In other comments people are stating that Mark was a different person back
then, but that he doesn't seem to have learnt from his mistakes.

Assuming that's going to happen. What do you think would be a realistic
response to the simple critique "American people deserve better" ?

------
barbegal
I don't necessarily buy this story because the facts don't really add up and
there is no real evidence that this occurred.

The source of the story is described to be one of Mark's friends "Here's how
Mark described his hack to a friend" and not the journalists "We reached out
to Tim McGinn and Elisabeth Theodore for comment. Both declined to comment.".
Given the evidence is based on a verbal account to a friend there is a slim
probability that Mark made the story up.

It also seems odd that the details of the hack are laid out so precisely. It
is stated that he found the passwords to exactly two email accounts, one of
which belonged to Tim McGinn given that "In one account he accessed, Mark saw
an email from Crimson writer Tim McGinn to Cameron, Tyler, and Divya.". Mark
looked for "members of the site who identified themselves as members of the
Crimson" but it would have been easier to find the specific people involved
instead. And why use failed login attempts if you have access to actual user
passwords. I can't think of any reason why you'd log failed passwords but not
real ones (except for maliciously stealing passwords).

Finally, how did the email from Elisabeth Theodore to Tim McGinn become public
given neither commented on the story. From other parts of the story, it seems
likely that Tim McGinn was a source (who else would have known about Mark
getting upset with Tim on the phone). So it seems that Tim gave the email to
Business Insider however Business Insider does not explicitly state that. This
suggests that neither they nor Tim have any real evidence that this "hacking"
actually occurred.

------
crescentfresh
Unrelated, but this reminded me of my very first real, salary developer job
where I added logging to the web application. I remember logging failed
password attempts specifically; I didn't give a second thought to simply
logging the values of all form fields, seemed easiest at the time in case the
developer changed the names of the fields.

It wasn't until a review by one of the senior devs that saw passwords in the
log files - and with eyebrows raised asked "wth are you doing" \- that it
dawned on me, "oops". I'm glad that never made it out to production.

~~~
acct1771
Out of curiosity, did you look at the end-result log files yourself before the
review?

~~~
crescentfresh
I did! I however did NOT fail to enter my credentials correctly locally, and
the rest of the logs were filled with random forms submitted during testing.

"Yep, all looks good on my machine!".

------
gabept
I'm not in defense of Zuckerberg, but I have seen and fortunately stopped some
young entrepreneurs doing atrociously invasive things in order to better
understand and expand their product.

I don't think this is necessarily a case of wickedness, but instead lack of
knowledge and immaturity when the event happened.

~~~
zeth___
Going into someone else's email to read what they have to say about you is
something that even a three year old knows is wrong.

If you have dealings with people like that and you're helping them don't be
surprised when you find out they have used their money to open a child rape
hotel somewhere in the developing world.

~~~
JasonFruit
There's a big difference between email snooping and . . . that.

------
bdcravens
Many comments here can be summarized "but he was only 19, young and dumb ..."
However many 19 years olds do things that impact the rest of their life and
don't get that excuse. "But doing illegal things is different..." Isn't
accessing someone's email without consent illegal?

------
kerng
First time I'm hearing about this. Wow. Thanks for posting. Was there never a
criminal in investigation?

~~~
bsimpson
I'd be shocked if there was a criminal investigation into one college student
snooping on another's email account.

------
dwighttk
The break in occurred in 2004, but the article is from 2010

------
cmurf
Ergo, a long history of double standards and hypocrisy.

Congresscritters on Tuesday are gonna set him on fire. Chances are that's all
they do, unless setting him on fire brings about some actual political
capital, and specific policies, to do something about facebook or privacy in
general. But I think the critters have benefited from lax privacy laws, it's
made them and their donor base wealthy and powerful, and a good deal of them
will not want broad privacy protection for any number of reasons.

If their approval is around 10%, and Zuckerberg's is around 20% (estimates,
but point being Zuck's is probably higher than Congress), they'll see making
him look bad will at least in the short term make them look informed,
sympathetic and serious. Even if they get a +1% for giving him a hard time,
they'll see it as a win. It'll be a spectacle for fans of schadenfreude.

------
tudorconstantin
What I don't understand is how the important leaders and influencers of the
world, like Obama, or Bill Gates, or others, are not ashamed to show
themselves near Zuckerberg.

He started the whole Facebook with a theft from the Winklevoss brothers. That
whole business is the fruit of theft. Yeah, he was young and stupid, but how
many of you even considered doing such a thing to your employer? Yeah, he
built a huge business based on it, but it's still built on thievery and
deceivement.

No matter how many seemingly good things he does, he is still a thief (by my
moral grounds, of course, not by law)

~~~
icebraining
That would be a fun position for Obama to take; would he spurn Zuckerberg
before or after giving Kissinger the Distinguished Public Service Award?

I rail against Facebook, and think it's a dangerous system, but Zuckerberg is
a damn saint compared to many of the people Obama and Bill Gates have shown
themselves with. And the two are themselves far from .

~~~
effingwewt
You are comparing very different things. While I agree a lot of bad people are
doing bad things out there, not many if any have the reach and control
Zuckerberg does. I wonder if there is a resolution where Facebook can be fixed
without government regulations that would likely have adverse effects on the
internet at large. I don't even use Facebook and yet I am vulnerable as they
doubtless have a complete profile on me based on tracking pixels and people
with whom I socialize having accounts with them.

~~~
tetromino_
What reach? Surely you cannot compare Zuckerberg to Kissinger - a man who
could (and by all accounts did) condemn hundreds of thousands of people to be
shot, burned, raped, starved, and tortured.

------
wyck
A brand founded by a deceitful, insecure, and altogether immature person is a
problem when is effects so many people's lives. News at 11.

------
techman9
I'm hopeful that Zuckerberg has matured at least slightly in the intervening
14 years.

~~~
danaliv
Time is certainly necessary for growth but it's no guarantee of it.

------
abhi3
I’m getting a 404 on the article link now. Did someone (on a Sunday evening)
notice that this story resurfaced on HN and had their lawyer send over a cease
a desist to business insider to get it taken down?

~~~
bdcravens
Up for me.

------
RyanShook
Where are the sources that prove Zuckerberg illegally accessed someone’s
email? Did I skim over them in the article?

------
mudil
I came up with a new term for Zuckerberg, Google boys and others in the
business of invading privacy: spioneers.

------
wfbarks
was wondering what type of journalist would decide to write an article like
this, then realized the author came out of Gawker.

------
jstimpfle
This is from 2010, not 2004.

~~~
radnam
This story was written in 2010 about an incident that happened in 2004.

~~~
jstimpfle
Yup, title has been changed now.

------
arnaudsm
Why are the media talking so much about Facebook's mistakes of 10 years ago,
while there are much worse problems in privacy at the moment ? Grindr, China's
rating system, NSA's algorithm in Pakistan..

Corporate culture changes a lot in 10 years, Facebook is the wrong target.

~~~
seattle_spring
It has to do with the general population's complete misunderstanding on how
ads are targeted, combined with the fact that it's hip to upvote and share
anti-FB hit pieces.

