Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
In 2004, Zuckerberg Broke Into a Facebook User's Private Email Account (2010) (businessinsider.com)
377 points by ljk 10 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 110 comments



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.


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.


More like stating implicitly that the claim might be seeking money / attention due to Zuckerberg status.


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


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.


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.


If it weren’t for Zuckerberg’s status these allegations wouldn’t have bothered coming out.


While that’s probably true, does that justify his actions?


No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.


It really isn't though. What happened after this incident has no bearing on what happened before the incident.

Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.


No it isn't different, you failed Bayesian. Evidence is not causality, it can flow backwards in time.

For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.


your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”


Read more charitably, will you?

Fame doesn't affect all accusations the same way. I believe the probability of false accusations raise faster with fame than the probability of true accusation (which is mostly dependent on actual guilt).

There's even the possibility that the probability of true accusations lowers as fame raises, leaving more room for the false ones.


While I don't necessarily disagree, I do wonder if this is actually true. In my experience lots of people have a weird tendency to bend over backwards to defend the famous (with Chris Brown, Jimmy Saville, and various Hollywood stars as particularly terrible examples). Perhaps Donald Trump too.


Fame probably attracts detraction and defence.


I believe the probability of people coming to your defense raises faster with fame.


Possibly. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the probabilities of accusations (true and false, respectively).


It's an allegation from 2004. There's a massive hit campaign going on with Zuck and facebook, likely because he publicly considered running for president.


Note, again, this was their response when this article was written in 2010. "...since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago" is referring to 2004. Just clarifying, because when I first read this I thought, "what was Mark Zuckerburg doing in Harvard still in 2012?"

It'd be interesting to hear what they'd about it today though. Probably nothing.


Yeah this nice corporate PR

> We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources

"We're not denying it though. It is true. If they were false and we could debate and win the debate, we would"

> 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

> [...] instead focus on how many users we have

Even more, it is interesting what they are implying here. If you can get people to give you their data and build a company on it, it somehow means you all of the sudden acquire a better personality, increased morality and are absolved of all the stupid things you said or did before.

Now sure, people do and say stupid stuff when they are teenagers. I've done it. It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. Though when it comes to his "dumb fucks" comment, I give him less of a pass of being a "teenager" because he was 26 already. Additionally, if these were just isolated incidents and everything before and after pointed to him taken privacy seriously but the whole company is built on the opposite of that.


> It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose.

I don't think Zuckerberg should be given a pass just because of this. His life since college has been nothing like the 20s that anyone else would go through (even others from Harvard). Not even close. Imagine the kind of effect that has on someone, especially with the kind of power he wielded (and still wields) through Facebook.


Zuckerberg was 19 when he made the dumb fucks comment. [2004] I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just saying that this incident took place earlier than you think it did.


Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant? He lead the company as a young man and is still pretty young.

Reckless disregard for privacy has been a hallmark of his tenure.


The decade immediately after you’re teens is a time period with a lot of change. Many people find career paths, spouses, and have children. Also worth considering is that FB is a much different company — structure-wise — than when it was just a social media site servicing Harvard students.


Sure, it's possible that he's stopped having a callous disregard for other people's privacy in those ten years, but all of his actions seem to demonstrate otherwise.


Is it a company with much more integrity? I think not.


It is a company with many, many more employees, executives, and shareholders. In that respect, your rhetorical question doesn't make sense to me, because I don't think of companies as large as FB (today, or in 2010) as having traits as easily quantifiable as they are for individual humans. Whether Zuckerber had his own road to Damascus moment is only part of the equation -- his innate desire to commit felony-level hacking may also be curtailed by his realization that his actions receive far more scrutiny than they did back when FB did not answer to nor have the attention of shareholders, regulators, and policymakers.


> Have his actions done anything to show it's not relevant?

Where did I say it's not relevant?


> growth at any cost is justified.

... captured in the infamous phrase "Move Fast and Break Things"


Big If Things == Law


Things can be Laws, Ethics, and even Human Life as we saw with the responses to recent accidents involving self-driving cars


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.


>I'm personally glad I'm not being judged today for everything I did when I was 19.

"Mark was a different person back then" would be much more believable if it wasn't for the fact he deceived users in 2011, has recently used his privileges as CEO to delete messages he had sent, and repeatedly tried to cover up the abuse of their api in 2014 (even going to far as to threaten lawsuits against the Guardian journalists a few weeks ago).


These excuses seem to be regularly voted to the top. I wonder if Zuck has his minions crawling this site.


Please don't post like this - it's just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect in action.

I don't mean to pick on you personally; there are many such perceptions and they all disagree, just like people's underlying views disagree. Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.


> Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.

I agree, my bad. But I have noticed a formulaic rebuttal regarding the actions of Zuck. If you look at previous FB related posts the popular comments consistently suggest Zuck was "young and naive" - to the point of sounding like a PR piece.

I don't have evidence but maybe you have IP logs. I'd be willing to bet there's something very interesting in there.


Ok, what would you like to bet?


I agree that we shouldn't necessarily judge people based on something from a decade and a half ago.

But I'm all for judging people based on their attitude toward their past misdeeds. If someone fucks up and then years later they go, "Yeah, I fucked up, I'm sorry, I learned X, Y, and Z from the experience and now I'm a better person," then by all means, let's move on. But if their attitude is to smear the victims and essentially claim that the fact that they're now filthy rich excuses them from any past misbehavior (as is the case here), then let's criticize the crap out of them.


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


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.


> 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-...)


> 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.


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


But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional.

In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.


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.


Replying to myself because I can no longer edit my post to include the image[1]. The image comes from a fortuitously timed "60 Minutes" episode[2] that discusses a lynching memorial that's opening soon. In Alabama.

1. https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-...

2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-...


>"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

For instance:

>Alabama has a history of civil rights violations.

>Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.


> 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.


AFAIK, there are similar laws in many other states as well. It's definitely not just Alabama.

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

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


This is amazing. Never heard of it. Does it exist to protect cops? To take blame off their shoulders?


Doubtful. In most scenarios where it applies the cops are not involved in the killing (For instance, if bank robber Bonnie commits murder, bank robber Clyde can be charged for that murder.)

Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were.

And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)


The Alabama slur was uncalled for, but still ... what the actual fuck? 'Interesting' interpretation of justice indeed.


Good for him that he isn't black in today's America.


This week there was an event at the UFC where on of their biggest fighters (Conor McGregor) and a dozen or so of his associates attacked a bus, smashed windows and injured several people in the bus who then couldn't fight at the event. He posted 50k bail and is now on the way home to Ireland.

When I saw this I thought to myself if some poor black teenagers had done exactly the same thing they would be in jail for the next 10 years or be dead by now.


You're making this about race when it's about money.

If instead of MacGregor and his goonsquad, Floyd Mayweather and his goonsquad had done this, it'd have resulted in more or less the same outcome.


I wrote "poor black". I think being poor gets counted the most but being black also gets counted against you. I think the point of this thread is that bad behavior gets treated differently for different people. I don't even want to consider what would have happened if a bunch of illegal Muslim immigrants had attacked the bus.


Considering the number of car that's getting burned every year in new Year's eve in France, I'd that in France they can do that without repercussion.


or rather, good for him he isn't poor? or would a black Harvard student have been prosecuted for this crime?


Being poor is probably what counts the most but being black woldn't help either.


Here's the harrowing experience of a multi-millionaire athlete at the hands of the police: https://www.theroot.com/video-nfl-player-michael-bennett-ass...


> On the other, he was young and dumb and FB was very different than it is today.

I have seen no evidence that he changed when it comes to unethical behaviour.


It's not piss behind a dumpster from drunken night out being judged; it's the core functioning of the business and product.


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?


> there is no viable competition/users are too psychologically entwined to make the decision to detach from Facebook

People literally said the same thing about MySpace when it held the “network effect” throne. And in hindsight after it lost its users to facebook people came up with all kinds of “well, duh” reasons, such as the profile pages automatically playing music or being so customizable to the point of not having any visual consistency.

Well there’s a ton of things wrong with facebook too right now that will be so easy to point out in hindsight. Facebook is just as vulnerable as MySpace was.


You know you could uh, stop using it. That goes for everyone else too.


Exactly. I dont believe we are there yet because there any sexy alternative (seems like nobody is trying to make social networks nowdays).

But seriously facebook is fragile. If lot of people started to leave then they would be gone. It is not diverse company like amazon or google.

They are lucky they own instagram.


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.


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.


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" ?


> likely the company would not like the data being used that way because it would risk their relationship with their users

Not that I subscribe to the same fears of the parent comment, but they’ve already shown plenty of willingness to abuse their relationship with their customers for business gain. It reveals their character (or lack thereof).

No reason to assume that character would change given a different arena like politics. Although neither is there a reason to assume that Mark has political ambitions.


+1, I have absolutely zero confidence in Zuckerberg and Sandberg. The board should ask them to resign and appoint new people (obviously the most extreme ask from this scenario). As a user, I want facebook to stick around and be more useful to me in the future. Unfortunately I don't see the current people doing that.


Why include Sandberg? Isn't she generally considered a professional grown up providing adult supervision for Zuckerberg?


Sandberg appears to have vast culpability for the current mess. She was brought in in 2008 and given responsibility for Facebook's privacy department. [1]

As one example, because Sandberg was at least partially responsible for blocking attempts at reforming data policies inside of Facebook that likely made the Russia tampering mess worse. And then Facebook corporate attempted to cover that up by pushing the NY Times to alter its reporting:

https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-qui...

Further, Sandberg was the core architect behind Facebook's ad business and shift to aggressive monetization. She was brought in from Google precisely for that reason, that's why Facebook recruited her from there.

[2008] "Ms. Sandberg, currently vice president for global online sales and operations at Google, joined the search giant in 2001 and helped develop its immensely lucrative online advertising programs, AdWords and AdSense."

"She will also oversee Facebook’s marketing, human resources and privacy departments — essentially guiding how Facebook presents itself and its intentions to the outside world."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/technology/04cnd-facebook...


Didn't Sandberg recently suggest something to the effect that opting out of privacy violating "targeted ads" is something you'd need to pay facebook for? That wasn't in the script. Even if rationally true, stating something like that so bluntly is bad PR.

Sandberg may be a "professional grown up adult", but that doesn't preclude her from being a liability to the company.


As a user, your opinion rarely matter.

Zuckerberg compared to other CEO level executives have a fairly good track record. Somehow his mistakes were not an issue for you for last 10 years and now you have a tough stance against him. What you are buying into now is a form of propaganda where it is fashionable to bash him.


> What’s stopping him ?

People’s intelligence? People are still able to tell lies from truth, media pressure from propaganda. The best proof is all media told americans not to vote for Trump, yet they did so.

And to the point, Zuck’s understanding of its electorate will get him votes or not. For example, Facebook’s censorship of republican topic is not something that gets votes. Facebook’s employment culture of getting rid of males and whites won’t get him much votes. It doesn’t depend how you spin it. It doesn’t matter how many times we explain or how much data they have on us, what matters is whether Mark personally understands whites, cis, both genders including males, etc.

Milo even made a tutorial about how Democrats could win back the white/male/cis vote again, it’s not like it’s not ELI5’ed already. Some people, from the top of any aparatus, still wouldn’t understand that stirring up hate against whites doesn’t get them votes.


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.


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.


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


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!".


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.


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.


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


That's an absurd comparison/slippery-slope.


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?


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


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


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


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.


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)


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 .


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.


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.


>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.

Because they are just as shity as him. They just hide it better. Show me a rich person and I will show you a criminal.


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.


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


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


Has he done anything to indicate that he's grown? 19-year old Zuckerberg seemed like a sociopath. Sociopaths tend to get smarter, but they don't usually grow souls.


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?


Up for me.


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


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


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


This is from 2010, not 2004.


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


Yup, title has been changed now.


[flagged]


The 2018 one is not a real quote.


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.


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.


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

> Corporate culture changes a lot in 10 years ...

Not at Facebook, apparently.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: