The problem is to define "demonstrate" and the criteria. Remember the gatekeeper is now an unemployed guy who "know lot's of things about cyber security" according to his main page. Seems likely a competent bad actor could easily impersonate a well-meaning reporter...
Yes, security through obscurity isn't security, but this also seems incredibly irresponsible for any "security researcher". AFAIK, just basic standard good practice is to report the flaws and allow a reasonable interval before publishing, and there seems to be no hint of this.
Modern society really is held together with duct tape, baling twine, and a few pieces of bubble gum...
...and it has a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maia_arson_crimew), and has demonstrated in other cases (cf. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/feelyou-mental-health-app-dat...) that it has at least a reasonable grasp on what to leak and what not to leak.
> CommuteAir added that the server, which was taken offline prior to publication after being flagged by the Daily Dot, did not expose any customer information based on an initial investigation.
As a side note, maia uses it/its pronouns.
A lot of these so-called hacktivists claim noble goals but then it later transpires to be down to other more selfish reasons, e.g. Edward Snowden's mass theft and leaking of NSA secrets.
What was Snowden's selfish reasons?
This was a lie. He'd actually started collecting his trove of stolen documents many months prior, in mid-2012, coinciding with arguments with his managers. He had a grudge against his employers, and he acted upon it.
Snowden also never mentions that nation-state adversaries got all of this material too. The intelligence agencies of China and Russia must have been rubbing their hands in glee when he fled to them in quick succession. No wonder Russia continues to protect Snowden from being brought to justice in the US, from their point of view he did a stellar espionage job for them.
That's not the only bullshit from Snowden either. Even little things like his claimed $200k salary when it was actually closer to $100k-ish. He's a serial fabricator full of grandiose claims about himself and what he did.
His elevation to hero status is a moral travesty.
I also think this was likely good for the NSA. Their internal opsec and controls seem like they were terrible if they existed at all. Snowden was a wake-up call to do better, and hopefully that makes the US even more secure than it was before.
Did he say that it was what "triggered to him to start downloading" or was it that the lies to congress were what finally convinced him to take the truth to the public instead of continuing to bring his concerns to other people within the intelligence community? If I remember correctly, he'd been investigating what looked to him like an unconstitutional program for a while.
> coinciding with arguments with his managers. He had a grudge against his employers,
Nobody gives up their well paying job (while making sure they'll never work in their field again), risks their life with their loving partner, gives up their freedom, risks their life and their future all because they get into an argument with their boss.
> Even little things like his claimed $200k salary when it was actually closer to $100k-ish.
That'd be a weird thing to lie about, but he has clarified that issue. According to him the $200,000 was his "career high" salary. He took paycuts at Booz Allen Hamilton in order to get closer to the material he wanted to access. He ended up making $122,000 a year, but that wasn't the most he'd ever made doing intelligence work. Is there some evidence that shows he never made $200,000?
Serial liars do often go back and 'clarify' their lies once called out, it's part of spinning a web of deception. Admitting any wrongdoing, as normal people might do, isn't on the agenda for people like Snowden, all puffed up and full of ego, living off their own bullshit.
Not only did he defect to Russia and enjoy being celebrated there, he also has many people in the US and allies lauding his espionage, filmmakers and journalists gushing over his narrative and airbrushing out inconvenient facts. What a series of accolades for a liar and thief. He seems to revel in this 'wise whistleblower-in-exile' act he's carved out for himself while remaining Putin's pet. This treacherous escapade worked out better than he ever could have imagined.
So Snowden was a Russian asset, who wanted to go against Russia by leaking information about a US surveillance program, and then after failing being a Russian asset, went back to Russia...??
I'm having a lot of trouble with this line of logic, can you point me to something credible on this?
I can 100% believe there was a selfish purpose, but this doesn't seem like it.
The information Snowden leaked was in no way against Russia, it benefited Russia enormously.
Even the stuff that was on his claimed point created turmoil in the US to this day, which harms the US and only helps Russia
The other stuff he leaked helped Russia directly, and directly endangered and likely got killed US people and/or assets.
and of course he claimed his laptop was secure while he was in Hong Kong on his way to Russia. Anyone who thinks it stayed that way and he was allowed/invited to stay in Russia is a fool.
There is nothing he did that didn't harm the US and benefit Russia, and he was a very successful Russian op. the mere fact that it is still being debated here in the Us shows how successful it was, even if just a provocation/disinformation operation.
- Russian agent
- Directly leaked explicitly on Russia's behalf
- directly endangered and got US assets killed
> There is nothing he did that didn't harm the US and benefit Russia
This is what whistleblowing does - it harms the "entity" you're tattling on. It benefited all of the west's enemies for what it's worth.
There are a lot of ways a hacker can get attention and gain notoriety to inflate their ego. They could be causing harm to people, breaking things, causing chaos, and spreading lies. There are a lot of invisible whitehats around doing good out there. The evil stuff stands out a lot more. Responsibly reporting the data leak issue in that mental health app, and being willing to reveal the data about the no fly list to someone (if it feels they're the right someone), that all seems pretty good to me.
hacktivists are just people who try to make the world better through hacking. There's no requirement that they never do anything else for any other reason, or that they only ever hack for a really good cause, or that they never take any pleasure in the recognition they get for their actions or in what they've accomplished.
What's even the point in looking down on someone for doing good things in order to gain a positive reputation? Isn't that what we hope people will do?
I do have to say that, while it's polite to use people's preferences, when just reading an article and posting a quick comment, it's pretty casual, and (almost always) no offense is meant, so none should be taken. Note that the bulk of the comments here are all over the map, and I'm sure no one means to be offensive.
White hat hacking assumes that the hacked party is doing normal or ethical business, and that helping them secure it would be generally beneficial.
Also, I'm pretty confident that Maia, as a famous hacker and cybersecurity expert, isn't going to be easily duped by someone impersonating a journalist, and knows how to verify such things.
She appears to have talent in connecting these data sources, but she's also in way over her head when it comes to motivation. On the world chessboard, she's a pawn. I can easily imagine that she's being egged on to do harm to the quasi-neutral but not isolated society that is now her life raft.
You literally immediately falsified that assertion:
> and only offers to if someone can demonstrate they will use it responsibly.
And nobody ever lies of course.
Hypothetically she might get scammed by someone and irresponsibly disclose but let's not condemn her for it yet.
"Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"
If people had such an innate propensity to divulge secrets, surely the employees who setup that faulty jenkins server would have already sent you a copy of the no fly list, right?
That isn't really a counter-example to my point which is just that it is stupidly naive to suggest that Maia is somehow exempt from these concerns.
If you want to argue that its all pointless secrecy theater, then I'd agree with that entirely.
Probably thousands of airline and US government employees have had access to this list over the years. Yet neither you nor me can see anything on it, here in January 2023.
Wait, I thought Maia was offering to share who was on the no-fly list, not this stolen sensitive data this comment is claiming
In fact, the government does do harm with it, by putting people on it without telling them (they might send a letter, that's not guaranteed), and you only get to find out a few hours before your flight when you get rejected at security.
Furthermore, this particular government fails to properly secure info all the time. Seems the last two presidents have been just leaving classified papers strewn all over the place.
No, I'll trust the gay hackers over the government, thank you very much.
Moreover, depending on the contents of the list, this likely offers proof of what is generally suspected, that the no fly list is a form of discrimination and authoritarian overreach, targeting people that haven't been convicted of a crime but are "suspected" due to race, religion, etc. The whole thing is probably unconstitutional/illegal, but it's hard to prove that since it's been secret.
This seems like a clear case of hacktivism- trying to expose an unethical government program for what it is, so that it can be stopped.