Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stolen Patreon User Data Dumped On Internet

Posted by timothy on from the thanks-fellas dept.

After the personal data breach at crowd-funding site Patreon reported a few days ago, there's some worse news: the information isn't just in limbo any more; Patreon reported Saturday that the compromised information has been leaked in the form of a massive data dump. (The slightly good news is that no credit card information was leaked.)

27 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. data dump link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://patreon.thecthulhu.com/

    1. Re:data dump link by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      So there is a list of names and addresses on the Internet.
      There is also a list of names and addresses in the phone book.
      I don't really see the difference.
      Who is harmed by this?

    2. Re:data dump link by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The SQL file in the dump contains all the private messages sent on the site. It's likely that many Patreon users will be embarrassed by the nature of those messages, e.g. they are getting paid by unsavoury individuals, being encouraged to harass and abuse other people for money, or speaking candidly about their motivations (e.g. bigotry) while trying to maintain a respectable public face.

      There is also information on who is funding whom, so a lot of people who might have wished to remain anonymous will now be exposed as e.g. supporting GamerGate or anti-rights speakers. As well as social repercussions they might lose their jobs etc. Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:data dump link by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      Do you donate to 'Dog Rescue Cyprus', or 'Penelopies Pantyhose' ?
      (I note the latter is a wecomic, not actual goods.)
      There are some very, very questionable and for some life-damaging things you could support.
      In addition, private messages asking for specific content to be created could be obviously damaging.

  2. Sucks lemons... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    That brand of Tequila never did anything for me after two or three shots.

  3. Expect drama by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Expect drama by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign.

      ^^^^^THIS.

      Yes, beware the wrath of the self-righteous Social Justice Warriors. To them the ends do justify the means, and simply disagreeing with them puts you on their enemies list.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Expect drama by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a very good reason that for a long time, charity was considered best when it was anonymous. I don't mean anonymous to the world but known between the benefactor and the recipient, but truly anonymous where the recipient did not know who the benefactor was. It protected the benefactor because no one knew who the benefactor was, and to a degree it protected the recipient because the recipient was not placed in a position of having to publicly defer or otherwise kowtow to the benefactor if they should encounter each other in public.

      It might make sense for this to be considered in the future.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Expect drama by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian.

      What Thunderf00t "spouted" about Anita Sarkeesian was anything but "bullshit". I checked a lot of the stuff in his videos on Anita Sarkeesian and the fact is that pretty much everything he said checked out. And it's easy to see it why it checks out because all he did was take clips of her speaking and played them verbatim.

      You can do the same and you'll likely come to the same conclusion if you aren't already committed to a particular point of view.

      Remember, Anita Sarkeesian is the one who said "EVERYTHING is sexist, EVERYTHING is racist, EVERYTHING is homophobic, and you have to point it all out." That statement of hers is simply not true by ANY stretch of the imagination. Seriously, give me a fuckin' break. Everything is NOT sexist, racist, and homophobic and only a demagogue would say shit like that.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Expect drama by etnoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      By the way, she never said what you claim she did. If I'm wrong you will provide a reliable source, I'm sure.

      This enough for ya? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Quantum hacker.
    5. Re:Expect drama by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers. Does that mean they are SJWs? That term seems rather ill defined.

      SJW just means anyone who cares about anything that the person using the term SJW thinks is stupid, or bad, or wrong. If you have the gall to care, even though they are apathetic fuckheads, then you're a SJW. They have to deprecate you because they know they're shitbags and you're making them feel like what they are. And they will happily lump people with sensible ideas in with assholes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Expect drama by etnoy · · Score: 2

      The parent comment claimed she never said that, but that was obviously incorrect as my link proves.

      --
      Quantum hacker.
    7. Re:Expect drama by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thunderf00t would be proud. Taken out of context and edited down to just those words. She clearly never intended the meaning you imply, and actually if you watch the whole debate she was saying the EXACT OPPOSITE.

      Her point was that to be a feminist you don't have to take that view. It's just straw feminist argument that gives people the wrong impression.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Expect drama by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    9. Re:Expect drama by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I was curious so I did a quick Google search and found the a longer form of the video from which the clip was taken (link contains time code to where the part in question starts) and watched it to get a sense of the context.

      My interpretation of her comments is that she does believe that there there are a lot of things she now perceives as sexist that she otherwise would not have, and that while when she first came to feel this way, she felt the need to constantly point that out, she now believes its better to more carefully choose which things to discuss rather than jumping on every single thing. Perhaps there's more to it than that as the video I found was just hightlighting parts where she was speaking or responding to questions, but it doesn't seem that way even given more context. Given she makes a video series about sexism in games, it's not really difficult to treat her comments as a fairly close representation of her beliefs.

      Either way I find the whole argument rather moot, as her views are rooted in Patriarchy theory which is on about the same level as lizard people or the Illuminati. And much like other religions, I don't really expect anything intelligible to come from anything that's steeped in articles of faith and dogma instead of empiricism or logic. But if you're going to have a religion, someone needs to pass around the collection plate and it may as well be her because apparently there's good money to be made there. I feel that if people wanted to further equality for women there are better people to give their money to than Anita, but it's their money to do with as they will. I think people only stick up for her out of some sense of tribalism (she's one of us, or I'm with her) than for anything practical, but that's just my take on it.

    10. Re: Expect drama by kentrel · · Score: 2

      Ebert never demonized entire groups of people, or made racist or disgusting remarks about them. Even when he made a dumb statement about video games not being art he made his argument respectfully and dealt with the criticism respectfully. His perspective was completely ignorant, not as glaringly stupid and lacking in reason as Sarkeesians, but it was still from the point of view of someone who never played games. However, he didn't run to the media about being a victim. He was the media, one of the few good ones in an industry of trolls and he respectfully disagreed. When he realized he couldn't convince anybody he wrote a follow up article and left it at that. He was told he was wrong many many times by many smart people, and probably a few trolls as well. He handled it like a reasonable adult.

      Sarkeesian on the other hand responded by playing the victim, demonizing her critics, and using the media to write a narrative that she was the victim of an "abuse" campaign. The negative response Sarkeesian gets is as a direct response to the way she insults and generalizes entire groups of people, making arguments from ignorance. She's also taken huge amounts of money in donations and failed to deliver on her Kickstarter promise which is now overdue by 3 years. She is considered to be a scammer, but also a racist and sexist scam artist who avoids addressing her critics directly, and instead uses the media to attack them indirectly. Hopefully that should explain why she gets a more negative reaction than Roger Ebert.

    11. Re:Expect drama by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Actually, it shows an edited clip of her saying that people shouldn't be like that. Someone edited out the important but to make it look like she was saying that is her view point.

      It's been dubunked. Just let it go.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Confession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only reason my name is on the list is because I thought it was Ashley Madison.

  5. Gg, sjw? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.

  6. The Horror by PatientZero · · Score: 2

    The only reason Richard Bachman got revealed as being the pseudonym of Stephen King was . . .

    Woah, woah, hold up a sec. Are you saying that Stephen King is married to Michelle Bachmann? His stories make so much sense, now.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  7. Post your name and address. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who is harmed by this?

    A quick experiment to demonstrate that you have not thought about this ... post your name and address here. Right now.

    If you do not, then your question really was stupid.

  8. Support of a False Narrative, and "Cyber-Violence" by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.

    A unethical journalist tried to blame the hack on Gamergate, despite the fact that the apparent hacker has made many anti-Gamergate statements. The journalist then went to a popular pro-Gamergate hub to make a show of doing the due diligence and research he should have done before publishing his inaccurate article, and got deservedly ripped to shreds in the comments.

    The bottom line is the hacker appears to be third-party troll, so you should take any motivations he voices (pro- or anti- GG or SJW) with a boulder of salt.

    Note that both pro-Gamergate and SJW content creators make money from Patreon, but IMO this hack has very little to do with the usual animosity between the two groups.

    Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.

    For those who didn't hear about it a week ago (there was strangely no Slashdot story), a recent event pusshing that narrative was the presentation of the "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls" report to (by?) an offshoot of the UN (UN Women). The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
    http://time.com/4049106/un-cyb...

    The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment. The report also argues that “cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,” suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse.

    It's a such a blatant attempt to redefine criticism and disagreement as harassment and threats, to demonize free speech as a pretense to censorship.

    The report also attacks video games by citing ridiculous sources (all at least a decade old) which say "Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokémon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games" and references Jack Thompson himself.

    So it should come as no surprise that two of the invited the speakers (Quinn and Sarkeesian) were "SJWs" best known as prominent opponents of the Gamergate movement. Yep, Gamergate, the customer revolt demanding more ethical game journalism, whose criticism of and disagreement with the demonstrably unethical gaming press was mischaracterized as (you guessed it) "harrassment" and "threats" and widely censored in an attempt to protect the corrupt journalists, all because those journalists expressed the right politics.

    Gamergate (and the FTC, responding to Gamergate pressure) succeeded in forcing many corrupt websites to update their ethics policies and start disclosing personal (and financial) relationships to the subjects of their articles, which is why you always see so many disingenuous and corrupt individuals shitting a brick over it. Two outlets that anti-Gamergate was notoriously unsuccessful at shutting down were tweets and youtube videos, which is why you saw Quinn issuing a false DMCA (against youtuber MundaneMatt) a year ago, and Sarkeesian whi

  9. "Focal Point" Rhetoric == Guilt By Association by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian. The first video made him a fair chunk of cash, so he kept doing them. If the profit motive is taken away he will likely lose interest.

    Your premise is faulty. He's made videos refuting creationists and promoting science for years, even though he "made little" money from them. The more likely explanation is that anti-progressivism videos were just a natural extension of his previous pro-skeptic content, especially after he saw "progressive" feminists try to infect atheism through Atheism+.

    It's important because while he only does a bit of mild harassment, his videos and his cause act as a focal point for other idiots who do much worse.

    Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers.

    Oh, this is fucking priceless. Got any evidence for that assertion? Here, I'll start (using a different "focal point"):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly

    a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
    b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
    c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
    d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).

    And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.

    P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . . .).

    1. Re:"Focal Point" Rhetoric == Guilt By Association by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go to Thunderf00t's YouTube channel and look at the view counters on his videos. The anti-feminist ones are by far the most popular. Every time he makes one he gets a big pay day from YouTube and new Patreon subscribers. They are all terrible, far below even his usual low standards, but he keeps crapping them out because they pay.

      He makes a living out of being permanently offended and angry. An SJW, I guess.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Which Side Fought Against Disclosure, Again? by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Informative
    Spinning this hack as bad for Gamergate requires some desperate mental gymnastics.

    Gamergate exposed many undisclosed financial relationships between the gaming journalists and article subjects, forcing their employers to reform their ethics policies and add appropriate disclosures.

    A significant chunk of those relationships were through Patreon, and at least one of the resulting ethics policy updates made direct reference to Patreon. Also note that many gaming journalists "responded" to Gamergate's successful push for greater ethics scrutiny by . . . hiding their Patreon donations by making them private.

    I doubt the hack is good for either side of the "culture war", but anti-GG has a history of trying to hide where the money is coming from (and going to).

    Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.

    Sure do. How the reaction was widely reported in the mainstream tech news media is a completely different matter.

    1. Re:Which Side Fought Against Disclosure, Again? by kentrel · · Score: 2

      After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing

      Do you have a citation of this? Show your workings. What are you defining as harassment? Who specifically is being doxxed and by whom? How are you calculating that "most of it" is "by gamergate fanboys". You mentioned Felicia Day, but what evidence do you have that she was doxxed and that it was a "gamergate fanboy"? Was this information publicly available information that was just copy\pasted from a public source? Is that really doxxing? Or was this private information known only to a few? If so, who discovered this private information? Where was it stored? Was this someone close to Felicia or in a position of power? How was this private information transferred to a public medium? Who made this transfer, and how do you know their personal feelings on gamergate? These seem like basic questions. I presume you have answers for all them. I'll be checking. BTW, "gamergate fanboy" just seems like a meaningless label to carry emotional rather than specific factual information. What are you specifically trying to communicate with that label?

  11. Evidence of Harassment by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing

    You sound confident in that claim, so you must have evidence of it. Do post some, because (as I said elsewhere in the thread) it's become routine for anti-Gamergate folks to portray exposure of corruption and mere disagreement with their opinions as "harrassment," and we know pro-GG folks get doxxed too (not sure about the ratio of pro-GG to anti-GG doxxing victims, and there's definitely no way to know the perpetrator ratio . . . though some do openly support doxxing, like Quinn and Harper and R Watson and Gawker's CEO, etc.). Here's an example of what I'm looking for:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly

    a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
    b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
    c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
    d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).

    And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.

    P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . . .)

    Go ahead, post something half as damning (and conclusive) as that pathetic Sarkeesian "fanboy."

    (I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)

    Wow, look at you, admitting up front you can't fulfill c) above. Tell me, why is the tech news sites' reporting of Gamergate "harassment" always so disconnected (in fact, usually the opposite) of what is indicated by the evidence? Must be lots of folks just like you working the field . . .