Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Claim They Possess Details of 120 Million Facebook Accounts, Publish Private Messages From 81,000 of Them (bbc.com)
Andrei Zakharov, reporting for BBC: Hackers appear to have compromised and published private messages from at least 81,000 Facebook users' accounts. The perpetrators told the BBC Russian Service that they had details from a total of 120 million accounts, which they were attempting to sell, although there are reasons to be sceptical about that figure.
Facebook said its security had not been compromised. And the data had probably been obtained through malicious browser extensions.
Facebook added it had taken steps to prevent further accounts being affected. The BBC understands many of the users whose details have been compromised are based in Ukraine and Russia. However, some are from the UK, US, Brazil and elsewhere. The hackers offered to sell access for 10 cents (8p) per account. However, their advert has since been taken offline. "We have contacted browser-makers to ensure that known malicious extensions are no longer available to download in their stores," said Facebook executive Guy Rosen. "We have also contacted law enforcement and have worked with local authorities to remove the website that displayed information from Facebook accounts."
Facebook added it had taken steps to prevent further accounts being affected. The BBC understands many of the users whose details have been compromised are based in Ukraine and Russia. However, some are from the UK, US, Brazil and elsewhere. The hackers offered to sell access for 10 cents (8p) per account. However, their advert has since been taken offline. "We have contacted browser-makers to ensure that known malicious extensions are no longer available to download in their stores," said Facebook executive Guy Rosen. "We have also contacted law enforcement and have worked with local authorities to remove the website that displayed information from Facebook accounts."
They do what they can so no hacker can sell your most intimate details.
That's already their own business model, dammit! Who wouldn't fight competition when possible?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or most other social media.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We are shocked and outraged at this illegal and illicit activity. We at Facebook take protecting the data we collect very seriously. How else are we supposed to get top dollar for selling it to the highest bidder?
Check your premises.
Then you might as well not use it. I hear this all the time: "I only use FB for a) and b) and sometimes c), blah blah...." Just close your account then.
There will come a day when having never used social media will be an accolade - and it can't come too soon.
shin phantomflanflinger
1. Security is viewed as an expense instead of as an investment.
* It takes 20 years to build a good reputation,
* It takes 20 seconds to lose it.
2. Murphy's Computer Law:
There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.
I bought a computer off a guy on facebook, it wasn't as advertised, and he ghosted me. Cany y'all hackers help?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Who's sending anything that's actually sensitive or confidential through facebook?? Apart from some nudes that women have sent me, there's nothing in my private messages that I'd care about being published to the public.
I don't have a Facedork account, how can I get in on this free dissemination of my data??
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I concur; it's disappointing that people on a tech site such as /. conflate the intention of the user posting the material with how the posted material can be used later (even within the scope of uses we can identify today which is no doubt just the start). From a technical (as opposed to ethical) perspective, the poster's intention is irrelevant. The parent post is underrated and the grandparent post is overrated.
People in the future might not enjoy knowing that the choices they made today were the basis of learning a bunch of other people's coordinates and directionality/orientation of their bodies, and have a high degree of certainty who that was based on information from what are deemed socially sufficiently accurate inferences. All of that data comes from data shared with naive intention by people who, as the parent poster rightly put it, "haven't been paying attention" and some time with algorithms that essentially make a timeline by putting together analysis of school yearbook photos, Halloween shots, home videos, street footage, "smart TV" or "cell phone" (really, 'tracker' is a more honest name) camera/mic spying, and other sensor data. People today would likely find that kind of tracking creepy but it's possible. Tech people should be teaching the public to value their own privacy and the privacy of their friends and family now. Sometimes this means having the spine to say no to fads like Facebook accounts, installing proprietary software, and recording and/or sharing every moment when one doesn't know the scope of what they're sharing. There's a big difference between sending someone a copy of a digital picture versus showing them a snapshot in person. Innocently sharing such data (even unwittingly) contributes to a society in which a future of pervasive spying is increasingly likely.
Digital Citizen