Talk:2014 Snapchat hack
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Someone not using his real name in topic Date of hack
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge into Snapchat. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Issues that are being raised
editI'll be listing them pointwise.
- Arik Hesseldahl, senior editor at Re/code, encouraged site owners, tagged with {{failed verification}}: The source says, "Today would be a good day to think like a hacker or a stalker and revisit whether or not your code has weaknesses that [you] could be forced to apologize for later.". Here, she tries to warn the webmasters, to think like a hacker and to check if "our" codes; that is the webmaster's code or the site owner's code, has any vulnerability. This is quite straight. What does this otherwise imply? Guest users changing the code? That's impossible.
- Snapchat did not issue any statement formally about the hack: Snapchat did not issue any statement formally about the hack. They have not apologized either. A meagre mention was made about the hack, and about the "abuse" of a feature. They have not posted about it yet. The entire section deals with what they have promised to do. They have not issued any statements, I repeat..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 January 2014
- The source does not mention the owners of the site. [You] in this case refer to " other apps that tap the address books of users' phones." Not to the owners of Snapchat site.
- You contradict yourself: "In its response, Snapchat said .." vs. "They have not issued any statements, I repeat.."
- --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here Statement refers to a post specially dedicated about the hack; and a follow-up apology. Ethically (Yours) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, per presented quote Arik statement refers to " other apps that tap the address books of users' phones." Not to the owners of Snapchat site. Since the assertion is not supported with the source I will remove it. It also gives undue weight to one opinion of one man about unrelated topic. The assertion unnecessarily mentions Arik Hesseldahl being senior editor at Re/code, which can be seen as promotional text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Date of hack
editIs claimed to be January 1, 2014. Why are several articles documenting this, e.g. one by TechCrunch [1] and another by Gigaom [2], dated Dec 31 then? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually this article was very sloppy on a number of details, so this doesn't surprise me anymore. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)