3 ms·
Schneier really isn't using "doxing" the way you and I would. He's using it to refer to what happened to Mat Honan[0], when someone managed to social engineer A
by ksenzee 11y ago
Schneier really isn't using "doxing" the way you and I would. He's using it to refer to what happened to Mat Honan[0], when someone managed to social engineer Amazon customer service and Apple tech support to take over Honan's accounts. Honan didn't do anything wrong, or release too much data to the public. He simply made the "mistake" of owning @mat on Twitter. Someone wanted the username, so they tricked Apple tech support (using data they got by calling Amazon) into thinking they were Honan, hacked into his account and took what they wanted.
The point of the article is that in a case like this, Apple and Amazon are both at fault, and should be held legally responsible.
[0] http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/ http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/
- Nadya 11y agoSo after all the years of misusing and redefining "hack" they are now jumping ship to "doxing" to misuse that when their redefined version of "hack" is acceptable? Gah! Thanks for the explanation. I do agree companies should be held responsible when they are too lax on identifying people as who they claim to be. OTOH, I can see customer complaints about slow service and constantly having to prove identity w/ 4 last of SSN and such. It's an area where idealism and reality don't meet very well.