5 ms·

The screenshot proves nothing. Anyone could grab the same images and set the same name and bio

iamnotarobotman 6y ago
Exactly. A screenshot is not convincing enough as they can 'inspect element' this 'hack'. Simply show me a video logging into the account in real time with the given password and the 'hacker' can eliminate this skepticism. Quite funny how people can quickly believe this stuff on the internet without thinking again, especially from... BBC online news... sigh.
- derision 6y ago
  It's even simpler than that, both of the fields in the screenshot are editable fields, so they had to do nothing more than create a new account, upload the same banner and profile picture, and put the text in the boxes
- jxramos 6y ago
  hey inspect element tricks and developer tools have been put to great effect in the realm of scammers transferring excess refund funds into folks bank accounts.
anoonmoose 6y ago
> Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially more evidence of the "hack". It is very possible that this is just an article with limited info and not much has been released publicly because of privacy/security concerns.
JohnBooty 6y ago
Hmmm, yeah. From the linked article, Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially more evidence of the "hack". An earlier article gives a little more detail, but nothing substantial. From https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55019858 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55019858 -- He did not post any tweets or change any settings, but said he took screenshots of some parts of the president's account. If he has screenshots of private messages, etc, that would certainly prove he had access... but only if Trump or somebody with legit access to Trump's account was able and willing to verify them. Of course, I don't blame this researcher for lacking more concrete proof. He could easily have proved his access by changing something in Trump's account, sending a tweet/DM, etc. But by doing so he likely would have brought some serious legal issues down onto himself.
- jsnell 6y ago
  > But by doing so he likely would have brought some serious legal issues down onto himself. The problem with that theory is that he did heavily insinuate having posted a tweet from Trump's account.
- notacoward 6y ago
  > only if Trump or somebody with legit access to Trump's account ...or the sender.
albertgoeswoof 6y ago
By that logic anyone could impersonate anything. Dutch prosecutors have accepted it, the bbc are a reputable organisation, it almost certainly happened.

Exactly. A screenshot is not convincing enough as they can 'inspect element' this 'hack'. Simply show me a video logging into the account in real time with the given password and the 'hacker' can eliminate this skepticism. Quite funny how people can quickly believe this stuff on the internet without thinking again, especially from... BBC online news... sigh.

derision 6y ago
It's even simpler than that, both of the fields in the screenshot are editable fields, so they had to do nothing more than create a new account, upload the same banner and profile picture, and put the text in the boxes
jxramos 6y ago
hey inspect element tricks and developer tools have been put to great effect in the realm of scammers transferring excess refund funds into folks bank accounts.

anoonmoose 6y ago

> Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially more evidence of the "hack". It is very possible that this is just an article with limited info and not much has been released publicly because of privacy/security concerns.

JohnBooty 6y ago

Hmmm, yeah. From the linked article, Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially more evidence of the "hack". An earlier article gives a little more detail, but nothing substantial. From https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55019858 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55019858 -- He did not post any tweets or change any settings, but said he took screenshots of some parts of the president's account. If he has screenshots of private messages, etc, that would certainly prove he had access... but only if Trump or somebody with legit access to Trump's account was able and willing to verify them. Of course, I don't blame this researcher for lacking more concrete proof. He could easily have proved his access by changing something in Trump's account, sending a tweet/DM, etc. But by doing so he likely would have brought some serious legal issues down onto himself.

jsnell 6y ago
> But by doing so he likely would have brought some serious legal issues down onto himself. The problem with that theory is that he did heavily insinuate having posted a tweet from Trump's account.
notacoward 6y ago
> only if Trump or somebody with legit access to Trump's account ...or the sender.

albertgoeswoof 6y ago

By that logic anyone could impersonate anything. Dutch prosecutors have accepted it, the bbc are a reputable organisation, it almost certainly happened.