6 ms·

Not sure, but think this may have been the original thread: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/511313558 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/511313558 >DR

Not sure, but think this may have been the original thread: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/511313558 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/511313558 >DRIVERS LICENSES AND FACE PICS! GET THE FUCK IN HERE BEFORE THEY SHUT IT DOWN! >Tea App uploads all user verification submissions to this public firebase storage bucket with the prefix "attachments/": [link, now offline] >Yes, if you sent Tea App your face and drivers license, they doxxed you publicly! No authentication, no nothing. It's a public bucket. I have written a Python script which scrapes the bucket and downloads all the images, page by page, so you can see if you're in it: [pastebin link] >The censoring in picrel was added by me. The images in the bucket are raw and uncensored. Nice "anonymous" app. This is what happens when you entrust your personal information to a bunch of vibe-coding DEI hires. >I won't be replying to this or making any more threads about it. I did my part, God bless you all. Regards, anon Being so careless with people's personal data should be a major crime, tbh. If I manipulated thousands of people to let me scan their passports and various other bits of personal info, then just left the copies around the city for people to find, I'd be prosecuted, and rightfully so.

ipnon 1y ago
The irony of a doxxing app being wrecked by the anonymous is too much for me!
- gitremote 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - aaron695 1y ago
    > It's not ironic. [OP edited out] Either use the criminal justice system. Or form a lynch mob and stand behind your lynching. But don't cry when you have chosen the route of self organized violence with zero checks and balances, clear examples of lynching the wrong people, then running and hiding back behind "civilized society" when your inept violence backfires. You are no different to Kiwi Farms, I suggest you look to their site for tips on how to protect yourself while being violent on others. Kiwi Farms also has a list of sexual abusers they have helped stop, some really horrific people.... but like "Tea" that's not the full story. Until then it is "ironic"
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - DocTomoe 1y ago
    It's an app that exposes the identity of people against their will. That's the exact definition of doxxing. Whether the original intent was honourable or not - or if they decide to spend part of their income to a honourable cause - does not factor in to the nature of the system. Worse, in some jurisdictions (I’m not certain about the US specifics), this kind of unsanctioned exposure could actively hinder legal prosecution of actual predators. If a person is publicly accused on a non-official platform before trial, any resulting lawsuit might be thrown out on grounds of prejudicial exposure or even perjury. The accused could claim that the testimony is tainted or retaliatory — particularly if the platform enables near-anonymous posting without formal vetting^1. [1] Yes, the app collects driver’s licenses. But let’s be honest: in the U.S., a fake driver’s license is practically a rite of passage. Entire generations of underage teens have used them to get into clubs and bars. If that’s your trust anchor, you don’t have much of one.
    - whatevaa 1y ago
      So the system is fucked, as I see it.
      - DocTomoe 1y ago
        It feels broken because it is broken. But if you weaken procedural safeguards to ‘fix’ it, you don’t get justice - you get lynch mobs. Sometimes quite literally. There have been people beaten to death by neighbors because they were declared a sexual offender online - which later turned out to be wrong. A criminal justice system has to protect even the accused against injustice. If it doesn't, it's not justice, but just a kangaroo court.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - serial_dev 1y ago
    You can’t just quote from a PR puff piece and expect anyone to be convinced it is not a doxxing app. The proof is in the pudding. It was built for doxxing and quite potentially spreading lies about men and on top of that, they doxxed all of their users, too. They pretty much doxxed everyone who used the app or was mentioned on the platform. I don’t see how it is not a doxxing app, but go ahead and find me another PR article that says it is the best thing since sliced bread and the founders should be saints.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      I should create an app called “Dox.com”. The selling point is you sign up and can share, support, amplify fellow doxers. A community for the non-Chan-ish, but Chan-ish, crowd to commune. But when your in, it looks like your the first sign up. To you. To the rest of the world all your sign up info is on DoxedMyself.com. But I don’t have the time. So feel free to Y-combinate to your hearts worth! On me!
      - AuthAuth 1y ago
        Ok thats a great idea but we need to know how are you going to incorporate ai?
    - frauhaus 1y ago
      I don’t know the ratio of real to fake info on Tea, but all ways to provide information about someone are subject to fabrication of inaccurate information. Many years ago when newspapers, magazines, or books wrote about someone, at least some of the time they may have tried to verify part of the information. Today, there’s very little expectation that something on an app or website has been partially or thoroughly fact-checked. For the sake of argument, let’s say 20% of the data is fabricated. If 80% of the information on Tea about others being a safety risk were true, would that be worth chancing that 20% would have false information spread about them, mostly quietly to a small percentage of the population in a way that didn’t really affect their lives substantially? I’m not defending Tea losing their users’ data nor defending those that spread disinformation. However, if the majority of the data were correct and helped others, and if the incorrect information didn’t destroy or substantially affect someone, then I think it may have been better to have had the 80% truth, if it were to have prevented violent crime.
  - tgv 1y ago
    Apparently, the red flags also include "has ghosted me" and "is married." Now, those are valid reasons to not date someone, but it's not safety. Safety is just the excuse, just like it is in so many other cases. It's fucked up that you can't have an honest app to keep people safe, but the makers could have known the problems in advance, and probably did. > One user’s story stands out In which precisely nothing happened. We don't even know the nature of the alleged violence. > It's expected that anon is misogynist Did you just give a negative impression of someone you don't know?
    - HeartStrings 1y ago
      If guy keeps ghosting a lot of women, women will see him as more attractive due to massive abundance.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        You are getting down-voted, but "playing hard to get" has truths in it. The women I rejected keep coming around all the time, whether it is month later, or a year later. That said, I was not intentionally playing "hard to get", it was a genuine rejection. It probably hurts their pride though, especially if they are not used to being rejected.
    - gitremote 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - suddenlybananas 1y ago
        Walking through an open door is not hacking.
        nathanappere 1y ago
        Curious, have you tried entering people houses when the door is open?
  - parineum 1y ago
    > One user’s story stands out: Sarah, a 28-year-old from Chicago, posted about her ex, who seemed charming but turned violent. After escaping the relationship, she learned he was active on dating apps. Her Tea post detailed his behavior How hard would it be to believe that none of that was true and the woman was being vindictive? People can be shitty, including women.
    - bigfudge 1y ago
      They can, but rates of domestic violence are so high that it seems reasonable to want to do something about it. I dated online a few years ago and met my partner. In that time I met 4 women for dates who talked about really scary behaviour from previous men they’d met. These weren’t even relationships… just dates they’d met for coffee or whatever. These women had no reason to lie or exaggerate to me - and I’d probably prompted the conversation by asking about “how has it been on hinge” or whatever. I think we need to remember throughout all of this just how badly behaved many men are, and how normal misogyny has become.
      - parineum 1y ago
        I'm not disputing any of that but the idea that you can trust what you read on an app like that is the issue. Trust is a hard thing to come by online, even when people aren't anonymous and speaking publicly (Facebook or any other online place where one might use their real name). Giving people the cover of privacy from the person they are reporting about isn't going to increase the veracity of what's posted. We already know how people behave online. It's either naive, ignorant or negligent to think otherwise.
      - DocTomoe 1y ago
        This is a very sensible topic ... and sensible topics need careful solutions, not 'let's reinvent a medevial town square's pillory'. Western society has become actively anti-dating lately (think: ever since the 1980s). People, especially women, are actively encouraged to scrutinise even minor behaviour for red flags, after all, every man is a potential serial killer. This is so prevalent that we have made movies about that sort of paranoia ... and there are people in treatment over it. Clinically, this is often referred to as hypervigilance/paranoia syndrome, a pattern related to PTSD — both as a consequence of trauma and, paradoxically, as a source of relational dysfunction. This is not meant to downplay the reality of actual assaults. But it points to a deeper systemic issue: The drive to protect against potential violence has, in some circles, taken on a life of its own - and in doing so, it has poisoned trust. So - I do not claim your 4 women were not at some point scared by a guy during a date. But what used to be considered 'assertive, reliable, masculine' behaviour in the 1950s has become 'prelude to slaughter' these days, especially when other factors are present (e.g. 'he doesn't turn out to be Prince Charming that I expected' or 'he decided to split the bill'). So ... if there is an actual case of domestic violence, the solution is not to create an instrument that can be badly abused and does not follow rule of law - it is to go to ... law enforcement, and let the courts deal with it. IF the guy is a problem, let them put him away, rather than slandering him online.
  - 2c2c2c 1y ago
    this app is replicating a set of women only facebook groups. there's one for every major US city. it's sort of an if you know you know situation. the vast majority of posts are speculation on someone being douchey or a cheater. women in their twenties seem to really enjoy browsing through the gossip.
    - Yeul 1y ago
      I'm pretty sure women have always been gossiping and warning eachother about which man not to share an elevator with.
      - mandmandam 1y ago
        To be fair, and not that you're saying otherwise: that seems like a pretty natural and chill response to the fact that men have always been assaulting and raping them. Like, it would be weird if women didn't ever speculate on which men could be a threat.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- pwdisswordfishz 1y ago
  This is not irony.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
- esperent 1y ago
  > That app made a lot of basement dwelling chuds furious, to the point that someone was willing to risk prison time for a shot at harming those women. Although undeniably, the data being mostly women does bring in the chuds so it's not entirely wrong, I think this is a shallow take for a couple of reasons: 1. If any app stored user data this freely, it would be stolen and gloated over on 4chan. 2. This app, which I'm learning about just now, seems deeply problematic. It's a place for people to publically share and shame other people that they don't like. The genders of the people doing this doesn't matter, this is called doxxing and it's not ok, no matter how it gets dressed up (women's safety, children's safety, anti-terrorism, anti-drugs, whatever)
udev4096 1y ago
Are you being serious right now? No one forced those people to upload their data to this sketchy site. Everyone with one brain cell would know the repercussions of uploading IDs to a no-name site
- mr_00ff00 1y ago
  Exactly, this is why if I walk down a street that looks sketchy and I get assaulted/robbed, it’s not a crime and no one can be charged! Any bad behavior should be legal if the victim should have realized the warning signs.
- mnky9800n 1y ago
  i think you are assuming a level of computer literacy that doesn't exist in the general population. most people seem to not actually know where data goes when they put it in their phone, how that data is used, or what actually happens on computers in general. They mostly appear as magic to them.
  - udev4096 1y ago
    I am being downvoted for being real. How is the general populous not aware of it? That's wild. Again, you have to be aware of this. It's like privacy 101
    - tmerc 1y ago
      The general population hasn't taken privacy 101. They get asked to email their id to their doctor. If turns out the doctor also hasn't taken privacy 101.
    - more_corn 1y ago
      Naw. That’s victim blaming. People have a right to believe that if an online service or app requires identify verification that the data will be protected. If you provide your credit card to uber you assume they put a password on the database and do the things required to protect it. The idiot no-technical founder failed to do even the most simple and obvious data protection. Vibecoding is not an excuse. Ask how to secure the data and the AI will answer.
moritzwarhier 1y ago
> Being so careless with people's personal data should be a major crime, tbh. If I manipulated thousands of people to let me scan their passports and various other bits of personal info, then just left the copies around the city for people to find, I'd be prosecuted, and rightfully so. Good analogy. Also, this is the main point of the EU GDPR.
tinyoli 1y ago
It is, in the EU.
throwawaylaptop 1y ago
California car dealerships are sometimes visited by the DMV inspector, an actual officer of some kind technically. If they find any driver license photo copies, even turned over inside an unlocked desk drawer, the fine to a dealership is $10k per occurrence.
- tandr 1y ago
  Is it weird that internet companies do not have this kind of oversight?
  - red-iron-pine 1y ago
    how much money can their lobbiests throw at the gub'mnt compared to the US car dealership associations?
    - spauldo 1y ago
      Car dealership associations have pretty impressive lobbying capabilities. In many (most?) states you must buy a new vehicle from a dealer - it's against the law to buy direct from the manufacturer.
angst 1y ago
FYI the original post of the thread is now "This post is not available at this time."

ipnon 1y ago

The irony of a doxxing app being wrecked by the anonymous is too much for me!

gitremote 1y ago
[flagged]
- aaron695 1y ago
  > It's not ironic. [OP edited out] Either use the criminal justice system. Or form a lynch mob and stand behind your lynching. But don't cry when you have chosen the route of self organized violence with zero checks and balances, clear examples of lynching the wrong people, then running and hiding back behind "civilized society" when your inept violence backfires. You are no different to Kiwi Farms, I suggest you look to their site for tips on how to protect yourself while being violent on others. Kiwi Farms also has a list of sexual abusers they have helped stop, some really horrific people.... but like "Tea" that's not the full story. Until then it is "ironic"
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- DocTomoe 1y ago
  It's an app that exposes the identity of people against their will. That's the exact definition of doxxing. Whether the original intent was honourable or not - or if they decide to spend part of their income to a honourable cause - does not factor in to the nature of the system. Worse, in some jurisdictions (I’m not certain about the US specifics), this kind of unsanctioned exposure could actively hinder legal prosecution of actual predators. If a person is publicly accused on a non-official platform before trial, any resulting lawsuit might be thrown out on grounds of prejudicial exposure or even perjury. The accused could claim that the testimony is tainted or retaliatory — particularly if the platform enables near-anonymous posting without formal vetting^1. [1] Yes, the app collects driver’s licenses. But let’s be honest: in the U.S., a fake driver’s license is practically a rite of passage. Entire generations of underage teens have used them to get into clubs and bars. If that’s your trust anchor, you don’t have much of one.
  - whatevaa 1y ago
    So the system is fucked, as I see it.
    - DocTomoe 1y ago
      It feels broken because it is broken. But if you weaken procedural safeguards to ‘fix’ it, you don’t get justice - you get lynch mobs. Sometimes quite literally. There have been people beaten to death by neighbors because they were declared a sexual offender online - which later turned out to be wrong. A criminal justice system has to protect even the accused against injustice. If it doesn't, it's not justice, but just a kangaroo court.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  [flagged]
- serial_dev 1y ago
  You can’t just quote from a PR puff piece and expect anyone to be convinced it is not a doxxing app. The proof is in the pudding. It was built for doxxing and quite potentially spreading lies about men and on top of that, they doxxed all of their users, too. They pretty much doxxed everyone who used the app or was mentioned on the platform. I don’t see how it is not a doxxing app, but go ahead and find me another PR article that says it is the best thing since sliced bread and the founders should be saints.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    I should create an app called “Dox.com”. The selling point is you sign up and can share, support, amplify fellow doxers. A community for the non-Chan-ish, but Chan-ish, crowd to commune. But when your in, it looks like your the first sign up. To you. To the rest of the world all your sign up info is on DoxedMyself.com. But I don’t have the time. So feel free to Y-combinate to your hearts worth! On me!
    - AuthAuth 1y ago
      Ok thats a great idea but we need to know how are you going to incorporate ai?
  - frauhaus 1y ago
    I don’t know the ratio of real to fake info on Tea, but all ways to provide information about someone are subject to fabrication of inaccurate information. Many years ago when newspapers, magazines, or books wrote about someone, at least some of the time they may have tried to verify part of the information. Today, there’s very little expectation that something on an app or website has been partially or thoroughly fact-checked. For the sake of argument, let’s say 20% of the data is fabricated. If 80% of the information on Tea about others being a safety risk were true, would that be worth chancing that 20% would have false information spread about them, mostly quietly to a small percentage of the population in a way that didn’t really affect their lives substantially? I’m not defending Tea losing their users’ data nor defending those that spread disinformation. However, if the majority of the data were correct and helped others, and if the incorrect information didn’t destroy or substantially affect someone, then I think it may have been better to have had the 80% truth, if it were to have prevented violent crime.
- tgv 1y ago
  Apparently, the red flags also include "has ghosted me" and "is married." Now, those are valid reasons to not date someone, but it's not safety. Safety is just the excuse, just like it is in so many other cases. It's fucked up that you can't have an honest app to keep people safe, but the makers could have known the problems in advance, and probably did. > One user’s story stands out In which precisely nothing happened. We don't even know the nature of the alleged violence. > It's expected that anon is misogynist Did you just give a negative impression of someone you don't know?
  - HeartStrings 1y ago
    If guy keeps ghosting a lot of women, women will see him as more attractive due to massive abundance.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      You are getting down-voted, but "playing hard to get" has truths in it. The women I rejected keep coming around all the time, whether it is month later, or a year later. That said, I was not intentionally playing "hard to get", it was a genuine rejection. It probably hurts their pride though, especially if they are not used to being rejected.
  - gitremote 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      Walking through an open door is not hacking.
      - nathanappere 1y ago
        Curious, have you tried entering people houses when the door is open?
- parineum 1y ago
  > One user’s story stands out: Sarah, a 28-year-old from Chicago, posted about her ex, who seemed charming but turned violent. After escaping the relationship, she learned he was active on dating apps. Her Tea post detailed his behavior How hard would it be to believe that none of that was true and the woman was being vindictive? People can be shitty, including women.
  - bigfudge 1y ago
    They can, but rates of domestic violence are so high that it seems reasonable to want to do something about it. I dated online a few years ago and met my partner. In that time I met 4 women for dates who talked about really scary behaviour from previous men they’d met. These weren’t even relationships… just dates they’d met for coffee or whatever. These women had no reason to lie or exaggerate to me - and I’d probably prompted the conversation by asking about “how has it been on hinge” or whatever. I think we need to remember throughout all of this just how badly behaved many men are, and how normal misogyny has become.
    - parineum 1y ago
      I'm not disputing any of that but the idea that you can trust what you read on an app like that is the issue. Trust is a hard thing to come by online, even when people aren't anonymous and speaking publicly (Facebook or any other online place where one might use their real name). Giving people the cover of privacy from the person they are reporting about isn't going to increase the veracity of what's posted. We already know how people behave online. It's either naive, ignorant or negligent to think otherwise.
    - DocTomoe 1y ago
      This is a very sensible topic ... and sensible topics need careful solutions, not 'let's reinvent a medevial town square's pillory'. Western society has become actively anti-dating lately (think: ever since the 1980s). People, especially women, are actively encouraged to scrutinise even minor behaviour for red flags, after all, every man is a potential serial killer. This is so prevalent that we have made movies about that sort of paranoia ... and there are people in treatment over it. Clinically, this is often referred to as hypervigilance/paranoia syndrome, a pattern related to PTSD — both as a consequence of trauma and, paradoxically, as a source of relational dysfunction. This is not meant to downplay the reality of actual assaults. But it points to a deeper systemic issue: The drive to protect against potential violence has, in some circles, taken on a life of its own - and in doing so, it has poisoned trust. So - I do not claim your 4 women were not at some point scared by a guy during a date. But what used to be considered 'assertive, reliable, masculine' behaviour in the 1950s has become 'prelude to slaughter' these days, especially when other factors are present (e.g. 'he doesn't turn out to be Prince Charming that I expected' or 'he decided to split the bill'). So ... if there is an actual case of domestic violence, the solution is not to create an instrument that can be badly abused and does not follow rule of law - it is to go to ... law enforcement, and let the courts deal with it. IF the guy is a problem, let them put him away, rather than slandering him online.
- 2c2c2c 1y ago
  this app is replicating a set of women only facebook groups. there's one for every major US city. it's sort of an if you know you know situation. the vast majority of posts are speculation on someone being douchey or a cheater. women in their twenties seem to really enjoy browsing through the gossip.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure women have always been gossiping and warning eachother about which man not to share an elevator with.
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      To be fair, and not that you're saying otherwise: that seems like a pretty natural and chill response to the fact that men have always been assaulting and raping them. Like, it would be weird if women didn't ever speculate on which men could be a threat.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
pwdisswordfishz 1y ago
This is not irony.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

esperent 1y ago
> That app made a lot of basement dwelling chuds furious, to the point that someone was willing to risk prison time for a shot at harming those women. Although undeniably, the data being mostly women does bring in the chuds so it's not entirely wrong, I think this is a shallow take for a couple of reasons: 1. If any app stored user data this freely, it would be stolen and gloated over on 4chan. 2. This app, which I'm learning about just now, seems deeply problematic. It's a place for people to publically share and shame other people that they don't like. The genders of the people doing this doesn't matter, this is called doxxing and it's not ok, no matter how it gets dressed up (women's safety, children's safety, anti-terrorism, anti-drugs, whatever)

udev4096 1y ago

Are you being serious right now? No one forced those people to upload their data to this sketchy site. Everyone with one brain cell would know the repercussions of uploading IDs to a no-name site

mr_00ff00 1y ago
Exactly, this is why if I walk down a street that looks sketchy and I get assaulted/robbed, it’s not a crime and no one can be charged! Any bad behavior should be legal if the victim should have realized the warning signs.
mnky9800n 1y ago
i think you are assuming a level of computer literacy that doesn't exist in the general population. most people seem to not actually know where data goes when they put it in their phone, how that data is used, or what actually happens on computers in general. They mostly appear as magic to them.
- udev4096 1y ago
  I am being downvoted for being real. How is the general populous not aware of it? That's wild. Again, you have to be aware of this. It's like privacy 101
  - tmerc 1y ago
    The general population hasn't taken privacy 101. They get asked to email their id to their doctor. If turns out the doctor also hasn't taken privacy 101.
  - more_corn 1y ago
    Naw. That’s victim blaming. People have a right to believe that if an online service or app requires identify verification that the data will be protected. If you provide your credit card to uber you assume they put a password on the database and do the things required to protect it. The idiot no-technical founder failed to do even the most simple and obvious data protection. Vibecoding is not an excuse. Ask how to secure the data and the AI will answer.

moritzwarhier 1y ago

> Being so careless with people's personal data should be a major crime, tbh. If I manipulated thousands of people to let me scan their passports and various other bits of personal info, then just left the copies around the city for people to find, I'd be prosecuted, and rightfully so. Good analogy. Also, this is the main point of the EU GDPR.

tinyoli 1y ago

It is, in the EU.

throwawaylaptop 1y ago

California car dealerships are sometimes visited by the DMV inspector, an actual officer of some kind technically. If they find any driver license photo copies, even turned over inside an unlocked desk drawer, the fine to a dealership is $10k per occurrence.

tandr 1y ago
Is it weird that internet companies do not have this kind of oversight?
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  how much money can their lobbiests throw at the gub'mnt compared to the US car dealership associations?
  - spauldo 1y ago
    Car dealership associations have pretty impressive lobbying capabilities. In many (most?) states you must buy a new vehicle from a dealer - it's against the law to buy direct from the manufacturer.

angst 1y ago

FYI the original post of the thread is now "This post is not available at this time."