dpkonofa

9 ms·

91.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
This assumes the breached password occurrence was known in advance and, from what I have read so far about this, was not the case with the 23andMe accounts.
92.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
And how would they know that when the access was done via the correct user/pass combo for accounts where the users chose not to enable MFA?
93.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It wasn’t from the same system. It was from a botnet. The account credentials were leaked on Tor. Is haveibeenpwned omniscient? Do they know about every breach out there without fail?
94.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
If was indeed a DB leak, as claimed, some sites will have emails/hashes/passwords/last know login location/ip potentially. It’s not a stretch to think that a botnet could run from not only the same country but even the s
95.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It’s not lazy or negligent on the part of the website when they offer additional security and users choose not to use it. 23andMe asks multiple times for users to set up 2FA and apps like 1Password and Bitwarden recognize that it’s availabl
96.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
To borrow your analogy, though, Facebook (23andMe) didn’t leak anyone’s data. That’s the issue with your position. Also, the turfer comment makes you seem like a conspiracy theorist. There’s nothing untoward or off about the replies you’ve
97.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Do you share your banking info with complete strangers? If not, why would you share your DNA with them and be surprised that they could do something stupid, foolish, or reckless?
98.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That is a great analogy.
99.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
They weren't from the same place. It was from a botnet over the course of several months.
100.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It is an option. Every user has the option to setup MFA when they set up their account. The fact that people reused their passwords and chose not to setup MFA is not 23andme’s fault.
101.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Yes. I could have been clearer but didn’t think that was a sticking point.
102.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Someone gains access to a DB for a site (through any variety of means) and then goes on Tor and tries to get people to buy their list of credentials.
103.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Because the breach wasn’t on 23andMe. It was on another site. The only way you’d be affected by this is if you used the same password on multiple sites (where one of those sites actually had a breach) or if you shared your DNA profile (sinc
104.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That’s not at all what it’s like. This is like using the same PIN for your work lock and home lock and then blaming the lock maker when thieves from work got into your house because they found your address in the stuff they stole from your
105.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
They shared their info with a compromised account. If you didn’t share your DNA matches with the other person, you would have nothing to worry about.
106.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
You couldn’t but the access they have to your info is limited to only the info you shared with an account that reused their password from another site. If you’re not sharing info with people you don’t know or trust, you’re ok.
107.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
There was no brute forcing done. The credentials were from other sites that were leaked via Tor and the users on 23andMe used the same email/password combo. That’s why you don’t reuse passwords, when possible. Nothing on 23andme’s end
108.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
The complaint is that liberals are reporting conservative viewpoints they disagree with. If the school was doing that, why would the liberals be self-censoring? You’re not making any sense.
109.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
>If we were applying your logic, we'd conclude that clearly society/the police don't have a policy of catching robbers. No we wouldn't. My logic is that we'd have stats regarding how many crimes were documented,
110.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It does. FIRE asks students how they feel about free speech. It has nothing to do with what actions schools have actually taken and what their policies are.
111.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
How is that in any way materially different from my point? The survey still isn't about what actions any of the schools have taken or whether the schools' policies allow for free speech. That makes it completely irrelevant in a di
112.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
They literally have a policy that allows students to say things that are considered objectionable and, unless you have examples where they've violated that (disinvitations are not censorship of student speech as the invites are externa
113.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
FIRE's free speech index is hardly definitive. It asks students about how they feel, not about actual, verifiable support from the school. The survey uses questions like "Would you be opposed to a speaker with x view coming to cam
114.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That’s what I think makes the Tetris feat so incredible. There’s no cheating needed. This is being done on the base game after something like 40 years.
115.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
They are allowed on campus. Harvard is a private school and can ask anyone to leave the campus for any reason.
116.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Yes but, as someone else pointed out, Harvard is a private school that takes federal funding. The Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t affect them either way.
117.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
None of those things are examples of students being censored. Disinvitation and protesting are themselves protected activities. This doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says.
118.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won. https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...
119.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t... It needs to something that a reasonable person who directly heard the speech would interpret as a “true threat” to a person or group. In the case above,
120.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That’s irrelevant unless you have examples of this being the case at Harvard.

More ›