So it may be that the only thing that really separates AM from its hackers, is the leaking of data?
If they failed to disclose to nerve, are they any less guilty than Impact team?
Assuming they did commit some crime (breaking in, or with the data) would the results of the hack be admissible in court? Or would it be fruit of a poison tree?
The uploader left the bittorrent swarm too early. Only one client got 100% of the file, and they left before anyone else got 100% too. Some security news (I forget which) reported the orignal seeder left the transmission web ui unprotected.
To me, the most troubling thing is that they were charging people to remove their account information and did not actually remove it (from what I have read). If this is true, then how is this not blatant fraud?
Simple: were they charging people to unpublish the information from being accessed on the website, OR were they promising to delete the data and go back and remove extant copies of the data from past backups?
Chances are you paid the fee and they marked your info as 'deleted' in the database, effectively unpublishing the information. That would explain how the 'deleted' data could still be leaked.
6 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 23.3 ms ] threadSo it may be that the only thing that really separates AM from its hackers, is the leaking of data?
If they failed to disclose to nerve, are they any less guilty than Impact team?
Assuming they did commit some crime (breaking in, or with the data) would the results of the hack be admissible in court? Or would it be fruit of a poison tree?
Chances are you paid the fee and they marked your info as 'deleted' in the database, effectively unpublishing the information. That would explain how the 'deleted' data could still be leaked.