What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
110 Comments
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -14/+63Marked inaccurate. If the user violates the TOS, the company is no longer bound by it.
- pjisback, on 10/12/2007, -13/+52I'm dumb. Digg this down.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45I am not sure about this whole thing, but from TFA:
"Hypnotic spoke to Macbeth and provided proof of many SASS posters uploading images that violated imageshacΚ’s terms of service. He explained that we would appreciate his help in putting together a troll post. Given that the SASS posters were abusing his service, he happily complied and looked up the IP’s for us. There were many matches to the list we already had."
The ToS goes both ways, if the users violate it, why shouldn't the providers post the IPs of those violators? - svental, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33Some background might be helpful.
Humor site "SomethingAwful" has very popular forums. Some current and previous users disagree with the way the SA forums are administered, and formed SASS so that they could talk about (and mock) the SA forums without fear of reprisal. Accounts on SA's forums cost $9.95, so many SASS posters use pseudo-pseudonyms to hide their identities so that they will not lose their investment in their SA forums account. - geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32By photobucket, do you mean "this account has exceeded its bandwidth quota--bucket?"
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -30/+57People actually paid 10 bucks to post on the big heaping pile of ***** that is SomethingAwful?
WHY?!? - anisotropy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33This is quite pathetic. Is this a sign of things to come when more Web 2.0 have employees who decide to release user data so their friends can have some laughs?
- Civil, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33SA is very well constructed, the userbase is intelligent (for the most part), and the $10 definitely keeps the trolls out, or they're quickly banned. If you're questioning the users or content, you haven't paid attention. Interesting, funny, or amazing threads, along with a lot of their photoshop work frequently pops up on digg.
Can you explain why you claim that somethingawful is a steaming pile of *****? Someone could easily make the same case for digg based on the stupid comments and submissions, but that doesn't make it true. - ColdSnickersBar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30The $10 fee keeps people serious about not getting their accounts banned, and keeps kids out of the forums.
- welpowelpo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25I can't believe they would release user info over some stupid internet drama! I'm never using Imageshack again, and I will make sure that everyone I know doesn't either.
- SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29"However, imageshacΚ® reserves the right to release user information if user has violated the imageshacΚ® Terms of Service, if the user has committed unlawful acts, if the information is subpoenaed, or if imageshacΚ® deems it necessary or appropriate."
They can release your information if they deem it necessary or appropriate. There is no TOS violation here. - JimmyDushku, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24where does "profit" come into your list?
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+181: read into why this was done
2: don't register an account with imageshack, use photobucket or something if you really need to have these pictures available for a long time
3: continue acting normally - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15thats exactly what Kenneth Lay said :p
- tsctsc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17People still use Imageshack? I thought it was common knowledge that it's a piss poor site, and that there are many far better alternatives?
http://www.xs.to
http://www.supload.com
http://www.pwnjoo.com - svental, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14There's a word filter on SASS that changes "ImageShack" to "yiffshack", in case that helps you figure out what's going on.
- zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17or http://www.tinypic.com
- apisatrox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Anyone that has a gmail account and doesn't use Picasa / picasaweb.google.com is insane
- we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The problem is, these people were trying to use an ANONYMOUS service to upload photos. I assume a picasa server would be linked to an email address.
There was a clear violation of privacy here by two supposedly anonymous photo uploader/servers because even if SOME of these forums users violated the ToS of imageshack.us and photos.cx (copyright photos, porn, whatever, most any picture on the net is in violation) the lists of IPs tried to link EVERYONE on the site who had used imageshack or photos.cx. Imagine if someone released all the information they had on YOU because someone else on DIGG used imageshack to post some porn. - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14If I could figure that out, I'd be a rich man.
- finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Because people who pay for a service have a right to complain.
- j4son, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@chucknorrisman
Yeah, that's a great philosophy. Too bad the same philosophy is the reason we have the Sarbanes Oxley act. - we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Looks like both imageshack.us and photos.cx were involved.
- ProfessorBill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13That's quite pathetic. I will be spreading the word on Imageshack's actions.
- SpartanComplex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Ebaum: I stole a bunch of games for end-users to play
People: Yay!!!! I don't care about who made them, I will play the games provided Thanks Ebaum!
Artists: Booo I will do nothing!
Imageshack: I released end-user infromation for the lols!
People: MY PRECIOUS INFOS!!!!!!!!!111111111111111 - we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Your attempt at baselessly accusing the SASS users of "hacking" (how would one hack by using an image host?) or "trolling" (is that illegal now?) or "illegal content" (show me the porn) aside, I'm interpreting what you said as "After I only gave out four IP addresses, the users of the site got so mad, I just had to give out the ENTIRE LIST of EVERY IP I HAVE." This confirms what I, and many others, earlier stated. That you, on a whim, gave out user information that is generally understood to remain "private" to people who had no business seeing the information.
In your own "Acceptable Use" policy, you state:
"If it's illegal in the united states, or the country you live in, you can't do it here.
"Also, if you attempt to disrupt the status of photos.cx via ddos, or any other type of malicious attack, we will report it to your ISP, and or local authorities.
"Also, if you're going to upload sick *****, don't put it on the rss / random image feed. Porn is fine, but things like this aren't so nice. If repeatedly break the rule, i'll ban you.
"Also, if you plan on spamming somebody with some porn or live cam shows, please don't use our servers. You can host your regular old porn, but if you're uploading the images for use in an advertisement of some sort, please use another service."
Since we've ruled out 1. trolling (not illegal) 2. hacking (how is that possible?) 3. Illegal content (you say clearly, porn is allowed. show me something illegal), I guess the only "Special Circumstance" there is that maybe some porn made it onto your RSS feed, and that IP could've been banned under your "Acceptable Use".
The fact that your policy doesn't even MENTION privacy perhaps should have been taken into consideration when the SASS users decided to use your service, and thereby, bring you business. No doubt this does paint you in a very negative light to the Digg community that clearly values their privacy and will now undoubtedly think twice before using your service.
I will give you one thing, you came here to defend your actions, and I thank you for that. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Digg's comments and discussion rank about 10 order of magnitude below the ones on Somethingawful's forums. I would never pay 10 dollars for it, but it really isn't much when you realize that it isn't a monthly fee, and that people can keep their accounts for years. Somethingawful has truly created a large community of interesting people, more than I can say for any free websites I have run into.
- unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Ooops, server has been dugg off the internet.
http://www.duggmirror.com/ - generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"The problem is, these people were trying to use an ANONYMOUS service to upload photos. I assume a picasa server would be linked to an email address.
There was a clear violation of privacy here by two supposedly anonymous photo uploader/servers because even if SOME of these forums users violated the ToS of imageshack.us and photos.cx (copyright photos, porn, whatever, most any picture on the net is in violation) the lists of IPs tried to link EVERYONE on the site who had used imageshack or photos.cx. Imagine if someone released all the information they had on YOU because someone else on DIGG used imageshack to post some porn."
I agree...BTW I didn't trust imageshack at all even before this. I can just imagine that they know all the different signup names from a person who posts the same picture on all their accounts from the same imageshack URL.
Not to mention that it's pretty hard to tell when people are actually violating a terms of service agreement when you base it only on the complaint-- hello, evidence, investigation anyone?
Interesting related story here, as well: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/03/0838213&threshold=-1 "DoJ mulls tracking picture uploads" - scuczu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8SA was cool before 2003
which is sadly when i registered....
*sigh - ProfessorBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Who wants to bet that all the Imageshack defenders are from the somethingawful forums? I don't see how imageshack or photos.cx can be defended in any way here. The example of craigslist spammers keeps being brought up, but that is looks to be nothing but a giant red herring being dragged across the trail since spamming had nothing to do with what happened here. I can't believe that people can defend the ip addresses being given out not just of the people who supposedly violated the TOS, but EVERYONE from SASS which is a total betrayal by imageshack and photos.cx. To top it off, the ip addresses were't given to anyone in any kind of official capacity, but were handed to a couple of yahoos who just wanted to try and stir up some internet drama. That's like Best Buy handing out credit card numbers to anyone who walks in off the street and asks for them.
- iheartsting, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Corbet
Which I guess is why Lowtax posted "Mark Pomerantz"'s personal information on Something Awful's FRONT PAGE?
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/hogosphere/internet-death-threat.php - msbabc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9At the end of the day, whilst I think your cavalier attitude towards both the security of your users' data and the integrity of your own service is abhorrent at best, if people continue to sign up to sites that require compliance to such worthless ToS, then they don't have a leg to stand on.
The issue of people putting fake photos up and things is really NONE of your business. You have absolutely no right to critique the eventual usage of your users' images unless they are unlawful and even in that case, you are not a law enforcement agent. You are not a judge or a jury. You do seem to be a bit of a prick though. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You want to see a TOS? Here's a TOS!
***** Your Copyrights
Yeah, we really don't care for those type of complaints. We don't own or operate the servers at which the files are uploaded. We only run an anonymous proxy chain that's linked into a few databases, and has FTP access to said servers. So I'll just go ahead and save you the trouble -- file a complaint about copyrights and we'll respond with a "***** you".
http://www.pirateshare.net/?page=tos - we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I feel like a lot of people here are missing the point.
The problem is not really legal or Terms of Service related. The problem is that the two image hosting services in question (imageshack.us and photos.cx) and in particular, the two people who OWN these services, took it upon themselves to give information that was supposedly private to someone who they did not know, had no reason to trust, and had no interest in. The person they gave information to merely contacted them and said "Hey, let's get these guys." and both decided to do so.
I'm pretty sure MORE than just two image hosting services are used on sass.buttes.org, and they very well may have also been contacted, but THEY REFUSED TO GIVE OUT THE PRIVATE INFORMATION. This is the issue here. You use a service with implied anonymity and the service, on a whim, gives out your information to anyone who asks?
The two services in question made a MORAL mistake by releasing the info. It has nothing to do with laws or terms of service. Frankly, the two owners of the services made a dick move and compromised their integrity just for a laugh. Do you want to use services like that? Free or not? If digg.com or slashdot.org or fark.com decided to give out YOUR information to someone (IP, email address, whatever info they may have) just because, "Well, we own the place, we can do what we want," would YOU be mad? - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7But it seems like this guy might have a reason.
Eric Bauman is just a douchebag. - we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What, exactly, was the "Special Circumstance" that made you give out the information in this instance?
- 2257tom02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Corbet
How was this Hocus person able to match IP addresses to SomethingAwful accounts unless there was collusion from SomethingAwful administrators? From what I've read it seems Lowtax (the site owner I think?) himself gave the IPs to Hocus. At least that's what Hocus claims.
I don't know about other incidences where this has occurred but I think once would be enough to be exceptionally leery of giving any personal information to that site (which I presume is necessary to register a paid account).
I'm still more appalled at the extent to which the owners of these seemingly more-legitimate sites (ImageShack and photos.cx) colluded with this Hocus person for no reason other than to "***** with" people who had presumed their private information would remain private. - we.are.devo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There was a clear violation of privacy here by two supposedly anonymous photo uploader/servers because even if SOME of these forums users violated the ToS of imageshack.us and photos.cx (copyright photos, porn, whatever, most any picture on the net is in violation) the lists of IPs tried to link EVERYONE on the site who had used imageshack or photos.cx. Imagine if someone released all the information they had on YOU because someone else on DIGG used imageshack to post some porn.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That Something Awful childishly banned Imageshack is what makes this whole debacle so amazing. Why would Macbeth try and defend SA?
- OpZingmao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't use SA or Imageshack so it looks like I'm set to say the least.
- 2257tom02, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14It doesn't surprise me at all that a site named SomethingAwful would play fast and loose with user privacy but I'm surprised ImageShack would stoop so low. I'll have to find another image hosting site now and I'll be sure to encourage my colleagues to do the same.
- DrJamesWoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4no, a dreamhost employee ***** with the site, and he got fired for it.
" DreamHost wrote:
Thank you for writing.
We have investigated this matter fully and have determined that it was
indeed [REDACTED], a fairly recent DreamHost hire, responsible for this
defacement.
We at DreamHost take such matters very seriously, and understand that our
reputation as a world-class web hosting company largely depends on the
conduct of our employees. Support personnel here at DreamHost are
entrusted with a great deal of power, and with that power comes trust - a
trust that was, unfortunately, violated by this action.
Effectively immediately [REDACTED] is no longer an employee of DreamHost Web
Hosting, and will no longer have administrative access to our web hosting
servers. While we have no reason to believe that he will take part in
further action against you (he took the termination fairly well), we do
recommend that you change all passwords associated with your account as a
precautionary measure.
We want to express our apologies to you, a long-time DreamHost customer,
for what happened. There is no excuse for what happened, and we are sorry
that it did. As a token of that apology, I have taken the liberty of
crediting your account the value of $119.40 (a year's worth of your
current L1 CDI web hosting plan). You may use it however you wish.
I hope that by these actions, your faith in DreamHost will be restored.
If you have any questions, please let us know." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So not only does Something Awful not allow imageshack anymore, but SASS too? Good job imageshack, you guys are going to fail very soon
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Cool, didn't know about that.
- HyperHacker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Can you explain why you claim that somethingawful is a steaming pile of *****?"
Have you been to the forums without being logged in? Last I checked there's an ad taking up about half the page saying "HEY REGISTER LOLZ", on every page. I make a point of not buying from people who try to annoy me into buying from them. - ProfessorBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How did SASS "go after you" exactly? By voicing their displeasure that you released ip addresses to some schmuck who asked for them? If you wanted to give them to SASS's ISP or something you might have a case, but giving ANY information about users (especially those who did nothing but view images) is 100% wrong no matter how you try and spin it, especially when you are just handing out the info to some clown who asked for it for no legitimate reason. Do you always give out info to anyone who asks? If that's the case send me all your banking/credit card info, I promise I won't use it.
- 2257tom02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course you have "every right" to do anything you want with the content of the data on your website. So does digg.com, so does livejournal.com, so does any site on the 'net. The reason that doesn't happen is because those sites don't want to lose business once it's known they're only too happy to hand out that information on a whim.
I, too, am curious what the "special circumstances" are that drove you to expose the IP addresses of every person who's ever been referred to your website via SASS. How do you explain that there are only about 2200 SASS users yet 4000+ IP addresses were posted? It seems to me you owe an explanation to at least 1800 people who did nothing more than look at a photo. How do you justify that? - iheartsting, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@stevemax
I don't know much clearer I can make this. ImageShack gave out IPs NOT ONLY of SASS posters who violated the ToS, but of ALL KNOWN SASS users who had used ImageShack, INCLUDING those who HAD NOT BREACHED THE ToS. - moore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Users may not be paying you but you're generating advertising revenue from them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is