Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference
5d 3h ago by piefed.social/u/fartington in technology from techcrunch.com
A hacker known as Martha Root broke in and deleted three white supremacist websites at the end of a talk during the annual hacker conference Chaos Communication Congress in Germany.
“Imagine calling yourselves the ‘master race’ but forgetting to secure your own website — maybe try mastering to host WordPress before world domination,” Root wrote.
Fucking gold.
The last 3 years of "White Supremacy" has me questioning the narrative on White Competency.
It's okay, you can say it: White Inferiority. We have NOT been sending our best. For a handful of centuries or so.
I love this. I love it so much. I have to defend my employers shit every day, and they don't give a fuck.
“They publicly delete all my websites while the audience rejoices. This is cyberterrorism,” the administrator wrote on X
Lmao mald harder
The terrorist suddenly pays the victim when their terrorist site is taken down.
The number one skill of every nazi and fashit is pretending to be victims
It is always morally acceptable to punch a Nazi. No exceptions.
I'd say it's a moral responsibility to punch a Nazi.
I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn't matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn't be a crime.
I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.
I call it self-defense, honestly.
Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can't in good conscious call it something it isn't. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it's ok despite it being bad. It's justice vs righteousness, it's lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it's against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that's dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.
At it's core this person probably committed a crime, but people don't care because it's against a bad ideologue. It's like if we said it's ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it's against.
At some point the scales will not balance well and you need to be ok with that. There is no paradox of intolerance, for example, because tolerance is itself part of a social contract that bigots broke all on their own and once that’s out the window they do not get to reap the benefits of it. Social contracts aren’t easy math but they do make sense.
This isn’t blowing up a furry website because someone thinks that’s weird. White supremacy is an incredibly dangerous ideology that has no place in whatever better society we claim to be aiming for. No one killed them for it, either. White supremacy built a website and a better person removed that website the same way one might paint over a swastika but leave the nice mural.
I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can't agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can't bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can't unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.
This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.
It's a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.
Look, I am aware of the dangers of vigilantism but I’m struggling to see why you’re so dead-set on this. There is basically no movement from those in power to actually curb these people and that’s where I start to care a whole lot less. Yes it’s still important to consider somewhere in there but hey, if the German government wasn’t doing anything about it then I guess that means they’ve passed on the opportunity.
I'm not certain on much, but what I do know is that I believe in law. I like rules and I like order. Even more so I want rules and order to apply universally. You are arguing on the side of chaos against others with the privilege of law to protect you. That's all well and good until those same standards are applied against you.
You seem be be operating under the assumption that laws themselves will always be just and equal.
Laws are supposed to be just and equal, it is a common mistake in believing that they should be equitable or that they will be implemented justly or equally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
Sending a link with no additional context doesn't make a point. What are you trying to say with this?
What do you think laws are? Even in the best of societies they are based on that specific society’s idea of morality. They are still important and they definitely should apply universally, but when they cease to function they lose their worth. That website needed to be taken down, and not getting removed by the government left a citizen to need to bring that balance back.
You might not enjoy what it looks like, but if you truly seek balance then it’s what you’re asking for.
It's a slippery slope
Slippery slope is literally a logical fallacy. You are not making a logically sound argument.
You're right, using a slippery slope argument is a type of logical fallacy, but for it to be a logical fallacy it has to preclude a result and also be implausible in it's steps.
My argument was did not preclude a result and was more a statement of fundamental change in the nature of law. If you change the application of laws from a definite system (the law applies to everyone) to a spectrum (the law applies to some people) then you are now on a slippery slope where as before you were not. As to the plausibility of the argument, we are literally seeing this effect in real time with Trump. Laws switched from being definite to being suggestions and now no one is truly certain what laws do apply and to who.
I can easily call it self defence. These people preach hate and would gladly see us dead if they were the majority. Ensuring they lack the ability to do so is defence.
As for the legality, fuck that. Direct action is always the way to go.
Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You're basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.
I don’t care about legal frameworks, I’m a human not a nationstate.
We live in a society where laws are made without our input or consent and are enforced on us by those who gave themselves a monopoly on violence.
Those same rules are frequently used against us to oppress us, historically taking loss of lives and illegal action to see any change in them. I do not value or respect such a system and I advocate for its destruction so that we can build better human systems based on consent and mutualism.
Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You're commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn't matter until you change that very framework.
If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.
And I have no problem breaking them when I see fit. I'm also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit. You are commenting like a Liberal, blindly following the letter of the law as the planet is legally killed for a profit.
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit.
Functionally there is no difference
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
So, as long as you believe it's ethical then it's okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
Functionally there is no difference
There is so much difference. You are clearly ignorant on the subject matter if you're making such a claim. The most striking difference is that SovCits are individualists.
So, as long as you believe it’s ethical then it’s okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
That's literally the risk we all face.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn't exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
No it's not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Look, I'm against putting people in concentration camps but this isn't the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren't committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn't right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don't go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you're an American or famous. Likewise you don't go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it's ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you're truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn't want to wear veils, so it's ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
That argument is ridiculous as well.
I think this is an extension of the paradox of intolerance. Laws are never absolute, and when one side has no respect for laws and enforces only what is advantageous for them this kind of action absolutely should count as self defence. We should fully support taking away the anonymity and feeling of immunity from those who abuse the law.
It's kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can't put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime.
Indeed I would. But that’s because it would be someone trying to silence a group and promote intolerance. The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can't put them on a spectrum.
Sure
ere is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
And therin lies the problem. The democrats may indeed investigate and prosecute their own, see Al Franken…..but the other side has no intention of doing the same. So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
That's not the same and it's not even the argument lol. My argument was that you're tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn't a crime.
So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn't working we should abandon those laws.
I'll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.
I'll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions
That is exactly what is necessary, to snuff out intolerant voices as the one thing the tolerant must do. Opposing opinions is what they claim to be, but the intolerant hate spewers isn’t about opposing opinions at all, it’s rather “you are not entitled to your opinion”. It’s a false equivalency that allows intolerant to gain an advantage because they do not play by the same rules or definitions. The whole moving goalposts strategy for instance.
Then the outcome of that decision is inevitably war, except all of the worlds largest militaries are controlled by the intolerant countries.
You talk like a chat bot. Stop defending nazis. You're not defending the rule of law or any of that, you're just defending nazis. Don't do that. Supremacist ideology is incompatible with society as they expressly intend to destroy that society. It is always correct and right morally and ethically to remove anti-social ideologies. Legality is irrelevant.
This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don't drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can't fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren't entitled to those same rights.
Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn't have anything to do with what you just said. We're having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren't intrinsic characteristics and thus can't have or be denied rights, so it's weird to make that connotation unless you just don't understand what I'm saying.
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren't is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I'm not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I'm saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that's literally denying rights.
It isn't a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don't like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You're operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that's flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You're entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.
You're still not getting it.
You're talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren't anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn't fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
It's quite the opposite, I'm declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.
Paradox of tolerance. It's absolutely self defense at the society level.
Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to influence a nation's policy. This is not it.
I agreed with another comment that this is probably not cyber terrorism, because definitions of cyber terrorism indicate a wide spread impact on people while this only impacts a relatively small group. Your definition isn't quite right either as one potential goal for cyber terrorism is to cause disruption or fear. Terrorism as a general term may be politically motivated but it doesn't have to have the goal of influencing policy directly. Technically revenge can be a goal of terrorism.
Technically illegal, yes, but it has nothing to do with "terrorism" though.
You're probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.
It would also have to cause terror. The people using these websites live in such an abject state of terror about their own inferiority that this probably had no measurable effect anyway.
I think you have sense on your side there about outlawry. It existed as the photo negative of the golden rule, and it's a great way to make an example of people who break the social contract.
That admin can get fucked up the ass with shit-covered rusty barbed wire. They chose to be a shitwad, and someone chose to wipe them.
Sounds rad actually
[WhiteDate had] A gender ratio that makes the Smurf village look like a feminist utopia
Lol. I like this Martha Root, I wish her many more happy hacking years.
Did they get it wrong? Like Grindr being suddenly popular wherever the Republicans have a convention, maybe the ratio is far better for partner-seekers than it looks on the surface.
I looked through the data and less than 1% was looking for a same-sex partner
based af and morally acceptable use of AI.
Red Power Ranger: Red Power!
Blue Power Ranger: Blue Power!
White Power Ranger: Ahh no, fuck this shit... And who deleted my website?
Power Falcons!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOyE_l80D4Y
Ok first of all, I don’t like how you’re saying Black Falcon!
In the early 90s, my grandfather assured me that he fought and killed nazis, so that my generation would never have to deal with them.
He didn't say he cancelled the nazis. The word he used was "Exterminated".
Maybe we should all do that again. Exterminate the nazis. Because quite frankly, this government is lousey with them.
Nazis weren't exterminated, the US government hired quite a few (and that's not counting the ones who went on vacation to Brazil in 1945)
Maybe we should do it right this time.
The biggest sin of the American government was failing to hang every single confederate sympathizer. The problems only cascade from there.
This is where I am at where MAGA is concerned. It would be a crimson lining to a 2nd American Civil War, where I and others can free our society of Nazi kindred for good. IMO, the 1% of America are very likely to sympathize with the Confederates, because they believe that slavery of the poors is the natural state of things.
The problem is how do you find them all? You never will since some of them are smart enough not to advertise how vile they are. And as long as a few of them still exist they'll multiply and spread their shitty philosophy.
That metric can said of just about anything regarding beliefs. The important thing is reducing the number of MAGA to levels where their beliefs can't really propagate anymore. The keys to that lies in eliminating the 1% as a class, by reducing wealth gaps and maintaining them at lower levels as an institution. This would require huge reforms, along the lines of the Magna Carta and the American Constitution, but for economics.
The 1% wield immense political power, because they hoard dynastic wealth and influence and can use it as a club against society. That is why they are the lynchpin of conservative projects, and so they must be removed as a factor, if a better society is to be fostered.
You don't need to kill every wolf to protest the village, you just need to kill enough that the wolf learns the village is a death sentence. The smart one's will always still be in the woods and when one slips they'll remind the rest why they hide there.
Should have let Sherman finish the job.
Not to mention that the Germans themselves took a few years out, and then put a lot of the Nazi political machine back in charge.
Does anyone remember when Kurt Waldheim, UN Secretary General for 9 years and President of Austria for 6, turned out to be a former nazi? Whoops ie!
You're right, but bad example. Maybe when talking about Germans, use an actual German example? There are more than enough, Kurt Georg Kiesinger for instance.
You can exterminate an area, and not get all in the world.
Yes you can, but that still didn't happen. If you think there weren't any Nazis left in Germany (or even weren't in government after the fact), I've got some lovely ocean front property in Austria to sell you.
Ok, they used the wrong word. Probably should have said execute.
Well, you can't "exterminate" a movement, idea, or people. You can only make it boring or not worthy of attention
We should just never stop shaming for it. Someone wearing a swastika on the bus should be booed until their stop. It could bring the rest of us together, even.
That said, I think it might all be a distraction from society’s real enemies: the oligarchs.
Finally, someone who understands that you have to disrupt the infrastructure for Nazis. It's like the Ram Ranch Resistance. People have to disrupt Nazis and their gatherings.
Fixed the link for you 🙂
Don't roll with pigs it'll only get you both dirty
Hey I'm just updating here. I said this sarcastically guys. You're not suppose to upvote this. It's a shameful cowardly wimpiest comment anyone could ever write. You're a huge POS if you ever wrote this honestly. Roll with pigs, fuck them up. Especially if they're nazis. You don't turn a blind eye just because your delicate sensibilities are offended or because you think you're just to important to bother. Don't leave it to other people to handle. You handle it. Put your fucking big boy/girl pants on and stop running away from these problems. Stop giving digital spaces to nazis.
Root also published the data allegedly scraped from WhiteDate online.
The hacker said that they scraped WhiteDate’s public data and found “poor cybersecurity hygiene that would make even your grandma’s AOL account blush.” Root said that users’ images included precise geolocation metadata that “practically hands out home addresses with a side of awkward selfies.”
“Imagine calling yourselves the ‘master race’ but forgetting to secure your own website — maybe try mastering to host WordPress before world domination,” Root wrote.
I'm going to say you shouldn't be shocked that people like this aren't the most insightful or analytical minds.
Or that the site owners aren't just two bit grifters
They literally just typed whitedate.net/download-all-users/ into the browser and the website willingly gave them a button to download all users.
i heard someone looked at thier profiles, something tells me they are all mcpoyles.
Based
What a fucking savage
I'm thoroughly confused about WhiteDeal.
A service where one contracts other white supremacists to do menial ad hoc jobs for a cost under the market price just seems so very antithetical to the whole "supremacy" thing.
I think it makes some sense. To be a white supremacist, you have to not think too hard. To be a libertarian and against minimum wage, you have to not think too hard.
This is part of our problem as a country. Everyone has to fit into a box. I am a Libertarian, but I also believe in a universal basic income along with a minimum wage. I believe that a fiscally responsible government can and should provide basic services to its constituency.
haha. then you're not a libertarian.
Yeah ... I know someone else already said this but you're absolutely not a Libertarian. So, good news, you can throw that box out and realign your language.
Also, I get that it's a talking point but I think everyone believes in a fiscally responsible government. It's just some weird right wing double think trick people say to imply the other side does not want that when in reality the Dems (if we're framing this through an American lens) want fiscal responsibility just as much as any other party or persons.
You don't know anything about me other than the fact that I support two social programs. Who are you to say who or what I am?
Yes, those programs are absolutely not something that the Libertarian party would ever endorse. That doesn't mean I don't have the same belief in smaller government, states rights, and fiscal responsibility. I belong to the Libertarian party, that doesn't mean I have to BE the Libertarian party.
Ok ... So you're mad I said you're not a Libertarian and now you're just explaining how you're not a Libertarian?
Truthfully, it really doesn't matter what you think of me or my views. My whole point is that the lines between parties is not nearly as cut and dry as people seem to believe.
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they aren't a Republican. If they believe in universal healthcare, it doesn't make them a Democrat.
Thanks for the conversation.
While it is possible to self-identify as a libertarian and hold those beliefs, you have to understand that it disagrees with the general concepts of libertarianism as understood by other people.
To put it another way, you sound a little bit like a vegan eating tuna.
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to agree with every single guiding principle of a party to be a part of it. Most of the country isn't on the left or the right.
Most of us are in the middle and only vote for one party or another out of FUD. I am done with that shit. I vote for the person I think is best for the job.
If it's not one of the two major parties, then your vote supports the person you hate most.
You can hate the system all you like, but this is just math.
And that, my friend is the problem.. It's like trying to choose between windows and Mac os.. Sometimes the best thing you can do is install Linux.
That's not the analogy. The proper analogy is that you insert the Linux install disk, and someone else chooses if it installs Windows or Mac. There is no way for Linux to be installed. To get Linux, you need to change the system first.
They get paid in sense of entitlement too.
That kind of cognitive dissonance is what leads some people to give up ideologies like white supremacy. The endless rationalizing of hypocrisy is fucking exhausting. It's a lot easier to just accept people as they are than build a whole framework around hating groups of people that allows for like, your neighbor, or an actor, or an athlete, to be okay because "well they're different than the rest." Or whatever bullshit excuse.
All while wearing a Mighty Morphin' Pink Ranger costume - people DON'T call her a Power Ranger for nothing
wearing a white power ranger outfit would have been too ironic
Shoulda gone with the black ranger outfit.
Good. 🙂
Why Zordon look like Buzz McAllister in this photo tho?
I went to look up images of zordon and wow he did look like this
I legit had to look up whether or not it was the same actor. This is one of those things that, in the pre-internet days, you could say and people would just have to believe you. Like that legend that Marilyn Manson was Paul from The Wonder Years.
TechCrunch also sent an email to an address that appears on the public domain records of two of the three websites. The person behind that address also did not immediately respond to our email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szdz_R-LKNY
Link to the Talk. Name is "39C3 - The Heartbreak Machine: Nazis in the Echo Chamber"
The Talk is in german but youtubes subtitles are pretty good
No need to use YouTube. Their own website has the whole talk dubbed into English, among other language options.
https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-the-heartbreak-machine-nazis-in-the-echo-chamber
How do you dub it?
The gearwheel on the bottom right has options for language and resolution.
ai probably
Real people, live!
Nope
God damn lemmings are exhausting
People are exhausting. The key is to just take a step back when answering every question gets to be too much. There are just so many of us that these kind of questions popping up is just a numbers game. Unless you are heavily invested, it's fine to let someone else get it.
?
🤷
You do know that it can be automated though, right? If you have full control of someone's infrastructure, the quickest way to delete all of it is through a script.
To address your first edit, yes, it's a script, and yes, it did delete the site and the backups, as confirmed by the site creator. You can browse the data extracted on https://okstupid.lol/
This wasn't "just a fun script". The site, backups, and infrastructure were actually deleted.
Did you read the article, like at all? It would have told you the same thing:
As of this writing, WhiteDate, which Hoffmann described as a “Tinder for Nazis”; WhiteChild, a site that claimed to match white supremacists’ sperm and egg donors; and WhiteDeal, a sort-of Taskrabbit-esque labor marketplace for racists, are all offline.
The administrator of the three websites confirmed the hack on their social media accounts.
“They publicly delete all my websites while the audience rejoices. This is cyberterrorism,” the administrator wrote on X on Sunday, vowing repercussions.
The administrator also claimed that Root deleted their X account before it was restored.
Dubs are for scrubs.
Official dubs over ai subs.
Armenian Iguana
Tell that to the Hellsing, Ghost Stories,vand Black Lagoon dubs profligate. Though all jokes aside dub vs sub really comes down to the quality of the dub.
I watched black lagoon on sub. What was the draw? Am I missing the joke and it was terrible?
Black lagoon legit just has a really good dub, same with Hellsing both the original anime and OVA. No the joke is ghost stories which is sitting somewhere alongside Dragon Ball Abridged and Warhammer 40k TTS in its shitpost nature.
I never considered the abridged as actual dubs, just satire. That puts sword art abridged as my favorite.
No no no you misunderstood, the Ghost Stories dub is official. It is an official dub that is on the same tier of shitpost as DBZA or SAO abridged.
I understand now. Yeah, I have always meant to watch Ghost Stories, but I usually sing l don't take time to watch older stuff. I'm currently rewatching GITS SAC S2 and can't stop any time soon.
Praise be
Go Go Power Rangers!
Pink Power Ranger!
Red Power Ranger!
Blue Power Ranger!
Yellow Power Ranger!
Black Power Ranger!
uh...
Ivory...? Power Ranger!
Green/White Ranger!!
how and why did I start reading xitler messages 
infosec is full of jews
lol if he thinks the jews have infiltrated wait till he finds out how deep the gay atheist conspiracy goes
gaytheist*
I love that band!
Hoffmann and Fuchs are just common German names and are no indicator for being jewish. But yes, it obviously has to be the jews fault.
They were having a "conversation" and all of a sudden the Jews showed up? What?! Lol fuckin Nazis
Insider info: the worst jews, the jewiest of them, are hiding in your local AI datacenters
But they're invisible, so don't waste your time looking for them.
The files are in the computer?
"Which is funny cause the computer is the devil" -Big D
If you're not on Twitter, no clue.
If you're on Twitter, what the actual fuck
Reggie: Are they going to hack them to?
Would it bother you if you Nazis are being singled out?
Amnesiac: They hate us cause they ain’t us.
No, jack, we hate you because you’re Nazis.
"Info sec is full of Jews"
What the hell does this even mean?
Oh, it gets way worse in those comments
I need more hackers doing this. Great work.
Pretty ballsy taking down trump's twitter account.
this talk was really cool. i remember her talking about this on mastodon sometime ago. glad she's ok
Get fucked Nazi scum.
I hope some well intentioned vigilantes use this information to make America a better place.
Or in this case, they don't get fucked. It is a dating site after all.
A dying breed
An extinction that I can get behind.
I'd be very nervous: Did I place enough try/catch blocks in my lol.py?
Are all the passwords correct before I run it on stage?
Is this endpoint to delete an email correctly spelled out?
Does the WiFi of the conference allow connecting to these domains?
So many things could go wrong.
bah, you just run the script that shows an unconditional [x] done. you can check the details later!
That's basically what I thought when I saw this - there's no way anything is happening that quickly, this is just outputting "done!" over and over.
That's fucking metal.
the title of the post and the thumbnail are bringing me a lot of joy right now
🤘😂🤘 Too much rock for one hand! Kick their asses and delete their shit, Martha! Fuck yeah!
I so dearly wish I had these kinds of skills!
Skills aren't magic, the idea of innate skills is a capitalist lie, you can learn them, if you're willing
True, anyone can do anything, but try doing that while having a family and having to pay bills when living paycheck to paycheck. You gotta know when to join in and when to cheer.
I too wanted those skills, however, I have crippling ADHD. It's not as easy for everyone
I am a self taught SWE with self diagnosed ADHD (not a clinical diagnosis) currently working as a senior engineer. You have to have intense passion and learn how to live with ADHD. It’s totally doable.
Just use your hyperfocus superpowers
/s
I wish it was easy to bottle. Some rare days I'm fucking on it and everything is easy and I've got unlimited willpower.
If i could save those days for when its useful and appropriate...
It's still possible, just you need to figure out a prerequisite skill first of healthy management of other issues
Heck, a lot of hackers have exactly the same thing.
Honestly, I think STEM attracts ADHD, AuDHD and similar, so that's far far far less of an issue than you might think
The Pink Ranger was always my favourite 😏
(Kimberly, not Cat!)
Amy Jo for life ✊
doing it in power rangers style lol
The genius of launching an attack of this scale from an address space that is already jam-packed full of hackers, should not be understated. Id say that, if not for doing it live on stage, law enforcement now has a giant haystack of needles to sift through.
Talk link?
Edit: here it is
I love this.
Also love this comments section.
Hope they dumped their shit on the dark web
No, they didn’t dump it on the dark web. They‘ve dumped it on the regular web instead: https://okstupid.lol/
Imagine calling yourselves the "master race" but forgetting to secure your own website—maybe try mastering to host Wordpress before world domination.
Oof
A gender ratio that makes the Smurf village look like a feminist utopia
I cackled
Even better, thanks.
1:5 gender ratio. Perfect for incels.
Don't just stop at 3, there are so many more shitheads still out there.
what a chad
Now we need a website that we can add to that doxxes them that we can browse like a Nazi Facebook site, but frozen in time.
c/madlads
How have they done it again?
I'm very glad my Mom, my older sibling Jeb and I DON'T visit those horrible websites (and NEVER will)
Sadly those sites are still up.
I mean, backups exist.
But she deleted the backup.
Not that I’m against but isn’t this illegal? Probably shouldn’t showcase it publicly
Yeah she probably should have worn a mask and used a baller pseudonym like "Root"
*Martha Root
Babe Root
Yes, it's illegal, the law absolutely would defend nazis, which is why it does not deserve our respect. Anyone who publicly breaks the law to do a good thing is a hero and deserves our respect.
Are we just completely forgetting that backups exist? Nearly every ISP does nightly backups. So yeah, it can be taken offline for a couple of hours, but that doesn't stop their movement.
You can still punch a Nazi even if they'll just heal up later
When I last checked the sites were still down and the terminal also showed "Deleting Backups" in the end. Also they deleted tons of mail accounts, hosting accounts etc. Even if they manage to come back, this was a huge disruption. And they downloaded most of the data and share it with journalists, so there is even another impact.
While I agree with the sentiment, the video showing them running lol.py did not convince me whatsoever of actual hacking.
The owner confirmed that they did it.
The site owner?
Yes, it's in the article and mentioned in the comments here.
Glad to hear it was legit, fuck dem white power cunts.
When I saw the lol.py script video it seemed like something I'd see on a bad Mr Robot knockoff.
You can literally visit the websites, and the front page is up, every other page is a 404
It's really real.
Cool, but I think this is exceptionally stupid. There will be cameras, Id badges, emails, all with an easy to get warrant. I guess DE might make it more difficult but I think dumb none the less.
Personally I admire someone who is prepared to publicly take some personal risk in order to fight white supremacists.
This is an event that takes privacy very seriously, where it's not uncommon for speakers to present evidence of crimes, and where a large antifa-flag hangs over the entrance. I think they'll be fine.
The other two on stage where journalists, and while I'm not familiar with German law, that likely limits the police's ability to try to get to Root through them.
If reasonable precations were taken, there will not be any evidence directly tying the person on stage to the crime, and even if there was, them being in costume leaves a lot of room for reasonable doubt about who it actually was.
I had the exact same thoughts when I first started seeing this story pop up on my news feeds. Like, this person will see the inside of a prison cell for this, especially given the type of content hosted and the current make-up of the Justice Dept. What they did was, quite literally, cyber-terrorism. Hope it was worth it, I guess, given that these sites are all back online now like it never happened.
Depends. This happened at a German conference and I assume that this person is most likely German as well. Probably shouldn't think about getting anywhere close to the US though.
There's still the possibility of facing prosecution in Germany. Not sure how probable that is though.
Are you sure theyre back up? The article says otherwise.
That data might be easily accessible, but that was a choice Root made. I think that it is a safe assumption that Root knew most vigilantes keep their identity secret and, assuming a German background, had read Section 202 of the StGB and other relevant laws and court rulings. As such, Root most likely did this despite knowing their identity is at risk. It is likely they did this publicly specifically to inspire others, though I haven't looked at all the details and there might be a different reason.
Nothing in this comment constitutes legal advice.
I will call it censorship, how we know who is nazi whiteout allowing them express themselves ? Let them speak so we can know !
Free speech absolutism is bullshit. It only empowers bigots.
I want to know all the bigots !
The irony of tolerating intolerant people to exist openly is that it actually erodes tolerance overall
yesssss !!! bring all the evil from people so we can name them !!!!
This implies they could have done it earlier....
Sometimes the theatrics of shutting down a nazi site is just as important as the actual shutting down of a nazi site.
Punching a nazi in the crowded streets so much better than in the alley. Tell them we don't want them here, period.
"This is cyberterrorism." Letting those sites do their thing without cracking down on them... I agree.
My guess is they started the site in the first place.
Well that's a really stupid guess
Well that's why you're an idiot