School Quits Video Calls After Naked Man 'Guessed' the Meeting Link (techcrunch.com) 143
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A school in Norway has stopped using popular video conferencing service Whereby after a naked man apparently "guessed" the link to a video lesson. According to Norwegian state broadcaster NRK, the man exposed himself in front of several young children over the video call. The theory, according to the report, is that the man guessed the meeting ID and joined the video call. One expert quoted in the story said some are "looking" for links. Last year security researchers told TechCrunch that malicious users could access and listen in to Zoom and Webex video meetings by cycling through different permutations of meeting IDs in bulk. The researchers said the flaw worked because many meetings were not protected by a passcode.
Anthony Weiner? (Score:4, Funny)
No, I did not make that up (Score:2)
To be fair, it could have also been his alter-ego, Carlos Danger.
Broader logistics problem (Score:1)
If a student, being at home and maybe not thinking about it, joins the video session underdressed, does the teacher need to immediately end the lesson, or be in receipt of CP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Most"...
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately, this is only several tens of thousands of pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always somewhat subjective, and when children are involved, subjective can be pushed a long, long way to wards 'burn the nonce.' People do love that rush of moral rightousness that comes from punishing another.
Re: (Score:2)
In most places, yes. However, in the U.S. teens sending nude selfies have themselves been charged with making and distributing child pornography.
Naked man likely /. user (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. It's most likely that guy.
You know the one.
If the ID is all that's needed ... (Score:2)
You're complete morons.
Like when you had access to other Citibank accounts, by logging into your own, and then changing the account number in the URL.
Re: (Score:2)
Like when you had access to other Citibank accounts
No you ignorant twat, accessing other people's bank accounts is nothing at all like joining other people's conference calls.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the context of the call, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, because the facility exists to password protect the conference call. The ignorant twat literally compared a critical bug that allowed access to other's bank accounts, to someone guessing something that someone else specifically decided should be publicly accessible to anyone knowing where it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Wrong.
"But Your Honor, the door wasn't even locked! How can it be theft?! The cash wasn't even glued to the table!"
If time-sensitive, private financial information is being shared in the call, things like account numbers, or transactions that will affect publicly traded stocks, and you join the call using some sort of hacking tactic like guessing the ID number, you could not only go to jail, depending on the actual context you could even be robbing the bank by doing it.
The act has criminal intent, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that shit really happened? How fucking stupid can you be to not tie the session to the account?
Re: (Score:2)
Bank of America was equally stupid at the time, allowing SSN/SSN as both username and password, something the parents knew about their kids, plus they had the mother's maiden name.
Sounds like faulty software, not a faulty concept (Score:2)
Any conferencing software worth its weight in electrons would allow the moderator (in this case teacher) to limit the interactions between the participants and what was shown to the conferencing session as a whole by said participants. I would think the default setup for educators would be that the teacher would be able to see questions/video/screens from the students but the students wouldn't be able to interact with each other unless specifically granted that permission by the teacher. That way, at most
Re: (Score:3)
Any conferencing software worth its weight in electrons would allow the moderator (in this case teacher) to limit the interactions
Yes, but the security of these applications tends to be very poor and I blame them. I believe if these video programs even has encryption I think one needs to pay for it. I would no e surprised if the passwords are all plain text.
With that said, most teachers know little about tech details, for them it is 'click' and hope it works, never mind knowing how to block or limit interactions other than saying "shut-up". This was rolled out so fast that I am sure there was no training and they are pretty much on
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways the summary says they're going to stop using this particular service, not videoconferencing overall, which is sane.
Re: (Score:2)
What do encryption, passwords and even knowledge of the software have to do with it? Again if properly designed the moderator would have to specifically grant permissions to participants, if the teacher didn't know how to use the software it would be by default safe for the participants (children) as they would only see what the moderator (teacher) was displaying. A malicious party would have to gain control of the moderators computer specifically (a lot more difficult than guessing a meeting number) in o
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, totally software fault. These things can be mitigated*. Use a GUID. Easy to make, the "guess" defense goes out the window. I think clients that have teleconf setup can click a link. Use a "lobby" that the moderator allows folks in from. Log the IPs of all connections. Go send a good citation for the idiot who was being a jack ass.
This isnt' news. It should just be a reddit post under "People that don't understand the interwebs".
* = We can't do anything about dumbass moderators who allow anyone
Well, nobody expected to have to do this (Score:2)
There just aren't that many out-of-the-box choices here, so it's not surprising that the software isn't exactly well-made. I suspect Zoo
Re: (Score:2)
Any conferencing software worth its weight in electrons would allow the moderator (in this case teacher)
Teachers are on the whole incapable of using technology.
Source: I know many teachers.
Seems like a pretty regressive policy? (Score:2, Troll)
I mean, the Scandinavians have been telling the rest of us prudes for years about how nudity is completely natural, nobody should be ashamed of it, etc.
So I fail to see how turning school videoconferencing sessions into chatroulette is anything but educational.
Not proper response (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in my day; in a large city elementary school, we had a flasher come to the playground and flash us 4-5th grade children at the edge of the property. We nearly all responded by pointing and laughing; the man ran off vastly more damaged than us kids who didn't get any attention (cops picked him up not too far away... he was likely a mental case.) We also had sex ed around 11 years old (without warning the stupid parents so they could opt out... 1 upset father turned out to be abusing his daughter.)
The proper response is to point, laugh, and ridicule the sick fuck, then kick him off the meeting. People freak out because parents do not rationally especially the incompetent parents who are itching to shove blame onto EVERYBODY else. But it should be clear to a thinking adult, to NOT give the mental case what they are seeking. You should inform authorities; although, in the USA they can't do shit to cure these mental cases acting out... if anything they push them in the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper response is to point, laugh, and ridicule the sick fuck, then kick him off the meeting.
No, the proper response is to hunt him down and get rid of him so we don't have to deal with his idiocy in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the proper response is to hunt him down and get rid of him so we don't have to deal with his idiocy in the future.
I try to fix that for you:
No, the proper response is to hunt you down and get rid of YOU! so we don't have to deal with anti social assholes like you in the future.
WTF? He posed naked in front of some kids. And you want to hunt him down? You rant implies you want to kill him. What the relation to his "crime" there? Are you an complete idiot or were just drunk when you typed this?
Take it: I h
Biology starts early today (Score:5, Insightful)
"And here kids, we see the effects of too much masturbation, it leaves you with a really small dick"
That should take care of others trying the same...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I obviously don't know how much this guy jacked off, but as we can clearly see here, it was too much. Good sir, could you tell the class the frequency of your efforts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you haven't had to hold your hand over your children's eyes as a streaker runs through a HS football game near graduation ...
So I assume your kids never saw you naked
Actually I never had to do that, and if a naked man would run over the football field I doubt any parent (here) had the urge to hold his hands in front of the eyes of a kid. Most would probably pull out their mobile to film it. And the kids, too.
Firewall for the schools... (Score:2)
These web video chat services should know where kid users are, and give them access to their school without letting any other IP address in. It takes just a simple firewall to give 10 users access to the virtual replacement for the classroom, and keep intruders out.
Well, wasn't me! (Score:2)
And I can assure you: they had not kicked my Adonis body from the screen :P
Re:When did the Scandis go prude? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that was a thing reserved for tribal backwaters, like Afghanistan and the US.
There's a difference between not being fazed by a topless beach or nudity in a sauna or during adult TV, and someone thrusting their tumescence at the camera in a virtual classroom for kids.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that was a thing reserved for tribal backwaters, like Afghanistan and the US.
There's a difference between not being fazed by a topless beach or nudity in a sauna or during adult TV, and someone thrusting their tumescence at the camera in a virtual classroom for kids.
Americans can't even catch a glimpse of of Janet Jackson's nipple without begin psychologically scarred for life after which they'd probably embark on a moral Crusade. As for the Afghans, they'd probably issue a fatwah at the sight of a woman's nipple and call for a moral Jihad. In other words, not much difference there.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick, but you don't know the meaning of the term fatwah. It just means a "non-binding legal opinion". Things like Bin Laden "issuing fatwahs" have zero legal standing (and anyway, fatwahs aren't binding: they're just statements of legal opinion), because Bin Laden isn't a jurist under islamic law. It's like you standing on the corner "issuing supreme court judgements".
Re:When did the Scandis go prude? (Score:5, Informative)
To give some idea of the scope, fatwahs can be about anything. In fact
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a group of Middle Eastern Islamic scholars issued a fatwa permitting Muslims serving in the U.S. army to participate in military action against Muslim countries, in response to a query from a U.S. Army Muslim chaplain. ...
Modern fatwas also deal with a wide variety of other topics, including insurance, sex-change operations, moon exploration, beer drinking, abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities, or males and females sharing workplaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In one country they kill you, in the other country the company broadcasting gets a fine, and you find it harder to get on TV for a few years.
Yeah, pretty much the same?
For the record, I wasn't scarred.
Re: (Score:2)
The really sad thing about "nipplegate" is that for all the controversy, wailing and rending of garments, there wasn't actually anything to see but a brief blur. That's why in spite of millions of hormone overloaded teens (and a fair number of adults who won't admit it) combing over recordings frame by frame, the internet wasn't brought to it's knees with screenshots.
Re: (Score:2)
And what you did see was traumatizing! Did you see that piece of hardware poked all the way through the nipple like a diaper pin?
Re: (Score:2)
I saw nothing. Didn't care, don't see why it was blown into such a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, at the time when that happened she was not in her best shape either.
Re: (Score:2)
If the link was guessed, he may have had no idea who he would be interrupting and only entered a school class by luck. But then, if he had interrupted and waved his naked body at adults, it might not have been reported widely enough for slashdot to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
If the link was guessed, he may have had no idea who he would be interrupting and only entered a school class by luck.
Or he may have been trying repeatedly until he got a classroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, only a complete dolt wouldn't consider the possibility and even if his intent was to bust in on a business meeting or adults chatting about the weather it still doesn't exactly nominate him as person of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, smart boy, I'll bite, tell us what is the difference between looking at various uncovered body parts such that the Europeans magically choose the sensical sweet-spot and Americans are always wrong?
in my experience (me talking about my experience does not let you off the hook for answering that question) it's not that Europeans are unfazed by nudity, it's just that they're horndogs who prefer more continuous titillation. When any European tries their typical bragging about how advanced and unfazed they a
Re:Here's a though... (Score:5, Informative)
It's generally not gays or liberals who are "offended" at nudity. That's usually the domain of the Christian Right and conservative snowflakes.
You know, the ones with "family values" who cheat on their wives with girlfriends, hookers, and pool-boys. Jerry Falwell Jr comes to mind. Or Rudy Giuliani. Or Newt Gingrich. Or Robert Packwood, Ken Calvert, Henry Hyde, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Blake Farenthold, Dennis Hastert, etc etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah,
but it is "typical american" that people:
a) notice that
b) the press writes about it
c) you remember their names
d) and that it is looked down on it (it is only looked down on being caught?)
Here in Europe such topics are "tabu", only the yellow press tries to make scandals about "normal human behaviour".
And I most certainly don't remember any politician who was caught: because I don't care.
The only thing I understand is "Christian High Moral" advocates proclaiming things they don't live with their selves
Re:Here's a though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should turn atheist. Then they have no accountability at all.
Wrong.
Most atheists recognize that they have accountability to everyone, including ourselves. We don't fob it off on a magic sky daddy.
The thing is, how can a third party forgive you or I for harm we've done to someone else?
If I harm you, only you can forgive me. My neighbor or boss or barber can't "forgive" me for what I've done. How would that even work?
Say I steal your car. Can my barber forgive me for that? No, only you, the injured party can.
And therein lies the difference- theists have that get out of jail free card by pretending that their imaginary friend can forgive them for the things they've done to others. Atheists (most of them) realize that we're the ones who have to make amends for our actions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even the genuine theists who are the problem. The ones who actually believe it also believe that they must be genuinely penitent. Just saying the words won't do it.
It's the fake theists who are the real problem.
At least part of the idea that one can be forgiven by deity and by extension, the community is that there's always that asshole who thinks your basketball landing harmlessly in their yard 30 years ago was unforgivable. As there is an obligation to ask forgiveness and make things right, there
Re: (Score:2)
Former theist here. The third party must be the one who makes and enforces the law (the government, God, whoever), otherwise you're right that it would be ridiculous.
Re:Here's a though... (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of the modern world runs on Windows but that doesn't make Windows good.
Re:Here's a though... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't believe in god but I find most Atheists insufferable.
I don't disagree...there are a lot of insufferable atheists. But at least we don't go door-to-door trying to sell you an invisible product that you don't get until after you die.
Like it or not judeo-christian morals and philosophy built the modern world.
Not really, but people love to claim that. Just like they love to claim that America is a "christian nation". It's not and never was. Unless you count killing off most of the American Indians and taking their land a "christian value".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading biographies of Bach, Michelangelo and Einstein. Also 'The Golden Bough'
Yeah I'll git raght on that you betcha
I've already read 2 out of those 3 and I'm busy writing and testing a basic STE parser system, so I'll pass on that for now. Maybe later.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't say I've ever seen a door to door atheist preacher, but I certainly have received more than one unwanted spontaneous 'sermon' from someone proselytizing for Atheism.
Re: (Score:2)
t I certainly have received more than one unwanted spontaneous 'sermon' from someone proselytizing for Atheism.
Yes, those are the insufferable ones I mentioned. But at least they let you sleep in on Sunday. :)
Re: (Score:2)
What caused them to feel the need to challenge your theistic outlook on life?
Could possibly be that they were responding to your attempts to bring mythical invisible pink sky fairies into the conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been Greek philosophy.
And the morals part, you might want to double-check the moral record during the period of time when the "modern world" was being "built."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being written in the same language is meaningless. It doesn't change that it is Greek philosophy at the root of western civilization. Calling me names doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt you actually know an atheist.
Like it or not judeo-christian morals and philosophy built the modern world.
Nope. Moral is mostly all over the world the same. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral is mostly all over the world the same. Can't be so hard to grasp.,?
All of which practice English law and european governmental systems. Are you really this dense?
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't ... perhaps you want to look on a map?
And law != moral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Half the planet ... and when modern civilization started is about to debated. I would say: ancient Sumer ... but your milage may vary :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India, China, Mesopotania ... Greece, Iran/Ayran ... how many do you want to know?
To stupid to look on a map?
Re: (Score:3)
I can "forgive the debt" if I own both the borrower and the debtor, which God does.
That wasn't the example, but nice try at deflecting to a completely different narrative. And no, your god doesn't "own" me. Owing a person is slavery (which your god explicitly approves of, by the way).
So if I kick you in the face, you'd be fine with god "forgiving" me? Sounds great...for me.
But no, you can back up absolutely no norms whatsoever, just as secular philosophy has failed to reach the slightest consensus on ethics in 2500 years.
And in the same amount of time, not one shred of proof for this sup
Re: (Score:3)
I think slavery is wrong, and I bet you do too. But not your god. He's fine with it. ... but well, then came the Christians and they did not care which African they deported).
Strictly speaking: there is no evidence that the christian/jewish/muslim god is fine with it, only the guy who wrote the Bible is/was. Well, Muslims are more fine with it, but hold it high to only enslave pagans (that is one reason why many regions in Africa are muslim, when they figured that they are save if they convert, they did so
Re: (Score:2)
I think slavery is wrong, and I bet you do too. But not your god. He's fine with it.
Strictly speaking: there is no evidence that the christian/jewish/muslim god is fine with it, only the guy who wrote the Bible is/was.
Well if god's not fine with it, why did he let it get put in his book and stay there for for centuries, and why has he never corrected it, and why doesn't he just come out and denounce it? Are we defying or flouting god's will by not taking slaves? I mean, fer fuck's sake can't he just get his shit together and tell us?
He had time to decree that taking his name in vain was a sin, but no time to say, "Hey guys, slavery is wrong"?
Besides, the bible is said by believers to be "the Perfect Word of God, inspired
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow, prepare for a long winded explanation filled with inconsistencies and "you just have to believe" which is as long as a Russian novel. It will be far more boring than your grandpa's old "when I was a kid" ramble stories.
Yep, and it'll probably include something about wearing an onion on his belt because that was the style back then.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing about atheists, they don't have to live in fear of offending some made up being to live an honest and moral life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How come anything that might resemble a religious symbol in public causes them to scream bloody murder and sue?
If it's funded by my tax dollars, you bet I'll complain. That's against the law, not that you care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll feed the troll. Let's start with Penn Jillette [imgur.com]. Last I checked, he hasn't killed anyone. We could try Richard Dawkins. Have you seen any stories about him killing anyone to show he's better? That's a quick two off the top of my head, but if you give me about five minutes I'm certain I could come up with a dozen or so more.
Conversely, here's these moral Christians such as Britt Hume who said it's perfectly reasonable to let seniors die to protect the economy [politicaldig.com]. Granted, he hasn't personally killed an
Re: Here's a though... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you simply need to have not killed anyone?
I'm only using your own words. You said atheists kill anyone who shows themselves to be better. I showed two (let's throw in James Randi while we're at it) who have never killed anyone. But you are correct, not killing someone isn't the only way to be moral. Have any of the three people I mentioned committed adultery? Have they robbed a bank? Have they conned people out of their money? Have they beat anyone? Kicked puppies or kittens? Have they participat
Re: (Score:2)
Have any of the three people I mentioned committed adultery? Have they robbed a bank? Have they conned people out of their money? Have they beat anyone? Kicked puppies or kittens? Have they participated in dog fights? Rape or pillage? Have they stolen from a charity, say a veteran's charity? Hurt their parents? Name something which you consider to be a representation of morality and I'm fairly certain these folks fall into that category.
As for me, a lowly atheist, I can answer thusly: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. Never done any of those things and never really ever been tempted to, either.
I'm sure that'll be disappointing to moxrespawn, but he'll just have to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It loved me and wanted to be with me and walking through the house in the dark I didn't realise.
I think you're in the clear on this one. Just say a prayer to Anubis and it's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Jones is not Christian.
He said he was and convinced a lot of other people that he was, so who are you to say he wasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't live an honest and moral life,
I do, and so do all the others I know about.
They'll kill anyone who shows themselves better, as was proved 2000 years ago. ... but by Romans, who had about 100 gods, and Jews.
If that is supposed to refer to Jesus, he was not killed by Atheists
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no, you don't.
Yes, I do. And if you believe other wise proof it.
And: please don't repeat such slander in a forum with real names, as I would sue you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's completely simple to "prove" it. Have you ever lied?
Oh, the old Ray Comfort blather, I love it.
(Australian accent): "Well, 'ave ya evuh told ah loy? Whut does that mak' ya? A liah!" (/Australian accent)
Sorry, you'll need to do better than that. Telling a lie doesn't make you an immoral person any more than staring at beasts makes you a rapist.
Telling 16,000 lies in 3 years [washingtonpost.com], however...
Re: (Score:2)
It's completely simple to "prove" it. Have you ever lied?
Have you accepted money for work while not actually being doing so every minute of that paid day?
Have you neglected anyone in need?
Have you, O Perfect Christian?
If you have, then why should we listen to a word of someone who's a liar and a cheat and neglectful of others? See how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
1) lying is not immoral
2) no, I never took extra money for not working - but I had plenty of jobs in IT where I was paid to be present and not really needed to work: as there was no incident, our IT was just fine
2) no, I over neglected anyone in need
3) insisting on a viewpoint has nothing to do with moral
Try harder
Re: (Score:2)
"staring at beasts makes you a rapist."
Lol, that should be "staring at breasts". Which I enjoy doing quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Ray Comfort's still around? He was born in my home town of Christchurch, New Zealand. He gave a talk to my class when I was in 4th Form over forty years ago when he was an anti-drugs campaigner. Given he was an Evangelical, he must have thought coming to a Catholic school next door to the Catholic cathedral was being deep in enemy territory. Here's a video of his last day in NZ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's still around and spreading his horseshit far and wide, and charging for the privilege of listening to him tell you what a terrible sinner you are.
I hope he never steps in front of my car at a stoplight; the temptation to mow him down would be almost irresistible. I wouldn't do it, but I'd hate myself afterwards for not taking advantage of the opportunity. He'd be protected from harm by my heathen atheist morals.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't live an honest and moral life, and God is not in the least "made up".
Wrong. Most of the atheists I know live very moral lives, especially when compared to the theists I know.
And yes, you god is made up, just like all the others. Do you doubt me? Bow down before Anubis, you filthy heathen!
Do describe a few atheists that live this ideal life, and ask any of the others if they agree.
I don't claim my life is "ideal", but I'm an atheist and I'd bet I live a more moral and ethical life than you do. (Your own hysterical and strident writings pretty much prove me right.) I don't kill people, I donate when and where I can, I live a modest life and I've spent a good portion of
Re: (Score:2)
I have said it makes my God more plausible, exactly as it does.
No one cares about plausibility. It's sad to see a grown man resort to such silliness. If I get a million people to believe that there are pixies in my sock drawer, so what? The pixies still aren't there. Plausibility means nothing, and your falling back on it sadly shows that you have no better argument.
He can do everything you can, and far more.
No, he can't. For example...
He can't be surprised.
He can't learn anything knew.
He can't change his mind.
He can't break a promise.
He can't make a mistake.
He can't forget anything, ever.
He can't lie.
He can't
Re: (Score:2)
Belief in imaginary sky friends is simple insanity, coupled with an overinflated sense of self importance.
Exactly. "I'm so special, god has a plan for meeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Even if that plan means becoming a disease-ridden crack whore and dying in a gutter.
Even if that plan means dying at birth because your umbilical cord got wrapped around your neck.
Even if that plan means being beaten and sexually abused as a child, and then murdered by a drunken parent.
Behold god's perfect plan!
Missing the point. (Score:2)
While I fully agree, that was not the problem here.
The problem here was, that he also imtentionally harassed them for his sexual pleasure.
And while it's not actually harmful to the kids (if they hit puberty or later, they'll go watch porn with naked people in them afterwards anyway), it's not OK to harass people, nor to break into other people's privacy, unrelated to if it is sexual or not.
Re: (Score:3)
people pay good money for live webcams and they are getting it for free. show me the nude ladies please
Alas, it is always men who do this (for free and without consent). Of course I have no evidence to back up this assertion, but we all know it's true. (I await claims to the contrary, with links and everything.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that took 83 seconds.
47 billion really isn't very many.