User:Naqoyqatsi/Hacking

Mistake in "Harassment and doxxing"

There's inaccurate information in the "Harassment and doxxing" section. The following statement: "Nude photographs acquired in the hack were distributed online and to her family and employers." is incorrect. The actual pictures are hosted on [redacted] and [redacted] under the pseudonym [redacted]. They even have the watermarks in the original images. Someone may want to correct this misinformation, which has remained in this article for several months and hundreds of edits. It may give more skeptical observers the impression that this article is misleading.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading the source provided (Christian Science Monitor no less!) appears to confirm the above - nowhere in the article is her family mentioned and from my reading it just says the nudes were posted online. Feel free to change by the way Naqoyqatsi. Tielec01 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, her family is mentioned in the context that their details were distributed online (doxed) not that they were sent nude images. Tielec01 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quinn has repeatedly said that her father has been sent the photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then pop in a reference and leave the statement as is, the current ref doesn't support the statement. Tielec01 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I think that Naqoyqatsi's indepth knowledge of this fact is a bit circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"...all the while, they were targeting members of my family and sending naked pictures of me to my dad." Cited. Also redacted Naqoyqatsi's mentions of screennames and websites because we are not doing any fucking doxing here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"...leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago...". There, another.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Both good enough for me. Tielec01 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's untrue, though. There is a watermark on the bottom right corner of the pictures. Every single one of the images has a watermark from the site they were originally hosted on it. The pictures were not acquired in any hack, that is a lie. The pictures were hosted on two sites where anyone with a credit card could access and redistribute them. No article will change what the skeptic can disprove with a simple search.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what would be "circumspect" about directly researching any claims made by written sources, rather than accepting them as facts based on preconceived notions. Are you claiming that learning all the facets of a situation before writing about it is a bad thing? What exactly are you insinuating here, Ryulong?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures having a watermark does not prove they were originally hosted at the site. They could well have been uploaded there after they had been 'hacked' from a different source. For a self-proclaimed sceptic, you're not doing a very good job. I think the word Ryulong was searching for was 'suspect'. I think it's rather suspect, too, that a single-topic editor just happens to nitpick a small detail in this article, and in the process drop potentially doxxing links. Very suspect indeed. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for evidence to prop up a narrative, yes. I can link to where the pictures came from, but Ryulong would redact it again. Of course, the fact that this was redacted for "doxxing" her to begin with should be evidence enough of its authenticity.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is: Direct links to where the sets were hosted, interviews with the photographers who shot the sets, the professional quality lighting and photography, the presence of other women in the sets, etc. None of this suggests they were pictures for a single person. Of course, all of this information will be suppressed if I link to or paste it here, but the fact is that the article contains a lie.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't link to nude photos here. Ruylong has made his case with reference to decent independent sources. You are trying to make a case based on independent research which has been through no sort of objective vetting. Unless you can get a link to work done by actual professional researchers/writers/journalists backing up your case, this is a non-starter. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a link to the professional photographer detailing her experience with ZQ. Considering blogs like "We Hunted The Mammoth" and Twitter posts are cited liberally, this should suffice.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure how this makes your case. A professional photog took some racy photos of someone. That someone then had her stuff broken into and copies of the photos distributed without her consent. What does the photog say that complicates that simple story? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Even if everything you claim is true, it still doesn't contradict the line you have a problem with. There's no reason why the photographs, even if they could be obtained elsewhere, could not have been brought to the attention of the shit mob via hacking. Besides, I have no idea why you're making such a small detail your hill to die on. When it comes to 'confirming narratives', I can only draw your attention to the way you take that facebook post at face value, yet insist on a much higher level of scrutiny for anything Quinn says. That's not the action of a concerned sceptic. That's a partisan trying (badly) to ape a sceptic. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated prior, there is plenty of other evidence to confirm my claims and just a few writers on your side. I don't link to it, but there is 'nothing' that suggests the photos were acquired in a "hack". There's just too many coincidences. The fact that things like the RS scandal happened should be reason enough not to take everything from a media outlet to the exclusion of all conflicting evidence.

There is a big difference, by the way, between "my computer was hacked with photos I had on it" and "I posted photos to a website which anyone with a credit card can access". This is simply about truth vs. narrative. Find verifiable evidence that I am wrong and I will admit it, but the base evidence does not suggest your view is the rational one.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're Alex Jones. Prove me wrong. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. I have provided evidence of my claims. Now it's your turn to provide evidence refuting them. Not random writers repeating what Zoe said, actual verifiable evidence. The facebook post has a picture of the three of them sitting together, by the way. Please check if something is false before dismissing it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The base evidence suggests that the entire line of enquiry is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how freely available an image is, there is no excuse for using it to intimidate someone or harass their family. That such was done is the important fact. How the photos came into the hands of the malefactor is a side issue. The harassment is the fact of the matter. Trying to steer culpability away from the harassers is pushing a narrative. And what possible purpose does that particular narrative serve other than to try to shift blame in part onto Quinn, or to generate some cock-eyed excuse for the harassers? "there is plenty of other evidence to confirm my claims and just a few writers on your side." - side in what? This particular detail, or the larger issue? If the former, then whoop-de-doo, there are more people on your 'side' rejoicing in irrelevancies. If the latter, you've just not been paying attention for the last eight months. How many of these writers you claim support your point have a source other than a potentially axe-grinding facebook post? 'Cos if they all track back to there, it doesn't matter how many of them there are, that's just one source. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I want the truth. My narrative is what I think is true. If you have verifiable evidence that proves the pictures were acquired in a hack, please provide it. Otherwise, please correct the article to accurately state the source or remove the passage.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have verifiable evidence that proves the pictures were not acquired through a hack, please provide it. Otherwise, I see no reason not to leave the passage as it is, with its current cited sources. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I provided it and it was then redacted by Ryulong for "doxxing". However, a simple search for the topic matter will quickly uncover the truth. I am looking at a direct link to the site right now. Of course, Ryulong seems to be on a hair trigger regarding this - he removed her stage name and the names of the websites - so I'm not about to link to it directly.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That argument reflects a complete lack of understanding of what "reliable source" means to me. A reliable source isn't a name, it's a major publication with a reputation for honest reporting. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why are "We Hunted the Mammoth", blogs, and Twitter posts used as supporting citations in the article?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Because though he's a pain-in-the-ass editor who cannot write for shit and is way too heavy-handed on the block/vandal button, Ryulong has done a remarkable job of researching the topic at hand and of using a variety of secondary (newspapers and other reportage) and primary sources (notably Twitter posts) to put together a solid narrative of Gamergate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn has said on several occasions that the photographs were discovered as a result of the hacking incident. Whether or not those photographs were professionally taken (nice job linking to that whole "she stabbed a guy" myth too) the fact is they were discovered under questionable circumstances and shared without her consent as part of the whole "let's get her to kill herself" campaign Gamergate started off as. So is your complaint now that they weren't downloaded as a result of illegitimate access to her personal files? Because I don't want to have to bother her to get any more of a personal clarification than I already have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Most of those are primary sources documenting "X said Y" by linking to a place on the internet where, surprise surprise, X said Y. Comparing that to backing a conspiracy theory with random pseudonymous conjecture isn't reasonable. You should know it's not reasonable. If you find cites of that sort supporting more vague statements, by all means, bring up specific examples to fix. But don't use it as a "NO FAIR NOT INCLUDING MY CONJECTURE" excuse. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. None of the sources suggest the pictures were acquired in a hack. One seems to imply they were sent to an ex-boyfriend: "leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago". This claim was a complete fabrication and has been removed.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So the issue appears to be the use of the word hack? I know this word has different meaning to different people, but if the pictures were acquired against the wishes of the victim then as far as I am concerned this was hacking. Where the pictures available to the public or where they private and acquired through nefarious means? Do we have sources on this issue? If not how can we find out? Tielec01 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Link redacted] NSFW This is the website which Zoe Quinn produced pornographic images for. The earliest images were added in 2006[edit]. Additionally, there is a movie where you can see either Zoe Quinn or a very convincing impersonator speaking. So we either have a multifaceted conspiracy spanning over half a decade or we have a few misinformed journalists who took everything at face value. Which is more likely?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll excuse myself from visiting the site - were the pictures available to the public? If so then the word hack is not right, it's more like they were distributed against her will in an attempt to harass her and her family. Tielec01 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I went out of my way to contact Zoe Quinn concerning this and she said that her blog was hacked in order to distribute these photos that Naqoyqatsi seems very knowledgable about and I have to fucking scrub this page's history again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is thusly. The only way that anyone discovered any of this information was through the fact that all of Zoe Quinn's personal information was compromised, downloaded, and shared amongst #BurgersAndFries. The point of the statement is that Gamergate felt the need to dig that deep into her personal life, found these photographs which are apparently very dear to you Naqoyqatsi, and then proceeded to send them and share them in ways that are solely meant to ruin her life. To us, and to the world, there is no difference between

• Hacking into her personal accounts, finding these photographs in her personal files, and downloading these photographs and distributing them to her friends, family, job, and the world, or
• Hacking into her personal accounts, finding out she had an account on these websites, finding these photographs posted on these websites associated with her account there, and downloading these photographs and distributing them to her friends, family, job, and the world

because the content was still discovered or acquired through illicit means for the sole purpose of ruining her life. The means are inconsequential here as the end is still the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That said, your sources do not clearly say that the photos were acquired via a hack. Your sources only say that pics were distributed. So that's what we have to go with. And that's really damning enough. But if you find a published interview with Quinn where she unambiguously says the actual photos were taken from her hard drive, run with it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny how this went from "conspiracy theory" to, "Ryulong has done a remarkable job of researching the topic at hand" to, "your sources do not clearly say that the photos were acquired via a hack". But I'm sure the rest of the article is just fine. Chrimony (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He has done a remarkable job. He overstated his case in one instance. That happens -- I've done it in higher-stakes settings than a marginal wiki. I'm confident that people who are seriously interested in the topic will find any other instances if they exist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, welcome back. AgingHippie, Naqoyqatsi is splitting hairs here. Quinn herself has said the photographs were obtained through illicit means as a result of the hack. Whether or not they were discovered in the hacked data or if the hacked data provided a trail of breadcrumbs to them is not of consequence here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is of no consequence here. Which is why we should stick to the claims backed up by the very fine independent sources your excellent research has produced. EDIT: I'm holding the line on this because the horrible people who are looking for holes in your article will latch onto one over-statement or bit of conjecture on your part to argue that the whole thing is full of holes. By making a claim and supporting it with only your word (which, to be erfectly clear, I ACCEPT, thought we both know there are tons of people who won't) you are jeopardizing the good work you have done. Don't undermine yourself like that. Find a source that unambiguously supports you, or accept that your sources will only let you make a certain argument until other sources come to light. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the only source on this I have is a private conversation and the vague wordings of all of these articles (that and it is incredibly difficult to Google this without compromising her privacy).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait, one article said that they were "leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago". Which one is it? If they were posted there without her permission, she should sue the webhost.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what I can gather from some other sources: Gjoni was on Reddit and in #BurgersAndFries giving out her screennames. Someone on 4chan found the photographs on the website you metioned. These were then uploaded to her social media when the accounts were compromised and sent to her family and employers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So what was published was not in line with what actually happened.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there are seeds of truth in what was published on these websites but they withheld information out of respect for Quinn's private life. Otherwise known as ethics in video game journalism. What is important here is that people sent the photos, of whatever provenance they were, to her dad, and now the article reflects that it just so happens to have happened around the same time as all of her social media being compromised. And that I may have interpretted her message to me inaccurately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The section in question was garbled when I saw it. I have removed the errata but may have removed some information you wanted to keep in, Ryulong. You'll might want to review it and add some of it back.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)