Talk:2014 Snapchat hack

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge into Snapchat.

Issues that are being raised

I'll be listing them pointwise.

Arik Hesseldahl, senior editor at Re/code, encouraged site owners, tagged with {{failed verification}}: The source says, "Today would be a good day to think like a hacker or a stalker and revisit whether or not your code has weaknesses that [you] could be forced to apologize for later.". Here, she tries to warn the webmasters, to think like a hacker and to check if "our" codes; that is the webmaster's code or the site owner's code, has any vulnerability. This is quite straight. What does this otherwise imply? Guest users changing the code? That's impossible.

Snapchat did not issue any statement formally about the hack: Snapchat did not issue any statement formally about the hack. They have not apologized either. A meagre mention was made about the hack, and about the "abuse" of a feature. They have not posted about it yet. The entire section deals with what they have promised to do. They have not issued any statements, I repeat..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 January 2014‎
1. The source does not mention the owners of the site. [You] in this case refer to " other apps that tap the address books of users' phones." Not to the owners of Snapchat site.
2. You contradict yourself: "In its response, Snapchat said .." vs. "They have not issued any statements, I repeat.."
- --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here Statement refers to a post specially dedicated about the hack; and a follow-up apology. Ethically ^(Yours) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, per presented quote Arik statement refers to " other apps that tap the address books of users' phones." Not to the owners of Snapchat site. Since the assertion is not supported with the source I will remove it. It also gives undue weight to one opinion of one man about unrelated topic. The assertion unnecessarily mentions Arik Hesseldahl being senior editor at Re/code, which can be seen as promotional text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date of hack

Is claimed to be January 1, 2014. Why are several articles documenting this, e.g. one by TechCrunch [1] and another by Gigaom [2], dated Dec 31 then? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this article was very sloppy on a number of details, so this doesn't surprise me anymore. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]