Jump to content

Talk:HackingTeam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hacking Team)

Founders of Hacking Team

[edit]

The founders are David Vincenzetti ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/vincenzetti ) and Valeriano Badeschi ( https://www.linkedin.com/pub/valeriano-bedeschi/1/532/ba5 ), not Ornaghi and Vallera: http://espresso.repubblica.it/attualita/cronaca/2011/12/02/news/noi-i-padri-del-cyber-007-br-1.37951 --93.147.27.52 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I so much love this team.they are awesome. Donvicks2 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 hacking

[edit]

should this get it's own page. i mean major gov't spying scandals and two flash exploits? thats pretty big FrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs here where it is. Should section see significant growth then a spilt may be necessary. At present such splitting is unwarranted. Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 17:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, such Govt. information is not new -- only intrusion of HT was a revelation -- and has been documented elsewhere before - just never made it into article. A small source of chronological news items are present at Bugged Planet[1] (also reachable via Tor hidden service: http://6sgjmi53igmg7fm7.onion), a private informational wiki maintained by Chaos Computer Club and associated security researchers. These items contained therein may offer a source for additional content to be included within HT Wikipedia article. -- dsprc [talk] 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since BuggedPlanet content is Public Domain, I copied the HT page to here: User:Dsprc/ht. Is basically just tables and references by has a few older links likely to be drowned out by breach; contains newer content with revelations from breach as well. -- dsprc [talk] 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://threatpost.com/eu-lawmaker-wants-answers-on-hacking-team-sales-to-sanctioned-countries/113638 and http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/parliament-votes-surveillance-tech-exports-after-fresh-hacking-team-leaks --79.223.1.199 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? Expansion of Wassenaar globally has been kicked about for some time now and ramping up within last year especially. Essentially, these links state Wassenaar has seen increased focus as a result of the HT breach (also echoed in many other reports). Is good for a one or two line inclusion and free link to Wassenaar Agreement (Wass Agree also need to be expanded - can't believe is that stubby). Need to be cautious with every minor gyration from politicians - many trying to cash in on this after all.
Anyway, write it yourself! ;-) goes near bottom in criticisms. Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 10:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has content which can be included:

Eventually we need to expand article, there is certainly plenty of reports to do so with. The main question (at least from me), is where to begin? How do we want to structure Breach, and use revelations there to expand Capabilities and History section? Maybe should be in layout sub below? -- dsprc [talk] 07:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

Does anyone else find the current arrangement order of this page a bit odd? Most of the media coverage around Hacking Team centers on human rights concerns--this is central to the subject's notability. And yet we currently have that information relegated under "criticism" at the bottom of the page. This arrangement disrupts the logical flow and progression of the article. For instance, we learn that Hacking Team was subject to a data breach before we learn anything about why people might want to target it. I would recommend reordering as follows (open to suggestions here):

  • Company history
  • Capabilities
  • Human rights concerns
  • Export controls
  • 2015 data breach
  • Client list

Does this make sense? TheBlueCanoe 12:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe: sure; go ahead. if ya' want to drop additional content or rewrite things a bit while you're shuffling stuff around, that is fine too (nudge nudge) :). potentially could be overhang between 'concerns' and 'breach' but not the way it is currently written (ie, poorly). -- dsprc [talk] 02:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deku-shrub has since made these changes. Thanks. :) -- dsprc [talk] 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ ^ :) Deku-shrub (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking Team employee Daniele Milan wants to assassinate Christopher Soghoian

[edit]

Might be included: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/09/hacking-team-employee-jokes-assassinating-aclu-technologist-christopher-soghoian/ --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Customers Error

[edit]

Condor is the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with Khasrao Khedher Whatman, based in Iraq. See attachments here: https://www.wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/emailid/1122076 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.19.38 (talk)

We require third parties to report on matters before we may include content. The pilfered raw emails of Hacking Team are not reliable sources nor fit for inclusion or citation within an encyclopedia. Journalists and researchers have this content, is for them to decide what is notable or significant, not us. We may cite their investigations or reports however. Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 16:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the customer list comes straight from the dump and is wrong...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.19.38 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2015‎

Customer list

[edit]

ScrapIronIV, as indicated, sources are provided above table. Biz Insider and CSO are hardly "hacker" sites. It doesn't matter if true, it need only be reported. We can include additional sources as well, or reposition them into table, should that be sufficient. Your justification is bollocks, and clearly ignores addition of sources. As your removal has also been reverted by others, the edits lack consensus. WP:3RR now applies as well. Please do no continue to revert w/o forming consensus.

Also: Just because one has granted themselves the ability to revert others work by using Twinkle (instead of obtaining vetted Rollback), doesn't mean one should. See: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, or plain WP:RV. Would also appreciate not to be templated on user Talk with boiler plate messages intended for newcomers; speak with me as a human. Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 16:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, by definition, are "reliable" and can be counted on for some variation of truth. The sources provided screenshots of a hacked account. The information was not vetted, not was it supported by journalistic editorial oversight. Previously, this information was self-identified as in the article itself as unreliable. We are an encyclopedia, not Wikileaks. CSO does not even self identify on their site. Local consensus does not trump policy. It never has, and never will. Scr★pIronIV 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've included additional references[2] which speak of customers. Please review them in page history. Additionally, these may also be reviewed for more information to ascertain if suitable for inclusion: [3], [4], [5] & [6], [7], [8]
So a journalistic enterprise provides or links to their source documents within the reporting of them; what is the issue here? For Wikipedians, it is perfectly fine to also reference the primary source with a secondary or tertiary source which is also cited; CSO (Australia) is provided as one such pseudo-primary.
However, the primary sourcing and poor state of article is a shared sentiment, and why I've since tagged with a primary banner. Solution is not blanking, but to locate and reference higher quality sources. A great deal of content on this subject is available[9], please consider improving and expanding the article with it.
There is no evidence for lack of editorial oversight or vetting; please provide evidence to support this assertion.
One should not rely upon any content within Wikipedia as a source for anything: WP:CIRC. We know how the sausage is made, after all.
Indeed we are an encyclopedia. Please see comments to IP Contributor immediately above.
For the spreadsheet specifically, it is but one data point, and additional reports from media publications, such as that from The Intercept (2nd link in cluster above), should also be taken into account. Hacking Team themselves have validated the content in question (last in above cluster) with a PR maneuver stating business relationships were formed with oppressive and blacklisted regimes prior to their blacklisting -- a bit of a stretch, but since backed by third party, may warrant inclusion; so long as stated as position/claim of Hacking Team, and not a matter of fact. Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is the inclusion of the chart; even the sources themselves - Business Insider specifically states that they do not know how to interpret the contents of the data. Your sources discuss the image, but nowhere is this client list actually distilled into a true client list. Say anything (supported in these citations) about the list, include a few prominent ones mentioned in the article - but don't pretend we can take an image file and turn it into a client list. The inclusion of a client list would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article in the first place. This violates WP:NPOV and is a distortion of WP:RS. Toothpaste and deodorant! Scr★pIronIV 19:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about we replace it with detailed prose in light of ongoing revelations? Currently it seems to be serving as a placeholder and substitute for that. We can use client list as a checklist, copy it to talk page and then go top-to-bottom removing them as prose is added for entries. This expands article, ensures sources are vetted and that notable entries are included, gets rid of a placeholder list that no one wants and we can even clean up the rest of the article along the way. If editors would assist, could knock it out in no time - though we've to do more than simply click Twinkle, but not much more. Would certainly be more productive than wasting time on back-channel bureaucracy. -- dsprc [talk] 09:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with dealing with it in prose. Mention a few high profile clients, the total revenue, etc., that are mentioned in the text of your sources, and a mild disclaimer. My issue has been with the chart itself; charts are seen as facts, which the sources are not supporting. We are not that far apart, you and I. Scr★pIronIV 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Will you assist with prose? Please do help; there is a quite a bit to sift through after all, and it is a moving target.

Most of these clients are high-profile. Also, this chart is actually incomplete.

We don't do disclaimers, however, language such as "purport" or "alleged" and so forth may be used where appropriate - can hack on those when we get there.

How will we layout and structure this? -- dsprc [talk] 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need the malware for hacking mails, Donvicks2 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on the Hidden Wiki

[edit]

The Hidden Wiki are running a partial fork of this page, that may be of interest: http://kpvz7kpmcmne52qf.onion/wiki/index.php/Hacking_Team Deku-shrub (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hacking Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSEC assessment requested 2015-07-07

[edit]

The article is really good, and extraordinarily well-referenced! The only things I'm torn on are the need to list every single one of their clients, and whether the 2015 data breach really needs additional development of coverage. Once these two things are resolved, we should consider submitting this to WP:PR. FalconK (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hacking Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't have time to really gather the details now and will come back. I hope that doesn't break the rules but I couldn't find anything against it.

Anyway, this hack that just happened was completely related to Hacking Team. It could be a good thing to include details about it. Skyturnrouge (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name spacing

[edit]

​I think that the removal of the space from the name was wrong (confusing name and logo). Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in the edit summary, it is referred in sources as such, and even if the space would make sense in the name, we should go with the common name (WP:COMMONNAME). Even the rest of the article refers to it as HackingTeam. Take LinkedIn for example. Even if calling it "Linked In" makes more sense, its common name is still LinkedIn. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"LinkedIn" states that themselves at their offic. web, while "HT S.r.l." was stating "Hacking Team" (see their archived web; and see texts instead of the logo). —Mykhal (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… this talk has it correctly, article was changed by single edit. —Mykhal (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fine. I don't edit the article, anyway, why should I care? Go to WP:RM/TR to request a page move since I don't have those rights. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HackingTeam&oldid=1253258319"