I believe you missed my point. Those that cry foul over those targeted Facebook ads also fail to realize that people were still willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
Of course, it would be asinine to paint with broad strokes. But one can't disregard that it takes two to tango in exchanges of ideas and information.
You're implying that we all were conned, yet I'm still a happy supporter of Trump and will continue to be, yet here I am not a redneck, extremely tolerant, not a racist, incredibly kind, etc. Maybe you've been conned on who a Trump supporter is.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I was intending to refer to those who regret their choice after having realized that not all of what they read or heard was true and so made their decision on effectively just an emotional impulse.
Thank you for enlightening me on why the previous user was so aggressive in his rebuke. I can see how, if somebody is happy with their choice, they may have felt slighted and assumed I implied that they, too, were conned.
I can appreciate that somebody's personal calculus is different from my own. However, those whom I have encountered that regret their decision articulate it in such terms that "con" really is the proper descriptor.
> Maybe you've been conned on who a Trump supporter is.
given trump's nature, it's unlikely one who isn't a fan will give much credence to such self-attestations.
for example a trump supporter may say they are "not a racist", but many see that trump supporters simply do not talk about race in the same way, so the expression doesn't mean much.
Democrats fully controlled Congress during President Obama's first two years in office. During this time he could have easily closed Gitmo, or addressed any of his other campaign promises. Instead we got the ACA, which is currently in its death throes irrespective of Trump.
Agreed. Especially if you consider that she was originally being served a warrant for a relatively minor offense, which she hadn't even been convicted of.
Why do the policy specifics matter? A blackhat won't be respecting those rules, and won't need to negotiate a reasonable payday with facebook.
The real issue here is facebook's poor infrastructure security and slow response time. If the exploit had been previously reported, why was the privilege escalation still possible? Why did a (supposedly) known-to-be-vulnerable host have access to secret information at all?
The exfiltration of data may have been unethical, but facebook has no one to blame but themselves for it even being possible.
Companies take big risks in running bounty programs. They are giving hackers permission to test their live site. This isn't something that is popular with everyone inside a company. Bounty hunters need to respect that bounty programs are a two way street. If you find a serious issue like remote code execution you need to be extra careful. Wineberg was an experienced hunter. He should have known better.
