Women’s ‘red flag’ app Tea is a privacy nightmare
Women’s ‘red flag’ app Tea is a privacy nightmare
www.theverge.com
Women’s ‘red flag’ app Tea is a privacy nightmare
119 comments
-
Tea was storing its users’ sensitive information on Firebase, a Google-owned backend cloud storage and computing service.
Every time. With startups, it's always an unsecured Firebase or S3 bucket.
-
I'm certainly no web security expert, but shouldn't Tea's junior network/backend/security developers, let alone seniors, know how to secure said Firebase or S3 buckets with STARTTLS or SSL certificates? Shouldn't a company like this have some sort of compliance department?
-
It's a little more complex than that. If you want the app on the user device to be able to dump data directly into your online database, you have to give it access in some way. Encrypting the transmission doesn't do much if every app installation contains access credentials that can be extracted or sniffed.
Obviously there are ways around this too, but it's not just "use TLS".
-
SSL is not the tool you need in this case, although you should obviously already be running exclusively on encrypted traffic.
The problem here is one of access rights - you should not make files default-available for anyone that can figure out the file name to the particular file in the bucket. At the very least, you need to be using signed URLs with a reasonably short expiration, and default all other access to be blocked.
-
-
My hey we’re probably using Firestore as their database without authenticating their api calls to firebase functions. Basically leaving their api endpoints open to the public Internet.
They could have connected service account and used some kind of auth handshake between that and generate a temporary login token based on user credentials and the service account oauth credentials to access the api. but they probably just had everything set to unauthenticated
-
-
-
Honestly it seems like a weapon that can too easily be used for defamation
-
How dare you!
The misogyny!-
No one is saying THAT'S misogynistic. We're saying there are a bunch of stupid misogynistic comments in this thread, not that the app is cool.
-
-
I mean, yes, but does that take priority over women who are worried about their safety? There's been women doing this over local Facebook groups for a long time. Defamation of this sort is not a new issue.
-
Considering even the mere accusation can ruin someone's life? Yes.
The problem isn't women don't deserve to be safe, the problem is we cannot just give people powerful weapons with no oversight or burden of proof to be deployed simply because a date didn't go well.
Facebook or App, the danger is too great
-
-
Tea wasn’t hacked. Tea posted these images to a public file sharing site. Tea claimed that they deleted these images after verifying the applicant was a woman but clearly that was a fraudulent claim.
-
Ah nice.
Time to implement a social score. Those who rate highly have better access to social areas.
Those who rate lower are fucked for the rest of their life.
This sounds like such an amazing idea that has no shortcomings whatsoever!
Edit: /s
-
How does this app even work?
-
You sign up and then a while later, your personal information gets leaked to the public. Not sure what its other purpose is.
-
You could easily convince me that it was a brilliantly executed honeypot. It's just too damn poetic.
"It's a women's safety app" No it wasn't. This app was about women's safety as much as the recent payment processor porn game censorship bullshit was about child safety. This was about slandering men for fun because women love gossip. The app's name was "Tea."
Not a single woman who signed up for this app stopped to think, "Here's a brand new app, just came out, has no track record, no reputation. I don't know who runs this. I don't know how they secure their database. I know what they're asking, they want a picture of my government-issued ID. We've spent the last two decades reading news headlines of the pattern "tech company was hacked, 2.2 million users compromised including emails, home addresses and SSNs" on a weekly basis. There hasn't been a week gone by since Dubya was president that hasn't happened."
The women who uploaded pictures of their IDs to some app really had their own safety in mind. Turns out you can short circuit that whole process with hilarious ease if you say things like "women only" and "slander your exes."
I don't think I could have constructed a better example as to why all the recent "prove your identity" shit is comprehensively removed.
-
-
Change the target to any other group and the outrage would be 100-10000 fold bigger.
Try it out, instead of Women rating men, try subbing in various minority groups or races.
Bonus points for the most offensive combinations.....
e.g. Russians rating Ukrainians in your area....it can get pretty bad...I can think of many worse combos.
-
I think the key reason this was seen as not being terribly offensive was the fact that women are disproportionately more likely than men to be on the receiving end of tons of different negative consequences when dating, thus to a degree justifying them having more of a safe space where their comfort and safety is prioritized.
However I think a lot of people are also recognizing now that such an app has lots of downsides that come as a result of that kind of structure, like false allegations being given too much legitimacy, high amounts of sensitive data storage, negative interactions being blown out of proportion, etc. I also think that this is yet another signature case of "private market solution to systemic problem" that only kind of addresses the symptoms, but not the actual causes of these issues that are rooted more in our societal standards and expectations of the genders, upbringing, depictions in media, etc.
-
I was making the point, that despite the fact that this is mildly ok. The test for anything that gives one group power over another, is to switch the groups.
If it's still reasonable, than it is probably OK to keep it. If however it seems wrong after the switch, the bar to keep the power imbalance should be very high.
-
Stats depend on perception. Where a woman reports abuse, a man often spends an evening drinking or something similar. Not reporting abuse.
Expectations of men are too somewhat cruel. You should be grenadier-tall (or gorilla-wide, point being, you should look fit), with facial features like those of Kianu Reeves, with voice like that of Orlando Bloom, confident like some CEO, honorable like a samurai from some movie, yet able to override that honor at her whim and do any atrocity to make the world better for her. Like some picture of 1930s' propaganda.
If you don't deliver, then she silently pities herself and silently looks down at you for that. But God forbid you seem like that picture in some regard and then inevitably turn out to be more human, that deceit she won't forgive.
It was a problem a century ago that women were mostly right-wing and chauvinist and traditionalist. Most of that has been undone, but not how women in average see gender relations.
OK, so about the app - I won't be surprised if it was an intentional honeypot, honestly, to expose those who will use it. And it's a bad idea, there's no way to verify anonymous accusations, which means it's a tool for defamation of any man, and a way to discredit things of the kind written there at the same time.
-
I'm sorry but I'll just say it out right: new feminists are the absolute worst
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equality where possible. Where isn't equality possible? Well I'd like to conceive a child, but the plumbing isn't exactly useful for that. That sort of thing. Beyond that, were all the same, and IDGAF about your skin color, sexual preferences or whatever. I live by live and Let live, don't be an asshole, it's not that hard to be respectful
New feminists though are the ones coming up with ideas like this website. On the surface, anyone could say that it's not a bad thing to have a place for women to talk about how to protect themselves. In reality though, it's a place where men, innocent or not, get doxxed and made to be rapists.
There are some subs here on Lemmy as well that were very sad to see this shitshow of a website go, lamenting the fact that now they need a different place to dex people. Try not to tell them that doxxing is bad, it gets you banned.
-
Russians rating Ukrainians
Interesting analogy. You realize you have it backwards, right? Women are the Ukrainians on this scenario.
-
Agreed, but it is worse the way I put it...
-
-
Might want to read up on the origins of Facebook before turning this into a gender wars thing.
-
Nothing about gender wars here.
Just because Facebook is shit, doesn't make this any better.
-
-
-
S2 Underground has a great video about this. It's basically a spy app with national security implications.
People using their military IDs for account verification and location data found in their pictures lays the argument that this data could be used for blackmail.
-
I feel that the app filled a need of women we should not ignore. But the app, both this specific app and also the overall concept, is just too rife with downsides to be workable.
So we, as men and as society need to reevaluate why women feel the need for such an app, and reinvest in the criminal justice system to hold victimizers more accountable.
It’s okay to call this app and similar Facebook groups unacceptable. But that’s not enough, we must also call for stronger protections for victims of criminal behavior.
-
It would be interesting to see something similar that required accusations to be backed up with evidence. Police reports, court proceedings and results, news articles etc.
It would also be a lot safer, legally speaking, for the service provider.
-
Something like Megan’s law but for domestic violence. I’m still not thrilled with the potential for abuse, but at least it wouldn’t be hearsay.
I’m sure the police unions would object, for obvious reasons.
-
-
-
I think there must be a way to deliver on the value of the app without it being the privacy/public exposure nightmare it sounds like. Speaking naively, perhaps a setup where you can only speak about a person with those who have actually matched with them.
-
-
Why did the app had the government IDs and credit card data to begin with? The app looks like an obvious phishing scam/ Honeypot situation.
-
that's a great(terrible) idea for a sex trafficking psyop. just get yourself a female spokesperson and make it a platform that gives a voice to women who have survived abuse. they'll willingly give you all their information on where to find them and their psych profiles on how to manipulate them.
fucked up, but really shows how fucked up apps are in general and how much power we give to them over ourselves.
-
-
I think of the "bad" dates I would want to be able to warn other women of that didn't rise to the level of calling the cops. The guy who ordered triple the food and drinks I did and skipped out on the bill. The guy who flat out lied about multiple things and then got irate when I politely excused myself from the date. The MAGA weirdo who went on an unhinged rant about how I needed to submit to him because God said so. I imagine some men have comparable experiences with some anti-social women. The experiences coming to mind were not illegal, but were absolutely things I want to spare my fellow humans from.
I would prefer the dating apps themselves have some mechanism for disincentivizing anti-social behaviors. It would have to be more than a simple 5-star rating.
I wonder how it would work IRL to offer the ability to write a few sentences in response to prompts about a date. The written review is not published as-is, but is used in grouping of many reviews to give a summary about a person. Like the summary product reviews on Amazon now. "Bill's dates found he was prompt and polite. Some dates expressed discomfort at some of his political views" and "Bob's dates warn he is often late and is quick to use foul language to describe women. Multiple dates report no intention to communicate with Bob further". "Ben's dates report he has skipped out on the bill repeatedly, and sends unsolicited dick pics. Multiple dates have blocked him".
The group summary gives a buffer so the person reviewed doesn't know which specific date said what. And ensures the summary doesn't include negative comments about a person unless multiple dates of theirs independently report similar experiences.
Of course a bad actor could ditch their dating profile and start fresh any time they build up enough negative reviews to make their summary look bad. And of course the reviews and the summaries would have to be secured tighter than "Tea" is.
-
The experiences coming to mind were not illegal, but were absolutely things I want to spare my fellow humans from.
What about a guy who had a panic attack in the very beginning and couldn't stop talking about his deceased dad, then about aunts and uncles, then about the dog, then about architecture, then didn't get the hint because of all the shaking, got petrified when hinted at an alcohol element in the continuation of the meeting and in the end didn't even understand a very direct hints at "only silence can save this" and having at least a sleepover?.. Who only became kinda normal after taking a sedative next morning, still shaking.
Just describing one negative experience I have provided in the past, and that while yeah, it wasn't too cool - maybe lifelong shame is not what I deserve for that ...
(Yes, I know that girl was a hero)
The group summary gives a buffer so the person reviewed doesn’t know which specific date said what. And ensures the summary doesn’t include negative comments about a person unless multiple dates of theirs independently report similar experiences.
That can't be done without somehow verifying identities of all the people involved. Unless the review app is the same as the dating app. Then there are various technical variants, like some cryptographic connection between the reviewed person's identity, the token representing one date, and a temporary identity for the reviewer, used to sign the review message. Something like that.
But that only for the entity doing the summary, which will have to be trusted with the original reviews. And that "buffer" will remove any kind of verification, unless it's something egghead-smart like a smart contract forming the review on every client, which means every client can also see the original reviews. So I dunno.
Of course a bad actor could ditch their dating profile and start fresh any time they build up enough negative reviews to make their summary look bad. And of course the reviews and the summaries would have to be secured tighter than “Tea” is.
Honestly things like this should work like some hybrid of Briar and Freenet. Just entrusting it to a centralized service is as stupid as using Facebook. And in this specific case Briar model is kinda fine - if you synchronize with everyone using the application. You don't need to have the reviews from everyone about everyone, just about people roaming the same general area.
-
-
A more ironic outcome couldn't have happened
-
How many red flags do you need to collect before you get a free cat?
-
Sounds MAGA level IT and dev.
-
Lots of misandrists in this thread framing security failures as sexism against men
-
It can be both.
So many problems are caused because society assumes cisgender women are always victims and anything that looks like a man if you look at it long enough is an abuser.
-
Well, we know what to bait a honeypot with. "Gossip about/slander men right here! To prove you're a woman, insert your photo ID, bank details, credit card information, finger prints and retinal scans."
-
-
Wow just two days ago I see a post about how Lemmy is dominated by men and how that could become a problem, and today I see a comment section where all the incels come out of the woodwork.
"waaa somebody wants to solve a problem that has never affected me I'm the victim"
"omg what if people talk behind my back they might find out I'm an asshole? literally 1984"
"wadabout if this app was racist?!? checkmate"
I'm not saying this app is good or bad (I can definitely see the problems) but if an article about cybersecurity gets posted and this is our first reaction, makes me lose hope in Lemmy.
Edit: Responses have made very good points and I think I was off, thanks guys. I still think some of the early comments I encountered were rather reactionary
-
i mean...an app directly copying a black mirror episode (but almost exclusively targeting a specific demographic) does ring some very, VERY loud alarm bells...
like, this is literally the plot of nosedive.
it's a social credit system.
and none of the people even know they HAVE a score, so it's somehow even worse than the fictional scenario.
this will, absolutely, hurt innocents and it will do so by design.
"fuck them innocents!"...just because they happen to be men?
how is that anything other than misandrist?
how is that defensible?
how is doxxing, mass libel, and targeted harassment a solution to sexism and rape culture?
I'd be really interested in hearing anything about how this is supposed to help women, because i struggle to see how sowing massive, unearned distrust between men and women is going to make anyone any safer...
I'm really, REALLY glad that the GDPR would nuke this sort of nonsense from orbit...uploading pictures of strangers, for the explicit purpose of gossiping about them behind their backs, spreading awful rumors?
what. the. actual. fuck. is wrong with you people?
and i don't mean women, or men: i mean americans and their total disregard for privacy and digital safety. what the hell...
-
“waaa somebody wants to solve a problem that has never affected me I’m the victim”
Everyone has the problem that they'd want to discuss others behind their back. It's not accepted because it doesn't work to any good end.
“omg what if people talk behind my back they might find out I’m an asshole? literally 1984”
You won't find out anything from this. People sometimes lie, especially in such situations.
but if an article about cybersecurity gets posted and this is our first reaction, makes me lose hope in Lemmy.
Human adequacy is a big part of cybersecurity.
-
You make a valid point, this platform absolutely shits on anyone without technical knowledge, just look at the hundred or so smug replies telling you what flavor of Linux they run if you mention a problem with Windows. So, no surprise everyone is focusing on that, and not the human aspect here.
Having said that, there is a power imbalance to this that I really don't like, the accuser gets to hide behind a veil of anonymity, and the accused has their name published, and is forced to defend themselves.
-
So, no surprise everyone is focusing on that, and not the human aspect here.
This is a technology community and the article is specifically about a security breach that exposed massive amounts of sensitive user data.
-
-
Yeah, this app sucks for a variety of reasons, but holy shit the misogyny in this thread.
-
Thanks for looking out for us. However, I, too, am a bit concerned. This is how Facebook started. The tech industry has zero ethics. I recommend women, AND men, have a trusted safety buddy when dating. When I met my spouse, I had two people who knew where I was, the person's name, photo, employer, and where we were meeting.Do some internet stalking. If I don't call you in an hour, come looking for me. If I call, I might ask for another hour, but you get the point.
-
-
-
Lots of men in this thread real upset about this app pointing out how the majority men are shit
-
Defaming people without giving them a chance to defend themselves, talk about shit people...
-
Citation of course needed with that one.
The only people who will be listed on the app are people who are either deserving they've been on there or people who don't deserve to be on there but some woman in their lives has decided to inact some vengeance justified or otherwise.
-
Lots of misandrists in this thread framing security failures as sexism against men
-
119 comments