Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmccann | Hacker News Reader

Here's the story from the founder's perspective: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QkTa-zW...

Quoting from that link

> This wasn’t meant to be a malicious hack, but rather a simple social experiment to see how much traction/investor interest I could get.

What matters isn't what it was meant as. What matters is that in doing this you showed your poor judgement.

Apparently he later changed the last line from "This wasn’t meant to be a malicious hack, but rather a simple social experiment to see how much traction/investor interest I could get" to "LEGAL DISCLOSURE: I have neither attempted to read or plan to read any voicemails," in the version of the cache I have, which is a telling edit.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/go9lfnxwt9fnax2/My%20Investment%20...

I find the post photo where Jason holds a phone with Skurt logo, alluding to an existing relationship equally disturbing.

The legend says the image has been modified.

So all he had to do was spoof the number to access voicemail setup? That seems wrong. Would he not need the voicemail passcode as well?

With lots of providers you only need the PIN if accessing voicemail from a number that isn't your own, eg "dialling in" to your voicemail from a payphone/friendsphone/etc (dial your own number, press *)... if it detects it's from your own number, it generally just lets you in without the PIN.

No voicemail passcode was set. The skurt.co folk spoofed his number and set whatever voicemail passcode they chose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com