Report them, you say? Many DPC's such as the Irish DPC are very friendly in terms of their lax approach to the regulation, just ask Max Schrems, he's been at this for years. I think the EU and the regulators do not have resources to enforce the law, so whilst there are requirements to protect customer data, nothing bad happens if you don't. Just check the top of HN as I write this [1] "Checkout.com hacked, refuses ransom payment, donates to security labs". Will anyone be arrested, charged, fined, or otherwise penalized? Nope, not a chance. I 100% guarantee absolutely nothing will happen as a result of this article. GPT makes it so easy to capture user data these days and people will just willingly hand it over.
The truth is, you should be very careful what data you hand out, always. Use an alias, use privacy tools, always be weary and check if they have a privacy policy, check to see if it works (make a dummy account, do GDPR request, if no reply, be weary).
If they are not serious about privacy, stop, think and act accordingly. While it is a disgrace what these individuals have done, individuals need to take personal responsibility just as in a real world, would you trust a random stranger giving you pills? Hopefully not!
[1]: >>45912698
From the post:
> then i found this one:
> https://juice.hackclub.com/api/get-roommate-data?email=dont@...
> yep. no auth. just an email parameter. and what did it return?
> full names. emails. phone numbers. flight receipts. all just by passing an email address in a URL.
> i reported it through their security bounty program, made a bug fix pr (because apparently that's how you get things done around here), and maybe made the slight mistake of sharing the vulnerable endpoint in that group chat - which less than 10 people saw, for what that's worth.
The author then proceeds:
> their security bounty program states minimum payouts for this kind of thing start around $150. but exposing passport numbers (which are classed as government documents) should bump it up significantly. apparently "responsible disclosure" means "don't tell anyone, even in a private chat" so they docked the entire payout.
I'm not sure why they're being seemingly sarcastic about responsible disclosure. Yes, responsible disclosure absolutely means that you disclose this to the vendor before disclosing it to anyone else. As someone who works as a penetration tester and security researcher (both at work and in my free time), in my opinion, there should be no confusion about what responsible disclosure is. You disclosing the vulnerability in public before the vendor has had the chance to fix or apparently even triage it is not "responsible disclosure" or a "slight mistake".
At least California defines it as
> unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.
I suspect the things this author is critiquing and the internal resistance to it is DIRECTLY related to the wonderful things this org can do and how it operates.
I'm of the belief that you can't truly love a thing without loving its mother. This applies to orgs as it does all creatures undergoing evolutionary processes. If you do straddle this belief tension, you perhaps love something other than the thing you thought you loved. And this other thing you love will eventually take shape under your care and watch. Which is nice, that "what we put our attention on grows".[1]
So obviously, you are permitted to love a thing and take issue with its incubating process/culture, but I would suggest you're the site of contradiction that has some explaining to do. If you win and change the process of the thing you love, the thing you love is on a new path toward being something else. And maybe that's fine. A new seed will grow in the empty space. People probably need to have a thing to love that looks like the thing you loved. It will be back.
But there's some other healthy dissonance here that the author isn't grasping. I would say this to them: You are the bringer of the end of what you love, not its saviour. It's all good -- these transitions happen, and in a more zen sense, it can come to pass without [my] judgement. But just please understand your role. You're not a hero, you're a death. Maybe a healthy one, but a death all the same. The thing you love perhaps won't survive your care.
To be clear, I have very mixed feelings. The critiques are valid, but I wish I could acknowledge them without compulsion to demand an action. I think orgs that work like this need to stay small, only scale horizontally (inspiring/supporting other sister orgs to grow), and resist any central/vertical scaling that brings you under the rules and norms that they are desperately trying to steer clear of, but are now accountable to (according to our shared societal values).
[1]: http://adriennemareebrown.net/2012/08/09/giftingmyattention/
I addressed the post itself in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=45921428&), so I'll skip that part.
I would really like to know more about these incidents at HC events. We have a lot of very complex tradeoffs within hack club involving security/privacy/safety for exactly the reasons you identified (ie, giving teenagers a very high level of agency/responsibility in running programs). However, staff try to be extremely conscious of these tradeoffs and highly attentive to the realistic risk vectors that come about in our operations.
No teenager will ever (ever!) have anything 'taken out' on them by myself or anyone else that works here. Any time things go wrong or almost go wrong, we just want to know so we can manage that risk in the future. If you are willing to share, please reach out at cwalker@hackclub.com
It's a really long article so he only seemed to read a few paragraphs about the security vulnerability and then said the line while scrolling too fast to read all of the other points. Can't blame him, not going to lie.
Just to be clear: I didn't post this on Hacker News myself, and I'm not trying to present myself as high and mighty or as some kind of villain. I'm just someone who documented what I observed, made mistakes along the way, and wanted to share my perspective on the discussion that's happening here.
On data exposure:
Chris said "The short answer is no" when asked if kids' data was exposed. From my perspective, the Neighbourhood API exposed thousands of users' full legal names through an unauthenticated endpoint. There was also the Juice vulnerability that exposed passport numbers, flight receipts, phone numbers, and addresses. A log file with minors' PII was pushed to a public Git repository. The Orpheus Engine code is publicly available on GitHub and shows data being sent to third parties.
Whether this meets the technical GDPR definition of "breach" is a legal question I'm not qualified to answer definitively. But the data was accessible to unauthorised parties, which is what I documented.
On ChatGPT legal advice:
Chris said "nobody relied on ChatGPT for legal advice." I have screenshots of a teenage intern using ChatGPT to answer GDPR compliance questions. Whether that counts as "relying on ChatGPT for legal advice" or just using it as a reference tool is a matter of interpretation. I was concerned about a teenager making legal determinations using AI tools, but I can see how others might view this differently.
On the timeline:
Chris said the vulnerability was "fixed immediately... within a day." From my perspective, it was reported on July 3rd and wasn't fixed until after I made it public. Other community members have also questioned this timeline. I may be wrong about this - I'm just sharing what I observed.
On the ban:
Chris is right that I said horrible things to people. I was in a terrible mental state at the time - Chris was involved in my mental health crisis in other occasions beforehand (he called an ambulance to my house). That doesn't excuse my behavior, and I've taken accountability for it. I included this context because I felt it was relevant, but I understand why others might see it as making excuses.
On DSARs and privacy policy:
I mentioned in the article that I sent DSARs (data subject access requests) that went unanswered for months. Chris didn't address this in his response, so I'm not sure what the current status is. I also noted that there's still no privacy policy after 3+ months of promises. Chris mentioned they're "actively iterating" on one, which may be true - I'm just sharing what I observed up to when I was banned.
I also mentioned that the GDPR email address was removed after I raised concerns. Other community members have confirmed this happened. I'm not sure why it was removed or if it's been replaced with something else.
On forced de-anonymisation:
There was a recent incident where a student (who had already bought flights) was told they needed to reveal their identity to get an explanation for why their Parthenon (an in-person event, see https://athena.hackclub.com) invite was revoked. They complied and revealed their identity publicly, but still didn't receive an explanation.
Christina Asquith (Hack Club's COO) responded by accusing them of lying, showing "bad faith," making "false accusations," and "harassing staff." She said "Character matters at hack club" and refused to work with them anymore after they posted in the #meta channel (which is specifically for community feedback). When the student tried to handle it privately first, they got one response and then were ghosted. After they revealed their identity and asked directly for an explanation, Christina still refused to provide one, saying the reason "will not be released" and that "no amount of info will ever be enough for them to stop arguing."
The student later described feeling like they were "talking to a stone wall that showed no emotion" and that they only got help from people who weren't part of the organizing team. Christina has also publicly stated she's "less likely to reply" to anonymous posts and has a problem with people not putting their names behind questions.
For context: Hack Club has a bot called Prox2 that allows community members to post anonymously in the #meta channel (a channel for feedback and concerns). This was created specifically to allow people to raise concerns without fear of retribution, especially given the power imbalance between adults in leadership positions and teenagers in the community. However, staff can refuse to engage unless people reveal themselves, which undermines the purpose of having an anonymous posting system. I'm not sure if this is official policy or just Christina's personal preference, but it's concerning when combined with claims that "no teenager will ever have anything taken out on them."
On multiple issues:
Chris focused his response on the Neighbourhood vulnerability, but the article documented multiple issues (Juice, the Git log file, Orpheus Engine, etc.). I understand he can't address everything, but I wanted to note that the article covered a pattern of issues, not just one incident.
I also noticed that all of these vulnerabilities that I reported came from the same person (Thomas). In Chris's response, he referred to this person as a "junior engineer," but in Hack Club's Slack and other communications, this person's title was "Capability Changing Events Lead." I'm not sure why the title changed in Chris's post, but I thought it was worth noting. This person is still working at Hack Club, and from what I observed, there didn't seem to be much accountability or consequences for the repeated security issues. I may be wrong about this - I'm just sharing what I observed.
On the "lawyer" claim:
Chris mentioned that Hack Club has consulted with "a very fancy lawyer who specializes in corporate compliance." From my perspective, I haven't seen evidence of this legal work - there's still no published privacy policy, no designated DPO (Data Protection Officer), no named compliance contact, and no data-retention policy. I'm not saying the lawyers don't exist - I'm just noting that the community hasn't seen any tangible output from this legal consultation yet. Maybe it's all happening behind the scenes, but from the outside it's hard to tell.
On the pattern of response:
I've noticed that concerns raised in the community sometimes don't get responses for a while, and then when people speak up publicly, staff engage more actively. Other community members have described similar experiences where they felt ignored until they raised things publicly. I'm not saying this is intentional - it could just be that staff are busy and public posts get more attention. But from the perspective of people raising concerns, it can feel like the only way to get a response is to make things public, which isn't ideal for anyone.
On the article:
I tried to be clear that I'm not trying to be a hero or villain - just document what happened. The article starts and ends with praise for Hack Club's mission. Other community members (VEBee, rlmineing_dead) have corroborated some of my points, but I'm sure I got things wrong too. The Orpheus Engine code is public if people want to verify that part themselves.
I wrote the article because I thought these issues were important to document, but I'm sure there are perspectives and context I'm missing. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it - the code is public, the vulnerabilities are documented, and people can verify things themselves.
I want to be clear: Hack Club has done a lot of good. It's helped thousands of teenagers learn to code, build projects, and find community. Many of my friends came from Hack Club, and I'm genuinely grateful for the opportunities it gave me. That's why I care about these issues - because I want Hack Club to be better, not because I want to tear it down. The problems I've documented are real, but so is the positive impact Hack Club has had on many people's lives.
But that's beside the point - they provide rooms, plenty of food and snacks, workshops, and activities to do during breaks. Organizers are on-site at all times, and there is a live hotline for parents or kids to call at any time. "sit and code for 3 days straight" is a gross mischaracterization.
Here's an example of an event hosted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXWMr0gdLJA
I think I've read through the #meta post you're referencing and commented in it and yeah, but it still wasn't a spree. It was not a lot of it? cite your sources as well
> > That's good but again, make an announcement in hackclub? > Zach did.
Where?
> I'm more inclined to trust Chris than an anon account that straight up denies that internal conversations happened. You also seem to be regurgitating posts from earlier without seeing Chris's context.
Well yeah, I'm on a throw away as I don't want to be deanon'd. If you really want to talk contact https://hackclub.slack.com/team/U09Q734PGUU, it's an alt I have. Where did I deny internal conversations as well? And wdym regurgitating posts without Chris' context? I literally broke his reply down point-by-point?
I could be wrong, but I don't think that was OP.
> Popular request is for the program to be expanded. I don't know about the "resounding no".
Do a poll then. I for one agree with that and don't think that most people would report it.
> > teenagers are positioned as "independent contractors" to avoid employment protections, holiday pay, and wage floors. this isn't "scrappy nonprofit" energy - it's child exploitation dressed up as opportunity. > > It isn't a full-time job.
It quite literally is?
> Recently, email sending has been revamped, and there are tools to subscribe to individual mailing lists.
That I'll give you. They did recently revamp that and make it be functional.
> Criticism isn't ever censored - there's anonymous reporting, a public forum channel for feedback (which only has temporary threadlocks upon very inflammatory or irrelevant discussion), and you can discuss it anywhere else within the Slack.
Not true. Thread locks are often for 6 months to a year and the posts often aren't even inflammatory, just anti-HQ.
If you do want to actually talk more, contact me on my alt at https://hackclub.slack.com/team/U09Q734PGUU.
Another example: there was a relatively civil debate about a new hackathon yall are putting out, funded by.... AMD, and the US government's fund to "teach AI literacy" or whatever the fuck that means. Due to this, _you region locked an entire Hack Club event_. This is the kind of stunt Nintendo would pull, but an organization that thrives itself in "everyone is welcome".
When confronted, yall decided to..... shut down any internal discussion, and avoid the thread at all costs, directly going against you other claims of "radical transparency" and "openness to feedback"/
What long game are you playing here? The game of "make Hack Club suck for 5 years, and lose our motives, morals, and the trust of our community, for an extra few bucks on the 6th?
It's complicated to handle the law. It's why lawyers cost, per your quote, $500 an hour. But it's not complicated to listen to people and genuinely try to turn back from the wrong turn you took somewhere during Juice.
The only reason we got an update from you in the first place is the opposite of what it should have been. Send this to Christina as well: https://mondaynote.com/united-broken-culture-6b35267c8a10
About the vuln, Ella is exaggerating and has very minimal basis if at all. She did some pentesting, vuln got patched, problem solved. Does HQ need to be more responsible here? Yes. Should critical infrastructure be written by AI? Absolutely not! But does Ella have the basis to start claiming legal superiority over here? Also no.
But, now that you absolutely insist you need to keep my passport indefinitely in order to ship me a sticker that says "summer of making" on it, I expect you to be a little more responsible in: - Who you give access to - How you give said access - How long you give it for - How strict you are about conduct when person is in possession of said access.
TL;DR: Ella's point sucks. Hack Club data handling, also socks. Hack Club PR? Might be worse.
Hi everyone, I should have jumped in sooner. I’m sorry - I’ve been afraid to post because I’ve been worried that any response whatsoever would be crucified. That’s left a lot of you understandably asking questions and that’s on me.
This has been a very difficult set of accusations to deal with this week, and a lot of bad memories have been brought up. Please keep in mind that there is often a lot of context not mentioned and that Hack Club can’t talk about everything as transparently as we’d like due to privacy for the people involved.
First - I want to give an update on the privacy policy. We hired a data privacy lawyer in August through a referral from our main lawyer. We’ve been working with them and expect to be able to release the privacy policy in ~2 weeks. It won’t be anything earth shattering - basically that Hack Club doesn’t sell your data.
From day 1 we have cared about data privacy at Hack Club. When I was a teenager, I’d PGP sign all my emails and refused to use Gmail / etc because of privacy. When Slack made it possible for organizations to read DMs of members in ~2017, we made a public commitment to never do that for Hack Clubbers unless legally compelled (and have never done so today). That’s part of why 100% of all of the code at Hack Club is open source, which none of our peer organizations do (to my knowledge).
Part of why we haven’t been sooner to respond or release a policy is because a privacy policy != security. Practices = security. We haven’t wanted to release something imperfect, so we didn’t release anything at all. We should have just hired a privacy lawyer earlier and published what they recommended - that’s on me.
I believe that Hack Club currently meets or exceeds the security and data practices of other organizations in our space, and where we have found issues (or people have helped us find issues), we have resolved them as quickly as possible. For example, most reports through https://security.hackclub.com are resolved in less than 24 hours. Earlier this year I found a bug (https://gist.github.com/zachlatta/f86317493654b550c689dc6509...) in Google Workspace that enabled phishing from g.co, which is owned by Google - it took them 11 months to fix it (I filed in Jan 2025, got a bounty payout 2 months after reporting, and just got confirmation the bug was fixed 11 days ago).
Here are some of the various steps we’ve taken to enhance security over the past year:
- Essential staff carry YubiKeys, including myself
- https://security.hackclub.com bug bounty program was introduced
- We moved to role-based access control in Airtable and Fillout
- We moved Hackatime and other sensitive apps out of the main self-hosted servers into their own separated server group
- https://identity.hackclub.com was introduced to securely handle ID verifications with audit logs and all documents stored encrypted at rest so individual programs don’t need to handle as much PII. Servers are completely separated from the rest of HC infra.
- We started working pro-bono with a cybersecurity firm that works with Tailscale and other security-critical orgs
- We separated PII collection across YSWSs so programs generally only have access to the individual data people submit to their program (and not the full Hack Club users table)
- And a lot more small things
There are a small number of known cases of accidentally unprotected API endpoints in YSWSs, which were all quickly fixed after being reported through https://security.hackclub.com. We don’t have any evidence any data was leaked. The people who reported all received bounty payouts. Since then, the staff members responsible have been trained and feel very badly about their mistakes.
I hope we can all have a breather and have a better day tomorrow. Thank you all. More soon.