The worst part about all of this - to me, anyway - is that they had the opportunity to be clever and funny about it and could have left it at the McDonald's-buys-BK PR stunt with continuing professional-sounding tweets, but instead they wasted their hijack by turning it into the exact flood of childish dribble that people expect when they think "hacker".
It sure appears that BK has been asleep at the wheel for a while now, especially after dropping their most recent ad firm. You're not going to get an Oreo/Poland Spring style response out of this.
I don't get what's happening to BK overall. Every McDonalds around me is either being torn down and rebuilt or fully remodeled with new facilities and new tech, while one BK in town has suddenly closed and the other has been decomposing from the inside out for the last 8 years.
BK has been bought and sold many times over the years. Most recently, it was sold to 3G Capital from a group of Bain Capital, TPG Captial, and Goldman Sachs Funds. [1]
Meanwhile, McDonald's spent over $1B to remodel their stores [2]
I have to admit some bias in my original post since I'm indirectly doing some engineering work for McD's at the moment.
What's admirable about the corporation is that they seem to be constantly planning upgrades to both the facilities and the equipment inside it.
I also work near a number of their test sites so I'm seeing things that are continually being changed and played with. The drive-thrus in my area have leader boards to show which store has the fastest service. They've gamified fast-food!
So these guys now are at risk of going to prison in order to create an advertisement for McDonalds and lots of buzz around Burger King. Somehow I don't think they thought this one through.
The fact that we can talk casually about people going to prison for what is essentially cyber-vandalism is so ridiculous I don't know what to think. These are weird times.
Punishment should be proportional to the crime. When you do graffiti on the side of a Burger King, it's a few hundred dollars and two man-days to clean it off. In proportion, the fine should be 2-3x that cost, and maybe 2-3 days in county jail for the offenders.
With the economy of internet scale, that ramps up fairly quickly. How many people saw that vandalism? With your local McDonalds, it's probably a few hundred, a thousand on the outside. How many people follow @BurgerKing? It's probably more on the order of millions. Even using a logarithmic scale, there's an arguement to be made for months in prison. The cost of the offsetting advertising campaign? Who knows; They say "There's no such thing as bad publicity", but certainly some money is going to be spent cleaning up this mess; Probably again 2-3 orders of magnitude more than the cleanup of the local franchise.
> "How many people follow @BurgerKing? It's probably more on the order of millions."
It's more like 85k, as the screenshot in the OP shows [1].
> "Punishment should be proportional to the crime."
I guess that depends on what the 'crime' here actually is (not saying it was acceptable, just that we should be specific on what the wrongdoing was before getting into sentencing - so to speak).
Edit: And isn't security a more important question than punishment? How did this account get hacked? I'd much rather the focus be on creating more secure systems.
Should highly visible graffiti (say, on a freeway overpass) deserve harsher punishment than graffiti down a poorly lit rarely trodden ally or in an unlit subway tunnel?
Are you enhancing this visibility economics to other "ideas" as well? e.g. that the punishment for the killing some public figure should be higher than the one for some homeless guy?
That probably has less to do with his importance in general than it has to do with him being a special government employee. For example killing a cop would also land you a longer term than killing someone else.
You probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) get a longer term for killing a homeless man vs killing Bill Gates for example.
The problem with applying that logic to internet-related crimes is that it's impossible to measure the number of people affected.
Your hypothetical '2-3 orders of magnitude' is spurious reasoning as well, the effect this unfortunate event had on the brand is also impossible to measure.
I'm not denying that the punishment should be proportional to the crime but by what proportion should we calculate against? The total number of followers that @burkerking has? That number multiplied by the number of fraudulent tweets?
Nobody should go to jail for 'tarnishing' some marketing material.
Following your logic, I could make an argument that this deserves less punishment since there is infinitely less physical damage. Most store owners that experience graffiti suffer the most from the fact that it is time consuming and expensive to clean up and/or repair. It is however trivial to delete these tweets.
EDIT: Additionally, seeing graffiti on a store may give me as a customer worry of going in for safety reasons, so their business could actually be hurt (aside from the costs of cleanup described earlier). The reality with this case is that I doubt anyone will draw conclusions about whether they will go to BK or not due to this prank, so the idea that just multiplying by eyeballs is a good metric is suspect.
It shouldn't be about how many people saw it. It should be about restitution; how much did the vandalism cost Burger King? Very little, perhaps even nothing when accounting for the publicity.
Punish the perpetrator financially as a deterrence. But prison time does little to make Burger King whole.
Idle thought: If this could be shown to be the case, i.e. that BK actually increased their profits as a result of the defendant's actions, could the court order the defendant to pay negative damages?
(I know the answer's no, I just find the idea interesting)
The prison-worthy crime is not the vandalism but the illegal access to Burger King's accounts and website. It's not illegal for you to deface Burger King's wikipedia page, after all.
If they are in America, they are certainly at risk of going to prison, and international boarders have provided less safety in recent years than one may hope.
I wish these guys would just go away, they should be using their time to change the world, not troll it. half the shit they do is completely pointless. Sure it may bring some notice to public but honestly it dies down just as fast as it gets put up.
I really dislike the use of the word "hacker" as it is used by most people. It's just semantics, but it makes me sad that when most people think hacker, they think these types of activities.
Which is why I like the work hackivist as it captures the spirit of that activity. Of course it doesn't work with criminal (hackinal?) which some people use 'cracker' (as in criminal hacker).
So the real WTF here is why Twitter doesn't support TFA, at the very least for verified accounts; and definitely for anyone spending money on promoted tweets or trends.
It's certainly something they could add for select accounts, and it's something I wish they'd add as an option for regular accounts.
Just think, a single text message and a "You are logging in from a new computer/ipaddress/application combo so please enter the code we just sent you". Would have saved considerable embarrassment all around.
Alternate way to frame the question: Why would a prankster alter a company's Web presence in a way that suggests they have experienced a hostile takeover by their biggest competitor?
The cynic in me would love to see this as a savvy marketing strategy! First time I've thought of BK in a long time, so I guess it worked! They should capitalize on their new dose of attention by giving away a "hacked" coupon on Twitter to get people into stores!
This is funny, but I really wish these Anonymous guys would either disappear or get 'real' jobs using their skills to build useful things. They're really hurting the image of what it means to be a programmer/tech enthusiast these days. Whenever I tell people I'm a software engineer they say "Can you hack? Hack my computer!" and I just have to shake my head.
