Slashdot Mirror
Prankster Spoofs President Clinton in CNN Online Chat
According to this Fox News piece, during a highly-publicized CNN.com chat with U.S. President Bill Clinton, a chatter managed to log in with the username "President Clinton" and respond to another user's question with the answer, "Personally, I'd like to see more porn on the Internet, Wolf; how about you?" The comment was pulled almost immediately by a moderator, and the bogus Clinton was kicked off in about 20 seconds. CNN seems pretty miffed over the incident. I guess online identity spoofing isn't as common on CNN as it is on Slashdot. For more info about this little stunt, see the prankster's own page, which tells you exactly how he did it -- and why it was so easy.
An atempt to display the true nature of our own president is met with disdain. Who says that imitation is the greatest form of flattery?
How do you know the president didn't say that? It sounds perfectly in character. Duh.
CNN-Clinton News Network
Between this and being DoS-bitchslapped, they must be wondering why they ever decided to make the Faustian venture onto the Internet...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
at least, according to the guy's statement. How could it have let him log in with the (presumably) reserved ID for the typist is beyond me.
Hope CNN recognizes this as what it is, an exploit of a technically bogus program rather than an all-out attack on truth, justice, and the American Way...but I doubt it.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
gee, im almost happy, he's had to drop to my level...if only i had the power
Checkout taccom my worl war II simulator
Last time the President went online, the moderators filtered out any question that even smacked of controversy. The questions were such softballs they bordered on brown-nosing.
If you get the chance to barge into a chat with Clinton, instead of spoofing, how about doing what no reporter seems to dare and asking him a hard question?
What ever happened to holding the President to high scrutiny?
my fellow americans, i swear i did not have sex with that bowl of hot grits - i just poured it down my pants. thank you.
I know DALnet does. It uses a Nick Server so that no one else can use a nick (unless he identifies him/herself; e.g. /msg NickServ identify ) and a Channel Server to set the channel's topic, moderated or unmoderated, number of users, etc.
You know why it's REALLY funny? Cause being online used to be about being silly and having fun, not about politics and money and stuff.
Years ago, I figured out how to spoof on an old BBS by putting a certain number of spaces, and then From UserName:
This one guy who used to login who took himself entirely too seriously, I used to "make" him ask to be forcibly cross-dressed and "confess" that he had just wet his pants. I can't tell you how long this went on before he figured out it was me.
Damn... that same old spirit... and who could be a more fitting target than Clinton.
Good idea! McCain suggested today that Presidents should undergo barely-moderated weekly questioning, like the Prime Minister of England. I used to watch M. Thatcher bust a move all over whatzisname with the fuzzy sweaters-Neil Kinnock. That was excellent. Can you imagine members of Congress grilling Clinton every week on national television? Yes!
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I sympathize with Clinton. It really seems like there's hardly ANY porn on the internet. It's almost as rare as banner ads.
So, CNN decides to try something new. Online interview. Sounds neat. They even get President Clinton. It's a good way to help the acceptance of the Internet as a daily part of life along.
And then, some dip decides that now is a great time to make his little statement about .
Good work, genius. Why didn't you drop an email to CNN's people, letting them know about this problem?
Of course not, because that wouldn't give you a chance to put up a "Look how cool I am!" web page.
Heck, the guy practically praises the event at the beginning of the article, calling it "a reasonable attempt to integrate two media".
So, if it was so reasonable, why did you feel the need to screw around with it?
Christ, people, if we ever want to stop this idea that all computer people are "hacker doodz", then we need to stop acting like five year olds whenever the chance might present itself.
... is so soft on a sitting president. Never in history have journalists been so complementary of the prez. Almost like the editor expects positive stories about Clinton and censors bad ones. Just look what happened to Paul Sperry (journalist who asked Clinton about that China scandal) -- he was banned from Whitehouse for even asking something like that. Ludicrous!
2 08_xex_wnd_hires_pa.shtml
About time he got heckled a bit...
BTW: Sperry was hired by the last bastillion of the (big corporate)free press: WorldNetDaily. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000
--
GroundAndPound.com News and info for martial artists of all styles.
I find this exceedingly amusing because it is the PERFECT example of how poorly the mass media researches and checks their facts. Not a hack, hardly even a spoof. This is a problem directly with Conference Room, which works under small loads, but not under large ones.
Conference Room even has a 'NickServ' and 'ChanServ', making it easy to check if the president's typist has the correct password before voicing it. Nevermind the quick voice and devoice of someone under the nick President_C|inton. I'm not at all suprised someone under the same nick got voiced right away.
It's all just so amusing. His site is a good explanation of what happened - though the logs are a bit confusing.
--onyx
--onyx--
that if you support the coalition of trolls for the abolition of moderation you can get free karma. just put it in your sig. sign up now, and we'll also include a free picture of your sister, naked and petrified. or if you'd prefer, cmdrtaco naked and petrified. if you plug TROLL KORP we will also send you a bowl of hot grits for free so you can pour it down your pants while masturbating.
Oh well, that's what they get for their lack of attention to detail. Other than the fact that it may not have been "nice", there's nothing wrong with it.
I guess now people will know the truth, Clinton is a big porn addict...
As for Fox trying to place blame on "hackers", I was too busy trying to figure that one out to come up with a good comment.
From the guy's 'statement:' ...
I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled
As opposed to giving the public the impression that net-savvy computer geeks are all immature hacker-types? Excellent.
There's a fine line between identification of security flaws and abuse of power.
-Ravagin
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is NPR! And that means....it's time for a drum solo!"
Karma: T-rexcellent.
I think it's more likely CNN didn't bother securing the names. It seems obvious to me that's what should have been done, but they just didn't think to do it because they're incompetent.
Yet another straw man to take the fall and to be used to justify more restrictions on the 'net. THe bill of rights died with the end of the Soviet Union. There's no more visible yardstick of what we (the US) cannot allow ourselves to become. PH33R the future.
I certainly don't condone what this guy did, but I'm appalled at the results -- the authorities denouncing it as a "hack" and "cybervandalism" are taking the usual attitude I've seen. To quote another Slashdot reader, "Someone says to the emperor, 'Sir, you have no clothes,' and boy is the emperor pissed!"
Do any of you remember the Hotmail "hack" from summer 1999? You could read other people's mail, simply by knowing their Hotmail email address -- no password required! Similarly, this guy was able to impersonate the president without any password.
If you (1) implement the best security you have and you do your homework and lock down your servers, and your system still gets cracked, well, you did the best you could. But if you (2) make no effort to implement security, or just leave all the default accounts and passwords on the server, and you get cracked, you'll get no sympathy from me, or anyone else.
Don't get me wrong. This guy shouldn't have done what he did, but CNN has no right to call it a "hack" or "cybervandalism" if they made no effort to prevent it.
I really hate it when case (2) occurs, and the "victims" start screaming bloody murder. Honestly, I'll bet the sysadmin of that IRC server leaves his front door unlocked a lot.
A better planned prank, by a small cadre of ppl who knew something about international politics and stuff could have gone on for hours...
"Clinton" could have admitted (or at least, alluded) to all the dirty laundry of his administration. This was quite an opportunity....
DALnet and Undernet have these features.
Take it from a former administrator, though - DALnet is LAME.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Although, the AP article i read in the local paper was pretty funny Friday. "A trojan program, known as a daemon, ..." "The daemons arrive at the victim with a fake return address." And i thought 'daemon' was a generic name for a program in the background providing a service, not a specific term for a DDoS tool or synonym for a 'packet'...
Anyone who doesn't understand 'hack' as defined in The Jargon File please stop reading now. Thank you. This just might qualify under sense 5, being a practical joke taking advantake of shortcomings in the CNN chatserver...
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
I think its pretty damn funny. Wheres your sense of humor?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Let me start by saying that I'm an avid FoxNews viewer and am usually pleased with the reporting. However, in your article online regarding the CNN chat with Clinton, I see very poor journalism. You quote several unnamed "experts" that said the disruption was a "hack". Firstly, if you look at the IRC protocol, RFC 1459, specifically section 4.1.2, you would notice that IRC allows one to change their nickname to anything they want. Because CNN chose poor IRC server software, they have several moments which knocked off all of the users and required them to reconnect. Because they had no security restricting who could own the nick President_Clinton, they were open to someone impersonating him. Because CNN chose poor software and didn't bother to install any type of security, there was no hacking needed.
In related news, I found the television reports on the "hacking" of major online powerhouses to be filled with buzzwords and little content. PLEASE, if you're going to report technical news, have someone who knows modern technology report it. At least go down to the server room and as one of your network administrators before running a story. Of course, with the mail problems over the last week, I'm not sure they know much anyways... they don't seem to know about things like redundant servers.
Find the FACTS, then report, so we can decide. Also, I'd like to see a report on the DeCSS lawsuits filed by the MPAA and DVDCCA in recent months, and not just from the MPAA's side.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
He should have come on with the nick "Monica_Lewinsky" and submitted a whole bunch of questions:
I mean, come on. If you're going to do something, do it all the way :-)
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
See my post below for details...
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Same deal here in the True North. Some time is taken out each day so the opposition parties can grill the government on whatever scandals the feds are trying to cover up.
Question Period doesn't get watched as much as it should. When I do see clips of QP, or even run across it on C-PAC (Canada's C-SPAN clone), I'm usually treated to the sickeningly satisfying sight of government ministers dancing around hard questions tossed like hand grenades from the mouths of the opposition. You never get a straight answer, but you get to see the people in power run, dissemble, dodge questions, cover their asses in legalese, and even spew outright lies, just to get the damn question out of the way.
Not to ignore normal Parliamentary sessions and their provincial counterparts...bickering, heckling, posturing, yelling, stomping, and once in a while theatrical protest! It's like kindergarten for grown-ups. Somehow, stuff gets done (mainly because the government party can push every piece of legislation through. The opposition's there for embarrassment value.)
Tangent: When I see Congressmen or Senators speaking on U.S. TV, they're usually dull, proper, and not exactly forceful, save for a few firebrands. Meanwhile, in Canada...once, while watching the Corrections Minister bark out a point, two old farts on the opposite side could be heard booing. Booing! In the legislature! During normal sessions! Another incident saw a member of the opposition, then run by Quebec separtists, remove a chair from the chamber and keep it for two weeks. It's more entertaining than, say, WCW.
I'm not sure this kind of system could work in the land of the free. Hell-raising Congressmen and Senators might enjoy it too much.
Oh, and we have senators too, but they don't do much besides sleep and suck money.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
hahaha. this reminds me of a time in about 1995, when the (canadian version of) The Discovery Channel had a live online chat on the internet, possibly with some scientist or something, but possibly just with the web-happy lady (mara/nara/mala something like that).. :)
anyways, it was live on tv, and they were showing the real-time chat on the tv.. i was sitting at my computer at the time, so i joined the irc channel.. suddenly someone started posting a bunch of anti-micro$oft stuff, and they discontinued the live chat, "there is someone ruining it for everyone else here, by forcing their views on everyone in the channel" hehehe. they didn't even call it a flame or a flood or anything, didn't have a clue!
Micro$oft Sucks!
Micro$oft Sucks!
Micro$oft Sucks!
over and over.. heheheh.
"..Constructive critizism is always welcome however."
Back in late 95 through very late 96, I worked at CNN Interactive. One of the fun things I got to do toward the end of my time there was moderate online chats.
The system we used, it was HORRID. It was so horrid, I can't even remember the NAME of it. It was quite prevalent at the time - and it did act as a 'normal' IRC server for those folks who wanted to connect up directly.
The nastiest chat I had to deal with was with Magic Johnson. We had to have two typists (one for Magic, one for the talking head anchor guy), two moderators to catch questions and forward on good ones to me, whereupon I'd pick out the best and sling'em out for the guys to chat about, ooh fun.
Moderating a chat like that can be VERY stressful... especially when this dingbat producer pulls a very good typist off "Magic's" computer and puts on this gal who is practically a two-finger hunt-and-peck typist, just because he wanted to "spread the fun around". I won't go into how many hangers-on crowded into the conference room to schmooze with each other while the chat/interview went on. Ugh.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Huh, There's no mention of this on the CNN site. I can't help but wonder what would've happened if the prankster wouldn't have made a statement that was quite so obvious. How long could he have fooled people?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Is this true, or is this troll... erm... spewing?
My understanding was that no information has logged on anon. cowards, including IPs?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
if you haven't read the Fox article, I suggest you do. It's pathetic. This is my e-mail
Subject: Bad, Bad Fox
To whom it may concern (and somebody better read this)
One of your web pages http://www.foxnews.com/vtech/021400/hack.sml, contains extremely erroneous information. The quote "Several experts, however, said the disruption was almost certainly a hack. The experts said it would have been impossible for anyone to give a false answer for Clinton without deliberately bypassing chat room security measures. " is totally incorrect. I suggest you take a look at the explanation (http://www.boredom.org/cnn/), talk to those experts again (I'd avoid the AntiOnline crackpots) and quickly amend your story.
To contend that this attack has ANY relation to the recent denial of service attacks is ludicrous. I'd expect such sensationalism from NBC, but I hoped you guys were above it.
If this story is left as is I will discontinue my Fox.com or Fox News Channel patronage, as I cannot condone such shabby fact checking.
Wah
Actually I used my real name, but whatever. This story is HORRIBLE, it ties the CNN "hack" (a hack only in the sense (def #5) we would use) to the recent DDoS (with an interesting bit about the Bank's secret Don't Ask Don't Tell pact), and finally to some kid changing grades on report cards. The kid's explanation. "I did it to show them I could."
--
+&x
Well for starters I think the prank itself was funny as hell. As someone up above said it reminds me of the good old days when being online was about having a good time, not about business and politics. After reading news stories about the prank though, and particulary the comments by the Real Bill Clinton (tm) concerning the Internet and his understanding of it, I got really depressed. Evidently he only ever uses the net for ebay and amazon (and probably porn but who would admit that on a CNN interview?) and that he doesn't really understand it. Yet he felt qualified to sign the DMCA, both CDAs and other Internet legislation. Does this bother anyone else? The internet is arguably the most important new communications medium since the railroad was invented or the first telegraph lines were laid. I mean really, he's not qualified to make descisions about the internet, or any other high tech issues (like the DMCA) I know it's only a pipe dream but it would be nice if we could elect specialized leaders, ie, one body of government that dealt with purely internal matters, another that dealt with foreign affairs, and another for technology issues ect.. so each body has an elected president that is presumably qualified for the task at hand. For example, ESR would make a great technology president but would probably be weak in foreign affiars and trade relations. The government as a whole would still need one central leader to act in times of crisis and to arbitrate disputes between the various mini-governents whenever their paths cross, but would have very little daily administration type of stuff to do. ;->
Ahh hell what do i know, just talking outta my ass.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
nick collide impersonation trick... How fun. Too bad he didn't ride a net split and take ops on the channel. *Grin*
The sad thing is that this might scare CNN away from using something standard and open like IRC and into using some messed up AOL chat program. Oh well... Any ideas how we can help them prevent this from happening again?
Yeah, it's always impressive to watch the PMQ from Westminister or Ottawa (thanks, C/SPAN).
As much as I dislike Blair (truly a fascist, one who's looking to sign rights away to the highest bidder -- much scarier than President Bubba) or Chretien, their ability to spar with the opposition, extemporaneously, is impressive.
I wish that we'd adopt a parlimentary system here in the US of A; sure, it'd be more representative and better able to adapt to the ridiculous nature of the American populace; mostly, however, I'd love to see our miserable shitbag have to answer to the Loyal Opposition sans pollsters and cue cards.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
This little IRC issue (and, honestly, the state of /. in general, but I won't get into that now) really reminds me of what is wrong with the US today. Yes, it wasn't illegal and it was only a prank, but how many people got hurt that he didn't know about? Consider: IRC is a free-text medium, and it doesn't use voice or pictures or video. What is the REAL damage that was done here?
It isn't every day that you see that sort of thing, where a common memeber of a larger "representative democracy" is given to opportunity to unzip it and then piss in the prez's face. But, by golly, that's what happened for crissakes, and the whole damn open source movement ended up looking like a bunch of dumb turds. 'course, they ALWAYS looked liked dumb turds, ramming Linux CD Roms up their asses. But hey, I'll just piss in my own face! psst psst
And, fwiw, happy troll day mofos. I've been waiting a whole goddamned week for this! I've got a bladder that's swollen to the size of a barrel ready to piss in your cherubic yet greasy faces.
pretty funny! (childish, but funny). now i fully expect to read that this guy gets a knock on his door and gets his computer taken so the police can check out this wiley hacker and see how he did this incredible hack of CNN's chat system. i mean there were children on that chat and he used the word porn!! think of the children!
There was a CNN chat similar to that, but for Garry Kasparov, I impersonated him. The chatroom was filled, but the moderators were out to lunch. After I started talking about how silly Americans were, everybody figured I wasn't Gary :-)
Yeah, hopefully Rob will ban your whole class C !! Damn, you must be bored, you moron!
I'm trying to figure out if I should be impressed someone did this. It's not techincally impressive, and all he did was mention "porn". Woo. More impressive would have been tossing out comments like "We've just decided to nuke Iraq." or things like that. Reagan used to use comments like that just to piss the media off.
On the other hand, all involved did end up looking stupid. Wasn't hard to make them look bad, but it was done. Cool.
Study political history. This has been the pattern whenever a "new" issue and threat has scared ppl. The politicans will always overreact.
What most ppl will not want to address is that the internet is not secure and that this is a highly technical (ie, protocol) issue. To make the net more secure will require ppl to probe for its weakeness. But the lawmakers will have made this type of research illegal. But the lawmakers will then make only research efforts legal. But then again, this is what is now the status quo!
Ppl are going to try and crack. Making this illegal is not the ultimate solution. Monitoring is also not the ulimate solution. Perhaps there might be a technology solution, like coming up and implementing a new set of protocols? Unfortunately, the money hungry lobbyists will not push for this.
Standard disclaimer, it is late and I'm tired.
They sent me spam telling me to call an 888 number for my free gift and asking me to sign up for their regular weekly spam.
Unbelievable.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned previous pranks to CNN. Captain Janks(made popular on Howard Stern) numerous times called CNN's newsdesk usually just after a breaking news story. He then socially engineered the poor lady at the phone posing as some news reporter from wherever the news is taking place. Several times he's been on TV when they cut "live" to him via the phone, and he typically mentioned something to praise Howard Stern. I forgot which prank he did that was so tasteless that even Stern yelled at him, but now the pranks seem to have reached the Internet. Yahoo!
*** President_Clinton (bill@got.head.from.monica.in.the.whitehouse.gov) has joined #100%_xxx_sex_movies /WHOIS list. :(
President_Clinton is (bill@got.head.from.monica.in.the.whitehouse.gov) (I did not have sexual relations with that woman)
on channels: @#cigars @#monica @#whitewater #100%_xxx_sex_movies
on irc via server irc.whitehouse.gov (Please don't tell Hillary)
End of
<President_Clinton> Hey guys, what's up
<President_Clinton> Anyone have that complete Pam & Tommy video series? Hillary found mine and erased it
<PRON_DOOD> Uh yeah, I have it, but it's like, several hundred megs!
<President_Clinton> Well, hell it's not like I'm paying for the bandwidth
*** President Clinton laughs at the silly tax-payers ***
<R0N_JEREMY_69> Mr. President, I found you some more German cigar movies, want them?
<President_Clinton> Sure, after all, it tastes good!
<Lamer31337> LOL! I can't believe you really did that!
<President_Clinton> It tasted kinda fishy when I smoked it though...
<SEXFREAK> ok, too much info...
*** Al_Gore (al@invented.the.internet.at.whitehouse.gov) has joined #100%_xxx_sex_movies
<President_Clinton> By the way, could I get those Paula Jones playboy pics?
<Al_Gore> uh, does anyone have some... BILL! What are you doing here?
<Al_Gore> hrrr... I was doing... research on IRC censorship... uh for Tipper...
<President_Clinton> Uh... define "here"... err I did not have sexual relations... err bye!
Signoff: President_Clinton (QUIT: Define 'quit')
<Al_Gore> Well now that he's gone... anybody got some bondage videos?
How about inviting the President for a /. interview in the YRO section? Let's have the /. admin cabal knock out with extreme prejudice all questions that do not relate to YRO, and all other questions be moderated the usual way.
THis way the President can answer questions that are respectful, and yet hard-hitting, for a change.
If he has the guts, that is.
i bet he ends up getting "audited" by the IRS.
or the ATF comes knocking on his door looking for "guns", or maybe the DEA looking for "drugs". ph33r The Man
Yeah, trolls are so very funny.
It's annoying that people who want to read an interview with the President without seeing the equivilent of "Natalie Portman, naked and petrified" are called whiners, told to get the stick out of their ass, etc.
Some people just don't like seeing trolls and spam along with their more traditional content. If you really feel that strong of an urge to mock the President, why don't you set up your own channel on efnet and log in as "President_Clinton" and parody each of Clinton's answers? Then you can have your fun and leave the "humorless suits" alone. Perhaps that would take too much wit.
It's distressing that so many people on Slashdot seem to think that the internet is their personal playground. "Back years ago, the internet was all about having fun!" No, back years ago, the internet was the same as it is today: it was about sharing information.
I think there's an amusing troll posted on Slashdot every once in a while, and I can't claim to have never trolled or flamebaited Usenet newsgroups when I was younger and stupider, but that doesn't mean that just because you have a wise-ass comment pop into your head that you should post it for all the world to see. Really, we're not all that impressed with your wit.
This has nothing to do with the incident mentioned in the article, but it's along the same lines.
You guys remember back in 1995 or 1996 when MTV used to have something called YACK Live? They had an IRC server up and you'd type in dumb comments along the vein of "SHOUT OUTS TO NEW ORLEANS BABY!!!!" Many of messages (filtered, of course) would then scroll in a textbox on the videos shown on the MTV Yack Live program.
I seem to remember hearing that r00t managed to crash the server, just after the textbox filled the message "R00T 0WNZ YOU!" several times.
Is this just an urban legend that I heard or
did anyone see this happen on TV?
?
--
+&x
Look at the logs of this event. Jackie_CNN (an op) voiced, then quickly devoiced, kicked, and banned a user with the nick "President_C|inton". The same person then voiced "President_Clinton" who made the comment. But that's not all, look at the comment Haley_CNN makes: "CNN.com typists are providing a real time summary of this event. For a verbatim transcript please visit CNN.com/chat." LOL, I guess CNN can't figure out how to use logging (typists?!).
I'm more interested in when that cigar is gonna be auctioned on eBay... =)
dunno I emailed 'em about the troll infestation the other day, Hemos' reply goes like this....
We've been looking at a number of solutions, but more to the point, the next couple weeks are going to have some majorly cool anti-Troll weapons. yes, the arms race will accelerate,
but that's the nature of things - and we'll beat them off for a while.
They just have to hold them off till May (then they go home from school)
--
+&x
If these organizations were motivated by what I'm sure many Slashdot readers would consider more noble motivations such as doing the technically Right Thing... then a simple email may have sufficed. However, for one reason or another, the history of computing is full of examples where such warnings go unheeded. That same history is also full of examples where a technical prank that was humorous, intelligent, and most importantly non-damaging was played to embarrass authorities into correcting a technically hazardous situation. This is the true legacy of the technical prank sometimes included in the definition of a "hack".
Whether this particular prank was intelligent could be up for debate. I believe that calling for "more porn" is hardly original. But then, that's probably as much to do with one's taste in humor as well intelligence (and I admit I did get a chuckle out of the whole situation). But the prank did no damage. It has caused a reasonable amount of embarrassment for CNN. And you can bet that CNN will be doing something to their environment to ensure this kind of situation does not happen again.
This is what is referred to as "spamming." "Trolling" would be writing, in a non-abusive way, a post that is intentionally engineered to solicit responses from people who "fall for it." What you're doing is abusing the resources of a Web service that has been provided to you at no cost, and in doing so, you'll probably end up ruining it for the rest of us as well.
:-)
So do what you will, but if you want to give yourselves a label, you would do well to choose something other than "troll." "Troll" does not befit you; it is far too dignified a label to be suitable for pond scum such as yourself. "Excrement spewers" might work. You might ask for suggestions in eighth-period gym class, as well. It would give you something to do other than compare to see who has the most pubes.
aaah.
--
+&x
You know what I like the most about Canadian politics? The fact that the Politicians are willing to have fun on a program like Air Farce. Could you imagine American Politicians putting up with that? Let alone enjoying it?
It's refreshing to see politicians able to make fun of themselves. (Unlike their american counterparts, who take themselves far to seriously...)
...
Hi -
Great to hear from you! Thanks for writing us at Fox News. We want you
to know that we appreciate your comments and questions and we've
forwarded them to the right people.
In the meantime, we'd love to send you a FREE GIFT from Fox News and
invite you to sign-up for our weekly email newsletter.
To get your FREE GIFT or to sign up for the newsletter, go to
http://www.foxfan.com
If you cannot access our web page, you can still get the FREE GIFT and
newsletter by calling Fox News Viewer Services at (888) 369-4762. Please mention that you would like the free gift and/or the email newsletter.
Best regards!
Fox News Viewer Services
Fuck 'em.
Yes, I do think fucking media companies is what they should get for trying to pass off bots as caring, breathing people, and then try to sell me something.
(the free gift is more marketing, don't ya love 'em)
--
+&x
I'm surprised at many of you people. As much as some complain about the difference between "hacking" and "cracking", I would think you would be happy at this categorization.
To me, if they had spoofed the protocol, or had invaded CNN's servers, that would have been a "crack". Since this was more in line of a clever use of the technology, it should be charactorized as a "hack".
For once the media got it right! Rejoice!
P.S. I still reserve the future right to rail against people for pedantic use of "hack" v.s. "crack". :)
--
MALDA HAS IMPLEMENTED IP BANNING FOR 5+ POSTS GETTING MODERATED DOWN IN 24 HOURS!
.. whatever works. Maybe a better way would be to give people 5 posts .. and after that, take away a day for every -1. So if you get 5 posts modded down to -1 in 24 hours, you're out a day. If you get 6 posts modded down, you're out two days .. 12 posts and you're out a week, etc. etc.
.. these guys are assaulting your Web site. I would take the gloves off and launch a counter-assault right back.
I would go three posts and 48 hours, but hey
What would be funnier would be if Rob and company could work with the ISPs of some of these "trolls" (and I put the word in quote because you are not trolls) and post some personal information. In particular, name and telephone number would be good. That would let us call these jokers on the phone and personally let them know how much we appreciate their contribution to Slashdot. I know there is something to be said about preserving anonymity and everything like that, but Rob
Well, whatever. All I can say is this is a Good Thing, and even if you can "proxy your way around it", it still makes it more difficult for you to spam Slashdot. Good. We reap what we sow.
Do you folks not realize who this man is? There is no event a Clinton would walk within 150 miles that wasn't completely scripted and he knew the questions 48 hours in advance. This is the way he works. So, you (as citizens) will never get your questions answered. The only questions that will get through are the ones by crying single mothers who need more government money. Why does Hillary only run a "listening campaign?" Because she cares about the views of the citizens of New York? Sure... ;)
;)
All these "town hall" deals are this way. What candidate would want to be asked a tough, maybe embarassing question? They (and you) know that will be the only clip played on the news for weeks to come. So, to avoid this, they only allow generic questions that let the repeat the one or two themes of their campaign, which they hope is carried by the mass media.
Even if a "hard hitting" question comes about, you can bet it wouldn't be against the candidate at such a forum. Take the McCain fiasco with the allegedly 13 year old boy who idolizes McCain and his (near) weeping mother. No one asks, "What pollster (who gets paid per valid person he polls) would bother talking to someone who can't vote for another five years?" No, instead all the news blurbs are about how her son was in tears because a mean Bush push pollster (how many ordinary citizens, the same types which can't find the power button on a simple computer case, know the term "push poll?") said McCain is a bad man. This has accomplished what it was set out to do, boost McCain. Too bad he shot himself in the ass with that commercial calling Bush "Clinton." Without that, this would have been a decent last week before the South Carolina primary for him.
I won't get into the number of levels of people these questions go through before being asked by Wolf Blitzer or answered by President Clinton. But be assured, the two aren't sitting there at terminals actually typing.
OK, here's a quote from ABC News's article on the "hack": One even managed to evade the filtering software set up to screen out potentially sticky questions or inappropriate comments during the chat and using the president's name posted the comment, "Personally, I would like to see more porn on the Internet." I don't think "sticky questions" was a very good phrase to use when talking about good old Mr. shoot-it-on-her-dress. :P
OK, here's a quote from ABC News's article on the "hack": One even managed to evade the filtering software set up to screen out potentially sticky questions or inappropriate comments during the chat and using the president's name posted the comment, "Personally, I would like to see more porn on the Internet." I don't think "sticky questions" was a very good phrase to use when talking about good old Mr. shoot-it-on-her-dress. :P
I knew it for a long time, but this is the best proof so far.
*NOWHERE* in the full text or in the transcript they even mention the prank.
Communist "Pravda" at its best could not do a better job.
Way to go, CNN, way to go.
What's this? Somebody's launching a DOS attack? For the sake of children, somebody had better make sure it's a DR-DOS attack, not that bug-riddled, CP/M-code-laden Microsoft stuff.
It must be a heavy burden to have been chosen to speak out for the Net's righteous dignity. I recommend getting a little more fiber in your diet, and seeing a therapist to remove the identity confusion you seem to have with your Everquest character, Sir Sucks-A-Lot...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Heh. Burning off karma, guys? ;-)
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone setup up an AC submit bot. Is this a home-brew bot, or is it TribeFlood? Will Slashdot join the ranks of Yahoo!, CNN, and E*Trade soon?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page: 1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic) Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't. Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time. 2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. " Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"? Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity? Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
Fox News reported the story, not CNN. The Fox News story quotes CNN spokeswoman Edna Johnson, "It wasn't a hacker. We were not hacked into. Have you ever participated in an online chat? Anyone can come in and register and participate on site. This person was registered and participating in the chat. He was a prankster. They give themselves a user name."
The title of this story, "CNN.com Chat With President Clinton Infiltrated by 'Prankster'," starts off reasonably enough, until you get to the last two paragraphs of the first section. Then the FoxNews - not CNN - editors-that-be (or somebody) start hyping the DDoS connection.
Q: What do I love most about shoddy journalism?
A: Unnamed "experts".
I generally don't read AC posts on Slashdot, but you calling FoxNews "the authorities" is the functional equivalent of me calling a F1rst p0ster a Slashdot editor. (Too bad you can't set comment thresholds when you watch TV!)
Like you, I hate it when case (2) occurs: if you (i.e., CNN) didn't think it through, you shouldn't get upset when it blows up in your face.
But let's not use the erroneously sourced arguments of the things-as-they-are crowd. That's how laws like UCITA get passed, and how Jack Valenti gets his way.
(Same article, just better formatting; had it on html by mistake :) )
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page:
1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic)
Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't.
Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time.
2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. "
Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"?
Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity?
Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
All, This immature individual's name is Christopher Petro. Someone who has a detailed phone book: Start working... Simon Chang
sorry to say I think it was Hilarious. freaking if CNN had a clue as to what they were doing this kind of stuff woudnt happen.
My fellow Americans, it is a sad day when hackers are able to impersonate myself, the duly elected commander-in-chief of the American people. I promise you, the American people, that we will apprehend those responsible for these crimes. On the dawning of this Internet Age, we must be ever vigilant in fighting to protect our freedoms from those who would seek to take them away from us.
---My fellow Americans, let's join now to protect the interests of our fellow Americans! The American people have asked
karma?
--
+&x
A direct assault is not out of the question. Look at the dissapointing posts even here. Some moron just about quoted a Clinotnism, "just because something is easy, that does not make it right." [gramatical errors TM Billy Blithe Speach Writers INC.] If readers here can be fooled, our friend's case will be a blip that few normal people know about and most will agree with. This poor dude might find himself tried for computer tresspass or something else equally vauge and stupid, but burnt just the same. Good luck to him, the stage is set for him to fry.
The president has advisors who know things about technology, and they explain it all to him. Unfortunately, he also has advisors who know all about the news media, and opnion polls, and other ways for him to do what 50% +1 of the voting public want. And the public generally understands the technology no better than the president.
That's why god invented lobbyists, and a multi-layered representative democracy-cum-republic. It slows things down. The US gov't is an experiment in limiting how quickly people with power can force other people to do stupid things.
In my ideal world, you'd have to have more than an "opinion" to vote - you'd have to be able to identify a logical fallacy.
Throw in advisors who know the difference between a system flaw and deliberate vandalism, and the world would be a better place.
Okay, I'll step out of la-la land now. 8)
:)
Goldmeer
If this doesn't show the need for embedding a unique id in every processor, i don't know what does. E-chat will never be safe until anonymity becomes a thing of the past. Until then CNN will just have to use DoubleClick like the rest of us.
C'mon, he had his computer set up to re-access when the connection got dropped. He tried to get in under the President's typist's nic, and it worked. At that point, he could've started thinking, but he didn't.
It was funny. He screwed around, but had he asked a serious question (like so many posts have recommended), CNN still would have deleted it, and he still would have been kicked off.
Smart or no, what happend to Wankel would've happened no matter what he typed. At least he had the decency to post an explanation, in case someone wanted to know what actually happened. (I haven't seen the news story yet that explains how this could happen, and not be malicious.)
jarataN, I wholeheartedly congradulate you on your willingness to stand up for what you believe is right, and to speak out to protect the freedoms of the American people. As the duly elected commander-in-chief of the American people, it is my privelege and honor to protect these rights which we all hold so dear. God willing, future generations will look to the fine example that you have set and realize that acts of cyberterrorism cannot go unpunished, and will instead act in a responsible fashion.
---My fellow Americans, let's join now to protect the interests of our fellow Americans! The American people have asked
Bill Clinton then proceeding to break into a chorus of "Getting Sticky Wit It" to the tune of Will Smith's "Getting Jiggy With It."
Seriously, you don't get many chances like this, who has time to plan?
you really thought Fox was better than NBC? I mean almost every week our local Fox station runs stories about the fucking X-Files(I'm assuming these stories come from the top, I doubt the local station has the resources to do that type of work). It doesn't get much worse than that.
... whether he understands the Internet sufficiently to know that this was a non-event in the IRC scheme of things?
You never know, he (or his spokespeople) might actually be more clued up than the media.
It certainly would be a coup for them to respond intelligently about what happened, in the sense that the US network-aware population would be astounded. I doubt that they even recongnize the political opportunity though.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
9) *Bill_Gates* Monopoly? Sure, as long as I can be the hat.
8) *Kofi_Annan* Anyone for Coffee? It's strong and black.
7) *Phil_Evers (head of Esmerelda)* At least the Tisza and Danube taste of almonds now.
6) *General Wiranto* Anyone up for a song?
5) Signoff: John_Howard (You are temporarily banned from this server. jdIc4341)
4) *Boris_Yeltsin5* Who put the room-ski on spin cycle?
3) *Joerg_Haider* Australia's One Nation party were wimps.
2) *NASA* If those damn martians would just tell us where they were, we wouldn't need to keep "losing" craft
And the number 1 "hacked" IRC comment is...
1) *President_Clinton* Bill and I love you all!
I remember efnet having a nickserv way back when (I forget when it stopped running, 1992 or so? It was a long time ago, hard to remember). But I don't remember it doing much more than using /notice to tell you you were using someone elses nick. (based on userid@domain)
anyone else out there notice how HORRIDE the typists for clinton and Blitzer typed? i mean, i know i'm not much better, and these people have to go at the speed of speach, but "teh" twice in a row? come on...
ok... done with my rambling
-confidential
Well, I thought it was damn funny, but this guy is nothing but a pompous asshole looking for some sort of hacker glory or something. I bet he considers himself "smart" for doing this. So what, you can exploit someone elses IRC screw up with an IRC script that is faster than the op can type. IRC people are the dog shit of the internet. AOL people are the maggot infested dog shit of the internet. Pulling one over on the dog shit on the internet is not magic....it just means you smell like dog shit now because it is stuck to the bottom of your shoe.
We can only hope that Clinton or one of his advisors knows that this is pretty much a non-event. Remember that he has a high-level policy meeting today to discuss Internet security. I'd rather he didn't have staring in his face what on the surface looks like a blatant example of Internet insecurity.
We simply don't need the US Government's "help" in securing the Internet. I would hate to think that a simple prank like this would help to bring that nightmare upon us. Given the way CNN's competitors (especially Fox) have been making this non-event into a Big Thing, Clinton and his spinmeister friends might decide that "action" is required.
The cost of this prank might be very high...
BWAHAHHAHAHHehahahAAHEHahaHAHAEHAHA!!!!
Oh, I feel so much better now! I mean, come on, lighten up, folks - the kid pantsed the President in front of a bunch of hacks trying to suck up to him! Now, who here hasn't secretly thought of pulling the rug on one of the Presidents, eh?
Now THIS is U.S. democracy in Action! Yeah!
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
Reading the log you can see that one of the ops (Jackie_CNN) was just too clueless to be opped on the channel. First she voiced President_C|inton (then devoiced a short time later), then voiced wankel (now known as President_Clinton) in spite of the fact that his IP address was completely wrong - with username petro for one thing, and the wrong numbers for another thing. On top of that, the other op (JoeCNN) was too clueless to undo the damage.
Any 14 year old IRC groupie could have done a better job of opping the channel. Opping is more than just knowing how to click power menu options.
Nothing personal Jackie, but you'd better go hang on IRC a while longer before you op the next interview.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Everything else clinton said on that IRC chat was ambiguous. I didn't see one real non-political answer. So waste of time in my mind but definetly good for a laugh. -B
``Personally, I would like to see more porn on the Internet'' - Pres. Clinton 2/14/00
According to the wankel's statement CNN has called it a "prank" and said that they "were not hacked into". FoxNews are the ones who called it "vandalism" and "hacking".
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nah, this was a simple "prank", like calling up businesses and asking them stupid questions, or people who have classified ads..."Hello? You have free cats in the paper?" "Yes." "Well. are they skinned and gutted, or will I have to do it myself?"...etc., etc.,
No technical skillz at all...
What with the prime minister (not the current one, the previous one - Paul Keating) getting up to answer a question & the opposition then making oik oink noises, cause he owns share in a piggary. Or the Prime Minister referring to the Democrats in the Senate as a bunch of "unrepresentative swill", or referring to the tories as "silvertailed scumbags" - it was a laugh a minute. But things have quietened downed since the torie (big L) Liberals took over the goverement. Give me a Westminster Cabinet govt over a Presidential govt anyday
people are people you know
.oO0Oo.
who's to say Bill wasn't too busy laughing too
he might be blood stained but the straight jacket of office surely is too much. The media doesn't let it's chosen subjects be human in a natural way. Remember Yeltsin getting pissed and dancing on TV, imagine Bush doing that! (it was funny as fuck that day he fell in his dinner though)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
It was the president thinking he was sending a private message to wolf joking around, he screwed up and it was public. Now it's a coverup they say a joker did it.
Who among the truly twisted among us would have turned down that opportunity.(O'course wankel
better grease his bunghole for that time in the not too distant future, when the S.S. kick in his door and throw his body,prostrate in front of the
erect Janet Reno).
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
MTV Europe used to have a show with Ray Cokes... I forget the name - but it was along the lines of a talk show... argh... I can't remember the name right now. Anyway, they had a IRC/Ray Cokes split screen. I think it was unmoderated... anyway I recall a LOT of flooding with large, multiline letters (so it was visible on a normal tv). I also recall that one time the channel got taken over and the MTV session got ban/kicked... hehe...
Jay
-- polish ccs mirror
They used the old Find and Replace and switched all the references to hack to prank.
First off, Conference Room runs on several operating systems, Linux included.
Personally I had some experience with it several years ago. It was fairly decent, even though I preffer dalnet ircd, CR easily has all the options one might need to setup a irc server.
The problem here was simply shoddy administration.
That particular nickname should've been reserved (not just registered) it apparently was not. It's not a fault of the software, but of the people planning the event.
Oh and lastly, "security by immaturity" is not a valid "Right" in my book. I wonder if you would feel amused if someone hacked root on your box, sent you a console message of "YOU HAVE AN EXPLOIT!" and then proceeded to rm -rf /
Wouldn't that be a gas? I'm sure it would.
Sadly, laughter is about the only thing we have left in the arsenal against our current disgrace of a president.
Please, mock away!
DB
This points out some ethical differences between Hackers and the "Rest of Then".
As hackers, if we encounter a system that (a) permits something, and especially (b) has the means to not permit the same something (even with weak security), there's a strong belief that "hey, it's fair game -- it was set up that way INTENTIONALLY).
This isn't a question of someone walking into someone else's house because the door isn't locked and looking around. It is a question of someone pushing a button in their new-fangled home that (a) unlocked the doors, (b) lit up a big neon sign outside saying "Come in and look around!". Now that someone DID walk in, they're all upset.
It boils down to "Do what I mean, not what I say".
Such a concept is strange to hackers: after all, the machine will "do" what you "say" (i.e. program), regardless of whether that's what you want. We ACCEPT that if what was said was not what was meant, the error is on the part of the speaker (i.e. programmer), and NOT the listener.
Non-hackers would argue to "apply common sense": obviously I couldn't possibly MEAN what I said or did and you should know this! But since common sense is so vague and imprecise, and is useless for purposes of communicating what you want a machine to do, why use it for ANY form of communication, says the hacker? And when we do, we at least agree on who does the interpreting (i.e. a judge in the case of contracts drafted in a natural language that is imprecise).
I suggest that the notion of giving any credence to what one supposedly means (by way of common sense) when it conflicts with what one has said is so foriegn to a hacker, that it's dismissed entirely.
Unfortunately, for every victim of such a misunderstanding of their intent, there are a lot of sympathizers who think, "Hey, I could be misinterpreted the same way!", and such people tend to band together to fight the hacker interpretation, and, among other things pass bad "common sense style" laws to combat it.
Given that the majority of people lack the discipline to be sufficiently precise in what they say to ever be able to hack, is it not surprising that they would wish to oppose those who live by precision?
- RSH (posting anon.)
A copy of the official transcript of the interview, as released by the White House, is here. No mention of the "incident", though there are some good questions posed to the President and some answers worth reading.
Perhaps you mean "The Emperor Has No Bodyguards?" or maybe "The Emperor is Just a Whoring Twit?" The analogy you use is what is frequently applied to such subjective things as poetry and art, never anything as objectively cut and dry as a lack of IRC security. Read Vonnegut's "Bluebeard" to get the real story on proper use of the analogy for art critique :)
This is simply a case of some dumb little kid being in the right place at *exactly* the right time. I'm not impressed, at all. To call it a "hack" is to insult hackers everywhere.
At least his site doesn't sport mAd feetz 0f hack0ing or something.
And yes, it is funny.
Isn't it amazing how quickly the media can spread inaccurate information? Either they don't care, they're lazy, or the all-consuming competition to be "first" merely means being the fastest with the copy and paste commands in Windows :) Those who have used IRC a billion times know how easy it is to grab a nick when there's a split if the server is unsecured. But its pretty obvious the technoretards still don't get it, as evidenced by what I just copied and pasted below from abcnews.com: "You can only imagine what they were asking Bill Clinton on Valentine's Day," said CNN spokesman Paul Schur. Schur confirmed that at one point the filtering system failed and some watching the chat online saw the comment about pornography, which a user posted under the president's name. "Because we had such a large volume of information coming in, one question got through the filters," he said. It was not clear whether Clinton knew that the comment had been made. "We did not ask Clinton if he wanted more porno on the site," Schur said. Evidently, CNN's computer people haven't read the IRC specs either :P I think the prank was a good thing, if impromptu, as the prankster pointed out how full the internet is of security holes to the ignorant. Its really no different than locking the door to your house to keep intruders out. CNN's too embarrassed, or too stupid to admit that they didn't bother to use a good lock - i.e., software program - on their chat room door.
Scott A. Carson
I think you either overestimate the gravity of a chat with the president. You may have him confused with a king. We don't have one of those in the US, and a healthy disrespect for elected officials, particularly those unworthy of respect, is one of the things that keeps it that way.
Personally, I think it's an after-the-fact rationalization anyway. I can easily see someone coming back onto the server after it crashes, seeing no President_Clinton, followed by:
/nick President_Clinton
just to see what would happen. I would guess that he was so blown away by the fact that it worked that he couldn't think of anything funnier than porn jokes.
That happens in the U.S. Senate every few years, too. Come to think of it, we're about due :)
:)
Then there was President Jackson, aka Old Hickory, aka Colonel Jackson (though he was a General at the more interesting points).
Just off the cuff:
1) sent the British commanding general at New Orleans home in a rum barrel. He demolished the last British force in North America, unaware that the war had been settled a week earlier in France. Remnants of the British army were scattered across three or four states.
2) At his innaugeration, became the only U.S. President *ever* to ride a horse through the White House.
3) He was a brawler and a duelist. His dueling glove shows visible wear (I believe it's in the Smithsonian). He once told the entire United States Senate to meet him on Capitol Hill, and bring their guns. None showed up.
4) My favorite: The duel with Charles Dickinson. This was one he'd rather have avoided. I forget the grounds, but I think it had something to do with Mrs. Dickinson. Dickinson was a marksman, and the night before the duel, put half a dozen bullets into an area the size of a silver dollar on the tree that Jackson would be standing by while showing off for his friends. Jackson came out in flowing robes, and simply let Dickinson shoot. He took the bullet in the chest without flinching. Dickinson tried to flee, and had to be dragged back so that Jackson could shoot. Jackson aimed, then lowered his aim, shooting him in the groin. Once Dickinson went down, Jackson collapsed from his own injury. "I didn't want the (*%^$&*( to die with the satisfaction of knowing he'd hit me." He spat blood for the rest of his life from the wound.
5) His dying words: "My only regrets are that I didn't shoot John C. Calhoun and hang Henry Clay." (two famous statesmen of the era).
Hmm, or in the Nevada state legislature:
"Sir, are you accusing me of prevarication?"
"I'm not sure what that big fancy word means, but if it means am I accusing you of lying, I sure am!"
See, our politics aren't *always* dull
>he made a joking comment, that nobody could think came from the president.
:\) = cigar in the smiley . . .
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. How about, "that noone thinks the president
would make if he thought he'd get caught"
hehe... that's actually sort of amusing. How sad eh douchbag... you actually make funny comment and it gets a mod down while most of your normal worthless trash gets a mod up.
Is that how you get those cool little comments next to your score?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"The Solomon Project" was the OJ trial computer thing. Lots of other hilarious ones on the site as well...
dr. j
props to all dead homiez
The President of the United States reads Slashdot! Who woulda thunk it!
Rangers Lead the Way!
s bunghole for that time in the not too distant future, when the S.S. kick in his door and throw his body,prostrate in front of the
erect Janet Reno).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Link to Official Transcript of Interview (Score:1)
by Silas on Tuesday February 15, @10:47AM EST (#403)
(User Info) http://www.summersault.com/chris/
A copy of the official transcript of the interview, as released by the White House, is here. No mention of the "incident", though there are some good questions posed to the President
and some answers worth reading.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Spin Docs, Laziness, & the Tech-Challenged (Score:1)
by Black Dog on Tuesday February 15, @11:11AM EST (#408)
(User Info)
Isn't it amazing how quickly the media can spread inaccurate information? Either they don't care, they're lazy, or the all-consuming competition to be "first" merely means being the
fastest with the copy and paste commands in Wi
One of the greatest powers of the internet is the way it strips everyone down to an equal level. Like anything else, it has a good side and a bad.
It'd be a bit like joining a club that required all the members to carry a baseball bat, but had no other way of determining who gets in the club. Most people would use their bats responsably, but the occasional five year old would still whack someone in the shins now and then.
We can't expect all parts of our population to be responsable. Instead, wear your own shin-guards, and laugh a bit at the poor soul who is dancing around in pain because he forgot his.
--- Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
The prankster used no unusual methods. He walked right through an open door. So he didn't deliberately break security protocols. Anyone familiar with IRC knows that there is a "nickname" chosen by each user. Only those unfamiliar with IRC (most Americans) would think that if I selected the nick "Bill_Gates" that I was actually trying to impersonate Bill Gates. The scary part is that the prankster broke no laws but I'll bet he winds up in jail before this is over. He'll wind up in jail because he offended and embarassed the President and CNN's executives. The fact that he broke no laws in the process will be obscured by inaccurate journalism and PR people at the White House.
HAPPY TROLL DAY BITCHES
Yes, it's possible to do signatures without also adding encryption capability - the laws have been relatively explicit about that on paper, if not in practice. But the most common signature algorithm, RSA, also does encryption, so it's only usable by software that ignores the encryption regulations. And one prominent authentication system - John Gilmore's export request for DNSSEC name servers, which can protect the Internet from the forgery that's commonly used to attack systems - was refused export permission (retroactively, after the permission had initially been granted.)
Developing a good interface for authentication on chatware takes work - you don't want to hang five lines of "---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE--" on every line of chat. Cooperative development is an important method for developing good interfaces - but it's one of the areas hardest hit by the encryption regulations, especially cooperation between Americans and Non-Americans (not only Non-Americans outside the US, but foreign college students here in the US as well.)
There are a few projects for secure chat that I'm aware of - GALE, at www.gale.org, is a relatively sophisticated system that's inspired by MIT's Zephyr system. It's an open architecture with several different clients developed by several different people. And of course, people are always developing new IRC clients, but patching security on to things can be tough.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Even more funny is Rick Mercer getting American politicians on camera to congratulate Canada on tearing down their ice parliament building and putting up a more permanent structure.
I mentioned earlier that motivation often comes in the form of money and embarassment. What drives those motivations home is fear.
People don't change things because they feel comfortable. Someone who grasps a situation may feel a bit of fear just KNOWING something is possible and that alone will motivate them to fix the situation. However, quite often officials do not grasp the situation and must have the severity of that situation demonstrated to them.
Seeing is believing. Spook the horses.
I've been in more than a few situations where some generation of fear was required to get the Right Thing done. And I'll likely do it again.
As any Star Wars fan will gladly tell you - Fear leads to the Dark Side. You can over do the fear factor. You can quickly cross from a practical demonstration of risk to out right fear-mongering. One should always be on guard against such excess.
Again, it would be nice if we were in a perfect world where simply pointing out a deficency was enough to have it corrected. But the Real World is not wired that way. To get things done, sometimes you have to push buttons; you have to present a motivating factor. Fear is one of those.
slashnet has a NickServ. undernet doesn't. frankly, I get annoyed by NickServ ;) (and I even registered my own name). OTOH, times like this, you need to have the bot look at people's names and ban anyone who logs in with a restricted name. In this instance, CNN_bot should have been given the ability to check and see if someone was logging in as President_Clinton, and then use a variety of authentication procedures including ip addressing and password authentication to verify the identity of the individual in question.
:) ).
(Which isn't to say that this wasn't funny. It's funny as hell. Live, learn, move on. I think CNN is doing that. Too bad Fox still thinks CNN was just cracked by the 3|337 dd0$ h4x0rz
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
[...] how about doing what no reporter seems to dare and asking him a hard question?
Given
Personally, I'd like to see more porn on the Internet, Wolf; how about you?
I beleive the spoofer was pretty hard enough...
In the great days of 2400 baud modems and 286 based BBS systems, there was less question about ethics and security. Most of the computers you connected to belonged to someone specific. Often times, one of your friends. You wouldn't dial in and try to wipe out their computer any more than you would key up their car.
Since BBS systems usually ran on someone's own personal machine, this didn't leave much doubt as to who you were intruding on by messing with the system. There may have been other users that were inconvenienced by such activity, but for the most part you were just irritating the owner of the BBS. Operators often reminded their users of this with trite warnings on their logon screen. Something to the effect of: "This computer is part of my home. Please don't crap in my home."
BBS's grew, and many had to be backed by businesses to get as large as they did. 40-line super boards didn't spring from someone's hobby board unless they were quite wealthy and bored. As the owner of the BBS became less obvious (it was now usually a company, rather than a person), people respected the system less. It might be a very normal reaction, (to respect an individuals wishes more than a group) but it didn't make it right. Something about making the responsability less personal made them forget.
Now that BBS's have grown to large web sites and internet communities, respect for property has dropped to pathetic levels. When was the last time you actually read the MOTD on a large FTP site? Most browsers don't even display them anymore. What are you missing? Probably a message that pleads with you to use a mirror site (bandwitdth costs!), and not to mirror them without permission. But more important than that, is the fact that you don't care. They could ask that you don't use more than one connection at a time, but you wouldn't know. They could ask that you upload 1K for ever 10K you download, but you probably wouldn't know that either unless it was enforced. These might not be security problems, but they are respect problems. People don't really care where there data is coming from, and they don't really care what kind of migrane they give the man running the irc chat server at CNN.
Most companies I've worked for don't have the resources to find an IRC god to contract in and set up their IRC server. Often from the time the idea hits, and the time idea has to be acted on, it may only be a week. Who winds implementing this "chat" idea that a PHB thought up? Probably the web designer down the hall that "has been on IRC before" and thinks he can find some software on Tucows. Is he thinking about security? Probably not. He'll turn on all the security initially, but then turn each thing off that interferes with getting the project done in time. It's total blasphemy to those who know what they're doing, but those people aren't there. Research takes time, and he doesn't have any.
Computer security compares quite a bit with the real world. Companies may have badge-id's and proximity sensor cards that open doors, but how hard is it to catch a closing door and walk in to most places? Should you do so, and go trash their lunch area, just to prove a point? Most of these measures are in place to help stop people from stealing intellectual property and customer information, not to keep out vandals.
The technology to build a moat has been around for a very long time. It's a very good security device for such an old idea, but just because the local burger place forgot to dig a moat around itself ("but how will we fit the drive through?" "huh, oh well, forget the moat"), should I sneak up and paint over their signs each night?
CNN treated this the best they could. They got stung a bit, and got over it. They had no moat to protect themselves, and someone nailed them a bit for it. It wasn't worth crying about.
The prankster shouldn't have messed around with their chat session. He was a guest on a system that doesn't belong to him. If only out of courtesy (rather than being forced to), he should have left it alone.
I am only offering a perspective here: CNN was right to just mention it but blow it off, nobody can expect even a handful of people to have perfect ethics; and the pranking guy shouldn't have screwed up CNN's chat, just because he could. Someday he might realize that, when he discovers someone has keyed his new car, just because they could.
Matt
--- Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
I agree. Prime Minister's questions is the ONLY reason to watch C-SPAN!!! I love it when Blair and the tory leader start going at it!
But, Clinton wouldn't be interesting...
Speaker: The House recognizes rep. Joe Blo from texas.
J. Blo: Mr. Speaker, Will the President please tell us why he cut funding to social security?
Pres. Clinton: That depends on what the definition of "to" is...
J. Blo: To means to!!
Speaker: order! please answer the question mr. blo, what is your definition of to?
yada yada
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
You completely destroyed any intelligent argument you could have possibly been making by alluding to Star Wars. Honestly.
Smartass
Funny hacks are good pranks.