Slashdot Mirror
Saddam's Inbox Hacked
MotorMachineMercenar writes "Wired News is reporting that Saddam Hussein's email account
(press@uruklink.net)
has been hacked into. The account had a five-letter login with the same password. Messages in his inbox sent from all over the world included everything from death threats to business propositions to offers to sell him WMDs. A choice quote from the article: 'One AOL user sent Saddam a one-word message: 'Imminent.' Attached to the Aug. 6 e-mail was a photograph of an atomic mushroom cloud.' I wonder what the login was."
You'd think it was "press," password "press," but if it were that obvious I think someone would have said so.
Don't you think his password wouldn't be in ENGLISH?
--JonnyBlog
I agree. A hoax or an intentional plant on Hussein's part. I immediately thought of the "orgy of evidence" line from Minority Report.
On the other hand, if it's true, whomever "hacked" the account and told the press probably only duplicated a hack already done by the NSA, and caused Saddam to close the hole. Good job, bonehead!
m00.
I vote Red Herring ...
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
Well, like the article says, the address is the Iraqi equivalent of "president@whitehouse.gov". (As opposed to "president@whitehouse.com", which is something quite different. ;) So what it means, no doubt, is that a bunch of low-level employees do a first pass through it, filter out all the spam and death threats, then pass it onto their slightly less low-level superiors, who filter out most of the rest of it and write up summaries, then pass it on ... [repeat n times] ... until Saddam gets a one-page summary on his desk and maybe a couple of really interesting letters, like the one from an American to which he (supposedly) wrote a personal reply.
Iraq's government is very, very different from ours in a lot of ways (duh) but it's still a government, and thus a bureaucracy, and all bureaucracies have certain aspects in common. The people who read the e-mail addressed to "press@uruklink.net" and those who read the e-mail addressed to "president@whitehouse.gov" would probably be able to fit quite nicely into each other's jobs.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.
The US hasn't in modern times seen widespread destruction on home turf, we still remember it vividly.
If the US could prove to European leaders (and European population) that Iraq is indeed the threat the US makes it out to be, then I'm sure European nations would also support military action and possibly be a part of it, as most have stated, they want a UN mandate first. But, the "He dun tried to kill mah paw" argument isn't that convincing on the European side of the pond.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Whether or not Saddam or his regime read it isn't really the point. The interesting thing is what people sent, and why. It's also a unique privacy issue; these people who thought they could quietly support Iraq are exposed in such a way that they can't really claim to have been violated.
Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.
Hey guys, just to make the argument clearer could you please make a distinction between Saddam and his cronies and the people/country of Iraq. I'm sure many Europeans (and hopefully Americans) would consider themselves pro-Iraq if we are talking about the country and people, but anti-Iraq if we are talking about Saddam and his cronies.
For some reason, I just don't see Saddam reading e-mail. What exactly would he expect? An outlook invite to the lunch and learn session on advanced tourture methods in the atomic conference room? Or perhaps he gives out his card at political functions so that people can e-mail him new ideas about how to fund terrorist operations without the world knowing about it.
--
Saddam Hussein
President, god, and super nice guy (because I said so).
Iraq, country of milk and honey
(964)(1) 718-9267 (phone)
(964)(1) 885-2286 (fax)
"This issue is not inspectors, the issue is disarmament."
- GWB
Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.
I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.
I am not trying to be a troll or leave the wrong impression, but Saddam and his crew are not the types you want to have that kinda stuff. The U.N. knows it and made resolutions to prevent it...unfortunately, none of them are being enforced.
There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either. This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.
Did Brian McWilliams, author of the article, do the actual hacking? Or was he just informed of it by some skript kiddie? The article is mysteriously vague about who did the deed.
Assuming they did do the hacking, this is ethical... how? Does this mean they figure it's all right to hack into anyone's e-mail and publicize the results? What if it were your e-mail?
It may have been a nifty trick that someone happened to guess the right password, but as journalism, this is beyond the pale. I'd like to see someone from WIRED News comment a little more specifically on who the hacker was, why his or her name wasn't disclosed, and how WIRED justifies reporting on the hacked contents of an e-mail account, and where they draw the lines.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Some of these commercial offers might even be considered high treason.
I hope that all U.S. corporate leaders involved are immediately arrested and charged with treason or some other appropriate offense. This is wrong on so many levels it churns my stomach. The arrogance of these people astound me to no end.
I sincerely hope this is a hoax but somehow I can see that it's possible.
If there is truth to U.S. business attempting to solicit business with Saddam Hussein, then I expect to see reports of arrests and investigations in the news. But I can already hear the paper shreading machines in operations and the degausing machines humming...
An objective analysis of both W's record and Saddam's record reaveals that Saddam has a much worse record on human rights. It's funny and popular to say otherwise on Campus, maybe, but last time I checked, the US government doesn't maintain a specially horrific prision for the children of dissidents, doesn't gas its own citizens, doesn't execute military officers by the hundreds, doesn't explicitly repress free speech, etc. Which the Iraqi government, controlled by Hussein, does.
Regardless of whether or not attacking Iraq is a good idea, saying what you said kind of makes you seem like a moron, because it's absolutely factually incorrect, and it lessens the impact of any argument you try to make.
The worst Republican, on his worst, conspiracy-laden, evil, money-grubbing day is better than Saddam Hussein on his best, most charitable, not-killing-people day.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
No - we have more than enough history... your history, as a matter of fact. We understand these things very well, thank you, which is why we go to great lengths to keep our homeland from experiencing the sort of things that have happened elsewhere in the world.
So - what next? Are you going to claim that only someone who dies from lung cancer is smart enough to know that smoking is dangerous?
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
You're missing the point. The joke is not on Saddam, but on all those well-wishers, detractors, and would-be business partners who sent him mail. I found the excerpts very entertaining.
You probably mean "...countries that have not done anything, except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants that warrent[sic] an attack."
Since when is guessing a password considered hacking?
Point 1: Granted. Gulf War Syndrome is still vague and relatively little is known about it. But the government DID now that lots of soldiers were complaining about it. They first ignored them, then told them there was no such thing, and now, whatever the heck it is, the government is finally admitting there may be something to the claims (whether or not the military did something intentionally, or the soldiers were exposed to enemy chemical agents, etc.). The point is, the government was willfully disinterested in GWS.
Point 2: Forgive me if I reserve a healthy skepticism of the naivete and innocence of those who perpetrated "accidental" civilian casualties and ailments during the course of experimentation. Vague enemies on the other side of the planet are eternally convenient, yet, inexcusable, reasons for such behavior.
Point 3: I never made the claim, and neither does the article, that the US was trying to infect any group with AIDS. The point is, the US has been in violation of the Genocide Convention (I was not aware of this particular convention), perpetrating involuntary sterilizations as recently as 1976! With similar callousness, according to this article, the US apparently used sub-par or experimental vaccines on Native Americans.
I didn't make this stuff up. Just because they don't teach it to you in namby pamby middle school US history doesn't mean it is not real. Search Google yourself. Better yet search your library. This stuff is historical fact, not speculation. We just refuse to acknowledge the dirty portions of our past...which I think does ourselves a disservice - especially when we expect to use our moral highground to sidestep international law and treaties to "do the right thing".
As far as our history with dealing with Native Americans, I suggest:
Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years
The sooner we dislodge the fantastic myth, and somberly acknowledge and admit to our real past, the sooner we become a better people.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
For what?
To save the lives of soldiers?
Nuking hospitals & kindergartens?
If thats not a crime against humanity *nothing* is.
Its a paradigm example of a crime against humanity.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I consider myself pretty good with computer security. I even have a honeypot installed on my computer. To lure the crackers in, you must make it very easy to get into the honeypot. This all seems too easy...
I don't think its a good idea for anybody to be jumping to conclusions about what his e-mail gets. That webmail account may have been created for the purpose of luring in crackers working for the US government. They may just forward all the junk and non-secret mail there.
We change our regime every 4 years
I'm not an American but I'd like to point out that occasionally swapping between Democrats and Republicans is NOT a regime change.