Slashdot Mirror
Hacking Crime Victims to Remain Secret
outlier writes "The AP is reporting that federal law enforcement agencies are offering to keep the names of companies that have been victims of major cracking crimes secret. The goal is to encourage victims to come forward, so that the government can 'prosecute cases while at the same time achieving the kinds of protection and addressing the concern that the business community rightly has.'" My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
We do have in Brazil a police force specialized on internet crimes but sisnce the majority of the attack victims are off-shore, it's kind difficult to track down the crackers.
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
Companies that get hacked are, of course, only interested in recovering and getting back to their core competency. Nobody hsa time for forensics or any other bullshit, unless they've got an export control box hacked or we're talking classified data, in which case legislation dictates that more measures are required.
This is good because I beleive then that a lot more companies will come forward with hacking tales, more development will be done to plug holes, more people will be able to talk about hacking, more people will be aware of the dangers, more people will become educated about hacking and virueses and the like, and we will have fewer "I cant find the any key" tech support calls and fewer viruses propagating like mad.
Help I'm a rock.
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
You mean they used to arrive all lumped together? No wonder people got upset!
Learn to spell, guys...
From what I've seen of them, I didn't know they _could_ do things discreetly.
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
No...
THIS (o)(o)
is a bust
-Fedreral Breast Infect0rz
And snail-mail correspondance will arrive in plain brown wrappers????
So where are all the leet geeks pointing out to the Jargon File's definition of "hacker" and that it has been used wrongly once again?
> My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
The guys in black trenchcoats? Uh, those are our network consultants. Yeah, network consultants.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Maybe the courts should just start calling the parties H4X0R and H4X0R3D...
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Nothing beats security through denial.
"Uh, I wasn't hacked, nope. Must have been Corporation X."
And WTF is this?
Government efforts to tighten Internet security and investigate online attacks have long been hampered by reluctance from companies to admit they were victims, even in cases where executives quietly paid thousands of dollars in extortion to hackers.
Ok, someone needs to prove this, otherwise I get the highly suspect that it's some government propaganda. Honestly, who pays a script kiddie to remove the pr0n and racist/anti-gay shit from their site?
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
This is bad, wrong, and just brain dead.
If the company can't keep it's information secure, why should I own any of that company's stock then?
Information crimes should be treated the same way as a real robbery (just we have a smarter crook to deal with).
This is on the same level has cooked books IMHO.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
This is an excellent idea. The amount of information that disappears down a black hole due to copmanies keeping quiet must be gigantic.
A good idea from the FBI..? Next thing you know, the CIA will start acting intelligently and the government will start governing...
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
them: "Someone has testified against you, we wont tell you who it is, and we can't tell you what they said either".
you: "Umh ok".
FRA: STFU GTFO
I agree that confidentiality is important in some crimes. For example a woman who has been raped shouldn't have to have her name splashed on the front page.
But... if my bank or credit card company has a habit of getting hacked (ie. lax securtity) I figure I have a right to know about it.
Just my $.02.
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Hi. We're from the FBI. You're under arrest for hacking. We cannot disclose what you did or who you hacked. Just jump into our jail.
There must be a dozen or so sites in each country that take a list of recentltly defaced web sites, I guess this isn't as severe as screwing up millions of credit card numbers.
Shouldn't the consumer be aware if someone who they gave there credit card details has been hacked and now they are exposed? It comes down to, if your a victim, you want to know.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Isn't this sort of like the family who's teenage daughter gets pregnant and they don't want anyone to know because "what will the neighbors say?!?!"?
FLR
My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
In my experience, the FBI can be extremely discrete when they want to be. I work for a company that provided some important information to the FBI after September 11 last year. There would on occasion be two or three agents in our office, who always showed up driving an unmarked car, and wore casual attire. Most of the people in our office had no idea the FBI was even present.
The article says this isn't an issue because most hacking computer-crime investigations end in a plea deal, but how willing will suspects be to plea if they know they have an out at trial?
Clearly I still have some issues to work through...
-Sazarac
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." --Albert Einstein
This sig is exempt from disclosure under the privacy Act of 1974.
Does this mean people will be tried in secret? They do mention Homeland Security. Does this mean hacking is terrorism? How do they protect the identities of children who are victims? The media often understands their need for privacy, but does a publicly held corporation need that protection? This simply illustrates that stock prices are too dependant on corporate image and not real value.
Yeah... I'm thinking of putting DynaTroll up on sf.net, that everyone can have this much fun!!!
--- AIDS KILLS FAYGOTS DEAD.
Case in point... AbiWord vs. PayPal.
I'd certainly like to know that the California State agency which kept my personal information had been hacked into. Same for anywhere I have or might be placing sensitive information.
Bad policy, bad! No treat for you!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is clearly not to improve securty, only push up the FBI's arrest count.
Do these poor guys ever get there equipment back, Ive never heard any stoires of guys getting back stuff from the FBI after theyve taken it away for investigation?
OK, it is off topic but, it shouldn't be modded down. Where is this on topic? Regardless of the fact that the comment doesn't apply to this particular article, the subject is legitimate and people should be able to discuss these things.
Slashdot broke when they moved to the new colo and days later, it is still broken. I would think that there are a lot of us amongst the community that do wish to discuss this topic.
AC for obvious reasons.
4th attempt.
I'd be very happy if they would be talking about protecting the normal people, instead of companies, who have been victims of crimes.
However, in the case of companies that don't spend an appropriate amount on infosec, fear of public knowledge of their lack of security is often the only impetus to spend any money at all. Case in point: as the only "computer guy" (read:webmaster) at work, any problems with systems, be they internal or external, get blamed on me. I've fought tooth and nail for training (nope), a new network architecture (confidential documents, including employee data and customer financials, are stored on a Win2k box that has no firewall, no A/V, nothing), even just the ability to install freeware solutions (fuck spending an appropriate amount of money, just let me spend some time, please) have all gone by the wayside. The only time I can get approval for anything is when I lay out specific scenarios of stolen data being released publicly and the ensuing customer backlash over the lack of security. Without that hammer, I've got nothing. And since the only infosec experience I have is that which I can get for free, on my own time, I need all the hammers I can get.
Introduction
A spadger can not encourage participation earthly. Who do I protect as to a scliff? Sometimes counteroffer worryingly. The Mecca must jetty across from the requestor, an overhand, a blueblood, a concrete roadie. Who does eager reattribute smily? The lurker does declare war bluntly. Those pillory outdrop, save coil. In addition, to pick a fight, a Buteo must not obviate scantly. A gangplow isn't risky over chedite. They believe that to fly kites, inconsolableness wouldn't smore defiantly.
The ectopia
Don't bless regarding us. A goldworker does not disband the team shrilly. You think anyone in between a whippoorwill can replan. How do I tumefy inside a semicolony? Anyone overpersuade to Fatimite, wide Soviet must not always tritiate. These inulase waitlist, after birdhouse. It's been proven that to trim his beard, a torchere will not mosh laxly. Don't disconcert next to it. Those burgee inwreathe, anti lymphopoiesis. This Polyporaceae betray, due to allomorph. It's been proven that to clench a fist, a Thespesia wouldn't carburate gayly. Take for example, why either didn't guess together with amildar studiously.
A foggage ounce
The Delmonico isn't gospel on board filibustering. You smith following the perkily. It's been proven that the fatuity would not albuminize bar that apophthegm. However, soldiers die forward of when bimli. Never air save for no one to a straightbred. In order to pay attention, adonis doesn't ensphere via a quamash. No one questions that the nutcracker won't gander outside that newfangledness. To tinkle, a peafowl couldn't landslide after perkily. They think to reive, ventil must create a mood. What do we quarter for the sidepiece?
The nominalist
To reexpress, the Frank did not abscind on account of pleadingly. Dogged oscillator did always unmesh. Many people think chested horsing would schmear up until grandpa. The misquoter did tell tale neurally. Both repent to colonist, and sometimes eternise hydraulicly. They say harmful interoceptor can ooze pert, and secludedness is always ruttish in lieu of antihunting. Either wrangle to antirachitic, to repel, the cornhusker can sulcalize before keenly. What do present debate rages inside retint?
The dispace footsy
Always irrationalize as for several to the showpiece. What do a calthrop mollycoddle, overencourage benignly? Those anomaly volatilise, beneath postpositive. Sometimes misenroll among anybody to a Arrhenatherum. Neither perpetrate to reproving, and never preambulate among each to a callais. Equal enchaser can not sometimes overhang. You counterraid amongst lapstone. The fact is, the sugi wouldn't preadmit, and the barrister will not outcrowd, to produce evidence, the anthracite should not rebate scruffily. For example, the hoodwinker is busty to come to decision. A civilisation didn't lug in lieu of a Mahratta, a cathedral, a insurgency, a mut ossiculum. Everyone knows, the telepherique is not extra to produce result.
Conclusions
For example, how the vitiator must defend my country. Always defibrillate over either to the mews. To swallow food, Maputo won't whump dirtily. Everyone knows, a jarrah would not afforest up until this Rumania. Don't triumph towards him. In reality, anyone must not Japanize outside of piper pitiably. It is true that synchroflash isn't plain ahead of a demonism. To do housework, kickdown shouldn't pluralize mellowly. Many people think that to topple governments, Lacedaemonian wouldn't shoehorn happily.
---
Powered by DynaTroll: Dynamic, automated, trolling.
aYOtP35nkc
--- AIDS KILLS FAYGOTS DEAD.
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. The government is doing everything it can to protect the names of companies that have deployed inadequate network security practices from getting out but they're also making it their mission to expose companies that have employed deceptive accounting practices like Enron and MCI. The bottom line is that they both point to problems with the running of the company and if the company is publicly held then this information should be exposed and the incompetence dealt with.
is this how they are going to arive at peoples buisness?
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
Points can be discrete.
People can be discreet.
No mixing!
don't tell them that!
What, the bit about an agency or a government?
any of it!
Right. You're under arrest for hacking.
don't tell them what they're under arrest for!
We can't just arrest them, can we?
we do it all the time!
But that's what morally corrupt dictatorships do and we're not one of those, we're from a democracy, right?
oh, great, next you'll give the whole thing about where we are from away, just why don't you wave the flag, show 'em a picture of your mom and ask if they'd like some apple pie! fer chrissake!
Ok, we cannot disclose who you are, what you did or who you did it to, who we are, what we are here for, what you may or may not be charged with, where we are taking you or anything else. We're not even sure if we are at the right address, but just come with us.
quietly.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
- Yes. I've been looking for you, Neo. I don't know if you're ready to see what I want to show you, but unfortunately you and I have run out of time. They're coming for you, Neo, and I don't know what they're going to do.
- Who's coming for me?
- Stand up and see for yourself.
- What, right now?
- Yes, now. Do it slowly. The elevator.
The Constitution on the US (CotUS) guarantees
the accused the right to face the accuser.
If the case gets to trial, the case is on
the public record.
So much for either the victim remaining
anonymous or the CotUS.
-- kjh
FedEx envelope delivered to IT manager's desk with an old, analog cell phone in it. IT manager takes it out, and answers it when it starts ringing...
Then, of course, fifty FBI agents come bursting into his office.
(Unfortunately, the agent who was working on this plan was transferred before he could perfect the "call him on the phone" part.)
This is of marginal value because while it may keep things under wraps while the hack is occurring, if the hacker is caught (the goal, after all), then they have the right (in the U.S. at least) to face their accusers. Barring a rather broad-sweeping gag order, the press will get wind of it. And given that the bait here is for the company to remain anonymous permanently so users of that company to not lose trust in that company, this is of dubious value.
Plus, IF the hacker (remember a lot of jobs are done from the inside) catches wind that the FBI has been contacted and is being asked to be discrete, this is a new weapon. They now know that they have brand new button to push that the company would, for whatever reason, really not want pushed.
Just a thought.
My
Limekiller
Step 1: Hack indy media sites, or anyone opposing this years crop of hardliners
Step 2: Arrive at the citizen's physical address using discrete math and storm the place, loading opposition into white vans (or junky ol' chevy caprices, whatever seems appropriate for a given situation)
It's pretty much the same ol' song and dance. What exactly is government doing? If people get hacked and need some security consulting why do they need to go cry to big brudder, when private security specialists do a better job? More examples of the state "make work". Wonders never cease
This must be part of the FBI's new 'Trustworthy Computing' initiative...
...politically motivated attacks? There's lately been a big DDOS attack on www.freerepublic.com, the conservative discussion site, and I haven't heard that any law enforcement agency cares about protecting free speech.
Of course, you may not agree with their politics, but...
So is this saying that hacking is even more humiliating, more personally damaging, more vicious than rape or murder (or any number of other violent and cruel acts) -- so much so that we have to shield its victims from any public knowledge of their being victims? Or maybe are we saying that corporations get whatever they want from our justice system? (*cough* Microsoft penalty judgement *cough*)
you see, I think this is just so Microsoft doesn't have to announce that they've been hacked AGAIN.
Ummmm, that isn't even constitutional. The accused has a right to confront their accuser. Do you really think the accuser is going to keep quiet about who the victim is? Doubt it, unless they give him some real incentive not to. Either way, with lawyers, relatives, friends etc, the true story is going to leak out somehow. If the FBI *REALLY* thinks this is going to remain secret, they have more than a few problems...
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
So now not only is the electronic "proof" easily faked, now you don't even have to tell the hacker whom he supposedly hacked?
Great! The perfect infrastructure to put arbitary people in jail. You can frame anyone!
And how can the hacker prove to the judge that the alleged victim had something to gain from framing him? And it makes it impossible that someone can can read about the trial in the newspaper and help prove the hacker's innocence.
Obviously they want to get rid of Kevin Mitnick for good this time.
Cyber armagedeon is coming...
Companies can be assured of discretion when reporting computer crimes...
Give the FBI more tax-dollars and everything will be ok. Can't have those horrible 'hacker' types extorting money from the system now can we?
Give us your money...OR ELSE!
...Brazil is also the home of plenty of convenient open proxies which can be used to disguise your location whenever you need to "surf" anonymously...
Does this mean that Scientific Games, whose betting system was 'hacked' during last weeks Breeder's Cup (specifically between the 4th and 5th races) would not have to have reported their vulnerability? ./ article
See here:
That is ridiculous!
?sp
The reluctance most companies have to present evidence they have been jacked is not because they fear the effect it will have in their customers. This fear goes much deeper and touches the very soul of many companies. It is a problem of competence, knowledge, expertise and information control. Many companies control quite badly or don't have any control over the information exchanges ocurring inside their infrastructure. It is a mess that no one can get an hint of and no one really cares. While money keeps coming, they will not worry sharing its local network with third parties (some business centers work that way), sending tons of internal data through simple e-mails out to Internet (no cyphers, no filtering), sharing local networks with customer's ones (how many ISPs work like that?) and many, many more.
It is curious to note that these cases are even more frequent among corporate strucutures, specially among holdings. And no one cares when one company gets sold and still keeps using the common corporate resources. And some do use these security breaches for their purposes.
So why companies want to hide information? Because they don't want people to mess up in their "internal" affairs. Roughly this is the same type of story like the county sheriff meeting the feds in its town. He may know he has a problem but he will be more happy to see these suits outta there ASAP and leave people solve its own problems. The same goes to most companies. They will not invite feds because they fear publicity. They will not invite them because they prefer to leave the mess for themselves, instead of having some "outsiders" sniffing all around and giving too many questions.
Not long ago I was in such situation. I came in in a "no publicity, no scandals, all confidential, internal and top secret" agreement. However, some guys didn't calm down until they smoked me outta the company. According to my recent data, they keep living exactly the same way as they did. While they fill their pockets, they don't care for shareholders, clients, partners or concurrents. And frankly it seems that their shareholders don't worry either.
Oh well, that battle is really lost. OK, I realize that. Language has evolved beyond reach and we can't possibly managed to do all the education to revert it.
But what should I call myself? Or rather, what should people call me when they want to pat my back for something cool I did on the computer? I mean, everybody likes that, and we all need that, don't we?
Computer professional? Nah, I can't even accurately describe a Turing machine. I have merely basic training in computer science, on a "tools" level.
Computer hobbyist? I can do a lot more than most people, I can learn things fast, and I'm trained enough to point out flaws in the things many computer professionals do, including really good ones. Besides, I'm getting paid for it, even though the job market isn't that good.
Geek or nerd? Well, yeah, I guess I am, in some respects, certainly, but it doesn't really describe what I do accurately.
Well, many people gets a real identity crisis from this...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Don't we have a right to face our accusers?
This sounds like it is either:
a) a lie carefully crafted to get cooperation from large multi-nationals that would otherwise probably eat the loss to not lose face, or
b) a new scheme by the government to set up little fat guys they don't want around. If you don't know what systems were violated, it would be that much more difficult to prove you didn't and the volumes of data that the prosecuter is going to try to confuse the jury with is fake.
- 1 very expensive firewall thingy [check]
- A virus scanner on ever system [check]
- Very, very expensive audit by a security group with tight conections with a security product vendor.... perhaps next week
The firewall makes sure nothing bad heapons to the network (all bad stuff comes from the outside you see), the scanner keeps all malware away... who need an audit anyway. no need to make some simple preparations in case of a compromise, we just put the backups back and never look at it again. Who would wanna target us anywayHow will people learn about compromised banks? This way every script kidie will be laughing with its friens on irc about holes but how will the public learn about them and more improtand how will they know banks work on them?
Why not keep the trials of crackers secret to, they are all terrorists anyway! what do you mean white hat proving holes after being ignored or greenpeace hacktivist looking for proof of bad environmental behaviour? Hey while we are at it, let make sure we get the crackers from overseas as well (or perhaps only the little ones who still fall for "job interview" offers)
I feel more safe alread, well, I am off to get the nimda atacks out of my logs even after their trail microsoft still takes tree times to get their act together (think iis dotdot bug), seeing how the
It seems that many of the posters have missed the entire point of the article...
The FBI is not trying to hide anything from the cracker or the victim. That wouldn't do a lot of good.
The point is to NOT PUBLICIZE every event that a company's network has been hacked. Not only is this embarrassing for the company, but it attracts unwanted attention from press, ignorant investors, and aspiring crackers.
I'm sure that all the script kiddies read the news about, say, Yahoo! getting hacked, and think, "Hey, maybe defacing a company's website isn't as hard as I thought!" This is one of the many issues with publicizing a major hack.
I completely agree with the actions of the FBI concerning this issue.
Way to go.
Criminalizing hacking is probably a mistake. It's a natural impulse to explore networks and work past barriers. It's no coincidence that the word "hacking" describes both creative programming and "malicious" network connections. They both stem from the impulse to explore systems.
The Government is now voicing concern about our "National Information Infrastructure" and its vulnerability. Passing tough laws and increasing enforcement is exactly the worst thing we could do for that cause. It will merely grow "hothouse flowers" - vulnerable networks that will not be probed by ordinary people (because they're scared) and will remain vulnerable for cyber-terrorists or organized crime.
Indulging the weakness of our corporate information security will be a never-ending spiral. Instead we should drag these hothouse flowers out into the real world and let natural selection take its course. In fact, the government could help most by offering bounties to people who hack into important facilities. Of course these bounties would be added to the tax bill of the corporation responsible for the security weakness. If most of the malicious hackers were reporting to the government, there'd be no way for "victims" to hide the incidents, and they could be publicized so customers and shareholders can react appropriately. That's how free markets are supposed to work - people buy and sell based on information.
Small scale hackers and script kiddies are like the constant barrage of viruses that keeps our immune systems on their toes. If we manage to scare them all away, we become the "boy in the bubble".
I think you broke my monitor.
aren't they IBM executives?
--
Backup not found: (A)bort, (R)etry, (S)uicide
you're an immigrant charged with a crime with "national security" implications.
The SEC is pretty clear that a company must report significant losses to stockholders. If a company is hacked and has millions of dollars in damages, aren't they committing a crime by not reporting that to their stockholders? (reminds me of the Mitnick trial).
Alright /. decide on the terms.
/. decide on the style guide so we know what we are talking about.
Are we talking about hacking or cracking?
The title talks about hacking crimes, and then uses cracking in the paragraph. So please
How the government seems much more interested in protecting the rights of corporations than those of the common people.
Even more worrisome is the mention in the article that they want to make hacking details exempt from the freedom of information act. This is a small, but very significant, step towards a fascist police state. With the overall prevalence of computers in society today, anyone would be liable to be called a "hacker", and prosecuted secretly.
If the just returned the calls from people who report computer crimes. Every time I've tried to report a porblem to the FBI in San Jose or San Francisco I get no callbacks. No returned email. Nothing. If I report the same problems in Dallas (our corporate headquarters) I get lots of help, until they discover the computer is in San Jose. At which point they transfer the case to San Jose and the folks in San Jose "lose the paperwork."
I don't think the FBI is serious about tracking computer crime. If they can't even return calls placed to their Silicon Valley offices.
It's important for us to realize that you have certain concerns as victim companies that we have to acknowledge," FBI (news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller said. He promised, for example, that FBI agents called to investigate hacking crimes will arrive at offices discretely without wearing official jackets with "FBI" emblazoned on them
In other words, they are probably coming in "discreetly" to investigate the company that is hacked, not the hackers. Having a hoard of FBI agents mulling around your office is not the best publicity, worse at times than being hacked and having "J00 R 0WZ3R3D, PAY ME $1000000" tagged on to one's webpage...
Having your webpage hacked, people know you have a security issue. Having the FBI swarm your office, people imagine for themselves what you have done to have them there. Anyone care to guess which is worse?
When keeping a secret, make sure others do not even know you are keeping a secret, lest their own imaginations persue a worse scenario than reality - phorm
at the cost of consumers of course.
>along with any sensitive corporate disclosures that could prove embarrassing.
Embarrassing? I'm sorry, but if my bank has an incompetent IT department, uses crappy software, has a poor security policy, etc then I should find about it in the paper alongside the police blotter which lists every drunk, domestic fight, and pot possession in the county.
The meat packing industry is the same way. They can recall tons of dangerous product without telling the press who the meat was sent out to. For instance it was all sent to McDonalds or Subway then those companies have the choice to tell you. Your safety, and life in some cases, is second to their PR.
Government is supposed to protect all interests without giving in to one side. Sadly, those with the resources get what they want and there isn't even a popular opposition party to call BS on laws like this.
At first, I was thinking in terms of a "rape victim's" perspective. Yes, it's "damaging to your reputation" to be seen as weak, vulnerable and insecure, but then again, this is PUBLIC INTEREST not PRIVATE INTEREST.
People who are considering their position as share holder deserve to know the state of the company they own a share in. People who are considering buying into the a company deserve access to the information about what they're buying. As far as I'm concerned, it's a consumer right!
Corporate secrecy and other shenanigans has been what has led to many of the problems our economy is suffering now.
Another poster had another view from the perspective of the "accused" which I also feel for. It's the leverage of a plea. If a person is merely suspected, presenting proof isn't required? I'm sorry, but no! It's 100% necessary so that a person can adequately and fairly defend himself if unjustly accused. The only thing resenbling "fair" is when the accused is actually guilty and actually knows what he did... and even then the accused can't know for sure.
This idea places too much balance in favor of government law enforcement and corporate interests and is completely against "the people." This shouldn't be happening.
And hiding hacks like this is a good reason why? Because a company was too stupid to protect their own systems well enough? Didn't want to spend the money to hire a security expert to help them get it right? I have no remorse for companies who are too cheap.
Anyway, did anyone bother to notice that I was arrested and spent 5 months in jail on false hacking charges even though the charges were eventually dropped?
Probably not - this is what happens when you allow people to cover up incidents. Someone innocent gets caught in the crossfire and they get railroaded (like me). Its too easy to run around these days screaming HACKER HACKER HACKER so you can cover up your own stupidity/illegal actions/whatever.
(yes, I was set up. I was probably - almost guaranteed to have been - set up to keep me from talking about the illegal actions of my former employer, but I'll never know)
Brielle
From the article:
"Companies that worry too much about public response underestimate the public's ability to assess the situation with some sophistication," [the FBI spokesman] said. "If a bank robber sticks a gun in a teller's face, the public is not confused about who's fault that is."
What about companies that provide little to no protection to their networks? Is that still the same as a robber sticking a gun in a teller's face, or would that be more akin to say, someone walking into the bank, into the unlocked vault, and walking out with everyone's valuables? And can the public still asses the difference with any level of sophistication?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Since when hacking is a crime? It's ***CRACKING*** that's the crime!!!
just a thought, but if my bank gets hacked, i want to know about it....so i can never go back there. (well, after i've got my money out...) companies should be punished for not employing good enough security. any, if that means that everyone gets to know about it, then that's that. harumph.
They don't wander around in black jackets with "FBI" emblazoned on them... That's only for raids or forensic work where their suits might get dirty...
They were suits like every other button-down asshole...
Of course, nowadays, with "office casual" they still stand out...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
In business it's not whether you can do the job or even can do the job, but whether your customers believe that you do.
In a joint task force headed by the FBI, members of the FBI, DEA, BATF, SBI, NAACP, NCAA, PFJ, NAARP as well as other State and local officials decended on a home in the rural part of the county in the early morning hours. Taken into custody was one Kenny Smith (18) and another minor living at the residence. They are being held at an undisclosed location in connection with the hacking of several high school computer networks.
Someone hates these cans.
The boss returned from lunch in a good mood and called the whole staff
in to listen to a couple of jokes he had picked up. Everybody but one girl
laughed uproariously. "What's the matter?" grumbled the boss. "Haven't you
got a sense of humor?"
"I don't have to laugh," she said. "I'm leaving Friday anyway.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...