Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Burglary in the Senate
earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."
Is this is a surprise? Both sides are doing the same thing. The problem is that the media, for the most part, is pro-liberal and will report spin on any story that favors non-republicans.
Move along.
That's about all the article says about the "glitch" that occurred, presumably due to human error. At first I thought the account was probably M$ Windows related, since it is would be harder with Linux/UNIX to "accidentally" create accounts which were accessible to anybody.
But then, the technician could have done anything stupid like assigning the easily guessable password across to all accounts. Or who knows, maybe they were using a database system or other software which created accounts on top of the OS.
A little more information about the OS/software in use would certainly shed more light on who was actually responsible for the glitch...instead of blaming it outright on the technician.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I know this is /. and you probably didn't read RTFA but there was no hacking. The technician screwed up.
From the article, "GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password". So they were protected (perhaps not too well), and it was a vulnerablity that let the GOP in.
I think most readers here support hackers as in programmers and technology enthusiasts, but not hackers (or crackers if you have it ESR's way, appropriate in the case of the GOP) as in people who break in to computer systems to spy on people or vandalize their systems. I think we all respect people's right to privacy...or most of us anyway.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
They didn't "crack" into anything. The stupid sysadmin forgot to password protect a shared folder on a network which both parties have access to. And it stayed like that for 2+ years, until now
I just checked and foxnews.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, yahoo.com and washingtonpost.com. Nothing! If it's there, it's hidden well.
But Foxnews has this wonderfully unbiased story about "Senate Judiciary Dems to Make Stink". Plus, they, like almost all corporate news sources, covered the "WMD finds" in Iraq but carefully hid the "no chemical weapons detected" stories. Fair and balanced, my ass!
Power is guaranteed to be corrupted, I agree. But under a Libertarian (limited) government, the ability of those in power to abuse their powers would be limited. Corruption is proportional to the size of government (the amount of power that exists).
(a) Whoever
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any one-year period;
(5)
(A)
(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(iii) physical injury to any person;
(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar infor
The building "Reichstag" in Berlin has actually no Nazi-connection (they burned it iirc), that is why it can be used as the German parlament nowadays.
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSound s/2ACV03/
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp ?txtName=Microsoft
Actually... that's a good point. If the republicans circumvented a technological access control (read "password") they are liable for a DMCA violation, notwithstanding the fact that US government documents are not copyrightable. All this thanks to the DeCSS court's ruling that the right to control access isn't limited to instances when use of the protected material would be copyright infringement.
"I am not a crook" was not said in direct response to accusations over the Watergate break in, but accusations that he had avoided income taxes, and obstructed the IRS's investigation. That's why the full quote continues : "I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I got."
It was in 1973 though, and in an interview session when he was questioned about Watergate, so many people forget this.
Note to young people : Richard Nixon was a crook.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Several people have commented that they are dissapointed that this story hasn't reached more mainstream media outlets such as CNN.
Here is a link to CNN's 'News Tips' section where you can submit breaking news and ideas. I sincerely hope some of the slashdot population takes advantage of this as I just did.
Dems and the media just had a big laugh about what a fun little caper it was.
o nnelly/70397_joel1 5.shtml
The 'Dems' were not caught spying on cell phone call. The call was intercepted by a couple in Florida who paid a $500 fine.
The tape was, in fact, leaked to the media by a democratic congressperson, according to this article (which is not friendly to the congressperson):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/c
It is disingenuous, at best, to call what happened an example of "spying" on phone calls by Democrats. An elected official received the tape from ordinary citizens; no goverment employees or party apparatchiks involved in the interception of the call.
I would also like to see some evidence to support your contentions about "big laughs" and "fun little caper".
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
It's actually probably legal for Novak to have published that information. However, it's certainly illegal for whoever leaked that information to have leaked it to him.
The reason no one is going to jail for this is that the person responsible for investigating this, the Attorney General, is appointed by the person whose office was responsible for the leak. And though Ashcroft has recused himself, the people directly and ultimately responsible for the investigation are both presidential appointees.
This is why we need an Independent Counsel law. Unfortunately, after the multi-year investigation of Clinton's penis, the Democrats in Congress were happy to let the law lapse (and the Republicans had never supported it, though they were glad to be able to take advantage of it while it lasted).
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
In the shadow of Nixon's Watergate breakin to spy on the Democrats in his 1972 reelection campaign, and their bugging of the Democratic National Committee at the 1972 Democratic convention, this obvious pattern of criminal behavior at the top of the Republican Party is intolerable.
Doc -- cf. my post re. Nixon, Rumsfeld, & Co.
-kgj
-kgj
First of all, no they didn't. Re-read the article. It's the Republicans who are claiming the they aren't owned by anyone. As for the Democrats: "Against that backdrop, both sides have something to gain and lose from the investigation into the computer files. For Democrats, the scandal highlights GOP dirty tricks that could result in ethics complaints to the Senate and the Washington Bar -- or even criminal charges under computer intrusion laws." Second of all, the documents weren't accessible, newly created accounts were accessible without a password, meaning that the Republicans were TRYING to log in as Democrats, and that way gained access to the files. On the other hand, you have a good point that our reps should get back to governing and stop strategizing so much. But that goes to both sides. I think what you'd find is that nothing of that sort would be written down again.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
They didn't just find that Clinton lied under oath (a crime), he also coerced a witness to lie under oath (a bigger crime) in order to to cover up his tracks against a sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by a private citizen, who, shock of shocks, had a case that Clinton was forced to settle because his witness tampering (a crime) didn't pan out.
Microsoft is also in the top 10 contributors to the Democratss this year with Kerry & Dean receiving the most significant portions of it.
Part of the story is left out of the Globe article... it's pretty widely believed on the Hill that this "unauthorized access" was a purposeful sharing of the information by authorized individuals.
First off, he didn't lie about the WND. But that is besides the point. Let's say he DID lie to congress (though his statement was 100% true). He was not under oath during the State of the Union address where he "lied." Clinton was under oath when he lied. That is called perjury my friend, and that is a felony. BIG difference.
-Izrun
Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
Well, that's only about 5 companies, so it's entirely possible that 5 large, conservative corps would like to avoid angering the party that currently controls all 3 branches of government. Go figure.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Who posted this? Did they read the article?
A Democratic tech improperly gives worldwide read access to every account created on a server, and this is the Republican's fault?
Not to mention that there is no evidence presented that Republicans made use of this flaw - only claims by the Democrats!
Clear, Dark Skies
I just know the history, during the 'isolationist' period the US invaded Cuba, the Phillipeans, imposed the 'open door' (read colonial occupation) policy on China, engineered a coup in Panama for the sole purpose of building the canal under total US control. And so it goes on.
The term isolationism refers to the exercise of power without reference to any strategic alliances. It was certainly not a pacifist period in US history.
The isolationists disliked the league of nations for the same reason that they hate the UN, it would restrict exercise of US power at a time when the US was becomming a world power.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I believe what you describe might better be called "nationalism". I think isolationism is a policy of non-engagement with the rest of the world.
Isolationism for the US historically includes all of the Western Hemisphere, due to the Monroe Doctrine.
So the South American adventures, at least, still counted as isolationist.
nice reference to kennedy vs. nixon and the chicago ballots....except in that election the rebs were doing the same thing in downstate illinois. know your history
This isn't another Watergate for the Republicans, this is a StupidGate for the Democrats. Not only were the Democrats using taxpayer funds to pay for the production and storage of their political documents, they were giving Republicans free access to them. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The DNC's private servers would have been a better place to put these non-governmental documents, not on a taxpayer funded server. Everyone of those documents belong to the people of the United States which members of the Republican party in the Judiciary are...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Well, after the Republicans managed to raise the media concentration limits today from 35% to 39% today, using a secret Republican only conference committee, nearly every media outlet is owned by the man. Or worse something like 39% is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Fox which is pretty blatantly biased to the Republicans. Viacom/CBS owns another 39%, so two companies now own 78% of media outlets. I'm sure when Murdoch decides to buy some more they will raise the limit again to accomodate Fox since its the best thing thats ever happened to Republicans, a network that makes them out to be infallible and people watch it and they believe it.
Theres not even much left for GE/NBC and Disney/ABC which also qualify as the man. Clearchannel, of course, owns nearly all the radio stations, and they are also the man.
@de_machina