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."
Microsoft backs the Republicans.
Microsoft shares exploit with the Republicans.
Democrats get sodomized.
Fuhrer Bush and Reichstag Security Head Ashcroft smile.
You KNOW it's true because it's on slashdot!
That's why I'm a... damn!
If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Let's see how they like "terrorism" charges brought aginst themselvs.
After all, the Democrats were against the war, and thusly terrorist sympathizers!
We are exactly 20 years off on our calendar.
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
... they get caught with both hands in the honey pot.
While it sounds like the Dems' tech guy is missing his distro of Clue, I wonder... what if he/she left the backdoor open on purpose?
Here's a scenario:
1. Repo tech tells Demo tech about security problem.
2. Demo tech realizes that any security breach could bite the Repos in the butt if discovered.
3. Optional: Tech tells Demo leadership about the plan.
4. Demo tech keeps an eye on traffic through the breach, letting the Repos pull info until...
5.
Step 3 is optional because it assumes cluefulness on the part of political leadership, which I wouldn't want to assume. But there are some tech-savvy members of Congress (surely!) who might understand the honeypot concept.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
In DC, this is called `Business As Usual`.
Skip from this incident of Republicans spying back to the years during the Clinton White House, wherein the FBI was found to have pulled confidential files on tons of prominent Republicans and provided that information (quite illegally).
Quick link to info on Filegate
Quick summary for people who don't remember 1998: "[There was a] class action suit on behalf of the more than 900 Bush and Reagan appointees and possibly others whose FBI files were unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, has admitted that there was an "egregious violation of privacy without justification."
It goes around, it comes around, Watergate wasn't the first time, and this isn't the last time.
Politics.
feh.
In the US, however, doesn't this make them terrorists and entitled to a free, one way, all expenses paid trip to Cuba?
Further investigation reveals that the Democrats were using Usenet for their correspondence.
Best Windows Freeware
They should have used Digital Rights Management:
Ideological opponents: ( ) Allow (+) Deny
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Stop spoiling my well-ingrained stereotype of republicans as slack-jawed rednecks who couldn't crack into a nut, let alone a computer! How can this be? :)
These sigs are more interesting tha
I don't remember anyone going to jail when Clinton illegally pulled the FBI records of some 500+ Republicians...
Not that it makes this right, but let's face it, since Watergate this kind of stuff has been happening with both sides and nobody has been punished yet.
Finkployd
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake
That wasn't a computer malfunction. The computer and the software worked exactly like the way they were supposed to work.
Thou Shalt not be suprised when the documents saved in a public share show up the the Wall Street Journal.
> Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary
> Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year,
> monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically
> passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The
> Globe.
> Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who
> leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband
> contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi
> nuclear programs.
So, Novak leaks the name of a CIA operator for political gain to hide the fact that Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. Then he blows the cover of a CIA front operation to further his story. Why isn't this guy in jail?
More importantly, some Republicans keep doing crazy stuff like this. We still don't know which "senior Bush official" leaked the info to Novak, and Bush seems uninterested to find out who committed this crime. The Republicans have been desperate to bury Watergate's effect on their image, but stuff like makes it alive and well.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Let's assume for a moment that Senators and/or their staffers were illegally accessing systems that they were not supposed to be gaining entry to.
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
That to me, is the definition of irony.
"Green? Libertarian? Reform? Independent?
Power corrupts."
And PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You got'a love it! when anyone else looks at files they should not be looking at, it is "criminal hacking" when they look at the same stuff it is called "glitch" :)))
Louis Freeh, the source that you're quoting authoritatively, is also the FBI Director who misallocated funds and agents to investigate Clinton's WhiteWater scandals.
In case you weren't familiar with those, the WhiteWater scandals were shown to be completely baseless. As a matter of fact, several independent government agencies acquitted the Clintons of wrongdoing from the very beginning. Despite this, Freeh continuned to play up to his Republican buddies in Congress.
While we're meditating on this era, let's remember the outrageous scandals that neo-conservatives used to ruin a great presidency.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Does this mean the party that controls the senate gets to hire the technician who manages the servers? Am i the only one who sees a problem with that?
By want, I assume that you meant took. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But when you competitor does, it's pretty clear that it's theft.
Sigs are bad for your health.
This is the political equivalent of an insider trading scandal or other form of corporate crime. Those who care about the law want it to be prosecuted to its full extent. However, everyday people look at corporate crooks or corrupt Republicans stealing Democratic memos off the network and think, "Damn! I wish I had gotten away with that!"
In this situation, the Republicans come away looking like the sly rogues who "got away with it," and the Democrats look like beleasguered victims... and at the end of the day, most people would rather be the victimizers than the victims, and thus will identify with the Republicans.
The law is, if it's meant to be secure (whether or not it actually is being immaterial) then accessing that information without permission is a major felony.
So, when will we see the perps in prison? Not that Whitewater, this-is-just-a-camp-with-a-fence type prison, but a real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison? (Probably never.)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Republicans cannot be trusted.
It seems like this should be a major scandal. The theft of confidential and private files is not small beans. There's hardly any information about it on the major news sites, however. Looking on Google News, I was able to find a few articles from small publications. I didn't see anything on www.cnn.com, www.msnbc.com, or news.bbc.co.uk.
There's a reply up there about "this is business as usual", but I can't think of any possible excuse or mitigating of extenuating circumstances for this sort of crime. Saying that "well it's been done before" certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it.
It's hard enough to take our government, and my role in it, seriously. Blowing off this kind of scandal certainly doesn't help.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
Wow, you say something I can agree with for once!
They won't think anything of it. You might have some real outrage from the handful of decent Republicans in the Senate (McCain, Snowe, Collins all come to mind), but the party establishment itself (which was taken over by the Southern religious right wing a long time ago) won't say a damn thing.
It's the same level of hypocrisy they use when they all fall in behind George-I-was-too-busy-snorting-crack-to-report-for -my-National-Guard-duty W. Bush, but bash McCain (or other Patriots like Senator Cleland) as being "unpatrotic". They actually ran attack ads against Cleland linking him to Bin Ladin -- the man lost three of his limbs in Vietnam! Yet how dare we criticize Bush for snorting crack and avoiding the war (not to mention his DWI) -- he's the President after all and you need to respect the office.
Hell, since I'm ranting, let's talk about yelling at the Dems for "blocking" Bush's nominates when the vast majority of them have been confirmed (rubber-stamped is more like it). The Democrats in the Senate have been a whole lot nicer to Dubya then the Republicans ever were to Clinton -- much to my dismay.
There are a few decent Republicans (mostly in the Northeast where they actually still stand for fiscal responsibility and haven't been taken over by the religious right) -- but they are few and far between -- and I won't vote for any Republican for Federal Office until they expunge the Southern Religious Right from the party. Which is really too bad because there are actually a few Republicans that I like and am in a position to vote for -- I hope Giuliani run's for Governor of NY and not the Senate seat open in 04. It'd kill me to have to vote against him, but I would because we can't allow the Republicans to continue to control the Federal Government.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Not sure I saw much outcry when someone posted internal memos from Diebold?
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Translation: "I didn't do it, but even if I did you couldn't prove I did anything wrong."
Now we see the moral *squishiness* of the individuals involved. If these files had been national security documents (government documents) or salary action documents (also government documents), would Miranda still claim that they were open season for anyone who wanted to read them?
Does anyone still believe that the USA Patriot Act will be used exclusively for criminal investigations?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Allow me to coin the inevitable term for this Republican crime: "CyberGate". This time, we should be even more freaked out than in 1972. The stakes are higher now, with the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions on the line, even worse backfire threats than Vietnam. And more importantly, Republicans cracking the Democratic Senate files and leaking them to the press demonstrates their predatory menace to the privacy and security of all Americans, all people in the world. 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. Senators should be jailed, GOP party heads should be jailed under RICO as mafia. Otherwise, the Republican mafia juggernaut will barrel through every hall of justice, leaving nothing but destruction.
--
make install -not war
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
So they are "government documents" but not "official business." And it's not stealing because they were "disclosed" by someone making a mistake setting up security. You heard it straight from the Senate Majority Leader's staff: If a sysadmin mistake allows you to get into a system, then everything in the system is freely "disclosed" and there's no penalty for copying it.
Also, documents can be "government" but not "official" - presumably the Republican Party is the only "official" government by now?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
(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
Morality and ethics aside - this is done everyday by both sides and is old news. It always surprises me how liberal the average Slashdot reader appears to be. Such a waste.
I can't believe you said such a thing. Morality and ethics aside? What sort of argument is that? Having expectations that government work in a smooth and orderly fashion, in a manner that will express the will of the people, is not a liberal position. Saying "morality and ethics aside" is like saying "notions of civilization aside". If being conniving, crooked and dishonest are your ideas of how a political philosophy should work, please point me to the other side.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
It's not like anybody got a BJ or anything.
Judging from the relevant federal code (helpfully posted below), there does appear to be *some* chance that the Republican senators broke the law, by exceeding their authorized access to the files which, although were not "property" of the government, were stored on a government computer.
On the slim chance that any of the Republican senators are prosecuted, how much would you like to bet that they get off with a reprimand and a slap on the wrist?
Now, if the janitor in that office had been caught paging through the Dems' (or the Repubs') confidential memos, you can be sure he would have been prosecuted as a computer criminal. Judges are getting more heavy-handed as of late, and it's becoming increasingly more popular to invoke the Patriot Act in cases of computer crime. There's a very good chance that our poor janitor would have been tried, and convicted, as a terrorist.
But, because the criminals in this case are rich, powerful, important white men with many friends in government, they'll likely get off scot free.
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
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.
For those of you who didn't read to the bottom of the article, the guy who is supposed to have done this has said:
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule. Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
These were not password protected files, they were on a network available to any members of the Judiciary committee. When the Republican's first learned of this (both sides were affected by the mistake) they fixed their files and told the Democrats to do the same. When they didn't, they took advantage of it.
It was unethical, but the only worse thing in politics is to be incompetent. Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
here's hoping he goes to the theater to see a play.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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"
Since it will take months to sort out whether a crime was committed, I've drafted a summary of expected consequences for people who do this sort of thing:
Please note that the RIAA may seek additional punishment if the material was copyrighted. So kids, think before you act
You *DO* and *SHOULD* "discount news without even trying to verify it" if the "news" starts out its life with no credibility. See, "news" without basic credibility is "gossip" and giving gossip a venue into the social discourse is a very bad idea.
Without this filter, we would each have to spend hours each day dealing with the un-discounted accounts of Bigfoot Performing Dark Rituals with Aliens on their UFO's to cause Devil Boy to Possess retired woman's Toaster in Desmoins.
So yes, unattributed "quotes" about unsubstanciated ideas that belch forth from untrustworthy sources can, and indeed must, be assumed to be crap, and therefor safe to ignore.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press