Senate Hacker Blames Boss

Says Goring to the Nuremberg Tribunal by Oriumpor · 2004-09-16 07:37 · Score: 1

I was only following orders!

Re:Says Goring to the Nuremberg Tribunal by PedanticSpellingTrol · 2004-09-17 06:07 · Score: 1

Godwins Law on the first post? INCREDIBLE! I've seen stories about reich memorablila where that didn't happen.

Bad joke? by Ieshan · 2004-09-16 07:37 · Score: 1

This may seem like a bad joke, but do you think they read him his Miranda Rights?

Re:Bad joke? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 07:42 · Score: 0

I was thinking the same thing :-)

Too bad his "Miranda" rights are no more special for him than anyone else. If fact, considering the circumstances, they may well be even less.
Re:Bad joke? by commodoresloat · 2004-09-16 09:23 · Score: 1

No, but they made him wear a ridiculous fruit basket hat.

Yes by jguevin · 2004-09-16 07:40 · Score: 1

Yes, it is.

Still Isn't Right by alatesystems · 2004-09-16 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to Boston News, he allegedly "infiltrated Democratic Judiciary Committee computer files" and copied "thousands of memos and passing some on to the media".

He says he was "just following orders" as a previous poster has said, and that they should be in court instead of him. They should be in court WITH him.

Even though someone told him to do something that he knew was wrong, he allegedly did it anyway. I hate when people cop-out by saying "I was just following orders."

"You know, the Nazis had pieces of flare they made the Jews wear."

Chris

Re:Still Isn't Right by justkarl · 2004-09-16 07:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Even though someone told him to do something that he knew was wrong, he allegedly did it anyway. I hate when people cop-out by saying "I was just following orders."

I agree...to a point. Instead of doing something that he knew was wrong(translate=unethical/illegal) Miranda could have chosen to "tell on" his boss. But then he's at risk of losing his job(obviously) or perhaps something worse. The corruption's out there, but one has to follow the system enough to make a living. Would you sacrifice a sweet paycheck for doing something unethical? The answer may not be something we can decide so easily if we're not in a similar situation.
Re:Still Isn't Right by finkployd · 2004-09-16 07:54 · Score: 1

The Boston News, naturally, is both incorrect and clueless.

There was no "infiltration" involved. The memos were happily served up from the DJC's servers sicne they were available to the public with no protection. Furthermore, they were not classified.

If Microsoft accidently puts their source code up for download on their webpage, is it "infiltration" if I download them?

Finkployd
Re:Still Isn't Right by Colazar · 2004-09-16 08:08 · Score: 1

If Microsoft accidently puts their source code up for download on their webpage, is it "infiltration" if I download them?
No, but it may still be illegal.
IMO, this should be treated no differently than if that same information was left unattended in a labeled manila file folder on the front reception desk in the Senator's office. The question of whether or not it is illegal to distribute particular information is a completely separate question from whether illegal means were used to procure the information in the first place.

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Re:Still Isn't Right by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 08:18 · Score: 1

The corruption's out there, but one has to follow the system enough to make a living.

True enough, which is why we need to redesign the system to punish corruption more severely. Certainly his bosses should not only be in court with him- they should be removed from their positions and sent back to their states in shame.

But so should the idiots who decided to place those memos on an unprotected share drive.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Still Isn't Right by chris_mahan · 2004-09-16 08:22 · Score: 1

>Certainly his bosses should not only be in court with him- they should be removed from their positions and sent back to their states in shame.

No way! They should be hung in the public square.

You hand three or four politicians for corruption, the political landscape will change so fast it'll make the presidential elections look like a bingo game.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Still Isn't Right by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 08:29 · Score: 1

Wonder if that would work the same with CxOs, given the immense amount of corruption in business today?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Still Isn't Right by kalidasa · 2004-09-16 08:36 · Score: 2

1. I've lived in New England for 37 years, and I've never heard of an outlet called "the Boston News".
2. The links I see on these stories are to an AP report. AP is not a Boston-based institution.
Re:Still Isn't Right by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-09-16 08:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

You [hang] three or four politicians for corruption, the political landscape will change so fast it'll make the presidential elections look like a bingo game.

Unfortunately, that's one of the problems with corruption: if a corrupt system starts hanging people it calls corrupt, can we ever be sure the correct people are being hanged?
Do we trust the inmates of the asylum to decide who is sane?
I rue the day my children will look at me and ask Dad, how could you have let this happen on your watch?

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Still Isn't Right by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-09-16 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's kind of a special case when the person investigating you for the alleged wrongdoing is the same person who allegedly gave you the order.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Still Isn't Right by reverius · 2004-09-16 11:18 · Score: 1

The "Boston News" he's referring to is the Boston Globe article linked to by the grandparent post (that does, admittedly, call it "Boston News")...

I'll stick to my Washington News and New York News in the meantime... whatever THAT means.

Grandparent needs a cluestick.
Re:Still Isn't Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 13:00 · Score: 0

You probably mean "flair", not "flare" (in your .sig)
Re:Still Isn't Right by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-16 18:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's a specific hypothetical question for you: would you crack the opposition party computers to spy on their secret memos so you could stuff the courts with judges not only "sympathetic" to your ideology, but also owing you a favor? Or would you quit, and take your unparalleled resume to another job where you weren't only unethical, but also didn't help to destroy your country?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Still Isn't Right by Zeinfeld · 2004-09-17 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

There was no "infiltration" involved. The memos were happily served up from the DJC's servers sicne they were available to the public with no protection. Furthermore, they were not classified.
That is not accurate. The documents were actually on a machine that should have been secure but the system operator had incorrectly applied the ACLs so that the files were visible to Miranda when they should not have been. This 'mistake' did not happen to the GOP files.
What Miranda did was exactly the same as if he had noticed that the office door of a democrat had not been locked properly and had gone inside to copy the files. That is why he is facing criminal charges.
Miranda has two options. He can either serve his time in jail or if the facts he claims in his lawsuit are true he can tell the FBI who ordered him to collect the information.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:Still Isn't Right by Politburo · 2004-09-17 04:27 · Score: 1

Miranda could have chosen to "tell on" his boss. But then he's at risk of losing his job(obviously)

And that's why we have whistleblower laws. Generally speaking, you cannot be retaliated against for reporting an employer who is breaking the law.

Government: It is on your side.

Clarification... by Samrobb · 2004-09-16 07:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Manuel Miranda, the Republican Senate staffer under invesitgation for hacking into confidential Democratic files...

Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?

--
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9

Re:Clarification... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure, National Review tells the whole story.
It wasn't a "open server" it was an unsecured server. Big difference. It's just like using someones unsecured WiFi basestation. You aren't allowed to mess with people's stuff just because it isn't locked. We all learn that as children.
Re:Clarification... by BrynM · 2004-09-16 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?
I see this kind of "they're out to get me" attitude among novice computer users all the time. Somehow, evey problem is "someone hacking". Since most of the users I handle are attorneys, I find myself explaining way too often that the spam they received is not from a rival frim trying to "hack them" or that they're laptop not booting is because they dropped it rather than some clown at the court hacking into the laptop's wireless card when the laptop was in the car outside or other such nonsense. Our paranoid culture is fostering this suspicion on a lot of levels - from media to anti-virus vendors to Presidential decisions. Poor Manuel Miranda is going to get fired and his ass handed to him because people are stupid.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Clarification... by kalidasa · 2004-09-16 08:32 · Score: 1

So if you leave your door unlocked, and I walk in and grab your box, and the cops arrest me, will the National Review defend me because I was just "taking a free computer from a publicly-accessible location?"
Re:Clarification... by dameron · 2004-09-16 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?

Just because I leave my door unlocked doesn't make it ok to steal my shit. He knew he was doing something wrong. They weren't his documents. He shouldn't have been looking at them. He shouldn't have given them to other people.

Just because doing the wrong thing is easy doesn't make it right.

-dameron

------
DailyHaiku.com, saying more in 17 syllables than Big Media says all day.
Re:Clarification... by BrynM · 2004-09-16 09:58 · Score: 1

So if you leave your door unlocked, and I walk in and grab your box, and the cops arrest me, will the National Review defend me because I was just "taking a free computer from a publicly-accessible location?"
A better analogy would be having your personal documents posted in front of your living room window, leaving the curtains open and then getting mad at people for reading them by peeking throught the window. There was no *material* theft involved so comparisons to material theft are spurious at best.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Clarification... by Masker · 2004-09-16 10:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

OK, no. It's not. Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room: you still have to enter the room and poke around to see what they say.

It's not OK to go rifling through someone's files. Yes, the Dems shouldn't put documents they care enough about on an unsecured share drive, but that doesn't give anyone the right to copy them for themselves and to distribute them to the press.

Whether the theft was material or not doesn't matter one whit. It was unethical for Miranda to do what he did, and he should take responsibility for that. It was stupid for the Democrats to do what they did, but not unethical, and it's not their fault that some jerk came in and stole documents from their computer.

I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.

--
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Re:Clarification... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 12:16 · Score: 0

leaving documents in an open share is rather like leaving them on top of a copy machine in an unlocked office. When you get around to retrieving them, they're still there, but someone else might have come along in the meantime and read them, or even made copies for himself.

Not that this absolves them of any responsibility. If it was obviously confidential information, they shouldn't have been reding it in the first place, and if they had no business being in that unlocked office, then they're overstepping their bounds. However, I detest the likening of downloading files, even illegally/unethically/whatever, to theft. There is a major difference, that difference being that your stuff is still right where you left it, it just wasn't as private as you thought it was.

--Posted Anonymously to keep the starting score low.
Re:Clarification... by ibbey · 2004-09-16 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.

I absolutely agree with you, but there are two additional points that should be made. As you said, what he did was unethical, but it's important to acknowledge that it may not have actually been illegal. In this case, he should be fired, regardless of whether he is convicted of a crime.

The larger issue, though, is whether his bosses knew & encouraged his taking the documents. If so, they should be held to the same standard. Unfortunately, they won't be, and for good reason (from the politicians point of view): If the dems hold the republicans responsible, then next time there's a similar issue on the dems side, they'll be held to the same standard. By hanging an underling rather then the actual responsible parties, they earn favor for their next transgression.
Re:Clarification... by Darth_Burrito · 2004-09-16 16:22 · Score: 1

It wasn't a "open server" it was an unsecured server. Big difference. It's just like using someones unsecured WiFi basestation.

You mean an open wireless access point? What if they were publishing the information on a publicly accessible website instead of a publicly accessible network share? Would that somehow make it different? I don't get it. Someone had to configure this serve to share that content with everyone.

If we can not assume that configuration to share implies intent to share, then we have to get approval to access every link before we click on it. We have to identify the owner of every folder on a network share to see if they in fact did mean for this to be accessible before we access it.
Re:Clarification... by Darth_Burrito · 2004-09-16 16:30 · Score: 1

Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room

With network shares and web servers, you are publishing content. With both, you can control who has access to the content. I've seen network shares used to distribute publicly accessible content and I've seen websites running with restricted access. My point is, from a security perspective, they are virtually identical.

If we can not assume configuration to share implies intent to share, how can we ever click on anything?
Re:Clarification... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 17:53 · Score: 0

they're laptop not booting

"their".
Re:Clarification... by philbert26 · 2004-09-17 03:48 · Score: 1

OK, no. It's not. Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room: you still have to enter the room and poke around to see what they say.
Wasn't the share drive used by both parties? If so the analogy is different. The documents are sitting on a table in an unlocked room. The author of the document has left it on the table in this room. You have every right to be in the room, but the author did not intend for you to read his document. The moral action is to respect his privacy. But are you under a legal obligation to do so?
Re:Clarification... by mabhatter654 · 2004-09-17 17:37 · Score: 1

So it was somebody else's home file [on a server she had permission to access!] that wasn't protected...she just shouldn't have looked around?

Some HACKING by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN. I would have thought this would have been cleared up months ago- Republicans apologize to Democrats, and Democrats start password protecting your share drives!

The whole thing is proof positive to me that we need a new generation in leadership of this country. These old fogies don't even understand the technology that is on their desks- how can they ever hope to understand such complex issues as why we shouldn't be letting Taiwan build all of our hardware?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Some HACKING by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 08:25 · Score: 0

All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN.

...and then copy out all the files and mail them to conservative news outlets.

Just a little innocent wrongdoing!
Re:Some HACKING by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 08:32 · Score: 1

If the owners of the files didn't want them sent out to conservative news outlets, they could have at least password protected the directory. I'd call that a PEBCAK, not hacking.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Some HACKING by Darth_Burrito · 2004-09-16 09:10 · Score: 1

Instead of the Republicans apologizing to the Democrats can we have the Democrats apologize to their constituents for winning the technological equivalent of a darwin award?
Re:Some HACKING by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 09:12 · Score: 1

That would be nice too. Better yet, send the entire class home for being too farkin' stupid to rule a technological society.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Some HACKING by thewiz · 2004-09-19 03:47 · Score: 1

All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN. I would have thought this would have been cleared up months ago- Republicans apologize to Democrats, and Democrats start password protecting your share drives!

While it would be a good idea for the Republicans to apologize for what they did and a excellent idea for the Democrats to protect their shared drives with passwords, that's not the point.

Whether the shared drive was open or not is irrelevant. What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution. Along with that is another form dealing with computer security which says that you are NOT supposed to go poking around on government computer networks into systems, directories, and databases that you are not authorized to access. If you do find an open resource, you are supposed to REPORT IT TO YOUR SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR so that the problem can be corrected, not advertise the fact to your coworkers or share company secrets with competitors.

By attaching to an open share (that he should not have had access to), not informing the systems administrators of the problem, and sharing the Democratic party's memos with his Republican higher-ups, he broke the agreements on those legally-binding forms he signed. Now he is being investigated and is on his way to being prosecuted. If he didn't want to abide by the rules set forth on those forms, he should have said "No Thanks" and found a job elsewhere.

Neither party is innocent; both have employed a variety of dirty tricks over the years to try and sabotage the other. I'd bet that his bosses knew what he was doing and even encouraged it. Unfortunately, Mr. Miranda didn't have the intestinal fortitude or personal integrity to stand up and say "No, that's not the correct thing to do!" to his bosses. He KNEW what would happen if he broke the rules, he broke them anyway, and now he's paying the price.

I do agree this country needs a change in it's political system: we need candidates and government employees who take personal responsibility for their actions, voters who will get off their couches and VOTE (even if it's for None Of The Above), and an end to putting up with people in public office who lie, cheat, and steal. If we continue to elect people based on popularity contests and group-think, we deserve what we get. We need to vote for people who have honesty, integrity, compassion, and a willingness to do what is right even when it's the unpopular thing to do. More importantly, we need to embrace those attributes as well and reflect them in the way that we live.

--
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Re:Some HACKING by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-20 05:08 · Score: 1

snip...What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.

snip...

I do agree this country needs a change in it's political system: we need candidates and government employees who take personal responsibility for their actions, voters who will get off their couches and VOTE (even if it's for None Of The Above), and an end to putting up with people in public office who lie, cheat, and steal. If we continue to elect people based on popularity contests and group-think, we deserve what we get. We need to vote for people who have honesty, integrity, compassion, and a willingness to do what is right even when it's the unpopular thing to do. More importantly, we need to embrace those attributes as well and reflect them in the way that we live.

A good start, might be putting an end to the kind of secrecy in the first quote I snipped out of your post. There are two ways to deal with this in the information age: Have separate networks for separate political parties, OR dump everything into the public view all the time so that we can see what kind of sleazeballs we've been electing. I personally vote for the second- it'd be interesting to see what the press does with the sudden information overload and the utter lack of a stranglehold on the information marketplace.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Some HACKING by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-21 21:05 · Score: 1
Next time, try to get at least one true fact before posting.

What matters is the forms almost every government employee signs that basically state that what they see at work stays at work and is NOT to be discussed with anyone under penalty of criminal prosecution.

It might matter, if it were true. (In fact, many government employees have exactly the opposite requirement, and are FORBIDDEN from hiding the nature of their work from the public)

Instead, look at the real rule (number 5):
1. Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable
The materials he released were neither secret nor confidental. Therefore, Miranda is perfectly safe. (In th Senate, "confidential" means "received in closed session, information obtained in the confidential phases of investigations, and classified national security information")

not informing the systems administrators of the problem

He informed them 7 months before the "scandal" broke. They didn't seem to care.

He KNEW what would happen if he broke the rules, he broke them anyway,

He knew exactly what the rules are, and how far they can be pushed before breaking.

The best advice in situations like these: by JohnnyX · 2004-09-16 07:45 · Score: 1

Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Re:The best advice in situations like these: by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-16 09:33 · Score: 2, Funny

It's a good thing that David Boies doesn't represent Karl Rove in intellectual property matters, or you'd soon be receiving a letter.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

Respecting privacy by raider_red · 2004-09-16 07:55 · Score: 1

Okay, it wasn't much of a hacking job. In fact, if he's a hacker then I'm the Queen of England.

On the other hand, he should have followed a basic respect for privacy. If someone has posted a private memo to a server, don't publish it. Or at least do a better job covering your tracks.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.

Re:Respecting privacy by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-16 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess were no longer making the distinction between hacker and cracker on slashdot?

I'm not a thief by trade or inclination, but you'd still call me thief (and rightly so), if you left your keys in the ignition of your car and I took it for a spin without your permission.

If I were to point out that it was your own stupidity that was at fault, I'd be merely misdirecting attention from the crime (as some conservative slashdotters do), in hopes of excusing the guilty party.

Bottom line is that Miranda gained unauthorized access to information and stole that information, and he did so at the behest of his superiors. While it seems a stretch to call him a hacker or a cracker because of his lack of skills, it describes what he did, regardless of the challenge it presented.

Since his bosses have elected to hang him out to dry, I can only hope that he is able to implicate them and at the very least, drag them into court to answer some hard questions.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Respecting privacy by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-09-16 16:03 · Score: 1

Bottom line is that Miranda gained unauthorized access to information and stole that information, and he did so at the behest of his superiors. While it seems a stretch to call him a hacker or a cracker because of his lack of skills, it describes what he did, regardless of the challenge it presented.

He didn't steal the information. He committed copyright infringement and possibly trade secret violations. And yes, he probably should be "hung out to dry" for it. But, making a photocopy of documents in a filing cabinet doesn't make you a hacker (or cracker) either. Just because you commit a crime on a computer doesn't make you a hacker.

Hacker means interest in a system and how it works (computer or otherwise). Cracker means breaking into a system for gain. Even if you consider crackers hackers, he's still not a hacker because he didn't *break* into anything. It's at minimal the difference between trespassing and breaking & entering. That doesn't mean the illegal end is any less punishable, but it probably* does mean something for punishment of the means.

*This assumes that anyone else actually bothers to make the distinction.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Respecting privacy by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-16 17:56 · Score: 1

LOL!

He didn't steal the information. He committed copyright infringement and possibly trade secret violations.

I don't know if you intended this to be funny, but it struck me that given the draconian nature of the DMCA, the government could use it to prosecute spies!

Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken", if we take a simple understanding of the definition of theft from findlaw.com.

However, his actions do fit the definition of burglary, which is:
Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

There is a further interesting definition for Breaking and Entering:

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

By this definition, even if he didn't force his way into a server, he still entered without permission (without privilege). However, you likened his actions to trespass, which is also interesting!

Trespass, 1st definition:

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

and also, from the 2nd definition:

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

That certainly seems to fit the situation as well, especially if we're going to argue that he didn't steal, but merely copied, since the legal owner was not deprived of the thing allegedly stolen.

Oh, and before I forget, there was an "ordinary definition" of trespass that we are all probably more familiar with:

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

I hope you weren't bored to tears by my little investigation (which I don't think proves either one of us as being either correct or incorrect). I found it fascinating to read specific legal definitions, even though we are all somewhat familiar with these words. It's also interesting to ponder how one might argue the case for either side. Huh, maybe I should go back to law school someday? =)

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Respecting privacy by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-21 21:11 · Score: 1

Anyway, you do have a point about whether we can call it theft, since Miranda didn't "permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken"

There was no "property" involved at all, not even "intellectual property". Materials authored by government employees in the course of their work are public domain, and not subject to copyright control.

he still entered without permission (without privilege

He had permission. The system adminsitrator, quite literally, gave him permissions to read those files. Yes, he had been given permission inadvertently- but if you inadvertently mail me $100, it's your loss!

Politics 101, anybody? by dacarr · 2004-09-16 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

The accused seems to be well versed in the basics of politicking. Let's see how far this goes....

--
This sig no verb.

Huh? by 2nd+Post! · 2004-09-16 08:03 · Score: 1

Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware?
Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes?
Why shouldn't India be writing all our software?
Why shouldn't China be making all our clothes?
Why shouldn't Japan be making all our cars?

As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.

It's like having all our crops grown in the midwest, all our movies on the west coast, and all our fishing on the coasts. Take advantage of and leverage local resources, and let others do stuff we can't otherwise afford to do.

--

GPL Deconstructed

Re:Huh? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.

But we don't excel in anything anymore is part of the point. HOWEVER, that's not the main point. The main point is that specialization and localization is a bad engineering design- it provides for a single point of failure.

Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware?
Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes?
Why shouldn't India be writing all our software?
Why shouldn't China be making all our clothes?
Why shouldn't Japan be making all our cars?

The REAL reason is because we can't trust their governments to look out for the interests of OUR people, and therefore it's stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket. Nor can we trust these other governments with their own disaster recovery- they've all been proven to be rather bad at that aspect of running an economy in the past. Plus, none of them are using LOCAL resources for their work- we ship natural resources overseas to allow them to ship back finished products. This is a stupid waste of fuel.

It's like having all our crops grown in the midwest, all our movies on the west coast, and all our fishing on the coasts. Take advantage of and leverage local resources, and let others do stuff we can't otherwise afford to do.

It would be if those other countries actually had developed resources. By and large they don't. Do you really think all of the materials in your computer come from Taiwan just because they were turned into chips and plastic enclosures there?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Huh? by 2nd+Post! · 2004-09-16 10:03 · Score: 1

Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?

Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are close to them?

Really the only people who will ever look out for your interests is yourself, and anyone else who benefits when your interests are met. By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs.

And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietname, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money. Failing to meet our interests means we don't give them money.

I mean, that's all it boils down to. Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied. If that doesn't hold true then monetary incentives will cause some local competition to rise. Yes, the market isn't perfect, I understand.

Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you should ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.

The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?

It's a matter of scope, but letting your neighbor, a local farm, a company, and ultimately a company outside our borders to handle things we do not have the time, resources, or skill to do is all the same.

I get my shoes from Vietnam because I can't make my own. Rather, I go through Target, who goes through Adidas, who owns a plant in Vietname.

I get my eggs from Arkansas because I don't keep my own chickens. Rather, I go through Albertson's who goes through LandEggs, who maintains a farm in Arkansas.

I get my apricots from Chile because I don't have my own apricot tree. Rather I go to Albertson's who goes through a farm in Chile where the apricots are grown.

I get my car from Canada because I can't make my own. Rather I bought my car from HP, who was holding a sale for Enterprise, who was purchasing cars from Volvo, who was manufacturing them in Canada, who was purchasing raw materials from the US.

The only 'interests' that are maintained during this entire chain of transactions is monetary. As long as each is paid according to what they need/want, each will provide the service or good as they are required. Yes, that DOES mean we can get contaminated food, flawed clothes, and defective goods, but those can also be accounted for in the contract which determines what good/service for what money.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Huh? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-16 10:37 · Score: 1

Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?

I think that the purpose of government is to look out for the interests of the people. Whether our current government does that (at all) is another discussion entirely- but the quick answer is, NO, it doesn't. Another part of the problem, and the reason we're a part of the WTO at all..

Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are close to them?

That's what a corrput government does, sure- but all possible governments don't act like this, nor should they. If your government is acting like this, it's way past time for an armed insurrection. Thus another piece of the puzzle.

Really the only people who will ever look out for your interests is yourself, and anyone else who benefits when your interests are met. By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs.

I would say that's the cynical point of view- and not always true. It's concieveable to have a government that doesn't act like this.

And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietname, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money. Failing to meet our interests means we don't give them money.

And since they don't meet our interests- why the heck are we buying from them and going in the hole to do so?

I mean, that's all it boils down to. Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied. If that doesn't hold true then monetary incentives will cause some local competition to rise. Yes, the market isn't perfect, I understand.

It's much, much worse than that- by making our sole interest lower prices, we've given the foreign governments control over our supply lines. That's a MAJOR military disadvantage- enough of one that if the other countries decided to call in the debt we owe tomorrow, we'd all end up slaves and there's not thing one our military can do- because all of their supplies are made in other countries.

Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you should ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.

And yet- we are on an international basis. We have major portions of our military that could be stopped dead by an embargo- totally destroying us as a nation. That's a way bigger threat than a trippling of prices at Wal*Mart (if prices would indeed tripple- Wal*Mart pays their suppliers so little that most of their stuff is on a 65% markup).

The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?

I try to- all that I'm allowed by stupid city ordinances. Why should I trust anybody else to do this for me?

It's a matter of scope, but letting your neighbor, a local farm, a company, and ultimately a company outside our borders to handle things we do not have the time, resources, or skill to do is all the same.

And by the same extension- I'd rather give my neighbor a job (and thus a reason NOT to rob me) than the guy halfway across the planet. We made all this stuff here in the US at one time- and there's NO reason why we can't have a self-contained economy again.

I get my shoes from Vietnam because I can't make my own. Rather, I go through Target, who goes through Adidas, who owns a plant in Vietname.

Where I do so only because I am forced to- and if Nike would only reopen their plant in Beaverton, I'd MUCH rather buy from them tha

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Huh? by 2nd+Post! · 2004-09-16 13:56 · Score: 1

...By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs. ...It's concieveable to have a government that doesn't act like this.

No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people, because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the people involved start losing their sense of responsibility and attachment.

Let me reiterate my point: Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive. This goes for animals, plants, people, families, communities, organizations, cities, governments, corporations, etc. If any other purpose were primary then any actions taken towards that primary goal NOT tempered by a survival instinct would lead it down the path of dissolution. Sometimes that's okay, sacrifice and sharing and negotiation allow for non optimal solutions, but if the overriding primary goal, stated or not, intentional or not, isn't survival then what will prevent it from collapsing?

A government that serves it's people OVER serving itself will waste away. It will be under powered, under funded, under protected, and ineffective. There's nothing magical, special, or different about a government just because of the name. It's an organization like any other. It's only in the US's case that it's primary CUSTOMERs are it's citizens. If you want to think in terms of corporation, a corporation that doesn't serve it's customers gets no money, and dissolves. A government that doesn't serve it's citizens would also dissolve, and in our case it would be because we choose to elect new representatives or willfully revolt.

And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietnam, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money...

And since they don't meet our interests- why the heck are we buying from them and going in the hole to do so?

I dunno, they seem to be meeting my interests, and plenty of others. We like our cheaper goods. Don't mistake me, though, I'm not saying that's the most important point, but it's one of them. ...Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied...

It's much, much worse than that- by making our sole interest lower prices, we've given the foreign governments control over our supply lines...

Yes, you're right, if we view foreign governments as enemies. When you give your neighbor the responsibility of egg production, and your father in law responsibility of caring for the pigs, and the guy down the street the responsibility of making furniture, you are being held hostage by your community!

Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you shouldn't ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.

And yet- we are on an international basis. We have major portions of our military that could be stopped dead by an embargo...

You mean like our dependency on foreign oil, when we could switch to a hybrid electric biodiesel infrastructure? Our dependency on foreign oil, which makes all the plastics we consume?

Or do you mean the fact that by definition it is a symbiosis? They want our money, and in exchange give us goods and oil. Sure, they could stop... but then so would our money.

The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?

I try to- all that I'm allowed by stup

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Huh? by zardinuk · 2004-09-17 04:36 · Score: 1

This post is genius. Are you an Economics major?

Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive.

Moderators? Could we give this post a boost? I've never heard this put so eloquently. Typically products that are labeled with a "made in the USA" have their own place in the market. Plastic artifacts from China are cheap, in ever sense of the word, but if cheap is what you want, then cheap is what you shall have! I wish farming went the same course. I don't see why we should support inefficient farmers.

Luckily, the world is moving more and more in the direction of free trade.

--
"What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
- Confucius
Re:Huh? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-17 06:14 · Score: 1

No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people,

Very good, got it in the first try- that's exactly what I'm proposing, a government not run by people, but by information flow instead. A government PROGRAMMED to follow the rules- because there are no people involved at all, just computers and robots.

because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the people involved start losing their sense of responsibility and attachment.

So don't use people, use machines instead. Program them to follow the rules every time in exactly the same way- with responsibility and attachment being at the core. Either that, or fake it- create a system of rewards and punishments in which those who lose their sense of responsibility also lose their heads- quite literally.

Let me reiterate my point: Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive.

Only if you're really stupid in how you set up the rules to begin with; rewarding selfish behavior while punishing unselfish behavior.

This goes for animals, plants, people, families, communities, organizations, cities, governments, corporations, etc. If any other purpose were primary then any actions taken towards that primary goal NOT tempered by a survival instinct would lead it down the path of dissolution.

Only if you're stupid enough to base something as important as an economic system on chaos instead of engineering. Evolution is good for genetics- it's a really STUPID way to design an economic system.

Sometimes that's okay, sacrifice and sharing and negotiation allow for non optimal solutions, but if the overriding primary goal, stated or not, intentional or not, isn't survival then what will prevent it from collapsing?

Good engineering and a different set of goals- punishing the parasites and rewarding good behavior.

A government that serves it's people OVER serving itself will waste away. It will be under powered, under funded, under protected, and ineffective. There's nothing magical, special, or different about a government just because of the name. It's an organization like any other. It's only in the US's case that it's primary CUSTOMERs are it's citizens. If you want to think in terms of corporation, a corporation that doesn't serve it's customers gets no money, and dissolves.
Not in the US- a corporation that doesn't serve it's customers goes back for a second round of IPO funding.

A government that doesn't serve it's citizens would also dissolve, and in our case it would be because we choose to elect new representatives or willfully revolt.

Can't choose to elect new representatives- the corporations control the campaign process, not the citizens, who have become second class customers to be ignored- but I'm all for the revolt.

I dunno, they seem to be meeting my interests, and plenty of others. We like our cheaper goods. Don't mistake me, though, I'm not saying that's the most important point, but it's one of them.

The problem is, cheaper goods is a short-sighted and stupid interest that is leading us down the road to ruin. Allowing it has created a $500 billion dollar a year deficit in our trade. It's ridiculous to allow that to continue- and we should use our military might to change the situation.

Yes, you're right, if we view foreign governments as enemies. When you give your neighbor the responsibility of egg production, and your father in law responsibility of caring for the pigs, and the guy down the street the responsibility of making furniture, you are being held hostage by your community!

They are enemies- every time. Make no mistake about it- anybody living more than a thousand miles away from you has no need to worry about your interests or the interests of your communit

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

"Goering" not "Goring" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 08:09 · Score: 0

subject line says it all.

Re:"Goering" not "Goring" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 08:51 · Score: 0

I blame Slashdot's lack of an umlaut.
~~~

It isn't every day ... by crmartin · 2004-09-16 09:55 · Score: 1

... that you can tell an author to RTFA for their own article.

Miranda didn't work for Ashcroft, he worked for the Legislative Branch. Remember Civics classes and the "separation of powers doctrine"? And he's not accusing his bosses, he's saying that Ashcroft gave in to public pressure from members on the other side of the aisle, ie, Democrats.

Re:It isn't every day ... by expriest · 2004-09-16 12:35 · Score: 1

um, wrong. Ashcroft is conducting the investigation therefore he is the proper defendant in a suit to enjoin against the investigation.

Those of us who have been to law school will recall that Article III of the Constitution allows suit to be brought in Federal Court only for "cases and contraversies," which has been defined to include only those cases where the defendant has inflicted an actual injury against the plaintiff.

Here, the injury in question is the investigation, therefore the person who is inflicting injury is John Ashcroft, not the Legislative Branch.

In other words, I've taken a whole hell of a lot more Civics classes than you have, and you would do well do limit your accusations to things you actually know something about.
Re:It isn't every day ... by crmartin · 2004-09-16 13:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then you weren't paying attention to your own headline or something, because Ashcroft isn't Miranda's boss, and the Senators who Miranda accuses of pressuring Ashcroft were on the other side, and therefore weren't Miranda's boss either.

Shall I draw you a picture?
(Senate Repub) Miranda's boss <--- Miranda -- sues -> Ashcroft | accuses | v Senate Democrats
Got it? Miranda's not accusing his boss, and he's not suing his boss.

Putz.
Re:It isn't every day ... by CaptainEbo · 2004-09-16 13:35 · Score: 1

You're both right, douchebags.

crmartin: if you read the original article (i.e. click through the link), you will see that Miranda blamed Senators on both sides, Democrats, and his bosses.

expriest: maybe next time you can include that part of the quote in your writeup.

...bunch of goddamn children, I swear...

Ebo
Re:It isn't every day ... by crmartin · 2004-09-16 20:57 · Score: 1

From the article:

Manuel Miranda, who in February resigned under pressure from his position as nominations adviser to the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, filed the complaint in a District of Columbia federal court Friday.

The complaint also lays out the case from Miranda's point of view, denouncing Democrats for conspiring to block some conservative nominees and criticizing the Senate judiciary chairman, Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, for supporting the probe.

(Boss) Biil Frist -----> Miranda ------> Orrin Hatch
He's not suing his boss, and he's not accusing his boss.

Some Ethics. by abb3w · 2004-09-16 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN.

...containing files that no person had authorized him to access, and which as a lawyer he was ethically obligated to NOT examine, but rather report the appropriate authorities-- to wit, the opposition.

Were the Democrats mindbogglingly stupid? Yes. Should the Democratic sysadmin be summarily fired? Yes-- and probably even fired from a cannon into a brick wall. Was an initial discovery of this open share possibly accidentally? Absolutely. Was this a "hack" doable by the average seven-year old? Very likely.

Was the conduct of the Republicans ethical? In no way, shape, or form. Was it criminal? Possibly; a judge and/or jury needs to sort out the meaning of "authorized" in this context. Computer intrusion law may stretch to cover Mr. Miranda, but not his bosses-- although conspiracy might stretch that far.

Is this the sort of person you want representing you? Speaking for myself: no, to both the idiot Democrats and the unethical Republicans. What the Republicans should have done was made sure the Democrats knew to fix it, and then made sure the press knew that the Democrats had been stupid, and the Republicans had been "gentlemenly" about it and not taken advantage of those poor bumpkins.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Re:Some Ethics. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 17:03 · Score: 0

Was the conduct of the Republicans ethical? In no way, shape, or form. Was it criminal? Possibly; a judge and/or jury needs to sort out the meaning of "authorized" in this context....

Personally, I can't conceive of accessing information published on a publicly accessible share as illegal. Assuming legality, this seems like "fair play" to me.

Consider some alternate scenarios. It's WW2 and the allies have the capability to crack German and Japanese communications. Should they not do it because Gentlemen do not read each other's mail ? Personally, I think we had a moral imperative to break those communications.

But that's war. Consider a less extreme example. You're a professional sports team with a match coming up. Somehow, you've found out you have legal access to your opponents game plan against you. Do you read it or do you close your eyes and put your hands over you ears? These days, professional ball players are constantly reading scouting reports on other teams, watching game footage, doing anything to gain an advantage. Personally, I think you would be negligent to ignore such valuable intelligence.

Now, as a system administrator responsible for large amounts of data, I think a certain distinction needs to be made here. There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility. For example, even though I may have access to all employee emails and files, I would never rummage about in data that belonged to someone else.
Re:Some Ethics. by abb3w · 2004-09-17 15:11 · Score: 1

Personally, I can't conceive of accessing information published on a publicly accessible share as illegal.
If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, it's stupid as hell of me, and my insurance company probably wouldn't pay up, but it's still grand theft auto if a damn teenager take my Porsche for a joyride.
The files did not belong to the Republicans. Had a Democratic staffer accidentally broken the lock on his office door so that any key would open it, I am sure we can both agree he would be a moron to not notice it and get it fixed. Ditto his boss. On the other hand, it would not be ethical for a Republican staffer who noticed that to then wander in and out after hours for a few months, reading the papers from the office desk and file cabinets. Whether it is actually criminal is a question for a jury. (EG, does the system administrator have the right to "Authorize" people to access files without the permision of the House members and staff, making his careless share a de jure "authorization".)
Consider some alternate scenarios.
In both of your scenarios (a war, and a football or other sporting competition-- essentially a mock war), the two sides are out for diametrically opposing goals, seeking the explicit detriment of the other side. In the House of Representatives, the two sides are both supposedly serving the best interests of the country, albeit from the focus of their respective constituencies. All parties take a shared oath to the Constitution. Furthermore, such "Ungentlemanly" conduct almost certainly a violation of the House's own Code of Ethics for Government Service.. To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department." (The page explicitly states this applies to the elected officials themselves, as well.)
The debate between the Republican and the Democratic parties has always been on how these United States are best served-- on the road, not the direction. If this is no longer the case, I fear for my country.
There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility.
Agreed; the former is an abuse of explicitly imparted trust and powers; the latter is a far less egregious fault. However, that the latter is less deeply wrong does not make the latter behavior ethical.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Re:Some Ethics. by Phat_Tony · 2004-09-19 04:35 · Score: 1

Congress had a shared drive Miranda had access to, and there were a bunch of unlocked documents on it. Congress had procedures for locking minimal security documents, and keeping high security documents on disc under lock and key, but the documents in question were on a shared volume Miranda had rightful access to, and he looked at them. They do not contain classified or privileged information. So maybe he committed a misdemeanor, and maybe he didn't.
But the "poor bumpkins" who's documents he was reading are our elected representatives, who were trampling the constitution. They were basing court nominations on bribes, withholding nominations to influence court verdicts, and wrote that they planned to block a court nomination because the nominee was latino.
Maybe Miranda committed a misdemeanor, maybe he didn't. How many people in the US are convicted of misdemeanors every day? He could have jaywalked. The story is that our elected representatives are a bunch of sold-out racist bigots who are trampling the constitution. Whether he was right or wrong in the way he found this out, he is a hero for exposing this information.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Some Ethics. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-21 20:51 · Score: 1

To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department."

Which is exactly why any member of the Senate, given permission (as indicated by the configuration of the shared drives) to access Senate-authored documents (written on taxpayer-funded time), is permitted and even obligated to disclose them if he feels the public deserves to know the contents.
Re:Some Ethics. by abb3w · 2004-09-22 00:56 · Score: 1

Which is exactly why any member of the Senate, given permission (as indicated by the configuration of the shared drives) to access Senate-authored documents (written on taxpayer-funded time), is permitted and even obligated to disclose them if he feels the public deserves to know the contents.
The "given permission" is debatable, as the reports I have read were that the open share was a misconfiguration, and that it was pointed out to Mr. Miranda as a misconfiguration by his predecessor. Speaking as an experienced cracker of rather greyish hat, an obvious systems administrator screw up (EG, such as setting a mail Spool folder chmod 777) does not constitute de jure "permission".
There is also a difference between full disclosure to the public of evidence of unethical tactics, and searching for information that can be used by your boss to be used for private political advantage.
Had Mr. Miranda, without being informed by his predecessor, stumbled across the share by mistake (say, by mistyping the name of a similar share), poked around the contents trying to figure out what the folder held without realizing the contents were intended to be private, discovered evidence of racial profiling in judge selection, and immediately gone to his boss, and then openly gone to the press-- then there would have been no unethical conduct that I can see. However, that is rather different from what happened.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

On government-owned computers... by PatHMV · 2004-09-16 11:17 · Score: 3, Informative

These files were on government-owned, taxpayer-funded computers. Were it not for the fact that Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act, these records would be suject to public review and inspection. Those memos discovered by Miranda which have been publicly released show:

clear efforts by parties to litigation to influence the results of that litigation by controlling when new judges were confirmed (p. 3)
confirmation hearings be scheduled around concerns over how a particular confirmation might affect an election in a particular state (South Carolina - p. 8-9)
racial motivations (to develop a strategy for "dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees" (p. 14)
and exactly how much Democrat Senators are focused on pleasing particular special interest organizations and constituencies

So why shouldn't these memos have been in the public eye to begin with? If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No. The same people on the left who want to crucify Miranda here would be screaming about the public's right to know.

And FYI, here is Miranda's attorneys very clear explanation of the law. Anybody on /. who wants to prosecute Miranda for what he did better be really, really careful about what computers he accesses without really explicit permission in the future.

Re:On government-owned computers... by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-09-16 11:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted?

Interestingly enough, you fail to call for the release of the meeting notes that Cheney took with energy executives; Cheney is claiming executive privilege. Lawsuits from the Dems have so far been unsuccessul in pursuading a judge that that information should be released. What's the difference? Why aren't you calling for the release of that information also?

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:On government-owned computers... by Colazar · 2004-09-16 12:03 · Score: 1

Well, I don't know how anyone can call a fourteen page document written by a lawyer "clear," but that's another matter.
IANAL, I don't have the faintest idea whether the release of this information was legal or illegal. I'm not calling for anyone's head. (But believe me, I *always* get explicit permission before I access a computer. It's part of the ethical standards of my profession, whether or not there is any force of law behind it.)
All I was saying is that you can't defend his actions by saying he didn't break any laws to *access* the information. If releasing the information was illegal, it doesn't matter how he got it. Once again, I have no idea whether or not it is illegal, and don't even have an opinion on whether or not it *should* be illegal.
But most of your post was addressing whether or not it was ethical or moral. I don't know the ethical guidelines for congressional staffers (I'm cynical enough to believe there are none :) ), so I can't address that. (I would be interested in knowing if it was against ethical rules for a Congressman to direct his staff to release such information. I'd be willing to bet that there is a rule which appears to prevent it, but which has enough wiggle room in it that they can safely do it.)
I do believe that releasing the information was immoral, though. (And I would say the same thing with regards to your hypothetical example involving White House documents.) To my mind, there is a distinction between policy meetings and documents (what needs to be done) and strategy meetings and documents (how to go about doing it). I have no problem with policy being leaked. But I don't think strategy is anybody else's business (*unless* something about it is illegal). Is there a grey area there? Sure. But since this is my personal morality, I get to decide those on a case by case basis.
The upshot of which is, I have no opinion whether Mr Miranda should be fined or go to jail, but I do know that I would never hire him.

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Re:On government-owned computers... by PatHMV · 2004-09-16 14:06 · Score: 1

It's one thing to believe that internal policy discussions by politicians and others should be allowed to remain confidential, and another to push for the prosecution of someone who for whatever reason chooses to breech that confidentiality and leak the documents anyway. If the Democrats want to exchange memos like this and agree amongst themselves not to share them with outsiders, that's fine with me. Same with the Cheney energy executive meetings. But if someone in the White House chose to leak, say, the minutes of the Cheney meetings to the public, I would not be calling for the criminal prosecution of the leaker.

All I'm asking for is that the Democrats and the news media not be hypocritical about it. If YOU believe that the Cheney energy records should be released, then you should also believe that the Democratic Judiciary Committee memos should have been released. If you believe that "whistle-blowers" should be protected after disclosing non-public documents, then you should believe that Mr. Miranda should not be prosecuted for revealing those Democratic memos.
Re:On government-owned computers... by PatHMV · 2004-09-16 14:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott would disagree with you. He believes that it's more important to blow the whistle on alleged wrong-doing than to follow the law. He is the Congressman who, in 1997, accepted an illegally-made tape recording of a phone call between Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner and distributed it to the news media. Rep. McDermott, who was held liable to Rep. Boehner for damages in a ruling by a judge last month, had this to say about his law breaking:
McDermott defended his conduct. "I believed important public issues were involved," he said in a statement, "and that I had the right under the First Amendment to release the taped conversation to the news media."
Note that McDermott is not the one who made the illegal recording. He merely distributed it to the news media. But distribution of illegal wiretaps is itself illegal.
Re:On government-owned computers... by kalidasa · 2004-09-16 14:26 · Score: 1

Were it not for the fact that Congress exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act, these records would be suject to public review and inspection. Those memos [cfif.org] discovered by Miranda which have been publicly released show:

Ah, you mean like the Vice President's Energy Policy summit on government property that he released all the minutes for? Oops. That was executive privilege, wasn't it? That makes all the difference . . .
Re:On government-owned computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 14:27 · Score: 0

How about if they reveal the identity of an active CIA agent and put that body of work as well as our national security in jeopardy? Yeah, I thought so Novak, you Douche Bag.
Re:On government-owned computers... by PatHMV · 2004-09-16 14:57 · Score: 1

Like President Bush, I fully support the Justice Department's vigorous investigation into the leak of Valery Plame's name to Robert Novak. (I would also support a vigorous ethics investigation into how she used her power in the CIA to get her husband some work.)
Re:On government-owned computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 15:11 · Score: 0

Except he doesn't. Believe me, with the full weight of his authority, if he really wanted it, it would be done. There aren't that many people to check, and there's only so many of them Novak met with.

But just the fact that, for you, Bush's word and complete lack of action are enough, but his opponants don't recieve the same gracious consideration, says everything about your position. "I've already made my decisions and now I'll put my selection and confirmation bias on highest alert."
Re:On government-owned computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 16:22 · Score: 0

I would also support a vigorous ethics investigation into how she used her power in the CIA to get her husband some work.
You can't really believe that, can you? She didn't use any internal power to get him overseas work. The Agency helped him get overseas work because it benefitted the Agency's missions. He got his gigs so that she could be there on covert assignment. The job of beard is not usually open to a competitive hiring effort.
Re:On government-owned computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 16:52 · Score: 0

Like President Bush, I fully support the Justice Department's vigorous investigation into the leak of Valery Plame's name to Robert Novak.
And the renewal of the Assault Weapons ban.
And Compassionate Conservatism.
And a space mission to Mars.
And a tax cut that will not cause deficits.
And spending more money on education.
And fully funding LIHEAP.
And leaving the social security trust fund alone.
And leaving no child untested^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbehind.
And universal broadband.
And while we're at it, everyone gets a pony, too.
Re:On government-owned computers... by Politburo · 2004-09-17 04:33 · Score: 1

If a whistle-blower had released documents from the White House showing the White House consulting with religious leaders or business leaders or pro-life organizations to discuss judicial appointments and how they would be handled, would anybody be asking for the whistle-blower to be prosecuted? No.

Bushit. The White House would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, and would lead a smear campaign against the individual. Hell, they've already outed a CIA agent for political reasons.
Re:On government-owned computers... by Colazar · 2004-09-17 07:58 · Score: 1

You don't need to tell me. He's my Congressman. And you left out the fact that McDermott was on the ethics committee at the time he released that. So he should have known better.
And that is why I voted for the Green Party candidate who ran against him in the last election. (Or was that 2000. It blurs.)
If a credible, liberal Democrat ran against McDermott, he would lose in a heartbeat. But no one ever runs against him. (That aforementioned Green party candidate got ~33% of the vote, which I think proves my point. I don't think a Republican has bothered to run in that district for 6 years.)

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Re:On government-owned computers... by bar-agent · 2004-09-17 08:01 · Score: 1

Good ol' McDermott. You know, there's a reason why we call him Congressman-for-life.

Frankly, given the amount of scandal and weirdness he's been involved with, I'm amazed he's still in office. Amazed, but pleased.

--
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]

Sig by Mark_MF-WN · 2004-09-16 11:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

That is a truely awesome sig.

W.rong by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-16 18:18 · Score: 1

No, you're lying to help cover up treason. Miranda cracked the Democrats' email server, copying their private memos to the Republicans sleazing their judges into the government. When that resulted in arrests and confiscations in the Republican Senate Majority Leader's office, Miranda started squealing. Even now, he's telling a tale of wider complicity. As a sidenote, after the spying failed when it was busted, the Republicans resorted to the unprecedented, and grossly wrong trick of appointing the judges during a Senate recess, unopposed. These aren't a bunch of fratboys deciding a keg party theme, they're the top Senators appointing the top judges. These crimes are disgusting. How can you possibly defend them? Why do you hate America?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:W.rong by ptbarnett · 2004-09-22 05:50 · Score: 1

As a sidenote, after the spying failed when it was busted, the Republicans resorted to the unprecedented, and grossly wrong trick of appointing the judges during a Senate recess, unopposed.
Dubious..... yes.
Unprecedented.... no.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31 112.pdf
In the future, do your homework before making such charges.
Re:W.rong by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-22 06:04 · Score: 1

True, and an interesting report - thanks. The confirmation process for judges is clearly seriously compromised. Any suggestions for a different process?

--
--
make install -not war

Bushit by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-16 18:24 · Score: 1

Well, if you were Bush, you'd just ask around. Or, rather, if *I* were Bush. Then I'd tell the FBI, hold a trial, and once the charges were proven, I'd have the traitor hung publicly. Of course, Bush flipflopped on that investigation, "embracing" it only in the news once it was inevitable, after opposing it, and stalling enough for evidence to be destroyed, and then acquiescing after the results of this "lengthy" investigation were clearly scheduled for after the election, when they'll be either quashed, or irrelevant.

This is Bush's basic technique - he'll take credit for the whole thing, if he can't keep it out of the public eye. BTW, where's Osama?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Bushit by PatHMV · 2004-09-16 18:46 · Score: 1

Do you have any sources you can cite for that? Where did President Bush ever oppose this investigation? And what evidence might be destroyed? Novak had a verbal conversation with a "Senior Administration Official". What records are going to exist of that? And how is President Bush in any way controlling this investigation? If he wanted to hide things and was controlling the investigation or its timing, why would he be allowing reporters to be subpoenaed to testify about off-the-record conversations they had with administration officials? How exactly does that constitute "keeping it out of the public eye"?
Re:Bushit by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-17 04:06 · Score: 1

Partisan faith in Bush has really taken you people straight to hell. Bush's perpetual reelection committe commits some crime, screws up some details like usual, and every verse from his choir is takens as gospel, while any voice of conscience is questioned like the devil. You commit to the official truth, then parse and rationalize your way around the obvious reality that lies in your way.

At least six journalists were called from the White House, illegally informing them that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. At least five decided not to report it, and one, Robert Novak, decided to corroborate in the crime by publishing it in connection with a story designed to undermine her husband's credibility as he demonstrated that Bush's lies about Niger uranium and Iraq were false. Those are simple facts that none of the players dispute, although Novak would lie to his grave about the nature of his obvious hatchet job. Now that some people, patriots and partisans, want to know who in the White House committed the crime by revealing the agent's identity and job, it takes a grand jury to slowly eke out tiny details - like who did it - but the facts that the crime was committed by White House staff are established. Of course Bush opposes the inquiry: if he didn't, he get the culprit to the FBI himself. To the extent that he doesn't know, or even isn't capable of getting the truth himself, that's just more demonstration of Bush's stature as spokesmodel for the people who actually run his administration and the country: Cheney and Rove. In that case, they clearly oppose the truth, and Bush is along for the ride.

Bush doesn't control the subpoenas of reporters; he doesn't allow or prevent that - courts do. But he (or his minders) do control the political acts of his staff, at least one of whom committed this serious crime against national security - directly damaging intelligence, nuclear terror prevention, global WMD proliferation, and diplomatic connections with West Africa, and lying us deeper into war in Iraq. By failing to appoint an Independent Prosecutor, keeping the investigation in his attendant John Ashcroft's department, he sent it down the whitewash hole. And he's succeeded in postponing the timing of the conclusion until after the election, although the simple crime was committed a year and a half ago. Stretching it out rather than quickly resolving it, while we've got wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of other disasters from his catastrophe factory - from Enron to this Senate Justice Committee spying, the list is endless - keeps it from the public eye.

Bush politics is all-consuming in his White House, and the ploys are sufficient to fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time. But not all of us all of the time. If you actually cared about the truth yourself, and not just defending the liars like Bush does, you'd see the truth yourself, without grand juries, subpoenas, or any investigations that now need only find out *who* did it, not that it was done. And Bush's lack of interest demonstrates his complicity.

--
--
make install -not war

Where in Pashtun Tribal Region is Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-16 20:52 · Score: 0

Well, judging from Rumsfelds little spaz on C-Span, the administration thinks he's locked up in Iraq. Quite telling that the political head of the Pentagon flat out does not know the difference between Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden. He can't even get it right for a speech. And this is one the people who the President counts among his most important and trusted advisors.

Mod Parent: +1, no shit by benjamindees · 2004-09-16 21:40 · Score: 1

There is little to no difference between a file server and a web server.

In fact, if there were a difference, it would be that a file server is capable of giving you little bits and pieces of documents in addition to whole ones.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"

Mind the Duality by MarkPNeyer · 2004-09-17 03:51 · Score: 1

Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing. Those documents contained plenty of evidence that the democrats were stalling appointment of judges for purely political reasons, in order to appease certain special interest groups. One memo in particular said that they wanted to make sure Estrada didn't get a federal judgeship "because he is a latino." Anyone attempting to bring up what was in the documents was instantly rebutted, being told that since the documents were illegitamately obtained, it doesn't matter what was in them.

That's all well and good, until you look at what's going on in the deal with CBS - They're saying that, yeah, maybe those documents were falsified, but that's not important - what's important is what the documents said. In other words, It's not ok to use illegitamately obtained documents to criticize the democrats, but it's perfectly OK to used forged documents to criticize republicans.

--

My blog

Re:Mind the Duality by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-21 21:24 · Score: 1

Notice that few have bothered to ask what was on those documents that the democrats were writing.

Because we weren't born yesterday.

Everybody already knows that the Senators from the opposition party to the President will filibuster to block his judicial nominations. That's Standard Operating Procedure, something documented in high-school history class.

Back in 1999, this was one of the major reasons liberals gave for the Bush-Gore election to be important. Nobody expected Bush to actually behave much differently from Gore in terms of running the country (boy, were they wrong), but the advancing age of Supreme Court Justices means that 2-3 of them could retire any day now. When that happens, the Supreme Court's 4-4-1 split will end and whichever party currently holds the presidency will lock in a sympathetic Justice for the next several decades. (Potentially allowing for a reversal of Roe-Wade or other major changes)

It's the content, stupid by Jodka · 2004-09-17 04:55 · Score: 1

What was found on that hard drive proves that some members of the U.S. Senate had unethical and criminal motives in blocking confirmation of judges to federal courts. If that is going on, I want to know about it. Any patriotic citizen would. I think the guy deservers an award for whisteblowing, not prosecution.

The real story here is not the leak itself, but the content of the leaked documents. They contradict reasons some Senators gave publicly for filibustering judicial nominees. Some powerfull people got caught in a great big lie. Even worse, what was found on the hard drive reveals the true motives for blocking judicial appointees to be unethical and even illegal.

In particular, the leaks reveal that Senators 1) tried to manipulate the outcome of court cases by delaying appointments, which is a federal crime. 2) used racist criteria in deciding which appointees to block. They blocked confirmation of a judge, Miguel Estrada because he was Latino. Shit. The Senate Judiciary Commitee actually wrote that down as reason to block someone from becoming a judge, "because... he is Latino."

Well, the secret is out and you go read about the U.S. Senate's racist and criminal motives, in their own words. The Wall Street Journal has some of the juicy parts from the leaked documents.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Re:It's the content, stupid by UdoKeir · 2004-09-17 06:10 · Score: 1

I disagree about why they singled out Estrada's race in that memo.

They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.

The way I read this is that he would be difficult to block because he has a "minimal paper trail", ie. no skeletons in the closet, and he is latino ie. it would be politically difficult for the Democrats to block a nominee that is from a racial minority.

They then go on to say that the reason for blocking him is to stop him making it to the US Supreme Court.
Re:It's the content, stupid by Jodka · 2004-09-17 07:24 · Score: 1

I think your reading of the situation is more or less correct. That being Latino, he would be easier to confirm if he were ever appointed to the US Supreme Court, and so this was reason to work extra hard to block his appointment.

That is racism. It's not like racial discrimination becomes ok because you have a pragmatic political motive for it. Let's deny blacks the right to vote. Its' not that we don't like black people, we love them, but they tend to support higher taxes. We just have political motives, we are not _realy_ racist, so its ok. Not.

Imagine if something similar happend at IBM or GM. A mid-level minority employee is denied promotion because the higher-ups thought his minority status might help him later attain further promotion. The memo reads "He is especially dangerous because he is... black." Whoever leaked the evidence would not be attacked in the press and prosecuted. A different standard of ethics applies to Democratic Senators than to business. Which is why Senator Byrd, the former KKK leader, can talk about "white niggers" and Hillary Clinton can disparage Ghandi using ethnic stereotypes. They do not appologizie for being racists, they only aknowledge impropriaty of their racist public statements. Same thing here. To some Democrats in the Senate, the only crime here is revelation of their own racial discrimiation, not the act of discrimation itself.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Re:Where in Pashtun Tribal Region is Osama Bin Lad by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-17 05:01 · Score: 1

Gee, "Pashtun Tribal Region" rhymes with "Pakistan". And it *is* Pakistan! Good thing they're our allies in the Terror War. Otherwise, they might also be stealing nuclear secrets from our European allies, and selling them to Libya, Iran, North Korea, and other evildoers, with impunity. Uh... ask Karl Rove how to lie our way out of that catastrophe. What, I'm on hold while he chats with the Saudis who fund those operations?

--

--
make install -not war

Poor Kerry! by thief_inc · 2004-09-17 06:17 · Score: 1

I am probably not going to vote for Kerry, but that being said I still want to hear his views on the issues. But it seems lately(since the DNC) he cannot get a word in edge wise without some new story hogging the headlines. SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate. Ah well there are still the debates.

--
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC

Re:Poor Kerry! by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-21 21:18 · Score: 1

SBVFT, RNC, Memogate, Hurricanes, and now Servergate.

Uh, you know, Servergate was FIRST amoung all those things. It happened back in 2003 for cryin out loud! This current story is just the latest twist in an ongoing but unpopular scandal. It won't block anything from the headlines- nobody really cares. The Republicans have apologized, the Democrats fixed their computers, the judicial confirmations are finished- it's over.

103 comments