Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Hacker Blames Boss

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the pointing-fingers dept.

expriest writes "Manuel Miranda, the Republican Senate staffer under invesitgation for hacking into confidential Democratic files, has sued John Ashcroft to enjoin him against continuing the investigation. Miranda's argument consists of little more than fingerpointing. "Senators used all their official power and their influence over the press" says Miranda's complaint, "to disguise their own wrongdoing, by systematically accusing plaintiff of escalating degrees of criminality." "

8 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Still Isn't Right by alatesystems · · 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

  2. Clarification... by Samrobb · · 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
    1. Re:Clarification... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Clarification... by BrynM · · 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...)
    3. Re:Clarification... by Masker · · 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.

  3. Some HACKING by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · 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.
  4. Some Ethics. by abb3w · · 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.
  5. On government-owned computers... by PatHMV · · 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.