Slashdot Mirror


Republican Aide Tries to Hire Hackers

Noryungi writes "It seems as though a Republican Communications Director contacted Attrition.org, trying to hire hackers to improve his educational records. I don't know what is his dumbest move: (a) contacting Attrition in the first place, (b) using a real name Yahoo email address or (c) speaking at length about what he needed? Kudos to the Attrition crew for posting the whole email dialogue online! A sample from the conversation: 'Jericho: First, let's be clear. You are soliciting me to break the law and hack into a computer across state lines. That is a federal offense and multiple felonies. Obviously I can't trust anyone and everyone that mails such a request, you might be an FBI agent, right? So, I need three things to make this happen: 1. A picture of a squirrel or pigeon on your campus. One close-up, one with background that shows buildings, a sign, or something to indicate you are standing on the campus. 2. The information I mentioned so I can find the records once I get into the database. 3. Some idea of what I get for all my trouble.'"

6 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Republican Aide? by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is he trying to improve his own records? Isn't this just a case of an idiot who tries to get people to hack their educational stuff for them? I mean, it probably will lead to a congressional scandal, but it doesn't really have much to do with the aide's aide-ness or republican-ness.

    --
    Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
  2. Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, but if I understand correctly, either party of a two-way communication can generally make them public unless it's declared private by some sort of legal notice (terms of use, legal disclaimers in the sigs, or something.) Since Attrition is a publicly available website, and maintainer of all those public Infosec mailing lists, it's probably not legally reasonable for this guy to assume his emails would be kept private. After all, he didn't even have any real idea who the person was he contacted, much less have a nondisclosure agreement with him.

  3. Re:Yet another. . . by t0rkm3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hrmmm...

    Politicians are politicians. Tis part of what makes me tire of our system. Remember the Dem that had the Nat'l Guard load up his private stuff during Katrina, asking them to defer food, troop, and rescue transport?

    Lord Acton was right, will be right... forever.

    That's why I would traditionally vote for Republicans, at least they are/were for smaller federal gov't more state/local control. However, this last group has hosed that whole concept up.

    Professional politicians are power hungry sociopaths. How do we solve that problem?

  4. Punishment, Web 2.0 style by SnappingTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Todd's punishment is going to be uniquely modern... or will it?

    The punishment is that this is going to go viral. It's just too darn interesting seeing people doing something they shouldn't. For the rest of his life people will be reading about this. It's not yet mentioned in Denny Rehberg's Wikipedia page, but it will. Todd will probably get his own Wikipedia page [dead link as of this moment but we'll see how long that lasts]. There will probably be a Snopes article too.

    In other words, Todd will be publicy humiliated. It'll be like having to wear a big red letter...

    --
    I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
  5. Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simple:

    a) The republican party claims to be the party of morality and "family values".
    b) There's been a rash of republican political gaffs in the last few months which, in the face of 'a', are really pretty funny.

    So laugh, ffs. 'cuz, lets face it... it really is funny.

  6. Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are idiots on both sides of the aisle.
    This is information-free. If 95% of Republicans were idiots and 5% of Democrats were idiots it'd still be correct to say "There are idiots on both sides of the aisle", so it doesn't tell you anything useful.

    The question isn't whether or not there are idiots on one side or the other. The question is how many idiots there are on one side or the other, to what extent are those idiots informing policy and decision making, and most of all, how many of those idiots happen to be President right now.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.