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.'"

Comments

Hilarious

[AKAImBatman]

todd... no more.. omfg we are SO busted.. fuck fuck fuck FUCK FUCK
everything was PERFECT until their night noc ran a reverse udp traceroute
back to one of the hosts we had set up after that, straight DOWNHILL.
i've already been called twice by my isp asking about unusual activity,
some other shit about access attempts to a federally monitored system they
have everything in logs including the rot-26 stuff that finally got me
access all goes back to your login sorry i really fucked up BAD

I'm sorry, I keeled over laughing from that part. They really had him strung along with the whole thing. Although, I think he started to catch on after the "bust":

I was getting
serious cold feet and going to tell you to abort until
I saw your last email. To that end, I have spoken
about this to no one as we agreed and I will not speak
of it in the future. As a gesture of good faith, I was
hoping you guys would remove our correspondence from
your web site. Isn't that risky for all of us to have
it up there?

Honestly, the more I see of this stuff, the more I wonder if it isn't time for a congress reform rather than any of the billion other little "reforms" that congress proposes. The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents; in the tradition of Cincinnatus They certainly never intended for the "career" politicians we see today. Too much money, organized crime, and generally dispicable people getting into office.

The only question is, what is the best approach to encourage more honorable folks to run for office? Perhaps the terms of office should be limited? That would certainly help discourage careering. Limits on advertising budgets would be good, but difficult to police. Any other ideas?

Re:Hilarious

[drinkypoo]

The only question is, what is the best approach to encourage more honorable folks to run for office? Perhaps the terms of office should be limited? That would certainly help discourage careering. Limits on advertising budgets would be good, but difficult to police. Any other ideas?

Yeah, how about congressional salary caps that bring them down to the median income in the US? That way, if they want a raise, they have to improve the quality of life for all people. Mind you, you have to include the unemployed, so that there's a bunch of zeroes in there to bring the average down - to give them motivation to combat unemployment.

They say that democracies fail when people realize that they can vote themselves entitlements. What about congress? They've been voting themselves entitlements continually, while the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation in more than a decade...

Re:Hilarious

[awehttam]

The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents

Perhaps this is testament to what regular people are truly like.

Re:Hilarious

[JasonKChapman]

The only question is, what is the best approach to encourage more honorable folks to run for office?

That's easy. Make it a more honorable calling. Lessen the position's power and profitability, and the sharks will find other waters in which to swim, leaving room for the civic-minded Mr. Smiths. Sadly, that's never going to happen. Tyrants don't yield power willingly.

In the old days, people had to hire armies and intimidate peasants in order to be major-league thugs with their own little fiefdoms. Now they just have to get elected.

Re:Hilarious

[AKAImBatman]

Yeah, how about congressional salary caps that bring them down to the median income in the US? That way, if they want a raise, they have to improve the quality of life for all people.

That's definitely fair, as long as you allow for various congressional expenses to be charged back to the congressional budget. Expenses such as travel and running their office are too expensive to come out of pocket, and we wouldn't want them running to outside money at the first opportunity. Of course, such an expense account opens up other possibilities for fraud (need I remind anyone of the congressional postal abuse scandal?) so it's not a perfect solution.

In the end, we need a set of changes that would convince the cheaters that politics isn't worth it, and that the only reason to get into office is if you want to see something changed. One has to wonder, how much better would politics be if we dissolved the parties backing these politicians?

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so naive. The Congressional salary is nothing compared to what Congressmen make in other deals. It is just a convenient excuse so that people don't look at shady deals. Take any Congressman who has served maybe 10 years or so. Compare their net worth before taking office and after. It is surprising how much better they suddenly become in investing in companies and buying land while working as a legislator. Remember, Congressional salaries total somewhere around $100 million per years while lobbyists spend billions (heck the RIAA probably spends more than $100 million a year on lobbying Congress). Reducing the Congressional salary would just give more motivation for the very few Congressmen who aren't corrupt to become so.

Re:Hilarious

[Peyna]

The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents

That's why the common folk were all sitting in Philadelphia writing the Constitution, right?

Re:Hilarious

[Goldsmith]

My dad was a politician, and while I think career politicians are a big problem, actually being in politics convinced him it's not. His argument is that like anything else, politics takes some time to learn. Thus, you will always have people with more experience than others, and the ability of these more experienced politicians is much greater than that of the rookies. The end result is that people with new representatives are not represented as well as those with seasoned representatives.

My opinion is that the old politicians simply push around the rookies. He is absolutely right that rookie politicians just can't get as much done. Also, he got out of politics on term limits which were repealed just after he left office, so I think that might be clouding his judgement.

Keep in mind that this guy (the aide trying to hire hackers) is not a politician. By enforcing the responsibility of politicians to ensure their staff is not breaking any laws, a lot of this kind of stuff goes away. To get rid of career politicians, you really need to get rid of political parties, or at least prevent the parties themselves from employing anyone. True career politicians won't let something like term limits stand in the way of political power.

Re:Hilarious

[Dun Malg]

The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents

Perhaps this is testament to what regular people are truly like.

Unfortunately, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Founding Fathers idea of Cincinnatus style service was based on the premise that those volunteering to manage government for short times were intelligent, competent folks who had something better to do. The idea was that they'd do it out of a sense of civic duty, then return to their much more profitable and pleasant private ventures. Nowadays, government is full of a certain type of enthusiastic, hardworking, but not necessarily particularly smart sort of person who's willing to "pay his dues". He works as an Underpaid Toady to a Senator or what have you, until he can muster the political capital to get enough of the slugs already in power to back him for a shot at the "big leagues". They're people who go into government because they think they know how things should be run. They're scum.

Re:Hilarious

[AKAImBatman]

My opinion is that the old politicians simply push around the rookies. He is absolutely right that rookie politicians just can't get as much done.

Which is not such a bad thing. The market already has plenty of solutions, checks, and balances for just about every ill facing our country. When congress gets involved, all they do is pass laws that f**k up the solutions already in place.

Ever play SimCity? Did you ever notice that things seem to go best when you're not trying to make major changes to your city every year? Same thing with politics. The nation runs mostly on automatic. We need congressmen who will stop trying to micromanage the government. The only issues that should be acted upon are the ones with clear solutions staring us in the face.

To get rid of career politicians, you really need to get rid of political parties, or at least prevent the parties themselves from employing anyone.

Agreed. The parties have become the power behind the power, acting as gatekeepers for all who wish to enter politics.

Re:Hilarious

[nuzak]

You're dethppppicable!

Thuffering Thuccotash ... sorry, different character.

Re:Hilarious

[orielbean]

However, if you strip away that income, they would simply make it up in the more traditional forms of bribery. At least their worthless pay raises are public record... They are attracted to money and power, not civil service.

The trick is turning their greed in a positive direction - grassroots lobbying for actual citizen / consumer interests. They won't ever change on their own, but they are also very mercenary - this can be a good thing; show them the cash and they drop the current issue like a red-hot poker.

If you enforce term limits, they simply will go the way of a current lame duck president and serve out the last portion of the limit doing whatever the hell they want.

Our system of legislator accountability enforceable only on one day every four-six years is pretty flawed with our updated systems of media and communication.

Re:Hilarious

[truthsearch]

One thought that I've had is to not allow elected officials to be members of any organization (during their time in office). The problem is they could still be supported by an organization to which they are not officially members. I think we really need to come up with some radical new ideas.

Re:Hilarious

[dravine]

I would like to see 1 time limits on all offices and 6 year long terms. 4 years is too short to get any real work done at higher offices, but more than one term in an office is why we see the career politicos we have now. By 1 time limit, I mean that if you have been elected as the governor of a state, that's the last time you get to be governor period, in any state. You would still be able to run for other offices, but again, it's a one time deal.

Re:Hilarious

[awehttam]

Hmm..

Most executions of "governence" happen at a local level, federal government is supposed to be a facilitator, not the end-all-be-all. By local, I don't just mean state, or municipal. Societal governence occurs right down to the business owners, and the hackers who post such flippants attempts at cheating. That's where the "real" policy decisions happen.

Re:Hilarious

[dlt074]

"to give them motivation to combat unemployment."

do you even realize what the current unemployment rate is? it's considered full employment.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle t

Re:Hilarious

[planetmn]

Unemployment is not actually a problem now, under-employment is. If somebody is working part-time, they aren't unemployed. If somebody is doing menial labor because that's the only employment they can find to put food on the table, they aren't unemployed. Even unemployed people aren't considered unemployed unless they are actively looking for employment.

There's a lot of gray between unemployed, and where people ought to be employed. Unfortunately, when you want a quick statistic, it's going to show you very little of the overall picture.

-dave

Re:Hilarious

[AKAImBatman]

By 1 time limit, I mean that if you have been elected as the governor of a state, that's the last time you get to be governor period, in any state.

Absolutely not. Governors are responsible for the ongoing management of their state. If you cut their ability to serve, you'll cut off the ability for a state to function. Congressmen are nothing more than representatives of the governor (Senators are not required to be elected by the people) and the people of a state to ensure that their wishes are being met at a federal level. It was never the intent to take power away from the states by regularly passing consolidated laws for the entire nation.

In fact, the whole setup was supposed to put everyone's interests at odds with each other. The state governor's representation was supposed to be at odds with the represenation of the people, which was at odds with other states, which was to ensure that congress would only do something if they could all agree on it. Otherwise, congress wasn't supposed to do anything.

By making Senators just like representatives, we subjected ourselves to the Tyranny of the Masses.

Re:Hilarious

[AlHunt]

>Honestly, the more I see of this stuff, the more I wonder if it isn't time for a congress reform rather than any of the billion other
>little "reforms" that congress proposes.

Not to worry - there will certainly be a congressional investigation into the whole sordid affair

>The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their
>constituents; in the tradition of Cincinnatus [wikipedia.org] They certainly never intended for the "career" politicians we see today.

I'm glad to see someone beside me post this. Never, ever, ever vote for an incumbent politician.

-----
missing tagline alert - please keep your eye out

Re:Hilarious

[Qzukk]

Expenses such as travel

I dunno, maybe they should spend more time in Congress and less time running around the country on our dime?

Re:Hilarious

[mrbooze]

Honestly, the more I see of this stuff, the more I wonder if it isn't time for a congress reform rather than any of the billion other little "reforms" that congress proposes. The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents

Seriously, what makes you think this person does not *perfectly* represent the "regular people" of this country?

He has little to no concern for ethics or the law as long as he thinks he won't get caught. He's only concerned with his own problems. He's completely tech-ignorant. When he *does* get caught, he spouts a lot of bullshit to try and weasel out of it. Sounds a lot like 90% of the USAnians I run into on a daily basis.

Re:Hilarious

[PerlDudeXL]

Actually high wages for parliamentarians are meant to make them less inclined to take bribe money (Theory here!!!)

Re:Hilarious

[Armadni General]

I dunno, maybe they should spend more time at home staying in touch with the American people and less time being corrupted in Washington?

Re:Hilarious

[Martin Blank]

Most of them have families that remain in their home districts. I'm all for having them work five days a week (and the incoming Congressional leaders seem to be moving in that direction), but I think it's fair to let them see their families on the weekends.

Re:Hilarious

[shystershep]

not allow elected officials to be members of any organization

You run into a problem there with a little thing called the First Amendment (it protects the freedom of assembly/association).

Re:Hilarious

[amigabill]

he only question is, what is the best approach to encourage more honorable folks to run for office?

I think that the system as it currently is has actually become rigged to prevent this. Honest people are going to experience one of two things if they try.

1. Get sick of how the machine works, get sick of having to trade favors and do things other than what you believe in order to get people to owe you favors which you can hope to call in on things more important to you. Having to work within the "wheel & deel" mechanism that our governemtn has become would be unpleasant, they'd realize that nothing will ever really get done by staying honest and doing only what you believe. In the end, they'll quit in disgust, and no longer participate in politics.

2. Try to work within the framework of the machine, offerng favors to be owed favors in return, but instead of finding a way to use the machien to your benefit an honest person could be corrupted and become part of the machine as it is. Offering deals, giving favors, and losing the real reason they ran for office amongst it all, and in the end becoming dishonest instead of being effective in achieving their original goals.

Those are the two outcomes in my theory of "honest policitians". I don't believe there is a 3rd possibility. Either honest people can't stay politicians, or honest people become dishonest politicians. End of story. "Honest politician", "Honrable politician", and other similar terms are by definition mutually exclusive and impossible.

Re:Hilarious

[Martin Blank]

I speak from experience, being one who voted for term limits in California, when I say that term limits lead only to more vicious campaigns and legislators who are eager to make a name for themselves so that they get a bit better name recognition when trying for the next office. They're terrified of turnover because it can lead to change, so they attempt to lock in the districts to the current party representing the area. A few years ago, I never would have thought I'd hear myself say it, but I miss the days when Willie Brown ran the Assembly here in California. Those who remain in office for 10 or 20 years know that others will do the same, and they must learn to compromise. Those who face term limits know that others do, as well, and so they will either bide their time until the obstacle is gone or pass it on to someone who will be around when the obstacle passes.

Re:Hilarious

[truthsearch]

Many people sign employment contracts where they voluntarily give up freedoms to join a company. A politician can be required to give up certain liberties if they volunteer to be in office. No one is forcing them into public office.

Re:Hilarious

[shystershep]

1. Those are private companies, not the government.
2. Contracting not to do a thing is quite a bit different from something being mandated/forbidden by law.

Yes, there are all kinds of limits on free speech and association, etc. Campaign contribution limits is a good example - they have been upheld, but they were challenged on free speech grounds and it could have gone either way. I'm not saying this wouldn't be a good idea, but a lot of things that people think are good ideas aren't acceptable because law is made at the borders of what is acceptable, not in the mainstream (think excluding evidence of a crime even though the criminal is blatantly guilty, just because the police didn't go about it the right way).

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the federal congress should leave as much as possible to the state legislatures, rather than being the do-all and legistlate-all of the world. That way, state legislators could not only stay in their home districts, but be much closer to home and their constituents as well.

Re:Hilarious

[truthsearch]

Your point is quite right. I certainly don't think my idea is great solution. I'm wondering what sort of compromises need to be made. Ideally the public would simply frown upon anyone running for office being a member of any organization. People wouldn't vote for any member of a political party. But we all know that will never happen.

Re:Hilarious

[iluvcapra]

Actually high wages for parliamentarians are meant to make them less inclined to take bribe money

That is a good theory, but in the US every 2 or 6 years our parliamentarians are hit with a multi-million dollar liability, known as a "Campaign." The legislators are up to themselves to raise the money for these, and there are no caps on how much they or their opponent can spend.

If you want to make legislators bribe-proof, you have to make it so that they need for no money in the course of their work, which means paying them well, enough to maintain a domicile in the capital, and strictly capping campaign spending (capping fundraising, and all the exceptions and codicils on that, and the attendant free-expression issues, gets more and more unworkable all the time).

I would say all campaigns should be publicly funded, private donations forbidden, and equal money to the top 3 primary victors, but most Americans consider a campaign donation a form a free speech, and thus beyond legitimate restraint. (I think this is bullshit, but there we are.)

Re:Hilarious

[prisoner]

How about you lazy fuckers go and vote? The reason the system is so broken is that people don't participate. People in Washington know that there is next to no accountabillity so they do whatever the hell they want!

Re:Hilarious

[daeg]

Would you rather have them see that a $300 million bridge is really going nowhere or blindly accept that it's going to a large island of stranded Alaskans? A few tens of thousands of fees in travel is nothing.

Re:Hilarious

[Nate4D]

Humans will, by their nature, be corrupted by power. It just happens, and we can't fix that.

So what do we do? Limit the power. That's what the Founding Fathers were doing with the three different branches. Making it hard for any one person, or any one group, to get things done.

I've been wondering if a truly hardcore limit would be a good idea: One term, in any political office, is the maximum for your lifetime.

It would introduce _tons_ of problems, but it might solve the career politicians, and they're the problem with government today, whether liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democratic.

Re:Hilarious

[drinkypoo]

The system is broken because people are fucking lame. Less than 50% of us trust our government but we reelect the incumbent something like 95% of the time. Well, it's also broken because we voted against Bush twice as a nation, and had the election stolen twice, so we have no confidence that our vote is worth anything.

Re:Hilarious

[rah1420]

more time at home staying in touch with the American people

My kingdom for a mod point. Of course, if I had it, I'd lose this insightful comment. :)

IIRC, the Founding Fathers did just that; spent a whole lot of time in their home districts and only a scant few weeks in Washington. I think the longer that we can keep them out of Washington, the better off our country would be.

Re:Hilarious

[yoder]

"I would say all campaigns should be publicly funded, private donations forbidden, and equal money to the top 3 primary victors, but most Americans consider a campaign donation a form a free speech"

I would almost agree with you, except that whenever I bring this up most if not all strongly agree with me, and realize that our free speech is our vote, our voice and our written word, not our money. It is the corporate world that is so vocal against publicly funded campaigns and makes it sound like it's the average Joe on the street's idea. Corporations stand to lose out completely if political campaigns are taken away from them and given to the people. This will never happen though because all they have to do is shriek "They want to TAX you just to pay for them to run for office!" And uninformed everywhere will perk up their ears like dogs who hear a high pitched noise and say "Taxes? Oh taxes are bad, taxes are very bad, so whatever they are talking about must be bad!"

Re:Hilarious

[ConceptJunkie]

You realize that most Congressmen are millionaires, don't you?

The salary and perks they receive are line noise compared to the power and influence that the job gives.

Re:Hilarious

[delong]

Lessen the position's power and profitability

Like that would go over. Congress critters' power comes from the power to legislate. If your Congressman and Senator can send you into the poorhouse with a flick of the pen creating new regulations and taxes, then you are very likely to wish to curry their favor.

To limit the position's power you must limit the power of Congress. I don't think you'll get much traction on Slashdot arguing for a limitation on the Commerce Clause expansion of federal power that occurred during the New Deal. No, when the increase of power is to do "God's Work", it's ok. Slashdotters are, as a rule, rabid lefties who don't see the connection between their demands for social justice and out of control federal power emanating from the halls of Congress.

Re:Hilarious

[plopez]

I got 'survey does not exists'. Are being sarcastic? If not I would like to point out:
1) Prison population is generally not considered unemployed even though they are a burden on society. Add those in.
2) Most of the govt. stats only count those registered and seeking work, not discouraged workers.

Be careful, if you adjust the numbers, they are not as rosy as it may seem. This site asserted over 10% in '04:
http://americanassembler.com/newsblog/index.php?p= 670

Re:Hilarious

[coredog64]

How about this -- how about we reduce the powers of Congress by not giving them so damn much money to spend. That, and not give the government so much power over us. Then, when the job turns out to be more like mayor of a small town we'll actually get some people in the job that aren't out to grease the skids for their eventual lucrative career as a lobbyist...

Re:Hilarious

[Billly Gates]

This will make them just go after money from lobbiests instead. Oh wait thats a bribe? Hmmm how about that lovely dream executive job when your term ends? Also average joes will less likely run with less salary and instead more business leaders and lawyers with an agenda will run instead to write laws that favor themselves and their former business partners.

Re:Hilarious

[prisoner]

People may or may not trust the gov't but one thing is for sure: they don't vote. If more people were informed and actually bothered to participate, things would work better.

Re:Hilarious

[SomeGuyTyping]

But the pay rate is pretty low for the work load already. Most "qualified" people make too much money in the private sector to want to run. That leaves people who know how to get kickbacks and bribes to run so that they can make a good bit of money.

I think you could have a much more honest congress if we paid them MORE and limited terms

Re:Hilarious

[billsoxs]

Honestly, the more I see of this stuff, the more I wonder if it isn't time for a congress reform rather than any of the billion other little "reforms" that congress proposes.

There is actually an easier way to deal with this - fix the gerrymander issue . This could be done by forcing congressional districts to follow local governmental boundaries - you can't break up cities and counties to make strong Rep/Dem districts. Check the election records. Very few people get voted out of congress. That would make the positions more open to turnover - not this life long stuff

Re:Hilarious

[borg_cube]

(Senators are not required to be elected by the people)

I believe the 17th Amendment would say otherwise:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Re:Hilarious

[raju1kabir]

You want to solve the country's problems, it starts with the Senate. As implemented, it gives the federal government a powerful pro-inbred-hick bias, by giving the 25 people in North Dakota the same amount of upper-house voting mojo as the 25 million people in California.

230 years ago, this was an effective way to get tiny little states on board in a federation with great big states. But today, the states are more alike than they are different. What differences remain, are primarily functions of proximity and geography rather than raw population: Is it a greater cultural change to go from upstate New York to Vermont, or from Idaho to West Virginia?

The system divides people up into arbitrary groups with arbitrary borders and then gives much more power to some than others. Specifically, it rewards the misanthropic who would actually choose to live in the low-population hellhole states.

Re:Hilarious

[borg_cube]

So what do you propose instead of the Senate? Direct democracy? A unicameral, population based legislature? I don't think the equal representation for every state in the Senate is the primary problem with the federal government.

Re:Hilarious

[raju1kabir]

I can understand the rationale for a more senior chamber with longer terms that sits between the lower house and the lawbooks. That can surely be accomplished without allocating 5x votes to someone in a country town who is a net drain on the government, than to someone in a city who is a net contributor.

For example, you could do it with national elections, and require that someone has served at least 2 terms in the House before they are eligible to run. Having them be elected nationally would probably be too many names for the public to keep track of, but you could at least make sure that the voting units were fairly distributed. One way might be to break the country into 10 groups based on the final digit of their SSN, and each group gets to elect 10 Senators from a pool of candidates with the same SSN digit.

Re:Hilarious

[borg_cube]

Being from rural West Virginia, I'd hardly agree with your characterization of people from smaller states as "a net drain on the government". I don't think those people from country towns are any more likely than people from cities to be welfare cases or whatever.

The system you propose would likely eliminate all representation in the Senate for the smaller states. People would still be inclined to vote for people from their state, and people from the larger states would have an obvious advantage.

I would agree that the Senate has some serious problems, but the equal representation for every state isn't one of them. It's one of the few protections smaller states have in the federal system.

Re:Hilarious

[raju1kabir]

Being from rural West Virginia, I'd hardly agree with your characterization of people from smaller states as "a net drain on the government". I don't think those people from country towns are any more likely than people from cities to be welfare cases or whatever.

It's a well-established fact that urban areas are net contributors and rural areas are net drains (if you'd like, I can google up some references for you). And this is most likely a consequence of the arrangement in the Senate, one that has a very small number of people getting a lot of resources from a far larger number, to no benefit that I can really understand.

I would agree that the Senate has some serious problems, but the equal representation for every state isn't one of them. It's one of the few protections smaller states have in the federal system.

This presupposes that states matter. I don't see why they should.

What matters are various groups of people that have aligned interests, regardless of what side of the state line they are standing on.

Re:Hilarious

[philipgar]

Brilliant idea!!!

I mean politicians aren't exactly skilled laborers, and should be judged as such. Anyone can do there job, and it's really easy to do, so they should be paid the average wage in this country. it would encourage people from all walks of life to do it... Wait, but aren't most people who run for office slightly older, at a point in life where they're making more money than the average person? Don't we generally tend to elect more successful people into office, because if someone has failed to be successful with their own life, people generally don't trust them to run others. But, I guess that's not really a problem. People just have to make a bigger sacrifice to run for office. I mean who care if they put away a nest egg for later in life, or save money to put their kids through college etc. it's not important compared with running for office, people are so blindly loyal they'll sacrifice these things in an instant to be a politician.

Or maybe paying them this poorly will mean only the truly wealthy will run for office. If you don't have millions saved up, you can't really afford to be in congress for more than a few years, just the way it works. Sounds like a great way to get more people involved, souns like a brilliant plan.

next time think before you open your mouth.

Re:Hilarious

[borg_cube]

This presupposes that states matter. I don't see why they should.

Perhaps they matter because this country was founded upon federalism, and that generally implies subnational units like states. So congratulations you just created a unitary system. Good luck with that constitutional convention, I guess, because you would have to rewrite the constitution to make that kind of change.

Re:Hilarious

[raju1kabir]

It's one thing to allow the states autonomy on matters delegated to them by the terms of federation.

It's quite another to have the federation structured in such a way that creates a warped balance of power, to the detriment of the vast majority of citizens of the federated entities.

Re:Hilarious

[gonzo67]

Actually, federal laws do allow restriction of the freedom of assembly for those of us paid by Uncle Sam. Membership in extremist groups is forbidden for all members of the military.

Re:Hilarious

[Moridineas]

You know it's interesting, you make it sound as if this is a new problem, and you've discovered a new solution. In reality, this problem is ages old, and your solution has in the past been the problem!

One immediate example I can give is from early colonial US. North Carolina (various permutations of the territory) in the 1600s / early 1700s was an exceptionally poorly run state. The governors made average money. The long and short of it was that raising the governor's salary to something much higher attracted better people to the job, people who wouldn't try to supplement their salaries with bribes etc.

So long and short of it is, lowering salaries isn't necessarily a solution!

Re:Hilarious

[TheLink]

Uh, from the posted correspondence, how sure are you that the perp isn't an example of the "regular people" you are talking about?

Perhaps the regular people are no longer willing to represent the best interests of their constituents, and erm are just amoral, selfish, greedy and stupid people?

Re:Hilarious

[644bd346996]

I'm all in favor of extending the ban on receiving gifts. Currently, government employees are not allowed to be paid by any royalty or foreign country. That should be extended to include corporations, or at least foreign corporations (to hurt the companies with the hq in a tax shelter country).

Re:Hilarious

[Bush Pig]

He still looks overpaid, considering his apparent intellect. That's not far short of what I make as an IT professional. (Admittedly it's probably cheaper to live in Australia than the US.)

Re:Hilarious

[drinkypoo]

The long and short of it was that raising the governor's salary to something much higher attracted better people to the job, people who wouldn't try to supplement their salaries with bribes etc.

Oh yeah, look how well that's working! Perhaps you didn't notice but that tactic became completely and utterly useless when corporations became the controlling factors in our world. They can afford to give millions of dollars in "campaign contributions" to their chosen candidates - the amount of money one makes in the job itself is pretty much irrelevant except that it costs us money which we could be spending on something more worthwhile.

Will the congressman from Exxon please stand up?

I rest my case.

Republican Aide?

[Ninjaesque One]

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.

Re:Republican Aide?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this episode speaks directly to the aide's Republican-ness.

This sort of shenanigan is typical of ambitious, young-republican types. Theirs is a culture of corruption, straight up. The end justifies the means, as long as you don't get caught.

Just look at the recent leadership & history of the party...Rove, Gannon, DeLay, Ambramoff, etc., etc.

Just goes to show: You can't really trust somebody with a straight-A grade point average.

Re:Republican Aide?

[pla]

but it doesn't really have much to do with the aide's aide-ness or republican-ness.

If a guy gets busted for BBQ'ing a bald eagle, would it make it more, or less, of a story if he worked for PETA?

Although the last 12 years have made the whole concept into something of a joke, the Republicans tout themselves as the "party of reform". And we just keep seeing scandal after unethical scandal from them.

No worries, though, in another 12 years we can say the same thing about the Democrats, who apparently didn't learn from the Republicans error and now want to position themselves as the Party-O'-Reform. But, having the same complete and utter lack of ethics as all politicians, they'll start making the same egotistical blunders as the Republicans did, once they take their new seats in January.


Meet the new boss...

Re:Republican Aide?

[Dachannien]

Okay, first you pin this sort of behavior on "ambitious, young-republican types". Then you cite a bunch of names - "Rove, Gannon, DeLay, A[]bramoff" - who don't actually fit that mold, all of them being well-established, somewhat aged participants in the political arena. And finally, you ignore the fact that blind ambition easily crosses partisan boundaries, and scandal has been no stranger to Democrats as well as Republicans.

Mentioning this guy's Republican-ness in the OP's title was nothing more than a thinly-veiled, irrelevant dig on the Republican Party, when the story is really about some moron in a low-ranking political job who tried to cheat on his resume.

Re:Republican Aide?

[toddhisattva]

When you read about a violent crime, you're usually safe in assuming the criminal was a Democrat.

Re:Republican Aide?

[jkonrad]

-- and that they believe in god and consider themselves a Christian.

What's your point?

Re:Republican Aide?

[Philosinfinity]

Last time I was in college, GPA was a number, not a letter. Have things changed?

Re:Republican Aide?

[nathanh]

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.

Don't worry. When Fox News reports this story the closed captioning will reveal he's become a Democrat overnight.

I only wish I were joking.

Re:Republican Aide?

[laffer1]

Yes, and someone from any party can be corrupt. This also plays into a stereotype about democrats... remember the videos run about bush and gore during that campaign? Al Gore wasn't raised poor either. Even in different parties, politicians have much in common.

Re:Republican Aide?

[SageLikeFool]

the Republicans tout themselves as the "party of reform".

Give the Guy a break - he was just trying to "reform" his grades.

Re:Republican Aide?

[drix]

Hear, hear. My kingdom for a fucking mod point right now.

Re:What the?

[RebornData]

Umm, pretty much everything that came from the attrition.org side is a joke. They were yanking this guy's chain.

-R

Re:What the?

[jimstapleton]

Everyone knows that squirrels and pigeons have a protection from FBI spell cast on them, and cannot be photographed or photoshopped by FBI agents or those in collusion with them.

Pure comedy gold.

[SatanicPuppy]

It's like reading about the guy who tried to hire an undercover cop to kill his wife...The poor joker is so obviously clueless, but trying to play it down. Every time he starts asking real questions, they just bury him in bs, and he buys it...It's so obvious they're screwing with him. At one point they get him to send 'em some snapshots of local squirrels.

An entertaining read.

Nevermind, jokes on me I guess

[suso]

I read the email correspondence before reading the network world article. They were just leading him on.

Re:This begs the question

[SatanicPuppy]

They had the whole exchange posted for a while, but it was only recently that anyone in the media bothered to track down the actual guy.

Re:What the?

[Mr. Flibble]

Um, I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask this. But how in the hell does this prove that you are not the FBI, Secret Service, Police or whoever? Even if he was on campus at the time, I'm sure any authority that you'd want to fear could get to wherever they needed to be to take that picture in the same day that he asks for it.

In case you are wondering, what they are doing is a variant of the 419 eater technique. They had no intent of following through, but they had every intent of making the guy look like a fool as they strung him along.

Re:What the?

[AKAImBatman]

Um, I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask this. But how in the hell does this prove that you are not the FBI, Secret Service, Police or whoever?

They were just messing with him. They were playing on the whole "hacker movie" stereotypes of being able to do anything with even the slightest bit of information*. The request to get a sign or buildings in the background was to solidify the idea that they wanted this information for verification purposes. They probably wanted him to believe they could zoom in from a live satellite and see the location he photographed.

They continued to jerk his chain with email exchanges like this one:

Have had a chance to set up a couple of
IDS/IPS evasion bots, perimeter scanning came up clean. Small SQL
injection issue merged with XSS shows that the backend database may be
either 768-bit encrypted or a simple 3DES matter, but a little more time
should take care of that issue. Once the tables are writable to sa,
should be ready to jump in and jump out with no problem. One of their
systems caught an early sniff, but was shut down with a smurf.

It sounds good (lots'o techno-jargon), but it's obviously nonsense to anyone who knows better.

* I don't watch 24, but I've heard some rather amusing takes on their entire "hacker" philosophy. In particular, they seem to be able to do the impossible without blinking an eye, just by wrapping it up in some techno-babble that's intended to sound good to the average joe.

The Real Mystery Is...

[CheeseburgerBrown]

The real mystery is how somebody this sharp, informed and educated managed to do so badly in college. I mean, the guy's obviously got street smarts and book smarts.

Re:The Real Mystery Is...

[sbaker]

The real mystery is how somebody this sharp, informed and educated managed to do so badly in college. I mean, the guy's obviously got street smarts and book smarts.

You are forgetting that he's a communications director - you couldn't possibly expect him to understand how email and public forums work.

Re:The Real Mystery Is...

[jdgeorge]

The real mystery is how somebody this sharp, informed and educated managed to do so badly in college. I mean, the guy's obviously got street smarts and book smarts.

Ah, so well put. If I had mod points, I wouldn't be sure whether I should give you a "Funny" or an "Insightful".

(Remarkably, it appears that some of the folks who responded to your post may also fit the description you provided. How proud I am to be a member of such an intellectually gifted community.)

Re:The Real Mystery Is...

[FLEB]

Are you kidding me!?!?

Yes, in fact. How very observant!

Re:The Real Mystery Is...

[jafac]

Well, he was a Republican, so that means while he was in college, (which he paid for, himself), he was also working two jobs, getting paid less than minimum wage, all while serving in the military. Doesn't leave much time for studies.

Re:What the?

[SatanicPuppy]

It's like the stuff you see on 419 Eater where they convince the scammers to send in photos of themselves looking stupid.

Anyone with a half a clue would have twigged to it...The request is so clearly useless.

Re:What the?

[Hanners1979]

The guy's take on the pigeon or squirrel thing is: "Main thing is to prove to a degree who you are, that you can do something unique and quickly, etc." You're right though, it doesn't seem like the best way to prove that somebody isn't an FBI agent... Unless pigeons and squirrels have some anti-Fed sixth sense that I'm yet to find out about.

A friend of ours needs to have his grades revised

[JavaScrybe]

Am I the only one reminded of a very good independant british computer game?

Of course, you'd have to bounce your connexion through InterNIC, hack into the International Academic Database, disable the proxy and clear your logs afterwards... :D

Re:What the?

[UnknowingFool]

Obviously they were leading him on. But if he completed such a request, it would show that he was serious. That would go a long way in proving he had intent to commit a crime.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[ajlitt]

How exactly is this article partisan? You could substitute "Intern for Google" for the aide and the results would be the same.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[mollog]

I'm not surprised that yet another Republican is violating moral and legal standards to improve his/her position. I'm glad that someone outed this prick. I don't necessarily see this as an attack on Republicans on a partisan basis, but if you have a group that has a long and varied history of this sort of behavior, and you bring it up yet again, it can look partisan. I vote for honorable Republicans, so I'm not some kind of rabid partisan. I'm not impressed with the way Democrats conduct campaigns; it's half-assed, but I tend to prefer voting for Democrats.

We see Democratic boobs do all sorts of stupid, venal stuff. But when it comes to craven, cynical behavior, you have to hand it to the Republican for the no-holds-barred, down-and-dirty politicking.

Keep up the pressure on the bad guys.

Don't mess with TCU network security!

[rk]

Those guys even logged lyger's rot-26 hack!

I tell people all the time though that double rot-13 is much harder to detect than rot-26.

Re:Don't mess with TCU network security!

[gt_mattex]

I tell people all the time though that double rot-13 is much harder to detect than rot-26.

Ernyyl? V guvax ebg guvegrra vf fhssvpvrag. Cresbezvat n qbhoyr ebg guvegrra whfg qrpelcgf vg.

Re:Don't mess with TCU network security!

[ssuppe]

One might argue it's twice as hard, really...

Re:Don't mess with TCU network security!

[MadMidnightBomber]

Don't you remember when EFF broke rot13 ? These days you should really be using triple-rot13 in encrypt-decrypt-encrypt mode.

Re:What the?

[ArcherB]

Everyone knows that squirrels and pigeons have a protection from FBI spell cast on them, and cannot be photographed or photoshopped by FBI agents or those in collusion with them.

Actually, their inability to be photoshopped has nothing to do with it. Pigeons are protected under whistle-blower laws.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Dan Slotman]

Corruption should always be condemned. It disturbs me that you are willing to ignore the actions involved because of partisanship. That said, I'd say this posting has less to due with politics than with technological naivety. Basically it was posted so that we can all have a good laugh at the unfortunate victim.

posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[SuperBanana]

Kudos to the Attrition crew for posting the whole email dialogue online!

Not really. It's great grounds for them getting sued. It was a private communication and one could (probably) argue he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It may come as a shock to slashdotters, but you can't just forward any old email that drifts into your inbox.

Also, it would have been far more effective to have brought the emails to the attention of federal authorities. Now, the chances of a fair investigation (and trial) are pretty much blown to hell.

Instead of actually helping, they just grandstanded...

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[Zzeep]

Yes, but they don't care, and I certainly don't either!

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[weeboo0104]

Say it after me... "THERE IS NO PRIVACY IN EMAIL".
There was nothing wrong with making the email available.

Do you know what happens when you try to contact the police or FBI about an email soliciting something illegal? They shrug and ask if any money was taken. The only interest I have ever gotten regarding an email was when I sent a printout of an email to my local postal inspector that asked I send $5 to five other snailmail addresses.

If I was sending company secrets or copywrited material to someone, yeah, I could probably expect someone to call or knock on my door. Probably not because the authorities were that interested, but rather because someone at said company pointed their IP lawyers in my direction.

Email is no different than posting to Yahoo.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[shrdlu]

The folks at attrition have *always* had a policy of posting email to them. It's usually a great read (and this one started back in September, ISTR). It was only when Mr. Bright Guy was outed as a congressional aide that it hit the big time.

I love the smell of napalm in December.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[vertinox]

IANAL, but it isn't illegal for someone to post information about your illegal activity you had during a conversation.

Even if your lawyer or doctor (who has confidential laws on their side) decides to give information to the authorities they can.

The way confidentiality laws work is that the authorities or police can't force other parties you've entered into disclosure agreements (such as your lawyer) to give them incriminating evidence.

Even if you email me and say "The following is private information not to be shared with anyone... I just murdered my wife." You bet you aren't going to get any legal recourse when I turn you into the authorities.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[Sigma 7]

It was a private communication and one could (probably) argue he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Instead of attrition.org, let's assume the senator contacted a "hacker" group either composed of, or infiltrated by government agents. Such a "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not protect against a criminal conviction.

Likewise, any upstanding citizen would forward such letters to the local police department.

Why should a reasonable expectation of privacy prevent the public posting of criminal solicitation but permit forwarding copies to police forces (where it will be used as evidence and put on public record), especially when such tasks are either not possible, or eventually detectable?

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[valdezjuan]

Can you site a case, or an actual law that prohibits forwarding of emails?

Though I have only found one http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#00501 7article that is directly on point (after a quick google search). The article specifically mentions a 2006 reversal by the California Supreme Court, (original case Barrett v. Rosenthal http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal /ruling.pdf) which upholds that blogs, websites, listservs, etc. are protected under the Communications Decency Act (CDA 1996) Section 230. This section explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Other relevant portions of the article:

"The issue raised in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether Section 230's protection applies to individuals who frequently use the internet to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an email written by someone else or, as was the case in Barrett, posting an email from someone else to a newsgroup."

The CDA basically covers anyone from being sued, prosecuted {in my non-legal opinion) for posting forwarding emails from other sources. It is unclear from the article, and I don't have time to reread the CDA at the moment, if this also covers emails that include the 'privacy' footer. However, email is a public method of passing data around, there isn't any expectation of privacy in this form of communication. Finding and ferreting out a private email, either from a mail server, or while it is traveling through a network, isn't a very tough thing to do. You just have to know where to look.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[AK Marc]

Not really. It's great grounds for them getting sued. It was a private communication and one could (probably) argue he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It may come as a shock to slashdotters, but you can't just forward any old email that drifts into your inbox.

You misunderstand reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm in my own home and I leave something on my table in my locked house, then I can expect to not find it published in the paper the next day. If I post it on a lightpole, I should not be surprised if it ends up published in the paper. The same is true with correspondence. If I send a letter, I have the reasonable expectation of privacy that no one will intercept it and open it. However, the contents are the property of the recipient. I do not have the reasonable expectation of privacy that something I freely gave to someone else will not end up on a lightpole. I gave it to them. It is now theirs. Whatever I think would be reasonable for privacy can not apply. At best, you can get into copyright and such, but privacy doesn't apply for things freely given away.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[DragonWriter]

Not really. It's great grounds for them getting sued.

No its not.

It was a private communication and one could (probably) argue he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

False. There is generally no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in something you give to someone else, including email. Not that the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy would necessarily make it illegal, anyway, this isn't a government search and seizure.

It may come as a shock to slashdotters, but you can't just forward any old email that drifts into your inbox.

Aside from that explicitly protected by privacy statutes or legal privileges, though it might come as a surprise to you, yes, you can.

Also, it would have been far more effective to have brought the emails to the attention of federal authorities. Now, the chances of a fair investigation (and trial) are pretty much blown to hell.

Not really. Certainly, there is some potentially prejudicial media attention which might slightly narrow the potential jury pool, and the wrongdoer has been tipped off. But that doesn't prevent both a fair investigation and a fair trial.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[DragonWriter]

You seem to be referring to the state-by-state variation in laws allowing recording of otherwise ephemeral telephone conversations, which are not at all relevant to preservation and publication of fixed messages like email or snail mail.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[Achromatic1978]

Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.

With postal mail you have a reasonable understanding of intended recipient - the person with the name on the envelope. If the email reached your inbox, you were addressed as an intended recipient (with the possible exception of catch-all boxes). This clause has no weight, as you cannot be held liable for unwittingly, and actively against reasonable expectation, and without opportunity for refutal breaking the "contract". (I must not read this email if I am not the intended recipient, but barring the delivery of it into my inbox, I cannot tell this other than by reading this email, let alone the "disclaimer" at the bottom.)

It's not a disclaimer, it's a "dissuader".

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[peteforsyth]

For attrition.org, the greatest concern would have been that "Todd" was a plant. Covering their own butts would have been of vital importance.

Posting the messages on the web site lays the the foundation to illustrate that they had no real intention of cooperating at a later time.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[GeckoX]

What gives you the idea that posting those emails was illegal? That's crazy talk.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[Tweekster]

You have absolutely no expectation for the average person to keep your communication a secret. They are the reciepent and can now do whatever they feel like unless they are bound by certain cases of privilege (lawyers for instance), or signed an NDA.

Just telling them they cant disclose it is not enough, they must acknowledge they wont before you tell them the information

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[bodhijon]

From the disclaimer at attrition.org:

Any mail entering this system not intended for a mail list becomes the sole property of Attrition.org or the staff members here. By mailing any member of Attrition.org, you forfeit any claim of copyright. E-mail, book reviews, movie reviews, music reviews, commentary and all other submitted work become copyrighted to Attrition.org staff. E-mail confidentiality agreements and disclaimers are invalid for mail coming into this system. Mailing anyone at Attrition.org denotes your agreement with these rules. Don't agree? Then don't mail us.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[valdezjuan]

I myself am not a lawyer, but unless I am misunderstanding your statement, it looks like your interpretation of both doctor & patient and attorney & client privilege is a bit off.

A doctor can decide to alert the police if he knows you are going to endanger yourself, or someone else. Usually this results in a person being committed for some period of time. If you tell your shrink that you had harmed someone in the past, they aren't bound to tell the police about it. In fact, I don't think they can tell even if they wanted to. A patient can decide to allow a doctor, but the doctor is only released after a patient dies (without consent).

An example (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician-patient_pri vilege):

For example, let us say a below-age of consent girl came to a doctor with a sexually transmitted disease. The doctor is usually required to obtain a list of the patient's sexual contacts to inform them that they need treatment. This is an important health concern. However, it is likely that the girl might reveal her partners were older, and this could result in a fear that they would be charged with a crime such as statutory rape. In some jurisdictions, the doctor cannot be forced to reveal the information revealed by his patient to anyone except the appropriate health authorities, and they too are required to keep that information confidential. If, in the case, the police become aware of such information, they are not allowed to use it in court as proof of the sexual conduct.

As for Lawyers, they are bound by not only privilege, but by ethic constraints as well. There are some interesting distinctions between Washington state law (which only allows privilege protection for the extent that a conversation contains or reveals client communications). Where California law protects all communications between a client and attorney (again wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privi lege). At the same time, an attorney cannot let you testify that you are innocent of something, if you have divulged your guilt to him. This explains why some lawyers don't want to know the exact details, since not knowing leaves more options open. At the same time, if a lawyer steps over the bounds and gets caught they can be disbarred or worse.

There is also a privilege for accountant-client and for clergy-parishioner.

Re:posting the emails was illegal and unproductive

[smart_ass]

Depends on the state.
I am from Canuckistan (Canada), but I recall a news broadcast about someone who video taped a cop on their front porch but it was not admissible in court because in that state (New England??) both parties must consent.

It's slashdotted already!

[Kagura]

Try the Coral: http://www.attrition.org.nyud.net:8090/postal/z/03 3/0871.html

For those interested in making your own Corals sometime when an article has already been slashdotted, head over to http://www.coralcdn.org/ and follow the instructions or just put the URL in the textbox. :)

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[drinkypoo]

Why is Slashdot becoming involved in all this petty partisan tit for tat stuff? They are in danger of losing their already questionable reputation.

First of all, slashdot has to protect only one reputation: "news for nerds". Now, granted, lots of what is posted on slashdot is neither news nor for nerds, but THIS story is. It's hilarious.

Second, slashdot isn't making this a partisan issue. The fact that the guy works for the republican party is what makes this a partisan issue. In this case slashdot is only reporting the news, not trying to make it.

You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[sbaker]

It's just hilarious - this guy is supposed to be a Republican Communications Director?! A Communications Director didn't realise he was posting to a public site using his real name?! Yikes!

When they tell him that the Feds may have busted the operation by cracking their rot-26 encryption I nearly choked on my breakfast (cold pizza of course)! This is a classic.

On one of the linked sites, the guy is claiming that he was 'under the influence' for the whole exchange and is 'seeking treatment'. So he's claiming he was blind drunk for the entire two weeks? Wow - the Republicans either have better parties than I ever suspected - or they truly are drowning their sorrows after recent election defeats!

He needs to go to jail for a few years.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[b0s0z0ku]

He needs to go to jail for a few years.

"Few years" - that's a bit harsh considering nothing illegal was actually accomplished. Keep in mind that for a lot of violent crimes short of murder, the prison time isn't even a "few years." More like *a* year. The best punishment is exposing this guy for a fraud and making sure that he'll lose his job and be a laughingstock boob.

One more thing: who's to say that this was actually him not a prank designed to discredit the guy? It's not like they check ID before you surf the 'net. Maybe the article has more info, but it's currently slashdotted!

-b.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[NXIL]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9999

He initially lies, then admits it....

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[DragonWriter]

On one of the linked sites, the guy is claiming that he was 'under the influence' for the whole exchange and is 'seeking treatment'.

Its a standard Republican Congressional excuse, see, for instance, Mark Foley.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[Phroggy]

One more thing: who's to say that this was actually him not a prank designed to discredit the guy?

Because of the squirrels! Didn't you RTFA? ;-)

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[sbaker]

Sure he broke the law - he comissioned an illegal act. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an actual crime even if the crime itself is never committed.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[b0s0z0ku]

Sure he broke the law - he comissioned an illegal act.

Never said he didn't. I just said that more than a year in prison is a bit harsh. I think that the current punishment that'll ensue; loss of job and public ridicule, sounds to me to be just right!

-b.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[jafac]

Loss of job?

As a Republican, having indictments and convictions on your record is practically a requirement. It shows that one's been "harassed by the evul gubmint". Hey, yeah, this is just politics, criminalized by the Liberals, of course.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[Atzanteol]

Yeah, Democrats are never caught drunk. Not to mention molesting pages...

Can you partisan wackos ever see beyond the red and blue and realize you both suck?

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[Brandybuck]

YOU have to read the entire article. The Slashdot title and summary is deliberately biased. This guy was an aide of a Montana congressmen. I don't want to poke fun at Montana, but he's a small fry of a small fry.

Unless your claim is that Democrats never do anything stupid, his political affiliation is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[FishWithAHammer]

But it's okay when Democrats commit murder.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[sbaker]

He handed over his college account userId and password - and his Social Security number - if it were a frame-up, how would the people doing the framing find those out?

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[drix]

On one of the linked sites, the guy is claiming that he was 'under the influence' for the whole exchange and is 'seeking treatment'.

Wait, I thought it was something about a boyhood priest...

**rimshot**

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[forgotten_my_nick]

> So he's claiming he was blind drunk for the entire two weeks?

Hey that excuse worked for Mark Foley! ... oh wait a second.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[alphaFlight]

This sounds more like solicitation than conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement between the parties as well as a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. Neither of those elements exist here because the "agreement" was with a party who was unwilling to actually commit the crime. From the Wikipedia entry..."It is not necessary that the person actually commit the crime, nor is it necessary that the person solicited be willing or able to commit the crime (such as if the "solicitee" were an undercover police officer)."

Also, this guy's claim that he got cold feet and backed out is irrelevant toward a charge of solicitation. Unlike conspiracy, the crime is complete at the time of the request.

Re:You've gotta read the entire email trail!

[FishWithAHammer]

Right. But he had the presence of mind to call his lawyer BEFORE calling the police. That isn't panicking, that's covering his ass.

Re:A friend of ours needs to have his grades revis

[Mysticalfruit]

It would have been cooler if they'd sent this knucklehead screenshots of them doing the "hack" and it be from Uplink.
Then it would have been complete!

No, it doesn't

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Please learn what Begging the Question means.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Abcd1234]

Please remember that the english language changes with time. While proscriptive pedants like to point out how the phrase "begging the question" was previously used, that's hardly relevant today.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Dan Slotman]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I'm not sure what you were babbling about...

Re:No, it doesn't

[Abcd1234]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy

To you. Meanwhile, to a vast majority of the rest of the english speaking world, it means something different. The language has changed. Get over it and move on.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Or how about what the Dumbing Down of America means?

Re:No, it doesn't

[heinousjay]

Guess what - it's common usage now. The threshold has been breached. You have become the idiot.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Dan Slotman]

From Wikipedia: "Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a different usage with the meaning 'raise the question'. In academic contexts this use is rare and widely regarded as incorrect, but it has nevertheless become very common in the news media." I agree this ain't no academic context, but it is clear that the parent poster's advice to "learn what 'begging the question' means" is in reference to the logical fallacy, since that is what the linked source is about. It doesn't matter that there are now two meanings. The original meaning is still a valid meaning. Further, the OP actually committed the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Dan Slotman]

OH. I missed the subject line. "This begs the question..." In this case, its a bit strange that the OP would point out his or her own logical fallacy, but I take your point that there wasn't a need to criticize his use of the phrase itself. This conveniently shows how frequently the more recent usage is used in a fallacious manner, though I acknowledge that there are non-fallacious constructions.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Rotten168]

C'mon, first off Slashdot is a very partisan website... anyone with any intelligence and perception whatsoever will realize this. But the article author mentioned this guy was Republican for one reason only, to score partisan points. Every article posted is slanted, biased, and an utter joke. And don't get me started on that idiot kdawson.

Yet another. . .

[smooth wombat]

shining example of the intelligence of people in my party. It's not bad enough we have this yahoo blocking phones to Democratic numbers used for providing people rides to polls on election day, or this putz who embezzled state money, let alone the chimp in charge who has flip-flopped every which way on Iraq, but now this incompetent asshole.

I know that Sandy Berger (just so no one thinks I'm biased) is a real moron but come on, how much lack of intelligence does one have to have to think that they could get away with this?

Re:Yet another. . .

[t0rkm3]

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?

Re:Yet another. . .

[funwithBSD]

You forgot this one:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/24 /213349.shtml

Slashing tires to keep people from voting.

Or John Murtha:

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/11/15/democrat ic-culture-of-corruption-john-murtha-bribe-video

Or William Jefferson:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.s earch/

Or Teddy Kennedy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick

Or "Voted for the War before I voted against it" :

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics /main646435.shtml

Or Hiz Honor,Richard Daley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Daley

Or Boss Tweed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Tweed

Please, politicians by default are dishonest, not just Republicans. So just remember who's dog food you are eating when shilling for one side or the other.

Re:Yet another. . .

[lawpoop]

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

Direct democracy. Have the people propose, amendment, and vote on law themselves. If we are capable of understanding the law enough to be held accountable for it, we are certainly smart enough to propose and vote on it.

Re:Yet another. . .

[jez9999]

shining example of the intelligence of people in my party. It's not bad enough we have this yahoo [washingtonpost.com] blocking phones to Democratic numbers used for providing people rides to polls on election day, or this putz [federalnewsradio.com] who embezzled state money, let alone the chimp in charge who has flip-flopped every which way on Iraq, but now this incompetent asshole.

Penn? Is that you?

Re:Yet another. . .

[0xdeadbeef]

You'll probably find that whichever party has the most populist appeal in any given time period has the most corruption, simply because they'll be forgiven when caught. Politics does not select for honest people.

That's why you judge them by their competence and their values, which is where the Republicans have been sucking quite hard lately. So keep the faith, freeper! Maybe soon the Democrats will have enough power to be blamed for something.

Re:Yet another. . .

[Peyre]

Ah, a good old-fashioned ethical Republican. I've missed you guys while this crowd of neocons and other fools has been in control of things. I hope you and people like you can take back your party so we can have reasonable political discussions and debates again.

Re:Yet another. . .

[rbochan]

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

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
Use in that order.
Starting now.
      -Ed Howdershelt

Re:Yet another. . .

[stonedown]

It's pretty unfair to tar Democrats with the actions of Boss Tweed in the 1800's. I suggest you drop him from your list in the future. ;)

Today's Republican corruption is unprecedented, except maybe in the days of the old political machines.

Here's a nice list of corrupt and scandalized Republicans in the Bush administration, from TPMmuckracker. Note that this list doesn't include convicted (now ex-) Congressman Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, or other non-administration Republicans, but it's a loooong list nonetheless.

Our Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials

Here is a nice YouTube video listing Republicans who have been indicted or are currently under criminal investigation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6yeUYBIbGU

I like that the sheriff from Eureka is in the video. He's a real law-and-order type of guy. ;)

Re:Yet another. . .

[slamb]

Oh, please. Does Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" really belong in that list? Keep in mind that if "inarticulate moments" are in the same league as bribery, voter suppression, and manslaughter (the other items on your list), Bush is a much worse president than I ever realized... a few examples.

Please, politicians by default are dishonest, not just Republicans. So just remember who's dog food you are eating when shilling for one side or the other.

You're as much in denial as those who claim there's no corruption at all, and your beliefs are just as harmful. There's been political corruption in all parties throughout history, but not all politicians are corrupt, and not all parties are equal. Voters have recently realized that they can exert control by voting out the more corrupt party. Maybe in 20 years the Republican party will reform and the Democratic party will regress. Until then, I'm voting for Democrats.

Re:Yet another. . .

[Legion303]

"Remember the Dem that had the Nat'l Guard load up his private stuff during Katrina

No. Since you didn't provide a link, do you at least have a name, or were you just shilling?

Re:Yet another. . .

[forgotten_my_nick]

> Remember the Dem that had the Nat'l Guard load up his private stuff during Katrina,

No but you appear to. Whats the name of them? In fact a google I can't anything remotely of this. How about you fill us in with who it is?

Re:Yet another. . .

[tehdaemon]

That would be an utter disaster. It didn't even work in Athens. Read your history. And I would suggest Democracy in America as well.

Your suggestion would be like asking for patches to the linux kernel from everybody in the world, and them implimenting at least one patch from everybody that submitted one.

Re:Yet another. . .

[ArtStone]

Is ABC news credible enough?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/stor y?id=1123495&page=1

Re:Yet another. . .

[Legion303]

Indeed they are. Thanks. Jefferson, eh? What a shocker.

Re:What the?

[jimstapleton]

that doesn't explain the squirrels

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[just_another_sean]

Some things are just funny. Laugh.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[jamsessionjay]

They are in danger of losing their already questionable reputation. hahahahahahahahahahaha

Mirror

[suso]

To make up for that, I've created a mirror:

http://suso.suso.org/attrition1.html
http://suso.suso.org/attrition2.html (Page 2)

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Rotten168]

Like 90% of all Slashdot "memes" it's not funny... like "we welcome our masters", "soviet russia", etc.

Re:What the?

[Zorandler]

I hope these work, there's no pigeons, but some of
other birds and a couple with a squirrel. Let me know
how to proceed from here. I think there's a way to
verify that I took these yesterday...

That left me laughing so hard...only one of the pics ended up loading for me, but when it did, there was the cute little squirrel!

Re:What the?

[Dun Malg]

I don't watch 24, but I've heard some rather amusing takes on their entire "hacker" philosophy. In particular, they seem to be able to do the impossible without blinking an eye, just by wrapping it up in some techno-babble that's intended to sound good to the average joe. It's exactly the same technique as Star Trek:TNG technobabble, where plausible-sounding nonsense is strung together to magically create the "particle of the week"/Polarity Reversal that will, in classic deus ex machina form, save the day. They use a more toned-down (but no less impossible) form of the same thing on CSI. I've dealt with many TV writers. They're largely technologically illiterate. It's all they can do to get their PowerBooks to turn on.

Re:What the?

[A nonymous Coward]

The squirrel requirement eliminates the nuts.

As a Montanan...

[genessy]

...I'm just proud my representative (or his aide) knew about the Interweb! ;)

You guys will believe anything...

[zguru]

This is so funny. You guys will believe anything posted on the Internet! :)

Re:You guys will believe anything...

[nospam007]

This is so funny. You guys will believe anything posted on the Internet! :)
---
InternetS!

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[just_another_sean]

Then why are you here?

Approval voting

[b0s0z0ku]

Any other ideas?

Yep, approval voting, so that voters can select the dark-horse candidate without feeling that their votes are going to waste.

-b.

Site slashdotted. Anybody got a mirror?

[sehlat]

Or just post the thing here since it can stand the load.

Re:Site slashdotted. Anybody got a mirror?

[mudimba]

Tried to post the whole dialog, but slashdot considers it to be lame . . .

Google Cache:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:www.attrition .org/postal/z/033/0871.html

Re:This begs the question

[Frosty Piss]

They had the whole exchange posted for a while...

Server must be running on a box in someone's bedroom or something, 'cuz it's off line now... And what's with having the domain registered at NetSol? I guess pretentious "security researchers" need their domain registered with equally pretentious domain registrars... Oh yeah, we got some quality hackers, er, I mean "security researchers" here!

West Wing Obligatory

[hellfire]

This reminds me of a Hilarious West Wing scene:

[CJ is mad at Josh for posting to the message board of a Josh Lyman fansite]
C.J. Cregg: If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your ass... What?
Josh Lyman: You DO know I outrank you, right?
C.J. Cregg: SO FAR UP YOUR ASS...

A Christian University

[Anonymous Coward]

Are any of us surprised by this? He went to a Christian university - obviously he learned a great deal.

Re:A Christian University

[Tweekster]

Insightful?
I attended a catholic college yet I never was required to learn anything regarding the religion. The most they made you take was a spirituality class which delved into a variety of topics but was not trying to instill anything other than knowledge.

Just because it is a Christian college does not mean they are teaching Christianity

Re:A Christian University

[BlaisePascal]

I would hesitate to equate a "Catholic College" and a "Christian University". I'm not saying that Catholicism is not Christian, but rather that the Jesuits seem to have different goals than those who found so-called "Christian" colleges and universities.

Re:A Christian University

[RebelWebmaster]

Yeah, because everybody who goes to Notre Dame is Catholic. Or everyone at BYU is Mormon.

Re:A Christian University

[nbauman]

Fair is fair. If you do a Google search on "Texas Christian University" you'll see that they have a biology department that spoke up for teaching darwinian evolution, in a state where it's not always safe to do that.

Plus, John Horner teaches in the biology department.

Plus, they have lots of nice chicks in the nursing school.

That guy was so stupid, I feel sorry for him, out of atheist charity.

Re:A Christian University

[cascadingstylesheet]

>Are any of us surprised by this? He went to a Christian
>university - obviously he learned a great deal.

Surprised by which?

That Christians are saved sinners who still sometimes sin,
or that some people who go to Christian universities
aren't really Christians?

Re:What the?

[neoform]

Nah, the rot-26 takes the cake.

It's just like rot-13, but twice as secure!

B people hire C people, and so on down the chain..

[Animats]

There's a classic comment that A people hire A people, but B people hire C people. Bush has not exactly been known for great job appointments. If you actually follow his appointments, it's embarrassing, even if you're a Republican. They're loyal, but often not very good. (It's not just that lightweight at FEMA, "Mr. Torture" at Justice, and the economic advisers from Enron; there's a long, painful list of bad high level hires.)

Once you get the institutional idea that each level hires dumber people below them, a few steps down the food chain, people like this turkey are getting jobs.

Smurfing hackers...

[xx01dk]

Here's an excerpt, after he "proves" he's "legit" to the "hackers", they do a test run to see if they have access to his college:

Shouldn't need anything else. Have had a chance to set up a couple of IDS/IPS evasion bots, perimeter scanning came up clean. Small SQL injection issue merged with XSS shows that the backend database may beeither 768-bit encrypted or a simple 3DES matter, but a little more time should take care of that issue. Once the tables are writable to sa, should be ready to jump in and jump out with no problem. One of their systems caught an early sniff, but was shut down with a smurf.

I just LMAO. Oh yeah, and when the media gets wind of this, guess what, he's republican... or at least the guy he works for is. Queue the media's leftist agenda in 3... 2... 1...

(My point is that it could have been anyone but you can bank on the fact that the media will drool all over this if it's legit, heck--sometimes they don't even do that. BTW I'm an independent.)

UNLESS.... it's all a clever ploy to see how easy it is to do such a thing, and the guy was going to expose this, but I think I'm giving him too much credit although maybe if he's smart he can spin it that way...

This is too funny.

Re:Smurfing hackers...

[crabpeople]

"(My point is that it could have been anyone but you can bank on the fact that the media will drool all over this if it's legit, heck--sometimes they don't even do that. BTW I'm an independent.)"

Its amazing how perspective changes everything. This was posted on numerous websites yesterday with no mention that the guy was a republican. In fact, there was a large debate as to whether it was actually real, or made up by attrition.

Now knowing that it was a republican makes it 1) probably real since I guess he confessed to it and 2) really a whole lot funnier.

Re:Smurfing hackers...

[Peyre]

The media has a leftist agenda? You've fallen for one of the biggest myths of contemporary politics. Now, Hollywood has a leftist bent, no doubts there. But the mainstream media--not a bit of it. They're all owned by large conservative corporations who have no special interest in the integrity of the news, and no interest at all in favoring any liberal agenda their journalists might have. The mainstream media has been tamed substantially. They don't ask the difficult questions any more. That said, I bet you're right that the media will jump all over this. It's a great story showing up someone doing something very illegal in a really unintelligent way. People eat that stuff up and it makes a good story.

Re:Smurfing hackers...

[xx01dk]

Sorry for the generalization but with the exception of Fox and the NYT you have to admit that most of the media machine loves to hate on anything that smacks of conservative or right wing goings-on. While I agree that there isn't anything even remotely resembling the hard-hitting journalism of yesteryear in today's society, the "heavy hitters" of news are most often quite polarized. You're either pro or con, and rarely do you see anything reported as pure fact.

Also because the the politcal state of the nation is a hot button item, any story that can be linked to those in power will get way more coverage than stories about the "underdogs". Unless there's another pretty blonde girl who's gone missing, or somebody got stuck on a mountain, or so-and-so had a wardrobe malfuntion...

Re:posting the emails was irrelevant and funny

[qwijibo]

Are you really afraid of a judicial system that barely works? You think someone who tries (unsuccessfully) to commit some retarded crime is going to sue over someone revealing it? Good luck with that.

If they had reported this promptly to the FBI, it would have had the same result.

The chances of an investigation: 0 (retarded things happen everyday)
The chances of a fair investigation: 0 (fairness is irrelevant)
The chances of a trial: 0 (no crime, no charges, no trial)
The chances of a fair trial: 0 (In the US, we don't have fair trials)

Since there wasn't anything that really could be done to "help", entertaining countless people while humiliating an idiot is worth something.

It's easy

[rsilvergun]

First, require all funds be donated by individuals. No more corporate slush funds. Next, make it illegal to donate to a candidate you can't vote for. No more buying off 51% of Congress. Finally, limit what can be donated by an individual to something the a person making the median income could afford (a couple of grand, adjust for inflation as needed). Toss in some really nasty penalties for violating these crimes. Problem solved.

Yeah, it'll never happen, but it's a nice though.

Re:It's easy

[delong]

Yeah, it'll never happen, but it's a nice though

It'll never happen because it's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Re:It's easy

[cas2000]

It'll never happen because it's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

huh?

exactly how is placing limits on *campaign financing* in any way a violation of free speech?

money isn't speech. spending isn't speech. bribery isn't speech. corruption of representatives or parties isn't speech. drowning out everyone else's voices with a million dollars worth of monotone isn't speech.

you'd still be perfectly free to make your arguments to other people, including to candidates or elected representatives - just without the corrupting influence of large amounts of money to back up your words.

Re:It's easy

[delong]

exactly how is placing limits on *campaign financing* in any way a violation of free speech?

Because campaign contributions are a form of political expression. The First Amendment does not just protect spoken "speech", it protects expressive conduct. Campaign contributions are expressive political speech. See the US Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976). Contributions can be reasonably regulated, but any act of Congress that completely barred such contributions and expenditures would be flatly unconstitutional.

Re:It's easy

[cas2000]

Because campaign contributions are a form of political expression.

no, they're not expression, they're a transaction. transactions are not speech, they're transactions.

Re:It's easy

[cas2000]

(oops. clicked submit rather than preview)

if financial transactions are "speech" and thus protected in the U.S. by the first amendment to the constitution, then how is it legal to prohibit donating money to Hamas or other palestinian charity organisations? (the militant wing is only a small part of Hamas' activities - they're very popular over there because they build hospitals and schools and feed people)

isn't that speech too - even if unpopular? (in fact, unpopular speech is precisely the kind of speech that NEEDS protection).

Re:It's easy

[delong]

if financial transactions are "speech" and thus protected in the U.S

Sigh. For the same reason it isn't legal to make "charitable contributions" to the Mafia. All speech, even protected speech, is subject to reasonable regulations based on important government interests. Banning contributions to organizations that are listed as criminal or terrorist organizations is an obvious important government interest. You also obfuscate the issue by lumping campaign contributions, an expressly political expression, with non-political contributions. It is protecting political speech that is the primary goal of the First Amendment. Obviously, making charitable contributions to HAMAS has nothing to do with citizen participation in the domestic political process.

Re:It's easy

[delong]

BTW - would it kill you to bother to read the opinion I cited? I mean, if you're going to try to argue First Amendment jurisprudence, you really should know what the law is. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.

Re:It's easy

[cas2000]

i was arguing based on fact, not making yet another comment on what a bunch of self-serving arseholes arrange for themselves via legislation and supreme court interpretations: spending money is not speech.

while you can argue that donating money can qualify as "freedom of association", it certainly does not qualify as "speech".

as for your comments on the mafia and hamas: speech is speech, whether it's in support of a popular or mainstream organisation or in support of unpopular organisations. in fact, it's easy to argue that popular speech doesn't actually need protection, but that unpopular speech very much does need protection. if donating money to the democrats or the republicans or any other party qualifies as protected free speech, then so does donating money to hamas, or the mafia, or any other organisation (regardless of their objectives or methods).

otherwise, all a govt has to do is declare any dissent organisation to be "criminal" or "terrorist" and suddenly, they have no legitimate voice any more - leaving them a choice between silence and illegitimate expression (like bombing).

and, finally, supporting Hamas definitely can be 'citizen participation in the domestic political process' - it's a statement that the citizen does not support the government's foreign policy, that they would prefer the govt to stop blindly supporting israel (and veto-ing every single UN sanction against them) no matter what war crimes and other atrocities they commit, that they want real peace in the middle east, not a program of slow genocide of the palestinians.

Re:It's easy

[delong]

So you're content with talking out your ass. Later.

Re:It's easy

[Moridineas]

just wanted to say I really enjoyed your comments (and the slapdown) on this thread

Re:As another Montanan...

[genessy]

I'm lucky enough to not be too rural any more, but I provide occasional tech support to people who are. You have my sympathy!

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[NXIL]

Because he initially lied about it, then admitted it?

Quote:

***
After initially denying knowledge of the exchange, Shriber told me this afternoon in the final of our three phone conversations: "I did something that's greatly out of character for me and it's a mistake that I regret."
***

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9999

'Greatly out of character': right.

Re:What the?

[xx01dk]

Holy cow. This technique actually has a name.... and you knew what it was... I'm in complete awe over here.

(not a troll, simply poking fun) :)

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[heinousjay]

If anyone at all is here for the jokes, I fear for their sense of humor.

And yet, here you are.

[FatSean]

Are you fighting the good fight? Did the 'Free Republic' wackos organize you?

I wonder why there aren't any good technology sites with a non-liberal bias....you'd think the free market would 'provide' one if there were enough no-liberal technical people...

You get what you pay for ... sometimes

[baomike]

>
After all who would want anyone in government who was capable of getting a high paying job.

The government should only hire the stupid... OH wait...

Re:You get what you pay for ... sometimes

[drinkypoo]

After all who would want anyone in government who was capable of getting a high paying job. The government should only hire the stupid... OH wait...

I don't think that this is as simple as you think it is. Lots of those people are very smart. They just have agendas that force them to say things that aren't true, which makes people think they are stupid.

Not that some of them aren't.

But more seriously, people are motivated to join Congress by two things, money and power. Control the money and you help control the power too, because this is a capitalistic society (world, really) and money makes things happen.

Re:You get what you pay for ... sometimes

[skiflyer]

people are motivated to join Congress by two things, money and power.

I think that's a little overly cynical... I think people are motivated to join congress for a large variety of reasons, most of them probably more altruistic variations on power.

Now, what motivates the parties to help pick up the tab, not run a smear campaign against you and otherwise make actually joining congress a reality... that's where I'd put money and power.

Re:You get what you pay for ... sometimes

[yoder]

I've been a political wonk for quite awhile, I've been the starry eyed idealist and volunteered for several local and state candidates. No matter how high-minded their motivations, it is the power to push your agenda through that ultimately drives those running for office. It does not matter if they are there to cut taxes, save Social Security, or save the whales, they do not get to the national level unless they are fully ready and willing to sell their soul for the cause. They all know that if they cannot amass the power necessary to force others to do their will, that they will not succeed. Moral's and ethics be damned, keep your eye on the prize and do whatever is necessary (good or bad) to reach your goal. Cooperation is just a buzz word.

The difference between those running locally and those running nationally is night and day. By the time they have run for office at the local levels and gotten their feet wet, they have usually either become cynical, corrupt, or a failure.

Bush's views

[ctid]

"Heckuva job, Schriby!"

Re:What the?

[niceone]

Um, I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask this. But how in the hell does this prove that you are not the FBI, Secret Service, Police or whoever? Even if he was on campus at the time, I'm sure any authority that you'd want to fear could get to wherever they needed to be to take that picture in the same day that he asks for it.

Both squirrels and pigeons have a genetic fear of authority and an inate ability to spot federal agents. Hence by examining the expressions on their faces, someone experienced in such covert arts can instantly tell if the photo was take by law enforcement.

You also can often see the refections of badges in the critter's eyes if you blow up the photo. The same technique works with drug dealers, but they sometimes express displeasure at being photographed.

I have been studying these techniques as part of my CSI scriptwriting course.

Re:A friend of ours needs to have his grades revis

[Fallen Kell]

LOL... that would have been funny. Man, now I need to install that game again. I havn't played it in a while (last time was when they added the patch to hack networks, not just systems).

Re:What the?

[Dr Caleb]

"Nah, the rot-26 takes the cake."

In Soviet Russia, we use only ROT-33.

Punishment, Web 2.0 style

[SnappingTurtle]

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...

Re:Punishment, Web 2.0 style

[ArmedNuclearTerroris]

Skeleton started. edit away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Shriber

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[NXIL]

28 year old Todd Shriber is not a "victim"; he is apparently not real bright--a communications director who did not pick up on the allusion to pidgeons as a communication device?

He is also dishonest. He initially lied about his involvement--perhaps he thought the tubes in which internet traffic travels were opaque, (steel? lead?) and therefore would keep his communications (*) private.

***
Quote: "Asked why he launched the scheme, Shriber [said] "I would rather not get into that at all. I just got a little too far ahead of myself thinking about things down the road." His college grades "weren't that great," he acknowledged.
***

No, he did not think about 'things down the road', like public humiliation, job loss, prison, although dare I say it, with his political connections, it is likely that he will hunker down, make no more public comments about this, and wait for it to blow over.

He solicited a criminal act....how is this that much different than old men chatting online with undercover officers posing as children? People go to jail a long time for that....

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Dan Slotman]

I agree that there are partisan trends at Slashdot, but there are vocal proponents of both sides of nearly every issue. If you truly think that every article is slanted, biased, and an utter joke, then I must ask you: Why are you even here?

The fact that this was a fairly highly-placed politician is the element that makes this a news-worthy story. If Joe Sixpack solicited a hacker to change his grades, it wouldn't hit Slashdot. Whereas if a CEO, politician, new anchor, or similar public figure does the same, it becomes reportable.

Again, partisan shenanigans hurt us all. If every instance of corruption was equally derided and every mistake similarly acknowledged, the country would be in better shape. Instead, we have a mass of proles who are disenfranchised by politicization of stuff that doesn't matter and distracted from the things that do matter. Similarly, we have a mass of people interested in politics, but blinded by their partisan attitudes.

Re:Worst Headline Evar

[Capt James McCarthy]

Mod parent up. Another left attempt to point out a Republican 'conspiracy.'

(man this is going to hurt my karma....)

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[ArcherB]

I think the point the GP was making is that when a Republican does something, even if he's just an aide and it has nothing to do with his politics or whoever he is an aide for, he is referred to as a "Republican aide". When a democrat does something, their party affiliation is rarely mentioned, and if it is, it's buried within the story. Take a look at this story at CNN. The title is, "Affidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer". His party affiliation is not listed until the second paragraph. The word "democrat" is only mentioned three times in the entire story. Once mentioned above, and twice saying how this hurts democrat's chances of tying corruption to the Republicans over the Abramoff and other scandals:

The cloud over Jefferson comes as Democratic leaders have been attacking what they call a "culture of corruption" surrounding the Republican leadership in Congress.

With midterm elections in November, Democrats are trying to highlight GOP ties to the influence-peddling investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a Texas court, and last year's guilty plea of California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving an eight-year stretch for taking bribes from defense contractors.

The best I could pull on on any Democratic wrongdoing on slashdot was this story about Kerry possibly using a cheat sheet in a debate in 2004.

extension of school cheating

[peter303]

The aide was pretty young. Prossibly saw a loty cheating in school and just carried it into work life. In the real world you get caught more of the time.

Re:What the?

[eln]

People will go to extraordinary lengths to suspend their own disbelief if they think there's going to be a big payout at the end. This explains not only why the 419eater counter-scams work, but also why the 419 scams themselves work.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[NXIL]

Pigeon, not "Pidgeon", as in Walter Pidgeon....

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Dan Slotman]

He's a victim, just not an innocent victim. I intended that to be read "victim" in the same way that a drug runner might be the victim of a FBI sting.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Ogive17]

Yes, because a former Democratic President and future Democratic Presidential nominee didn't partake in shady real estate deals... They were just lucky to have loyal friends who would rather die then tell the truth.

When will people learn that most career politicians do stuff like this... regardless of their party affiliation. The only reason you got modded up is due to the left leaning bias of this site's visitors. There is never anything insightful about pointing fingers.

Re:B people hire C people, and so on down the chai

[Dan Slotman]

I don't think your argument holds up as presented if you aren't cherry-picking your people. Basically, by presenting Bush's selections in the worst possibly light you are creating a Strawman Argument. (Though I agree that there have been many poor picks; just look Myers for the Supreme Court.) I'm not arguing with your conclusion so much as how you get there. Plus congresspersons select their own staff, so it isn't a true hierarchy down from the Oval Office.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[djh101010]

Like 90% of all Slashdot "memes" it's not funny... like "we welcome our masters", "soviet russia", etc.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Slashdot memes...

Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[laing]

There are idiots on both sides of the aisle. Why would this moron's political alignment be relevant to anyone unless they felt the need to re-enforce their biased opinion of republicans?

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[revxul]

I definitely think we'd read this if he were Dem. thing is, Republicans generally have a high horse they could use a lesson in gravity from.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Enrique1218]

There are idiots on both sides of the aisle.

While I agree with that statement, I can't help but feel that idiot scale leans a little bit more to the Republican side of that aisle. Anyone who I consider to be intelligent, whether rich or poor-Christian or atheist, tend to more Democrat in their leanings. It is usually Republicans denying global warming, evolution, bad assessments on Iraq, etc. People that I meet that are fervent Republicans fall into two categories- those that are not well educated presenting either naivete or general stupidity and those that are avaricious. The former see the world through rose color glasses (forgive the cliche but it fits) and tend not to know any better and latter generally profit from Republican policies. The latter are pretty smart but use their intelligence to own selfish ends. So, either way I look at it, I generally have a low opinion of Republicans and that opinion seems to resonate on this website.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[multisync]

Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

Yes.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Chris Pimlott]

I read this the other day and it didn't have any information on who the chump was. It was still hilarious.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

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.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[jbirdkerr]

The intrigue couldn't possibly lie in the fact that he is an aide in a congressman's office, could it? It's important that he is a congressional employee. The fact that he's republican is just extra fodder for the fire.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Pray_4_Mojo]

Yes. You may have heard of this republican mouthpiece called "Fox News". If a Democrat so much as gets photographed next to Muslim constituent, the lead story of the night will be "Senator Defeatocrat seen here with Bin Laden's Aide".

For Fsck's sake man, John Kerry mistold a joke, and they spent THREE WHOLE WEEKS on how, obviously, as a recipient of the purple heart three times John Kerry hates the military and thinks they're all stupid and deserve what they get.

So again, a better answer to your question would sound like "When would we STOP hearing about this in the MSM if he were a democrat?"

Also, I have a feeling the next Texas Christian University Alumni Newsletter is going to have an article on its 'super-advanced rot-26 decrypter'.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[NeuroManson]

From past observations, I think what it really boils down to is:

When Republicans do something bad, they pretend that it wasn't.

When Democrats do something bad, they pretend they never did it.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[writermike]

There are idiots on both sides of the aisle. Why would this moron's political alignment be relevant to anyone unless they felt the need to re-enforce their biased opinion of republicans?

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am not necessarily a Republican and the title riled me up.

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Dionysus]

How about, when Mark Foley got caught, Fox News labeled him either as a Democrat, or failed to label him at all:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

Re:Would we be reading this if he were a democrat?

[Copid]

Does the Democrat party claim to be the party of valueless immorality?

That's not how it's spelled.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[Achromatic1978]

when a Republican does something, even if he's just an aide and it has nothing to do with his politics or whoever he is an aide for, he is referred to as a "Republican aide". When a democrat does something, their party affiliation is rarely mentioned

Unless he's a Republican Congressman hitting up underage teenage boys for information on their masturbatory habits, then he's referred to as a "Democrat"...

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[heinousjay]

He's a congressional aide, not a highly-placed politician. No one elected him for his position.

For me, what made this worth reading was the humor in the exchange. The fact that the guy works for a Republican congressman is just blood in the water for the liberal sharks around here.

Re:This begs the question

[Phroggy]

Server must be running on a box in someone's bedroom or something, 'cuz it's off line now... And what's with having the domain registered at NetSol? I guess pretentious "security researchers" need their domain registered with equally pretentious domain registrars... Oh yeah, we got some quality hackers, er, I mean "security researchers" here!

Attrition.org has been around since long before multiple .com registrars existed. I still have a domain hosted with Network Solutions myself for the same reason (although they did open up the market for testing with five competing registrars shortly after I registered mine). For awhile I was afraid if I tried to transfer it to a new registrar they'd botch the transfer and I'd end up losing the domain (I've heard of that sort of thing happening, and the rightful owner having no recourse), but now it's mostly laziness.

As for the the server, I don't know where it's hosted now, but I saw it in about 1999. It was the only server in the colo room covered in bumper stickers.

So he's going to jail right?

[gorehog]

This guy should be arrested already, right? For solicitation to commit a felony? In fact, shouldnt the FBI have picked him up already?

Someone really needs to press this with the proper authorities. If this is a real solicitation then he should be worrying about bail money now. And if it IS a case of entrapment then Attrition.org should be considering civil action against the government for even TRYING such bullshit.

Re:So he's going to jail right?

[gorbachev]

mod parent up

This is clearly soliciting someone to commit a felony crime, which in itself is a felony crime, I believe.

I can't believe none of the press coverage on the story hasn't covered that.

Re:So he's going to jail right?

[ScrewMaster]

Who was the Congressman that was caught up in the Abscam scandal some years ago, and when confronted with evidence of his own wrongdoing claimed that he had actually done nothing illegal because he had been "performing his own investigation"? At least, I think it was Abscam. I just remember laughing and shaking my head in wonder at the huevos these guys must carry around with them.

Re:So he's going to jail right?

[Thomas the Doubter]

The real crime here is the involvement of the innocent animals. Look, they were not hurting anyone, and certainly do not deserve to be lumped in with Todd and his sort - with their pictures even on the internet. It is a sure sign of the decadence of this country that a simple squirrel can hardly go about his day's business anymore without being caught up in a felony case.
Thomas

By doing this it sounds like he is ready....

[netsfr]

to be involved professionally in politics!

Re:What the?

[revxul]

I think its pretty obvious he was messing with the guy.

Re:Slashdot's petty partisanship.

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Partisan or not, the fact remains thus. The title and the summary say nothing about anything political save to mention the man in question is a republican aide. Because he __is__ a republican aide. Did the title or the summary go on about how this is typical republican behavior? Nope. Several comments did, but that's not the summary or title is it? Admittedly it would be just as valid to call him a congressional aide. But I fail to see the noting of a job title as partisan.

That would explain the grades...

[kerecsen]

I never thought that there was a strong correlation between college grades and intelligence/job performance, but clearly I was wrong...

Re:As another Montanan...

[FallLine]

I just wish they'd work on getting those of us in the rural areas some decent broadband options.

No offense, but if you want broadband this much you should move to a more-densely populated area where it can be provided to you in an economically viable fashion... or stay-put and wait till technology that allows this becomes available for deployment. Either way, why should tax-payers pay for your choices?

Re:As another Montanan...

[genessy]

There are other options than using tax-payer money to provide incentives to companies for rural broadband rollouts.

Re:On raises and improvement

[symbolic]

That way, if they want a raise, they have to improve the quality of life for all people.

I'd opine that if they want a raise, they can step down and find something that pays more. Serving our country as an elected representative used to be considered an honor, where one held office for a period of time and then exited gracefully at the end of their term. Now it's just another career choice for people who find satisfaction in back-room deals, pimping themselves to the highest bidder, and exercising control over their minions.

Holding them to the notion of "improving life for all people" smacks of communism. It's not the government's responsibility to improve the lives of people- at least directly. This is a responsibility that each person assumes as a member of a free society.

Why the focus on Pigeons?

[Annirak]

I think Jericho is so obssesed about pigeons because it relates back to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carrier s [wikipedia.org]
Specifically, the reference to "carrier pigeons" convinces me.

Re:Why the focus on Pigeons?

[sbaker]

Hey - don't knock it. If you are using rot-26 encryption you're going to need something a little harder to trace than "your next door neighbours wireless" - and IP_over_Avian_Carriers is VERY hard to trace!

Re:Why the focus on Pigeons?

[linuxwebadmin]

It could also be this: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Re:What the?

[heroofhyr]

Pigeons are protected under whistle-blower laws. Not all. The stool- variety usually get shivved in the shower.

Me am Republican! Me am victim of everybody!

[MS-06FZ]

You have my deepest condolences. I know that the Republican Party is a persecuted minority these days: Nobody gives the poor, innocent Republicans a fair shake. Everyone else in the world hates God and America and, therefore, Republicans as well. And there's the vast conspiracies, the lynchings, and all the inequities and indignities Republicans must suffer for no other reason than following the divine hand of God - appointed by holy power and elected by a clear majority choice. Oh, woe be the poor Republican, for he is a poor, battered victim of a world which is against him for no good reason at all.

This guy made Slashdot because he was especially stupid, not simply because he was caught, and not because he was a Republican. He tried to commit a crime, but went about it in a very idiotic way - made contact with someone he had no logical reason to trust and requested an illegal job, discussed details that were way out of his depth and technical expertise, freely gave away his personal information, went outside to take a picture of some pigeons (I guess to prove that he is one himself) - the whole story just shows an incredible lack of intelligence and sophistication - any kind of subtlety or careful discretion in how he sought criminal help - and he got completely suckered as a result. A tale like this is great "News For Nerds" fodder - dope who knows nothing about computers tries to contract for a system intrusion goes in over his head with someone who actually knows a thing or two, and gets exposed.

Stealing national security documents isn't "News for Nerds", it's just "News". Go watch some Fox News if you want to see that story, I'm sure they'll rattle their sabers and go on about it for weeks - because they are not part of the conspiracy. They are not biased. They will give you the straight story, just the facts, and let you draw your own conclusion. England Prevails!

RFC 1149

[TranscendentalAnarch]

type of access required to access the systems (internet? LAN? dialup? carrier pigeon?) I'm going to submit an addendum to RFC 1149 requesting that the pigeons be trained to release their excrement on moronic, unsuspecting members of congress during transmission.

Re:Username & Password

[sbaker]

Hmmm - so I'm taking to an evil black-hat hacker whom I've never met. I know! I'll give him my username and password (and social security and DOB)...

Smart!

As a hard-core liberal, I agree

[spun]

I'm as liberal as they come: anarcho-syndicalist, it doesn't get more hardcore leftist than that. Normally I am all for anything that makes the Republicans look bad, but this is just dumb. It's like how news stations only mention the race of an alleged criminal if they are non-white. Who cares what race a murderer is, or what party a doofus belongs too? What's that got to do with anything?

Until I read the summary, I was hoping this was some kind of political hack attempt that would put another big black eye on the Repugnicans, but no such luck, it's just some dumbass trying to get his grades changed. The story is funny enough to warrant being on Slashdot's front page without mentioning the word "Republican" at all.

Re:As a hard-core liberal, I agree

[dircha]

"I'm as liberal as they come: anarcho-syndicalist, it doesn't get more hardcore leftist than that."

Hoho! The anarcho-communists spit in your general direction, bourgeoisie scum!

Re:As a hard-core liberal, I agree

[spun]

Spitting is fine, just as long as there aren't any ice picks involved...

Re:As a hard-core liberal, I agree

[Lord Kano]

Spitting is fine, just as long as there aren't any ice picks involved...

I'd prefer he tried the ice pick. I'm a Republican, we have guns.

LK

Re:What the?

[networkBoy]

Yeah, but out confidencing the confidence man is fun (ala 419eater).
-nB

Quick question

[spun]

Is Hans Reiser a Democrat or a Republican?

(think about it...)

Re:Quick question

[TheZax]

Is Hans Reiser a Democrat or a Republican?

I thought about it and thought that your comment would make sense if he was a politician...I don't know much about him, so maybe he is and your comment makes perfect sense...

Re:Quick question

[spun]

Hans Reiser is the guy who makes the Reiser filesystem and allegedly murdered his wif. His story has been all over slashdot. No one bothered to mention what his political affiliation is. This wanna be hacker is an aide, not some high up Republican and the hacking had nothing to do with politics. Why is his party affiliation mentioned and not Hans'?

The Repugs pull enough heinous crap that we don't need to reach this far for ammunition to use against them. This only makes us look tawdry and cheap.

Re:Quick question

[Overly Critical Guy]

Tawdry and cheap--you mean like calling Republicans "Repugs" or telling people to "fuck off and die" because they disagree with you (as you did in another post)?

I saw what you said to bonch in another post...scary hatred there.

Re:Quick question

[spun]

Bonch is a known troll, he was trolling there so I was trolling him back. As he responded in a reasonable manner, I won't do it again. I love how Repuglicans have people like Anne Coulter on their side spewing venom, and when called on it they claim it was only a joke, but when Libs fight back, you accuse us of being mean-spirited. Seems like a double standard to me...

Re:Quick question

[Overly Critical Guy]

It amuses me just as much when Democrats have people like Al Franken and Keith Olbermann on their side spewing venom, and when called on it they claim it was only satire...but when conservatives fight back with the same kind of lowbrow sarcasm, you accuse them of being mean-spirited or "known trolls."

Not only is it illogical to reference Ann Coulter, who has nothing to do with the conversation, as some justification for telling someone to fuck off and die, but it also weakens your position. Comments like yours are the reason a lot of people see liberals as bitter and mean-spirited. You guys are supposed to be compassionate and tolerant, yet if someone espouses a viewpoint you don't like, you attack them and call them Nazis or fascists or idiots or whatever. I'm sure you've visited sites like Daily "Screw Them" Kos or Democratic Underground and seen the hardcore hatred on display over there, and I'm sure you heard of the tongue-in-cheek term Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I'm not sure what high moral standing you think you have when you use terms like "Repugs" or how you think it emboldens your argument (the "Repuglican" party you hate so much was formed to fight the policies of the pro-slavery Democratic Party in the south, who passed all the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War...a history the Democratic Party would rather you forget), but this new breed of aggressively intolerant and insulting liberals only make the movement come off as flakey and extremist. It's like it's impossible for you guys to accept any differing opinion on anything, and when it's pointed out that you're guilty of every single thing you criticize conservatives of being guilty of, you freak out and tell people to fuck off and die, paint Hitler mustaches on posters, hold naked rallies, etc. You come off as crazy and irrational.

So, yeah, when you tell someone to fuck off and die, I'm going to call you on it. As a libertarian, I admit it's funny watching you and your party tear itself apart, divided between blue dog moderates and ultra-left-wingers. I'll be shocked if you guys last the next two years with all those special interest caucuses you have to cater to. But that doesn't mean I have to stand by and let you threaten people because they utilized their First Amendment right to make a WarGames joke.

Re:Quick question

[spun]

So, yeah, when you tell someone to fuck off and die, I'm going to call you on it.

Can't keep our sock puppet accounts straight, can we Bonch?

Re:Quick question

[Overly Critical Guy]

Nice dodge of all the points I raised in my post. Again, when you tell someone to fuck off and die--no matter if you think they're a "sock puppet account" or not--I will call you on it. Always.

Dopes in politics

[banerjek]

The only question is, what is the best approach to encourage more honorable folks to run for office? Perhaps the terms of office should be limited? Be aware that people who are even less sophisticated than the idiot who tried to pay attrition.org are making laws that supposedly will make the country safer from computer based attacks.

It just so happens that I provide services for a state legislature and was one of the technical people consulted when they passed a law last term relating to electronic government documents.

Terms definitely should not be limited. It takes time to learn how to do things. How do you think the shareholders would react if all the big corporations fired all the CEOs with more than a certain amount of experience? Managing government and setting public policy is very complicated. What job can you think of where not knowing what you're doing is an asset?

Try reading some laws on any topic and see how easy it is to understand. Legislators are ordinary people and rarely have expertise on legislation they are voting on. In order for them to do good, they have to understand the process and you can't do that if you have nothing but newbies who can easily be manipulated by experts with an interest in particular laws (a.k.a. lobbyists)

People hate lawyers, but it really wouldn't be a bad idea for people making the law to understand something about it. Think of the projects you've worked on where nontechnical people make technical decisions -- you get some pretty screwed up results. There's a similar dynamic when it comes to making public policy. You need people who actually know something, not just "nice" or "honorable" individuals.

And here is the real sad part...

[StressGuy]

From the previous post:

"Iverson said Shriber was concerned about his grades because he eventually wanted to study for a master's degree"

Schools are not obligated to deny entrance to the Master's program based upon grades. If he was truly driven, but simply made some youthful mistakes, he could have gone the route of life experience + post-bachalaureate classes (with excellent grades of course) + strong showing on the GRE.

A tough road to be sure, but legal, and possible.....it worked for me.

Re:And here is the real sad part...

[StressGuy]

Well, life experience + 2 semesters of graduate level mathematics with an "A" grade + top 4% on the GRE's.

Not the easiest way to do it, but it can be done.

Re:This begs the question

[Frosty Piss]

Sure, you're right. Just me being a smart ass...

I do remember how paranoid I was transferring my domains back in the late '90s.

I guess I have an issue with this whole thing of calling hackers "security researchers". It's just silly and 9 times out of 10 not an accurate description. I especially don't like freelance "security researchers" who take it upon themselves to hack other people's networks uninvited. It's a crime as ith should be. Blaw, blaw, blaw, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Predictable update on this story

[netbuzz]

Press aide who tried to hire hackers has been fired.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1001 5

Link to news article

[genessy]

Here's a news article from the local paper about the incident. The Missoulian

Re:What the?

[budgenator]

A name, hell it's practically an official internet sport! Some people live for a 419 Email, and a chance to play! The idea is to scam the scammer into performing stupid and demeaning tasks, you start slow, build them up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Gannon?

[Bowling Moses]

"kay, first you pin this sort of behavior on "ambitious, young-republican types". Then you cite a bunch of names - "Rove, Gannon, DeLay, A[]bramoff" - who don't actually fit that mold, all of them being well-established, somewhat aged participants in the political arena."

I doubt that's what Gannon's male escort ads would say. Maybe a well-endowed, professional-looking, male looking for a strange bedfellow (politics, get it?), but I'm uninformed on such matters.

New meme

[berbo]

Can we also call this game pigeons and squirrels?

In Soviet Russia, pigeons and squirrels photograph you....

imagine a Beowulf cluster of pigeons and squirrels.

Re:New meme

[badspyro]

google did - http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Re:What the?

[Alascom]

I could claim to work at the RNC and as proof, show I picture I took of the RNC office complex. Of course I could have just found a random picture of the campus and be lying too. By asking for a picture with a central focus of a squirrel or pigeon (which are quite common) I have created a 'verification' method that the person REALLY does work at the RNC campus and have a much higher degree of assurance, since pictures of squirrels at the RNC campus would be MUCH hard to find on the web.

Kudos to Jericho, brilliant thinking to confirm a sources location.

How to bias a story summary

[Brandybuck]

How to bias a story summary. Let's say you don't like Republicans, and want to bias a story against them. So instead of writing "congressional aide", you write "Republican Aide". Instead of writing "the communications director for a congressman", you write "Republican Communications Director".

You're still being accurate, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that you have just deliberately editorialized and biased the reporting.

Reading the original story, you don't even see the word "Republican. All you see is an "R" after the congressman's name. But it's NOT the congressmen who is the subject of the story, it's one of his aides. Soem people do stupid, unethical and immoral things. Sometimes these people are Republicans, sometimes they are Democrats. But their political affiliations are irrelevant to their misconduct.

Re:How to bias a story summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It is super critical to mention his political affiliation. Whenever a politician or somebody connected to him does something good we should let everybody know. Whenever the opposite occurs we again should let everybody know. That way a politician should think twice about all his/her actions. "A people hire A people, but B people hire C people" mention above makes the point.

This guy is a "F" so now we know what his boss is. That is what democracy is all about. Acting on good informations.

G

Re:How to bias a story summary

[dbIII]

It is more detail and is possibly even relevent. Where I live (not in the USA) a political party was involved in corruption and major criminal activity right from the leader of the state down to student council level. People take note of bad examples in their peer group and think they can get away with things too. When your government changes expect articles like this about the other side of the fence after a few years.

Re:How to bias a story summary

[toddestan]

You're only truly being biased if you explicitly mention the party affilation when a bad thing happens on the "other" side, and convienently leave it out when bad things happen on "your" side. Otherwise,

Besides, political affiliations are most certainly relevant to the misconduct. Many people in this country don't vote for a person, they vote for the little D or R after their name. When a member of a political party does something bad, it should reflect badly on their whole political party.

Re:B people hire C people, and so on down the chai

[Brandybuck]

On the other hand, he appointed Condaleeza Rice. Probably the most smartest and most educated woman in poltical office this decade. Roberts is brilliant. He may not share your politics, but that doesn't detract from his qualifications. And from what I hear on the grapevine, Karl Rove is a genius. Evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.

So sometimes the B students do hire A people. Thank goodness, because the last A student we had was Carter. And he's not exactly known for the quality of his appointments either.

Re:What the?

[commodoresloat]

* I don't watch 24, but I've heard some rather amusing takes on their entire "hacker" philosophy. In particular, they seem to be able to do the impossible without blinking an eye, just by wrapping it up in some techno-babble that's intended to sound good to the average joe.What I love about shows like that is that when they actually get a terrorist or perp on the freakin telephone, they still have to keep them on the line for five minutes before they can get a trace. The rest of their tech is from far in the future, but when it comes to an actual phone call, we're back in the early 1970s...

Final confirmation that Rep's are *evil*

[DJNW]

They top post, damn them!

Re:What the?

[PitaBred]

"Toned down"? They pulled audio off of a ceramic freakin' pot in an episode. There isn't anything worthwhile in CSI if you don't turn off your "I know what it's like to live in the real world" sense.

Re:What the?

[Drooling Iguana]

Also, religion.

Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[TheCrayfish]

How does mentioning the political affiliation of the aide in question illuminate this story? It seems more likely that the poster included this bit of trivia as a means of reinforcing stereotypes.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[/dev/trash]

Democrats do no worng, remember. Think about. Mark Foley lost his job becaue of exual crap. Which he should have. Name a Democrat that has faced the same punishment. Bill Clinton? Nope. Studds? Nope.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[Legion303]

Although I agree that the fact this aide was republican is irrelevant, I must also point out that you're a moron. Foley didn't "lose his job," he resigned before Hastert saw the news. Clinton wasn't impeached for his legal consensual act with another adult, he was impeached for lying under oath (and apparently the republican-controlled congress didn't think lying under oath about a consensual affair between two adults was grounds for removal from office). Studds was investigated and censured, something this republican-controlled congress couldn't bring themselves to do even though it was widely known that Foley had issues with young pages. Congress couldn't even be bothered to look into it until after his resignation. You may want to familiarize yourself with reality sometime.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[bky1701]

Sorry, no everyone subscribes to your idea that facts should always be omitted because of political correctness. I bet if it a democrat you would be yelling about how this proves they are all idiots... Personally I think both are idiots of equal measure.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[TheCrayfish]

I bet if it a democrat you would be yelling about how this proves they are all idiots.

You would lose that bet, my friend. I think that mentioning the aide's political affiliation, whatever it may be, is immaterial to the story in question. I also believe the original poster only included this information to further a stereotype.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[/dev/trash]

You forgot Poland.

Re:Why Mention That the Aide is Republican?

[TheCrayfish]

Sorry, no everyone subscribes to your idea that facts should always be omitted because of political correctness.

It's not about political correctness -- it's about relevance. The author of this posting chose to omit many facts, such as the aide's weight, height, hair color, alma mater, home state, favorite color, and religious affiliation. Nevertheless, the author took the time to explicitly point out the aide's political affiliation, and I believe that choice was politically motivated. I fail to see how the aide's political affiliation -- regardless of what it is -- bears any relevance to the story at hand, except as a means of promoting stereotypes.

Re:So, No Poor People for Congress?

[drinkypoo]

Please know that I agree with you in principle. Our legislature doesn't need the kind of money they're bringing down. However, I am somewhat concerned about the level of income you are proposing. Wouldn't that actually worsen representation by making it even more important for a person to be independently wealthy before contributing politically?

If you are not wealthy you will need financial backing from someone else to even run your campaign anyway.

Actually, here's my idea for campaign finance reform: Any campaign contribution is split 50/50 between the candidate to which it is contributed and a general campaign fund. The money in the fund is split between the top n candidates determined by petition. Only one candidate per party can receive money from the fund. Established parties would have the right to determine the candidate to receive the funding for their party via primary (as they do with the nomination today.)

Distribution of funds is the only part I haven't figured out yet. I think the way to go is that the 50% going to all candidates is split immediately between all candidates but the one receiving the other 50% of the donation.

Finally, all media outlets would be required to donate a certain amount of space, not to exceed some reasonable percentage of their paper (A small one) and portion it equally between all candidates who want a piece of it. All other political advertisement in any media outlet forced to provide this coverage would be banned. I am willing to forego this suggestion for newspapers but not for broadcast media, which is to say radio and television. Cable television should also be required. Basically, any state-granted monopoly should be required to comply. The airwaves are supposed to be held in trust for the benefit of the public, so this falls well within the charter of the FCC.

Re:What the?

[Em Adespoton]

I take it you missed the MythBusters episode where they successfully recorded audio on to a clay pot using nothing but a turntable, the pot and some straw?

Of course, the length of the audio was less than 1 second (the time it takes to rotate the pot once) but hey...

Re:What the?

[Kreigaffe]

If you could spiral down the pot, you could encode more than a single rotation..

it's pretty much identical to a record.

There was an x-files show that involved this, too, I think.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Doc Ruby]

Let's see some evidence of your assertion. I'm sure you can cherry-pick the many stories about (usually made-up) Democrats "doing bad things" that omit that they're Democrats. And from the tiny representation in stories of Republicans "doing bad things" (like breaking the law from an elected office), I'm sure you can find those few that mention that they're Republicans.

While you're at it, let's see what "Sandy Berger story" you're talking about, since you insist on changing the subject to something totally irrelevant to this Republican's crime. Then I'll easily show with a quick Google how overexposed were the Republican lies published without criticism in mass media about whatever it is that you obviously heard on the Rush Limbo Junkie Dream Hour.

No, really, I want to see how you turn this story about a Republican criminal racketeer into a story about Democrats, by making things up. After all, if you're going to carry water for these Republican criminals like your Republican media pipeline, I'm here to help you drown.

Re:What the?

[LiquidCoooled]

Yes he did, the first page he visited was encrypted in double rot 13.

Re:What the?

[Simon Garlick]

People will go to extraordinary lengths to suspend their own disbelief if they think there's going to be a big payout at the end.

Now there's a Xmas message for you.

In for a Penny, In for a Pound

[Doc Ruby]

You mean like the "disbelief" (and ethical) suspension required to run the communications operations of a Republican Congressmember, like the crook getting burned in this story?

Re:What the?

[CoAX]

I think the pigeon part of the email was first used as a joke regarding the university network (i.e. IP over Pigeon http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt). Then the Attrition guys, realizing how technically ignorant Shriber was decided to play the pigeon thing a little longer and used it as a way to identify the "customer".

Re:As another Montanan...

[FallLine]

There are other options than using tax-payer money to provide incentives to companies for rural broadband rollouts.

Such as? Most government incentives usually result in a significant loss of government revenue which ultimately means more taxes (however indirect). Once in a blue moon there is a cash-flow neutral idea (or maybe even positive) that can actually make a real difference... They are unusual though, especially with an effort such this which is very capital intensive and is unlikely to even generate positive cash flows in the future (ignoring the rollout costs).

If you have a particlar idea, then please share it.

Re:As another Montanan...

[genessy]

Honestly, I'm not sure. One way would be to attract large corporations and organizations through state incentive programs. They would both provide employment and fund technology advancements in order to support their own infrastructure. I know a lot of states already have these in place, but I'm not sure if Montana does or if it is competitive.

Yes, a lot of these incentives provide tax breaks for the companies, but you must also think of all the employees who will be paying income taxes as well.

How do other countries do it? I often read that the US is falling well behind most other developed nations in rolling out "cheap", high-speed access on a broader scale.

I wasn't trying to start an argument (though I do welcome the discussion). I was simply empathizing with the poster and felt your harsh words were unmerited. It's not always easy to move.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Master of Transhuman]

Yeah - like during the election, every time a Democrat made some statement about his party, the media spun it as "Democrats can't agree on anything". Media spin is not limited to Republican deeds.

As an anarchist, I'm perfectly well aware that Democrats are as scummy as Republicans (possibly even more so in certain aspects, as the Repugs are in others.). But the Repugs spend more time than Democrats touting their "family and moral values" - which makes them hypocrites as well as scum.

We have only one party in the US - the War Party of the State, with Republican, Democratic, Green, Socialist, and Libertarian branches differing only in their degree of unity and relative power on how to steal from and control the citizen.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[WhiplashII]

I take extreme offense that you have a (disparaging/humorous) word for Repugs but not for Demos? Demons? D-craps?

Honestly, what is the propper slur to use here, anyway?

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Master of Transhuman]

"Demopublicans", I think, is the usual.

Just to emphasize the lack of distinction between them - along with "Republicrats."

I don't think "Democratic" lends itself to a slur as easily as "Republican" does, linguistically.

Actually, come to think of it, "Demo" isn't a bad term - sort of like, "Demonstration Statesmen" or something - or maybe "Demolition of Civil Rights".

Fuck it, just call them "an asshole", like Blade did in the movie "Blade Trinity" when asked if he knew who was President.

Re:B people hire C people, and so on down the chai

[dbIII]

On the other hand, he appointed Condaleeza Rice. Probably the most smartest and most educated woman in poltical office this decade.

But not even capable of appointing an ambassator to Australia in well over a year. She is not being allowed to do her job - her inability to do ANYTHING constructive during the war in Lebanon and the North Korean nuclear events showed that in greater detail. Powell was good too but also could not do his job - being told to spread absolute garbage in the UN to push a radical political agenda does nothing for credibility. We don't talk to people only drop bombs on them - childish policy - you have to talk to terrorists while they are still terrorists even if it is just to work out what they will do next.

It disturbs me that Bush appears to be incapable of appointing anyone that he doesn't know personally and makes me wonder what will happen during the remainder of his term.

Re:Ah, it's a Republican, Slashdot goes on the att

[dbIII]

It is a different story and has nothing to do with technology. Also, currently many Republicans have an anti-science bias which is one reason they come off badly on this site IMO. I am not from the USA and don't choose the stories so please don't make silly assumptions about my partisanship based on a couple of sentences.

Re:On raises and improvement

[cas2000]

Holding them to the notion of "improving life for all people" smacks of communism. It's not the government's responsibility to improve the lives of people- at least directly. This is a responsibility that each person assumes as a member of a free society.

no, it smacks of democracy. you know, that weird and unfashionable idea that elected members should actually represent the people who live in the region that elected them and act in their interests.

an elected representative is supposed to be the agent of the people in their electorate, and that includes acting to improve their lives.

ps: please take the following advice: if you're an american, then take the time to look up the words "communism" and "capitalism" so that you actually have some chance of knowing what the hell you're talking about before mentioning them - or, worse, basing your argument on your misunderstandings of the words.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Dolohov]

There is some of that, but not as much as you suggest. For example, the NY State Comptroller, Hevesi, has been routinely identified as a Democrat, even in the New York Times. However, I do note that in most of the articles, the word "Democrat" doesn't appear in the first few paragraphs.

The Berger thing is a non-starter. We've got a Republican administration and Dept. of Justice -- if even they didn't pursue it, there probably was very little there.

Re:What the?

[jamar0303]

or use rice (which I hear is far more entertaining).

He's right.

[sheldon]

Clearly this guy was setup by Democrats trying to make him look bad. It was probably Democrats who gave him the idea of having his record changed in the first place.

Hell, the guys stringing him along were probably Democrats! So that makes this whole thing a BI-Partisan scandal!

Damn Democrats! you just can't trust them. They're always out to make you look like a fool!

Between Democrats and the Damn Liberal Media who reported this... It's a wonder the Republicans get any good news out. /snark

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Yes, Democrats have never been involved in breaking the law. The Kennedy family (political dynasty?) notwithstanding.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[NoTheory]

Whatever dude.

Just to name a recent scandal, what about Democratic Representative William Jefferson who had his house and his congressional office raided by the FBI. There are Democrats who get tagged with the "corruption" label as well. The only difference right now is that the Republicans are in fact more corrupt right now (in part due to the fact that Republicans had entirely kicked the Democrats out of power, anything that's happened recently is most definitely the responsibility of the Republicans).

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Doc Ruby]

Anything more recent than 45 years ago? And I suppose it was Democrats who assassinated the president and his later presidential frontrunner.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[Doc Ruby]

How about some links to some stories about Democrats "doing bad things" that omit the fact that they're Democrats? Or would you instead like to continue arguing with your strawman about whether Democrats never do anything wrong?

Re:What the?

[Loualbano2]

FWIW "I know what it's like to live in the real world" sense is otherwise known as the willing suspension of disbelief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbeli ef

ft

Re:As another Montanan...

[FallLine]

How do other countries do it? I often read that the US is falling well behind most other developed nations in rolling out "cheap", high-speed access on a broader scale.

Don't have time to comment on the other stuff right now, but I submit that those countries with significantly higher/better broadband penetration tend to have MUCH greater population density (e.g., Japan, most of Europe, etc) and/or the various governments subsidize it heavily (which I tend to be opposed to).

Re:On raises and improvement

[symbolic]

an elected representative is supposed to be the agent of the people in their electorate, and that includes acting to improve their lives.

And just how is this accomplished?

Ann Coulter has plenty...

[Goonie]

Try this quote from her book Treason :

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16)

"Appeasers" is another Republican favourite.

As to terms specifically relating to modifying the name, I think "dumbocrats" got a bit of a run, back in 2003-04 or so, but it kinda lacks its sting in today's political climate.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[killjoe]

I for one prefer republitard to repugs. It's a bit more descriptive. The republitards refer to anybody who disagrees with them as demoncrats, socialists, communists, fags, pinkos, hippies, granolas, terrorists, etc. They also use the word "nazi" a lot as in "green nazi" or "feminazi" refering to anybody who thinks clean water is good and that women should not be merely baby factories.

res ipse loquitur

[Pictish Prince]

His college grades "weren't that great," he acknowledged.

Do tell.

Re:On raises and improvement

[cas2000]

And just how is this accomplished?

oh trivial things, really. proposing bills for and voting for things like funding public health and public education services, anti-pollution laws, protection of individual rights, even down to legislating a livable minimum wage.

in other words, pretty much the exact opposite of what most of them vote for now.

government exists to do collectively the things that it makes sense to do collectively, so that everyone benefits from living in a society, not just a few.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[WilliamSChips]

Overrated? I guess the people who think Foley's a Democrat have mod points.

Re:I just have to observations on this story

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I guess getting us involved in Vietnam was too long ago? Barney Frank prostitution? Let us not forget Clinton's hurried presidential pardons and the interesting suicide in his real estate dealings. I'm not a Republican supporter but the Democrats are no better in my book.

Re:What the?

[TheCarp]

shit, just post on craigslist saying you have a room for rent... you should get at least 2 replies from someone claiming to live in some other country and be looking for a room.... (though what they are really looking for is some dupe to cash their fake checks) chance to play indeed... have fun!

Whats real fun is you get the checks and then out them and tell them you know the scam and want in. Thats when the real fun begins. They will bend over backwards to have a conspirator in the US. I strung one of these guys on for weeks.

-Steve

interesting, but....

[proudhawk]

a small question: how can we be sure those e-mails are legitimate?
there were no headers and no real way to tell who said e-mails were really from.

if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....

Re:A friend of ours needs to have his grades revis

[Mysticalfruit]

It's fun, but it can get really repetative. For my money, I find Diablo and Diablo 2 to still be extremely enjoyable old games.