Slashdot Mirror


Obama's Mobile Phone Records Compromised, Shared

Tiger4 writes "Verizon has confirmed that some of its employees have accessed and perhaps shared calling records of President Elect Barack Obama (coverage at CNN, Reuters, AP). Verizon says the people involved have all been put on leave with pay as the investigation proceeds. Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes, but others may have been curiosity seekers and may have even shared the information around. The account was 'only' a phone, not a BlackBerry or similar device, and Verizon believes it was just calling records, not voicemail or email that was compromised. The articles do not mention the similarity to the warrantless wiretapping or hospital records compromises of recent months. But that immediately sprang to mind for me."

278 comments

  1. Thats OK. by number17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oversight is OK though right? He has nothing to hide.

    If he stops the NSA from spying on domestics then I'll take back my comment.

    1. Re:Thats OK. by tritonman · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is something new, the citizens wiretapping and spying on the president. I guess we truly will see change with Obama.

    2. Re:Thats OK. by Panzor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have nothing to hide, but my conversations are my business. This is why I encrypt all my volumes and use OTR...

    3. Re:Thats OK. by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      never mind Obama, the people need to see Bush's call records, now that be interesting

    4. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Any sufficiently lost encryption key is indistinguishable from a one-time-pad

    5. Re:Thats OK. by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is something new, the citizens wiretapping and spying on the president. I guess we truly will see change with Obama.

      lol yep this whole administration is already flipping around. Hopefully this is a sign for things to come. Let the citizens do the wiretapping and let the government do their government stuff.

      *CHEERS*

      PS:
      But seriously I'm a big obama fan, he really did make some fantastic nominations so far. Definitely a departure from the cronyism of recent years. Heck Hillary was his enemy and never really endorsed him. I love Hillary but I'm not sure if shes really the best for president but she definitely is a brilliant women who should have a high position in our government and have some power to dictate foreign policy.

    6. Re:Thats OK. by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget Bush's records how about President Cheney's records..

    7. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's no troll. It would be far more interesting to see Bush's call records, especially as he is still the President and under the bills passed could declare himself dictator before Obama has ever stepped into office.

    8. Re:Thats OK. by maxume · · Score: 1

      It might not contain all of his calls (who knows...), but you do realize that an official record of pretty much everything that he has done in office will eventually be published, right?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Thats OK. by don3749 · · Score: 1

      Oh please NSA has better things than looking at your drivel

    10. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah. Well, I encrypt all my correspondence longer than one line.

      Ks9&2, **sjluw*a%2 syjztj! Sjyjja1!pl;kjsux asj*HH8s,Oah

    11. Re:Thats OK. by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Forget Bush's records how about President Cheney's records

      I think it's unlikely you will ever see those. After all, it's very hard to hack records written in blood.

    12. Re:Thats OK. by neomunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Other than Clinton, could you enlighten me on some of the picks that you think are "fantastic"? I've personally been very disappointed in Obama's nominations thus far, for exactly the reason you say you're happy with them, cronyism.

      I don't want to drag this out into a long-winded rant or anything, so I'll just post what I believe to be an excellent summation of just the cronyism I'm leery of. The article I'm talking about is actually about worries over the possibility of a hawkish Obama foreign policy, but when reading that list of names, you'll find Clintonites and others who walk the halls of power both on Capitol Hill and Wall Street.

      I'm not trying to bash Obama, just wondering what you see that I don't, and trying to tap into a little of that optimism you have. :-)

    13. Re:Thats OK. by techdojo · · Score: 1

      Not nearly as interesting as Barbara and Jenna's. :)

      ________________________________________
      http://techdojo.org/

    14. Re:Thats OK. by hplus · · Score: 1

      President Bush has as much power to declare himself dictator as I do. Which is to say that he can do it, but he'll just be pissing in the wind.

    15. Re:Thats OK. by asdfman2000 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd be more interested in Bill Clinton's records. I wonder how many late-night booty calls he made. This is why we need government transparency!

    16. Re:Thats OK. by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Looks like Cheney has mod points today.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    17. Re:Thats OK. by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bill Clinton had terrible taste in women. I really do not want to see any of his partners in *anything* transparent.

      --
      I hate printers.
    18. Re:Thats OK. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Which works really well when the data that gets compromised is a record stored at your cellphone company...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Thats OK. by rvw · · Score: 1

      President Bush has as much power to declare himself dictator as I do. Which is to say that he can do it, but he'll just be pissing in the wind.

      In that case he can get a workshop from Prince Willie!

    20. Re:Thats OK. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Sorry. The Vice President has records, but they don't have to be recorded.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    21. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't "oversight" a code word for "black"? RACIST!

    22. Re:Thats OK. by sorak · · Score: 1

      That would be interesting. I wonder if Satan is part of Verizon's "In Network"

    23. Re:Thats OK. by sorak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or to put it another way...

      If you weren't buying illegal drugs, you would trust me with complete access to all your credit card information, right?

    24. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something new, the citizens wiretapping and spying on the president. I guess we truly will see change with Obama.

      "In Socialist America, citizens wiretap the President! What a country!"

    25. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...to his Paraguayan landlord

    26. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He voted for the telecom immunity bill, so it's all good, right?

    27. Re:Thats OK. by chubs730 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Unless you're referring to unprescribed prescription drugs, then your dealer really has it together. Or he is out of his mind.

    28. Re:Thats OK. by jlowery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > "I've personally been very disappointed in Obama's nominations thus far,..."

      Yet David Brooks, one of the token conservative columnists at NYT, begrudgingly admires Obama's nominations:

      And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    29. Re:Thats OK. by hey! · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't domestic spying. It's unaccountable domestic spying. The government has a legitimate reasons for eavesdropping on some conversations. However, the problem with the program is that the executive branch has structured the program so it answers to nobody for what it does. There is no way to limit the government's use of its eavesdropping capabilities, and given the behavior of the administration in situations we know about, we can probably assume it hasn't stuck to its legitimate limits. Going warrantless removes important safeguards against this sort of thing. The administration has removed the warrant requirement without putting any mechanism of accountability in place.

      In this case it's no the access per se that is the issue. Presumably people have access to records to do things like deal with billing disputes. However, that doesn't give people the right to use their access for their own purposes. That's exactly what we want to prevent. Here we have a good example of how accountability works: you can't stop somebody from doing something wrong, but you can catch them at it.

      Everybody who's worked with large databases with people in them probably has come across "interesting" records from time to time. I treat those records like they burn my eyes to look at them, and this situation shows why. Imagine if McCain had won in the kind of situation that happened in 2000, and then this came out. Given concerns about telecom compliance with dubious legal requests from the administration, this incident over all the other problems with the election could have been the straw that split the country in two.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    30. Re:Thats OK. by Barack+Hussein+Obama · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lol! Not as many as Obama, though, because that post is now up to +5.

    31. Re:Thats OK. by sorak · · Score: 1

      Doesn't your dealer take discover? Hell, mine gives me bonus points.

    32. Re:Thats OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...
      From 2:00 to 3:00 exchanging flicks with Jenna

      And at 4:00, a budget meeting.

      Bush: Hmmm,

      I can schedule that for another day.

  2. Justifications by retech · · Score: 0

    Just wondering how long it will take before this results in some new phone related law...

    1. Re:Justifications by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      A legislative doctrine to remedy the insufficient penality of perusing communication records may be the change we need, but as our undergarments may get soiled for lack of replacement so will our government forensic investigators. So lets all sip some Tranya and celebrate the coming of a new age in legal manifestations that bring about restrictive circumstances endangering our ability to perceive what is a new reality.

    2. Re:Justifications by BVis · · Score: 2, Funny

      No more coffee for you.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    3. Re:Justifications by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd hope so. The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed after the rental records of a Supreme Court nominee became public. Seems like the only way we can get any privacy legislation passed is to demonstrate to the ruling class just how important it is by violating their privacy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Justifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that a code word for "black"? RACIST!

  3. What legitimate purpose? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes

    Like what?

    I doubt if Obama has any problem paying his phone bill.

    1. Re:What legitimate purpose? by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reverse traces.

      They were probably investigating a complaint from the Governor's residence in Alaska. All those mysterious calls that would just be insane, taunting laughter, then a hang-up.

      Probably just a wrong number, but still, you can never be too sure.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:What legitimate purpose? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Like what?

      Maby he started getting calls from all those people who shared his number and he called Verizon to complain. Accessing the call records at that point may have been legitimate by those initiating the investigation.

    3. Re:What legitimate purpose? by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > > Some of the employees may have accessed the information for legitimate purposes
      > Like what?

      Well, that's presumably why they're investigating.

      There can be various technical reasons why a support tech or engineer or sysadmin or whoever looks at data that most people would think of as personal, but the engineer isn't seeing what other people are seeing. He's seeing technical stuff other people would never notice. I don't know a lot about phones, because I don't really support those, so I'll use email as an example instead. As a tech guy, I have on a number of occasions had reasons to look at a coworker's email (albeit, usually with their knowledge in my case), but if you'd asked me thirty seconds later who they'd received messages from or what they were about, I'd have had no idea. Maybe I was looking at whether messages were being retrieved from the server all the time in the background, or only when the inbox was open. Maybe I was looking at whether their outgoing messages were getting correct date headers and Message-IDs. Maybe I was sending a test message to myself to see how fast it went through, and the reply back. I'm sure there were other things, and I'm sure I don't remember every occasion, because it's not weird or unusual; it's a normal part of my job duties.

      If I *wanted* to surreptitiously read the actual content of my coworkers' email, I would certainly be technically capable of doing that, and could be fairly confident of not being detected. But in the first place that wouldn't be ethical, and in the second place very little is of less interest to me than the content of my coworkers' email messages.

      I am not saying the people who looked at Obama's calling records were doing so for legitimate reasons. I'm only saying that it's *plausible*, and the phone company is right to investigate _before_ taking any irrevocable action.

      Incidentally, some people may be thinking that paid leave is letting them off easy, but having been through a situation where my employer had someone on paid leave for a while, I can say that in some instances the reason for doing this is because it allows the employer to place some kinds of restrictions on the employee that they wouldn't be able to place on them if they weren't being paid. I don't know for certain that this is the phone company's reason in this case, but it potentially could be. (It could also be they just don't want to penalize them until they investigate and determine for sure whether they did anything wrong. That could also be valid, from a cover-your-legal-self-in-case-of-lawsuits perspective if nothing else.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    4. Re:What legitimate purpose? by eison · · Score: 1

      Maybe he had someone call about his bill? It's not like cell phone companies are famous for getting bills perfect.
      I'm sure the way this report was done was that somebody simply listed their full audit table, saw it had a bunch of entries in it, and put everyone in the audit table on leave before checking whether they were actually looking into something for the customer.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    5. Re:What legitimate purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the beginning of this millennium I worked for a fairly large ISP. Our email admin had needed a way to quickly find out how many emails pass through the (dated) mail system every hour, and thought of a great hack. He created an email address 'echelon' and put a hidden forward for every mailbox (hundreds of thousands) to that address. Only there was a small mistake, he forgot to change the quota. By the time he noticed thousands of people received errors that "their messages could not be forwarded to echelon@..."

      He never had bad intentions, but at the time there had just been some articles about the US having a large monitoring system called echelon, and it was quite hard to convince the customers that everything was really ok, and nobody was reading their emails.

    6. Re:What legitimate purpose? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? He appears to be having problems paying most of his other debtors, so why not his phone bill?

      Obama not paying campaign workers

      And this is just the most recent happening; it went on all throughout the election.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    7. Re:What legitimate purpose? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I doubt if Obama has any problem paying his phone bill.

      Er, I believe you misspelled "Obama". I believe the correct spelling will be "taxpayers".

      Welcome to Taxmerica. Hope you can afford your stay.

  4. So he loses his Blackberry? by line-bundle · · Score: 1

    So this means he WILL have to let go of his Blackberry after all. How secure is data passing to a Blackberry, (the server, towers etc..)?

    1. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by sakonofie · · Score: 2, Informative
      FT CNN article:

      McAdam said the device on the account was a simple voice flip-phone, not a BlackBerry or other smartphone designed for e-mail or other data services, so none of Obama's e-mail could have been accessed.

    2. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this means he WILL have to let go of his Blackberry after all. How secure is data passing to a Blackberry, (the server, towers etc..)?

      This wasn't a blackberry, but they are very secure. They use AES to encrypt all data, and the cellphone company doesn't have the decryption keys. Blackberries have been audited by a number of governments and non-governmental organizations.

      http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp

    3. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by canesfan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I may be wrong about this but I seem to remember speaking to the guy in my IT organization about Blackberry and AES encryption on the Blackberry devices. He said that is an option but it is not the default configuration and you have to specifically configure it. My organization has about 250,000 e-mail accounts and does not use the AES encryption he said. He would know since he designed the system.

    4. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by eean · · Score: 1

      The Blackberry(tm) seems like a lost cause.

      But it seems like the CIA could hook him up with something just like the Blackberry but secure.

    5. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So this means he WILL have to let go of his Blackberry after all

      I'm pretty sure he'll have to get rid of it.

      Let's face it -- POTUS has a whole fleet of people who make sure he's got secure and reliable comms, and a group of people to get him to his next appointment on time.

      I just can't see it being practicable to have Obama running around with is own damned blackberry/cellphone.

      If for no other reason, it just seems stunningly bizarre than anyone who travels in a motorcade and has a 747 at his disposal crammed full of the most advanced communications gear would answer his own damned phone!! There are now people for that. If you're important enough to call through to the president of the United States, some navy guy in white gloves will bring it to him. :-P

      The apparatus around POTUS is just too huge for him to continue to carry a cell phone and not have that be odd. Heck, does POTUS even need to carry a wallet?? It's not like he has to stop and buy gas or a quick coffee or anything.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, does POTUS even need to carry a wallet?? It's not like he has to stop and buy gas or a quick coffee or anything.

      Part of the nuclear football story is that the President has an identifying card in his wallet, so I would say he does carry a wallet.

    7. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it depend on the user?

      I use ssl to my IMAP server, that prevents anyone looking at it when I use a wifi spot. Can't you do the same with blackberries?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    8. Re:So he loses his Blackberry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be wrong about this but I seem to remember speaking to the guy in my IT organization about Blackberry and AES encryption on the Blackberry devices. He said that is an option but it is not the default configuration

      That may have been the case a long time ago, but for at least the last 3 years the default is to support 3DES and AES, and use the most secure method supported by the handheld. You can explicitly disable 3DES or AES by policy.

      There are some old blackberry handhelds that only support 3DES, but they are rare (I've never seen one).

      and you have to specifically configure it. My organization has about 250,000 e-mail accounts and does not use the AES encryption he said.

      Not a good idea - the 3DES algorithm is 30 years old. It doesn't have any major flaws, but the keyspace is small, and can be brute-forced with a little work. (with $1,000,000 in computer power, 3DES is easily brute-forced).

      He would know since he designed the system.

      He didn't design it, Research In Motion designed it. You have to setup your email system RIM's way, or not at all :)

      You really ought to switch to AES. Much more secure, and it's even less computationally intensive on your servers. Most AES benchmarks rate it a few percentage points faster than 3DES.

  5. This happens often by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My brother worked at T-Mobile for many years. (since before they were T-Mobile). Most Hollywood stars have their agents get their phones for them. One day, something happened in the payment process, and Val Kilmer came into a store to make a payment on his phone, instead of his agent. Suddenly, his number was getting passed all over the company, and many employees (mostly young girls) actually called the number to talk to him. A ton of people were fired, and Val got a very nice check from T-Mobile.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:This happens often by syousef · · Score: 1

      Suddenly, his number was getting passed all over the company, and many employees (mostly young girls) actually called the number to talk to him.

      New plan for meeting girls: "Hey everyone Val Kilmer's new number is *insert your number here*".

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  6. Interesting observation, IMHO by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the media (for example, NPR on the radio today) talks about "unauthorized access by employees", while /. entry is about "sharing" (which is more sinister).

    PS. That and unrelated modest and subdued coverage by CNN about yesterday's record Dow-Jones drop remind me of bias in the media.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Interesting observation, IMHO by dedazo · · Score: 0

      Most of the media (for example, NPR on the radio today) talks about "unauthorized access by employees", while /. entry is about "sharing" (which is more sinister).

      That's probably because, with the exception of Fox News, the MSM still has a sliver of integrity left somewhere and won't game the headline that way unless it's possible to prove that the records were actually shared, as opposed to just illegally accessed.

      Slashdot however, doesn't bother with those kinds of silly self-constraints.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    2. Re:Interesting observation, IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologies for not creating an account to login to, but this is silly.

      How careless would it be for media outlets like National Public Radio to make assumptions that the employees were sharing this information? It's the day after and they're already talking about the subject matter, getting thousands of people involved in the conversation, and they're doing it with the solid, reliable information on hand.

      It makes me absolutely sick when people immediately cry a foul media bias when something they think should be covered isn't.

    3. Re:Interesting observation, IMHO by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      modest and subdued coverage by CNN about yesterday's record Dow-Jones drop

      Aside from it being *the* featured headline story on CNN.com after the markets closed, along with about four or five other headline links to CNN-Money where there was more detailed and gritty coverage? Or perhaps the non-stop TV coverage starting in the afternoon, and then continuing sporadically throughout the day?

      There is not so much on yesterday's market in today's news, but CNN.com tends to cover "today"... it's their business model. Now the focus is on today's market, and I'm sure you'll see more updates after the closing bell.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
  7. freedom of information act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While this is improper and wrong, I think that if the government is allowed to wiretap us, then the same laws should make it legal (Freedom of Information Act or something like that) for us to wiretap them. In fact, all government employees' and officials' calls should be recorded and made available for everyone's listening pleasure at a youtube-like site. Call it govtube. Because we are not subservient to the government; it is subservient to us. We put those people in office for our benefit, and so it is our collective right to know what they're doing over there.

    1. Re:freedom of information act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord man, while I admire and agree with the CONCEPT of what you're saying, I think you're taking it a liiiiiiiiiittle too far. #movetoanotherplanetandthenyouwillbehappy

    2. Re:freedom of information act by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I think that if the government is allowed to wiretap us, then the same laws should make it legal (Freedom of Information Act or something like that) for us to wiretap them.

      Sure - all communication made by government officials in the course of their business should be available to the citizens. Even "classified" information should be embargoed only for a limited time.

      Obama, however, won't be a government official for two more months. And calls home to talk about what kind of dog they're getting the kids, or what's for dinner, or what kinky new sex toys Michelle found on-line, are their business, not ours.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:freedom of information act by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I would further postulate that the fundamental divider between a free state and a totalitarian state is the direction in which information flows. The former is bidirectional; the latter is unidirectional. At present, all the wiretap laws favour the latter.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  8. Why there are draconian rules at work. by xzvf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A situation like this is why there are so many stupid rules at work that make people less productive. Why USB ports are disabled, or you can't have an iPod, websites like gmail are blocked. The biggest danger of electronic crime and compromising of personal information come from people that work at the company. Same as most shoplifting is done by employees of the store. The solution is, ironically stolen from the government. In order to see personal data (classified information) an employee of the company must, not only have rights to see the information, but must also demonstrate a "need to know". That two factor authentication will eliminate many of the abuses by corporate and government employees (Joe the Plumber's info breach by the state) and clearly put the action into criminal field as apposed to looky loo.

    1. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in practice that's ridiculously unworkable. Try working in an accounts receivables department for a large consumer utility company. You deal with hundreds of incoming payments a day, frequently without any helpful identification from the sender. People will do things like pay the previous months bill instead of this months, pay their call charges but not their service charges, leave off a charge they disagree with, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. You need to be able to access pretty much everyone's info in order to track down what the payment is and where it came from. Asking the person doing that to get authorisation every time he needs to look at a new piece of information is plain silly (and how does it help, since his line manager must have unfettered access?).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Funny thing... The problem is often not draconian and overzealous IT, but alas, a small subset of users who abuse the system. Ninety percent of users may use the Internet at work responsibly, but there's that ten percent that will run a second business, browse porn, read slashdot (oh crap). For various reasons, a company may not be able to enforce rules on a subset of the userbase (for HR and technical reasons) so everyone must suffer.

    3. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what Two-factor authentication means.

      Also, presumably customer service reps have a "need to know" wrt customer records. They can't have their access privileges reviewed every time they help the next customer.

    4. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The IRS handles it with audit trails. If you look up the tax records of some celebrity or politician, you better be able to show that it was work related. They fire people for unauthorized access to tax records.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Why not discipline staff who misbehave.

      I know punishing anyone for wrongdoing is a thing of the past, but it works.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make perfect sense in a rational world to discipline the people who abuse the system.

      That's part of the problem. In a responsible environment with responsible co-workers, there's no need for certain rules because everyone understands their role and does not abuse the system. But if there are no rules, then the irresponsible worker can abuse the system. Since there are no rules governing the behaviour that worker cannot be held accountable if they abuse it. I.e., an employee can sue and say, "How was I to know? It's not a rule." So IT needs to codify the rules.

      In addition, the rules cannot be so vague that it leads to selective enforcement. In that case an employee can say that someone else is also using the Internet at work, why aren't they being reprimanded??

      People who have worked on government projects or some union shops can understand what I mean.

    7. Re:Why there are draconian rules at work. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's not what Two-factor authentication [wikipedia.org] means.

      Yeah, but in a way he's right - two factor auth pretty much ends the "Bob knew my password" defense.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. Obama by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A ton of people were fired, and Val got a very nice check from T-Mobile.

    What will Obama take for his trouble? I wonder who he's been chatting with. I see here a few dozen calls to a payphone in Ottawa. For years people were suggesting the USA could annex Canada if a big enough crisis occurred. Little did they know that Canada would annex the USA after a major stock market crash.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Obama by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

      "a payphone in Ottawa" could also be a staff member to a number of foreign embassies in Ottawa

    2. Re:Obama by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I wonder who he's been chatting with. I see here a few dozen calls to a payphone in Ottawa.

      I did sign waves at polling place in western New Hampshire for the local liberty candidate. There were Canadians there waving Obama signs. They had been bussed in by the campaign (NYC volunteers too).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Really ? The people who illegaly obtained access to "Joe the plumber"'s records, and went on to check all sorts of things on him are still perfectly gainfully employed by the government :

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

    I guess it all depends what side you're on. Can't have peole being critical of the president, now can we ?

    Hey Olame-a - I'm waiting for my $5000. Without tax increase (and I'm paying ZERO taxes). After the election you became very silent on this point ...

  11. What A Joke by whisper_jeff · · Score: 0

    "Verizon says the people involved have all been put on leave with pay..."

    Leave WITH pay? Are you joking? This is easily the most offensive "punishment" I've ever heard of. Leave WITH pay is called a VACATION! That's not punishment! I find garbage like this to be more offensive when it's applied to cops who abuse their position or the like but it's simply offensive that any PUNISHMENT would equate with a VACATION. Leave withOUT pay is a punishment.

    Simply boggles my mind sometimes...

    1. Re:What A Joke by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, because they want to make sure not to punish any employees who were not acting unethically. Once they determine who did what, they'll probably fire the bad ones, and possibly take legal action against them..

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Employees with jobs deserve due process like anyone else. Otherwise the company opens itself to wrong

    3. Re:What A Joke by Angelyne · · Score: 1

      They also must be seen to have acted in some manner. Simply sitting on your hands while 'investigating' the situation would not have seen enough. But then suspending people without pay without sufficient reasons would have opened them up to a lawsuit. So this was their best compromise.

    4. Re:What A Joke by ShedPlant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parent comment does not deserve mod points. Individuals have been accused, are under investigation and innocent until proven otherwise.

    5. Re:What A Joke by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Damn right! Once people have been suspected they should immediately be punished! They certainly shouldn't be temporarily moved to a position where they couldn't commit further crimes while an investigation proceeds.

      In related news, I suspect that whisper_jeff is a child molester.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a punishment, it's standard procedure during an investigation. When the investigation is concluded then the people who broke the law will be terminated and could face charges.

      There are bound to be a lot of accesses on an important customer like Obama, some legitimately and some illegitimately. Since they don't know which is which yet, the standard policy is for everybody whose name appeared on Obama's records to be put on leave with pay, until the investigation finishes.

      This is because it would be bad to continue to give company access to people who have broken the laws (and are about to be fired), but it would also be unfair to punish anybody who had a legitimate reason to access the records (by withholding their pay). It's better to err on the side caution until it's all sorted out.

    7. Re:What A Joke by nbvb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you.

      For all the crud that comes around here about how Verizon Wireless is an evil company, I can tell you, they are a very fair and honest company. They truly believe in doing what's right - both by customers, and by employees.

      Obviously, things like call records and such need to be kept for some amount of time, both for troubleshooting as well as legal issues (court orders, etc.) That's a pretty serious responsibility. That's why you have audits logs every time that data gets accessed.

      The system works, apparently. The folks who got suspended with pay all had their hands in the cookie jar. From what it sounds like, they're going to be sorting out who was there for legit purposes (i.e. a technical issue, billing question, etc.) and who was doing something they shouldn't have been.

      I think suspending with pay is quite fair. If you were in those records, doing legitimate work, that will come to light, and you'll have suffered no loss. If you did something you shouldn't have done, well, that'll come out too and when that's determined, due process will catch up to you.

      Good call on their part, and frankly, I can't think of any better way to handle it. It's good to see that the right processes are in place such that employees can do their job when they need to, but it gets flagged when someone is doing something shady.

    8. Re:What A Joke by Xest · · Score: 1

      Not to overload you with the level of idiocy these types of places can bring through fear of union action but you'll probably appreciate the story I'm about to tell you or simply lose the will to live once you find out how bad some people actually are at managing.

      I used to work in local government over here in the UK. We had one guy who simply didn't turn up to work for 6months claiming he was ill yet never managing to provide a doctors note for anything other than the first month of sickness abscence. Sickness benefits are rather good in UK public sector in that you get up to 6 months sick leave on full pay followed by upto 6months on half pay and nothing after that.

      Still, management in the UK public sector hates to let you down with the levels of idiocy it can reach to and one might think simply letting him get away with it for 6 months was bad enough. But no, that level of incompetence just wasn't quite enough for them, they had to go an impressive step further, at the end of his 6 months on full pay they decided to launch and investigation into his sickness abscence and in doing so suspend him on full pay for the length of the investigation. Unfortunately management weren't quite content that they'd yet reached a level of incompetence whereby you just have to laugh it off because there is no explanation for it and so just to top it all off they managed to make the investigation last a year.

      So yeah, this guy basically got paid his full wage (£35k a year, or around $70,000 US at the time) for 18 whole months without doing even a minute of work.

      In a way I'm not sure whether to look up to this guy because that's a pretty impressive feat to be fair on him or whether to simply cry at the level of hopelessness public sector management runs at.

      Oh and did I mention at the end of the investigation rather than sacking him they managed to convince him to resign so he could go find some other schmuck that didn't check sickness abscence records and where he wouldn't have to explain that he was sacked from his previous role? Did I also mention that during his period of "sickness" he was seen shopping with family on numerous occasions and bumped into whilst he was enjoying a holiday in Spain by a colleague?

      By the end of my time in local government there was only one word in which I could think to describe the UK public sector and that word is "special".

    9. Re:What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've seen some dimwitted posts but this one takes the cake. thanks buddy.

      btw: when is slashdot getting and ignore flag so i can stop be bothered by people of this ilk?

    10. Re:What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The parent comment does not deserve mod points. Individuals have been accused, are under investigation and innocent until proven otherwise."

      First... They are not being investigated by a law enforcement agency in order to determine whether they will be charged with a crime.

      Second... This means that the traditional legal presumptions that you refer to which apply only to people who are in jeopardy of being convicted of a crime do not in this case apply. The fact is the company for whom they work has publicly stated that they are investigating who accessed the Obama account records and under what pretext. Verizon has no authority to enforce civil or criminal laws only their own corporate policy. When we examine the average corporate policy as it pertains to its employees we quickly notice that they are not held to the same legal standard with respect to how they handle our employment as the government is with regard to our civil liberties.

      Having written all that I agree fundamentally with your subject line, "What a Joke!"

    11. Re:What A Joke by zotz · · Score: 1

      Bingo. And in the meantime they don't want the bad ones in a position to get up to more trouble.

      There are a lot of things that seem to make no sense until you dig a little deeper.

      However, I wonder if the pay could be conditional and, in the case of the bad apples, recoverable.

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    12. Re:What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all the crud that comes around here about how Verizon Wireless is an evil company, I can tell you, they are a very fair and honest company. They truly believe in doing what's right - both by customers, and by employees.

      Sorry but what a total crock. Perhaps you could explain to us how participating in an illegal wiretapping program for the Government is "fair and honest"?

  12. Kilmer who? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never heard of him. You talk as though he was some kind of Super Star like Rajnikant.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Kilmer who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kilmer?...oh yea, the voice of KITT on the new Knight Rider. I knew that name was familiar!

  13. Transparency by xzvf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually you are strangely correct. We should have transcripts of every conversation with lobbyist, campaign contributors, and business relationships. A lack of vision into our corporate and political deal making has lead to many of the abuses over the last decade. If every non-personal conversation by corporate executives and government employees was recorded and made available to the public corruption and graft will be driven further underground.

    1. Re:Transparency by Kugala · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?

    2. Re:Transparency by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Underground- or... the RIAA will start calling their favorite congress critter with "honey, there's a problem with Bobby at school..."

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    3. Re:Transparency by das3cr · · Score: 1

      I guess we could just ask the Chinese. They seem to have all the details down.

      --
      Hurricane Island Outward Bound
      OB
    4. Re:Transparency by kellyb9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree... strangely. As an employee of a company, my conversations are on their systems, using their resources, so I would have to assume that they own those conversations. If the CEO of our company wanted to pull my records, I would have to believe he was well within his legal rights. As such, we, the people, should be like the CEO of this country. They are using resources that we payed for, and they work for us. So, as such, it's time to hand over those records... and pay us millions of dollars a year.

    5. Re:Transparency by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?

      Of course not. That's why we should get a law passed to make it mandatory. It'll be tough to pass, but I know a couple palms we could grease (off the record, of course)

    6. Re:Transparency by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      I agree but there's also the "matter of national security" paradox that there are no easy fixes for. I do think that the public has every right to know what their government is doing. Yet how do you prevent your enemies from accessing sensitive information that could compromise security while also letting the public know everything and not use "it's classified" as an excuse to pull the blinds over the public ?

    7. Re:Transparency by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I agree... strangely. As an employee of a company, my conversations are on their systems, using their resources, so I would have to assume that they own those conversations. If the CEO of our company wanted to pull my records, I would have to believe he was well within his legal rights."

      Actually, no...the phone is still fairly protected even in the work place. Unlike with email and the like which they can freely look at....they run into the wiretapping laws if they try to listen in on your phone conversations, even if you are using their 'systems'.

      The exception is usually on Govt. or DoD phones, but, in private industry, the wiretapping laws still hold.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?

      No, I expect them to be jailed when they violate the law. Of course such a law would never happen and would be tossed out (First Amendment) if it did.

    9. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "non-personal conversations"? Even if there is a law to that effect, I'd imagine the lobbyists' calls might become quite "personal."

    10. Re:Transparency by metalcoat · · Score: 1

      I know a few "people" that work at At&t and Verizon shops. They constantly dig through records of friends, lovers, etc. I have contacted both companies on several occasions to report them but to no luck. Maybe something will finally get done about this. Some sort of approval process before they are able to just surf through these records.

    11. Re:Transparency by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 1

      So if the politicians want to protect their privacy, they have to protect ours, too, by anonymizing those records. Neat. Or we could just trust telco employees. One of them has to have the passphrase anyway.

    12. Re:Transparency by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      As much as I would like something such as that to happen, I think there are other ways to solve the problem that don't involve perverting the American ideal and putting our elected officials into hell.

      Imagine being an elected official. You wouldn't be able to call your wife, your kids without it being recorded. Would you even be allowed to speak to them privately in your home? Would you be able to have a private discussion with their teacher? Would we grant them an exception for doctor patient confidentiality? What about attorney client privilege?

      I can't imagine calling myself an American if I supported a law that would destroy the humanity of the people I voted into office.

    13. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they can buy and sell the laws what makes you think 'we' the people could ever get this passed?

    14. Re:Transparency by daath93 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work at Social Security, we have Integrity Reports that show who we are pulling up, if its a famous person that may be flagged we have to show we have a valid Govt Reason for looking up the record. if I look up someone with the same last name as I have it flags, so I preemptively notify my supervisor that I don't know nor am I related to the person. If we do too many searches it raises flags and we may be audited. If its completely possible for a fairly low tech govt agency that still lags a lot in automation (though we are getting better every day), it should be more than easy enough for a "cutting edge" corporation like Verizon.

    15. Re:Transparency by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, the telecoms are required by law to keep records and present them in court even if they work against them if someone is accessing your records. The only exception to that is where the government or some other authorized agent represent the authority for the look-up or they are doing it for some reason to ensure the integrity of the service. In those cases, they basically walk into court and admit yes, we looked at those record because of this, and the judge drops the charges.

      This is why the telecom immunity bill wasn't actually immunity that wasn't already there.

  14. Constantly have these issues in health care by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a celebrity lands themselves in an ER (especially hospitals not accustomed VIPs) then we can expect several violations of HIPAA by unauthorized hospital staff.

    They just cannot resist no matter how many times they are warned about activity being logged and threats of dismissal upon violation.

    1. Re:Constantly have these issues in health care by e-scetic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hollywood is the US national religion, more popular even than Christianity. The mere sight of a film star drives the masses to ecstasy, people want to touch them...

      Some religions would hold that at least one commandment is being violated - something about false gods or idols or something

  15. There's an ongoing investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there is sufficient evidence to connect the suspected employee, they will most likely be fired or worse. Denying the suspected parties their pay is inappropriate until more sufficient evidence is found. Having them show up at work would be inappropriate as well.

    No, it's not an ideal situation. But what would you propose?

    Sure it's like a vacation. A vacation where you might be fired or charged with a crime. Yeah, I'm jealous.

    1. Re:There's an ongoing investigation by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's not an ideal situation. But what would you propose?

      At least transfer them to some non-critical area where they can do some productive work. I think they ought to make them wander around in the boondocks checking how many bars they have and testing if people can still hear them on test calls. For some reason, it seems Verizon needs to deploy teams comprised of hundreds of people to handle this task, so I'm sure that they always need more help in that department.

  16. Re:Data Theft by nate_in_ME · · Score: 1

    While I won't get into the debate over whether or not we elected the right person(for that matter, or the one about if we elected them), but in the President-Elect's defense, he has no authority to do anything except for pick his staff until the inauguration in January, so you're at least going to be waiting until then...

  17. What's the problem by strikeleader · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be public record anyway?

  18. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop whining for whining's sake. You lost, they won. You think change is going to happen before Olame-a- takes over? Not a chance.

    I hear RushIsRight.com is accepting applications for group-cry sessions. Maybe O'Reilly will create a how-to video for crying so you can do it the Republican way. Revamp or crying is your long-term future. :~(

  19. What's good for the Govt. is good for the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since Obama voted for FISA it's only fair that the people have access to those records too. :)

  20. Re:Data Theft by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really ? The people who illegaly obtained access to "Joe the plumber"'s records, and went on to check all sorts of things on him

    ["all sorts of things" means, specifically, his driver's record, and whether or not he owed child support]

    are still perfectly gainfully employed by the government

    And so are these people. Didn't you even read the summary??? Verizon says the people involved have all been put on leave with pay.

    "leave with pay" == "still employed." Sounds like a bonus, not a punishment!

    I guess it all depends what side you're on.

    Apparently not.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  21. Re:Data Theft by foo12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you think that the President Elect of the United States might have greater personal security concerns than McCain's version of a working class hero? This isn't a matter of "being critical of the president".

  22. Why would they have access to email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would Verizon employees have access to my email? Do the monitor and capture private emails sent through their service?

  23. Re:Data Theft by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

    You know it amazes me how sensitive people get about what was essentially a poorly thought out Republican publicity stunt.

    With the landslide McCain won with, you'd think people would be ready to drop these two absurd figures of the campaign, Sarah Palin and especially Joe the Plumber. I could care less if the Republican party has a future or not, but trust me if it does it doesn't include these two fools in any serious capacity. At least Palin seems to get a passing grade (D, but still passing) as Governor of Seward's Icebox.

    No though, we're supposed to care that some egomaniac Republican operative's feelings might have been hurt.

    Here's the thing, if I were John McCain, I would've had Joe the Plumber scragged after he failed to show up at an important campaign event and left me there looking like an idiot. You know, quick and painful. He had to improvise with that lame, "You're all Joe the Plumber" line.

    Not that I blame Joe, he knew the Titanic was going down and had book deals to sign and other things to do.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  24. Confiscate his Blackberry by Tarmus · · Score: 1

    I thought they were supposed to take away his Blackberry, for national security purposes, since he can't use email as President.

    1. Re:Confiscate his Blackberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. It was not a blackberry, and he was not President.

    2. Re:Confiscate his Blackberry by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      since he can't use email as President.

      He can't? Are you sure? Bush gave it up, but I believe it was voluntary to avoid it becoming pubic record. I could be mistaken though.

    3. Re:Confiscate his Blackberry by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure that was just for Bush. Those "rules" will be willfully circumvented/overlooked for Obama.

      (tongue in cheek)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Confiscate his Blackberry by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      What happens to president@whitehouse.gov?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  25. Nice red herring by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The President-Elect has a modern day Praetorian Guard protecting him. It would take either a professional team of assassins, or a very, very lucky suicide bomber/shooter to get anywhere near him. Joe the Plumber? Not so much.

    Joe what's his name can't help the fact that McCain made him into a working class hero. He also can't help the fact that a number of people on the left wanted to destroy him for having the audacity to ask a hard, serious economic question of Obama that made Obama look bad. One radio host even called for him to be murdered.

    So yeah, I'd say that he had more practical security precautions than a man who had the Secret Service protecting him and his immediate family.

    1. Re:Nice red herring by foo12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Presidents, President Elects and other high profile people are going to draw a far greater number of wackos than a private citizen vainly clinging to their fifteen minutes of fame. Obama's personal phone number and past calling patterns might well put him at risk and could very well put family, friends and associates at risk -- you might not be able to get at Obama directly, but how about a family member without a protective detail?

      And I really doubt that McCain didn't even get Samuel Joe Wurzelburger a courtesy call before turning him into a party platitude. Regardless, he certainly didn't shy away from the spotlight: junior stump man, book deal and record deal. He's certainly embraced the role of public persona but, just like every other person, does not deserve to have his privacy violated. But doesn't change the fact that Wurzelburger's notoriety is several degrees from Obama and is much less of a "target" for the crazies.

      For the parent poster to claim the reaction to this story is because people don't want to criticize Obama is beyond the pale. For me this story would carry just as much weight if McCain's phone rec were ords compromised or Bush's post-presidency records were compromised (presumably Bush and now Obama lose their personal line privileges due to public record laws.)

    2. Re:Nice red herring by taliesinangelus · · Score: 4, Informative
      Let's look at that "hard question":

      "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?"

      Obama's response:

      "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too"

      The "Obama is a socialist" bandwagon was hitched up to Joe Wurzelbacher based on this exchange. It wasn't really so much of a "hard, serious question" than a rhetorical device. If Wurzelbacher had wanted to be more serious about the question, he should have left it more open-ended. I hope that he does better with "Secure Our Dream."

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

    3. Re:Nice red herring by MikeRT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Presidents, President Elects and other high profile people are going to draw a far greater number of wackos than a private citizen vainly clinging to their fifteen minutes of fame.

      You mean like all of the wackos that came out believing that Obama was the second coming of Jesus? The reason I'm sympathetic to his security concerns is that I stopped supporting Obama because of all of the wild-eyed zealots the man was attracting to him. Not that I supported McCain, who had some lunies of his own, but Obama clearly had a lot more people willing to take any attack on him as deeply personal, as was shown when he was able to rally his supporters to shut down several radio stations that had Stanley Kurtz discussing Obama.

      Oh and that reference to the guy who called for Joe to be murdered? Not too hard to find.

    4. Re:Nice red herring by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Oh great, an obamaton

    5. Re:Nice red herring by taliesinangelus · · Score: 1

      Rather than namecalling I was hoping for more discussion. I clearly forgot this was Slashdot.

    6. Re:Nice red herring by ApharmdB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why politics stays corrupt. Both the parent and grandparent of my post defend the inexcusable actions of others when those actions help their side and profess moral outrage when the other side does the same thing. And they both get modded insightful by people that are defending their side.

      Neither Joe the Plumber nor Barack Obama's records should have been compromised. To defend one instance while castigating the other is hypocritical.

      But it is the nature of human grouping. People form groups and then expect their group to defend them when they have done wrong. If the group didn't, the group would not stay a group for long.

      Personally I'm glad Obama's records were compromised because it might teach him the importance of taking privacy seriously. Hopefully then he will stop the warrantless wiretapping.

    7. Re:Nice red herring by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you seen the entire footage of the exchange between Joe and Barack? Obama took a great deal of time to explain specifically how his plan would affect Joe's desire to buy this company. Frankly Joe looked a little stunned.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    8. Re:Nice red herring by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      , you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Nice red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might not be able to get at Obama directly, but how about a family member without a protective detail?

      Yeah, good luck with that.

      http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml:

      Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:

      • The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
      • The immediate families of the above individuals
      • Former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former president leaves office
      • Children of former presidents until age 16
      • Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
      • Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
      • Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President
      • National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
    10. Re:Nice red herring by jafiwam · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yup. Because EVERY person who expresses a bit of hope the country can be put back on track is an Obamajesus worshiping zealot whack job.

      Dude, the religious whack jobs are in YOUR party. What was being chanted at that famous Palin rally? Do you remember that?

      Stop projecting. Mobs of people chanting "kill him" are YOUR party asshole.

    11. Re:Nice red herring by Manchot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would take either a professional team of assassins... to get anywhere near him

      You say that as if there aren't people who might hire a professional team of assassins to kill the President. Anyone who has the money and the motivation to kill Obama could easily pay off a low-level Verizon staffer, or coerce them into doing so through other means (e.g., by threatening their family). IMO, the main question Verizon should be asking itself isn't whether these employees should be fired (though they probably should), it's what they can do to prevent this from happening again. Perhaps all phone records should be encrypted with multiple keys, so that no person in the company can access them alone?

    12. Re:Nice red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got very, very bad news for you. Joe the Plumber was a plant. He certainly could ask. And his question was based on false premises.

    13. Re:Nice red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link? As a non-USAian, would be nice to know wtf you people getting so upset over this time.

    14. Re:Nice red herring by NiceGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's funny since 90% of the people I see referring to Obama as "messiah" are right-wing.

    15. Re:Nice red herring by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Oh great, a know-nothing douchebag.

    16. Re:Nice red herring by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't a hard question. It was just a question which Obama had a hard time answering due to he nature of his (polarizing) answer. A simple question which a simple person wanted clarification on. I highly doubt he intended for it to throw him into the national spotlight; he likely just wanted to know if he'd be financially hosed by the purchase, and whether he should go forward.

      The thing that makes it such a "hard" question is because Obama's answer was halting and not planned for - it was ad lib. He didn't have a script to read by, and the true nature of his policy had a little light shone on it.

      This is hardly the first or only example of how or why Obama is a socialist. There is hardly any evidence available to support that he isn't; he's been involved in far-left socialist - dare I say marxist? - agendas since he was a teenager, and his rhetoric reflects that.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    17. Re:Nice red herring by Kingrames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe they both should have been compromised and I'm glad they were.

      Our politicians should not be keeping secrets from us. They are applying to be representatives of the people, and in most cases they already are.

      They should be willing to protect our privacies without expecting any of their own. And every time they expect me to sacrifice my anonymity just so that I can speak up against injustice, it makes me very angry. Our founding fathers fought anonymously in every way they could and went the extra mile against British Tyranny because they had to.

      And I keep seeing filthy redcoats wherever I look because people are so terrified of what's behind everyone else's curtains.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    18. Re:Nice red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I condemn you for your self-centered, one-sided defense of inexcusable actions."

      blah blah

      "Personally I'm glad that Obama's records were compromised because it helps me."

    19. Re:Nice red herring by TinoMNYY24 · · Score: 1

      No one is saying that spying on Joe the Plumber is right, or it's good to do. All security violations, especially when it reveals private details, are wrong. Palin's email break-in was wrong (though it turned up evidence of wrongdoing), Joe the Plumber's driving and tax record violation was wrong, and breaking into Obama's cell phone records was wrong. Don't hijack the thread with a "liberals are evil hypocrites" discussion. Though if you must, Joe the Plumber wasn't destroyed for "having the audacity to ask hard, serious economic questions", he was destroyed because he's not a licensed plumber, will never buy a plumbing business, and doesn't actually pay his taxes.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    20. Re:Nice red herring by rossz · · Score: 1

      Because the people think the politicians are above us, they allow them to get privileges that we, the great unwashed masses, do not get. That's wrong. The politicians are us (in theory). They should be treated the same way. Therefore, the people who accessed Obama's phone records and the people who accessed Joe's records are guilty of exactly the same thing and deserve exactly the same punishment. I might further argue that the government employees deserve a more severe punishment because they did it as an official of the government. I consider government corruption to be more serious than private sector corruption.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    21. Re:Nice red herring by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      It was a typical and very unspectacular campaigning meeting, which would have gone completely unnoticed had John McCain not repeatedly referred to him in the televised debate.
      As far as shining light on policies go, it's more interesting that McCain had to resort to stereotypes to explain his tax plan to people and convince them that they've really just got the same problems as a wealthy business owner.
      All of Obama's taxation policies can be read in full detail, and there's nothing that a rhetoric campaign meeting can add to that.

      If you think supporting the economic principles of taxation in the United States is what makes your destinction of a "socialist", then there is no need to start looking for "evidence".

    22. Re:Nice red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen John Hancock's signature?

    23. Re:Nice red herring by Barack+Hussein+Obama · · Score: 1

      You seem not to know the difference between words and actions. Still good for +4, though...

    24. Re:Nice red herring by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a hard question. It was just a question which Obama had a hard time answering due to he nature of his (polarizing) answer.

      It wasn't even a valid question. When it turns out that Joe was a poor man who had no chance in hell of even buying a plumbing business, the question was revealed for what it was: a fake question intentionally created to make Obama uncomfortable answering it. It's no state secret that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes for individuals and sole proprietors making more than $250,000 a year, so why not just pretend like you are one and ask why he wants to raise your taxes? That seems to be the strategy Joe used and while he was lying through his teeth about his earning potential, it left a few out of context sound bites the right wing media could latch onto.

      This is hardly the first or only example of how or why Obama is a socialist. There is hardly any evidence available to support that he isn't; he's been involved in far-left socialist - dare I say marxist? - agendas since he was a teenager, and his rhetoric reflects that.

      Citation needed. Oh yeah, you just brought out the typical right-wing nonsense "prove that he isn't a marxist." Sorry, but you need to prove that he is . You can't prove a negative. How in the hell did this get modded up in the first place? Damn right-wing troll mods I hope you lose mod privs on meta-moderation.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    25. Re:Nice red herring by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      You seem not to know the difference between reality and right-wing fiction.

    26. Re:Nice red herring by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      It's well worth watching.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

    27. Re:Nice red herring by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I tried to use a backwards logical approach such as that.

      A cursory google search will provide all sorts of evidence as to Obama's Marxist background - as much evidence as one can provide for a philosophical bent. His mom was a red diaper baby, he participated in multiple events throughout his early career which were the predominant field of Marxists, and many of his good friends and acquaintances throughout life have been avowed Marxists/proponents of activism to bring about Marxist change.

      Hell, the man's every word is doublespeak for Marxist agenda.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  26. You're paying no taxes; no income I guess? by slashbart · · Score: 1

    - I'm waiting for my $5000. Without tax increase (and I'm paying ZERO taxes).

    You're paying zero taxes. I presume your income is pretty much zero then; Personally I wouldn't brag about that.

    But then, people that come up with such pathetic nicknames are probably without much of a life anyway. Tell us, is your room in your parents attic or in the basement? We'd just like to know.

    1. Re:You're paying no taxes; no income I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was speaking more in the range of "I've spent my ENTIRE LIFE jumping through every single tax law loophole I can, AND THAT IS MY GOD-GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MY MONEY TO DO SO, and if you fix just ONE of them, then by GOD that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS for which my MILITIA BROTHERS will retaliate against this country!"

      Or, then again, that sort of person might not have anything in the range of money anyway.

  27. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to put the data in whose safe?

  28. Celebrities in hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just cannot resist no matter how many times they are warned about activity being logged and threats of dismissal upon violation.

    I've seen the same thing in hospitals I've worked in. It's amazing how unethical and/or weird people act around celebrities especially when they aren't used to seeing them. It's never been clear to me why an actor would be especially interesting to anyone off screen but people just lose their minds. It's bizarre.

    In my experience hospitals can reduce (but not eliminate) the HIPAA violations by ensuring that the threats of dismissal for unauthorized record access are actually carried out. It has to be a credible threat. The last hospital I worked at actually did fire people for unauthorized record access. Unfortunately so many people usually have at least semi-legitimate access to the chart that it isn't always clear when violations have occurred and someone has to police it which usually is expensive. Generally only the most egregious violations get caught.

  29. Who Cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have used a carrier other than Verizon. Shame on him for using Verizon. If he gets hacked, who cares? Should have used an official phone for official conversations. /cynicism off

  30. How about Joe the Plumber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't see any ranting and raving the press about the various government agencies that started checking up on Joe the Plumber after his 15 seconds of fame. I guess it's not interesting if Big Brother snoops on ordinary folks.

  31. Whats the big Deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for T-Mobile as a CSR, it was not uncommon for us to snoop and look at customer records, In Samson you can even search by name, and find all sorts of stuff (much of it useless, a search returning too much info was common), reminds me of an account for Motorola I saw that was past due over 500k. (Motorola wasn't the only one to have accounts like this, many large corporate accounts were much the same)

    Its not like we were sharing it among ourselves, or with anyone else, we would just take a peek now and again..

  32. Speaking of a red herring.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What radio host called for ol' Joe-the-P's murder?

    Besides, he's not the only one singled out for death by radio hosts. I've had people call for my death. Who am I? I bike-commuter.

    1. Re:Speaking of a red herring.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can't find which radio host called for Joe the Plumber's murder?
      See, you just search for your question, with "Plumber" spelled out: http://www.google.com/search?q=What+radio+host+called+for+ol%27+Joe-the-Plumber%27s+murder%3F
      Looks like at least one was KGO San Francisco Radio host Charles Karel Bouley.

    2. Re:Speaking of a red herring.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he said "I want motherfucking Joe the plumber dead."

      Wishing someone is dead is not the same as calling for their murder. English, learn it.

    3. Re:Speaking of a red herring.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want somebody to come and rape you in the night.

  33. It depends on the call by Explodicle · · Score: 0

    In fact, all government employees' and officials' calls should be recorded and made available for everyone's listening pleasure...

    It's our right to know what they're doing as part of their official duties. If the president wants a 15 minute break to talk to his wife with a phone he pays for out-of-pocket, then it's none of our business.

  34. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarah Palin scares the crap out of you, doesn't she?

    Heh.

  35. Re:Data Theft by kabocox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you think that the President Elect of the United States might have greater personal security concerns than McCain's version of a working class hero? This isn't a matter of "being critical of the president".

    You know my first reaction to this? It's a good thing that this happened. Why? Because it would take a data breach of a major government official before anything really serious is done about the problem. There is a part of me that really hopes that the president and congress get all sorts of personnel data stolen/breached just so they'll start to take the subject seriously.

    Now as far as the office of the President and the white house goes... I'd hope that however the white house has their cell phone plan that say that they have some contract and have 50-1000 (how ever many) phones and some peon is in charge of paying bills, setting up/backing up address books other info of officals and that the phone company shouldn't ever know which phones are assigned to which personnel. I'd actually want all their phone conversions encrypted and what not. (Actually, I'd want every cell phone call encrypted as well.)

    Now, if this happened to be his personnel cell phone before he became famous president/government official, I can understand how this happened. I'd hope the President of the US or heck of any country or major business has more important things to do than fiddle with their personnel cell phones/tech support/data breaches.

    I'll now have that mental image of the President spending an hour on hold trying to get through the cell phone tech support mini hell before he can complain to the cell phone management rather than spending time doing whatever it is presidents do most of the time.

  36. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by taliesinangelus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who modded this "insightful?" White supremacists? Good grief this is horrible!

  37. MSM Integrity??? In THIS Country?? by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >>That's probably because, with the exception of Fox News,
    >>the MSM still has a sliver of integrity left somewhere and
    >>won't game the headline that way unless it's possible to
    >>prove that the records were actually shared, as opposed
    >>to just illegally accessed.

    Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Gah, that was a good one. If after this election anyone can claim the clearly biased in favor of Obama have any integrity at all...

    The sad thing is the MSM is only beginning to realize just how badly they've screwed themselves here, and what they've done to their credibility because of it.

    I watched Katie Couric on Letterman the other night shifting and smiling uncomfortably as Dave bounced all over the place congratulating her and the rest of the MSM for their work in getting Obama elected. She just kept on glaring at him with her eyes as her smiles kept getting bigger and bigger...

    She knows what Dave doesn't--and that unless the MSM can quickly bury their involvement with this election the American public will remember and discount their biases come next election--something none of the MSM reporters, flacks, and punditry want, but far too many in the entertainment branches are drunk with power and won't SHUT UP about it.

    --bornagainpenguin

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  38. Telecommunications Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have a friend who works for Verizon Wireless and he read me the e-mail that was sent out to Verizon Wireless employees. I am not sure whether the e-mail I was read was released to the public as well but the wording in the article is practically identical. Some of the points made in the e-mail that was read to me were...

    That protecting customer data was not just the law but also company policy and in the best interest of gaining and maintaining customer confidence."

    Over the past several years we have all read here on slashdot how our private data whether it be medical or financial or relating to whom we communicate with has been released out into the wilds of the internet for public consumption. Either accidentally such as the case of a stolen laptop or given to law enforcement agencies who failed to comply with 4th amendment protections by filing for a warrant or subpoena. Didn't Congress just unanimously vote to grant retroactive immunity from prosecution for their complicity in these violations of the constitution?

    The e-mail with which I am familiar states that the account was in fact inactive and was not a smart phone such but rather a flip phone. While it may be the law that they cannot release customer data maliciously I don't know of a law or at least one that has been or will be enforced that would criminalize the actions of the employees who decided to take a "peek" at who our president elect had been calling. In fact the e-mail stated that the employees with legitimate reasons for accessing the information will return to work and those who accessed the data without legitimate reasons will be fired. Not arrested and prosecuted but fired.

    This hole seems to just get deeper and deeper with respect to the many ways people find to circumvent privacy and how for the people involved in violating the legal protections or corporate regulations in place to protect that data there seems to be no punishment or consequence. Fast forward a few months and the people who are fired for this are looking for work and give Verizon as a reference. Too bad Verizon cannot say whether they were fired and if so for what but only verify length of employment. These people just move on and do the same thing somewhere else.

    1. Re:Telecommunications Privacy by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Not arrested and prosecuted but fired.

      Actually, that's very legitimate of Verizon to say when it comes down to it.

      Verizon has zero legal authority in this matter. God only knows if anyone is ever going to get prosecuted in this case. You can't be brought up on legal charges for violating company policy if the actions were legal. And as you said, I don't know if there is a law against what those who violated company policy may have done.

      So they may well be in violation of company policy and still be legally in the right. Heck, my company can fire me for passing out political/religious materials while on the job but it's certainly not illegal.

      If nothing else Verizon may be saving themselves some time against a frivolous lawsuit of slander if someone gets the boot over this incident. It sounds outrageous but someone may be able to hold them liable for putting out a memo that would make it seem like anyone involved in the incident who violated company policy was also a criminal in their actions. Deumber lawsuits have been filed for less.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Telecommunications Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Verizon has zero legal authority in this matter. God only knows if anyone is ever going to get prosecuted in this case. You can't be brought up on legal charges for violating company policy if the actions were legal. And as you said, I don't know if there is a law against what those who violated company policy may have done."

      I am totally in agreement and that was more or less what I was alluding to when I wrote that the people involved would be fired and not charged with a crime. As we both agree Verizon may threaten prosecution, although they did not in this particular case but at the end of the day what we have is violation of corporate policy which also happened to result in an invasion of privacy for a Verizon customer.

      Something left out of my original post was... My friend tells me Verizon wireless caught this because they have a security team dedicated specifically to high profile customers. So it was practically inevitable that this abuse of access would eventually be revealed.

      I suspect that at the end of the investigation it will be revealed that no information regarding this account was given to the media or posted to the internet. What it sounds like is a few bored employees with access to customer records who cannot access /. looking for a way to pass the time. Still... if you are a customer of any company that has your home address, social security number, and the like this is just another sad example of what you can expect to happen to that data.

    3. Re:Telecommunications Privacy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      A flip phone is a phone with a clamshell design.

      People seem to be confused here.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  39. Re:Data Theft by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he's doing nothing wrong he's got nothing to worry about.

    Right?

    --
    No sig today...
  40. Joe? by kenp2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets see if they get the same slap on the wrist that government employees got for accessing Joe the Plumber's tax records, DMV records, medical records, and other supposedly private information.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  41. Joe was not an operative by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Joe was just a guy in Ohio. Obama came to his house to campaign. He wasn't an "operative".

    Do you guys even care that you're lying? Your guy won. There's no need to continue to smear and lie about Joe the Plumber.

    1. Re:Joe was not an operative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nobody said he was an operative, dipshit. However, they took a guy that wasn't an operative and turned him into one by building a campaign around him (which was pretty fucking stupid considering the guy doesn't even pay the taxes he owes now). In any event, given his history, it's very amusing that he was so concerned about a tax increase to people making over $250k a year. Moreso when you consider this guy will never make that much a year in his lifetime.

    2. Re:Joe was not an operative by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The post I was replying to said:

      No though, we're supposed to care that some egomaniac Republican operative's feelings might have been hurt.

      Joe was not an operative. The OP was lying about Joe being an operative.

      The campaign is over. You guys can stop lying for a few weeks. You can stop smearing Joe for asking a question.

    3. Re:Joe was not an operative by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      You're arguing a matter of semantics. The man crossed over the line into the public view when he started doing TV spots and signing book deals in a capacity as a republican pundit.* At that point, it doesn't matter who you are or where you came from, the simple fact is that by going into the public sphere like that you open yourself up as fair game to public scrutiny and criticism. In fact, he deserves to be scrutinized and criticized as any Republican OR DEMOCRATIC pundit should be. It would be a disservice to the country to simply accept punditry without criticism.

      So please, stop complaining that the man is being put under the microscope. When he crossed the line from the private life to the public view, he made the choice to open himself up to that. He was, by every definition I care to consider, operating in the capacity as a pundit for the Republican party. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him an operative. I'm not passing judgment; anybody is free to do so and it's by and large a healthy thing, but that's just simply what he did.

      * pundit. noun. a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.

    4. Re:Joe was not an operative by cromar · · Score: 1

      Hey good call! It's not like US Conservatives ever lie... oh wait. This just in: the level of political debate in America has corroded into name calling and allegiance to Red or Blue above all else. Or... was it ever not like this? I'm too young to know.

    5. Re:Joe was not an operative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The campaign is over. You can stop calling everyone liars now.

      I love seeing how much time is spent in modern politics claiming one guy smeared another guy by claiming the other guy smeared the first guy by claiming ...

    6. Re:Joe was not an operative by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Moreso when you consider this guy will never make that much a year in his lifetime.

      To be fair, the company he allegedly was going to buy makes (again, allegedly) over $250,000/yr. Unless the company is a corporation, it most likely provides pass-through taxation, meaning that the company's profits are treated as personal income of the owner for taxation purposes.

      Thus, if Joe the Plumber owned a company that made over $250K/yr (I'm assuming this means "netted"), he would be making over $250K/yr for taxation purposes.

    7. Re:Joe was not an operative by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      was it ever not like this

      I'd like to quote the campaign of the nice, respected figure Thomas Jefferson about his rival, John Adams, who has a

      hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman

      Adams, likewise, said of Jefferson being

      a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father

      So, no, it was never not like this. Except the older insults were much more colorful and daring.

  42. Re:Data Theft by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2

    check all sorts of things on him are still perfectly gainfully employed by the government

    really? Ted Strickland suspended Director Helen Jones-Kelley of the Job and Family Services Department for one month without pay
    She, although currently employed, for the next month is not gainfully employed (unlike the people accused hear.)

    Everything interesting that was disclosed was public record anyway, IE not a lic plumber, just a dream of someday making enough money to someday buy a business... Just a leading question by a guy who didn't care what the answer was because he had already decided (and was already campaigning for McCain.)
        I think Obama's tax plan would still be better for these small businesses, IE a guys who own their own profitable business get to choose how much pay they take away. So as long as he re-invests his profits in his (or other businesses) then Obama's plan is better for him. Only if he decides to cash out big time, would he have be penalized 6% more for not reinvesting in the economy.
    So I ask that, what is wrong with a 6% luxury Tax that encourages job creation, at a time when we want to encourage job creation?

  43. Memorable Fight club quote comes to mind by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us."

  44. Re:Collect? by neomunk · · Score: 1, Funny

    Didn't Rush tell you? It's because he's a crazy mixed-breed half A-Rab half Aztec TER'RIST! *waves hands spookily* Boogety boogety boogety!

  45. Re:Data Theft by j79zlr · · Score: 0, Troll

    My problem is that the media has aired more of Joe the plumber's background than Barack's. All he did was ask a question. Why is the left only tolerant when they are being agreed with? Where's the ACLU to defend this guy?

    --
    I'm not not licking toads.
  46. I think the average citizen being violated is far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    far worse.

    I can expect and do expect the President to be targets of this type of stuff and to have lots of people assigned to prevent it or minimize the damage. But when the power of government is brought to bear on an individual then it strikes me as very wrong and something that deserves more attention than what happened here.

    The simply fact is, abuse of government positions happens all the time but goes unreported because the press does not value the offense. Joe the plumber got run over because to the press he supported the wrong candidate and worse embarrassed their selected candidate. To top it off one of the investigating (read: abusing) government officials also favored the candidate who Joe did not.

    You can just go read all the pro-invade Palin's email on the hopes she did something wrong crowd here at /. to reveal just how warped this place has become. The number who defended getting to the email of a mere candidate were astounding and was purely driving my political leaning.

  47. Re:Data Theft by Abreu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    She surely scared the hell out of everyone outside the US...

    The idea of a creationist ending up in charge of the US nuclear arsenal gave me the creeps

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  48. Common Practice by davegravy · · Score: 1

    Employees access famous people's account info all the time, just out of curiousity. Such was my experience with co-workers during the summer I spent as a call centre representative at the local hydro company. After having the same phone conversation 100 times a day, people needed something to entertain them. "OMG Wayne Gretzky missed a bill payment back in 1997!!!!"

    1. Re:Common Practice by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that there are so many people who's lives are that empty.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  49. Re:Data Theft by Deitiker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just imagine the outrage if someone had broken into one of the candidate's personal email accounts, and posted pictures of their children and private conversations, or...uh...wait...

  50. Re:Data Theft by Fourier404 · · Score: 1

    All he did was ask a question.

    He got mentioned more than 50 times in the following debate, that's much more than just a question. There's also the fact that had it been his blackberry or voicemail, there is potential for sensitive information to be leaked, something we don't have to worry about with Joe the Plumber.

  51. Impossible to stop by cdrguru · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Think about it... people believe you can't stop drugs because people are attracted to them and there is an almost infinite amount of money to be made. Well, same with phone and hospital records.

    OK, how much would a sleazy tabloid (think National Enquirer) pay for Obama's phone records? What would they pay for a single phone number that was registered to someone that Mr. O should not be talking to? Be a hooker in Vegas or a low-level government employee in Saudi Arabia, such news would be incredibly valuable in the right hands. And nearly every single Verizon employee has access (although not legitimate) to this information.

    Similar thinks happen in a hospital, but the occurrence is lower. With phone records you probably have something worth selling every month. So the real question is how long is it going to take before there is a real market for this kind of information? Can Verizon (or any carrier) fire every employee that accesses the information improperly? Maybe, but probably not.

    I think we're just going to have to live with the new value of this information.

  52. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you see, the real Joe the plumber is pro-Jewish and works for his money.

    The left only likes people who kill jews and mooch of the government. That was the case in 1930 and that is the case now.

    If you haven't killed at least 5 jews or 100 americans the ACLU will not give you a second look. It's been that way for years now.

    The left defends the "jews are apes and pigs" religion lunatics as "victims" and helps them kill Jews. Muslims actually participated in the holocaust for religious reasons, and famously were the only nazi regiment ever to massively kill children. Google "ay aymin al-husseini". He was a lefty too.

    I know the obvious quote about history repeating itself. The only question I have is why these motherf@$%@#$@#$@$^T@$%@#$@#$ want to take me along for the ride ?

  53. MOD UP! by PadRacerExtreme · · Score: 1

    This was the first thing I thought of when I read the summary......

    --
    Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
  54. Re:Data Theft by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    A creationist ? Palin ?

    Are we talking about the same woman ? She's not a creationist. Her point is that you can whine about genesis all you want in religion classes and whine about evolution in biology classes.

    How does restricting religion to religion class make one a creationist ?

    Obama on the other hand uses the police to supress criticism of him. And that's proven, not some idiotic conjecture.

  55. The way our heathcare system does it . . . by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    Our healthcare organization has all sorts of protections against this.

    The first is obviously education and awareness. We have annual training that talks about what people can and can't do.

    We also have the ability to flag certain patients as "do not announce", which means that clinicians can't even mention folks are in the hospital. Furthermore, records can be marked as limited access, with only a few people being able to see them (this is rarely done, as preventing legitimate access is dangerous). What's more common is to "self-authorize" when accessing a patient you wouldn't normally see. They basically click a warning box and someone later reviews it.

    I would think that for telecommunication companies, it would be relatively easy to maintain a list of high profile phone numbers. If anyone wants to access those, a message pops up asking "Are you sure? A manager will be notified." If they say yes and have a valid reason, there won't be a problem.

    1. Re:The way our heathcare system does it . . . by eison · · Score: 1

      So you think that only certain special people deserve privacy? *Every* patient and *every* cellphone customer should be treated the same, no special lists and extra protections for the important ones.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
  56. Obama vs Palin by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    When Sarah Palin's personal email was compromised, she was enjoying the customary United States Secret Service protection extended to major candidates for 120 days before the election. As such, the Secret Service were all over the case as well as the FBI, and the fellow responsible was quickly identified and punished.

    What's different about this case? Why is Verizon able to play this whole thing off as some minor internal thing that's no big deal really when Obama is such a high proile target?

    1. Re:Obama vs Palin by kc8jhs · · Score: 1

      Due to the nature of the Palin hacker, that was classified as criminal action. This may or may not be criminal action.

      To be analogous, either Palin's email would have had to have been accessed by a Yahoo employee, or Obama's phone records been compromised by a non Verizon employee.

  57. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She isn't a creationist. She agreed that if a student asked a creationist question in science class that the question should be discussed.... how well do you think such a question would fare when being examined? Do you think no questions in science class should be allowed? Absorb TFA, comrade!

  58. Re:Data Theft by Abreu · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    No sig for the moment.
  59. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My problem is that the media has aired more of Joe the plumber's background than Barack's

    hyperbole much?

  60. Applied Common Sense by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    First, I believe that this whole situation, on multiple levels, is pretty messed up. I think when the Outrage, and Smirking, dies down, that the facts will most likely show that this was the act of a handful of people acting coy. And, for a short while, Obama's phone was our phone. But ignoring this article's implications, I think the tagging for this article should have been, "Warrentless, Wiretap, Felony, Stupid".

  61. Re:Its Val who... you idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of him. You talk as though he was some kind of Super Star like Rajnikant.

  62. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything interesting that was disclosed was public record anyway, IE not a lic plumber, just a dream of someday making enough money to someday buy a business...

    Newsflash ... Olame-a got elected. So that dream is done for.

    Instead he'll work on receiving his part of the "redistributed" wealth. Like any sane person would do. I just hope you don't have too much plumbing that needs doing ... cause there's a whole lot of Joes out there.

    Ofcourse, he could always join up with the "Obama-jugend" ... since that's going to be "as well funded as the military".

    Hey Olame-a, when do I get my 5000$ ?

  63. This points out the problem with ehealthcare by pcause · · Score: 1

    There has been a lot of talk about "automating" our health care and records as part of a move to Universal health care. This example of employees improperly accessing phone records should be cautionary when we think about automating health care records. We need to have logs of all access to anyone's records. We need to have strong security models and patient notification of any and all access to records. And, we need to change the law so that the media *MUST* reveal the source of any information leaked from unauthorized records. I know the first amendment folks will cringe at any requirements of disclosure, but the press has no rights to access or publish this kind of information, especially when the government forces us to provide it.

  64. Re:Data Theft by Abreu · · Score: 1

    Alternate views have to be legitimate first and proven.

    Just because your pastor told you that 2+2=5 it doesn't mean it has the right to be pushed in classrooms.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  65. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a sense of humour, nigger

  66. This is great news by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine a president that has a lot in common with your typical mis-profiled
    US immigrant or citizen that slightly resembles a terrorist, and that their lives, phone records,
    personal information were accessed without much worry of reprimand due to that new bill stating "we think your a terrorist, therefor we reserve the right to harass you".

    Finally he gets a taste of what its like for many people in the US, and might actually do something about it. However, I think it might just be down played to a level of breach of security on the part
    of Verizon, where they more so state "it was an act of vandalism, more so then a hate crime, or racially driven statement"

  67. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    The cost of a sense of humor to appreciate something like that is too high.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  68. Re:Maby? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    It's maybe. It's short for "It may be that..." it means the same thing as "perhaps" - the word you probably know as "praps".

    He prolly just made a mistake.

  69. Verizon Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oversight is OK though right? He has nothing to hide.

    If he stops the NSA from spying on domestics then I'll take back my comment.

    if you go into a wireless store and you give them your number they pull up your information to help you with your needs. So these people pull up peoples accounts everyday without having the customers in front on them to call them to help them with there bill or let them know about eligible upgrade. Whats the difference if you pull up this account from the average Joes account. I understand that some people just wanted to see even if this man had cell phone service through this company. It was stupid but hey everybody's human. Some of those people that might have come across that mans account are good normal people Americans and some might be bad people but Verizon should look into that and have some trust in there employees and remember Its Verizon Wireless is fault for having that information out there. Nobody should have access but one person who handles government accounts. So in perspective Verizon is to be blamed and not the men and woman who viewed this account because that's what these people do for a living. Yes some sort of disciplinary action should be taken but most of these people should not loose there jobs.

  70. Re:Data Theft by M1rth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No shit.

    The left-wing kook crowd (all too prevalent on Slashdot) seems to think that it's perfectly OK that someone broke into Palin's email, AND that un-warranted illegal checks were run countless times on anyone who had an actual critical question about Obama, and yet thinks it's not okay that someone wanted to find out who Obama was talking to on the phone?

    What if it turns out that long after he'd supposedly "cut off" certain people (Wright, Ayers, the various members of his campaign committee who had to be booted for connections to Hamas fundraising or lobbyist scandals, etc) he was still talking to them five times a week? Wouldn't that be a little "suspicious"?

    And shouldn't we, to use the same argument the left-wing kooks used to justify invading the privacy of Palin, "have the right to know"?

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
  71. Re:Data Theft by cromar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! And it's all the Liberals' fault!

  72. Funny, but what sprang to mind for me was... by tiqui · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Clinton administration snagging secret FBI background checks on all the nation's leading Republicans.

    2. Democrats illegally recording Newt Gingrich cell phone call and leaking it to the press.

    3. Democrat breaking into Gov Palin's e-mail account and plastering the contents all over the web.

    4. Hoards of Democrats in a bunch of state offices digging into every possible government record looking for dirt on Joe-the-plumber (the average citizen who dared question the messiah)

    5. Both McCain and Obama having their passport records breached

    6. The pregnancy of Palin's under-age daughter and details about her boyfriend being splashed all-over the papers.

    7. Palin's minor daughter's cell phone info being leaked onto the web

    Actually, I though of all the recent breaches by people in both parties, but there seems to be a fixation on Cheney/Bush, and a baseless presumption that Democrats value privacy, on the net that is a bit tiresome and some balance is required. The problem is NOT that the wrong people are in charge or the wrong people are the victims; the problem is that humans are corruptible and too much power in the hands of too few, with too little oversight, will always lead to trouble. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, eventually your people will be the victims and the other people will be the perps. Best that people on both sides hammer-out better rules to protect the privacy of everybody... while still protecting everybody from real harm. Anybody who only notices and gets upset when somebody in his political party is violated is somebody who does not truly care about privacy

    1. Re:Funny, but what sprang to mind for me was... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Most insightful thing I've seen all day.

      I'd further do a slight edit:

      "Anybody who only notices and gets upset when
      somebody in his political party is violated is somebody who does not truly care about privacy"

      This applies not only to privacy, but also to everything else as well!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Funny, but what sprang to mind for me was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from #1 and #2, none of the other ones were committed by people in "power" or anyone party-affiliated.

      3. College student guesses password to a Yahoo account using publicly available information. He may be the son of a politician, but it's incredibly unlikely that his father had any idea what he was doing, given the political risk.

      4. Ordinary government employees (i.e. not high up) stupidly/illegally look up private information for their own curiosity. Of course, they shouldn't be able to do that at all, but it's already against the rules and it's not easy to come up with a practical technical solution.

      5. Same as #4.

      6. This was done using publicly available information.

      7. Result of #3.

      Power corrupts, but it turns out you don't actually need that much of it to invade someone's privacy. In some cases, all you need is a web browser and an Internet connection.

      And we already have rules, but it's difficult to stop people from breaking them. There's probably some technical requirements that could alleviate some of the problems (e.g. require customer information to be encrypted) but there's just some things that can't be fixed.

  73. Re:Data Theft by Golddess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe GPs point was that no one is safe from having it happen to them, not that no one is safe from the consequences of doing the data theft. Obviously (sadly) if you're doing it on behalf of the government, you're ok.

    --
    "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  74. Re:Data Theft by M1rth · · Score: 0, Troll

    "It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

    Regarding you, sir, there remains no doubt.

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
  75. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Oh really? I thought the Constitution guaranteed certain rights (for example, freedom from unreasonable/unwarranted search and seizure) to everyone, not just government officials.

  76. Re:Data Theft by cromar · · Score: 1

    Likewise, dumb ass.

  77. Re:Data Theft by cromar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah I'm "a troll," and this dude is "insightful." If I have to hear "left-wing kook" or "right-wing Bible thumper" one more time, I'm gonna flip my fucking lid! There was a public outcry over the intrusion into Palin's email. And drop Ayers, Jesus! Start thinking critically and stop regurgitating what other people tell you. I could easily say similar things to some Liberals, but you are being a dumb ass right here, right now. I repeat: stop blaming "the Liberals" and 1. start having opinions that have critical thought put into them, and 2. start thinking of how you can help America not how everyone else is ruining it. That's just counterproductive self-pity.

  78. Re:Data Theft by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely sure that everyone agrees on certain aspects of advanced science, therefore by your logic, because they are yet unproven, should not be discussed at all.

    -Ed

    --
    So you see what had happened was....
  79. Re:Data Theft by jafiwam · · Score: 0, Troll

    You have a good point, note however you completely ignore one very important aspect of Palin's email break in.

    Palin was breaking the law when she used that email box for official government business in an attempt to deliberately hide it. (She said so in one of the emails in the box.) The "kids photos" were a side effect of her getting busted by a vigilante out to get her for doing something illegal.

    Obama, on the other hand, is probably not breaking the law using his personal phone (at least we have no evidence that he was yet).

    So, "break into Palin's email" = illegal, immoral, but has vigilante righteousness.

    And, "break into Obama's phone" = illegal, immoral, and the act of someone using illegal means in an attempt to "get" him as part of a partisan plot.

    Unfortunately, we (collectively) are going down a road that will be tremendously hard to back out of, politicians need some privacy (just like regular citizens do) to conduct affairs, and it is rapidly getting to the point where there is always someone in power who is on the "other" side who has access. An unfortunate side effect of the bogus "war on terror", Patriot Act, and other crap.

    Had Palin not broken the law, then yes, the two events would be equally bad.

    Claiming that the two events are equivalent is disingenuous bullshit. So, consider yourself called on it. Go climb back under your republican rock for 4 years please.

  80. Insider Info (Happened in Mass) by Thruen · · Score: 1

    For anyone who still thinks there could have possibly been a legitimate reason for this, think again. What's been confirmed to me is that roughly seven employees from a store in eastern Massachusetts (I know where, but there's no need to get THAT specific) were goofing around and were interested in Obama's records. They apparently didn't realize how seriously this would be taken. The (unconfirmed) rumor is that they were just bored at work, and someone thought it might be funny to look it up. They did not have any malicious intentions, but at the same time they had no legitimate reason to access the account. They are all suspended, and they will all be fired after the investigation confirms what the accused have already shared with other VZW employees. Don't worry about how I know, I just do.

    1. Re:Insider Info (Happened in Mass) by forceman130 · · Score: 1

      For anyone who still thinks there could have possibly been a legitimate reason for this, think again. What's been confirmed to me is that roughly seven employees from a store in eastern Massachusetts (I know where, but there's no need to get THAT specific) were goofing around and were interested in Obama's records. They apparently didn't realize how seriously this would be taken. The (unconfirmed) rumor is that they were just bored at work, and someone thought it might be funny to look it up. They did not have any malicious intentions, but at the same time they had no legitimate reason to access the account. They are all suspended, and they will all be fired after the investigation confirms what the accused have already shared with other VZW employees. Don't worry about how I know, I just do.

      Sorry, I'm always suspicious when someone tells me something and then says "Don't worry about how I know, I just do." Didn't Colin Powell use those exact words at the UN?

      Maybe it was really reverse vampires?

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
  81. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ends do not justify the means — and in fact illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court.

  82. Re:Data Theft by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was no solid evidence prior to a vigilante breaking into Palin's inbox that any law was broken. There may have been an investigation in progress, I can't remember right now, but that is NOT the same thing as substantial evidence or a conviction.

    With that single insight your entire argument about the relative moral and legal difference is destroyed.

    Since you saw fit to throw in a politically based insult I will now do the same. Please sir, get your head out of Barak's colon and get some fresh air. Your critical thinking skills are oxygen starved.

  83. Re:Data Theft by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    So, "break into Palin's email" = illegal, immoral, but has vigilante righteousness.

    And, "break into Obama's phone" = illegal, immoral, and the act of someone using illegal means in an attempt to "get" him as part of a partisan plot.

    Wow...talk about circular logic. How would we know if Obama is breaking law prior to getting his phone records? We don't, so we must first break in and get his phone records and only then can we make a determination.

    This is the EXACT same situation as someone breaking into Palins personal email. The only difference was that it wasn't Yahoo employees doing the break in. If you think this was a wrong against Obama, then you should be consistent and think that breaking into Palins email was also wrong. It makes no difference what was found once the breach occurred.

  84. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No. All of us should demand privacy to help protect those who need it and can't have it. Specifically for people who have secrets that they don't want publicly known. This is for anything that could be embarrassing if made public - gay black men, anal sex lovers, private slobs, cuckold husbands, slutty women, etc.

    My first question concerning the Pres-Elect phone information -
    1) who paid the bill? State or personal?
    1a) if the state, all the records and recordings should be made public 30 days after the event.
    1b) if personal, all the people who illegally accessed the information should be terminated.

    OTOH, as President, there is no personal anything anymore. So Pres-Elect needs to be prepared for all communications in any form to be public record - post Presidency.

  85. Re:Data Theft by tbannist · · Score: 1

    Did you bother to read what you quoted? Is "illegal and immoral" too subjective a term for you?

    FYI: "Illegal and immoral" pretty much means "wrong". I don't see how any reasonable person could come to any other conclusion.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  86. Re:Data Theft by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    All I can say is that, despite his 'privacy' being violated, I hope this phone number list makes it "out". Despite all of Obama's high-and-mighty posturing, he now appears to be playing the "same old cronyism" game with his appointments.

    It'd be nice to have actual proof of the backroom dealings so we might be able to bright it to light. If things keep going this way they are, he's going to leave Bush's cronyism in the rearview mirror.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  87. Varying levels of intrusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's important here to distinguish between "account records", "call records", and "trap & trace"...

    It appears that the Verizon employees were checking out Obama's account records, which is basically viewing his name, address, payment info, rate plan, features, etc.

    If they also viewed his call records, they could have garnered some information on the numbers he called, date & time of calls, general locations of the call origin & destination , and duration of the call. None of this would include the content of the call, but could still provide some interesting bits (depending on the level of detail in their call detail records). The same basic information could be viewed for text messages and data sessions, but again, not the content of those communications. This is the type of information available on your cellular bill, if you choose "detailed billing". This is still a major violation of CPNI rules, if they took it to this level, but that's not indicated in the articles I read.

    Lastly, there is "trap & trace" or your typical wiretapping, where you can record the conversation and/or content of the communication. This is a much more involved effort and requires additional tools and training to perform. I would expect anyone caught doing this without authorization (other than the NSA) to be prosecuted. I seriously doubt that's what happened here.

  88. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who modded this "insightful?" White supremacists? Good grief this is horrible!

    Yes, you're right. This shouldn't be "insightful". Make him release his fucking medical records, and perhaps put him through a standard background investigation for a Top Secret SCI clearance. Publish those documents and results, as those are insightful.

    Stop playing the race card. Labeling this "insightful" IMHO was more due to the complete and utter defiance to publish documents I've pointed out that SHOULD have been published long-ago.

  89. Re:Data Theft by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

    Research and coverage was done on "Joe the Plumber," and rightly so--he's a fraud. I'm glad everyone dug deep enough to uncover the fact that his name is actually Samuel Wurzelbacher, and he is NOT a plumber at all, but a criminal (tax evasion). And a Republican plant, on top of all that. Summarily: he's a piece of shit.

  90. Re:Data Theft by Danse · · Score: 1

    You have a good point, note however you completely ignore one very important aspect of Palin's email break in.

    Palin was breaking the law when she used that email box for official government business in an attempt to deliberately hide it. (She said so in one of the emails in the box.) The "kids photos" were a side effect of her getting busted by a vigilante out to get her for doing something illegal.

    How exactly is that point important in a case dealing with a citizen illegally accessing her email account? Especially since it was completely unnecessary since there was already an investigation in progress and at least four boxes of evidence (all of the emails dealing with state business sent by two of her aides were addressed to her yahoo email address). Those were related to a different yahoo email account that she was using, but they would have found the other one through that anyway. Regardless of his intentions, the kid that did it was a moron that broke the law.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  91. Re:Data Theft by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    I read what I quoted just fine. He seemed to think that Palins was okay since we supposedly found something and that Obamas was not okay. Since Obamas records have not been made public yet, we have no way of knowing if something illegal was going on.

    Both were illegal and immoral with no other ifs, ands, or buts about it. Justifying that going Palins email is okay because we found something doesn't work no matter how much the Obama lovers wish it did.

  92. Re:Data Theft by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

    Except the breakin found nothing incriminating. Seems your ignoring the facts and the whole due process along with the entire legal theory of "Innocent until proven guilty."

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  93. Re:I think the average citizen being violated is f by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can just go read all the pro-invade Palin's email on the hopes she did something wrong crowd here at /. to reveal just how warped this place has become. The number who defended getting to the email of a mere candidate were astounding and was purely driving my political leaning.

    Go to a left-leaning site and you'll find an astounding number of left-leaning idiots. Go to a right-leaning site and you'll find an astounding number of right-leaning idiots. The fact that you claim that this was purely driving your political leaning makes me suspect you're one of them as well.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  94. Re:Data Theft by j79zlr · · Score: 1

    Yes, no one goes by their middle name, he must be fraud. He actually is a plumber, just not a union plumber. He has a less than $1,500 tax lien not a criminal offense. It shouldn't have been about "Joe the Plumber" and about the question and response. Barack and the media just did a damn good job of deflecting, you are an obvious example that it worked. The DailyKos appreciates you regurgitating their misinformation for them.

    --
    I'm not not licking toads.
  95. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My alias is Samuel! My middle name is Joseph! I wear a thrift-store coat with the name "Zinkhen" stitched onto it! I'm a Republican and Terry Schiavo was a vegetable! I must be a fraud!

  96. Re:Data Theft by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

    He's still a Republican plant. He's connected to Charles Keating, of the Keating Five scandal (which McCain was involved in). The point is, the Republicans put him up there to confront Obama to stir shit up. It was not genuine (few things that come from the right ever are).

  97. Kennedy to Nixon by Irvu · · Score: 1

    Actually from Kennedy onward there was a practice in the white house of makeing tape recordings or other records of important calls. The most extreme example of this was Nixon who recorded everything. So you can at least get that info, a little late of course.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html

    Much of this information ends up in Presidential Libraries where it remains hidden for some time before being made public under the Presidential Records act.

    Congress on the other hand, thats different.

  98. Re:Data Theft by Danse · · Score: 1

    And shouldn't we, to use the same argument the left-wing kooks used to justify invading the privacy of Palin, "have the right to know"?

    So you want to use the same argument as people you describe as "left-wing kooks"? I think you may have revealed more about yourself than you intended.

    I think most of us here said that the kid that got into Palin's account was an idiot that deserved punishment. I don't know why anyone would want to argue against that in this case either.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  99. Re:Data Theft by j79zlr · · Score: 1
    The Right put Obama on Joe's front lawn? Interesting. Yes connected to Charles Keating , oh wait, that story was actually found out to be false. From your favorite website:

    Robert M. Wurzelbacher, son-in-law of Keating, was 37 years old in 1991 when federal charges were filed against Keating. It appears that he has addresses in Phoenix and Coronado, CA. The Robert M. Wurzelbacher of Milford, OH, a heavy donor to GOP candidates, is 83 years old and retired. They're not the same person. Digging to see if this guy is a plant or a hypocrite is a good idea. But I think it's equally important to know the link before idle speculation.

    I know you normally don't let the truth get in the way when you are trying to destroy the credibility of someone who disagrees with you, but this one is patently false. I understand it is hard to find the retractions when the media is in full on frothing-at-the-mouth mode, but seek and ye shall find.

    As far as McCain and Keating, Obama has far more nefarious connections with people of questionable backgrounds than that. I'm not sure that would be the best argument to make. Doesn't matter, he got elected by hook or by crook.

    --
    I'm not not licking toads.
  100. Buyer's remorse already? by mi · · Score: 1

    I've personally been very disappointed in Obama's nominations thus far, for exactly the reason you say you're happy with them, cronyism.

    The man is still a mere President-Elect, and you are already disappointed — not one new face so far, so much for the "Change we need". Hold that thought 'till 2012...

    I'd be disappointed too, had I been among the 98% of Obama voters, who knew so little about the ticket they pushed into White House:

    512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points. 97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates. Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions:

    • 57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
    • 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
    • 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
    • 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
    • 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

    And yet.....

    • Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
    • Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
    • And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
    • Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
    • Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

    So, my disappointment is merely with the fellow Americans...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Buyer's remorse already? by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, I'm not an Obama voter, for the very reason you mention (I made myself aware of the man's important attributes via his voting record). I'm one of those silly people that vote their principles even if it means writing in a candidate without a snowball's chance in Hell. Trying to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, so to speak.

      Having said that, I am a progressive (which means liberal leaning, as far as U.S. political discourse is concerned) so I do have a dog in this race, so to speak. I don't see my dog gaining much ground with the incoming administration though.

    2. Re:Buyer's remorse already? by Aexia · · Score: 1

      # 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
      # 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
      # 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
      # 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

      Only 34.1% could NOT correctly say Obama beats his wife!

      And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

      "Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of....We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."

      What she actaully said was ten times more stupid than Fey's "satire".

      OTOH, we do have this survey from 2004 where Bush supporters misattributed a slew of Kerry's foreign policy positions to Bush and then expressed their support for them.

  101. What a novel idea. by uhlume · · Score: 1

    It's called the Presidential Records Act.

    (Ah, but what's this? An Executive Order from President George W. Bush? I wonder what that's about...)

    --
    SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
  102. TOR-P by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Looks like we need a phone anonomizing solution. Of course only Val Kilmer, terrorists, plumbers and presidents would want it.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  103. God's number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Obama is the Messiah, I am sure he's had one on one's with God. Now we all can have his # and stop all this silly praying...

    I, for one, will start praying via Text Message.

  104. Re:MSM Integrity??? In THIS Country?? by dedazo · · Score: 1

    The MSM didn't get Barack Obama to the White House. George W. Bush and Sarah Palin did.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  105. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure if they dug deep enough, they'd discover barack obama (or is it barry soetoro?) is a fraud.

    But I'm sure you now realize that, seeing as "change" now means "retread washington insiders"

  106. Re:Data Theft by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    I think he said both were bad just one was more bad...

  107. Re:Data Theft by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Justifying that going Palins email is okay because we found something doesn't work no matter how much the Obama lovers wish it did.

    Especially since nothing (illegal or unethical) was found.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  108. Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the funniest thing I have read in a long time

  109. Re:Data Theft by illumin8 · · Score: 1

    Hey Olame-a - I'm waiting for my $5000. Without tax increase (and I'm paying ZERO taxes). After the election you became very silent on this point ...

    Thanks for trolling. He already said that if you don't pay taxes you won't get any money back. Nice try, though.

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  110. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't you get the memo? Change means not pissing away all of our change by starting wars and fucking up the economy.

    Change is not electing another student of Karl Rove, aka Bush 3. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not change.

  111. Re:Data Theft by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

    I'm with ya M1rth. You're not alone on /.

    Not everyone here is a liberal pussy. At least we know two of us aren't.

  112. Re:Data Theft by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

    Mode parent ^

  113. Re:Data Theft by cromar · · Score: 1

    Ooooooooh. Damn dude. You told us.

  114. Re:Data Theft by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    Exactly. I quote from the article :

    Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.

    "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."

    That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.

    "My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

    Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."

    She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

    "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

    To me this sounds a lot more scientific than your average nutcase. Of course any real scientist would want balanced discussion, weighing of the alternatives, knowledge of the theory's assumptions and doubt. Above all, a scientist would want doubt. He'd want anyone and everyone to try to poke holes in his theories. That's the way science moves ahead. If in a discussion the right theory doesn't gain an advantage then there's obviously something wrong with the theory. As long as they don't prohibit kids from learning about evolution, nor force creationism into biology class. I think it's a very positive, a very scientific way of doing things.

    They might learn ... (oh the horror) ... convincing arguments that creationism is wrong. They might actually become able to challenge a creationist. They might actually become able to point out flaws in theories. I guess some evolutionists are just as bad at tolerating criticism as religious loonies are.

    And her personal views ? I guess for atheists (even though I am one) freedom of religion is only for them, not for others. If one's not an atheist, the government is not for you ... If that were true 50 years ago, atheists might have been massacred the way they are in muslim nations today.

    And let's not forget her opponent :
    -> only won his first election by forcing (some say blackmail was involved) his opponents of the ballot
    -> accepted the following statement as one of his main religious principles : "If there's a God for white people we must kill him", and there's a lot more REALLY bad stuff there. Obama's either a racist, or at the very, very least, very tolerant of extreme racism. He may not be a Hitler but he's got Chamberlain beat.
    -> was one of the directors of ACORN, which is involved in massive voter registration crimes all over the country
    -> is at least a closet communist, if not worse.

    I mean let's not pretend that Palin has the more troubling ideology amongst the candidates.

    Why is there so much tolerance for people with "scientific" opinion with such entirely anti-scientific opinions like :
    -> we know everything
    -> everything we "know" is correct
    -> everyone else is wrong (given that not all atheists and scientists agree, this is especially stupid. E.g. nuclear power, or (A)GW, or ...)
    -> that there can be no doubt, instead of constant doubt

    For the record : I believe in GW, but let's not forget that it's basically a series of computation results, which fail to reasonably predict the most active temperature influence on earth : the sun. They failed to predict that 2005-? would be cooling years, and would cool the globe of a LOT. Furthermore they predict continuous warming moving farther into the future, which is obviously wrong (at some point input/output will obviously balance, no matter the level of co2 in the athmosphere). So there are alarmingly large margins of error in this theory and in reality we'd best give

  115. Re:Data Theft by DarkMinds69 · · Score: 1

    He's White...Nuff said...

  116. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but GP isn't alone... about 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. How's Obama going to lower taxes for 95% of Americans like he promised?