Slashdot Mirror
Court Allows Arkansas To Hide Wikipedia Edits
rheotaxis writes "A circuit judge in Arkansas will not order the state to reveal where its computers were used to edit Wikipedia articles about former governor Mike Huckabee while he was running for President. Two Associated Press journalists used WikiScanner to track the edits to IP addresses used by the state. Writer Jon Gambrell and News Editor Kelly P. Kissel filed a suit in October 2007 asking the state to reveal which state offices used the IP addresses, because state rules don't allow using computer resources for political purposes. The director of the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, Claire Bailey, claimed in court that releasing this information would allow hackers to target these state offices."
What, you need more then a IP to hack a computer?
It is certainly a fine concept to want a fully transparent government. We (at least those of us here at Slashdot) demand the same of our operating system. And likewise, we try to argue that "security through obscurity" is a useless endeavor.
However, the security of systems relies at some point on the obscurity of certain pieces of data. Whether it be a user password or a map of a network topology, the information itself has no real reason to be made public just for the sake of openness, one could argue.
Even considering that the system may have been used inappropriately, is the crime worth the possible destruction of the entire network at the hands of hackers? Shouldn't there be a great deal of discretion when risking opening up of confidential information that could have a severe detrimental impact on society as a whole?
Should that circuit judge be able to keep their job?
After all, he's blatantly participating in a cover-up of illegal activities in the Arkansas state government.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
This isn't about transparent government v security. Security through Obscurity is the well known worst approach to security that you can have, because if anyone ever does get that information (hell bribing a sys admin can't be that hard if you really want the info) then your have no security.
Its a bogus claim and a bogus judgement. If they were claiming that it shouldn't be released because editing Wikipedia isn't actually a political thing anyway then I could see a reason to toss it out. But the risk of hackers "targetting" bits of the network is just plain bogus, the implication is that these IP addresses are therefore in some secure part of the (ARKANSAS!) government and those IP addresses have already been released. What is being asked is a map back from a known IP address to its source. Claiming that knowing the physical source would some how make security worse is like saying that "Sure you have the keys, you know where the front door is and you can get in.... but I'm not telling you the NAME of the house".
Having the IP address is like having 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the keys to the door but the government not telling you that it is called the "Whitehouse" for security reasons.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The real problem for Gov Huckabee is that if he plans to run again for President this will become an issue - an IPGate that he wants to avoid so it can't be used against him. Of course, the press will start to look for other ways to get the information. Of course, the real problem is the coverup - did the Gov order the information not to be released? Did he know someone in government was using official computers for political purposes?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It's true ! Releasing this information would allow hackers to target these state offices in person.
When I read that the "state rules don't allow using computer resources for political purposes" it seems clear to me that someone broke the law by using one or more State of Arkansas computers to perform the edits. The decision by the State court tells me that they are either clueless about technology or there's collusion between State agency's. Now, that couldn't be?
To say that I don't have to provide information in a criminal case because my computer could be hacked is laugh. Come on! ANY public IP address can attacked. The IT director is not telling the truth because she's either ignorant (and misinformed by her staff) or outright lying. She should be fired either way. Then again, lying seems to be a job requirement for most leadership positions within government nowadays. Maybe she gets a raise?
It's simple, a public IP address was used to break the law. The organization should be required to identify the internal machine that used that use that public IP address. Unless of course they no longer have the logs to provide that information. Oops, your honor, the logs weren't working during that time.
This story stinks of government corruption.
When Reverend Huckabee runs for president again in 2012, just remember then that you can't see how much of his Wikipedia entry was cooked by his staffers still buried in the Arkansas government he controlled up until he ran for 2008.
Consider how Reverend Huckabee destroyed evidence on many state computers to cover probable crimes (hard to prove when he's destroyed the evidence) when he left office in Arkansas to start campaigning for president.
Reverend Huckabee stands for faith based government. Why shouldn't he rely on a "mysterious hand" to improve his image?
And keep in mind just how much power he'd have with a covert government built on the foundation installed by Bush/Cheney.
--
make install -not war
Why don't you sign in and say that ;)
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Knowing the name of the agency and the building would make it easier for reporters to pursue the truth about who did the editing and why. You can't question a suspect until you obtain knowledge about their current location and their presence at the place and time of the incident being investigated. It's not about computer security. It's about government agency PR and legal liability.
But the architect's drawing of the bank could reveal it's actually not very secure at all, if it reveals a point of attack that's easier than going after the vault door.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Obviously the notion that they can't provide the IP information for security reasons is bogus. But could we not look at this decision as a win because it may set a vital precedent for similar cases in the future? The government has ruled it cannot be forced to give out IP information on people accused of wrong-doing on the Internet. By this logic, neither should ISPs or people who run a website be forced to surrender their logs at request. Surely the government wouldn't take privileges unto itself that it would not give to its citizens, right?
Internal network topology is a way of organizing a network for administrative purposes, and is in NOT designed, nor CAN be be designed, to provide security
Ever heard of Network Admissions Controls?
802.1x Authentication?
The largest threats to IT security comes from internal users and internal physical access.
Locking down internal access to your network resources is one of the biggest steps you can take towards improving security. The number of organizations who leave lots of unused RJ-45 wall jacks around their office buildings actively patched into hot switch ports is astounding. In that situation, all it takes is someone with a laptop and a few freeware software tools to plug in and do all kinds of "nifty things" on such a network.
I'll take that truth, (where masses of ordinary people peer review said truth) versus the "truth" we get from mainstream news networks.
If we still had the mainstream media of those days I would agree with you. Things are utterly and completely different now - we have a corporate/government controlled media with an agenda.