Obama's Twitter Account "Hacked"

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "A 24-year-old living with his mother in France was arrested for 'hacking' into Obama's twitter accounts. (Warning: WSJ does obnoxious paywall things. Your miles may vary.) Apparently he guesses the answer to a question related to password recovery in order to break into the accounts of famous people; he has no computer science training or financial motive. He posted screenshots to a few boards and twitter found out within a few hours, either from a tip or from noticing when someone from France logs onto twitter as the President of the United States. (He did not actually tweet as POTUS, but just wanted to show he could break into the account.)"

Comments

He shouldn't be arrested

[Monkeedude1212]

Apparently he guesses the answer to a question related to password recovery in order to break into the accounts of famous people

If thats all it takes then the system is broken, not the people abusing it.

Re:He shouldn't be arrested

[magsol]

Or the users need to cease using common knowledge as the answers to these not-so-security questions.

Re:He shouldn't be arrested

[girlintraining]

If thats all it takes then the system is broken, not the people abusing it.

Yes, blame the victim. You didn't install triple deadbolts on your door. It's not my fault all your stuff got fenced by me. Jeez, I mean, what do you expect a criminal to do? Hey, btw -- what kind of slashdot poster are you, I didn't find any ramen to eat while you were out running errands either. I really wanted to have a snack after cleaning the place out. Ungrateful jerk...

Re:He shouldn't be arrested

[Monkeedude1212]

The "Security question" system in itself is the weak point in most security situations.

Mother's Maiden name?

Pet's first name?

Favourite Band?

How long do you think it would take to brute force any of those with a simple script? There's no point in making sure your passwords Really strong if your security question can be as weak as a noodle.

Re:He shouldn't be arrested

[DragonWriter]

If thats all it takes then the system is broken, not the people abusing it.

Its pretty trivial to break into most homes, cars, etc., but when people actually do it, we consider their actions to be the problem.

I don't see why the fact that it is a computer system means that there is suddenly nothing wrong with the actions of the person deliberately breaking in.

Sure, its fairly trivial for an online service to institute better security than "guess an fairly easy question and get access", so there are grounds for saying that the system has a problem. Its another thing, though, to go further and say that it is the system and not the intruder that is the problem.

Re:He shouldn't be arrested

[girlintraining]

Having a security question that is easily guessable is like leaving your car door unlocked. I wouldn't be surprised if it got stolen. Simple as that.

You know, bathroom locks in most homes and apartments can be opened with a straightened paper clip. There's a reason for this: You can't accidentally open the door, but if there's an emergency (say someone has a fall, or locks themselves in to overdose on pills) the door can be easily opened.

Pointing out the flaws of the security system don't relieve the person overriding it of their ethical responsibilities to their fellow human beings. Most security exists merely to satisfy the restraint that breaking it isn't accidental, because strong security can impede a variety of legitimate activities. As one example, my cousin lives with roommates who steal her pills, so she had a lock placed on her bedroom door. However, she needed me to get into the room while she was away to get some paperwork. So I fashioned a simple lock pick and gained entry (with the owner's permission). The average person would be unable to do this, but as a security expert, I can. However, I did not do so without permission, because that would be a violation of privacy, however trivial it was for me to actually open the door (about 5 seconds).

The weakest link in any form of security

[Sabz5150]

is always the human being.

Good.

[geekoid]

Having a password clearly dictates the intent of the person is not to allow other people to use it.

If a door is locked, then people know they shouldn't enter and kicking in the door would be a crime... or at least very rude.

Not "hacking"

[bsDaemon]

I don't even see how this can be dignified as "hacking" -- it's not even "script kiddy" in its complexity. If this weren't the President then I doubt it would even be news at all. But is the account even actually Obama's in the sense of, he actually takes the time to post on it himself? Doesn't he have a country to run or something?

it is simple morality

[circletimessquare]

that if you transgress against someone else, you are the problem

for example: if a bag of cash is sitting wide open and unguarded just inside an open door, you have absolutely 0% right to take it, and you are 100% to blame for the theft: YOU took it, no one told you to. your own poor decision making is the key

no matter how horrible or nonexistent someone's defenses, when you transgress against them, you are a criminal, you are 100% culpable, you have no excuse, you should be punished, and your morality sucks. plain and simple

sure, people SHOULD have good defenses. mainly because of all the immoral assholes out there. but even that you knew there were a lot of immoral assholes out there and their behavior is pretty predictable, none of that excuses the actual immoral assholes and their behavior. but another way: stupid is bad, but evil is always worse

so you need good defenses, but when you are transgressed against, the question of the quality of your defenses is completely besides the point: the immoral asshole needs to be punished

that's kind of funny

[circletimessquare]

considering the fact that

1. vitriolic hatred is pretty much all of the tea party consists of,

2. sound fiscal responsibility is finally what this health reform delivers,

3. health care security is unconstitutional only in creative crackpot legal arguments,

4. and free market principles do not answer every question in life (as the 2008 meltdown demonstrates: you need strong government regulation to keep the markets healthy)

a capitalist society with social safety nets is clearly and obviously superior in every measurement to the social darwinism i hear you advocating, even if you don't realize that is what you are advocating. free market fundamentalism died in 2008, i guess you didn't get the memo