Anatomy of a Privacy Nightmare

itwbennett writes "Gennette Cordova knows first-hand how impossible it is to erase yourself from the Internet. The 21-year-old college student was the hapless recipient of a photo of a Congressman Anthony Weiner bulging in his boxers. Ms. Cordova then 'watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location, links to any social networking site I've ever used, my old phone numbers and pictures have been passed along from stranger to stranger.' She then tried to remove her personal information from the web, one social network at a time. But the fact is, 'until a site's Webmaster removes the offending content, it will remain accessible via search engines like Google,' says blogger Dan Tynan."

Comments

Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[eldavojohn]

It happened to her. Just like one day it could happen to you.

No, it won't. But that's just because I am one boring person and I don't share much online. But hats off to your ridiculous fear mongering. While Gennette Cordova herself wasn't a celebrity or public figure, she worked for one and probably should have been careful about broadcasting that to the world.

I don't care if I work at goddamn McDonalds, I'm not going to associate my employer with anything online. One day I'm going to get done with work, get on twitter/facebook/slashdot and paraphrase Fight Club:

Because one of these days some manatee is going to come into the restaurant demanding his slaw and this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from drive-thru to drive-thru with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into customers and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.

And I'm not going to be fired for venting.

In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!? No? You grasp that concept?! Well what is so hard to grasp about putting your freaking life story on the internet only to be shocked when it's fed back to you by everyone on the goddamn planet?! It was true then and it's true now. Keep what you want to remain private as private. What changed after she got the photo that suddenly made her aware that everyone can see her profiles? What changed? Now other people are posting that same information? Because it was publicly available to anyone and any search engine? Ridiculous. Hoisted by her own petard.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[RazzleFrog]

Did she work for him? Everything I read said she was just a student and had never met him. I haven't read that much, though, so I could be wrong.

And a lot of these things she didn't even put on the internet. Go to a site like Spokeo.com and put in your name. I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Omnifarious]

No, it won't. But that's just because I am one boring person and I don't share much online. But hats off to your ridiculous fear mongering. While Gennette Cordova herself wasn't a celebrity or public figure, she worked for one and probably should have been careful about broadcasting that to the world.

Oh, yes, it's her fault for revealing who she worked for. I love your logic. Do you apply that to women who wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys too?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[jaskelling]

To an extent, you're correct. The pictures, current location, etc. are items she put online herself and only she can be blamed for them coming back to bite her. HOWEVER, things like phone numbers, former addresses, drivers license information, income from tax returns, associations via family members, past properties owned or rented, and MUCH more is all available online from public databases. They're there for the taking by anyone who has the time and/or money to do the searches. In that case, that is information that neither she nor anyone else has any control over. Get one bit and it's easy to link to others through a myriad of ways. Can it happen to you? Yes. Is it likely? No. But don't believe that staying off of social networking sites and the like will keep your information off the internet. That's just sticking your head in the sand.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[bigstrat2003]

Nice attempt to deflect the point. While she may not have deserved what happened to her (much as rape victims don't deserve to be raped), she could have taken steps to minimize her risk (much as women would be well-advised to not wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys).

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as an example, though.

There is a fellow in Vienna, VA named David Johnson who is interested in buying Wolverine Origins, Kurt Vonnegut, and some MTS3K videos.

Seems like he also dressed up as Joker on Halloween in 2008 and perhaps has a cute Asian GF? Likes smoking cigars.

I've not even heard of half of the bands this fellow likes. Maybe I am just old. Squij mix?

Get the idea?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[icebraining]

I assume you leave both your home and car doors unlocked, since its not your fault if someone steals something from your house or you car.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

> I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.

You probably paid a settlement company to register your title at the local courthouse, and you even paid the fee. Public information is, well you know, surprise!

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[RazzleFrog]

That's exactly my point. There is a ton of information publicly available that I didn't directly put there myself.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[countertrolling]

Parent is not a troll... It's only saying the truth nobody wants to hear. These damn whiners need to learn about life in the big city, and grow a skin, 'toughen the fuck up', whatever.. This is all a thinly disguised attempt to get the authorities involved and justify censorship.. Screw them..

Christ! It wasn't even Weiner's wiener, so the damn summary is way off

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Gordonjcp]

Go to a site like Spokeo.com

Doesn't even get the right country for me. Not even the right continent.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[hedwards]

It is, however the rules on all that was made back well before the internet or even the grandparents of the people who would eventually create the internet were born. There is ultimately no solution to the problem so long as the media feels entitled to release the names of people who may or may not have done anything wrong. It's one thing to release the names of politicians that have been caught cheating, it's quite another to release the names of people who just received the photos with or without any participation on their part.

Perhaps what we need to do is loosen up on the libel laws to allow people who get ensnared in somebody else' scandal to file suit against the papers that ultimately libel them. There's no reason why a paper's profit motive shouldn't be sufficient to replace the normal malice requirement.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[CrispyZorro]

she put online herself and only she can be blamed for them coming back to bite her

I think it is interesting that the conversation turns to putting fault on the victim for not protecting his or herself rather than the turn that society has taken where nothing is off limits. Look no further than the competitive-strategy choice of reputation destruction over demonstration of competency. In an ideal world we wouldn't reward this behavior with our attention.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll accuse him of being Aladdin Seine from Minnesota.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[donscarletti]

Do you apply that to women who wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys too?

We all know that women in skimpy outfits should stay in open, well lit areas where the the male and lesbian population can enjoy looking at them. That's how those stories got started.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[jhoegl]

I agree, doing nothing social is both safe and lonely.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[EvilStein]

I hate shitsites like Spokeo because they decided to opt you in to their "service" first, and you have to specifically go opt *out* - which I did. At the time, their process sucked, and they pretty much required you sign up for their site in order to opt out of their shit.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you used a bad example, since the settlement company was your lawfully paid agent. If you did not know what you were hiring someone to do on your behalf, then you should have read some of those papers you were signing. That is my point.

Had I, a random, snarky AC, posted your home's value online, you would have a point.

Or maybe you meant that you did not realize that "filing at the local courthouse" == "publicly posting". It does. You essentially hired someone to post information about you and now seem surprised about it since you didn't do it yourself.

If this was an example of someone taking a picture of you showing off your new Chilly Willy tattoo at a party and then posting it to their Facebook page, then I wouldn't argue your point. I agree that there is a lot of information that some would consider private in public places that people did not place in public themselves, I just feel you used a bad example.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent baldly asserts many things, apparently with the end in mind that a woman shouldn't be taking penises day in and day out from every passerby. I hope I don't need to point out what's wrong with that logic.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing picture swap with a married man and a member of congress are both pursuits that are obviously going to end well.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between culpability and responsiblity. The rapist is culpable, the woman wearing a skimpy outfit in a dark alley in a seedy part of town takes on responsiblity for being raped due to her actions. Being an adult is understanding that actions have consequences, and assuming responsibility for your actions and their consequences.

I am a hispanic male with a noticeable accent. If I went drinking at a known local white power or skinhead bar and got beat up, stabbed or shot, I would not be culpable, but I would be responsible for being beat up. Same thing if I went walking wearing expensive clothes and jewelery in the middle of the night in a high crime area. As an adult, I should be able to predict those very likely outcome from my actions.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Dipsomaniac]

Doesn't have any record for me at all, and my name, as far as I know, is unique in my country.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[somersault]

In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!?

I'd be pretty damn surprised. I don't think that many serfs could read in 1568.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[david_thornley]

Then you used a bad example, since the settlement company was your lawfully paid agent. If you did not know what you were hiring someone to do on your behalf, then you should have read some of those papers you were signing. That is my point.

Except that that's not a useful reply.

I've done numerous things that are matters of public record, including buying a house. This means that there is, perforce, a lot of information available to others about me. If I didn't want that, I couldn't buy a house, marry, divorce, reproduce, or do many other things people rather want to do with their lives. If you want to rent a decent apartment, it helps to have a good credit record, which means having a credit record. Basically, if I want to live a halfway normal life, I leave a large public trail.

Also, the meaning of public information has changed over the years. Back in the 1980s, if I wanted to access assorted public records, I'd go to the main County office building, look up the ID number of the record in the microfiche room, take that to the records room, and wait several minutes and pay a small fee. It was certainly possible to build up a dossier of publicly available information about me, but it took time and expense. Nobody would do it unless I, personally, was of interest to them. Nowadays, it's possible to get that stuff on the Web interface quickly, easily, and without charge.

Similarly, the extent of private information turned public is much greater. If my father did something in public that was stupid but legal, and wound up being reported in the local newspaper, he could live it down or move away. In order to find that article, an investigator would have to go somewhere where they kept all the issues (such as the newspaper itself or a historical society), which would be local, and dig through them. If my son does something equivalent, it will be searchable to everybody on the internet pretty much forever.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Geoffrey.landis]

Then you used a bad example, since the settlement company was your lawfully paid agent. If you did not know what you were hiring someone to do on your behalf, then you should have read some of those papers you were signing. That is my point.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but where I am, the price you pay for a house is part of the public record; you can't not have it available. Regardless of the "settlement company", if any, or what papers you did or did not sign with them.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to a site like Spokeo.com and put in your name.

Thanks for that link. Just searched myself on there, and it was amazing how much incorrect information was listed. Makes me feel a little better about my attempts to separate my online and RL lives.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Culture20]

In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!?

Yes, in the same way that if in 1994 I posted stuff to a webpage, sent the URL around my neighborhood, expecting everyone to be web-savvy. IIRC, serfs weren't big on literacy.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Penguinisto]

I'd be pretty damn surprised. I don't think that many serfs could read in 1568.

True, but what if that printing contained a woodcut rendering of his penis?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Richard Dick Head]

Actually, Mr. Weiner hasn't directly denied the accusation yet, so it's still up in the air...he's stubborn and won't give a straight answer.

He's playing the stump card with the press and argued the validity of the questions reporters had...that might work on the floor, but in the context of a 5 second news blurb, you're screwed, they'll show a few words and that's it. It looks defensive...aka, guilty.

It's his typical style. I've watched him debate on C-SPAN and he tends to be bull headed, passionate, and quite verbose. Can't say I agree with his politics, but his heart was in the right place, and it's sad to watch him choke on his own idealism over something so stupid.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Ihmhi]

I did. It was hilariously wrong.

It has me confused with my father (same name, except I have a middle name and he doesn't). They get my middle initial wrong. The weird information hybrid of my father and I are has a lot of things wrong. Apparently "our" hobbies include travel and cooking (I travel a handful of times a year by car, usually only for a weekend), and the most complex thing either of us have cooked is frozen waffles. It says we're a Capricorn, but I'm a Capricorn and my father is an Aquarius. It also says we've lived in our house for X years, when it's really about twice as long as that.

There's other entries on there with a similar name in the same city... nobody by that name lives or has ever lived at those addresses as far as I know. Apparently Spokeo is hilariously incompetent when it comes to gathering information, at least in regards to me..

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[rednip]

nobody by that name lives or has ever lived at those addresses as far as I know.

yet, perhaps spokeo.com is seeing into you future. However, it doesn't really matter, as perception is reality when applied to the lives of other people.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[spwmoni]

Because one of these days some manatee is going to come into the restaurant demanding his slaw and this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from drive-thru to drive-thru with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into customers and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.

And I'm not going to be fired for venting.

You won't be fired, but you might be arrested. This (among a myriad of other reasons) is why I've begun getting rid of any online profile even associated with my real identity, let alone my employer.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[jimicus]

I don't think that many serfs had access to scanning electron microscopes in 1568.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more reason to not be surprised when that price later shows up in public.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[semi-extrinsic]

It also doesn't support UTF-8, so it's not even possible to search for my name ^^

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Amouth]

home no.. but cars yes.. and the reasoning is.. if they want to break into it they will.. they will either slash the top (convertible) or break the window.. (hard top).. and get the item anyways..

then i'm out the item AND have a damaged car.

if they are going to steal the car then it doesn't matter if it's damaged or not it will be gone.

now for the House? well i'm in it.. and if they have to break in vs walking in it might give me a little more time to dial 911 while arming my self with the doors/windows locked.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[sexconker]

Playing picture swap with a married man and a member of congress are both pursuits that are obviously going to end well.

member of congress

member

congress

Because member can mean penis and congress can be of the sexual kind.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[MaskedSlacker]

Yes you did, when you registered your title at the local courthouse. You being ignorant of what that means doesn't change the fact that you did it.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

> Basically, if I want to live a halfway normal life, I leave a large public trail.

You are correct. Just do not be surprised when that large public trail turns out to be public. We're building a large number of convenience tools these days, they make things convenient, but they need good backend data to make them really convenient. Turns out, public records are a great source of data.

> the meaning of public information has changed over the years.

Here I disagree. "Public information" means exactly what it always has. It has become much more accessible though. Turns out that information wants to be public, and we want to build convenience tools.

> the extent of private information turned public is much greater

But your example is of your father getting written up in the local paper for doing something dumb; that's a very public thing as opposed to being "private information". Maybe the original journalist needs to return to ethics class, but the fact that I can now do a LexisNexis search to find out that your old man likes to Tweet pictures of his junk doesn't mean that you should be surprised that public information is public. If some journalist publicly wronged your old man, your old man should have asked for a public apology.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!? No?

Actually yes. I don't think many people in 1568 could read. Certainly not serfs.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[laejoh]

I always take them off before entering dark alleys!

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[reboot246]

Searching with my actual name yielded nothing. When I used my nickname, the only information it had correct was my address and phone number. The google street view showed a neighbor's house. Everything else was wrong.

It said my late wife was still living at my address. I can't wait to get home to see where she's been hiding the last 10 years since she died.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[bigstrat2003]

See? It's that kind of outside-the-box thinking that will keep you safe on the mean streets! ;)

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[dunkelfalke]

Yep, same here. And I don't even have a very common name, it found only 6 people with the same name.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Bing Tsher E]

It does now, because you entered your name there.

That's the downside of those 'identity search' sites.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[j00r0m4nc3r]

takes on responsiblity for being raped due to her actions

The 1950's called. They want their attitude back.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[grangerg]

And a lot of these things she didn't even put on the internet. Go to a site like Spokeo.com and put in your name. I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.

Your house "value" is there because it's public information. Go to your county web site; they list the amount on your mortgage and a bunch of other stuff that gets the hapless person to believe that they have some sort of special, inside-track to sensitive information. They don't.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Fjandr]

Way to take a small snippet out that ignores the completely legitimate point, making it sound like the poster thinks all women raped are responsible for the rape occurring.

It's a reasonable point which unreasonable people fail to acknowledge because of laziness or ignorance of basic logic. Easy emotional appeal response is easy.

You fail at distinguishing between someone deserving what they get as a result of their actions, and the responsibility they bear in bringing about those results. The two are not necessarily the same thing. It's not an outdated attitude, it's a pragmatic approach to evaluating the risk of certain behaviors. The customer is always right, the victim never bears any responsibility. Wrong. The customer can be wrong, and the victim can bear anywhere from no responsibility to all of the responsibility, depending on the circumstances. People should stop using rape as an example, but only because it brings the morons out of the woodwork. That's their responsibility, in order to redirect those who fail at logic and argument to at least come up with something novel.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Thumper_SVX]

He's a politician. I don't think he's wired to give a straight answer.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Cable]

From what I read she was a follower of him on twitter. Wiener made a joke about 10:45 in Seattle a week earlier and somehow she was from Seattle. He said on CNN that it was a coincidence but if he was hacked, they'd target her because of the Seattle remark. Then he'd be responsible for her info leaked out all over the press.

Not sure if she got the picture or knew him, but it seems that after she said she did not even get the picture that her info is all over the news now as they investigate her. I would think her privacy is invaded as even victims of sexual harassment are allowed to keep their privacy and anonymity, but even if she was sexually harassed or not, she already lost that in violation of the sexual harassment laws.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Oh, I see. So if I came to your house and set it on fire and burned you and your family alive, it would basically be your fault because it's your responsibility to build a fire-proof house, right? Hey, I like how this thing works! I think what you fail at is understanding that I am not responsible for someone else willfully committing a crime against me, period. Well, unless I mind-control someone into doing it. Your implication is that the victim always assumes some percentage of responsibility for being a victim, and this somehow reduces the perpetrator's culpability by some factor. Like if I had a high enough percentage of responsibility the perpetrator would almost be obligated to have committed the crime... This is utter nonsense. I am not responsible for another person's actions in any way. Yes, a customer can be wrong if they do something to victimize themselves. Say a customer puts $10 in the jar but then claims he put $5 in and demands $5 back. He is obviously wrong, and responsible for his own actions. The clerks didn't steal his $10. The clerks didn't make him give up $10, he chose to do it. There is a difference between this scenario and the aforementioned rape scenario which I don't think you comprehend. I would say take your "pragmatic approach to evaluating the risk of certain behaviors" and your time machine and go back in time maybe 100 years or so. You would fit in perfectly.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Fjandr]

You fail at logic. First, you failed to understand that zero means zero, and is a possibilty. Second, you still conflate responsibility and culpability. Your arson example falls at the zero end of the scale, which was explicitly mentioned previously.

If you walk into a biker bar and insult someone knowing full well that they will beat you down, you are responsible for your actions and for the outcome by knowingly placing yourself in a situation where any reasonable person could forsee the outcome. The person who beat the crap out of you is still 100% culpable. You, on the other hand, are 100% responsible. You can spin it any way you like, but every example will range somewhere from 0 to 100% responsibility on the part of the victim. You pick examples at the zero end of the scale to try and shore up a logically indefensible argument. Just because 0% examples abound does not eliminate the existence of non-zero examples.

There is no statement I made that is anything like saying a perpetrator is obligated to do anything. Nice straw man though. I wasn't implying anything; I was making explicit statements.

I'm also fully aware that your "customer" example differs. It differs a great deal, to the point of being completely non-representative of what I'm talking about. In your example, the customer is both culpable AND responsible, which fails completely at addressing the point. My comment about customers was to illustrate that prevailing views are not necessarily right, even when repeated as a mantra by certain segments of the population. There is nothing further to be read into it, as that is the entirety of the point for which it was used.

Now, I've spent far longer than was worthwhile on this, since you are clearly not willing to separate logic from emotion in this regard. Continue pretending that everyone who is victimized plays absolutely no active part in creating the circumstances they find themselves in (the definition of responsibility in this regard). Go ahead, flip off those gangbangers late at night in the hood. You can take comfort in the fact that you bear no responsibility for them shooting you. It was all them, after all, 100%.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Eponymous Hero]

it says the value of my home in 2001 was over $550k, but i was renting 1 of 30+ rooms in a large 4 story loft. i knew the owners of the loft, and it was valued at well over $5 million. $550 is closer to what i was paying per month. for several addresses i've lived, it says i'm a republican protestant, which is extremely way off. sites like spokeo.com are scary until you realize they're full of shit. don't know how it tries to infer whether you have parents in the household or whether one of the parents is you. it's been wrong every time. the horoscope/zodiac info they give you is more accurate than the rest of it. even the google satellite photos are so old you wouldn't recognize half the addresses i've lived. if all my public information is disinformation, then i think i'm ok.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew

[Eponymous Hero]

correction: google street view photos

Worst Summary Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

The 21-year-old college student was the hapless recipient of a photo of a Congressman Anthony Weiner bulging in his boxers.

WTF does that mean? The photo was in his boxers? The Congressman's boxers were bulging? What does any of this have to do with the guy's net accounts?

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[Culture20]

WTF does that mean? The photo was in his boxers? The Congressman's boxers were bulging? What does any of this have to do with the guy's net accounts?

A tweet with a link to a picture of a left-leaning erect penis (within boxers) was posted "@" her via Tony Weiner's twitter account. The Congressman says he was hacked (plausible given the left-leaning wiener), and since he was hacked, there is no story here. Move along. Move along.

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[lorenlal]

Tony - The problem wasn't the alleged hacking... the problem was the odd behavior for someone who supposedly had their account hacked... You know the same way that TO's brother posted some stuff on his Twitter account. The simple question of, "So, that wasn't a picture of you?" was met with extreme anger, and no answer. A simple chuckle, and "No, but I wish it was" would have ended the story right there.

In fact, even if you said, "Yes, it was me. I honestly don't know how someone got that picture" this would have gone away very quickly again.

The questions about getting the FBI or some other agency involved were handled perfectly. Claiming it's harmless and a prank was an excellent defense... but seriously, 15 more seconds of handling that last question would have saved you a lot of ridicule. You were soooo close.

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[Jhon]

"...and since he was hacked, there is no story here."

And if he says he was hacked, it's true, no? And his embarrassing attempts to deflect questions from the press don't suggest he just MIGHT be playing a little loose with the truth?

*IF* (and that's a big *IF*) he is lying, he (and all public servants (elected or appointed)) who engage is such compromise behavior put themselves up for risk of blackmail should the wrong person/group find out. And as public servants, their actions on behalf of the public may be compromised/corrupted.

So, yes -- there *IS* some concern here... And since a simple call to the FBI would have reviled the source IP (and effectively ruled out the Congressman) there ARE unanswered questions. His statements saying he didn't send the pic but that he "can't say with certitude" that the pic *ISNT* him opens all kinds of questions for reasonable people.

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[fahrbot-bot]

A tweet with a link to a picture of a left-leaning erect penis (within boxers) ...

As Jon Stewart noted, apparently both Congressman Weiner and the penis lean hard to the left.

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[wjousts]

And since Weiner won't confirm nor deny that the picture is actually him (which is a little odd), that line seems a little premature. Unless the poster knows something we don't.

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[RingDev]

That last interview with Wolf Blitzer, it sounded like he was saying that there ARE pics like that of him, but he couldn't say if that was one of them nor how it got onto his twitter feed. There was a fair bit of tap dancing in his answers though, so who knows... more importantly, who cares?

-Rick

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[wjousts]

I think you are spot on with you analysis. I don't understand why he is skirting around the issue of whether or not it's him. A simple answer of "No, I wish" or "Yes, I don't know how somebody got that picture" (it isn't a crime to have your photo taken in your underwear - it's a little odd if you posed for it, but it could be a candid picture) or even "I honestly don't know" (after all there is very little in the picture that is distinctive and if it's a picture somebody else took - again candidly - him might of never seen it before). But outright refusing to answer and dodging the question is weird.

Perhaps he hopes it'll put a stop to all those tiny Weiner jokes?

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[JimFive]

And if he says he was hacked, it's true, no? And his embarrassing attempts to deflect questions from the press don't suggest he just MIGHT be playing a little loose with the truth?

I suggest that hacked isn't quite the right word. I think that someone he knows -- a staff member, a relative, a friend -- posted the picture.
--
JimFive

Re:Worst Summary Ever

[Jhon]

And he'd go through all this to protect them? I doubt it. The guy who reported this originally is receiving death threats -- and while you "suggest" that hacked isn't quite the right word, I would suggest you listen to Congressman Weiner use it several times to describe the event.

n00dz pleaze

[Anonymous Coward]

links?

Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

There is significant evidence that Weinergate was a frame set-up from the beginng. I do feel sorry for this girl, as she is as much a victim of this mess as Rep. Anthony Weiner, but please don't accuse the representative of actually sending the photo directly to her - she was the vehicle of a hack-job, not the target.

Re:Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

What evidence? You mean Weiner saying it was photoshopped? Or do you mean someone claiming that the yfrog screenshot was photoshopped?

You know the best evidence that it wasn't faked? He was able to delete the photo almost immediately. If his account was actually hacked, he would no longer have access to it.

People do stupid things all the time. Sending someone a picture of your penis bulging through your underwear is actually kind of tame when it comes to "stupid things politicians do."

Re:Alleged picture

[ElectricTurtle]

You're assuming that whenever somebody hacks something the first thing they do is change the access credentials. However, doing that is actually more likely to clue in the person being hacked about the compromise. If you don't change the credentials you can sit on the access for a length of time until you've done all you want with them.

However in this specific case I agree it probably wasn't a real hack. For chrissake he won't even deny the picture was of himself.

Re:Alleged picture

[donscarletti]

A picture of a man's junk coming from a guy called "Rep. Anthony Wiener", going to some random student. It sounds like this is in reverse, this is a targeted prank by one of the girl's acquaintances. I mean, the man's name is "Wiener" and there's a picture of a man's gentleman's sausage coming from him, that is too perfect, it sounds like this girl probably rebuffed the advances of the wrong nerd.

Re:Alleged picture

[sandytaru]

I suspect he actually pissed off people on the other side of the political spectrum. He's a fire-breathing-liberal type, and Bret Breitbart is involved in this, so I'm automatically going take the whole mess with a grain of salt. Political infighting is nasty.

Re:Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

A picture of a man's junk coming from a guy called "Rep. Anthony Wiener", going to some random student. It sounds like this is in reverse, this is a targeted prank by one of the girl's acquaintances. I mean, the man's name is "Wiener" and there's a picture of a man's gentleman's sausage coming from him, that is too perfect, it sounds like this girl probably rebuffed the advances of the wrong nerd.

It wasn't sent from an account that was simply titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner", it was sent from Rep Anthony Weiner's Twitter account, which is also titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner". It also was not just some random student. It was a student who was following Weiner.

Also, if this were a hack, the FBI should be involved. I know I would want the FBI involved if it was my career on the line. So far, Weiner has refused any FBI involvement and wants to handle the "investigation" by a private firm, one that would be hired and paid by him, of course.

Some more facts:
http://thenewsjunkie.com/2011/05/8-things-you-should-know-about-anthony-weiners-twitter-scandal/

Pat attention to the Seattle bit and when she called him her "boyfriend".

Re:Alleged picture

[Vegeta99]

So you mean someone who's trying to frame a set-up would change the passwords AND the emails to an account in order to help keep his frame job secret?

Damn, that's what I've been doing wrong!

Re:Alleged picture

[JK_the_Slacker]

If it's a setup, then why on God's Green Earth can't Rep. Weiner "Say with certitude" that the picture is not of him?

Re:Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

There is significant evidence that Weinergate was a frame set-up from the beginng.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Alleged picture

[gx5000]

Well said !

Re:Alleged picture

[wjousts]

Because maybe he has a pair of boxers that look like that? They are not uncommon. Are you really so distinctive from the waist down to just about the top of your thighs that you would be able to say "with certitude" that a picture somebody else might have snapped of you (perhaps with a cell phone as you changed at the gym) is or is not you? I don't know that I could.

I agree he's handling it (no pun intended) in a really weird way. Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me. If it later turned out that it was, so what?

Re:Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

...he won't even deny the picture was of himself.

I have not seen this particular picture, but given a sufficient bulge I would not deny it was a picture of me either

Re:Alleged picture

[SanityInAnarchy]

Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me. If it later turned out that it was, so what?

If it later turned out that it was, you can be shown to be at best incompetent at judging photos, and at worst a liar. It makes a lot more sense to say things like, "I have no idea where this photo came from, and it's probably not me."

Re:Alleged picture

[surgen]

If his account was actually hacked, he would no longer have access to it.

C'mon slashdot, I expected better than this from you. Some bullshit blog says this, OK fine, whatever, they don't know shit about technology. But I thought we at least pretended to know what the fuck we were talking about on slashdot.

Re:Alleged picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Dyslexia much? Or just 12 years old?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weiner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_%28disambiguation%29
I'll save you the trouble of clicking, much less the hazard of reading. One means Viennese, one means Wheelwright.

Re:Alleged picture

[wjousts]

Really? It's a picture of somebodies crutch? If you have superior crotch identifying ability from your long experience of staring at crotches (including your own) then I take my hat off to you. But I think if he said it wasn't him (although I'd use your modifier of "probably") and it later turned out it was, I don't think anybody in their right mind would hold him accountable. Then again, this is politics we're talking about and right minds are in short supply.

Re:Alleged picture

[SanityInAnarchy]

But I think if he said it wasn't him (although I'd use your modifier of "probably") and it later turned out it was, I don't think anybody in their right mind would hold him accountable.

Why not? I mean, as you said:

If you have superior crotch identifying ability from your long experience of staring at crotches (including your own) then I take my hat off to you.

...then why would you imply you did by saying that you are certain that's not your crotch?

Re:Alleged picture

[wjousts]

...then why would you imply you did by saying that you are certain that's not your crotch?

Because of any random crotch shot that I have never seen before, the chances that it's actually of me is pretty low (YMMV - probably depends on what kind of parties you typically go to). Seems like a reasonable first approximation. And I never said I was certain, I just said it wasn't.

Re:Alleged picture

[twmcneil]

Soon as I saw that Breitbart had something to do with this, I figured it was a hatchet job. Breitbart has a real credibility problem IMHO. I'd sooner believe the headline "Elvis has Alien's Baby" in the Star than anything Breitbart says.

Re:Alleged picture

[Misch]

YFrog disabled its post-by-email feature after this incident.

From the link:
Reader "milowent" took up the challenge. Without knowing my password -- without hacking into my account -- he got a third image into my Yfrog account, using the simple technique explained above. Here's the image he sent me:

YFrog apparently had a security hole that got plugged after this incident.

Re:Alleged picture

[St.Creed]

yfrog uses a special mailaccount that you can send pictures to, that are uploaded automatically to your account if you include the right number in the subject or mail (not sure about the details on the location of the PIN). Not secure, so they have shut it down today.

Re:Alleged picture

[Cable]

Based on his comments on CNN, it seems as if he knew he was hacked as soon as the picture was sent on his profile and he clicked on it and went to a web site that hosted it and it let him in without a password.

I would tend to think that it was a cross site scripting attack that spoofed the twitter page and then used his login to post the picture from a web site to his twitter feed. It caused him to erase all pictures in a desperate attempt to delete the offending photo. This has happened to many and yes usually changing the profile is a tip that the account is hacked.

In some cases a fake profile is make over many web sites pretending to be the person and that profile posts the fake pictures or photoshopped pictures. That is used after the hack attempts fail.

Re:Alleged picture

[inthealpine]

You were so amazingly wrong with your 'insightful' post it makes me laugh.

Re:Alleged picture

[inthealpine]

You personal bias makes you sound incompetent. It was so obvious this was not a hack job and you gave cover fire like all the other brain washed liberal 'hacks'. You are so sad.

Re:Alleged picture

[inthealpine]

The bias of the people on slashdot is obvious. This is why I don't trust the 'professional opinions' here.

Re:Alleged picture

[inthealpine]

You and your personal bias got in the way of truth again. When will you liberal brainwashed dolts ever learn. It was obvious from the start the hacker story didn't quite line up. You are sad.

Re:Alleged picture

[inthealpine]

Breitbart is about the only real journalist left in the US. The fact that you dismiss him to listen instead to the normal liberal liars with whom your personal bias agrees say's something about you. The fact that you are proven 100% wrong I doubt will even phase you. You are quite sad, unfortunately you are not alone.

It wasn't his Tweet

[bughunter]

It wasn't him. He was set up using a "feature" of Yfrog that leaves a gaping security hole.

I submitted the story from CannonFire yesterday, but it's still pending.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Thud457]

But he's never categorically come out and stated that couldn't possibly be him, because there are no such photos of him.
Things That Make You Go HMMMMMM....

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Archangel Michael]

Sorry, but I will NEVER click a link mentioning a "gaping hole" ever again.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Purpleslog]

Well...that is the Congressman's current explanation. Looking at all the facts...it may or not be his. The tweet is most likely from him or from somebody screwing with him who know his secret Yfrog email id. His actions seem more like those of a person covering up an "oh shit ooops" than like a victim who got hacked. He does seem to not want to involve the vendors or law enforcement in investigating.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Someone can't categorically deny that there may be a picture of him in his underwear. STRING HIM UP!!!
 
I think he's just being overly-cautious in his denial because he's one of those idiots who tries to be accurate in what he says while still being a politician. It's amazing how much shit you get for that; journalists may as well wear buttons saying "Please lie to us! It'll be easier for everyone."

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[bughunter]

He has come out and said that it could be a photo of him, but if so, it was distributed without his knowledge or permission.

Considering the evidence that the photo was a plant, there is more than the necessary minimum reasonable doubt as to its origin.

I admit Weiner showed poor judgment his response to the situation. But just because he's inept at dealing with the situation doesn't mean he's guilty.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[gman003]

While I was thinking the same thing, I was thinking it was because he actually sent it (but didn't want to outright lie about it). However, the explanation of "he took the pic, but didn't send it" seems faintly plausible. Weirder things have happened. Occam would throw a fit, but I like that explanation.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Hatta]

The picture probably is of him. There's nothing wrong with having undie pics of yourself. The problem is when you distribute them unsolicited.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he was involving the cops, you (or someone else, it's entirely possible that you are a reasonably rational person) would be immediately invoking the "Striesand effect". This kind of a situation is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[bughunter]

Well...that is the Congressman's current explanation.

It's not the Congressman's explanation, it's the evidence found by two bloggers. Read the post here.

Looking at all the facts...

I've twice linked to a page that provides necessary and sufficient proof to exonerate the Congressman for anyone not filtering facts that don't support their favored conclusions.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[hamburger lady]

you prove that negative! prove it!

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[fahrbot-bot]

There's nothing wrong with having undie pics of yourself. The problem is when you distribute them unsolicited.

I'm not sure there's anything seriously wrong with that either. It's not technically obscene. I mean, some Calvin Klein ads and swimsuits show more. Granted, sending it to someone unsolicited may be rude or possibly inappropriate, though the recipient is an adult and without a request to stop it's not any sort of harassment.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

That blog has been repeatedly disproven by conservative bloggers and Rachel Maddow as well.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/06/another-leaping-fail-yfrog-hack-needs-weiner-authorization/
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2011/06/rachel-maddow-blog-on-lefty-yfrog-theory-theres-no-proof-of-the-spoof-in-this-debunkfail/

All it does is show that it is possible it was hacked, but presents no evidence whatsoever it was. Not only that, Weiner has admitted it might actually be his.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/06/weiner-confesses-maybe-it-started-out-being-a-photograph-of-mine-video/

  And in addition the yFrog CEO has come out to say publicly that there is no evidence that their password system was compromised.
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2011/06/yfrog-ceo-no-reason-to-believe-weiners-security-was-violated/

Now, who's filtering facts again?

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[CODiNE]

Yes it says "gaping hole" but it's a safe link and describes technical details of the hack.

I hadn't heard of it yet, so for those who are confused as I was...

Someone frames a congressman by posting a tweet under his name to the woman mentioned in the summary. The tweet included a picture of someone's wiener (not shown in the above blog post). The woman became infamous as the implied scenario was that the congressman was secretly sexting her but accidentally made it a public tweet.

It actually turns out that the guy who "discovered" the pic and spread the news was most likely the same person who uploaded it and planned the whole thing.

Now the woman in the subject has been harassed as a result of being connected to this incident, she tried deleting her twitter account to make it go away but she's permanently tainted from it.

From the blog post above, using the yfrog twitter service can expose you to anonymous 3rd party tweets using your name.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeatedly "disproven"? I think not. The hack works (and doesn't require a password), and the dates on the picture are consistent with the hack in question.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[surgen]

I've got some gray boxerbreifs, and used to drink a lot, I can't even categorically deny that it is me.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

If he can't handle a minor issue like this, what is he doing in office?

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exactly right. We shouldn't be forced to prove a negative, namely that his account wasn't hacked. Rather, the burden is on Rep. Weiner to prove that his account was hacked.

Too bad that YFrog has already looked into it and said that they can find no evidence of a hack on their end. As you've pointed out, it's impossible to prove he wasn't hacked. His phone could have been hacked, his PC, who knows.

But it's up to Rep. Weiner to prove that it was hacked, not us to prove that it wasn't. You can't prove a negative, after all.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

"Considering the evidence the photo was a plant" -- What evidence? You have not cited any. None of the many articles I've seen have cited any.

Come on, he and the girl followed each other on Twitter. He posted a dick pick and forgot to use private ('@' vs 'd'). Isn't that the only likely possibility given the facts so far?

He won't say the picture is not of him. (How many pictures of other guys' dicks does he have on his phone? ;) He won't have the police or FBI look into the "hacking" of a congressman's accounts. He and this girl have been following each other on Twitter, which is required for private chat (DM). She referred to him as his "boyfriend".

Is that your evidence?

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[hamburger lady]

do you work for the department of redundancy department?

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I admit Weiner showed poor judgment his response to the situation. But just because he's inept at dealing with the situation doesn't mean he's guilty.

But because he's a Congressman, he probably is guilty.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Misch]

And in addition the yFrog CEO has come out to say publicly that there is no evidence that their password system was compromised.
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2011/06/yfrog-ceo-no-reason-to-believe-weiners-security-was-violated/

Now, who's filtering facts again?

And now here's the UPDATE: Reader "milowent" took up the challenge. Without knowing my password -- without hacking into my account -- he got a third image into my Yfrog account, using the simple technique explained above. Here's the image he sent me:

Source

Cannonfire says essentially 'they were able to post a picture to my YFrog account without my password'
YFrog CEO says 'There is no evidence our password system was compromised'

Can you see that the two are not mutually exclusive?

Police say: "The front door of the house was not tampered with"
Reporter says: "The burglar entered the house without opening the front door. He went in through the unlocked back door."

These two statements are not mutually exclusive either.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

He has come out and said that it could be a photo of him, but if so, it was distributed without his knowledge or permission.

Considering the evidence that the photo was a plant, there is more than the necessary minimum reasonable doubt as to its origin.

I admit Weiner showed poor judgment his response to the situation. But just because he's inept at dealing with the situation doesn't mean he's guilty.

If it wasn't him, why does he keep hedging his answers and how did someone else get a picture of his junk if not from him?

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[yuhong]

Also see this post on Yfrog's insecure "random" email address generation that likely played a role in the hack:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/248630_yfrog_secret_email_addresses_a

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Where'd Weiner's weiner picture come from in the first place?
2. If Weiner didn't send it, why is he dissembling and going Charlie-Sheen-in-full-meltdown on us and not just calling in the FBI to see who's fucking with the private accounts of Congressmen?

Nevermind the facts that:
1. Weiner and the girl followed each other.
2. The girl called Weiner her "boyfriend"
3. The girl is in Seattle and right before the boner photo was sent Weiner tweeted something about Seattle.

Yeah, sure. He had nothing to do with it.

Sure.

What color is the sky on your planet? Cuz it sure as shit ain't blue.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Also see this post on Yfrog's insecure "random" email address generation that likely played a role in the hack:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/248630_yfrog_secret_email_addresses_a

Yeah, it was hacked.

Which must be why Weiner is so adamant about getting the FBI involved.

Oh, wait. He's not, now is he?

Yeah, I know. He doesn't want to "waste taxpayer money" on a "prank". Or maybe he just doesn't want to caught making false statements to police, because he had no qualms about wasting taxpayer money on getting police to toss a reporter out:

Weiner’s Office Calls The Police After CBS 2s Marcia Kramer Asks For An Interview

Congressman Anthony Weiner said Thursday he’s finished talking about the lewd photo sent from his Twitter account.

But he still wouldn’t say whether he’s the one in the picture.

So CBS 2 political reporter Marcia Kramer decided to go to his office on Capitol Hill to try to get you some answers.

You’ll never believe what happened.

Kramer tried to get an interview with the six-term New York Democrat and as a result had the cops called on her.

Yeah, but his account was HACKED!!!!

Which MUST be why Weiner won't deny that's his weiner in the photo, right?

Which MUST be why Weiner won't get the FBI involved in tracking down the hacker, right?

And Weiner has a history of being a, umm, dick to women. Here's what the ranting founding member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Jonathan Chait wrote today for Rush Limbaugh's favorite online site, The New Republic (oh, that's "sarcasm", by the way. Chait and TNR are hardly members of any VRWC or favorite of Rush Limbaugh):

Anthony Weiner's Skeeziness

The best starting point for understanding the bizarre controversy surrounding Anthony Weiner is this great 2001 Vanity Fair story about the culture of interns and exploitative sex on Capitol Hill:

        The women are heckled as they enter. “Tell us your name and where you are from,” says one of the men. As if on a game show the women comply, one by one. When Caroline says she is an intern, the largest of the group, a white-haired man with a big belly and big laugh, roars, “We’re afraid of interns.” He throws his knife at a lean man named Mike, at the other end of the table. Mike is unamused. He threatens to throw it back. Another guy, rotund and jolly-faced, stands up and does an impression of Marlon Brando doing Don Corleone. The others think it’s hysterical.

        Diana whispers that there is no way they can be congressmen. She figures they are businessmen. She wonders how she is going to get out.

        They are congressmen—although at first they pretend not to be. One, the youngest, with a tiny goatee, introduces himself as Anthony, an auto-parts salesman. The others call him “the Jewish kid” and make fun of his beard. Their real names and states are as follows: the auto-parts salesman is Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); the lean Mike is Michael Capuano (D-Mass.); the jolly guy who imitated Brando is John Larson (D-Conn.); the man who was worried about interns is Robert Brady (D-Pa.).

Nice guy.

I won't insult your intelligence by asking you if you REALLY believe Weiner's account was hacked.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[theof]

Except Cannon's analysis is flawed. See the following: http://georgegooding.com/post/6120191663/weiner-yfrog-email-debunked

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Where'd Weiner's weiner picture come from in the first place?

Generic picture is generic. I don't think I could deny that it's me either, apart for the fact that it doesn't really look that big. But maybe it's just a semi.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's hiding behind semantics. He carefully uses the word "send" in his statements -- saying he did not "send" the picture to that woman. Perhaps that statement is true. But the real question is, did he *try* to send it to her?

Kind of like Clinton haggling over the meaning of the word "is."

Weiner can't out-and-out deny it's him in the picture, because there is at least one woman out there who received the same picture, and was told it was him. She came forward today, after staying quiet for a week. Brilliant, I think. Let the guy tell his story, then see whether it stands up to additional facts. Leave him wondering when the next shoe will drop.

Here's the thing: a law enforcement agency could tell us in about fifteen minutes who posted the picture. But if Weiner made a criminal report, and it was found to be false, he'd be in a whole lot worse trouble.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet

[Purpleslog]

Heh...Rep Weiner admitted to it all and more this afternoon.

Thanks Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I had no idea who the woman was who involved in this scandal but now I know I can easily find her info because of this story. Googling now..... (Hell yeah, I'm posting anonymously)

Life gives you ilemons?

[paiute]

Look, kid, you just got the kind of publicity money can hardly buy. Get on the phone to ICM, get an agent, and pitch a reality show to TLC pronto. You will be able to pay off the college tuition and buy a house for your mom.

You are going to be famous/notorious anyway. Might as well make a buck from it.

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[xMrFishx]

Then burn life's house down, with lemons!

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[gman003]

Lemons are apparently the new cake. Great. I know the jokes were funny in the game, but referencing it constantly whenever someone so much as mentions lemons, moon rock, crushers, or potatoes just kills the joke. I would much prefer that we make our own jokes.

Or at least do something inventive with it. I'm sure there's some funny Monty Python/Portal combination jokes just waiting to be made.

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[Rinikusu]

Well, either turn lemons into lemonade... or golden showers....

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemons are apparently the new cake. Great. I know the jokes were funny in the game, but referencing it constantly whenever someone so much as mentions lemons, moon rock, crushers, or potatoes just kills the joke. I would much prefer that we make our own jokes.

Or at least do something inventive with it. I'm sure there's some funny Monty Python/Portal combination jokes just waiting to be made.

You don't seem to be doing to well. Just remember that I'M A POTATO.

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[Hatta]

The parrot is a lie!

Re:Life gives you ilemons?

[gman003]

Actually, I was imagining some sort of Spanish Inquisition bit. I imagine Wheatley is extremely bad at torture.

You could probably do something with Holy Grail / the Animal King. How did it become King, anyways?

She should cash in on her instant fame

[Relayman]

A true American would cash in on her fame while it lasts. Get free travel across the country doing talk shows. Get a big advance for that novel she was thinking of writing. Get paid $50,000 by the National Enquirer for her exclusive side of the story. Get an endorsement contract from Nike. There are endless possibilities.

Re:She should cash in on her instant fame

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. She could even write her novel about this very incident. Plenty of talk shows would want to find out just how damaging it can be to an unknown who gets caught in the spotlight. She'll be famous! Oh wait...

Re:She should cash in on her instant fame

[guybrush3pwood]

And only in America you'd expect a private citizen to suck it up and be blamed upon failure to become rich in the process of sucking-it-up.

like watching a twelve-year-old

[Thud457]

it was amusing watching "The Daily Show" as Jon Stewart heroically struggled to steer away from the all-too-obvious Weiner jokes.

Re:like watching a twelve-year-old

[jhoegl]

Yup, the best part was his disbelief of the "size" of the "member" in question.
It is obviously a "foreign object".

Like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gennette Cordova knows first-hand how impossible it is"

" 'watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location...have been passed along from stranger to stranger"

Kind of like this?

What?

[BitHive]

I RTFA but couldn't find an explanation of how being sent a photo via twitter caused her personal information to be passed around the way the summary describes.

Re:What?

[pla]

I RTFA but couldn't find an explanation of how being sent a photo via twitter caused her personal information to be passed around the way the summary describes.

It gave her her five minutes of fame. In the modern world, that amounts to basically having six billion stalkers.

Twitter only enters the equation because "OOOOH, bad boy congresscritter used a COMPUTER THINGAMABOB to sexually harass a staffer!" (no pun intended).

/semi-offtopic: Captcha of "ruined". Sometimes you really have to suspect the Sladmins deliberately make those things apropos of the subject matter.

Re:What?

[Lehk228]

Because she ran to the media as an un|willing participant in breitbart's ongoing bullshit.

entirely caused by her actions

Re:What?

[_Sprocket_]

It gave her her five minutes of fame. In the modern world, that amounts to basically having six billion stalkers.

That and she's undoubtedly provided plenty of digital footprints for six billion stalkers to follow, categorise, and trade. That's right folks. You are safe within your "social media" fix because, after all, nobody would ever be interested in you.

Slashdot: ever helpful

[PTBarnum]

It's good to see that Slashdot is respecting this woman's desire not to have her name and age posted everywhere on the internet.

Re:Slashdot: ever helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's just ignore the news, who needs news, right?

Re:Slashdot: ever helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's on the internet, it's everywhere. If you don't want it everywhere, don't put it on the internet. There is no "helpful" in this situation. There is only dealing with the consequences of your short-sighted actions.

Re:Slashdot: ever helpful

[gl4ss]

if she wasn't bitching about it, i wouldn't even know of the whole thing. maybe she should watch some futurama, nobody's going to give a rats ass about her in a little while. but it's futile from her trying to un-archive the stuff he posted on internet.

Re:InterWeb?

[icebraining]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interweb

As usual there is an easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't put anything whatsoever private from yourself on the net, that you would not wish to see spread wide. People not realizing that must be either pretty much young, or idiot...

Try buying a house.

[Kenja]

Forget about crotch shot pics and twitter, try buying a house sometime. Suddenly just about everything about you is in the public records for web sites to mine and resell.

Re:Try buying a house.

[ColdWetDog]

This. The funny thing is how wrong most of that information is. My Experian file is page after page of some true stuff, some blatantly untrue stuff, some stuff mixed up with my father's file (apparently I started working at Boeing when I was 10 years old - would be nice, I'd just love that pension). Spokeo.com (suggested by another poster) has most of my 'personal profile' almost, but not entirely, wrong.

Of course, that could even be more of a problem if I suddenly became 'famous' which fortunately, seems unlikely.

Re:Try buying a house.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Forget about crotch shot pics and twitter, try buying a house sometime. Suddenly just about everything about you is in the public records for web sites to mine and resell.

Get yourself a New Mexico LLC, it's a couple of hundred bucks and all the ownership information is totally private as long as there is no actual cash flow through the LLC. Then put the house title in the name of the LLC. This works best if you buy with cash and never title it in your name to start with. However, if you have to use a mortgage you can usually transfer title to the LLC a few months afterwards (or wait a year or two to make the paper-trail look like you really sold the house to someone new). As long as you keep up your mortgage payments the bank won't care that your transferred the title.

One of the side-benefits of putting the title in an LLC is that you can sell the LLC and effectively sell the house without anywhere near as much overhead. Generally good for probate too.

Re:Try buying a house.

[stubob]

Ditto. I was quite impressed to learn that I managed to get a loan from BMW Credit when I was 14.

Re:Try buying a house.

[ColdWetDog]

Apparently we are much better off than we thought....

Re:Try buying a house.

[slashqwerty]

If you do that you also lose some of the advantages of owning a home. A business loan generally has a higher interest rate. It may be taxed at a higher rate. If you ever have to file for bankruptcy much of the equity in your home is protected, but not the equity in your business.

Re:Try buying a house.

[DryGrian]

Yeah, I read JJ Luna's books too.

Re:Try buying a house.

[Anonymous Coward]

A business loan generally has a higher interest rate. It may be taxed at a higher rate.

That don't matter since you aren't taking a business loan - the LLC is simply a holding corp, nothing more.

If you ever have to file for bankruptcy much of the equity in your home is protected, but not the equity in your business.

If that's a concern, then transfer title back to your name before declaring bankruptcy. Or just don't mention your ownership of the LLC, as there is no paper trail it will be hard for creditors to find it. If you use a mailing address at a Post Office there won't even be a record that you live in the house. Its a a gamble, but if you don't feel like gambling then just stick with retitling it in your name before filing for bankruptcy.

A tricky problem

[Salamander]

I've long since gotten used to the idea that everything I say online - going back to Usenet days and even before - will stay with me forever. Some times you just have to remind people that it was X years ago and people/opinions change. Would you take advice from someone in mid-life whose opinions hadn't changed since their teens?

That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise. The article about this guy is still on my site, you can even find it by searching there, but you can't find it by searching on Google. (Robots.txt plus referer blocking specific to that post, for those who care.)

The lesson is that the existence of information and the ease with which it may be looked up are two different things. Dirt is just too easy to find, for the same reasons that gold is too hard: search engines' evaluation of "importance" or "relevance" doesn't always match any sane human's. While it should be *possible* to find someone's decade-old forum posts, perhaps it's not quite right for the most inflammatory thing they ever said to be the very first thing that shows up in a casual search . . . and it often will be, because controversy drives higher rankings. Making stuff just a little bit harder to find, like we all do here with low-rated comments and like I basically did in this little anecdote, deserves more frequent consideration as an alternative to deletion.

Re:A tricky problem

[Rudisaurus]

[...]That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. [...]

Did you happen to check to confirm his story? Does he really have a family? Once a con artist, after all, ... and maybe it was potential marks, not employers, who were finding out his history by Googling him.

Re:A tricky problem

[Salamander]

Valid questions. Yes, I did some homework to convince myself that the story was valid, but that would have made the anecdote too long. ;)

Re:A tricky problem

[roman_mir]

This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise.

- pffft, what a softie :) You should CRASH HIM to hell. Think about it - what if he has kids? Now his genes will be passed on, and that's clearly a problem. You should nuke them all from the orbit - that's the only way to be sure.

Re:A tricky problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family

I'd tell him he should have thought of all this before he started conning people. I still wouldn't let that be my problem. Also, are you sure he wasn't just making up that bullshit to get your sympathy?

I have a huge issue with people who try to con me. If I had one of those fuckers on the ropes, I'd never let up.

Re:A tricky problem

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise. The article about this guy is still on my site, you can even find it by searching there, but you can't find it by searching on Google. (Robots.txt plus referer blocking specific to that post, for those who care.)

And would it have killed you - or amounted to censorship - if you had removed the article? Censorship, mind you, is when someone else, someone with power over you (e.g. the government) coerces you into removing information, or not putting it out there in the first place.

On the other hand, if YOU decide to remove a post many years after the fact, or edit it to e.g. not include names anymore, that isn't censorship: that is just being nice and recognizing that, as you say, people move on in life and that old matters should be let rest at some point.

Now, telling search engines to stay away from this particular post is a good start, too, don't get me wrong. But I'm really not sure I understand why you're not taking it down, or at least removing the guy's name. I know I would; not because I'm obliged to do so, but out of niceness, and because I think people deserve a second chance.

Re:A tricky problem

[JockTroll]

Now, let me get this straight - you took pity on the POS because HE HAS KIDS? What kind of a pussy are you? All the more reasons to keep the information online, punishing him is fine but giving hell to his family is even better! Whatever happened to the "crush your enemy, burn down his house with his wife inside before his eyes, then pluck them out, and after that feed his kids to feral pigs and make him eat the pigs' shit"? No wonder the world has gone to hell, people can't even get revenge right.

Re:A tricky problem

[Salamander]

I should take lessons in civility from someone who joins the conversation with "You're a dick"? I don't think so. It's hardly a surprise that someone who acts like that would take an extreme "forget what happened" attitude, either. Very self-serving of you. Maybe an argument for people to be kind and forgiving shouldn't be delivered with such jarring contrast to your own behavior.

For what it's worth, I don't want to punish this guy forever. That's why I made the post un-searchable, helping him "move past the idiot stage" as I hope someone will do for you someday. It does have a little to do with accurate historical documentation, though I don't think there's anything fucked up or fanatical about that. I don't believe in censorship or revisionism. It was part of the public record once, and it should remain so. I've seen the power to edit the record used for ill *far* more often than I've seen it used for good, and I'm not going to start down that path. Once posted, everything on my site stays posted. It's my site, so deal with it.

The key point here is that you don't have to forget in order to forgive. If this had reached the courts, which it nearly did, that would be part of the public record and would remain so with nothing I could do about it even if I wanted to. It would also, rightly, be considered part of the *past* once the offender had been punished or made reparations appropriately. We need to teach people to forgive *without* forgetting, because forgetting is antithetical to learning.

Re:A tricky problem

[gknoy]

It may be "findable with search" on his site, but I sure as heck haven't been able to find it. Perhaps it's now only searchable by his name (which I don't know), or by something related to the scam. The closest I could find was his blog post on trytobreak.com's scam, which didn't seem to mention any names. So, it seems like it's effectively hidden unless someone is searching specifically for that name, and in that case they'd have to know to search his site for the person's name. It seems pretty effectively hidden.

Interesting point, though, on the slight inconsistency between trusting that someone's moving on from their "idiot stage" and trying to turn their life around enough to make it un-searchable, but not enough to take it down completely.

Re:A tricky problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dick. So the guy did something bad when he was a kid, and "years later" (your words) you still want to punish him for it. ... Again, I'd be cool with this if the guy was still doing the same stuff, but you don't think he is. Why not be civil and help him move past the idiot stage of his life?

First, the GP never said that the guy was "a kid." It is you who assume that.

Second, unless the guy was punished or gave restitution for the victims of his scam "contest," why should his internet record be wiped clean? Sure, he's had a change of heart, now, but only because karma's a bitch. Criminals do get their public records scrubbed, but only after they've been held accountable. You seem to think that holding someone accountable is wrong.

Re:A tricky problem

[Just Some Guy]

I don't believe in censorship or revisionism. It was part of the public record once, and it should remain so. I've seen the power to edit the record used for ill *far* more often than I've seen it used for good, and I'm not going to start down that path. Once posted, everything on my site stays posted. It's my site, so deal with it.

So I was right: it's your damn-the-consequences dedication to (your version of) the truth that's driving you. You strongly implied in your original post that you've cost him jobs. At what point have you punished him enough?

If this had reached the courts, which it nearly did, that would be part of the public record and would remain so with nothing I could do about it even if I wanted to.

That is an artifact of the design of the courts system, and not something you have direct control over. Furthermore, if he had gone to court and been found not guilty or not liable, then that judgement would also be part of the permanent record. You've decided to permanently archive only your side of the record and he never got the privilege of adding his defense (or eventual outcome) to it.

I'm obviously not that guy and don't have a dog in this race, but I reserve the right to believe that you're acting sociopathically to punish this guy for the rest of his life. We've all had bad stuff happen to us. I've been wronged by others - and in their opinion, probably wronged them too - but it's not my place to perpetually tell the world about all of it. Let it go, really. You're letting his past actions dictate your future and nothing good can come of it, for either of you.

Re:A tricky problem

[Salamander]

You've decided to permanently archive only your side of the record and he never got the privilege of adding his defense (or eventual outcome) to it.

Not true. Even aside from the fact that anyone can get their own blog, he has commented on my site and I have allowed him to. If he wants to add more in his own defense, he may and he knows that.

You've decided to permanently archive only your side of the record and he never got the privilege of adding his defense (or eventual outcome) to it.

"Sociopathically"? You certainly can think what you want, but I'm not the one posting like a sociopath.

Re:A tricky problem

[dtmos]

Why not be civil and help him move past the idiot stage of his life?

...because there's no guarantee that he'll have only one idiot stage of his life. Suppose he reverts to his old ways, and the future mark discovers (belatedly) that the GP had information that could have warned him, but made it hard to find out of some sense of fair play (or whatever we're calling it). The future mark, I suspect, would not be amused by this revisionist history.

(The fact that one never knows what someone will do in the future is the reason wise public institutions do not name their buildings after living persons, preferring to wait a few years after the Honorable So-and-so has passed just to make sure that no embarrassing dirt turns up.)

I would also note that the GP did not say the guy was a kid when the swindle was done, so we're not talking about juvenile developmental issues. We're all adults here.

Of course, people are free to do as they wish with their own web sites, but IMO it is best if the holders of historical information (archivists, in the broadest sense) do not make these kinds of value judgements. I would rather see historical researchers (historians in the broadest sense, including people like hiring managers, credit researchers, potential spouses, and the like) have all information in the historical record, so that they can make the best possible value judgements for their particular situation. If, in the intervening years, they guy has a record that makes him some sort of Father Theresa (or something), and the position for which the guy is being investigated has a low risk for fraud, the investigator can conclude that he's fine. If the researcher personally believes, based on the same information that convinced the GP, that the guy has turned over a new leaf, he is free to discount the old scam, as the GP did. But if the guy is applying for a job at a gaming (i.e., gambling) company, I think the hiring manager would be unhappy with the GP's decision if a second scam were to occur and a detailed criminal investigation turned up the previous fraud.

After all, actions have consequences, and all of us have to live with the consequences of the decisions we've made in the past -- for better or worse.

Re:A tricky problem

[davidwr]

If this had reached the courts, which it nearly did, that would be part of the public record and would remain so with nothing I could do about it even if I wanted to.

Some countries like Canada routinely pardon petty and mid-level criminals if they ask for a pardon and they've been crime-free for several years. Some of those countries may even seal or expunge the related arrests records. We aren't talking rape and murder here, but things like car theft, mugging someone, low-level drug felonies, "minor" white-collar felonies, and the like.

Most states in the United States theoretically allow the same thing but in practice many make it impractical to hide a past felony that got you prison time unless it's a very low-level one and it's been a long long time since your sentence or probation was up.

Re:A tricky problem

[sjames]

Exactly true. As a society, once again technology has advanced faster that our social maturity. That's no reason to slow technology, it's a reason to think more carefully and advance our social maturity.

We need to recognize as a society and as individuals that at some point, the past really is gone. People do grow and change. None of us would be very happy to be treated as if the years of change since we were 5 never happened. I'm sorry Mr. Johnson, we can't hire a manager with a history of cookie theft and temper problems.

Alas, what we're hearing today indicates that many HR departments are being run by people who never really left High School. Perhaps they assume others don't grow and change because they haven't or perhaps it's all a bunch of CYA based on a legal system that itself lacks maturity.

Re:A tricky problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Check his robots.txt; it shows you that only one post is disallowed. That is the one you're looking for. The name is revealed in the comments (dumbass did it himself, it wasn't in the post.)

Re:A tricky problem

[Corporate Gadfly]

It may be "findable with search" on his site, but I sure as heck haven't been able to find it. Perhaps it's now only searchable by his name (which I don't know), or by something related to the scam. The closest I could find was his blog post on trytobreak.com's scam, which didn't seem to mention any names. So, it seems like it's effectively hidden unless someone is searching specifically for that name, and in that case they'd have to know to search his site for the person's name. It seems pretty effectively hidden.

Interesting point, though, on the slight inconsistency between trusting that someone's moving on from their "idiot stage" and trying to turn their life around enough to make it un-searchable, but not enough to take it down completely.

The comments on the blog post is where his name is revealed.
http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=831

Re:A tricky problem

[tlhIngan]

Perhaps the better option is to merely prefix the page in question with "This event has happened over N years ago". People do change, and recency does help.

However, I also don't believe someone should escape their past, but old events should still have prominent dates displayed so people can make their own choices. If it happened 10 years ago, I'd add an update at the top saying it happened right after the dot-com bust to put it in historical context.

Leave it up to the person to address the issue head on, but also ensure that it's noted that it happened many years ago and may not reflect his current persona. After all, if I'm hiring and I see him, depending on the job, his past may be relevant. If he's going to be handling money, I wouldn't hire him. If he's going to be a codemonkey, it's possible to disregard that bit of his past.

Re:A tricky problem

[yuhong]

Yea, even celebrities aren't perfect and I have been saying that for a while now. In fact, I have a list of several other bad practice in HR that commonly cause problems:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082332&cid=35811494

_ALLEGED_

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord. Can't you leave your politics out of the news story? There's ample ambiguity about whether that picture is of and sent by Congressman Weiner.

The internet isn't private

[sl4shd0rk]

Too bad people need to learn the hard way. People are like that.

Re:The internet isn't private

[LWATCDR]

This why I feel the story is messed up. This isn't a privacy issues as much as a fame issue. It is not something new.

Re:The internet isn't private

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.
If you put it on the Internet, IT IS ON THE INTERNET!

WHOA. No shit? What a concept! ;)

I think everyone being in the "we don't need privacy" imaginationland, and gets a good hard slap in the groin (hurts women just as much, just in case you thought I was sexist), completely deserves it.

In Germany we call that "Lehrgeld". Paying dearly, to learn it the hard way. :)

Re:The internet isn't private

[sjames]

The problem here is that SHE didn't post all her info to the net, the stalker media did, digging it up bit by bit, often by contacting friends under false pretenses to get bits of information, much as detectives have done for decades before there even was an internet or even PCs.

This isn't a person learning something the hard way, this is a person being used and abused as a pawn in a political game. The people with the lesson to learn will probably never face a reckoning for their actions.

Ride the wave

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't change the past. Go with the flow.

her own fault for perving

[Anonymous Coward]

This tells us she's a pervert for clicking on the photos to see that guy nude. Her own fault.

Injudicious behaviour on Wiener's part

[amanicdroid]

If I were her I would seek *ahem* penal damages.

Welcome to the land of Duh.

[log0n]

If you put info out there.. it will be out there.

This is a good example of people not respecting XYZ because it didn't happen to them, right up until it happened to them. I wish people were smarter.. figure out that whole *actions have consequences* thing.

Re:Welcome to the land of Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't put info out there. A right-wing mob decided it was appropriate to dig up and publish anything and everything related to her because, as a society, we apparently no longer have any sense of shame or respect for privacy.

Only in the US maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

"drivers license information" not available online or offline to private person, you have to work for the police, or to the DMV , or insurance of the persons. In other word somebody abusing its work to get data it should not spread, and that is always a possibility.

", income from tax returns, " not available at all here, unless you are a worker for the tax departement or for the firm "controlling" departement. But not available online whatsoever.

"associations via family members, past properties owned or rented," Not available online , except under the potential form of downloadable telephon book. That one I give you anybody a bit clever could save those database year after years.

"and MUCH more is all available online from public databases" no , not from online DB. Some maybe from offline, some from people breaking their work confidence, but certainly not online (except in the US maybe). Other country have privacy law stopping such crap to go online unless leaked illegaly.

The Interwebs...what happens here stays here

[hilldog]

For ever and ever and ever and..

Something is not quite right here...

[PhreakOfTime]

When I went to read the article that is linked, I went down into the comments. The FIRST one, among many others along the same line, is from an online 'reputation' company basically advertising how important their services are because of this convenient incident. Included is a way to contact them for their services.

On what planet do bloggers suddenly allow ads like this in their comments... when they are not working together?

Re:Something is not quite right here...

[idontgno]

On what planet do bloggers suddenly allow ads like this in their comments

You're new here, aren't you?

... when they are not working together?

Oh, never mind. Carry on.

Re:Something is not quite right here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reputation company is mentioned in the story itself; I got the impression that she hired them.

Which is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should never put any of that information up on the Internet to begin with. Sadly, some of that information gets put onto the Internet for you by the government if you ever should happen to buy property etc (somehow buying property means that everyone should know who you are and how to spam you - don't quite understand why).

Bzzzzt Wrong Answer

[SuperCharlie]

But the fact is, 'until a site's Webmaster removes the offending content, it will remain accessible via search engines like Google,' says blogger Dan Tynan."

Wrong.. once it is on the interwebs, it lives forever in caches and history scrapers etc..etc.. once you go digital..you dont go back.

Re:Bzzzzt Wrong Answer

[JSBiff]

If the original content is gone, it's illegal to retain it in cache (copyright law). If you then engage in profit-making business using a copy of the image which infringes a copyright, you can be prosecuted under criminal charges and face jail time.

You can't get rid of every single copy of a photo, etc, but you can at least clamp down on widespread dissemination. Might get a big paycheck from any copyright infringers, too.

Solution?

[Fuzzums]

So the solution is to go mainstream too and give a few interviews denying everything in the hope those interviews will get the upper hand over the gossip?
It might. Future will tell.

Re:Solution?

[VortexCortex]

The solution is to post "poof" that the gossip is false -- then actively try to purge the "proof" from the Internet and thereby leverage the Streisand effect and conspiracy theories to sway public opinion. "If it wasn't true, why would people try to erase it?"

Bonus: Use fake the DMCA take-down notices as part of your eradication strategy.

how about a deluge of fake info

[cinnamon colbert]

Since I can get addons for firefox which query google randomly every second, why can't ms cordova get an app that sends out tons and tons and tons of spam with her name, permutations of her name, etc etc....quickly making it impossible to find the real info

Re:how about a deluge of fake info

[Anonymous Coward]

Google tells you to fuck off if you do that...

Oblig. Butthead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Huh huh! He said 'anatomy'!"

A reasonable compromise

[davidwr]

I feel for the guy. So will every teenager or young adult who ever did anything stupid or who ever publicly held values they now repudiate when it comes time to looking for a job and when their inability to get one hurts their family or they have to go on public assistance and all the taxpayers get hurt.

Hopefully, the teens of today that turn into the hiring managers of tomorrow will realize that people do change and a person's irresponsible past and the fact that they've learned from it is an asset not a liability.

Transparency has always been used

[tacokill]

County records, county tax appraisals, property records, court records, etc have always been public information. That precedent goes back hundreds of years so you should not be surprised people mine that information and use it for all kinds of purposes, including marketing.

There is no privacy

[cdrguru]

There is no such thing as privacy. Privacy requires a compact between people that what person B knows about person A will not be distributed. Well, today what you know is worth money, so goodbye compact. Even if all it does is create one more visitor to a web site with ads, that translates to real or at least potential money in someone's pocket.

Then there is mirroring, archiving and copying. Sorry, but lots of stuff is mirrored and archived. The minute it appears the mirroring and copying start. This means that even the person that posted something has lost control over it. Can you find all the copies? No. You are going to get braindead bloggers that think it is cute to find something salacious and copy it for their blog. It gives them "content" which drives traffic - braindead, non-creative content but content all the same. Again, the driver today is money - no content = no money.

This person is trying to stop a tidal wave with a teacup. It isn't going to happen. The idea that you can collect up all the pieces and make them go away is a fantasy and it is impossible today.

Summary: he's not handling it right

[slapout]

People on the right think that Rep. Weiner attempted to direct message a picture of his privates to a girl but accidentally sent it on his feed were everyone could see it.

People on the left think that Rep. Weiner's twitter account was hacked.

Either way, he's not handling things properly.

If his account was hacked, then someone has the ability to send out faked messages from a public official. This needs to be investigated to see if it was just him not being careful with his password or if there's a security flaw in twitter. Imagine if you got a faked tweet from President Obama's twitter account that said "Bombs dropping in 30 min. Take cover now!"

If his account wasn't hacked, then he's lying about sending lewd pictures to a young woman.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[spun]

The yfrog account was hacked, it has been demonstrated that their email picture submission system is insecure, and in addition, it automatically tweets when a picture is published. Yfrog took down the email submission system today. Weiner has engaged a lawyer and is pressing for a full investigation. Hopefully, serial liar Andrew Breitbart and his accomplices will be hit with a hefty fine and/or doing some jail time.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[Bing Tsher E]

The important thing is that there be full exposure. Breitbart has publicly stated that he is in favor of the investigation. It was Weenie who wanted to do nothing about it and write it off as 'a prank' until quite recently. Even if it were a prank by a member of his family or someone else close to him, a full investigation is warranted. Even, actually, if it exonerates Breitbart and takes Weenie down.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[MimeticLie]

Ever heard of the Streisand effect? If this happened to me, my first instinct would be to delete it and move on.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[spun]

Weiner engaged a lawyer first thing, of course he is not going to say anything that would jeopardize the prosecution. Brietbart started throwing his co-conspirators under the bus today, leaking some early emails from them. This is going to be fun. Hopefully, Breitbart will face jail time, but even keeping him silent until after we prosecute Clarence Thomas for tax fraud and re-elect Obama, it's a fucking HUGE win for the Democrats. With weasels like Breitbart, you just need to give them enough rope to hang themselves and eventually, they will.

Let's make it a point to revisit this when the results are in, I'm looking forward to rubbing your face in it.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[Bing Tsher E]

Let's make it a point to revisit this when the results are in, I'm looking forward to rubbing your face in it.

Sounds good. But no, I am not up for visiting the fantasy world (the Maddog/Huffyton/DemogoguesUnderground/DailyChaos world) that you live in, so it will need to be visitation in the real world. You go there sometimes, I hope.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[spun]

I really have no idea what media outlets you might be referring to there, as I do not visit the right-wing-nutosphere often, are those nicknames for your right wing "blogs?"

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[Bing Tsher E]

Okay, dude. Whatever. Your hero fessed up today. Here's a towel to wipe the egg off your face.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[Straif]

That's not egg.

Re:Summary: he's not handling it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Or his face.

Let me save you all some time

[GameboyRMH]

Keywords: hot, pic, pictures, bangable

She's short and "full-figured" so unless that's your type, you won't find her hot. You may like her rack if you find Playboy centerfolds arousing.

Don't delete, obfuscate

[losttoy]

Information = Signal - noise. Why try to destroy the signal when it is easier to add noise to the point that information obtained is useless. In plain speak, add lots of random information associated with your name on different social networking and other sites. Result is that anyone looking for you will get such diverse and nonsensical information that they will abandon the pursuit and profile.

Re:Don't delete, obfuscate

[sexconker]

Kinda hard to do that after the fact.

Re:Don't delete, obfuscate

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me more about this plan....

Re:Don't delete, obfuscate

[Anonymous Coward]

Santorum

in the interest of, erm, full disclosure

[Thud457]

I've never worn gray boxers like that.

See? It's not that hard.
um...

Re:in the interest of, erm, full disclosure

[RingDev]

I have a pair just like them! And I think there may even be some scantly clad pictures of me out in the world. If it had shown up on MY twitter feed I would be hard pressed to unilaterally deny being the subject. I don't believe it was me, IIRC I wasn't wearing that pair of underware that night, but it could be a pic of me from years ago with the time stamp altered.

-Rick

Frame set-up? BULLSHIT!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Weiner seems totally unconcerned that someone was able to hack multiple private accounts of a US Congressman, doesn't want a federal investigation into such a crime even though he's on record as sa, and has already all but admitted it's his weiner in the photo.

What?!?!?! This guy can't rule out that it's a picture of his boner on the internet?

How many damned photoes of Weiner's raging weiner are available, anyway, so that he "can't rule out" that's HIS BONER?

There's got to be something WRONG with him to even get to THAT point.

AND he doesn't want the feds investigating even given that if any of his variable stories really are true how someone must have hacked multiple accounts of a sitting US Congressman?

AND his stories keep changing.

And you think it's a "frame set-up"?

Dude, I got this wonderful bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan for sale - cheap. And some beee-yoo-teee-full swampland in Florida for sale - cheap, too.

You credulous fool.

That was fun!

[Penguinisto]

Having an incredibly common name is a wonderful thing sometimes. There are literally thousands of me in there. Even in my current town, there are approximately ~400 that people they've pulled up - and *none* of the results have my current address (even after drilling down manually *myself*) - they had exactly one addy/name combo that matched, that was inaccurate by over 3 years. I popped in via open proxy to insure that they didn't dredge through their visit records and get a sniff. :)

Good luck finding out which one the thousands of guys who share my name is me, s'all I can say.

(Heh - John Galt? No thanks - I have a perfectly usable and apparently damned anonymous real name, thanks.)

Incompetent liars

[Quila]

Doesn't that pretty much define most of our politicians anyway?

Re:Incompetent liars

[SanityInAnarchy]

All the more reason to want to demonstrate that you're better than the average politician... ...even if the downside of this approach is that it is, almost by definition, using "weasel words," although it is also telling the whole truth.

Re:Incompetent liars

[wjousts]

Isn't exactly that attitude the source of all our problems? If you think all politicians lie, then you aren't paying attention. It's usually good deal more complicated than your simple cliche allows.

"anatomy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said taint. heh heh...

Re:"anatomy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! I drilled down to read this post on the off chance that someone posted *exactly* that. I was right. Have I been a part of Slashdot culture too long when I can fairly accurately predict the content of the posts? Probably.

Threadjacking to say this up front:

[spun]

It was NOT Weiner's wiener. Jon Stewart, who roomed with the guy in college, said on The Daily Show,m that Weiner's package is NOT that large. Of course, having a less than impressive package, Weiner might claim that it could be his enormous package in the picture. But look at the known facts: this was publicized by serial liar Andrew Breitbart. The user who brought this to Breitbart's attention has an unhealthy fixation on Weiner, and has stated his desire to destroy the man. It has been demonstrated exactly how the yfrog account was compromised, and just today, yfrog disabled the email submission system that allowed the picture to be posted to Weiner's account.

Most importantly, Weiner is pushing hard for an investigation of Supreme Court justice Thomas's tax evasion and refusal to report the money his wife received to lobby against the Affordable Care act. This right wing smear job is a transparent ploy to throw the media off that trail and make Weiner look bad.

There WILL be a criminal investigation, and the culprits will almost certainly be brought to justice, this time they went too far, and the FBI is involved. I, for one, would love to see Breitbart in prison.

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[spun]

More background on this disgusting and illegal smear job here: http://www.salon.com/news/andrew_breitbart/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/02/breitbart_patriotusa_emails

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[downhole]

And I'm sure that Jon Stewart would never just cover for his good buddy and old roommate by saying that the picture isn't him. And of course there isn't any bias at all implied by Mr. Stewart being a college roommate to a Democratic Senator. I suppose Breitbart also forced Weiner to follow a bunch of pretty young girls that he had no other connection to. And also forced Weiner to act like this is a slimy coverup instead of a legitimate breakin. Last I checked, they demonstrated how hacking yfrog in this was easier than suspected, which is far from proving that an account hack is what actually happened.

And "The user who brought this to Breitbart's attention has an unhealthy fixation on Weiner, and has stated his desire to destroy the man" is not at all like your desire to see Breitbart in prison.

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[spun]

Nothing has been proven yet, but oh boy! am I looking forward to the investigation. Today, Breitbart started throwing some of his co-conspirators under the bus, by leaking some emails. He KNOWS this is going to end badly, and he is trying to his ass.

I want to see the hacker in prison because he is a criminal, as opposed to being merely a member of another political party.

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that anyone believes a United States Senator would be so dumb as to publicly post something like this says it all. It was a hack for Chrissake, one that was up for only a few minutes or seconds.

And somehow Breitbart was the only one who noticed. That's where people get suspicious. The dude already has a record of extremely slimy tactics that amount to outright lying - this would only be a single step further.

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[ravenshrike]

So John Stewart's seen Weiner's wiener from that angle and distance? In the world of photography, perspective is everything. There, in fact, WON'T be a criminal investigation, because it is, in fact, Weiner's wiener. His immediate action after the publication of the photo was to lie his ass off about the tivo eating his hockey game. Moreover, he told the media that he was tweeting about the hockey game but for 3 hours prior to the surprise wiener there was no public communication on his twitter account.

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[spun]

We'll see. I'm looking forward to finding out more. Anonymous is on the case now, did you know? Shit is leaking out all over...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/dan-wolfe-anthony-weiner-weinergate-632095

Re:Threadjacking to say this up front:

[unitron]

Leaving aside Representative Weiner's non-Senator-ness, if Stewart lied about what he'd seen, or not seen, do you really think everybody else who was at the same college at the same time would go along with it, that not one of them would pop up to say "Stewart's nuts, everybody on campus knew Anthony was hung like a horse"?

an alleged photo of Weiner allegedly from Weiner

[nairatinu]

please clarify your post, as it is pretty clear at this point that this was a scam and unlikely from the Congressman.

Some records are now redacted that used to be open

[davidwr]

In the last 20 years some states have passed laws prohibiting court clerks from giving un-redacted copies of certain records to the general public.

This is because many records, especially military records, include things like Social Security numbers that aid in identity theft. Back before the digital age many veterans filed copies of their military records with the courthouse so they wouldn't be lost. There was no concern about someone pulling the record and stealing their identity.

So, in one sense the ease of access to data is a lot easier than before, but in another, some data that was once available is not any more, at least not from the same public document.

Source of the problems

[Quila]

"Isn't exactly that attitude the source of all our problems"

No, the lying is the source of the problems. Talk about blaming the victim.

Re:Source of the problems

[wjousts]

No, your lack of ability to understand politics is the source of the problem. You want to just dismiss everything with a thought ending cliche of "all politicians lie" without exerting the brainpower to understand what is actually happening. Politicians have to make compromising in order to get anything through the legislative process, some time it means they have to do things they said the wouldn't do or not do something that they said they'd do. Only a moron would label that as lying - it's compromise, it's politics and it's the way it has to be. It's people's simplistic grasp of the issues and willful determination not to understand them that is the issue.

If you have a problem with it, maybe democracy isn't your thing? Perhaps I could interest you in a totalitarian regime where at least you know your leaders will do what they say they are going to do regardless of what anybody else thinks. Hey, they may be oppressing large portions of the population, maybe even you, but at least they ain't lying about it.

Re:Source of the problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians have to make compromising in order to get anything through the legislative process, some time it means they have to do things they said the wouldn't do or not do something that they said they'd do.

No,. more often than not politicians are outright lying to get there agenda through or to cover their asses. Sometimes it's big lies like WMD in Iraq (we all know who this was), sometimes it's small lies like "I don't remember where that money is" (The current German minister of finances about 100.000€ of a bribe payed to his party).

If you have a problem with it, maybe democracy isn't your thing?

This has nothing to do with democracy, but all with a political "elite" that thinks is stands above the law. There is a nice saying in Spanish "quien hace la ley hace la trampa." I think it says more about the current state of democracy in most of the world than people are generally willing to admit.

Dictators also lying all the time - I've never heard one saying "I'm here to oppress you and let you work for me so that I can have a life in luxury". Usually it's more along the lines "I'm doing all I can for the people".

No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

The young woman in question is a hard core leftist and absolutely enamored with Anthony Weiner, jokingly claiming he (among a number of lefty politicians) is her boyfriend although they have never met. That was why she was chosen by Breitbart and his accomplices for this smear of Weiner. Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show last night (and the night before) that he roomed with Weiner in college and Weiner's wiener is not that big. Today, yfrog disabled the email submission system due to a known bug that was used to hack Wiener's account. The user who started the smear somehow knew about the posting immediately, even though he is not a follower of either Weiner or the woman's twitter feed. The metadata in the image does not match any camera Weiner owns.

Remember, this all comes from serial liar Andrew Breitbart, the man who got Shirley Sherrod fired for no reason. Weiner is pushing for investigation of Supreme court Clarence Thomas for tax evasion and failing to report that his wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby against the Affordable Care act. That is the real reason the right wants to destroy him. This smear has been in planning for several months.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show last night (and the night before) that he roomed with Weiner in college and Weiner's wiener is not that big.

Jokes on comedy shows are not evidence. You're "trying" to pass it off as such because you're really working for Breitbart and you're trying to do damage control for him by discrediting the actual evidence by association.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

The investigation is happening, so we will see, won't we? I am so looking forward to it. Finally, that lying asshole Breitbart is going to get what's coming to him. I can't fucking wait. Seriously, this whole thing has made me SO happy. It will eventually come out WHY these fuckers did this, too. Clarence Thomas is getting his ass recused from the Affordable Care act case, and possibly axed from the bench for his crimes. The right is going down in fucking flames, as the nation is waking up to what they really are: fascists.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[slapout]

"This smear has been in planning for several months"

They've been planning this for months, and this is the best they could come up with?

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

Yup. Pretty pathetic. Now that it is all coming out, someone is leaking emails, and things are looking very, very bad for the people behind this.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/dan-wolfe-anthony-weiner-weinergate-632095

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[steveha]

Remember, this all comes from serial liar Andrew Breitbart [...] This smear has been in planning for several months.

You have just made an extraordinary claim. I require extraordinary evidence before I believe you.

The available evidence:

0) Anthony Weiner tweeted about being on TV, and added a hash tag "#thats545inseattle". He has not denied adding that hash tag; he also has not given a coherent explanation of what he meant by it. He did say it is "pure coincidence" that the young lady at the center of the privacy nightmare is in the same time zone as Seattle.

1) The picture showed legs that seem like the right color and build to be Anthony Weiner's legs.

2) Anthony Weiner has not denied that it is a picture of him, and has not even denied that he took the picture. This is weird right there. If you ask me whether I ever took a picture of my crotch with a Blackberry, I don't even have to think about it; I can just say "No."

Wolf Blitzer asked Anthony Weiner if he had ever taken such a picture of himself; no answer. Wolf Blitzer also said "You would know if that is your underwear or not, right?" No answer.

It would be weak if Anthony Weiner said "That's a real photo of me and I really wonder how that hacker got it." Weak, but far more convincing than the weird dissembling evasions he has been floating instead.

3) The EXIF data in the picture said it was taken with a Blackberry; other pictures posted to Twitter by Anthony Weiner were taken with a Blackberry.

4) Twitter has an easy command to send a private message. Twitter also has an easy command to post a message publicly. Human beings sometimes type one command when they meant to type another. Just as I have many times hit "Submit" rather than "Preview" right here on Slashdot, Anthony Weiner could trivially have made a mistake that would cause a private message to be posted publicly.

5) Anthony Weiner only followed 198 other people. A large number of those 198 people were good-looking young females with no obvious reason why a member of Congress should follow them. I mean, how many members of Congress have friended me on Facebook? None; if one did, it would be noteworthy. The stripper/porn star, Ginger Lee, was followed immediately after she tweeted that she was attracted to a short list of three famous people, one of whom was Anthony Weiner; and she tweeted that she had received a private message from Anthony Weiner.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH

6) Anthony Weiner counts Andrew Breitbart as a political enemy. With one phone call to the FBI, Anthony Weiner could unleash a full investigation, including IP address logs from Twitter servers, that would help track down the hacker. I can't think of anything that would destroy Breitbart more thoroughly than to be convicted of computer hacking to publicly defame the character of a sitting member of Congress. Anthony Weiner has not done this, saying that such an investigation would cost money. He is spending hours dodging questions, he is yelling angrily at reporters about this, it has been going on for days, and he hasn't taken any steps to bring the evil culprits to justice?

Oh wait, he hired a private firm! Instead of the FBI, which could get a search warrant to look at server logs, he is hiring a private firm. (I'll bet you that the private firm never finds anything conclusive.)

The FBI presumably could access the yfrog servers and recover the original image file with full EXIF data, rather than the resized one with only partial EXIF data, which would likely help identify the specific Blackberry used to take the picture. Unless the putative hackers knew exactly which model of Blackberry Anthony Weiner has, this would likely help prove the hacker theory; on the other hand if Anthony Weiner took the photo with his own Blackberry, this would help disprove the hacker theory.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

First, anything from Andrew Breitbart requires extraordinary proof, as the man has proved himself an amoral serial liar.

0) He had a campaign stop in Seattle on that date, that's well known.
1) Not his skin tone. He has more olive skin, this guy was pretty white.
2) As I mentioned, dude has a small package. He didn't want to say, "No, that's not mine, mine is tiny."
3) The EXIF data DOES NOT show it was a blackberry model owned by Weiner
4) This was sent from a yfrog account, using the auto-tweet function, as evidenced by the screenshots
5) False. Just a plain old lie, really. No reputable source is reporting this, where do you even get your information? Oh, that's right, you make it up.
6) Weiner HAS opened an investigation, I won't be surprised to see Breitbart in jail soon. He has ALSO retained a private lawyer.
7) Show me some proof.
8) The hacker didn't need to gain control of his twitter account, it was a yfrog hack. Yfrog let you email a photo to an unsecured address, and the site automatically put it up and tweeted it.

You believe what you want to believe, of course. This was the best they could come up with, these guys are fucking ass-clowns. Retarded ass-clowns. They will be caught, and they will face prison time. Breitbart is already leaking really embarrassing emails from the guy who faked this in a transparent attempt to distance himself from this whole fiasco, but it won't work. THAT is why Wiener is playing coy, he plans to utterly destroy Breitbart.

This whole thing is just an attempt to deflect attention away from Clarence Thomas, and smear the guy who is publicly calling for an investigation into Thomas' tax evasion, his wife's acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in 'consulting fees' to lobby against the Affordable Care act, Thomas' attempt to cover this up, and his refusal to recuse himself from the case. This was the best they could do because they are desperate and out of time. They, and you, will lose but our country will win.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[steveha]

0) I never heard about any campaign stop in Seattle, and I live in the Seattle area. Could you please post a link reference so I can read about this?

1) Why don't we let Slashdot readers click on the link below, look at the photo, and decide how pasty-white those legs are for themselves. They don't look suspiciously white to me, and cell phone cameras aren't the best for accurate color, so you definitely haven't persuaded me on this point.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/29/weinergate-married-congressmans-twitter-account-shares-lewd-photo/

3) I only said the EXIF data shows it was a Blackberry; I said nothing about model.

What camera puts the string "Rim Exif Version 1.00a" other than a Research In Motion Blackberry?

Source: http://wireupdate.com/joereport/news/breaking-congressman-anthony-weiner-x-rated-photos-internet-cache-files-recovered/

5) I find it entertaining that the one point I actually provided a link reference for is the one where you claimed I have no reference. Please click on my provided link.

I haven't researched this myself. If you have a link that shows why he was following random young women, please share it. Maybe he rolls a pair of percentile dice, and follows anyone for whom he rolls "00"?

And, you were remarkably quick to claim that I make up information. To me, that means you just called me a liar. That's rather rude and insulting, and it is not winning me over to your point of view.

Tell me, do you have any idea who I am? Have you read a whole bunch of my postings on Slashdot and formed this as a considered opinion, or do you just feel that it's no big deal to call other people liars?

7) In the Fox video embedded here, he does say "I was tweeting about hockey at the time, when this all happened." About 3:21 in the video. No, the timestamps show that the photo was posted and several minutes later he tweeted about hockey.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/01/videos-anthony-weiners-disastrous-media-tour/

But you know what, that is sufficiently vague that I don't really care about it. I'm much more convinced by the weird evasions about whether it is he in the photo.

They will be caught, and they will face prison time.

To which I can only say: hey, let's call in the FBI. They can get a search warrant, look at the server logs, and find the IP address from which the photo was sent.

According to the simple theory, the IP address will point right at Anthony Weiner's phone. Some other IP address, perhaps from a public place, would cast reasonable doubt over this theory.

Anthony Weiner, as a sitting member of Congress, ought to be taking this seriously if the story is as he claims.

Either you have a touching faith in Anthony Weiner, or else you are just cynically trolling me. Either way, you won't be swayed by any opinions or facts I might offer. And either way, you called me a liar. So, we're done.

Have a nice life.

steveha

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!

Seriously, I hope when Breitbart is proven innocent, he sues the ever living crap out of hate sites like DailyKos, HuffPo, and idiots like you for slander.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

You won't be swayed by opinions or facts and like all conservatives, you are a close minded, hateful little man, and a serial liar like your hero Breitbart. Fuck off and die.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

LOL! Like that could possibly happen. Learn the fucking law before you spout off idiocy like that. Your hero is a liar, and he's going to jail, fool.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

How elegant and convincing this statement was! Powerful. I love the way you cited all the references to refute him. +5 Insightful.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[spun]

There was nothing left to refute, yet he was still opening his big fat yap and making noises like there was, so I put him in his place. If someone won't debate honestly, I will fucking slap them down.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[steveha]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/06/new.york.weiner/

Anthony Weiner just publicly admitted to sending the picture. He just publicly apologized to "everyone in the media", including Breitbart, for lying. Direct quote from Anthony Weiner: "I lied because I was ashamed at what I had done, and I didn't want to get caught." (taken from CNN article linked above) He has also publicly admitted, direct quote, that he had: "exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years."

So, Andrew Breitbart will not be going to prison for hacking, because there was no hacker. In this case, the simpler theory has been shown to be the correct one.

I would appreciate it if you would apologize to me for the rude things you have said about me and to me in this discussion thread.

steveha

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone won't debate honestly

Which part was the dishonest part? He provided referenced when you askd. Where are your references?

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

Your hero is a liar, and he's going to jail, fool.

Tell me, crazed liberal moron... how does crow taste? Does it taste better to crazed liberal morons such as yourself?

Some people are liberals. Some people are morons. And some people, such as yourself, are both.

I thought about replying last week to tell you what a moron you were, but I figured I'd just wait until the truth was out so I could rub it in your face a little more effectively than by simply making baseless claims like you yourself were doing.

P.S. I am not the GP AC and I am fully aware that it's unlikely that Breitbart could win any legal case against anyone for the things they've accused him of. However, you're still the idiot here: anyone CAN sue someone over absolutely anything they WANT to sue them over. It's WINNING that I find unlikely.

Re:No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

I put him in his place. If someone won't debate honestly, I will fucking slap them down.

This has never happened. You have never done this, and you never will. And you know it.

Re:Some records are now redacted that used to be o

[Bing Tsher E]

When I attended college in the early 1980's the small private college I enrolled in used our Social Security Numbers as our student ID. I am not sure how they've cleaned that mess up....

publicity

[Thuktun]

There are entities out there that would do nearly anything for that kind of publicity. I dunno, maybe she could use it for something.

What's the big deal?

[MikeBabcock]

Why are people so obsessed with erasing themselves from the Internet? You can't erase yourself from paper records any easier. The Internet is just a medium, albeit faster and more efficient in some use cases.

Just like with paper, if you don't want the information being found, don't let it get written down in the first place.

Re:What's the big deal?

[guspasho]

Did you RTFA? The poor woman and everyone he knows are being harassed night and day by a national media circus frenzy that's caught the scent of that most precious of stories, a Democratic sex scandal. Through no fault of her own. She has absolutely nothing to do with the targeted Congressman, she was probably just a Twitter fan selected at random.

Re:What's the big deal?

[MikeBabcock]

This has happened for a hundred years from paper information, sometimes doctored, sometimes valid.

Again, there's nothing special about the Internet.

Re:What's the big deal?

[inthealpine]

The fact that you are proven 100% wrong I doubt will even phase you. You are quite sad, unfortunately you are not alone...

Some lies

[Quila]

"I did not have sex with that woman"

Nope, he did it.

"There are WMDs in Iraq"

Nope, none, just a lie to get us to support a war.

"will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days"

Absolutely within his power as President to unilaterally accomplish, no compromising necessary. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was non-emergency and Obama decided to sign it two days after passing with no posting on the White House web site.

"Letâ(TM)s look at the number 1. Number 1, thatâ(TM)s the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office."

That's Michelle Bachmann. The Obama administration had approved 276 permits by the time she said that.

"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"

Another Bachmann classic. Maybe she's not lying, maybe she's just plain crazy.

And I could fill a small book with the various lies politicians say about guns in order to further their agendas.

I'm not talking about promises they couldn't fulfill due to realities, I'm talking about lies.

Re:Some lies

[Coren22]

"I did not have sex with that woman"

Nope, he did it.

He didn't have sex with her, she gave him a blow job. Sex would imply actual penetration...

"There are WMDs in Iraq"

Nope, none, just a lie to get us to support a war.

At the time he said it, the US intel agencies were telling him there was, hardly a lie to repeat bad intel

"will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days"

Absolutely within his power as President to unilaterally accomplish, no compromising necessary. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was non-emergency and Obama decided to sign it two days after passing with no posting on the White House web site.

Obama lied well before entering office, he said he would never vote for telecom immunity, then the first time the bill came up (with telecom immunity) he voted for it. This was the point I lost my respect for him completely.

"Letâ(TM)s look at the number 1. Number 1, thatâ(TM)s the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office."

That's Michelle Bachmann. The Obama administration had approved 276 permits by the time she said that.

This almost sounds like the person is saying something along the lines of "look at evidence page 1" but I would have to have more of the quote to form an opinion either way.

"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"

Another Bachmann classic. Maybe she's not lying, maybe she's just plain crazy.

Or doesn't understand the issue? Most politicians are lawyers, not a profession known for their grasp of technology. It is entirely possible that a lobbyist explained it to her this way and she believed them as they would never lie...

And I could fill a small book with the various lies politicians say about guns in order to further their agendas.

I'm not talking about promises they couldn't fulfill due to realities, I'm talking about lies.

Fully agree.

Re:Some lies

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't have sex with her, she gave him a blow job.

Your wife won't buy that (if you have one). Neither will anyone who has checked a dictionary.

SEX
3a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
2: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Sex would imply actual penetration...

There was penetration. His penis penetrated her lips.

Dilute Your Internet Profile with Disinformation

[srobert]

Instead of trying to remove any trace of yourself from the internet, you should dilute the information with so much disinformation, that no one would trust using the internet as a source about you. If I google your name and find that you served time for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, you were once the President of Bulgaria, and you shot JFK, then I can pretty much figure that whatever I read about you on the net is bullshit.

So to prove his innocence ...

[srobert]

To prove his innocence he must demonstrate that his wiener is small? Maybe he'd rather be thought guilty.
Seems like Weinergate is giving the Republicans a Boehner.

Sweet Balls

[Mana Mana]

> It wasn't him.

Bullshit. I live in NYC, and several weeks ago on another idiotic point of Weiner I wrote him off as an idiot. Period. UBL's dead, so give the (taxpayers') reward money to the "victims" of the Twin Towers. Enough. When you get hit by a bus the US does not give your kin and kilth free money, even if they're desperate for it. That's what savings and insurance are for. We all die eventually. T. McVeigh's Oklahoma victims did not get any money! Enough coddling.

To your point. Innocent persons in these circumstances walk, whilst a _guiltless_ politician _RUNS_ to the police to report harm. Harm to their personal reputation, their family's reputation, their political party's reputation, their institution's reputation, their professional reputation. Righteously, one, anyone will even report this as societal harm. You might say it's overly noble, but Weiner's supposedly a fighter, pugnacious, right?

He's guilty of this sin. He just does not want to get burned when an official investigation pries into his dark life---whilst placed under oath.

Mystery Solved.

[Timtimes]

It was a simple case of rightwing Republican dirty tricks. Whocouldanode? http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/case-closed/ Enjoy.

Re:Mystery Solved.

[inthealpine]

The fact that you are proven 100% wrong I doubt will even phase you. You are quite sad, unfortunately you are not alone.

SecretSocial Fixes this Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Real simple fix, it's called SecretSocial - recently launched: http://secretsocial.com

Except It Turns Out It Was, Now, Wasn't It?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did Weiner's people pay you and the tool at CannonFire to spread and concoct this ridiculous astroturfing effort?

Re:Frame set-up? BULLSHIT!!!!!!

[inthealpine]

Your low score should show you what you should think of slashdot posters. Slashdot posters don't like truth and love cool-aid from the liberal media. That wont ever change.

Re:an alleged photo of Weiner allegedly from Weine

[inthealpine]

The fact that you are proven 100% wrong I doubt will even phase you. You are quite sad, unfortunately you are not alone..