Military and Government E-mails Compromised

Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that 16,959 e-mail accounts were recently exposed by Connexion Hack Team. Included in the data dump are usernames and passwords for military and government accounts. The other compromised accounts included addresses from GMail, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL." Reader Stoobalou adds a report that NATO's servers have been hit for the second time in as many months.

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The North American Terrorist Organization deserves what they get.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, unless you're a commie.

Re:Good.

[said213]

I think that NATO's a slight grade above the accomplishments of communism.
It astounds me how forward thinking we all pretend to be while constantly comparing new problems to the past.
Unless and until you have something clever to say about anarchy, you're just trolling.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom is just trolling my dick. Bazinga!!1

Re:Good.

[JustOK]

There's rules for being a good anarchist. Of course, none of the good anarchists follow them.

Re:Good.

[black soap]

That's because they weren't invited to the meeting where the rules where set.

Re:Good.

[said213]

to the person(s) who modded me -1 offtopic: you're trolling too.
sorry you're entirely too clever to understand why/how.

First

[Anonymous Coward]

post

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed and should probably just kill yourself now.

Going to throw stones?

[Sooner Boomer]

So are the same people that decried the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone going to speak out against this hack attack too? Hmmph - thought not. One set of rules for you, another set of rules for those you have decided are the "bad guys".

Re:Going to throw stones?

[TheGratefulNet]

what's your agenda here, btw?

lets start with that. how odd you make a comparision when no sane person would. speaks volumes about you.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Sooner Boomer]

what's your agenda here, btw?

My "agenda" is to point out the hypocrisy. The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The fact that you somehow got modded up horrifies me. There is a world of difference between the two scenarios, perhaps somebody will patiently explain them to you...maybe with bright colors and friendly animals!

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy. One is a family, one is a large and corrupt public organisation.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[bsDaemon]

Well, government data is (nominally) public property and should be owned by and available to the public at large, with only certain exceptions, usually in a time of war. Fucking around the the voice mail account of a missing, underage girl who may or may not have been murdered, is a little bit different than that, don't you think? But hey, context, what's that?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.

Nonsense. Government data should be public unless there is a compelling need for secrecy. This provides for accountability of government. Personal data have no such application; a person is not accountable to society in the same way that the government is.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is hypocrisy, then that point can stand by itself. It doesn't matter what his agenda is.
Your argument is the same argument global warming deniers use against climatologists.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[TheGratefulNet]

I can't, in my wildest dreams, see the parallel you see.

seek help, is my advice to you.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[DarkOx]

I am in favor of the release of ALL hacked data. Even when it my hurt people, even when it may put lives at risk. All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger. It creates more division and strife in the world not less; why? because it always comes out eventually; even if it takes decades.

When I was very young my mother gave me a simple bit of advice. See said if you want to be sure nobody every reads something, don't write it down.

Wow simple eh? much simpler than encryption schemes, dealing with vetting 10s of thousands of people to receive secret clearance, etc. NATO higher ups need to speak to each other pick up the damned phone and don't make recordings of the call. Data that is not there can't leak.

People should take this to their personal lives as well. The average teenager would probably be lots happier if they themselves as well as their school mates put a little consideration in what words they commit to paper, or Facebook. Conversations between a few people will be forgotten, everything else tends to get distributed more widely or to resurface and cause more grief at the wrong times.

Yes in 2011 we can record everything, we can store a life stream for every person large with or without their cooperation, but WE SHOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Lifyre]

While I understand the point you are trying to make you seem to have sidestepped the context. Hacking an organization and at least theoretically exposing weaknesses in their security and hacking an individual's phone are quite a bit different. I generically applaud publicly hacking organizations that are failing in their responsibility to protect the information they have. So while I would support generically hacking the entire phone system to expose such a weakness the focused malicious attack on a deceased girl does not quite have the same flavor.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MrHanky]

You're an idiot.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Ephemeriis]

The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.

So you don't see any difference at all between a private individual and a government organization?

I'm not particularly moved to emotion by either of these stories... But I can at least see a difference here.

The US government is supposed to be by the people, for the people... And yet we see plenty of evidence that the US population is being lied to at nearly every turn. Why would I, as a US citizen, object to actually getting to find out what my government is really doing? Yes, of course, folks are going to cry that it's a security breach and our top secret plans are now in the wild... Which may actually be true... But after literally years of being lied to, I guess I'm not all that worried about a top secret plan or two making it into the wrong hands.

As for Milly... Well, I'm not really convinced that anything horrible happened there. It sounds like deleting those voicemails hampered the investigation of her death. And maybe the parents might have wanted to hang on to some of them for sentimental value... But, not to be cruel or anything, the lady was already dead. Still, she's a private citizen. Not some government organization. Her close friends and family might have a legitimate argument that they have a right to hear her voicemail... And the police can certainly get a warrant to listen to it... But that really isn't something that a tabloid needs to be reporting on to drum up more readers. It's certainly something that they want to report on, because it's sensational and will sell a few more copies... But that doesn't make it right.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[blueg3]

That gets tricky. Not all government data, just government work product. There are a lot of situations where direct public access to government data is a real problem. Not the bullshit "national security" reasons, but simple things like access to internal information about an ongoing FBI or SEC investigation. Eventually the information -- excepting things that could easily compromise future investigations -- should be public, but not necessarily immediately. Likewise, government officials should be able to have e-mail accounts without their e-mails being available in real time to the public. That's a bullshit claim that's a (somewhat fair) reaction to the everything-must-be-secret government culture. Data necessary for transparency and oversight needs to be available while maintaining a reasonable degree of privacy that enables individuals and organizations to do their jobs effectively. I think that if better government transparency isn't forthcoming, than this sort of vigilante exposure will only increase.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I sympathise, but I disagree. People are allowed to define their own rules, and hence exceptions, in their own moral compass. I mean, if exceptions weren't allowed, then you could be a hypocrite for believing one "thing" is good, but not another "thing". Surely, either you believe everything is good, or everything is bad?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you feel if someone hacked into your Doctors office computer and released the fact that you are

1. On Psych meds
2. Are attracted to little boys.
3. Did your mom when you were 16.

Wait...are you even 16 yet?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Emails and passwords of government workers "should be owned by and available to the public at large"? Only online can one see irrational dogmatism like this. There are legitimate avenues for accessing data, this isn't one of them. Filing an FOI request and tunneling your way into the archive room are distinctly different things.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Wait, you know the US government is corrupt? Oh my god! Have you contacted the police, or the press, or corruption watchdogs, or presented your evidence somewhere on the internet, or anything like that?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[sycodon]

One has to wonder what you thought about Palin's emails being hacked. Or, what you would think is Bachman's emails were hacked. I suspect you would be overjoyed.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, then let's see what China, Russia, Israel, and others have including Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Oh wait, they'll actually find the people that hack them and seriously fuck them up. Well, we know just how brave these groups are now, don't we?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

So while I would support generically hacking the entire phone system to expose such a weakness the focused malicious attack on a deceased girl does not quite have the same flavor.

So breaking into a server and publishing account/password combinations to expose the weakness would be a public service? What if one breaks into a bank and dumps the deposit box keys onto the street, would you view that as a public service?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Lifyre]

I should be more clear I suppose. I don't support every action the hackers take, I never have. I support the exposing of the weaknesses to force the organizations to fix them or at least allow the individuals the ability to mitigate them. The problem here (and with your analogy) is that a security vulnerability like this can easily be used and then kept secret by the company and/or hackers. If you break into a bank and dump the keys into the street it is very public (even if you don't dump the keys) and will illicit and immediate and strong corrective response. If that was the case for hacking an information system we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with and it would be much harder to accomplish.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

Well, government data is (nominally) public property and should be owned by and available to the public at large,

Can you cite a supreme course case, an amendment, an article of the constitution, etc?

No, this is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

Nonsense. Government data should be public unless there is a compelling need for secrecy.

"Should" and "is" are two different things. Possibly one should push for a change in legislation (I thought Obama was pushing a transparent government initiative...?), but until then I dont see any reason to get giddy because someone broke laws and saw fit to play the data-vigilante.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger.

Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that statement.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to presume violent breaking and entering. One could surreptitiously compromise a bank and access secure items by masquerading as a worker, same as cloning certificates for computer systems. The bank/server analogy works very well this way, and in either case the claim to public benefit is dubious.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is the same argument global warming deniers use against climatologists.

No, the argument is that its been changed several times and credibility begins to wane when it goes from "global warming" to "global climate change".

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Sooner Boomer]

I am in favor of the release of ALL hacked data.

That viewpoint, I can respect. I disagree, but I can respect it. When you pick and choose who is within the boundries of the law, the law loses its function, and you become a vigilante.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but until then I dont see any reason to get giddy because someone broke laws and saw fit to play the data-vigilante.

This is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.

As if the imprimatur of law has an ounce of weight when it comes to morality.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Isaac Remuant]

heh, I really hope you're not basing yourself in OMGZ, wikileaks endangered Morgan Tsvangirai's life. Please, tell me you're not nitpicking clearly false and biased information to support... er... what was your point again? yeah, whatever that was.

One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do, but some people will research and realize you're saying nothing at all.

if someone reveals the truth, no matter what happens, it's still the truth. Why should people rely on saviours, politicians, leaders, whatever that operate in secret and do not want their actions known?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Lifyre]

I hadn't thought of it that way and it does work better as an analogy except for the reaction both to the stolen items being released to the public and the hacking event itself will be dramatically different. I should also be clear I don't think the release of the information has much if any benefit but the public disclosure of the compromise does.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MichaelKristopeit422]

tunneling your way into the archive room, and convincing a digital system to transmit a stream of bits to you are distinctly different things.

you're an idiot.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

Tsvangirai's position was put in jeopardy because he was allied with the US against Mugabe, and Mugabe was able to use his control of the media to twist it into some anti-Zimbabwe sentiment.

There is no possible way youre going to convince me that the curiosity of some citizens in the US was worth endangering the potential fixing of the disaster that is Zimbabwe.

One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do,

Pot calling the kettle black. How many one-liners pop up stating "information wants to be free", nevermind that the founding fathers, the 2 sides in the confederacy, and the WW2 united states would have utterly disagreed with that statement on certain matters? People complaining about the harsh treatment of Manning seem to have lost sight of the fact that during the Civil or Revolutionary wars, he would have already been shot or hung as a traitor.

This isnt some new thing that is a distortion of the values our country stands for; people have long recognized that once you get back into reality, some secrets are necessary for the functioning of diplomacy and for the waging of military operations.

How successful do you suppose Neptunes Spear would have been if Wikileaks had gotten wind of the operation beforehand, pray tell? In what conceivable way is it a service to US citizens to ensure that its operations are unsuccessful, as such operations will be if such intel is leaked?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Runaway1956]

Misconduct by an international megacorporation is now equivalent to childish pranks done by anonymous geeks? Misconduct for profit equates to some kind of misguided political activism?

Let me be blunt - I want Rupert Murdoch's head on a pig pole. Knowing that the "gubbermint" is looking for these miscreants in this story is good enough for me. These little freaks don't actually threaten my freedoms, while Murdoch does. Murdoch's vision for the world is endorsed by dozens of MP and congressmen around the world, and he uses his money and influence to move forward with his plans. The freaks hacking emails have no influence, little money (if any) and cannot sway any parliament or congress to pass asinine laws that will increase their wealth.

It's a matter of priority. When being stalked by predators, you deal with the biggest, baddest, meanest, and most dangerous predator first. In this case, that is Rupert Murdoch.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

This is just your vision of how things should be? Oh, ok then.

No, its me stating a fact: that I am in a state of confusion over why people are overjoyed that others are violating the laws of the land in a democracy where the majority stands against them.

As if the imprimatur of law has an ounce of weight when it comes to morality.

One treads on dangerous ground when speaking of morality in such an issue, especially when you havent explained what your ground for morality is. Myself, I would say that part of a proper system of ethics recognizes the necessity to submit yourself to the governing laws of the land, unless such laws contradict a more basic ethical rule.

And honestly, I would not call the "need for information to be free" a deeper ethical rule.

So the question becomes, if the law of the land has absolutely no say in your mind as to how one should behave, where DO you derive your standards from?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Isaac Remuant]

Tsvangirai's position was put in jeopardy because he was allied with the US against Mugabe, and Mugabe was able to use his control of the media to twist it into some anti-Zimbabwe sentiment.

There is no possible way youre going to convince me that the curiosity of some citizens in the US was worth endangering the potential fixing of the disaster that is Zimbabwe.

You're saying that because zimbaweans learned THE TRUTH and Mugabe could use it to his advantage that secrecy was entitled? Tsvangirai engaged in talks with the US and supported sanctions against the country, wether that's a good or bad thing, it's not important in this discussion. The important thing is that it's represents the truth and if people get angry about it, wether there's a media spin or not, it's just how things are supposed to be.

I might be wrong, but you're claiming that secrecy should've been mantained so that Tsangivarai could effectively fight Mugabe while he lied to the people he represented? That's not good, that's not fair. I understand that you're on ONE side and that probably makes it hard to look it from a perspective. But life is not really us vs them. Just because I don't like Mugabe, it doesn't mean I'll blindly pretend all Tsvangirai's actions are ok.

People are supposed to make informed decisions in a democracy but you want your, let's say team, to be able to lie in order to achieve it's goals?

One liners might make someone look like they know more than they do,

Pot calling the kettle black. How many one-liners pop up stating "information wants to be free", nevermind that the founding fathers, the 2 sides in the confederacy, and the WW2 united states would have utterly disagreed with that statement on certain matters? People complaining about the harsh treatment of Manning seem to have lost sight of the fact that during the Civil or Revolutionary wars, he would have already been shot or hung as a traitor.

First off, I didn't say that information wants to be free. I just called you out on a lousy, unexplained and false example which was proven to be a piece of media propaganda a long time ago and it all started with this piece of crap article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/03/zimbabwe-morgan-tsvangirai

Second, founding fathers, blah, blah... Don't appeal to a mistic authority to try and support your non existent argument. You remind me of people who make a up quotes from the bible. By the way, I'm not a history expert but I think there were compulsory drafts during the civil war too. So does everything that happened then apply now as well? No. Null argument.

This isnt some new thing that is a distortion of the values our country stands for; people have long recognized that once you get back into reality, some secrets are necessary for the functioning of diplomacy and for the waging of military operations.

How successful do you suppose Neptunes Spear would have been if Wikileaks had gotten wind of the operation beforehand, pray tell? In what conceivable way is it a service to US citizens to ensure that its operations are unsuccessful, as such operations will be if such intel is leaked?

Sure, keeps spewing official crap. "Values America stands for"? Really? Fake patriot rhetoric won't help your case. Citizens will be lied to and everything will be kept secret to "protect" them from we-can't-tell-you-what dangers that lurk around.

With full secrecy comes no accountability.

Remember how this all started:
He said:
"All in all I think all the secrecy, and covert action makes us weaker not stronger."
You replied:
"Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that state

Re:Going to throw stones?

[SomePgmr]

I know you guys are mostly just going at each other, but seems to me that knowing corruption is rampant (at least what regular people call corruption) is very different from necessarily having some new, undisclosed evidence in hand. I mean, we see cases of it every day... some of which net prosecutions, and sadly many that don't. Politics is a lying bastards game, fueled by huge sums of money and extraordinary influence. It doesn't surprise most of us that a situation like that is rife with problems. The only time I hear anyone even suggest otherwise is when they're temporarily blinded by some flashy new liar. Though it always ends the same, in time.

And I think the original point stands... sometimes we consider various kinds of cronyism, back room deals, government contracts, negligence, etc. as examples of corruption, even if they're somehow legal. Just because most people don't know, or care enough to say anything about it, doesn't mean it's not shitty. We're not lawyers, so we judge right and wrong on the stricter criteria of everyday life.

I'm not normally a black helicopters, Illuminati, "zomg corporations r teh evil" kind of person... but I think it's entirely rational to expect frequent and serious problems in system with so much money and influence around for the taking.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MagusSlurpy]

This is by no means all-inclusive, but it's a starting point.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe look at the situation in Zimbabwe, and the fallout after the release of several diplomatic wires between Mugabe's opposition and the US, and then repeat that statement.

Was the people releasing the information about the US funding a puppet leader to take over a natural resources rich country the real villains or the political powers that be who are breaking international law at fault? Money is all they gave a shit about and their plans had nothing to do with overthrowing Mugabe for moral reasons. There are immeasurably worse tyrants out there in poorer places such as the Ivory Coast, so stop trying to play the high and mighty card and get off that horse before you hurt yourself.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[koreaman]

Why?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[wikileaks]

tunneling your way into the archive room, and convincing a digital system to transmit a stream of bits to you are distinctly different things.

you're an idiot.

Apparently though, not nearly as much of an idiot as you, Kristopeit.

Cower in my shadow some more behind your countless unimaginative pseudonyms, feeb.

You're completely pathetic.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Woy]

My "agenda" is to point out the hypocrisy. The same people that clapped in glee with the release of this and other govt. data should either clap in glee with the release of ALL hacked data, or should object to the release of ALL hacked data.

The same people that clapped in glee with the delivery of this and other delicious pizzas should either clap in glee with the delivery of this shitty pizza, or should object to the delivery of ALL pizzas.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[micheas]

One has to wonder what you thought about Palin's emails being hacked. Or, what you would think is Bachman's emails were hacked. I suspect you would be overjoyed.

It made me wonder exactly how many of my clients have accounts that can be reset based on information in their wikipedia entry.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[DarkOx]

I don't think I would like that very much at all. Which is why I should be able to ask my doctor to shred my medical file, or at least portions of it. Does that mean treatment may not be as effective in the future yes. I not anyone else though should get to chose how to weigh the risk it leaks against the value of storing it.

I think personally in most aspects of life right now we grossly over value keeping records and grossly underestimate the risks of leaks and the costs of fallout from them.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And I think the original point stands... sometimes we consider various kinds of cronyism, back room deals, government contracts, negligence, etc. as examples of corruption, even if they're somehow legal. Just because most people don't know, or care enough to say anything about it, doesn't mean it's not shitty. We're not lawyers, so we judge right and wrong on the stricter criteria of everyday life.

OK, now that you've made your case, allow me to make mine.

The criteria of everyday life and everyday people sucks. Most people will listen to the flimsiest evidence for something that vindicates their beliefs (and in a small part, their identity), and draw completely fallacious conclusions that they are correct. Worse still, they will then use these fallacious conclusions as evidence to solidify their beliefs, until they have this illusion of a pile of evidence mounting behind them. If you try to follow almost anything up, it turns to smoke, often in the form of speculations. They draw up a situation that fits both their beliefs and the thin pieces of actual data, with no evidence other than mountain of other "evidence" that also turns to smoke. In this way, they build a castle on sand, with the appearance of solidity and stability, until you start to tap the bricks.

You know how you feel when you read a really earnest defence of a really dumb conspiracy theory? Well, I feel like this all the time when I read people's arguments that a given action of the government is due to corruption (I also feel this way when I read christian apologetics, and sporadic other topics, so it's not just government).

Government corruption is one such castle made from fallacies. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because it clearly does from the actual hard evidence we have received about previous government scandals. However, I have heard people discuss points of alleged corruption, and it's like they don't even check to see if there are any other possibilities. They are so convinced that the government is corrupt, they don't even bother to check whether it's true or not, and so it makes them more sure. This leads to an exponential growth of false assurance.

Here's a litmus test. How many actual times can you think of examples of times when you've seen governmental negligence? You might think, "loads of times", as many would. However, think harder about it. How many times do you actually know for sure (i.e. there's no other feasible and adequate explanation for the series of events that occurred) that some governmental screw-up occurred, when it realistically could have been prevented by the people involved doing their job better? If it couldn't be prevented by people doing the job better, then it is a problem of the system, which is not fair to blame on the government. I think, if you think back, there will only be at most a couple of times where it is actually known the government was negligent, and the rest of the time we kind of assumed it was, because governments are negligent by nature.

So yes, you are correct, "knowing" something in court is very different from "knowing" something in real life, a distinction that mirrors the distinction between "fact" and "belief".

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MichaelKristopeit423]

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen masculine nationalist based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

You're saying that because zimbaweans learned THE TRUTH and Mugabe could use it to his advantage that secrecy was entitled?

For the most part, yes, because the depiction of "the truth" that they were getting was mostly incorrect. Im not clear on what precisely the average Zimbabwean knows about this issue, but as Mugabe basically controls information there, you can bet that its not anything so accurate as you or I know.

while he lied to the people he represented?

In what way was he lying? It is well known that he opposes Mugabe; this is just an excuse to trump up treason charges.
And as for "represented", you DO realize that Tsvangirai WON the last election and STILL doesnt really have control of the government, because Mugabe is refusing to step down?

Tsvangirai's "lie" as you term it is that he spoke with US officials and encouraged sanctions against Mugabe. I dont recall him ever stating he wouldnt do that, and I dont think any reasonable person familiar with Mugabe would find that to be some terrible crime.

First off, I didn't say that information wants to be free. I just called you out on a lousy, unexplained and false example which was proven to be a piece of media propaganda a long time ago and it all started with this piece of crap article:

When you say "proven to be some piece of propaganda", you mean that he ISNT facing treason charges, and that Mugabe ISNT still in power? Im not clear. The wikipedia article indicates neither of those to be true.

By the way, I'm not a history expert but I think there were compulsory drafts during the civil war too. So does everything that happened then apply now as well? No. Null argument.

Your premise, unless im reading it wrong, is that there is no place for secrecy in any part of the government-- and as this article is specifically about the military, your premise seems to include military and diplomatic relations as well.
My counter argument which you are dismissing as null is that this has NEVER been recognized at any point in our country's history-- it seems to be assumed throughout all of our wars and throughout all of our history that there IS some information that can and at times must be kept secret. Does it apply now? Well, presumably you are indicating how things "should be", but you arent giving a reason for why they should be that way; and presumably the framework of the folks who wrote the Constitution has SOME say when talking about "how things should be". Obviously, just because things "have always been that way" is not in and of itself a perfect defense of the practice, but surely you can see it carries some weight.

Sure, keeps spewing official crap. "Values America stands for"? Really? Fake patriot rhetoric won't help your case.

Er, you completely missed the thrust of what i was saying. My statement was that this "WASNT some distortion of values america stands for", arguing AGAINST such rhetoric as it is commonly employed. I dont think secrecy is a "value", I think it is a necessary evil when discussing military operations.

Citizens will be lied to and everything will be kept secret to "protect" them from we-can't-tell-you-what dangers that lurk around.

Grats for building a strawman, thats not at all what I said. Im simply stating that it is lunacy to suppose military and diplomatic missions can be carried out successfully if the opposition and bad actors all know all of our plans as we plan them. Im not endorsing a government dominated by secrecy, at all.

With full secrecy comes no accountability.

Well, perhaps you would like to push for an amendment to the constitution. What you are talking about is a fundamental change to the way our military and diplomatic relations work, one that goes back to the founding of the country. I agree with your statement (the on

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MichaelKristopeit423]

ur mum's face is not nearly as much of an idiot as you.

my name is michael kristopeit. i do not cower. i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701. i live there with my wife and children and dogs and numerous firearms. you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen imaginatively derivative distributor of information created by others based pseudonym, feeb.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

Apparently though, you can't create a product yourself which others would consume or demand, even at no charge.

you're less than pathetic... you're exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[sjames]

By extension, those who cheer when a notorious serial killer is put in jail should either support putting every last person in jail or should object to putting anyone in jail at all.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And honestly, I would not call the "need for information to be free" a deeper ethical rule.

Your phraseology betrays your bias. There is no "need for information to be free" - that "information wants to be free" is an observation of fact not an imperative.

Furthermore the debate has no more to do with the fact that information "wants" to be free than the fact that round wheels "want" to roll has to do with the debate on speeding.

So the question becomes, if the law of the land has absolutely no say in your mind as to how one should behave, where DO you derive your standards from?

Your question suggests you think the law of the land does significantly define morality. The reverse is the only sane belief, that the law of the land should be defined by morality.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[koreaman]

I am not Korean by ethnicity, blood, or citizenship, nor do I feel any particular attachment to Korea. The name is an inside joke that you unfortunately are not privy to. I was genuinely interested in hearing an explanation of your position on this issue which is why I asked "why". I know I've insulted you in the past (and honestly you deserved it) but now I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative at all.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

that "information wants to be free" is an observation of fact not an imperative.

No, its a non-sense statement-- information has no power of cognition, and thus cannot want anything. To speak of it thus is to speak absurdities. Im not even sure what principle people are trying to communicate when they make that statement-- that people tend to be bad at keeping information private? That is neither an argument for or against private information.

Furthermore the debate has no more to do with the fact that information "wants" to be free than the fact that round wheels "want" to roll has to do with the debate on speeding.

I quite agree, which is why I was criticizing that whole argument. When discussing whether or not it should be legal for wheels to roll, one does not argue that "well, they TEND to roll, therefore it should be legal", any more than you would make that argument with theft or secrecy. Its a complete non-sequitur.

Your question suggests you think the law of the land does significantly define morality. The reverse is the only sane belief, that the law of the land should be defined by morality.

As a slightly off-topic aside, I recently heard a concise description of the classical, philosophical definition of "morality" as opposed to "ethics", which described the difference thus-- morality is the system of ethics practiced by a society. That being the case, yes, laws would effect it.

All that aside, I never indicated to what extent I think laws affect morality or ethics; I simply stated I think it plays some role.

As for defining laws by morality / ethics, thats great, but we still dont have an answer to "where do your ethical values come from?"

Finally, as an interesting thought experiment, why dont we observe the responses from people decrying the evils of all secrets when the next article about google and privacy comes up. It seems that there are times where people will concede that SOME secrets are acceptable for various reasons; why is it then assumed that there are no reasons ever in government?

Re:Going to throw stones?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, its a non-sense statement-- information has no power of cognition, and thus cannot want anything

If you can't grasp the fundamental truth of that statement you'll never be able to have a meaningful discussion of its implications. I suspect that your dogged focus on secrecy for secrecy's sake rather than the validity of the secrecy in the first place is rooted in the same lack of sophistication.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[MichaelKristopeit424]

i didn't say or imply that you were korean based... i said that your chosen pseudonym was. i feel very fortunate to not be privy to anything dealing with someone that seemingly can not tell the difference. you're an idiot.

do you also want to know why the sky and the ocean are different things? you're a moron, regardless of your ethnicity.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen contradictory inside joke based pseudonym, feeb.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

Re:Going to throw stones?

[LordLimecat]

I begin to suspect the lack of progress in the discussion is due to your inexplicable conclusion that I support secrecy for secrecy's sake.

Reminds me so much of War Games flick

[Lead Butthead]

Shortly after the release of War Games in 1983, there were a rash of hacking incidents "inspired" by the movie. Events of late seem to be a repeat of that, aggravated by the (still) piss poor security policies. How some things changed but other persists over the decades.

Re:Reminds me so much of War Games flick

[phantomfive]

What on earth does your sig mean?

Re:Reminds me so much of War Games flick

[xkuehn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Last_words_of_Jesus

Re:Reminds me so much of War Games flick

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it several times in the past. This really boils down to two main things. The first, An older generation which never grew up with technology and for the most part understand how to use it but not how to use it well. It was never part of how they grew up so how it functions and why it functions are all things which must be taught, understood and put to practice. For most the first and third were attempted and the second was never seen as important. Those are the majority of the end user issues. The second issue is organizations not following what is now known to be 'the best way' of securing data. They are comfortable with following well outdated methods of trying to secure data. things like using salted one-way hashes to store passwords, encrypting user information etc etc. The issue is that the basic standards which are set to conduct business online do not seem to be evolving fast enough to meet the available methods of security and the repercussions for organizations NOT following stricter guidelines is a very very VERY big issue globally. I think back to the automotive industry and look at safety examples which for years were not deemed standard but as the general population demanded these features in vehicles as standard features they became just that examples like: ABS brakes, Double strap seat-belts, air bags..etc. These are now accepted as items which the general population demand and expect as basic and for some of these features we're now asking how many? not, are they there?. For some reason though the general population cannot or will not take the same time to learn how their information is being put at risk and demand better for themselves....I just don't get it.

Re:Reminds me so much of War Games flick

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth does your sig mean?

Here's a hint ... is pasting into a fucking google search so difficult?

Air Gap?

[Gothmolly]

Has nobody in government security ever heard of an air gap? WHY would you ever attach military gear to the public Internet?

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what kind of idiot connects a mail server to the Internet?

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what kind of idiot connects a mail server to the Internet?

preferably not one which cannot afford to be compromised. you fucking moron.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. most military mail servers and users are all on SIPRNET which is airgapped from the public internet for a reason, numbnuts.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is why did the U.S. military let you connect your private gear to their internet...

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what kind of idiot connects an internal, high security mail server to the Internet?

Ftfy.

Re:Air Gap?

[blueg3]

In this case, so you can send e-mail to people on the Internet (and the reverse).

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the SIPR is not exactly 'airgapped' from the intertubes... they overlap, it just happens to be transparent...

Re:Air Gap?

[said213]

you would appear to have made the initial comment more inane. did you win?

Re:Air Gap?

[said213]

around 23 years ago. when it became profitable. seriously though; no correlation.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not they are not. There are several layers, which I will not discuss for obvious reasons. However all organizations, including military and government facilities require internet access to do their jobs. It is impossible for any organization to currently replicate all and keep in sync the available information on the internet in a contained environment.

Yes, I'm prior military and prior government contractor. This information is not classified, restricted, or confidential; however, further detail is.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

WiFi works over the air gap

Re:Air Gap?

[ae1294]

Yes, I'm prior military and prior government contractor. This information is not classified, restricted, or confidential; however, further detail is.

Well can you point me to a torrent with all those details?

Re:Air Gap?

[Stupendoussteve]

Uh... the military uses the internet. The real internet. someone@navy.mil is not some secret account, those are air gapped for obvious reasons.

You're seeing someone's NIPR email that they used to sign up for some unknown website, and nothing more.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're seeing someone's NIPR email that they used to sign up for some unknown website, and nothing more.

Not only that, but the 'password' isn't going to be any good for getting into the users' email or the users' accounts since the military went to mandatory use of CACs -- Common Access Cards -- that are required to log into your domain account; the password for the account still exists, but if you try to use it, you'll get a message telling you that you have to log in with your CAC and PIN. So without the right CAC in the reader and the PIN (password) for the CAC -- which is verified using data on the CAC, not on the domain -- any 'password' hacked out of a domain server is going to be useless for compromising the account.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can communicate with you, Einstein.

Re:Air Gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, I'm from the military and I'm taking control of this thread.

What is this "Air" "Gap" you speak of?

Re:Air Gap?

[Xest]

Laziness.

Rather than setup some external networking to a different site so that e-mails can be exchanged between them it's much easier to just go plug into that pre-existing wall socket over there in the corner and tunnel via the public internet where all the infrastructure is already in place for you. I mean, no one would think to try and attack your connection right? I mean, how would they even find it amongst all those other IPs on the net!

That's really the mindset you're dealing with.

The Cloud Is Safe. Target Will Protect Your Ident

[Anonymous Coward]

When your boss uploads the company's customer lists to Google Docs, don't worry, because their IT security is certainly much better than that of the U.S. military and government computers. When the Target clerk asks for your driver's license, go ahead and let her scan the barcode into Target's computers because they'll be able to protect your identity better than Sony or the U.S. military can.

This is the way to improve security

[unil_1005]

TSA is not.

The difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Milly's voicemails were deleted to make space, while the exposed email accounts were not deleted.

The difference is that Milly's voicemails were expected to be private, and the operations of government and the military are expected to be public since they are funded by the public.

Re:The difference

[LordLimecat]

and the operations of government and the military are expected to be public since they are funded by the public.

I would LOVE if we could get some citations of where such an expectation has ever been upheld by any body of authority. Civil War cases, or WW2 cases might prove educational to those cheering for "the old days" of military knowledge being public. I believe we termed it "treason" back in the day.

ask bradley manning

[decora]

according to some of his defenders, alot of the stuff he got was 'commonly downloaded' by people on the base, especially the Collateral Murder video.

if you search youtube for video of afghan/iraq air strikes, i'd say that seems about right.

now if there is a bradley manning, who was doing it to blow whistles, there are probably some people who are doing it for profit, selling info to others.

why they aren't up on charges like him? sometimes the military wants to flip them to become triple agents. sometimes it doesnt want the bad publicity. the people who caught aldrich ames almost got nothing, a tiny ass little party , small than what we give people for birthdays at work. who knows.

Re:ask bradley manning

[blueg3]

That data is on SIPRNET, which is separated from the regular Internet. After 9/11 the government tried to adopt a culture of information-sharing between organizations, which led to a lot of data being easily accessible if you had the right access. The infamous Wikileaked data is available because Manning transferred it from SIPRNET to the Internet by means of a writable CD masquerading as a mix tape.

Only happens to the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this only happen to the United States government, or does it happen elsewhere too? Where are the hacks of Russian, Chinese, not to mention Libyan, etc., systems?

I don't understand...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... how people can believe in the existence of a government that conspires to slowly erode our freedoms, but also maintains such poor security on their information.

Oh wait, never mind, I just got it. This is clearly a ruse they orchestrated to make the truth seem implausible. Very sorry, continue with normal business.

Thankfully I just changed my password.

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone is ever going to guess that I changed my password to hunter2.

Stop storing passwords as they're typed

[TWX]

I wish that everyone would just stop storing passwords as they're typed and instead only store the comparative hash. It wouldn't matter, nearly so much, if they were obtained that way, so long as the algorithm to turn the password into the hash can't also turn the hash into the password.

Yeah, I know, it might break some interoperability, but I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about this crap. Unfortunately the only way this will change is if it becomes in the interest of the requisite parties for it to, like if they can't obtain insurance anymore because no insurer will want to extend liability insurance to a company whose IT structure is so poor that it's likely that a payout might be necessary.

Re:Stop storing passwords as they're typed

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you've never heard of a rainbow table?

Re:Stop storing passwords as they're typed

[Anonymous Coward]

Rainbow tables are only useful if there's no salt (or a very small salt). Simply MD5ing passwords is something, but it's not a ton more secure than keeping them in plaintext. There should be a salt, and the hash should be one that actually takes a noticeable amount of time to compute. Hopefully your system will support multiple hash algorithms (as Linux does) so you can phase in better ones over time as computers get faster.

Re:Stop storing passwords as they're typed

[Anonymous Coward]

if you really must have clear passwords, at least store them as encrypted strings with a site token encrypted with a public key, for which the private key is not on the system.

Well that seems to explain this e-mail...

[Anonymous Coward]

...which I got at work a few weeks ago:

From: Ranald [________@dla.mil]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Some_User_Group
Subject: Dream to act like a porn star? Nail a magicpilule!

Ensure energy and gain extra size. http://shellyfarnham.com/basin.html

yes. air gaps don't work

[decora]

if you have millions of people with security clearances,

including people who are having serious psychological or emotional problems, which were known to the commanders at the time they sent him on duty.

Re:yes. air gaps don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI you have to have a security clearance to operate the damn radio.

Can't really revoke clearance willy nilly if you want people to be able to do their jobs.

Re:yes. air gaps don't work

[blueg3]

Access to data traditionally needs need-to-know in addition to clearance, though that was relaxed somewhat with post-9/11 information sharing. But in general, it's a hard problem. Lots of military and contractors need access to some kind of security-sensitive data.

Fake Claim, spreading malware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody can claim and fabricate data. Since they are not explaining where they got the data, and the link goes to an EXE file (I chose to not download), I suspect it is just at a minimum a fake claim, even possibly a malware attempt to infiltrate, now propagated by Slashdot.

Furthermore, most of the NIPR if not all uses RSA cards, and passwords are expressly locked out. Now, if they claimed to have copies of the RSA/CAC cards, that would be a different thing.

Of course, everybody assumes they are successful, because that is the easy thing to assume.

Re:Fake Claim, spreading malware?

[Lehk228]

it's a .txt file what are you talking about? i downloaded it myself

Re:Fake Claim, spreading malware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody can claim and fabricate data.

Furthermore, most of the NIPR if not all uses RSA cards, and passwords are expressly locked out. Now, if they claimed to have copies of the RSA/CAC cards, that would be a different thing.

Precisely, even before 100% CAC implementation, the DoD passwords would not have been accepted due to lack of complexity.

else where on the planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the hacks of Russian, Chinese, not to mention Libyan, etc., systems?

In those countries, you get a bullet in the head for pulling this kind of sh_t.

Re:else where on the planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the hacks of Russian, Chinese, not to mention Libyan, etc., systems?

In those countries, you get a bullet in the head for pulling this kind of sh_t.

China is going to invade northern Wyoming so they can shoot me for hacking an email server on the other side of the planet?
Good luck with that.

His point is that the US is being targeted because we're everybody's favorite Whipping Boy, and is wondering why the hackers don't put their sites on places like China.

The answer is that these targets are being hacked for the media attention, not the data itself. The data is actually mostly worthless. You don't get media attention for hacking Chinese servers and releasing people's passwords, so they don't bother. Anybody who actually wants to use the data for something can get plenty of it without relying on high-profile groups.

Look, if you want to get this kind of data from people it's really easy. You setup a few web sites which require a sign-up process, and use well-known methods to get people to go there and sign up. Voila, now you have their email and a password they probably use for other sites, along with a user name which is probably also similar to ones they use on other sites. No hacking required.

Wait until Wargames movie remake comes out.

[antdude]

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/06/24/wargames-remake/ :(

Morons

[chill]

No, not the people who had their e-mail and passwords hacked, just most of the commenters here on Slashdot. Really, after all this time I should no longer be surprised.

Heads up, folks! The vast bulk of these e-mail addresses are from @yahoo.com, @gmail.com and the like.

These are PERSONAL e-mail addresses of possibly U.S. government personnel. They are prefaced with a couple dozen .gov and .mil addresses, but the rest are anybody's guess.

Re:Morons

[memyselfandeye]

Exactly. It's likely they came from some sort of government employee program, like free viagra for postal workers or something... anything, I don't know. It's highly unlikely the organization (NSA) that has paper after paper detailing the need to hash passwords using a random salt to prevent rainbow attacks went ahead and stored their accounts in clear-text [*@nsa.ic.gov].

This is yet another Bobby Tables script attack against yet another site failing to use prepared statements and sanitation as suggested in every freaking doc, book, and manual for every freaking database for the last 10 years! I'm convinced this is all the result of lowest bidder and India-sourcing el Cheapo front end projects. You know, giving the job to people who don't even know what a mailing list is, let alone how to subscribe to one.

Regardless, this is not the "OMG I now have the codes to play chess with the Nuclear Launch Computer!!!! Mega LoLZ"

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

The passwords most likely didn't come from Government servers. They could have been from any-old website where those people are members and used their government email address to sign up. My email isn't on there, so I am happy.

This is getting worrying. It's all well and good that these people are playing their silly little "look at me" games, but publishing laundry lists of email address/password combinations does nothing to improve security. People will still choose stupid passwords and reuse them everywhere. If they don't know that their current password is exposed on the net then they are fair game for any random 12 year old with no clue to annoy.

Since people like to reuse passwords and often supply the same email everywhere, you could take a guess at sites like Facebook, MySpace, etc. They'll probably also unlock some of the email accounts in the list. Hopefully all of the email accounts on the list have been notified that their password is exposed.

Re:Morons

[Stupendoussteve]

You're making a huge assumption that this is from a military server (hint: these user/passwords didn't come from that NATO server). Just because you see a few .gov and .mil email addresses means nothing. Some people sign up for websites using their military email addresses, just like some people do the same from a corporate email.

I love how they preface the .mil addresses as important people. More likely some random PFC.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

best xkcd ever!

Re:Morons

[wiley001]

And a majority of these emails will probably belong to clerical type people without a clearance. Just because a .mil or .gov address is compromised doesn't mean data's been compromised

I do understand Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll explain but would like to point out that I don't like "conspiracy theories" of the usual "make up stupid shit for fun" kind (it's sort of amazing how many people love to lie).

Here's how real conspiracies usually work:
- zero paper (and none is needed)
- negligible or no traceable communication that can be used as evidence (as little if any is needed; humans communicate with more than plain language and if you keep your head down you're unlikely to be continuously monitored in the early phase. In addition conspiracies can be viewed as or sometimes are something akin to emergent/self-establishing phenomena)
- very small groups of people who actually know what's being conspired
- often relatively large groups of people being used/misdirected without their knowledge
- subverting perfectly reasonable aims and ideals; the better and more "obviously good" the easier (hard to whip significant minorities or majorities into frenzies about things people would consider bad right? But if you take something actually genuinely positive like national or cultural or even racial pride it's easy (and don't even bother with PC idiotic claims of how those are actually bad things because most people don't truly feel that way deep down nor have they any real reason to no matter where they're from or who they or their ancestors are/were))

Let's add the crucial distinction that most people skip:
- A government, pretty much any government, would be incapable of conspiring anything much (but more than able to do all the same shit right out in the open out of stupidity and public ignorance/disinterest).
- Anyone close to governmental power, elected or not, would be extremely well placed to conspire as individuals.

And of course just about anybody no matter what is ready to "conspire" in favor of themselves, e.g. a politician automatically favors politicians just as much as a baker favors bakers or a nurse favors nurses: politicians are part of the largest most powerful "union" by default.

There is no reason to accept false choices, be they hidden, implied, or in your face. Insecure inept governments and conspiring power-mongers are not contradictory, in fact their conspiracies are just an additional example/trait of an inept and/or corrupted government or societal structure.

One can't reform rot.

Re:I do understand Re:I don't understand...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Insecure inept governments and conspiring power-mongers are not contradictory, in fact their conspiracies are just an additional example/trait of an inept and/or corrupted government or societal structure.

You've obviously got a much better handle on conspiracies than the average conspiracy theorist, but I don't think you've adequately supported your conclusion. Why do "inept" and "corrupt" belong in the same category? Surely it takes some level of competence to execute any significant abuse of power under relatively intense public scrutiny and get away with it?

hacking honeypots doesn't count

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbasses

Why is this on Slashdot?

[Fat Wang]

This is an example of a story that only makes things worse by posting on Slashdot. I didn't know this website was so anti-American.

Not compromised, not hacked

[jmkaza]

These aren't email addresses with passwords to those accounts, they're the email address and password someone used to sign up for some random, unknown website. Without knowing what website, most of these combos are worthless. It might have been a hack of the server, but chances are it's just some DB (and not DataBase) admin who published his user list. If you're using the same email address to register for websites, make sure you don't use your password for that email address when you register.

Re:Not compromised, not hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

While these probably came from some arbitrary site and there were a few .mil addresses there, the attackers probably just used that fact to get more attention. There's a lot of "oh noes, the mil has been hacked" bouncing round.

You're assuming that most of the people in this list actually use different email/password pairs for each site the log into. It's a fair bet that the password will work for the email account of many of them. It's also a fair bet that the password/email will work on Facebook, MySpace, Google, Yahoo, etc.

Re:Not compromised, not hacked

[simoncpu was here]

In an ideal world, users use different passwords for different websites. In reality, however, these passwords are equivalent to the passwords for their accounts.

Re:Not compromised, not hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's true. But that's more for someone to remember. And perhaps for most people, remembering a string of characters isn't so simple. So even if the password is simple, will someone really want to remember a bunch of different, yet simple, passwords for a multitude of websites?

Okay, now, what about disposable e-mail addresses? Those disposable e-mail addresses don't have a password attached to them. So, one path to follow might be this...
1. Create a Hotmail account (most people probably have this checked off already)
2. Create a disposable e-mail address (Hotmail allows 5 free I think)
3. Use one of those disposaible e-mail addresses as a primary address for the sole purpose of corresponding with other (Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.) accounts.

Now, whether that password is the same or not, chances are if you're smart, your "disposable" e-mail address will be unique enough that if it is compromised, your regular account won't be compromised.

I am also in favour of the idea of secondary passwords. I don't know of anyone who does this, although Hotmail comes close with temporary passwords that can be sent via text message. A secondary password would work like this. Your primary or master password would be used to access anything in your account. Your secondary password would only be used to access your e-mail, forum, etc., but not any of the account information. The account information would only be accessible through the primary, or master password.

Re:Not compromised, not hacked

[Sedated2000]

I would suppose it matters even less because .mil should all be CAC enabled now. Good luck to the "hackers" getting in to the account without a CAC and the PIN.

Re:Not compromised, not hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

I went through the list and managed to gain access to about 10 different email accounts, I've tried over 300 or so.

People can and will use similar password for convenience and ease.

u FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Get FUCKED.

U RAH

--

Military using

[hesaigo999ca]

Why would any military allow the use of such things for communications, is it not protocol to have secure lines of comm. no matter what the means or reason for it.
You never know who is listening, so you have to ensure your line is safe....you can't do that with a company the likes of google that say all you emails belong to them.because you use their services....
come one...common sense 101 here...

Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp/Fox News

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Murdoch's company has also hacked our government like they have in England? They are even spying on private citizens.

Secure e-mail to place an Amazon order?

[sirwired]

Members of the military do need to transact business with the outside world. Sign up for websites, order a book from Amazon, whatever. As long as the public e-mails aren't used for classified information, what, precisely, is the problem?

Re:Secure e-mail to place an Amazon order?

[hesaigo999ca]

Maybe having someone know that you are a 5 star general, and just ordered your inflatable doll from your internet line that had a man in the middle listening, could create a very specific situation, where they could approach that general with this info for blackmailing purposes, or maybe if this same general has a mistress, and someone got wind of it, because he was using unsecured lines, again would lead to a situation where they could possibly us that "normal info" to abnormal means of getting results...

Far fetched I know, however, how often have I seen someone go down for having child p0rn on their computers, where they deny ever having seen it,yet it is sitting in their publicly accessible email accounts, which is insecure or public (hotmail)....there is a reason why the military needs to be secure ....all 100% of the time.

Business

[polarsd]

So, in the file, it states "We want everyone to know that we mean business here." So, my question is "What business are they in?"