New Jersey Mayor and Son Arrested For Nuking Recall Website

phaedrus5001 writes "The mayor of West New York, New Jersey was arrested by the FBI after he and his son illegally took down a website that was calling for the recall of mayor Felix Roque (the site is currently down). From the article: 'According to the account of FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus, Felix and Joseph Roque took a keen interest in the recall site as early as February. In an attempt to learn the identity of the person behind the site, the younger Roque set up an e-mail account under a fictitious name and contacted an address listed on the website. He offered some "very good leads" if the person would agree to meet him. When the requests were repeatedly rebuffed, Joseph Rogue allegedly tried another route. He pointed his browser to Google and typed the search strings "hacking a Go Daddy Site," "recallroque log-in," and "html hacking tutorial."'"

Comments

Should have used Duck Duck Go

[evilRhino]

Using Google for criminal enterprises is bad news bears.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[The MAZZTer]

They probably figured out his search history by using his local browser history when they would have confiscated his PC as evidence. So that wouldn't have helped. Also... "recallroque log-in"? Ha, I guess some people really do think Google is magic and can pull answers out of thin air. And "html hacking tutorial"? That's almost cute.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Given this guy's background and MO, I'm surprised he didn't use (Bada) Bing

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 (Groan)

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[stanlyb]

Nope, you are wrong, they figured out his search history directly at the source. With other words: GOOGLE. Oh, and btw, if you try to search for something illegal, at least have the intelligence to do it from brand new (or stolen) computer, without any ID already entered, with just created email accounts, from any "Free" wireless spot, and once you are done, you better burn this computer. Just an advice....

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[j00r0m4nc3r]

especially when you search for "how to get arrested for hacking a website"

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[ClioCJS]

Or just use TOR. And don't say "tor can be compromised". That's only true if they are already monitoring you. if you're doing something you've told nobody about and not already being monitored, you're fine.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[nedlohs]

Doing:

Following the shutdown, Mayor Roque used the messages retrieved from the compromised accounts to identify the people who ran and supported it. On February 9, he used his iPhone to call the Hudson County (New Jersey) government official, identified in the criminal complaint as Victim 1, who had anonymously established the recall website. The older Roque then claimed to have proof that the official was involved with the site.

"Mayor Roque stated that he, the Mayor, had a friend in high levels of government who had shut the Recall Website down," the complaint alleged. "According to Victim 1, Mayor Roque stated that everyone would pay for getting involved against him."

is even worse.

When "hack" someone's registrar account and remove one of their domains to take down their website it's probably best not to look up who they are in the registrar records you now have access to and then call them to gloat^Wconfess.

Certainly saves a few steps for the FBI.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[sapgau]

lol

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[HeckRuler]

If only the CEO of google, Eric Schmidt, had reminded us that they're bound by the law to hand over information to the authorities.

Remind me again why he was lambasted for that?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you are wrong, they figured out his search history directly at the source. With other words: GOOGLE.

[[citation needed]]. I see nothing in the article that backs that statement. The only mention of Google at all is the part of the article quoted verbatim in the summary.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[AmiMoJo]

All major browsers include porn mode now, but judging by this guy's uber hacking skillz he is probably still running IE6.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

These days Google has more shills on Slashdot than racks in their server rooms.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[sortadan]

Google is actually good about publishing this data (much more than any other company I know of online). Would be good if they broke it down further by requester and state, but at least you get an idea from last years data: 5950 requests, complied with 93%, disclosed info on 11057 users. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/?p=2011-06

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[shiftless]

Because these days the law is pretty much nothing more than someone with a lot of money and power says it is. Especially when one is Google. What do you think would happen if Schmidt said instead loudly and publicly, "No, Federal Government, we're not giving you a god damned thing without a proper warrant, etc....oh, and if you try to force us, well....we just might leave the country or seriously degrade our services here for you and your cronies, in the name of Freedom, Liberty, etc." ?

Do you really think the Federal Government would win that one in any court, let alone the one of public opinion?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[LunaticTippy]

new computer? burn? That sounds exhausting!

Why not just use a live CD or a bootable flash drive OS?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Genda]

Heck no, There's a whole host of new PC's hitting the market for ~$50 (just mentioned one right here on Slashdot yesterday by APC.) Heck, but 10 and throw a party. Hackers delight! Just make sure you, order it anonymously and have it delivered someplace that can't be traced back to you. Helps if you aren't a puter pro too.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Grygus]

Yes.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[JoeMerchant]

Because these days the law is pretty much nothing more than someone with a lot of money and power says it is.

By "these days" you mean: for the last 6000 years?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[HeckRuler]

we're not giving you a god damned thing without a proper warrant

Uhhhh..... they already do that. Don't they?
Don't requests for information need a warrant?

Oh... shit. No they don't. At least their FAQ doesn't say it does.
Damnit Google! If it's part of a criminal investigation they should be able to get a warrant. They should HAVE to get a warrant.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[geekoid]

I'm sorry, where did you find that out? its not in the article, or any other article I could find.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[geekoid]

Yehs, that's why someone with money and power was just arrested.

I know what would have happened, the feds would go get a warrant. assuming they didn't have one.

I know in your world of black helicopters, Illuminati, and reptile overlords something bad would happen. Fortunately most of us play in the real world.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Penguinisto]

Or just use TOR. And don't say "tor can be compromised". That's only true if they are already monitoring you.

...unless you happen to pass through an FBI-run exit node.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

So then Microsoft would have the search record, and they could report it? You do know that Duck Duck Go uses Bing results, and Bing uses Google results. Adding another layer to your search just changes who will report you.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

They still wouldn't be able to figure out who you are though, right? Only what was accessed?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[JWSmythe]

    Your traffic will usually give you away. For example, leaving your mail, IM, or other still things with identifiers, while connected to Tor can route your traffic over it.

    I once figured out who was on an open wifi, because they had some silly Windows applet running that sent their email address as their ID. They probably never thought twice about it, or the fact that they had connected to someone's wifi that was left open (someone else told them it was "easier" that way). I enabled encryption, and then sent them an email suggesting that they use their own line. :)

    Most people don't set themselves up with a clean environment to do such things.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[steelfood]

Tell that to Joseph Nacchio.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[philip.paradis]

A warrant is a lot different from a subpoena. You should learn about subpoenas.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it was *SUPPOSED* to be different in America. Or at least according to some crusty old documents...

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[davester666]

Headline the next day reads: "Google supports terrorism and child molesters" Also may have assisted in clubbing baby seals.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Rakarra]

Well, it was *SUPPOSED* to be different in America. Or at least according to some crusty old documents...

That didn't last very long, not even a decade. The Sedition Act was the first major blow, coming when the Constitution was barely a decade old. Egregious examples culled from Wikipedia:
"Luther Baldwin, a private citizen, was indicted for a comment he made during a visit by President Adams to Newark, New Jersey. The President was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon. A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Baldwin replied that he did not care "if they fired through his ass." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "seditious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined $100."

"In November 1798, David Brown led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts in setting up a liberty pole with the words, "No Stamp Act, No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills, No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the President; Long Live the Vice President". Brown was arrested in Andover, Massachusetts, but because he could not afford the $4,000 bail, he was taken to Salem for trial. Brown was tried in June 1799. Brown pled guilty but Justice Samuel Chase asked him to name others who had assisted him. Brown refused, was fined $480, and sentenced to eighteen months in prison, the most severe sentence ever imposed under the Sedition Act."

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Baidu-Bing

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

He got lambasted because he worded it badly. As CEO, he should be more careful how he phrases things.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[shiftless]

Yehs, that's why someone with money and power was just arrested.

No, a fucking idiot mayor of a podunk town was arrested for being a dumb ass. This twit had no real money or power.

You think G.W. Bush would ever get arrested and prosecuted for hacking somebody's web site? No, because #1 he wouldn't see any need to resort to such petty measures, and #2 if he did see a need, he damn sure wouldn't do it himself by typing stupid shit into Google like "html hacking tutorial."

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[shiftless]

.....Only to be completely ignored by everyone, because everyone uses Google and more or less trusts them, and they already know the government is fucking whack to some extent.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[shiftless]

Then I guess you weren't paying the slightest bit of attention the LAST time Google defied their governmental masters, with the big SOPA/PIPA blackout.

Unfortunately in the end, they are just as evil as the next corporation, and it's back to business as usual (buddying up to their governmental buddies) after the photo-op is over.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that you do not understand the difference between legal behavior and illegal behavior, why the government may well react differently to those two things, and why the public will tend to be less understanding of one than the other.

Your main problem here seems to be a lack of perspective: protesting a potential law is seen as an essential American right. Flaunting an existing one is not the same thing.

Forgot something

[Sparticus789]

The kid should have searched "Tor" while he was at it. That would have kept the FBI occupied for a few more weeks.

So easy to get search terms from google

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be charged with something.

But, doesn't it seem odd that for this relativity minor case that the FBI can get your whole search history from google?

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[0xdeaddead]

One can only wonder if these guys were targeted, or if its just the system in general... I've always suspected the 'grid' is to keep politicians inline..

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[alfoolio]

At first glance the FBI seems overkill but the 'relatively minor case' involved an elected official engaged in federal crimes. That pretty much is right in the FBI's bailiwick.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[cpu6502]

Where do you think the term "warrantles searches" came from? Judge Napolitano can't stop talking about them.

The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act gave the FBI the power to write their own permission to enter a premise, or demand data, without a judge issued warrant. CISPA will make it even easier. No need for paperwork at all.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Penguinisto]

Let's see...
A politician who performs an obviously illegal act in full violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution - check.
A politician who tries nuking a website/server that is parked somewhere across state lines - check.

Yep. I can see a good warrant coming off of this one. And given the interstate angle, it's not odd at all.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[crazyjj]

The FBI tends to get a little touchy about things like election fraud.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[flimflammer]

Why are you implying they got them from Google? Does it say they got them from Google? All they need to do is view the search history from his personal computer to find out what sort of searches he has been making on google or any other site.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Anonymous Coward]

an elected official engaged in federal crimes.

They should have far more resourced directed at them then say file sharers who are not elected officicals.

He who writes the laws should have 'em applied to them 1st.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[shiftless]

That's the actual name of the Act

Dipshit

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[cpu6502]

No. That is the actual name of the act in abbreviated form. U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. == Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Penn&Teller did a whole episode about it on their Bullshit program.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Anonymous Coward]

You receive 5 points for use of the term "bailiwick".

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[jkauzlar]

I think that's the FEC's responsibility, and they tend not to be touchy at all.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Ihmhi]

('< ~Hello, beautiful!

Wakka wakka!

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why didn't you write F.B.I. and C.I.S.P.A. as well?

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[cowdung]

I thought the TSA was the one that got all touchy!

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[lennier]

The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act

You know, I always wondered why they named a key piece of legislation "U Sap at Riot".

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[andydread]

The current administration has said they will veto CISPA Im not sure what Mitt Romney would do about CISPA. I know CISPA and the NewYork ban free speech bills were introduced by Republicans and maybe the Republicans can convince Romney to go along and sign these bills who knows.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[X0563511]

... and yet he failed to do it with F.B.I. or C.I.S.P.A.

Dipshit.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[rahvin112]

I believed him when he said the same thing about the DOD bill that gave him the legal ability to detain a US citizen indefinitely and without right to petition the court. He signed that one too.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he did that way because pretty well everybody on public media pronounces the TLA as F.B.I. not Fbi? On the other hand it's pretty standard for media to use mention of the "Patriot" Act instead of spelling out the letters. That was the whole point of calling the act that of course, making any criticism of it seem un-Patriotic. You may have a point regarding CISPA, but it doesn't have the same potential for misinterpretation/misdirection.

Slashdot down?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The mayor of West New York, New Jersey was arrested by the FBI after he and his son illegally took down a website that was calling for the recall of mayor Felix Roque (the site is currently down).

So, now we can read on slashdot that slashdot is down?

Re:Slashdot down?

[Anonymous Coward]

They messed up the link when it was first posted. It's fixed now.

Geez... slashdot's editors screw up once in 15 years and you're all over it. Cut them some slack. Do you expect them to get the summary perfect every time?

Re:Slashdot down?

[Dishevel]

Very Funny.

Quick, someone call the cops!

[TheSpoom]

He's going to hack into our div tags!

Re:Quick, someone call the cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

shit! that's where I keep all my spans!

Re:Quick, someone call the cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! My ordered lists! They might be changed over to UNORDERED LISTS!!!

Politicians Going Roque!

[Anonymous Coward]

Technological evolution of politics.

They should have gone ater terrorists' websites

[betterunixthanunix]

If they were "nuking" Al Qaeda websites, maybe they would not get in trouble.

Genius!

[Dan East]

Googling for "recallroque log-in" is just pure genius. Why hack if google will just point you straight to the credentials you need!

Re:Genius!

[3nails4aFalseProphet]

It's kinda sad what a few Google searches can turn up. http://www.hackersforcharity.org/ghdb/ Of course, searching from his own computer wasn't exactly bright.

Re:Genius!

[rrohbeck]

Should've googled for "how to become an evil uber hacker".

Re:Genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is crap; "Dan East Slashdot login" came up with zero results...

Re:Genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting (true) story:

After hearing of some odd problems with one of the servers my company inherited a support contract for (original support team was fired and sued for gross incompetence), I had a suspicion that it was being used as an open proxy.

So what did I do? Googled the IP address of the server. Sure enough, it showed up on an Anonymous site in a list of anonymous, no-authentication-needed proxies. As well as several other, similar lists, and worst, on a site where people can report open proxies that are being abused to attack them - it had a report from *three* *years* *ago*.

Needless to say, the old support team was double-fired. Last I heard the lawsuit was up to half a million dollars in damages, and one of the leads had literally fled the country.

isn't our survaylence society grand?

[Anonymous Coward]

remember, big brother is watching you.

Re:isn't our survaylence society grand?

[Anonymous Coward]

also remember, we're watching big bother... and we don't like what we see ;-(

Politicians are scumbags

[cpu6502]

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

Re:Politicians are scumbags

[SomeJoel]

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

You are under the illusion that there are people who are not scumbags. How quaint.

Re:Politicians are scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are scumbags

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

That's not at all like what I read in his Wiki article!

Boy howdy, I wonder who wrote that one! Looks like someone else noticed it too.

Re:Politicians are scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder where they came from? It's not like they came from our schools, our churches, our towns, or anything like that. I think they're alien invaders. I'm working on how they use mind control techniques to get good, honest, logical people like us to vote for them.

Re:Politicians are scumbags

[CanHasDIY]

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

You are under the illusion that there are people who are not scumbags. How quaint.

Just because you and everyone you know is a scumbag, doesn't mean we all are.

Re:Politicians are scumbags

[drkstr1]

I wonder where they came from? It's not like they came from our schools, our churches, our towns, or anything like that. I think they're alien invaders. I'm working on how they use mind control techniques to get good, honest, logical people like us to vote for them.

It's really not hard at all. Here, have a look at some of the usual techniques.

Actually...

[betterunixthanunix]

Try searching for, "This document is confidential" on Google. You would be surprised by what sort of things turn up.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try searching for, "This document is confidential" on Google. You would be surprised by what sort of things turn up.
....and even more surprised how many agents turn up at the door tomorrow.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

0 ?

Re:Actually...

[HeckRuler]

This is the sort of fear-mongering that kills curiosity and makes for a generation of sheeple. Don't we live in a first world nation without fear of the gestapo kicking in our door?

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he means what will turn up in the search results, not at your door. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Re:Actually...

[Eponymous Hero]

....and even more surprised how many agents turn up at the door tomorrow.

this is the post HeckRuler was responding to. your reading glasses are not on tight enough, or your filter isn't low enough.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we don’t! That’s the POINT!

Re:Actually...

[geekoid]

That how I get the non public face email account to CEOs.
It's funny when you send an email to a CEO, then get a call from the VP to take care of the issue. Lat time I did it, the issue was solved in a day, and they had to change global websites.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get a job as the Chief Finacial Officer at Vizio...woot
http://www.executivecoachingandcareerconsulting.com/pdf/1116vizio.pdf

Re:Actually...

[MartinSchou]

That's ... somewhat disturbing, but not all that surprising.

I did see a result that caught my attention as a "how the fuck have they not secured their site?!?", and did a bit more digging:

This document is confidential site:corp.bankofamerica.com

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I had that happen with one of the docs I wrote for work once and handed off to management. About a year later I needed to revisit that topic and add to it and expand on it and while doing a Google search ran across the internal functional spec I had provided to management previously.

That's all?

[meerling]

" three counts of intentionally accessing computers without authorization or intentionally causing damage to a protected computer"

You'd think the threats and other stuff would kick on a few other charges than those. ianal but I bet even I could find at least a half dozen additional things to nail them with.

I wonder if they'll let him keep his job. (Politics are bizarre.)

Re:That's all?

[ffflala]

Indeed. I'm surprised to see no elections-related charge; maybe those crimes are written so specifically that they don't apply to pre-election activities (such as recall petitions.)

OTOH, this will probably give the recall idea some new legs.

Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

Since "GOP", "republican", "right-wing", or "conservative" wasn't prominently featured in the headline or first paragraph, it was obvious what his party afiliation was. Party affiliation is most often ommitted by the left, for the left. Although a comment listed him as an "independent conservative democrat", which covers most of the bases I suppose.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Omitted affiliation gives it away every time.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[OakDragon]

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised. But you can rest assured if he was a proper GOP guy, his mug would show up on Fox with a big, fat D behind it. Whoops, no idea how that happened.

Fox News is awful! If they can do that in your imagination, think about what they can do in real life!

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised.

Why surprised? That's how Democrats handle problems: by silencing them.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Gordonjcp]

You left out the bit about how lefties are all godless blasphemers who want to destroy the natural order of the world by allowing women to go around with their heads uncovered or even drive cars.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[bhlowe]

Wow. When the facts don't come out your way, you invent an imaginary scene in your head where that aligns with your mantra: Fox News Bad, Democrats Good. Mmm, tasty kool-ade.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, sad but true.
Come on guys, if we don't cut out the bad apples we'll be as bad as the republicans. If we support a culture where we look after our own it'll just fester those rotten apples.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Jeng]

You see anyone defending this jack-ass?

Re:Party afiliation not important

[toadlife]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/24/746456/-Fox-has-mislabeled-Republican-scandals-before-more-picts

Incompetent or malicious? You make the call.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[The Mister Purple]

In real life: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026

Re:Party afiliation not important

[SnarfQuest]

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised. But you can rest assured if he was a proper GOP guy, his mug would show up on Fox with a big, fat D behind it. Whoops, no idea how that happened.

You mean, like that "Bill Clinton" guy who did not commit purgery when he lied under oath? Obviously a Republican. And his Republican wife who couldn't find the billing records (sitting on a table in the White House). And then there was that Republican Wiener guy who charmingly send photos of hid namesake to teen-age girls. And now we have the Republican Barack Obama, who failed in his promises of cutting the deficit in half in his first term, closing Gitmo in his first year, passing budgets, protecting the Constitution, and all his other failed promises.

Too bad we didn't get truthful, honest Democrats instead of these creepy, lying, cheating Republicans.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[nugatory78]

Fox News is well know to pull this trick when a Republican is in trouble. Then at a later date, print a retraction in the credits.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Dishevel]

Well remember. We should not put his party affiliation because after all it was just him and his son against a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy an innocent democrat.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Jeng]

huh?

Did I miss the kool-aid? What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Party afiliation not important

[scot4875]

Democrats attack their own when they do stupid shit like this. Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation, or that maybe taxing the people who have all the money isn't socialism.

--Jeremy

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

"I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised."

So, you're saying you're a partisan asshole who rushes to judgement.

YOU are what is wrong with this country.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Attila Dimedici]

You misunderstand. It is news when a corrupt politician is a Republican. When a corrupt politician is a Democrat that is no more news than when the sun comes up in the east. What makes this story news is that the FBI arrested him, not the fact that he is a corrupt Democratic politician, so there is no reason to mention his party affiliation.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[jkauzlar]

He's the mayor of a "small New Jersey hamlet" whose closest advisor seems to be his 22 year old son. I doubt party affiliation means much of anything.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Genda]

Why choose... I say he was Incompalicious!!!

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

"You see anyone defending this jack-ass?"

Yes, the failure to list his party affiliation is a tacit attempt to defend him, if nothing else.

Drink that kool aid.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

> complains about partisan media
> links to dailykos, dedicated to "electing more and better Democrats"

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

When your first response to blatant corruption is: "Thank god it wasn't one of our Republican boys this time!", you might want to rethink your party affiliation.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[penix1]

What makes this story news is that the FBI arrested him, not the fact that he is a corrupt Democratic politician, so there is no reason to mention his party affiliation.

Exactly. The point is both parties are an evil duopoly that are allowed to fester with decisions like Citizen's United. A politician these days spends many more hours raising funds than they spend doing their Constitutionally mandated job. I know many that have taken the attitude of "if I never heard of you you get my vote!" that is why here in West Virginia a convicted felon in a Texas prison garnered 48% of the Democratic vote. That and the fact that not one of our Democratic leaders in Congress or the Governor himself, also a Democrat, supports President Obama. But that has more to do with coal and the EPA than anything else.

Anyway, coming from a state that is controlled for the past 35 years by Democrats has lead to some of the most egregious criminal acts. Just the past election has one county where 125% of the population cast votes. Lots going to prison over that. Suffice it to say that both parties are rotten especially if they are incumbents.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Dave Emami]

You left out the bit about how lefties are all godless blasphemers who want to destroy the natural order of the world by allowing women to go around with their heads uncovered or even drive cars.

Well, the lefties do seem to get awfully upset whenever anyone criticizes the biggest-by-far group of people who believe those things. The word "Islamophobia" comes to mind for some reason.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Anonymous Coward]

who did not commit purgery when he lied under oath

Purgery is what I do after a night of heavy drinking.

Perjury is what did not happen when conservatives give judges absolute power over the English language so that they can throw the motherfucking book at the slightest of miscreants to be "tough on crime" by letting prosecutors twist words to make things stick, and the court ends up using that power to define "sexual relations" to be penetrating vaginal intercourse since Clinton blew his wad on her dress.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Attila Dimedici]

Reading your comment you apparently do not realize that the law that the Citizen's United decision partially pulled the teeth from is part of the problem. All "campaign finance reform" laws should be known as Incumbent Protection Acts because they do not actually reduce the influence of money in politics, their ostensible purpose, but they do make it harder for a challenger to displace an incumbent. Whether the Citizen's United decision was a good decision or a bad decision, the law that was at the center of it was a bad law.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[rtb61]

How about the even trickier blue dogs are socialist progressive liberals regardless of how neocon they actually are. Fox not-News kind of wildly exaggerated the bias, no one is blind to the extremely exaggerated bias not even the far right, they think it is OK because of the rest of the media is against them. Hold on mass media is meant to be really good a fooling people, they are professional advertisers, reality TV kings, skilled at making celebrities out of narcissistic arse holes. Yet they so fail in hiding their blatant bias against what appears to be the left of politics, perhaps because the real scam here is making right wing democrats from Obama on down look like centre left politicians to suck people into blindly voting for them rather than looking for alternatives who will actually represent them. Is the blatant bias all about making conservative Republicans who pretend to be progressive Democrats, look more like progressive Democrats when their actual actions defiantly show them to be conservative Republicans. It's all talk left but legislate and vote right, with a mass media show obscuring the great deceit and the huge betrayal.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[Jeng]

There is an individual who is most likely at fault. Either the person who wrote the article, or the editor. Not every single democrat out there.

This not some big conspiracy, although to be fair when he campaigned he also did not reveal his party affiliation and ran as a conservative, but on the democratic ticket.

Re:Party afiliation not important

[mcgrew]

huh? Did I miss the kool-aid?

No, you missed the WOOOOSH, Dr. Cooper.

Minor?

[oGMo]

Suppression of free political speech and intimidation by an elected official is a "minor case"? If so, it shouldn't be.

That said, I have to wonder if this wasn't a corruption investigation by the FBI in the first place, though you'd think if it was, they'd jump at the opportunity to "meet".

Oh come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuking from orbit, isn't that a bit extreme?

Re:Oh come on...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Nuking from orbit, isn't that a bit extreme?

It's the only way to be sure.

Meme warning

[Chemisor]

Great. Now every website hacking attempt would be called "going rogue". All "roguelike" discussions will be censored and prosecuted. And God help you if you are found in possession of a certain amulet...

Re:Meme warning

[j00r0m4nc3r]

except it's Roque, not Rogue

Re:Meme warning

[HeckRuler]

Dibs on the first Roque-like where you have to dive into the dungeon of google to find the amulet of LOIC and evade the fuzz on your way out.

Re:Meme warning

[Anonymous Coward]

~whoosh~

Re:Meme warning

[Calydor]

Just call it rouge-like instead.

Re:Meme warning

[Oloryn]

Is this anything like the game of Rouge, where you've been miniaturized and have to descend the layers of a woman's handbag? Watch out for things wrapped in tissue, they're deadly.

Re:from whom?

[Jeng]

You can ask google to not save your searches.

You can recover searches from a computer if you have physical access to the computer as long as the person didn't do any wipes.

At no point in the story does it say where the information about searches was recovered from. So yes, it is possible that the authorities contacted google and the got the information, but more likely they just got it off the computer.

good thing

[sdnoob]

the web site won't be needed anymore.... that town will get their new mayor one way or another (recall or resignation)

the best part about this story though is that this idiot got into office on a recall election that ousted the town's previous mayor.

Re:good thing

[rrohbeck]

1. Set up a honeypot with a web front that calls for the recall of a politician you don't like
2. Wait for it to be attacked by that politician
3. Tell the FBI
4. Lulz!

Re:good thing

[qubezz]

The FBI works for the POTUS. The guy that had to be told by SCOTUS that he doesn't have the right to disappear US citizens indefinitely without trial. I would recommend against telling the FBI you exist, let alone informing them of your political inclinations or computer expertise.

More importantly...Don't phone "Victim 1" after.

[Lashat]

This article indicates that Roque the Younger called "Victim 1" to 'say that the page had been taken down by “high government officials and that everyone would pay for getting involved against Mayor Roque.” '

Now that is poor hacking skills!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html

Hacking is an Art

[medv4380]

I bet the how to hack go daddy left out the important steps. Don't use a computer you normally use. Don't use your Home IP or any IP that can be traced to you. Go out the the middle of nowhere suburbia find an Open WiFi, and never go back there after you're done. And use as many proxies between you and them as you can. That's what makes hacking an art. Any script kiddy can run a Wipe Out a Go Daddy web site script, but can they do that and not get caught.

West New York

[Anonymous Coward]

I once took a bus from North Bergen to West New York by accident... its a ghost town. Everything is shuttered and closed down there.

Re:from whom?

[Dishevel]

Not only will Google allow you to not have your searches saved. Google will actually show you all of the search info they have on you and allow you to individually delete things you want gone.

Nah, stick with the classics.

[Medievalist]

if you try to search for something illegal, at least have the intelligence to do it from brand new (or stolen) computer, without any ID already entered, with just created email accounts, from any "Free" wireless spot, and once you are done, you better burn this computer.

It's traditional to use the PC on your dickweed boss or cow-orker's desk.

My boss and colleagues are excellent, so I would have to use the head of HR's computer.

Luckily there's a building master key in the computer room's DR box.

From your link

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, FOX isn't the only Network to do this. As we can see by our favorite diaper-wearing Senator.

Which then points to a mistake by MSNBC. Fox is crap. But really, they screw up badly enough that ginning up fake conspiracies isn't really necessary.

OH MY GOD, THEY SWITCHED THE LETTERS|!!!!DERP!!!11!!! THEY OBVIOUSLY DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!11!!! Wait, you mean this shit happens all the time everywhere on every network? STILL FAUX NEWS!!!111!!!!!

I mean, come on, the god damned world economy is on fire and you waste our fucking time giving credibility to this shit?

FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus

[EnsilZah]

Wow, that must be in the top three most awesome real person names ever.
I'd buy the comics based on the name alone!
I bet he fights arcane AIs with nothing but his trusty cyberspace deck and deep knowledge of neurolinguistics.

Re:FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus

[geekoid]

I would disagree.

http://www.cracked.com/article_14982_the-9-manliest-names-in-world.html

Re:FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus

[rossjudson]

Goes right along with my vote for the best job title -- "Principal Thermal Engineer".

Re:FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus

[hey!]

I once interviewed a retiring Navy officer to become my boss. His name (I am not making this up):Captain Jack Hammer.

Name that Party!

[zioncat]

A negative story about politician doesn't provide political affiliation of said politician?
It's time to play the classic game of: Name that Party.

Re:Name that Party!

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't understand why you think it is necessary for the news to mention the party affiliation of a corrupt politician when that affiliation is the Democratic Party. Are there Democratic politicians who aren't corrupt? The news media obviously does not think so, since they do not believe there is any reason to tell people what party a corrupt politician is affiliated with if that party is the Democratic Party. While on the other hand, it is important to point out those rare examples of corrupt Republican politicians because they are so rare. I mean after all, the news media does not have a bias in favor of one party or the other (at least they keep telling us that).

Re:Name that Party!

[the eric conspiracy]

Well, except ALL men having power should not be trusted.

Even Republicans.

Re:Name that Party!

[Attila Dimedici]

Am I missing something here?

Re:Name that Party!

[artor3]

1) The guy is mayor of a town of 1 square mile. There are more people in most universities than in this guy's town. You really think any party big-wigs even know he exists?
2) He got his seat by running as an independent against a Democrat, so if you're obsessed with labels, he'd be a left-leaning independent.
3) Based on Wikipedia, he's buddy-buddy with Chris Christie, so he's not even that left-leaning (note: Christie probably doesn't give two shits about this bush league yokel)

Stop obsessing over party affiliation so much. At the federal level, it's important. At the state level, less so. At the local level, not in the slightest.

Where's the party affiliation?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The party affiliation of the mayor is, again, absent from the Slashdot summary. One guess which party he belongs to.

Re:Where's the party affiliation?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's relevant how?

You think this mayor is a major mover and shaker in some party anywhere?

He's just a politician, of no particular importance.

Besides, you can bet Fox News will be covering if it's a Democrat politician, but will completely and utterly ignore it when a Republican politician engages in some corrupt behavior.

Actually so will the rest of the media. Notice how you've never heard about my local sheriff, a Republican stalwart, who was just convicted of a federal crime.

Re:Where's the party affiliation?

[geekoid]

It's not in the story, so why would it be in the teaser of the story?

Oh wait, is logic and reason messing up your little brain?

Re:Where's the party affiliation?

[TapeCutter]

I know this one, it's the party you don't vote for. Race, religion and sexual orientation are also missing. How can we possibly judge this guys actions if Rupert won't tell us who he is? /sarcasam

Re:Where's the party affiliation?

[DNS-and-BIND]

If he were an (R), it would be right up front. Don't fool yourself, that's how it works.

So you've never heard of Cory Booker.

[ifwm]

Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation, or that maybe taxing the people who have all the money isn't socialism.

Drink that Kool Aid chief, then educate yourself about Cory Booker, the man who denounced Obama's perpetuation of the drug war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/cory-booker-drug-war_n_1541082.html
http://news.yahoo.com/cory-booker-walks-back-criticism-obama-campaign-bain-105420351--abc-news-politics.html

Seriously though, the fact that you ran off about this subject literally days after such a high profile refutation of your claim speaks to how grossly uninformed you are.

Re:So you've never heard of Cory Booker.

[geekoid]

What kool aid? The pubs have done that many, many times. Huntsman was all but castrated for saying the world is older the 6000 years.
There is a long line of people being destroyed by the pub party for not goose stepping to the party line.
This isn't opinion. It's a sad, sad fact.

I'm not sure how you're links apply to the quote.

Re:So you've never heard of Cory Booker.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one interpretation. Or maybe the Republicans mistook his words to be an endorsement of them and he's rightly pissed about it.

Re:More importantly...Don't phone "Victim 1" after

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if this ain't the definition of "fucking stoopid": I gots a friend in an agency, can't say which, three letters, CIA...

I doubt that would fool anyone.

[publiclurker]

I've yet to meet an HR drone that could actually use their PC.

Time to move away from Go Daddy (if you haven't al

[stephanruby]

(Go Daddy contends that their security systems were not breached, but instead that the recall website was brought down due to unauthorized access of the email address associated with the domain registration account.)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html#ixzz1vpWrlb5a

Since Go Daddy is saying that this is not a security breach of their system, I guess this means they have no intention of ever fixing the this completely stupid and inane security response of theirs.

Security?

[increment1]

Checked GoDaddy whois, and the domain was registered using their Domains by Proxy service to hide the registrant. This seems to imply that Domains By Proxy was hacked / socially engineered in order to compromise the account. Worse, it appears that this was accomplished by someone with little to no computer or hacking experience.

The article does not go into detail about how the hack was actually accomplished, other than mentioning it was via a reset email. I am curious what this actually means for the security of domain names registered on GoDaddy using Domains By Proxy. Are they truly that easy to hack?

I tend to register all of my domains using the proxy service simply to avoid spam in my inbox.

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you control the registering users email account, you can basically control anything registered to that email. This is how 95% of "Hacking" happens these days. All the stolen celebrity shit, all the twitter leaks. This stuff has been in the news here and elsewhere a hundred times recently and it's almost always easy to guess password reset questions as the main culprit.

I agree that GoDaddy is not a great company and I am all for pointing out their deficiencies, but in this case I don't see where they are at fault.

Heck it might not have been a private registration at the time of the crime.

They Seized A Laptop

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.scribd.com/dahorsey/d/94673089-Felix-Roque-Complaint

Evidence of the Google searches probably came from browser history on the seized laptop. According to item 58 of the complaint:

"On or about March 22, 2012, law enforcement personnel searched Joseph Roque's East Meadow residence for evidence of criminal activity targeting Victim 1 and the Recall Website. There, they seized the Joseph iPhone and a laptop computer, both of which evidenced Mayor Roque's and defendant Joseph Roque's acts against the Recall Website, Victim 1's Facebook Account, and the West New York News Account."

Attack who again?

[SuperKendall]

Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation

Cheney supports gay marriage, I don't see anyone attacking him.

Currently the only backwards thinking people appear to be Democrats. Sure they say they are for gay marriage, but what have they DONE to support it?

You're way better off supporting conservatives who at least are likely to believe in true freedom of choice.

Re:Attack who again?

[Politburo]

Only because Cheney is deified, like Clinton with the Democrats. If Bush came out in support of gay marriage it'd be another story.

Why the surprise?

[SuperKendall]

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised

That doesn't make any sense.

If you look over the last few years, consistently it's been Democrats doing things like stuffing freezers full of cash, sexting women inappropriately, sending guns to Mexican drug lords.

It's been liberal Occupy protestors pillaging SF, setting fire to Oakland, pooping on cars.

So when you hear about politicians caught in some illegal act, recent history teaches us it's really far likely to be Democrats, who for years now have shown they believe themselves to be above the law - because after all they are there to help you, and if laws get in the way of control over you well then guess which has to go?

Re:Why the surprise?

[artor3]

Bullshit. Just off the top of my head, there was David Vitter, who got caught with prostitutes, and Mark Sanford, the guy who went "hiking" with his not-wife from Argentina. Both definitely worse than sexting women who were willing participants (Weiner's "crime"). And yet neither was run out of office. Why? Because Republicans don't give a shit about morals when it would put them at a disadvantage.

Of course, if you get all your news from Fox and similar propaganda outlets, you'd be likely to believe that only Democrats get caught in scandals. Maybe you should step away from the bullshit spewers before you become one of them. That is, if it's not already too late.

Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is a Democrat.

Stupid is as stupid does

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all I got to say about that.

Castro Es Un Maricon

[Mana Mana]

It would not surprise me if these individuals are Cuban.

That area of New Jersey, the Union City, NJ, and the West New York, NJ zone are home to the second largest community of Cubans-(Americans) in the USA. Second only in numbers to Miami, FL. Union City. Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez, Cuban-American, is from Union City.

Being Cuban is no sin, but I do get the feeling that some of these pendejos think they are still back in Cuba by their actions.

Surveillence, not Survaylence

[reluctantjoiner]

And the word which you added "lence" to is also spelled "survey", which is the word for those annoying things people ask you to do when you're trying to eat dinner. HTH

Surveillance, not Surveillence, not Survaylence

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, except it is spelled "surveillance".

It's from French, surveiller to watch over, from sur-1 + veiller to keep watch (from Latin vigilre;).

Survey has similar roots in Old French surveeir, from Medieval Latin super+vidre: to look; see.

Too curious...

[hene]

I just had to check what google gives me with "HTML hacking tutorial".

One way trip to gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

Heysuss krist if the FBI, CIA, NSA, KGB ever tried to bring up my search history this AC would be disappeared in a gitmo dungeon forever...

What is really stupid about this is law enforcement unecessarily erroding their capability to do shit like this should they really need it in the future by invoking it on every little insiginficant shit case that comes across their desk. People are stupid and lazy but for godsake this only goes soo far.

Then there are the disaster scenarios like what Byron Sonne went through due to an overabundance of conspiracy theorizing by whacknuts with badges finding what they were looking for.

Arrrgh!

[reluctantjoiner]

Yet again proving the rule that any post correcting spelling will itself contain a spelling error. At least the Hamming distance on my version was shorter :)

LOLNO

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck,
I'm behind 3 proxies.

Tor: Gotta catch 'em all.

Not hacking?

[jmerlin]

From TFA, we're to believe all he did was somehow get GoDaddy to reset the e-mail address on an account, log-in and kill the DNS. This sounds more like an issue with GoDaddy than it does with unlawful access of a computer resource. At best, he impersonated someone? And honestly, the only reason this is on /. or in the news is because he's a public figure. This is hardly something I'd be impressed with even if it were done by an 8 year old child. This isn't hacking, it's just a shining example of why you should avoid GoDaddy at all costs.