Anonymous Slovenia Claims To Have Hacked the FBI and Posted Emails To Pastebin

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Slovenia Claims To Have Hacked the FBI and Posted Emails To Pastebin

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 3, 2014 @08:25AM from the have-some-info dept.

concertina226 writes "The information, posted by user Black-Shadow of the Slovenian branch of the hacktivist group, purportedly contains FBI domain email addresses and passwords for 68 agents, although the user claims in his post that the collected log-in details are 'not all ours'. The post also includes a short profile on FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, including sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence."

152 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sensitive information? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-03 08:30 · Score: 4, Informative

... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.
None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.
1. Re:Sensitive information? by bob_super · 2014-02-03 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Cue the turf war with Silicon Valley. Illegally collecting American's data is their job. Releasing it to the public for free is just plain un-american.
2. Re:Sensitive information? by gstoddart · 2014-02-03 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Releasing it to the public for free is just plain un-american.
  Good thing they were Slovenian.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Sensitive information? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-03 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.
  If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book. Then they could use Google Maps to convert the street address to geographical coordinates. As for the other info, I fail to see how my wedding date, educational history, etc. would be particularly useful to a killer.
4. Re:Sensitive information? by CanHasDIY · 2014-02-03 08:42 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.
  If it's public information, the government provides it to everyone.
  If it's from a social networking site (like LinkedIn), the individual themselves provided it.
  And, of course, that applies to people of all professions.
  
  (as is more common for people in law enforcement than others)
  Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot, but honestly I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
  Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  So we can drone their asses?
6. Re:Sensitive information? by Etherwalk · 2014-02-03 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.
  None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.
  The geographical coordinates of his residence are almost certainly not. People at that level in National Security conceal the address of their residences from the public for good reason.
7. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-03 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I have friends with secret jobs. They are not allowed to have accounts on social media sites for exactly that reason.
8. Re:Sensitive information? by GodfatherofSoul · 2014-02-03 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the reasons I have a problem with all those resume-blasting sites. It's one thing to have all that information about yourself sent to a handful of interested companies. It's completely different to have it indexed for any google search or shmucks to set up some phishing operation. OT: I used to regularly get phishing phone calls people (sounded like they were calling from their apartment) using just this kind of information in an attempt to sound legitimate.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
9. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, if you want yet another country to be saying "Fuck America".
  You're running out of ones you've not yet pissed off recently.
10. Re:Sensitive information? by jesseck · 2014-02-03 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  As for the other info, I fail to see how my wedding date, educational history, etc. would be particularly useful to a killer.
  It depends on how devious the killer is... they may use the home address to kill your dog, kill your spouse on your anniversary, and then off you at a class reunion.
11. Re:Sensitive information? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-02-03 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's been 30 years since someone figured out how to bounce a laser off a window and hear conversations.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
12. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot
  Among other things.
  Fishing for crab is a far more dangerous profession than law enforcement could ever hope to be, for example. (I say hope, because I secretly suspect the paramilitant nitwits actually want a reason to roll down streets in military vehicles with infantry-style rifles pointing out the sides.)
13. Re:Sensitive information? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-03 08:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book.
  You are not FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, who (just a guess) probably isn't in the phone book.
  Can you really go to the post office, give a name, and get an address?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
14. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how long America would last if the entire World declared war on America.
15. Re:Sensitive information? by pepty · 2014-02-03 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the proposal to have a 3rd party hold all of the data NSA collects. If more profits are made it's all good?
16. Re:Sensitive information? by jfengel · 2014-02-03 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They don't put it on their Facebook accounts, but it's not treated like a matter of national security. They buy and sell their houses, and drive to work in their cars, same as everybody else. They don't expect it to be secret, and it would be practically impossible to keep it secret.
  Most of them don't even have personal security guards. I imagine that most of them have home alarms, but it's likely not all that different from many other people who live in the upper-middle-class neighborhoods of DC.
17. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  An ongoing feud between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Phoenix New Times peaked one day back in 2004 when the PNT published Arpaio's (easily searchable if you knew where to go) home address.
  "America's Toughest Sheriff" Arpaio has been sheriff of Maricopa County AZ for 20 years, and he's controversy prone, so he's had hundreds of on-the-record death threats. In a 2011 article, there were eleven open cases of threats against him. Few people have a neutral opinion about Sheriff Joe. He's a love him or hate him kind of guy. The polls show that most of us love him. If you live here, ask your coworkers why they vote for him, and they'll all say the same thing. "Sure, maybe he is a racist, but we like a tough-on-crime, animal-protecting, deadbeat-dad-prosecuting local sheriff."
  There's little doubt that the PNT brought a few more kooks out of their closet to the list of people looking to do Joe harm.
  [Aside, there was a lot of he-said, she-said, no-you between PNT as the local police, but in the end, the PNT won a pretty big settlement after some bogus arrests in 2007 -- bogus so says the suit settlement.]
18. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't you heard? Law enforcement is no longer the FBI's mission. They have removed it from their mission statement. It's counter-terrorism all the way, baby!
19. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm sorry, but those are still public records in the U.S. There are multiple sources for them:
  1. Local newspaper archives. Typically local newspapers publish all recorded births and deaths.
  2. Local public record offices. All across U.S., both birth and death certificates are public records and everyone can access them.
  3. Local real estate records. Almost everywhere you can look up basic property records for free - the name of the owner, the address, the taxes due. To get details you may need to pay, but that's just administrative fee. In better counties, all of the records are freely available online, including GIS data.
  I am in fact in favor of those remaining public no matter what. It prevents certain forms of corruption.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
20. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, USPS isn't really in the business of looking people up, lol.
  You can look up the county property records online for pretty much every major county in the U.S. All you need is the county and person's name. Perhaps only in the boonies you have to drag your ass to an office to look it up.
  You can also look up court records in quite a few counties online, for free.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
21. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.
  This, for a thousand times this!
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
22. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. It should be available in the county land records database, online and for free, for crying out loud. Unless he lives in some real boonies.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
23. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you live in the U.S., posting the same stuff on social networking sites is frankly said just wasted effort. It is all a matter of public record, and anyone willing can look it up. Heck, there are even companies who regularly get this data from every fucking single public entity in the U.S. and collate them in databases. The access to those is provided as a paid-for service, but the prices are nothing to write home about. $50-$100 will find anyone overtly owning real estate anywhere in the U.S.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
24. Re:Sensitive information? by Whorhay · 2014-02-03 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I always figured they were public record but never realized how easy it was to find for free online until I bought a house. I periodically google my own name and one of the hits was a government site for figuring out if your home was in a flood zone. You could feed the site any address and it would list the property owner. Now that isn't to say that you couldn't use a dummy corporation or something to hold ownership of the house for you but I doubt many people go that far.
25. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if he ever moves, all they have to do is hack the NSA next, then they'll have new address, phone number, the conversation with the pizza guy last Thursday, drone pics of him on the toilet....
26. Re:Sensitive information? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-03 09:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, USPS isn't really in the business of looking people up, lol.
  I have personally gone to the post office, given them a name, and got the address. There was a small fee, and I had to show an ID and sign a form. It was over ten years ago, so maybe they don't do it anymore, or maybe you are simply wrong.
27. Re:Sensitive information? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-02-03 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah, online property records are a big privacy leak. You can do things to obfuscate it -- put the property in a land trust if your state permits it (do it when you buy it, as historical information is also available) or buy it in the name of a new mexico llc (which have minimal reporting requirements, so you don't have to disclose your ownership of the llc - you can use a NM llc in any state).
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
28. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Germany lasted for six years, but then Hitler was much less evil than Obama.
29. Re:Sensitive information? by radarskiy · 2014-02-03 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Reading Wikipedia (for all but the last item) is just about within the abilities of the typical Anonymous.
30. Re:Sensitive information? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-02-03 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes...but he is still a racist. As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona. He, and the bigots that keep voting his racist ilk in are ensuring that people like me don't spend a dime there.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
31. Re:Sensitive information? by ArbitraryName · 2014-02-03 09:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You are not FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, who (just a guess) probably isn't in the phone book.
  I wouldn't be so sure about that.
32. Re:Sensitive information? by vikingpower · 2014-02-03 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  You've got the wrong friends. So do they.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
33. Re:Sensitive information? by Whorhay · 2014-02-03 09:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I've never seen someone with a clearance that wasn't allowed to have a social network account because of the job. I have however known a lot of people that don't have such accounts because it is just one more thing to worry about when a clearance review rolls around. Technically speaking though I think that even accounts like the ones we are using here are supposed to be disclosed as "Alliases" in your clearance paperwork.
34. Re:Sensitive information? by cavreader · 2014-02-03 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well the government already knows everything about me thanks to the federal and state tax returns I file every year. Add in my property records and drivers license and they have all they need if they really want to get in touch.
35. Re:Sensitive information? by pla · 2014-02-03 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how long America would last if the entire World declared war on America.
  
  We wouldn't win, but we wouldn't exactly "lose", either.
  
  Keep in mind that the "cold" war merely warmed up a few degrees... The world still contains enough nukes to render our ball of mud into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland 10x over. And the US has a significant fraction of those (and possibly a majority of the functional ones, by most accounts of the state of the former USSR's stockpile).
36. Re:Sensitive information? by cayenne8 · 2014-02-03 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes...but he is still a racist. As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona. He, and the bigots that keep voting his racist ilk in are ensuring that people like me don't spend a dime there.
  What things has he done that are racist?
  While I have heard his name before, I'm not terribly familiar with him, and haven't head of what he has done as a LEO that is overtly racist, or at least it hasn't hit the national news where I would have heard about it.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
37. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-03 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You think I should ditch friends of 20 years because they got a job with the government?
38. Re:Sensitive information? by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-03 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of those provide all these data. I'm not trying to say it's a big deal, just that it's a deal at all, which is now an extremist position, apparently.
39. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona.
  Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and certainly I propose voting on things with your feet and wallets, but the overall idea that Arizona is racist is a bit much.
  Immigration issues, and border-related crime (and fallout from it) is a serious problem in Arizona. There's no simple solution. Everyone knows -- everyone -- that the people standing outside of the Home Depot on 35th avenue looking for day job are almost entirely illegals. Everyone knows plenty of restaurants where the kitchen staff are undocumented. Nobody even blinks when we report another house filled with immigrants held hostage by an extortionist coyote who promised to bring them to the promised land but kept them by force until their "ransom" was paid. We're used to seeing a house in the suburbs get busted for being a drug warehouse -- in a state where marijuana is already legal for medical use.
  Largely things are great in Phoenix -- and the rest of the state -- but having a difficult problem with our proximity to the border doesn't make us a state full of racists.
40. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  In a wikipedia link?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
  He's big on the national news from time to time.
41. Re:Sensitive information? by rk · 2014-02-03 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not long, as would the rest of the world. A global war would like that would stop all trade in and out of the US, and that would wreck the global economy for quite a while.
42. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  ... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.
  None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.
  What's a phone book?
43. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. That's what friends do: ditch each other for the pettiest of reasons.
44. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Oh no. Not disruption of trade. How will I get my energy drinks and protein bars?
45. Re:Sensitive information? by vikingpower · 2014-02-03 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  In these times, yes. I would surely call a long-time friend to reason if he took, or turned out to have taken, a "secret" job with the US government. And if he would not take heed of my arraignments, I would end the friendship. There is a time to plant, and there is a time to uproot, says some 2500-year old wisdom.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
46. Re:Sensitive information? by TheRealMindChild · 2014-02-03 09:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not only that, but a REALLY old client (Haines & Co in North Canton, OH) publishes what the call Criss Cross directory. It has moved to more of an online service, but they still publish and sell a printed book. You can look up an address by phone number, You can look up a person by address, etc. You just need one piece of information and you can easily look up the rest
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
47. Re:Sensitive information? by dimeglio · 2014-02-03 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a leak, it is required to ensure a fair and equitable taxation system. Just like public criminal conviction records are essential for a fair and equitable justice system.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
48. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  If you work for the Government, especially one with sensitive information like the FBI, you generally do not use social media per standard policy. I have several friends who work as DoD contractors with the basic level of security clearance (which I think is "sensitive" but not "secret") and they were told to delete all public social media policies or you won't get your clearance and you basically won't have a career. I sincerely doubt that the Director of the FBI, who was previously a Deputy Attorney General, has a LinkedIn profile.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey
  A wikipedia page, certainly, but most of that information is public information from news sites and his official bio from government sites.
49. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-03 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. You're a huge douche.
50. Re:Sensitive information? by lgw · 2014-02-03 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Land records only show who owns a house (which can easily be an LLC) not who lives there.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
51. Re:Sensitive information? by CanHasDIY · 2014-02-03 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Anecdotal evidence regarding one guy who's a known racist, has been investigated for abuse of power, and is, generally speaking, a massive attention whore, is not what I would consider evidence of a systemic issue involving public records of persons working as LEOs.
  Actually, never mind the other stuff - all the attention whoring is enough to get anybody on a whackjob's radar.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
52. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book.
  ShanghaiBill? Come with me if you want to live.
53. Re:Sensitive information? by swb · 2014-02-03 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd also guess that the head of the FBI has around the clock armed security, a home that has been hardened against attack & panic room, on-site fully automatic weapons, and an FBI tactical team on standby.
  I wouldn't want to deliver a pizza, let alone attack the guy.
54. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  I have friends with secret jobs.
  Oh, like who?
55. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  While you were making shit up, you forgot to have them bypass the plasma flow regulator and boost the shields by 400%.
56. Re:Sensitive information? by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-03 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that you're wrong, though, about the security. The president(and their families), vice president, foreign dignitaries, officials in dangerous locations, people running for president, and former presidents are the only federal officials that have security provided, as a matter of law.
57. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
  Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.
  I provided this particular data point (which trumps "never") only because I'm here in Phoenix, in his back yard.
  As to him being racist or abusing his power -- there's IMHO a grain of truth to it all, but it's mostly a political battle. 20 years as Sheriff in Arizona, plus a penchant for the dramatic gesture (tent city, pink underwear) makes him a big target for others seeking to make a name for themselves. If a patrol officer gets in a fight with a brown skinned guy, papers like PNT will lead with "Arpaio's Office Fosters Racism!" :/
58. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-03 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Eric and Rob.
59. Re:Sensitive information? by arth1 · 2014-02-03 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  Checking your posted link, I found this rather funny (or telling, which would be scary):
  People James may know
  Wen Wu
  Chengang Wu
  Cheng G Gong
  Fan Wu
  Chenggang G Wu
  Wen G Gong
  Cheng H Wu
60. Re:Sensitive information? by similar_name · 2014-02-03 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  If budgets come in to play at all, it might be a close one.
61. Re:Sensitive information? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-02-03 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a leak, it is required to ensure a fair and equitable taxation system.
  You are going to have to explain that one. Property taxes don't vary by who owns the property. And if you don't pay the taxes, the state will seize the property, regardless of the owner of record so it isn't like you can get away with not paying just because your name isn't directly on the records.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
62. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but most people live in the houses they own :)
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
63. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Privacy leak? Why the fuck would anyone want to hide this stuff?
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
64. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-03 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Nice, didn't know that one.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
65. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  About 20 years ago there was a company selling that info on CD-ROM for the entire US, searchable in any number of ways. They probably didn't survive long once the web came along, although for all I know it's still available. Wasn't even very expensive.
66. Re:Sensitive information? by CanHasDIY · 2014-02-03 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
  Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.
  No, it's not 'splitting hairs' - I myself have been stalked because of comments I made publicly; I am not a LEO, nor are the vast majority of people who are stalked by individuals accessing public records. Which is my point - most people who are stalked are not members of law 'enforcement,' and therefore we don't need to give special protections to LEOs just because, one fucking time, one of them got a little sand in his vagina. Hell, if anything we need to put more scrutiny on these public servants, to make sure they aren't abusing the access they have to non-public records.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
67. Re:Sensitive information? by citizenr · 2014-02-03 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is sensitive and you will get prosecuted for posting it _if_ you live in US and those are royalty details. By royalty I mean upper echelons of power, not some cattle citizens.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
68. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  >more common for people in law enforcement than others
  [citation needed]
  I think that's a baseless glorification of law enforcement. A B-list internet celebrity has several times the threat to their personal safety than 99.9999% of LEOs.
69. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  So, you have a secret job too? Or a need to know? Your friends should be fired. If the government gives you a secret job, it's a secret. That means that you tell your spouse, and everyone else, that you do job X, but you really do job Y. I have read memoirs where people with those types of jobs had to, for instance, pose as a Major working at the Pentagon, which can lead to an offer of car pooling from your next door neighbor. Great, now you're car-pooling with your neighbor, only problem is, you works for the CIA, and once you get the pentagon, then you have to find a way to Langley.
  So if you have friends with secret jobs, you just blew their cover, and you just outed them as having loose lips.
  (lol: captcha was "identify")
70. Re:Sensitive information? by citizenr · 2014-02-03 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  You think his daughter goes to school in armored truck? One semi precisely aimed garbage truck and you end up with a very sad man.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
71. Re:Sensitive information? by John.Banister · 2014-02-03 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  I've done commercial crab fishing, and you're mistaken.
72. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  I get that you think the man is putting us all down, and that's a fair opinion to have. [You don't see me advocating for special protections.] But your position on the matter doesn't contradict this specific case where credible threats against a law enforcement official went up after his address was made "more" public when a newspaper published it.
  You said "never."
  I said, "here's one."
73. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, he's not from Earth, he's from IdealWorld, where, fortunately for the color-blind, things are all in black and white.
74. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  ...doesn't make us a state full of racists.
  Americans in general are not warmongers, yet our government is.
  The people of Arizona may not be racist, yet your government is.
75. Re:Sensitive information? by swb · 2014-02-03 11:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sure, Secret Service protection is limited by law, but the head of the FBI has his own armed force and a ton of discretion on how to use it.
  The FBI has a laundry list of people with grievances, from wingnut militia groups, criminal gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, a ton of terrorist groups as well as a lengthy list of foreign intelligence services keen to target the principal domestic counterintelligence organization of the US.
  I'm sure he has personal discretion on how much protection to accept and it may fluctuate with threat levels, but the idea that this guy sits in some ordinary surburban house with no one watching and just his trusty FBI issued pistol just isn't realistic.
76. Re:Sensitive information? by bob_super · 2014-02-03 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  It it's short.
  But if nobody uses nukes, then the US will quickly find itself unable to source enough raw materials locally.
  If the war starts early in the winter, invading Canada won't be much help, and Mexico isn't easy terrain...
77. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Arizona is racists. Arizona also only voted in MLK holiday after the black players threatened to boycott the Super Bowl there. Live in a delusional land now don't you?
78. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  You mean aristocracy, not royalty. Piss off an aristocrat, you will be denied trial. Backroom deals will be made, you will go to jail.
79. Re:Sensitive information? by ljw1004 · 2014-02-03 11:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "I'm not a racist but..."
  In my book, referring to illegal migrants as just "illegals" is itself racist. At least dignify them with a noun that gives them some agency or humanity. The term "illegal" is solely about how they're affected by current laws and says nothing inherent to them.
80. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  or from someone's Linkedin home page.
  When I read the summary, that's the very first thing which came to mind. I doubt there was any kind of real "hack" here, probably just someone used the public LinkedIn profile and managed to guess their way past a shitty password into an email account.
81. Re:Sensitive information? by lgw · 2014-02-03 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Most people have no compelling need to obfuscate their home address. Regardless, I'd bet that if you went to county records to figure out where a federal judge lived, not only would you not find out, but you'd find yourself answering questions from armed men in bad suits soon enough.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
82. Re:Sensitive information? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-02-03 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  > Privacy leak? Why the fuck would anyone want to hide this stuff?
  Ever heard of swatting?
  There are all kinds of grief that someone can cause you if they know where you live.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
83. Re:Sensitive information? by ShaunC · 2014-02-03 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Privacy leak? Why the fuck would anyone want to hide this stuff?
  Battered woman who doesn't want her abusive ex finding out where she lives, celebrity fed up with stalkers, etc.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
84. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-03 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to assume that everyone in the CIA is a field agent. Most people with secret jobs don't have a cover story. It's pointless. They are allowed to tell you that they work for the CIA. They just can't tell you more than that.
85. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  That's a grossly simplistic view of something that happened all a quarter of a century ago, and does not, by and large, represent the attitude of Arizonans.
  In 1987, the Governor, acting on threats from the state's AG that a new federally forced holiday was illegal, and as such would sue for the cost of the holiday, canceled the outgoing governor's order for the holiday to go on the state's books. This wild-west libertarian, federal government can't tell us what to do attitude was good for Governor Mecham, who probably was racist.
  This was still very much Goldwater's Arizona, at least in terms of politics, and played a much larger part than the textbook writing world will remember this event as "just racism."
  In 1990, despite threats from the NFL to take away Super Bowl XXVII, the MLK holiday voting issue went to the public (instead of the state legislature) and the popular vote chose not to add the holiday to the state calendar. [Business here either do or don't offer the day off, much like everywhere else in the country.] The NFL followed through with their threat. In 1992, the MLK holiday went up for voting again, and it passed. Now state employees could have the day off. The NFL responded by awarding us Super Bowl XXX -- which we celebrated by making a logo suitable for Vin Diesel movie.
86. Re:Sensitive information? by s.petry · 2014-02-03 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  This is not a mandate, this is a training that people receive. We could have all the social media accounts we wanted when I worked for the DOD. We received weekly broadcasts reminding us not to put information regarding our jobs on those sites for our own safety.
  "Not allowed" implies that there is some sort of regulation in place preventing people from having a social media account which is untrue.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
87. Re:Sensitive information? by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Affected by current laws" makes it sound like they had the unfortunate accident of being dropped in this country by mistake rather than choosing, willfully, to be in violation of the law.
  I sympathize with their plight. The other side of the US/Mexico border sucks. If the roles were reversed, I might be here illegally trying to make life better for my family. ...but not choosing a soft, friendly, PC name for people who, by definition, are criminals doesn't make me racist.
88. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't there also a video of him declaring on a news outlet that he would intentionally pull over Mexicans without probable cause, or that he would make probable cause to justify pulling them over? Can't find the video right now as i can't watch youtube videos... but i remember seeing it.
89. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... no, that's you framing the issue to try to win a different argument with a thinly veiled ad-hominem against the GP in which you outright call them a racist (and maybe even truthfully so).
  You claim that the word "illegals" as a noun denies them dignity/agency/humanity, and demand that they be called "undocumented migrants" (not alien or immigrant) or such to try to promote agency that they are not granted as a matter of law.
  You want to humanize a truncated expression to force thought beyond what has occurred in the catch phrase and hope that you can advocate sympathy for these humans.
  That they are by definition here unlawfully does not judge them as a person any more than identifying a criminal judges someone as a person. That a court or due process is required is immaterial -- a criminal is still a criminal when observed in the act, even if not yet convicted. It's a statement of observation, not a statement as a finding of matter-of-justice.
  Observing this truth does not make me a racist -- although taking certain actions, or denying them certain human rights/liberties/decency as a result might.
  Reflecting that they are here illegally does say something inherent about them. It says they're criminals.
  If you don't like this, then perhaps you could make the point that a jaywalker, a speeder, a man who underpays his taxes by a cent is also a criminal, and that this particular criminalization is not a productive use of public resources.
  You busy attacking the GP and calling them a racist just demonstrates that you seem to have trouble constructing a legitimate argument and would rather attack a social and cultural problem with cries of "that's racist".
  Reflections about reality aren't racist. Our laws are.
  Lawbreakers are lawbreakers in the eyes of statists everywhere until such time as the laws are changed.
90. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  You can also look up court records in quite a few counties online, for free.
  This was a life saver after I got in a car wreck and was sued for damages. After looking up the lady's court records, it was obvious she had a racket of intentionally causing accidents and suing the victims. I even got in contact with some of her former victims and we got an article in the newspaper about her. This lady had well over a million dollars accumulated from this practice. Luckily my insurance company pointed all this out to a judge, and she was denied all damages after nearly 5 years of deliberation.
91. Re:Sensitive information? by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-02-03 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Employees of armed federal agencies depend to a large extent on the rest of the armed federal agency and the implicit promise that "if you mess with one of ours, you mess with all of us." Federal agencies have acquired a certain aroma of lawlessness when it comes to avenging their own, thanks in large part to Hollywood, but aided and abetted by them any time Hollywood comes asking for an adviser. That and there are news reports of just enough jack-booted thuggery that people assume all the rest of it is true.
  It's more than a little unfortunate that they've chosen to go that route since 9/11. Now instead of the promise that "we will find you and bring you to justice,' it's "we will find you and kill your dog and probably you too at the slightest provocation." The ongoing militarization of police has many downsides, and make no mistake, the FBI are only police. They should act like it. Sadly, they don't.
92. Re:Sensitive information? by skegg · 2014-02-03 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  As for the other info, I fail to see how my wedding date, educational history, etc. would be particularly useful to a killer.
  The day after your wedding anniversary, your assassin could ask your wife what type of flowers you bought her and where you took her for dinner.
  She'd become so irate that you forgot the anniversary that she'd do the job for him.
93. Re:Sensitive information? by SumDog · 2014-02-03 14:07 · Score: 2
  
  They could be answers to your security questions. Personally, my securit question answers are alway additional passwords. I form them based off an algorithm off the first and last words in the question.
94. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  Reflections about reality aren't racist...
  Otherwise known as "I'm not a racist, but ", as well as "I swear I'm not just angry about my tiny penis, now take me seriously!"
95. Re:Sensitive information? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-03 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I've done commercial crab fishing, and you're mistaken.
  Depends where you did it. Fishing for king crab in the Bering Sea is far more dangerous than, say, fishing for blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay. The Bering Sea commonly has 25 foot waves and 80mph winds. The decks get icy, the big metal cages are heavy, and there is extreme time pressure because the king crab season only opens for a few weeks. Crushed limbs and even fatalities are common. But, hey, the pay is good.
  You can read a lot more in this book.
96. Re:Sensitive information? by oddfox · 2014-02-03 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  I guess those children brought along by their families willfully chose to have their parents or parent bring them into the USA through undocumented immigration. Why do you insist on calling these people illegals when they're just as law-abiding as you and I, except they were brought here underage and only found out they were undocumented when they got into High School or College? They are not criminals, they did not knowingly break any laws. Most of the time they don't even speak Spanish, so deporting them to Mexico where they can't speak the language and they don't know any of their family there is exceptionally cruel punishment for someone who ultimately didn't do anything except get brought over by an authority figure early on in life.
  It's not a soft friendly PC name calling them undocumented immigrants, it's being realistic about the fact that not every single one of them committed any crime willingly or otherwise. Calling them illegals is absolutely pejorative, and it has no purpose other than to paint the "illegals" as nothing more than criminals. The world isn't so black-and-white, and there are a lot of privileged people who simply cannot fathom that maybe some undocumented people in America aren't here because they decided to cross the border one day, as they had little choice in the matter once their immediate family says "This is what we're doing" and the children don't even yet understand what is happening.
  Not every undocumented immigrant comes to America this way, of course, but there are many who do, and to call them criminals via blanket statements is, frankly, ignorant. A child being brought over the border illegally by his/her family has two choices: Go with your family or go live on the streets. They're presented with these choices when they're often times not even old enough to comprehend anything about what's going on, other than "We're moving". I really hope you can begin to consider that maybe everyone you call "illegal" did nothing at all to earn that mean and inaccurate label. It's a pejorative term used to dehumanize the actual people involved, and there are better ways to describe this swath of people without the stigma of "Illegals".
  
  "Affected by current laws" makes it sound like they had the unfortunate accident of being dropped in this country by mistake rather than choosing, willfully, to be in violation of the law.
  It's staring you right in the face in the opening of your post, but for some reason it eludes you. There actually are a lot of people who absolutely were not brought here willingly or at an age of understanding.
  
  --
  "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
97. Re:Sensitive information? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-02-03 16:22 · Score: 2
  
  ... choosing, willfully, to be in violation of the law.
  75% of the people on the freeway are also choosing, willfully, to be in violation of the law. That doesn't make them evil, or even wrong, as long as they can safely handle their car. Likewise, if a Mexican comes here, works honestly, and builds a better life for himself and his family, I don't see anything wrong with that.
98. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's discriminatory but not racist.
  
  It's referring to people by their status not race.
  
  I don't really have a big problem with certain forms of discrimination. If you see a lion on the street do you avoid it or do you continue towards it because doing otherwise would be discrimination?
99. Re:Sensitive information? by dbIII · 2014-02-03 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  In my country something like that was clobbered for "copyright" reasons, although I'm sure the reality was because it competed with a very expensive service from the phone company.
100. Re:Sensitive information? by BlueStrat · 2014-02-03 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'd also guess that the head of the FBI has around the clock armed security, a home that has been hardened against attack & panic room, on-site fully automatic weapons, and an FBI tactical team on standby.
  None of which will stop a smart, motivated, and willing-and/or-planning-to-die individual with even modest resources.
  All government officials are only alive because nobody who is reasonably sane, intelligent, and resourceful has decided to set out to methodically plan and carry out an assassination. Killing someone in government is not that hard. It's the escaping and eluding capture and prosecution while not being killed afterwards that's the difficult bit.
  If one is not worried about escaping or even surviving, tactical operational planning and resource/logistic requirements get a whole lot less complicated, and the chances for success increase sharply.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
101. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 19:16 · Score: 0
  
  I look forward to you posting this for literally thousands of other words, thug.
102. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you insist on calling these people illegals when they're just as law-abiding as you and I, except they were brought here underage and only found out they were undocumented when they got into High School or College?
  Because that is their status. The fact that they were brought here as minors by adults is irrelevant. Now, that being said, I favor a process whereby such people can normalize their status as legal resident aliens and eventually, if they wish, become citizens. However, I also think that this process should be longer and more expensive than other existing legal methods of entry, so as to not to encourage further violations of our immigration laws. In my opinion, a fine of not less than $35,000 US dollars, payable over a period of not more than seven years, followed by not less than five additional years of probation, working and paying taxes all the while and without felony conviction, combined with background checks, loyalty oath and good references from law abiding American citizens should be enough to discourage those who aren't serious about working hard and making a commitment to prove their worth as permanent residents or eventually as candidates for full citizenship with all rights, privileges and responsibilities pertaining thereto. However, we cannot and must not reward people for breaking the rules, as some on the left would have us do.
103. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  As a practical matter it's arguably necessary these days to maintain at least some alias accounts on selected social networks, just to help with long term fabrication of cover identities for operational use. It's difficult to fabricate these sorts of networks ad-hoc on short notice because they will appear unnatural if not allowed to grow organically over time. It also helps when the case officer has ample time to become comfortable with the details and backgrounds of the various covers he's created so that he's less likely to slip up under pressure while using them. A good disguise for pictures to associate with the account is also necessary to avoid easy cross referencing of cover accounts with any real accounts.
104. Re:Sensitive information? by vikingpower · 2014-02-03 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  "The free states [...] which had embraced the cause of Rome were rewarded with a nominal alliance, and insensibly sunk into real servitude."
  ( Gibbon, "History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire" )
  In spite of and in contradiction with the USA's touting democracy all over the earth, quite the contrary has happened, what with the lost wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. A mere shimmer of lustre, originating in an American Dream that was all but superficial rhetoric, managed to shine over Europe during the decades of the Cold War. But since 1989, two and a half decades of gradually worsening debt, surveillance and fear-mongering have opened the eyes of many in a Europe that was recently but a vassal: the US government is not to be trusted, and serving it is another form of perpetuating servitude. Of which, enough now.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
105. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  Most people with secret jobs don't have a cover story. It's pointless.
  It's only really necessary when the person is working overseas in an unfriendly country and isn't officially attached to the US diplomatic mission, assuming that there is one, as a named person, right? Although even then I think that you're probably correct insofar as constructing a plausible cover identity these days with realistic hits in all of the necessary databases, social networks and the data broker services is practically impossible. It's probably easier to hijack or alter existing identities for this purpose rather than trying to create fakes from scratch. The downside of course is when you're caught using them as those Mossad assassins were in Dubai.
106. Re: Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 20:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Illegals" is pejorative. They are "illegal immigrants" (guilty of a single offence) not illegal in all senses.
  But we won't get you started on the niggers.... Right? Right?!
107. Re:Sensitive information? by John.Banister · 2014-02-03 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  I've fished for king crab and opilio crab in the Bering Sea, and in the Sea of Okhotsk. I'm familiar with 40' seas and 80 knot winds. Since the rationalization, there's no intense time pressure on crab seasons anymore. The only limit to the schedule is set by (#$%!#$ slavery making) processing quota owning factories (& fuel consumption related economics), and if you have crab later than others and they still have processing quota available (& someone always will), they'll buy it. If you're green, incautious and working for a boat whose owner puts greed before safety, injury and death are easy to find (and not just in crab fishing), but if you're experienced and working o/b a safety first vessel, it's dangerous, but it's not getting-shot-at dangerous.
108. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone has a facebook profile even if they have never used a computer. If you delete you facebook profile, you become one of the millions of hidden nodes in the graph of connected people. There are apps that will tell you who is missing from a friends family and friends and provide plenty of data on them.
109. Re:Sensitive information? by The+Wild+Norseman · 2014-02-04 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  People James may know
  Wen Wu
  Chengang Wu
  Cheng G Gong
  Fan Wu
  Chenggang G Wu
  Wen G Gong
  Cheng H Wu
  
  Woh. I wonder wu else he knows, though my guess is he's long gong by now so wei can't ask him.
  
  --
  "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
110. Re:Sensitive information? by CanHasDIY · 2014-02-04 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I said
  
  I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.
  Your little anecdote about Sheriff Joe doesn't change that, namely because there's no mention of actual stalking there (an "open threat" != "stalker"), but also because it seems to me he was being "stalked," if you could even call it that*, because he is an asshole, not specifically because he's a cop.
  * I think anyone who's actually been stalked by someone that wants to harm them would likely take offense to that claim. People make idle threats all the time, it's different when you find note left for you somewhere that person shouldn't have had access to; so, wake me when Arpaio starts finding dead cats or the like in his locker, or under the seat of his private automobile.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
111. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-04 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  And what does it matter that someone looked up the details of the poor target online, vs. from a random dart throw on a map? Unless there's a conscious, repeated targeting going on, it won't matter at all.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
112. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-04 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yet, demonstrably, in spite of all this being "out there", both celebrities and battered women are not really much worse for it. If my wife's experience with stalkers is anything to go by, the best way to deal with a stalker is an offer of having sex right now and right there, and oh by the way did you know I was HIV positive for a while now. Stalkers have tiny balls, apparently.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
113. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-04 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  For $50-$100 you can do it without having to go anywhere. There are companies that aggregate all that data :)
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
114. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-04 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no, you can still do it in Europe, only that digging up all the data is on you. So you can't merely get a phone book, OCR it, and sell a digital version of the same facts. In the U.S. you can, and I agree with that policy. Europe is a bit nuts in this respect IMHO, and you need to have paper trail that shows you did obtain the data independently.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
115. Re:Sensitive information? by tibit · 2014-02-04 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of course lawyers that one should retain in such circumstances know all that. If you have no means to get a lawyer, then most likely the lady's "suing for damages" part doesn't make any sense, because there are no assets to go after. And besides, if the defense lawyer is provided by the insurer, then anyway they know all that and should do due diligence, just like you did, or they are up for firing and possibly disbarment. What you did is really the minimal due diligence that any law student would be aware of, much less a practicing lawyer. Of course kudos for you for having the wherewithal to stay rational and look at the data.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
116. Re:Sensitive information? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-02-04 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Unless there's a conscious, repeated targeting going on, it won't matter at all.
  Are you a dumbass/? Did you read the article about swatting? Did you see even one example of random attacks? Making yourself a smaller target is what it is all about.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
117. Re:Sensitive information? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-02-04 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. You're a poetic douche who doesn't know shit about modern America or ancient Rome.
118. Re:Sensitive information? by vikingpower · 2014-02-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of reviling me without argument, rather rebuke me with reason. In the absence of which I stand my ground, albeit insulted.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
119. Re: Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  wu tang clan ain't nuffing to fuck wit
120. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that what Jeff Goldbloom used in Independence Day to find his wife's phone number?
121. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  The term "illegal" is solely about how they're affected by current laws and says nothing inherent to them.
  Except how they violated those current laws. The general word for people that have broken laws is criminal. Illegal in today's vernacular narrows that down to breaking an immigration law.
  http://tfd.com/illegal
  illegal (lil)
  n
  3. a person who has entered or attempted to enter a country illegally
122. Re:Sensitive information? by q4Fry · 2014-02-07 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  The United States wouldn't win, and everyone would lose.
I hate to say it by sandbagger · 2014-02-03 08:43 · Score: 1

But if he put a wedding announcement in his local paper, it's hardly sensitive information.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:52 · Score: 0

I went ot a job fair recently. I was told that they did all their recruiting through LinkedIN - they weren't taking resumes at the job fair and I but my tongue when I want to ask WTF they were doing there.
When I expressed why I was uncomfortable with creating a LinkedIN profile, I was told that LinkedIN wasn't like Facebook where people were posting crap or something like that - with a tone of "WTF is YOUR problem?"
You can't argue with employers because you WILL be labeled as "not having the skills" or "not being a good fit" or "not being a team player". You got to suck it up and play the game and unfortunately, that means giving up all of your privacy. The leftists have got a point, sadly to say.
Oh! The person I talked to was actually a technical team lead - NOT some HR person. So, consider that.
In the meantime, I weep for my loss of privacy in my quest to get a job to pay off my student loans.
At least I don't have a government that'll put me in jail or kill me for no reason - and I got a refrigerator! Happy days! I have a REFRIGERATOR!!!
1. Re:Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  You're lucky you weren't escorted out by security and then arrested and charged with terrorism and thrown in jail. Disagreement of any kind is Violence, don't you know?
2. Re:Job Fair by tibit · 2014-02-03 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  As far a US is concerned, I've got some news for you, and you must be living an ever sheltered life.
  Ever got a traffic ticket? It's public record, usually available online for a free lookup. Ever purchased real estate? Same. Got born or died? Same. And so it goes.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
3. Re:Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  American women routinely use the results of public record searches as an excuse to dump their boyfriends, so it's a foregone conclusion that American men know about public records. Traffic ticket five years ago? You're dumped. Have fun with the fleshlight.
4. Re:Job Fair by Trax3001BBS · 2014-02-03 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  When I expressed why I was uncomfortable with creating a LinkedIN profile, I was told that LinkedIN wasn't like Facebook where people were posting crap or something like that - with a tone of "WTF is YOUR problem?"
  I know what you mean, the WTF is that one line in all ToS's that says "due to change at anytime". It doesn't help distancing themselves from Facebook, Twitter, or Google + when linkedin is fourth in line to use site log ons, when logging on to Slashdot.
  
  and I got a refrigerator! Happy days! I have a REFRIGERATOR!!!
  Congratulations on your new acquisition! :}
5. Re:Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Damn it! I knew I forgot to do something. I've been letting some loser dig me for three months. Gotta find the dirt on his broke ass, then get me a nice fit boyfriend.
6. Re:Job Fair by lgw · 2014-02-03 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Was that company LinkedIn, by any chance? That's the only company I can imagine with that attitude. It's true though that LinkedIn isn't like Facebook: it's not really a "social" site at all, it's just a place to post your resume, with as few or as many details as you like, and a somewhat-screened contact system.
  Also, when someone at a job fair makes some polite excuse for not anting to take your resume, well, maybe take the hint?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
7. Re:Job Fair by Virtucon · 2014-02-03 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't turnabout fair play then? Drunk video of her barfing on Youtube = dumped.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
8. Re:Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  But that drunk video of her barfing on YouTube is SO HOT. And she brushed her teeth since then. Would still date.
9. Re:Job Fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  They told me I should have a portfolio of my work, so I made a portfolio and showed it to them, and they still didn't want me! Asshats.
yeah except by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:09 · Score: 0

now 1,000,000 more crazies know about it
Honey Pot? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:44 · Score: 0

How can they be sure they weren't just sucked into a honey pot?
Re:Slovenia's Gangster Communist Computer God... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:24 · Score: 0

Dude. Try anti psychotic medication. It works.
Re:Slovenia's Gangster Communist Computer God... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:14 · Score: 0

NO IT DOESN"T!
Virginia DMV next. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 13:05 · Score: 0

Please.
Re:fuk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 13:12 · Score: 1

If they have nothing to hide, these agents have nothing to fear.
Post the pastebin link by Sean · 2014-02-03 13:19 · Score: 1

Will someone just post the pastebin link so we can look at judge for ourselves?
1. Re:Post the pastebin link by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  http://pastebin.com/Eyn23wXm
2. Re:Post the pastebin link by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  http://pastebin.com/Luw2XsP2
  see also
  http://pastebin.com/Eyn23wXm
innocent have nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 22:07 · Score: 0

Not to worry mr director. After all the innocent have nothing to lose by loss of privacy am i right?
here is the link by h54108 · 2014-02-04 00:46 · Score: 1

and here is the link http://pastebin.com/DwDJ0WW8
yip by h54108 · 2014-02-04 00:51 · Score: 1

here's the link http://pastebin.com/xTwMqEGs
reply to comment by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 07:29 · Score: 0

i'm torn between "insightful" and "informative".