The Rise of Political Doxing (schneier.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Security guru Bruce Schneier predicts a new trend in hacking: political doxing. He points to the recent hack of CIA director Jack Brennan's personal email account and notes that it marks a shift in the purpose of email hacking: "Here, the attacker had a more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder for an eager press." Schneier continues, "As people realize what an effective attack this can be, and how an individual can use the tactic to do considerable damage to powerful people and institutions, we're going to see a lot more of it. ... In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use against the powerful."

Comments

What a clever prediction

[The-Ixian]

I guess this is why Bruce Schneier is a guru and gets the big bucks....

Re:What a clever prediction

[thedonger]

More like, "Bruce Schneier predicts current trend will continue based on observance of current trend continuing."

There's already a word for it.

Re:What a clever prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this is why Bruce Schneier is a guru and gets the big bucks....

It's great that Bruce has put behind him his cryptographic background and now gives tin foil hat lectures on the TSA.
He is truly a legend in his own mind.

Re:What a clever prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really work, though. The UK's prime-minister stuck his cock into a pig's head, no one battered an eyelid, despite the press doing their best to stir things up.

Re:What a clever prediction

[Coisiche]

True, although some elements of the press were never going to make a big thing of it because he's their golden boy.

However it was all over social media and still inspires a few posts that I see. To many he will now only ever be known as pig-fucker.

Re:What a clever prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

tin foil hat lectures on the TSA.

What are you on about? It's a little difficult to describe opposition to ANYTHING that's happening in the public's view as wearing a "tin foil hat." It's not a conspiracy; you can go to an airport and see it happening!

Re:What a clever prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... Doesn't he prefer to be called Caitlyn now? Didn't he get his dick cut off?

Plame affair

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob Novak did it already.

HA .. oh god .. HA

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use against the powerful.

If you believe that "the powerful" won't implement a countermeasure that makes us all regret the doxing, you're a moron. Although there is something to be said for waiting for the grains of sand to slip out of their clenching grasp...

Re:HA .. oh god .. HA

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Exactly. How long will it be before such people start to just vanish into some black hole somewhere. If that doesn't work then their family, friends, etc will likewise suffer. This is always the last resort of the more powerful to the weaker. That's what being weaker MEANS, you can't protect yourself.

And if the tactic does work? It will just become another tool of the scumbags. Turds always float to the surface.

Re: HA .. oh god .. HA

[Anonymous Coward]

Turds most definitely do NOT always float.

#tacotuesday

Re:HA .. oh god .. HA

[ShanghaiBill]

If you believe that "the powerful" won't implement a countermeasure that makes us all regret the doxing, you're a moron.

I already regret it. This doxing is just one more reason for good people to avoid public office. There are reasons that many of our leaders are narcissistic sociopaths, and by driving away good people, this is just making it worse.

 

Re: HA .. oh god .. HA

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the powerful do when they see grains of sand escaping their grasp? They melt it into glass which can't escape. It can only break.

Re:HA .. oh god .. HA

[flopsquad]

Agree. Even further on that point, I think Schneier's statement at the end of TFS is wishful thinking.

He says: "In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use against the powerful."

But in fact it's more likely that doxing (as with other political takedown tactics) will be a tactic that the already powerful can effectively use against the the newly, moderately, or inconveniently powerful.

So it is indeed a bad time to be a good person running for office, especially if you're also trying to shake things up and actually do some good.

Re:HA .. oh god .. HA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is already the case, the likes of Murdoch have been doing it for years.

Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Or don't do anything to be ashamed of.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Or don't do anything at all.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[spire3661]

Its simply not that easy. People are always looking for weaknesses. Even if you own up to everything you have done, people will still look to take advantage of the information. Its a huge massive attack surface.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

"Don't do anything that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the New York Times."
-- Confucius :-)

It's still good advice. Unfortunately, many people are still ashamed of some aspects of their lives (physical, mental, sexual, etc) that they feel they need to keep in the closet. We're still prudes in many ways, and with the current trend to political correctness, we're becoming worse in some ways.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Shoten]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

Interesting. This is effectively the same as the argument put forth by the surveillance hawks who want to monitor everything. "Don't do anything that makes you look guilty, and there's nothing to worry about."

The fact is that it's not just about personal shame. People have been pilloried over things they didn't have any problem with personally, but which in turn caused massive backlash...with real consequences...from the public. And also noteworthy is that in this case, personal information (like SSNs, names of family members, etc.) were also put out in the open. So it's not just about shame.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since most people don't have anything truly shocking to hide. Sure, they may have behaved silly when drunk. But so has most people. A 5-minute sensation when some politician is cought on video.

And what about infidelity or hidden homosexuality? Again, this happens with so many people, so it is not that interesting. Only americans seems to get 'shocked' by this sort of thing - but for how long? "Someone cought cheating" is the sort of news that makes me switch channels on the TV. For who cares? It is outright boring.

sure, we can laugh at the people in power, but they rarely have any interesting skeletons in their closets.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[RabidReindeer]

You should be ashamed of yourself, you do-nothing!

Re:Simple counter-measure

[LaurenCates]

I always said to myself that if I were to ever run for office, that I would create a website that listed all my dirty laundry. Anything that might be considered something that someone, somewhere might use to say "she's got something to hide" goes on there. Nothing off-limits. Because I've made mistakes like any dumb kid might have.

Point I would be making in such a site would the line I'd put at the end:

"Okay, now that we're done with bullshit that has nothing to do with the job I'm applying for, let's get to talking about things that are relevant."

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

There are things in E-mail that I don't want out, even though I'm not ashamed about them:

1: Password change/requests. This is easily identifiable info for ID thieves.
2: Personal items from family/friends. Why does the world need to know that my RV leaks from the cabover and I'm having a carpenter in to rip out the interior and rebuild it?
3: What I buy from Amazon. Again, nothing illegal, but I don't care to have the fact that my taste (or lack of) in music and literature be for all to see.
4: I don't want all and sundry to know my work schedule or what type of alarm I use for my house.

Yes, it is easy to say, "what do you have to hide?", but privacy is still necessary.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's not a question about whether you've done anything that you're ashamed of, it's a question of if you've done anything that *other people* are ashamed of.

We're talking about politicians here. It doesn't matter if you're not ashamed of what gets brought to light. Hell, it doesn't even matter if what was discovered is even *true* -- all that matters is if the voters care.

There are way too many instances of people having their careers ruined by something that they weren't ashamed of, but that their employees were. It's not a question of not being personally ashamed, it's a question of whether other people will continue to vote for you after you've been doxed. Or let you keep your job. Or even hire you in the first place.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[soloes]

context is everything. Just because you do something that is good, does not mean that people cannot just publicize part of it and make it look bad.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that countermeasure has been in place for quite some time. Clinton didn't have a problem lying every five minutes about his affair, and then merrily going about his business even after he was forced to admit it. Then you had Bush who tanked the economy via years of war in a "search" for WMD's that didn't exist. Now we have Obama, who has kept few if any of his campaign promises, even those completely within his control. The last president that I can recall being held accountable for missteps was Nixon, and the incident that got him booted was relatively minor by comparison.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[DarkOx]

Right but this is the very argument against collecting and aggregating the information at all. It is harmful when its released and sooner or later it does get out or does get aggregated.

The very politicians crying about this today will be the ones arguing to create another national registry or list of some kind tomorrow unless they fell the pain from this.

The public needs to see how harmful this stuff is and unfortunately the only way we are ever going to get Jane and Joe average to care is if they see some good people ( or people they think are good people) get really really hurt by this stuff. Otherwise the "won't somebody thing of the children" argument is always going to win.

Most of this doxing stuff ultimately comes from public records, yes there are some private records that doxers go after as well but the really hurtful stuff tends to be public records. Government knows to much about us. We need that to change. So the next time some dumbshit thinks something like a national health care program is a good idea let alone national id, it will go down in flames like it should.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Kind of hard to "take advantage of it" if it's old news to everyone.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[eheldreth]

The two arguments couldn't be farther apart. The OP's statement is an action plan for dealing with the consequences of a potential leak of personal information, not an excuse of the perpetrators actions. The statement the "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a justification of the state sponsored invasion of privacy. It is by definition an excuse of the perpetrators action.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

When you go into politics, you know that sort of stuff comes with the territory. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

As for business leaders, you get videoed kicking a dog, you know there's going to be backlash. So unless you're a moron, don't kick dogs. Or live with the consequences, same as everyone else. It's not rocket science.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Awesome idea. People would appreciate the candor.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[OverlordQ]

don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

That only works up to the point that it's something that nobody cares about either.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[HornWumpus]

The downside is that the only people that can run for office are people who knew they wanted to be politicians when they were kids.

Those are the last people to put in charge of anything important. Remember the student council suckups? Those are the only people living boring enough lives to be politicians.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have nothing to hide...
 
Sad to see such a comment get up modded on Slashdot, of all places.
 
I guess it really is as dead as what I thought.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a fantasy land.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[LaurenCates]

I'm surprised someone hasn't already said "yeah, but your social security number", or "yeah, but your nude photos".

Or, simply, yeah, well, you support that, and I don't agree with you, therefore I can classify you as an idiot and ignore anything else you have to say.

*shrug*. The former can be dug up ("dig it up if you really need it for something"), and there's nothing I can do to stop it, the latter would have to be photoshopped ("those don't exist, but I wouldn't be ashamed of them if they did"), and the last...well, I guess if someone were looking to find a reason to think I was an idiot, they would have come to the conclusion long before reading the list, if they bothered to read it at all.

On the other hand, I suspect it would cause a great deal of support for me if I actually decided to go with the campaign slogan I intend to use:

"The c*nt who gets sh*t done."

Lack of decorum aside, at least nobody can paint me as thin-skinned or afraid of the "sexism" boogeyman.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

That only works up to the point that it's something that nobody cares about either.

Actually, no. As long as you don't care, then you're also not going to care if someone else is getting bent out of something. Case in point - there are plenty of people who voice negative opinions about transsexuals, but it doesn't bother me that what I am upsets them. As far as I'm concerned, they're the ones with the problem. Same thing with anything that some people attach stigma to, such as mental illness. It's not "who gives a damn?" but "who in MY life gives a damn?"

TANSTAAFL, which is another way of saying that sometimes you will have to step up to the plate and deal with such issues no matter how hard you try to keep everything private, so just deal with it already instead of waiting for the other shoe to drop :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

context is everything. Just because you do something that is good, does not mean that people cannot just publicize part of it and make it look bad.

So let them. They're going to do it anyway, and they're just setting themselves up for looking like stupid dishonest manipulative SOBs to anyone who looks into it.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

The downside is that the only people that can run for office are people who knew they wanted to be politicians when they were kids.

Those are the last people to put in charge of anything important. Remember the student council suckups? Those are the only people living boring enough lives to be politicians.

Not true. Obama admits to having used crack, GWB is known to have an alcohol and drug problem, nobody believes Clinton didn't inhale ... Heck, internationally notorious former mayor of Toronto Rob Ford got re-elected to city council despite admitting to crack and alcoholism, and all the videos out there of him losing it time after time. Anyone who looks too good is immediately suspect.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

If you have nothing to hide... Sad to see such a comment get up modded on Slashdot, of all places. I guess it really is as dead as what I thought.

I call BS on this. Politicians go into politics knowing that there is no way that they will ever be able to keep all their skeletons in the closet. You can hide all your personal stuff, but if some of it DOES leak out, just own it. If it's nothing you think you should be ashamed of, say so. That's FAR from "if you have nothing to hide."

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

It's funny - my name, home address, and email are on slashdot and there have been no problems. My name, home and email addresses, and phone number are public on (shudder) Facebook and elsewhere, and again, it's not a big deal.

People seem to forget that before the turn of the century there were these big dead-tree books called "Telephone directories", that had your name, phone number, and address for the whole world to see. When someone goes "OMG they have my address", big deal. Really. There are so many personal details out there (lawsuits, marriages and divorces, permits, etc) that it's silly to lose any sleep over it. The Internet has really dumbed down so many people who are on a hair trigger to go "WAAHHH" about anything and everything without engaging their brains.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[N1AK]

Sounds like a bad plan to me; it seems like it would invariably go wrong in one of a number of ways:
1/ You've actually done stuff that's worth reporting on which is embarrassing, in which case the news media will happily use it in stories.
2/ You've genuinely done nothing embarrassing of note, and people won't believe your list is real and complete.
3/ There's something you've forgotten, or didn't think worthy of including, which may be trivial that is found out and the whole exercise comes across as a lie.
4/ Someone makes up, or misinterprets, something and you look like a fraud.

It doesn't matter if you genuinely don't find anything about your past embarrassing, the thing that will harm your chances is other people's interpretation of those events.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[spire3661]

Its just not that simple and you know it. Things that you do today, might become a problem later due to cultural or political shifts. Privacy is important, full disclosure is not an option for humans. The only way this would work is if we had true human telepathy and a hive mind.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[gurps_npc]

Wrong. On so many levels.

Ever hear about Bridget McCain? She is the very dark skinned adopted daughter of John McCain. His wife found her - a child with a facial deformity and a serious heart condition. They adopted this wonderful girl in need and gave her all the love and medical help they could. Mr. McCain was never embarrassed by her. But during the 2000 election, George Bush's lying scumbag allies sent out a phone poll asking:

"Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

McCain lost the South Carolina primary in part because of this bold faced lie. In this particular case, they never hid anything about her, but the point is fairly clear - there are lots of things that LOOK bad but aren't bad. Politics is a game of perceptions.

Merely not doing actually bad things isn't enough. You also have to avoid doing anything you can stretch and deform into an attack.

So no, actual innocence is not enough of a protection, we also need legal rights to privacy.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[OverlordQ]

Actually, no. As long as you don't care, then you're also not going to care if someone else is getting bent out of something.

Good thing no teachers have ever been fired due to things they've done in their private lives that have no affect on their teaching. Oh wait.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you aren't ashamed of something doesn't mean someone else won't crucify you for it. For non-public people, this kind of works but for politicians, it's a total slippery slope because they're trying to appeal to all people.

Getting drunk once is nothing to be ashamed of, right? Except some anti-alcohol group will try to paint you as an unreliable manchild.

Looking at smut once or twice is nothing to be ashamed of, right? Until some moralistic church group paints you as a sexual deviant.

Talking to women other than your wife is totally normal, right? Until someone cuts and pastes words together from your emails to make it look like you're having an affair. Then in come the wolves...

Or some women's group decides you are a sexist.

Not being ashamed of things only works to prevent blackmail. It doesn't work when you have to have a carefully crafted public image. The public doesn't hear the truth--or care for that matter. Once a reputation is ruined, it's ruined. And little things that fringe groups hate that 90% of the doesn't care about are what get you. Thing is there's enough fringe groups out there to offend that add up to becoming persona non-grata #1.

Re: Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

So true

Re:Simple counter-measure

[LaurenCates]

My response to that is: meh. People are going to interpret all of that in any way they see fit. If they really have the time and interest to go digging through my past, I suppose they will.

Of course, this would really only be worthwhile for someone less boring than me.

I'm fine with the idea that people misinterpret me; they've been doing it my whole life so why would that stop if I put myself under the public's microscope? I counter that with unflinching honesty, though. I don't really half-ass my opinions. If I want you to know something, I pretty much explain it in detail and triplicate.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Jason Levine]

As a counter-point, I've been the target of a stalker online. She stalked an account where I used a pseudonym and didn't use my real name/address at all. Another person she stalked used his real name. She contacted his employer (a school) and told them he molested children. She contacted everyone on Facebook who shared his last name and lived in his general area to tell them this also. She even claimed to have contacted the police about him. Needless to say, this was all made up by her. (She claimed that god told her all this so you can guess how effective arguing with her is. After all, how can you argue against "god told me this directly"?) These allegations could easily have gotten him fired. He was lucky enough that he was able to warn his employer and his family/friends/police ignored her. Still, she was able to make his life miserable for years.

I'm thankful that this person DIDN'T know my real name, home address, employer, or any other information about me. Do I have anything to hide? No. However, people can do damage with false allegations if they have the right information about you. By the time you refute the allegations, the damage might already have been done.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever drugs you're on must be good. There's still a wide gulf between saying "I dont think there's anything wrong with it" vs everybody else thinking there's something wrong with it. The fact you cannot see that, says a lot.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the belief that you can control what the public thinks is shameful. You're wrong.

Here, take a recent example: Mitt Romney. In the 1980s, he decided that he'd bring his dog along with him on vacation. No big deal, right? People bring pets along on vacation all the time. Well, no. Because he put the dog in a roof-mounted kennel, this story got brought up as an example of Romney "kicking a dog."

And then there's Romneycare. Romneycare was a brilliant state-level move to prevent the Massachusetts legislature from putting far more onerous regulations on the healthcare industry. And Romneycare worked, but it was tailored to Massachusetts and Massachusetts at the time he was governor. It was never designed to work for the entire country.

Fast-forward to 2012 and Obamacare. Suddenly Romney's signature accomplishment, the deal he worked out that saved the healthcare industry when he was governor, is now a negative. It's been expanded nationwide and has cost billions (if not trillions) of dollars and destroyed an uncountable number of jobs. Something he did that used to be a positive (working across the aisle to save his state's healthcare industry) has become a negative.

That's the problem you're missing. You can do things that you're not ashamed of, or that you're even proud of, and then find out four years later they've come back to haunt you.

Simply not being ashamed of what you've done is not enough, you have to hope that the world doesn't retroactively declare past actions as suddenly being negatives.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[OverlordQ]

Stop trying to use logic against this person. They live in some magical fantasy land where nobody is ever persecuted for things they have no personal issue against.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Jason Levine]

Then they simply either make up something you did (perhaps basing it on something that really happened so there's a grain of truth) or they take something that happened out of context so that it sounds much worse.

For example, suppose your list includes "drove drunk once when I was 19." A political hit squad could spread the word that you actually were arrested after you drove drunk, hit another car, and killed an 8 year old girl. Is it true? Of course not. But now you're spending time refuting this story instead of spreading your message and you're on the defensive. Or maybe they remove the "when I was 19" context. With some creative wording, they can make it seem like this happened very recently instead of years/decades ago (without outright claiming it was recent). Again, you'll be on the defensive and trying to provide context instead of spreading your ideas.

I'm not saying your idea isn't without merit, but don't underestimate the underhandedness of those in politics.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

Speaking of "don't give a sh*t", just imagine a photo of your asshole as you do give a shit, a side-by-side photo of your face, and a campaign that every search for your name online gives those photos as the number one hit.

You don't have to exert pressure or do anything shameful for someone to manipulate circumstance to put you in a negative light in the eyes of most people. Until people become machines that focus on facts and logic, this will be so.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Jason Levine]

And exiting the realm of e-mail, there's thing about myself that I don't want the become common knowledge. As a victim of identity theft, I can personally attest to the fact that someone getting your name, address, date of birth, and social security number can wreck havoc with your life. Am I "ashamed" of any of that information? Of course not. However, that doesn't mean I want them to be public knowledge.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

If it becomes a problem later, then fight for your rights. If you're not ready to fight for your rights and freedoms, you deserve neither.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Jason Levine]

Do you think politicians really care about "looking like stupid dishonest manipulative SOBs"? They care about winning and only winning. Some might say campaign contributions from businesses/wealthy donors also, but these are honestly only a means to an end. If money somehow could be decoupled from politics, politicians wouldn't care about the donations, but would still only care about that which helps them win.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Or to proactively denounce lies ...

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, no. As long as you don't care, then you're also not going to care if someone else is getting bent out of something.

Good thing no teachers have ever been fired due to things they've done in their private lives that have no affect on their teaching. Oh wait.

If they shouldn't have been fired, then they should have fought it. They might lose, but it will make it easier to fight the next time.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Jason Levine]

In your personal life, this is a great lesson to learn/apply. I realized this back in college after coming out of a horrid high school bullying experience. I decided that there was a small circle of people whose opinion mattered to me. Outside that circle, people could call me whatever they wanted and I just didn't care.

However, when you're talking about politics, ALL voters are "that circle." A negative opinion can spread rapidly and cause a downturn in your campaign even if you don't care about why people are upset about it.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

The only issue I have with Mental Illness is that everyone in the population is diagnosable (I mean have you ever looked at the DSM?). People can claim "mental trauma" because of a bad relationship and collect "disability" for the rest of their lives.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

So instead pf presenting a "cleverly crafted public image" (which is basically a con job), they could have just been themselves. Problem solved.

As for the anti-alcohol and church groups, the majority think they're dogmatic idiots. Have the endorsement of either of these two groups would be the kiss of death here. Then again, Canadians do not tolerate religious interference in the political process. You might want to try it some time.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[OverlordQ]

Yes, but it still completely proves the point that it's not whether or not you are ashamed, but what society as a whole things of the subject. Saying "Just dont care what others think" isn't a solution.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Stop trying to use logic against this person. They live in some magical fantasy land where nobody is ever persecuted for things they have no personal issue against.

Really? So all those protests for other people's rights over the decades (including defending the rights of those who actively spoke out against me because of what I am) and all those court appearances never really happened? No, I think you're the one living in some sort of magical fantasy land. Get yourself punched in the face by cops and thrown in jail a few times for protests and then we can talk.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

All well and good but you've got to multiply the probability of it getting out with the probability that anyone gives a shit. For most of us ACs that's infinitesimal.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Come off it - any employer (or anyone else) who would give any credence to "God told me this" is already too far gone for rational people to want to be around.

I've been stalked both online and in real life. I've had PLENTY of false accusations thrown at me, and had to deal with some of the more serious ones through the court system. Sure, it could do temporary damage for those who don't know you, but so what? And a crushing victory in court more than makes up for it, and makes it that much harder for anyone to take the next round of BS seriously.

Part of our civic duty is to realize that some of us, for whatever reason, are going to be unjustly treated, and that we are going to have to ensure that justice and freedom don't die by standing up against injustice. That makes you a nail, and unfortunately, too many people will want to take out their hammer because $WHATEVER. Just through a random distribution, a few of us will end up having to do this much much more often than many others. It's not a curse - it's just math. When it happens often enough, people just roll their eyes and say "Here we go again. What nut did you offend this time?"

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Whatever drugs you're on must be good. There's still a wide gulf between saying "I dont think there's anything wrong with it" vs everybody else thinking there's something wrong with it. The fact you cannot see that, says a lot.

And there's a big difference between "everybody else thinking there's something wrong with it" and a few busybodies getting their underpants all in a knot. The fact that you cannot see that says a lot :-)

Quit being such a worry-wart. Anyone of any consequences who puts stock in unsupported accusations on the Internet needs to be demoted.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Where the heck have I ever indicated that I can control what the public thinks? Find me one example where I've said that, or kindly f*ck off with your trolling :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[radarskiy]

" don't be ashamed of anything you do"

Whether or not *you* are ashamed of what you do does not necessarily affect how *other people* behave.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

If you've already put the facts out there, before anyone else makes the allegations, most people won't be stupid enough to fall for it. Those that do would have voted republican / conservative anyway, so no increased losses either way.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Why would I care? I'm very happy to be able to "give a sh*t" the normal way again, after having had a colostomy for a year and a half. "Brown-bagging it" was an educational experience, and one that makes me sympathetic to those in similar situations, but let's be honest - everyone craps one way or another.

Besides, people can see too many assholes on the Internet already, don't you think? :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the heck have I ever indicated that I can control what the public thinks? Find me one example where I've said that, or kindly f*ck off with your trolling :-)

Really? Your first comment:

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

The whole point behind pressure isn't because an individual cares about what they've done, it's because of what *society* cares about what they've done.

The pressure to fire someone from doxed information doesn't come because the person who was doxed cares about what people discovered, it comes because their employers decide that they can't stand the public pressure.

Take Brandon Eich. Do you think he felt ashamed about giving his own money to political causes he believed in? I doubt it. But it didn't matter *what* he thought, people put pressure on *his employers* to fire him. And they did, not because they necessarily thought he did anything wrong but because of public backlash.

Not being personally ashamed doesn't matter in the slightest when the voters won't vote for you, your employers fire you, your friends leave you, and your family won't talk to you. The only way your "solution" works is if you can control what other people think. Indefinitely, into the future, for as long as you want to be politically viable or employable.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

We just saw in Canada again that negative campaigns hurt the one pushing the negativity. Just like we've seen in the US that the republican base doesn't care how much true negative stuff is out there - it won't affect their vote. As for the rest, the republican Benghazi tactics kind of backfired, and everyone is sick and tired of "because EMAIL".

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

It doesn't "prove the point" that it's what society thinks as a whole. It's hard to argue with the facts when the facts include a court judgment 100% in your favor. Anyone who still wants to believe in unsupported rumor-mongering is an idiot or worse, and if you're worried about what idiots and fools think of you, you have some serious self-esteem issues.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Why do I care about how people I don't know behave? And for those I know, they already pretty much know all about me, so again, why do I care when it doesn't make a difference to my life?

Besides, if someone doesn't like me for who and what I am, I'd rather know it so I can choose more intelligent company :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[bmk67]

So we should allow prudes to dictate the manner in which we express ourselves?

No.

Fuck that.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Coren22]

A good example of this was the Mozilla CEO that was ousted because he supported an anti-gay group when that was the norm.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[OverlordQ]

You're still missing the point. But I'm not surprised.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Kichigai Mentat]

Yes, only do exactly what society wants you to do, and nothing else. Don't have a fetish, don't like anything unpopular, don't be adventurous, don't rock the boat, and don't ever make a mistake. It's that easy.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

...most people won't be stupid enough to fall for it.

You're talking about people who believe Mars will look as big as the moon one night of year, who believe Obama isn't a US citizen, who believe aliens are kidnapping probes and shoving them up people's asses, who believe Elvis is still alive, who believe anyone other than humans built the pyramids, etc. And all of them look like Algonquin round table material compared to you if you actually believe what you just said.

Christ you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[mjm1231]

In the context of running for office, this makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the candidate doesn't give a shit, or if they are not ashamed. What matters is if the people voting (or the people who decide who will be running, which, depending on where you are, may not be the same thing) think you should be ashamed or embarassed or whatever.

I don't know about your corner of the world, but from what I see of the US, there are enough people who care about things that don't matter that the distinction matters.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[mjm1231]

So your proposal is:

1. Release everything
2. Determine which bits are "a problem"
3. Fight for your right to privacy.

Of course, as a political candidate, you'll then be branded as flip flopping on the issue.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has not admitted to using crack although I believe he did admit to using pot. I agree nobody believes Clinton didn't inhale and I'm pretty sure GWB smoked pot (although I'm not sure if he admitted it publicly - IIRC there was hearsay that he had told someone he did.)

The thing is, enough people have smoked pot that most people don't really think it's a big deal.

  Most people believe GWB successfully put down the bottle which should actually count somewhat in his favor.

I really can't explain Rob Ford (or Marion Barry) other than to speculate that local politics in Toronto and DC are fubar.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they simply either make up something you did (perhaps basing it on something that really happened so there's a grain of truth) or they take something that happened out of context so that it sounds much worse.

For example, suppose your list includes "drove drunk once when I was 19." A political hit squad could spread the word that you actually were arrested after you drove drunk, hit another car, and killed an 8 year old girl. Is it true? Of course not. But now you're spending time refuting this story instead of spreading your message and you're on the defensive. Or maybe they remove the "when I was 19" context. With some creative wording, they can make it seem like this happened very recently instead of years/decades ago (without outright claiming it was recent). Again, you'll be on the defensive and trying to provide context instead of spreading your ideas.

I'm not saying your idea isn't without merit, but don't underestimate the underhandedness of those in politics.

In politics this is deflected easily by those who have been attacked by idiots who make stuff up.. Take the recent democratic debate where one of the low end model candidates brought up the benghazi hearings and when asked whether she had a rebuttal to it Hilary just said "No". She controlled that stage and the person who attacked her looked like a total moron.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not ready to fight for your rights and freedoms, you deserve neither.

Translation: "Fuck everyone less fortunate than me".

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

When you go into politics, you know that sort of stuff comes with the territory. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

As for business leaders, you get videoed kicking a dog, you know there's going to be backlash. So unless you're a moron, don't kick dogs. Or live with the consequences, same as everyone else. It's not rocket science.

Funny you mention mistreating dogs.. In Illinois this last congressional election cycle they put the biggest idiot in congress, this hotheaded moron named Mike Bost. If you look up on him you will find that it is well known that he went over to a neighbors house and shot and killed a dog that had bitten his retarded daughter who had made a hobby of repeatedly tormenting the dog. Most people freak out saying that "oh think of the children" like it was a self defense thing, but he went and shot the dog while it was in a cage and was no threat to anyone , much less the daughter.

So if you are a hot headed republican that screams and curses and makes a fool of yourself on the congressional floor, mistreating animals or even killing them without remorse might actually help your political career, provided your constituents are redneck republican retards who can't think for themselves.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

context is everything. Just because you do something that is good, does not mean that people cannot just publicize part of it and make it look bad.

So let them. They're going to do it anyway, and they're just setting themselves up for looking like stupid dishonest manipulative SOBs to anyone who looks into it.

So you just framed the entire Republican Congress as stupid dishonest manipulative SOBs? I think that is a very accurate description! Well done!

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that countermeasure has been in place for quite some time. Clinton didn't have a problem lying every five minutes about his affair, and then merrily going about his business even after he was forced to admit it. Then you had Bush who tanked the economy via years of war in a "search" for WMD's that didn't exist. Now we have Obama, who has kept few if any of his campaign promises, even those completely within his control. The last president that I can recall being held accountable for missteps was Nixon, and the incident that got him booted was relatively minor by comparison.

Well this is a half truth on both Clinton and Obama, In both cases. In Clintons case there was an overblown long drawn out investigation into the whole whitewater incident that didn't find anything, so as soon as Kenneth Star found out about Monica Lewinsky, he cornered Clinton into perjuring himself. In the case of Barak Obama, he has been unable to fulfill some campaign promises because of the idiotic and borderline insane Republicans in Congress who seem willing to waste tax payer dollars by the trillion and run the state of the American economy and security and way of life into the ground just to make political points. Notice that even Boehner found religion and walked away because he saw that their BS was not working, so comparing Clinton and Barak Obama to George W Bush is like comparing an apple and an orange to a large smoking horse turd respectively.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[HornWumpus]

I'm convinced Obama, both Clintons and the whole Bush clan are acid eaters.

Until they can admit that, the battle isn't over.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

The whole point behind pressure isn't because an individual cares about what they've done, it's because of what *society* cares about what they've done.

And WHERE have I said that I give a sh*t what society thinks of me? If an employer wants to fire me because my political views are unpopular with a majority of the population, great. It will end up being a paid vacation plus damages because here it's illegal to fire someone for such a reason.

1. hold unpopular political views
2. get fired
3. PROFIT

As for Brandon Eich, if we fired everyone who was an assh*le in someone else's view, we'd all be out of a job. Political correctness should NOT stifle free speech that isn't motivated by hate. And even a certain amount of hate speech should be tolerated, if only to give a platform for those who hold a contrary view. If they can't stand the heat when people give them flack, that's their problem, not mine. If he couldn't stand the heat about his anti-gay-marriage donation, it just goes to show that freedom of stupid speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

If we can only get along with people who believe all the same things we do, we suck, and need to, shall we say, "grow a pair" (in the metaphorical sense only) before political correctness causes more damage :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

So we should allow prudes to dictate the manner in which we express ourselves?

No.

Fuck that.

Where have I said that I have a problem offending prudes? My mere existence offends many fundies who feel what I am is wrong and shameful. Their problem, not mine. As far as I care, if they want to take out a full-page ad denouncing me for being a transsexual, my take would be "well, god bless their cold, evil little hearts" :-) They're the ones looking like fools and wasting their resources.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

I'll make it simple - I don't care what "society as a whole" thinks of me. I'm long done with that crap. :-) As well, if you can't be honest about who and what you are, then you don't merit being a politician in the first place, even if it seems that putting up a false front is part of the whole deal.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

...most people won't be stupid enough to fall for it.

You're talking about people who believe Mars will look as big as the moon one night of year, who believe Obama isn't a US citizen, who believe aliens are kidnapping probes and shoving them up people's asses, who believe Elvis is still alive, who believe anyone other than humans built the pyramids, etc. And all of them look like Algonquin round table material compared to you if you actually believe what you just said. Christ you're a fucking idiot.

Or maybe I'm not American so most of the people around me really aren't that stupid. The US is only 5% of the planet's population, hardly what I would call "most people."

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

This is so wrong, it's frightening to think that people consider it to be insightful commentary. You've posted legitimately insightful things before, so I'm surprised to see you take this tack.

Your behaviors, your interests, your friends, your speech... all of these things in your domain may include things that are perfectly acceptable to a broad part of society, but may be considered completely unacceptable by a small group of people who are either in power or may gain significant power someday. Events outside your control could cause you to be burned for having a certain friend, participating in a certain activity, posting a certain opinion online a decade ago.... Right or wrong, you could be hurt by these things when information about your life is exposed, unfiltered, to the public.

I wouldn't have expected a Jewish person to be ashamed of being a Jew. Even if we're talking about a Jewish person living in Germany. In the 1920s. (Yes, this IS relevant to the discussion.)

This is not a matter of "not giving a shit". This is about being demonized for being "who you are", even when you are a reasonable, well-adjusted individual. I'm not saying it's okay to be an asshole or engage in harmful activities... I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect privacy for your life's affairs regardless of the activities you engage in.

I'm saying that it is highly disturbing that persons ever question this basic need for privacy.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

It's all going to come out in the end. If you want to represent the people you're asking to vote for you, shouldn't you actually BE representative of them instead of putting up a false image? If you're not, then maybe the job would be better suited to someone who is.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

So your proposal is:

1. Release everything 2. Determine which bits are "a problem" 3. Fight for your right to privacy.

Of course, as a political candidate, you'll then be branded as flip flopping on the issue.

No.
1 Release everything
2 If after this, people won't vote for you, that is their free and informed choice.

There is no "right to win" a political office despite what the Bushes seem to think, just a right to run for it. People have a right to a free and informed vote, despite political wankers believing that once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

If you're not ready to fight for your rights and freedoms, you deserve neither.

Translation: "Fuck everyone less fortunate than me".

No. It's the less fortunate who too often are the only ones with the guts to fight for their rights, as opposed to the well-off sheeple. People who are well off and content don't want to change their situation, so the initial push for all social progress comes from those who aren't so privileged. Simple fact of life.

Note that the "If you're not ready to fight for your rights and freedoms, you deserve neither" also applies to the fat contented cows of society as well, who simply can't imagine that anyone would dare take away *their* freedoms, because they're privileged. Moo!

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

If people want privacy, it is their right. I have no problem with that. However, public figures do not have the same expectations, hence the need to cultivate a thick skin. if someone is looking for your vote, you have a right to kick the tires to see just who you're voting for rather than buying a pig in a poke.

Nobody has a "right" to my vote. You want it, show me why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote against someone else. If you either are unwilling to or unable to divulge your dirty secrets because you're afraid of the backlash, then maybe running for office isn't for you in the first place. Nothing complicated about that.

We should treat our politicians with at least as much scrutiny as a used car. Otherwise, you deserve a lemon for your naiveté at the ballot box.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Khashishi]

The problem isn't that I'm ashamed of fucking a goat. The problem is that other people will be outraged.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[mjm1231]

This is only true if all information about a person is relevant to their candidacy. I reject this as completely and ridiculously false. There are many things I don't need or want to know about anyone.

There is some information that does nothing at all in the way of making one more informed.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[cbhacking]

Unfortunately for you and anybody else who has such a fantasyland world view, the concept of "meriting" being a politician is meaningless. In the real world, people who get to be real politicians don't give a fuck about merit. Anybody who does is so far from being electable they probably don't understand why nobody takes them seriously. If you don't pay attention to what society thinks of the things you have done (and been), then you aren't even going to going to be able to pretend to mount an effective campaign, and don't have a hope in hell of getting elected. The vast majority of people simply are not, come polling day, going to vote for somebody who doesn't care about the things that the voter in question thinks the candidate should care about, and few of those have much to do with the job. Saying "I don't care what society thinks of me" is simply another way of saying "I'm un-electable". It's hard to believe any adult could seriously contemplate entering politics while claiming to not care what the voters think... it's like you're missing the entire point of what it takes to be a politician.

Not that I mean to discourage your worldview; in an ideal society, it's exactly correct. Of course, in an ideal society, communism would probably work, too. We don't live in an ideal society, and putting your hounds over your ears, shutting your eyes, and saying "I don't care what you think" isn't going to change that. It would be interesting to see you, or somebody like you, put together the kind of time and money it takes to get anywhere in western politics today and hit the campaign trail. I expect you'd be wasting it all, and forgotten as nothing more than a footnote in whatever race you ran in, but I'd like to be wrong.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that society (at anything beyond the clan level, and often not even that) works the way you think it ought to.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[cbhacking]

Um... because they vote? You seem completely unaware of what being a politician requires. If you aren't ashamed of the things society demands you be ashamed of, society won't vote for you (or support you in any other way).

"If you're going to be a jerk I'm going to ignore you" works fine in private life. It will get you absolutely nowhere in public.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Sir Holo]

You are correct in your post.

No need to post as AC.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[cbhacking]

Well, the only way you can demote a voter is to disenfranchise them. So, by your view, the entire* voting citizenry of the world, almost certainly including both you and me (for all that I, and presumably you, try to avoid it) needs to be disenfranchised. Good luck with that!

* Possibly excluding a trivially small group of people who are somehow immune the vast number of biases that affect the decisions all of us make at the polls.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[cbhacking]

You can't even convince a minority of Slashdot commenters that you're right (or electable)... I don't think you even realize the order magnitude of the odds against you.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[radarskiy]

"Why do I care about how people I don't know behave?"

Because it's unlikely that the lynching will be conducted by your friends.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

"Brown-bagging it" was an educational experience, and one that makes me sympathetic to those in similar situations, but let's be honest - everyone craps one way or another.

I'm sympathetic to you on that front, but plenty of people are of the mindset "I'd never let someone record my asshole and so obviously this person is some sort of subhuman filth [unless, potentially, they make very verbal and consistent threats against said person who took said photo]". Sadly a lot of people want politicians to be superhuman or really non-human in ways that ordinary people are; look no further than the whole Bill Clinton affair (of which the most disturbing part should have been the whole Paula Jones sexual harassment issue--but then that's a further digression).

Besides, people can see too many assholes on the Internet already, don't you think? :-)

But how many will the vote into office? Probably not one of the honest ones.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

There is no lie in that question just like there's no lie in: "BarbaraHuson never apologized to us after my daughter was raped." and "BarbaraHuson has never sold us a livable house."

Re:Simple counter-measure

[sociocapitalist]

There's a simple counter-measure - don't be ashamed of anything you do. Kind of hard to exert pressure on someone by revealing their personal stuff if they don't give a sh*t.

It would still be effective against politicians who need the votes of people who do give a shit.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

The topic was doxxing in politics. Releasing everything ahead of time is the simplest solution to having someone make a big deal later on that you deemed "not important." For those who feel that they can't be open because they have some shameful secret, the answer is simple - don't run, because secrets have a way of coming out at the worst possible time.

You're also missing out on those who want to run to make a statement, even though they know their chance of winning is slim to none, and slim just left town. When women first ran for president, nobody took them seriously. Running still sent a message - "we're here, and it's no longer games as usual." Today, both parties have a woman running for president.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I used the word "demoted" because anyone who puts stock in every idle rumour that goes around should be demoted before they cause their employer grief. Such as the credulous low-level employee who answers the phone, and the next thing you know, the company is signed up for a hugely outrageous electricity plan (it's happened, esp. in Alberta).

"Disenfranchised" is an entirely different concept. Look them up if you don't believe me :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Ah, but I'm not running (purely for health reasons, and because our federal election just finished). Sure, when I ran in the past, I lost. Big deal. But I did get votes and media coverage. Even saw one of my ideas that was denounced as stupid at the time implemented a year later, so I have had an effect. I'm satisfied with that - and it's certainly more than most "keyboard warriors" have done. It's easy to get off your ass to vote, yet so many people don't. It's a lot harder to run for office and bang on doors while still working, but I did it.

Health permitting, I may do it again ...

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

I wouldn't volunteer for it (well, maybe I might consider it if it will help others who are going through the same situation be able to see for themselves that there is sometimes hope of recovering normal function, but even then, just a picture of someone sitting on the throne with a caption saying "I couldn't do this before" would be both more effective and less offensive).

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

First, people would be wondering why I should apologize to you for a rape that is physically impossible ... get the apology from the perp.

Then again, here we have defamation laws that cover defamation by innuendo; stuff like that would be a slam dunk :-) In Canada, even the truth is not a complete defense for defamation - it all depends on the intent.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Sure, but maybe those politicians should have realized that in an open environment they're not exactly ideal candidates to begin with. Or they can hope that those who don't care outnumber those who do. They can just hire a pollster to find out before taking the plunge.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[sociocapitalist]

Sure, but maybe those politicians should have realized that in an open environment they're not exactly ideal candidates to begin with. Or they can hope that those who don't care outnumber those who do. They can just hire a pollster to find out before taking the plunge.

But wouldn't any politician, even if they don't care, and even if they are ahead in the polls before being doxxed, be vulnerable to the doxxing just the same?

To not care, they'd have to not care about votes = not care about winning the election. I don't think such politicians exist :-)

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't you agree that people have a right to know what they're buying when they go shopping. Knowing that the product meets certain standards of safety, inspection, etc? Would you buy processed foods that don't contain a list of ingredients? Would you use prescription drugs without any knowledge of their side effects?

Unfortunately, we don't have the same vetting process for political candidates. So, if a candidate has preemptively put everything out there and answers all questions, just how are they going to be doxxed? It's the same as having a secret that you don't want your boss to know (maybe you're gay or whatever) and someone tries to blackmail you. Tell the boss, the blackmailer now has no leverage.

BTW - not caring about what someone thinks about you as a person is NOT the same as not caring about getting their votes. Your vote should be cast based on who you think will do the better job. Merit, not political correctness.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[sociocapitalist]

Unfortunately, we don't have the same vetting process for political candidates. So, if a candidate has preemptively put everything out there and answers all questions, just how are they going to be doxxed? It's the same as having a secret that you don't want your boss to know (maybe you're gay or whatever) and someone tries to blackmail you. Tell the boss, the blackmailer now has no leverage.

You're assuming the dox to be something truthful. And before you say that if it's not truthful that the politician could just deny it - it just doesn't work that way (ie Obama and his birth certificate).

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Unfortunately, we don't have the same vetting process for political candidates. So, if a candidate has preemptively put everything out there and answers all questions, just how are they going to be doxxed? It's the same as having a secret that you don't want your boss to know (maybe you're gay or whatever) and someone tries to blackmail you. Tell the boss, the blackmailer now has no leverage.

You're assuming the dox to be something truthful. And before you say that if it's not truthful that the politician could just deny it - it just doesn't work that way (ie Obama and his birth certificate).

Your example proves otherwise - Obama got elected twice, and anyone still following the "birther" agenda is regarded as a kook.

Re:Simple counter-measure

[sociocapitalist]

Unfortunately, we don't have the same vetting process for political candidates. So, if a candidate has preemptively put everything out there and answers all questions, just how are they going to be doxxed? It's the same as having a secret that you don't want your boss to know (maybe you're gay or whatever) and someone tries to blackmail you. Tell the boss, the blackmailer now has no leverage.

You're assuming the dox to be something truthful. And before you say that if it's not truthful that the politician could just deny it - it just doesn't work that way (ie Obama and his birth certificate).

Your example proves otherwise - Obama got elected twice, and anyone still following the "birther" agenda is regarded as a kook.

No, your logic is inaccurate.

Read this, in particular the use of "rumor bombs":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Simple counter-measure

[BarbaraHudson]

Your example clearly disproves your position. Obama got elected. So which do I have to choose from - an article from wikipedia, your your own example that clearly contradicts what you claim? Easy choice. Empirical evidence FTW.

More and more, negative campaigning and rumor mongering is a sign of desperation of losers, by losers, for losers. Not a great demographic except among the fringe, whose minds won't be swayed by evidence anyway. MOO!

looking up unmasking crooks on alphabet.com

[Anonymous Coward]

we have to become one (crook) first? sounds fake.. ask ed snowden your questions continues.... truth mercy & justice all in the same breath .... little miss dna cannot be wrong.. what a gig

I see it differently

[Howitzer86]

In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use against the powerful.

...Or keep the powerless in their place.

We have secrets and embarrassing things on Facebook and other places online that will never go away and can be found if you look hard enough. Most of us don't have the luxury of being groomed from birth to be politicians and avoid these pitfalls.

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe being groomed for politics is a good thing. If a child can learn not to do stupid things online, think how much they could learn about being a politician. Tiger Woods and Bobby Fisher both got started in their fields as children. Raise a child to govern from day #1 and you might get some good results by the time they are an adult.

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think most current politicians were groomed from a young age to be greedy ass-hole politicians by their greedy ass-hole politician families?

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserves more mod points. Whenever you hear 'but $tactic is a tool for the powerless against the powerful,' stop and think about their angle. In my experience, it's an "it's justified when I do it" argument with an appeal to underdogs, and at best, you're probably dealing with someone who has a childish worldview. It's really disheartening to hear Schneier say this.

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserves more mod points. Whenever you hear 'but $tactic is a tool for the powerless against the powerful,' stop and think about their angle. In my experience, it's an "it's justified when I do it" argument with an appeal to underdogs, and at best, you're probably dealing with someone who has a childish worldview. It's really disheartening to hear Schneier say this.

I didn't read TFA (this is /., ya thimblewit!), but my take is that Schneier is not necessarily praising this sort of conduct but merely pointing out how some are using it in practice. Noticing the trend is not the same thing as calling it a good idea.

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

I was raised in the house where weren't allowed to do the popular things because we might end up doing something stupid there to ruin our lives. I was the only one of three not arrested as a minor. If you can call it working for me, it entirely destroyed my ability to learn normal social interaction with peers, but it doesn't seem to be particularly effective anyways.

Re:I see it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Brendan Eich refuses to add DRM to Firefox
(2) Look, he donated to some anti gay marriage thing a few years ago
(3) If he doesn't leave, Mozilla is a hostile workplace towards gays, a protected class under the Civil Rights Act
(4) Good. Now to add DRM to Firefox

It doesn't just work against the powerful, though.

(1) Some guy is sitting in a conference
(2) He laughs at a joke about a dongle
(3) Someone finds out who he is and posts it on the Internet
(4) If he isn't fired, his workplace is a hostile workplace towards women
(5) and he's out of a job

Political Doxxing has been going on forever

[jmac_the_man]

This isn't the rise of political doxxing, simply because it has been going on forever.

Going through Sarah Palin's emails (either the official ones the judge ordered released and the New York Times attempted to crowdsource finding embarassing stuff OR the ones that the 4chan hacker whose father was an elected Democrat released) was an attempted doxxing.

What Bradley Manning did was a doxxing. Hell, so was the release of the Pentagon Papers.

Jumping even further back, the XYZ Affair was revealed by a doxxer leaking details to the (partisan) press.

Releasing your opponent's embarrassing documents has probably been going on for as long as we've had written language.

Re:Political Doxxing has been going on forever

[Anonymous Coward]

See Andrew Jackson.

Both candidates were rhetorically attacked in the press, which reached a low point when the press accused Jackson's wife Rachel of bigamy. Though the accusation was true, as were most personal attacks leveled against him during the campaign, it was based on events that occurred many years prior (1791 to 1794). Jackson said he would forgive those who insulted him, but he would never forgive the ones who attacked his wife. Rachel died suddenly on December 22, 1828, before his inauguration, and was buried on Christmas Eve.

We know that "they" will do it to Americans.

[Nutria]

But what about Russians, Chinese, Iranians, French, Brazilians, Indians, Japanese, etc, etc, etc?

Hahahahahahah

[OverlordQ]

Because doxing has never been using against people that haven't done anything but mind their own business. Right?

Richard Nixon says hello

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Nixon and his political team are glad people have forgotten why the press loves to "-gate" tag every scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Re:Richard Nixon says hello

[Anonymous Coward]

This to the point that young people today might think that was some scandal involving actual Water.

CIA directory

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

When the CIA director has his AOL account "hacked", it is a demonstration of his utter incompetence, not "doxing". And the inability of top government officials to control even their own, valuable private information is politically highly significant, given how much information the US federal government is increasingly collecting about us: detailed financial and banking information, medical records, detailed census information, and lots more.

Re:CIA directory

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting thing about that entire wikileak was a direct phone number to the CIA he put under his references. I think his tradecraft was actually pretty good if that's all the bad guys got from compromising his shitty AOL email.

Re:CIA directory

[GLMDesigns]

Why is this insightful? What did Gates do that was incompetent? Oh. He had an AOL account. What a F**king dinosaur. Of course he's incompetent.

I ask again - what did Gates do that " is a demonstration of his utter incompetence"?

Re:CIA directory

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Oh. He had an AOL account. What a F**king dinosaur. Of course he's incompetent.

No, what makes him incompetent is that he stored sensitive information on it; you know, the kind of information he, the government, and Schneier are actually getting upset about getting released. If he had just used his AOL account for sending birthday greetings to his grandchildren, that would have been fine.

What did Gates do that was incompetent?

Are you fucking kidding me? "Gates"? Seriously?

Re:CIA directory

[GLMDesigns]

As far as I know he didn't have any government information on his AOL account and at best minor information in his account.

Just did a quick check:
The Times further reported that there is nothing "classified or hip" in Brennan's AOL account, and it dates to the days when he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, if accurate, the material is at least sensitive, given that the SF86 form discloses contact information for Brennan's relatives and professional connections.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

re Gates!? I don't know how that got in there. :-)

But still. The point remains. What did Brennan do that was incompetent?

Re:CIA directory

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

As far as I know he didn't have any government information on his AOL account and at best minor information in his account. But still. The point remains. What did Brennan do that was incompetent?

Apparently, he kept a completed SF-86 form in his account. Apart from any possible government security concern, that is a serious problem for him as an individual, because it places him at grave risk of identity theft. And he kept that information in accounts with known weak security. A competent security professional wouldn't place his personal information at this kind of risk.

So, if the CIA director lacks the competence to safeguard even his personal information, how can we trust him with safeguarding the information of our nation?

Re:CIA directory

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Note that Brennan himself shows anger and concern at the hacking of his E-mail:

"I was certainly outraged by it," Brennan said Tuesday at an intelligence conference at George Washington University when asked about his reaction to learning of the hack. "I certainly was concerned about what people might try to do with that information," Brennan added. "I was also dismayed at how some of the media handled it, and the inferences that were in there."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/...

The point is: it doesn't matter whether the information is or is not valuable, what matters is that Brennan thought it was valuable and apparently thought it was secure in an AOL account.

Re:CIA directory

[Sir Holo]

To reiterate: The Director of the CIA still has and uses an AOL account.

Does he have a CompuServe email address, or perhaps GeoCities website, too? Perhaps a MySpace account? A hotmail or yahoo email account?

He is clearly so stupid and out-of touch with modern technology that he has no business in the spook industry.

Re:CIA directory

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he have a CompuServe email address,

No, he just uses Compuserve for dial-up Internet access.

Smallest violin ever

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA wants to read my email, know what websites I visit, etc. turn about is fair play.

Re:Smallest violin ever

[Noah Haders]

The CIA wants to read my email, know what websites I visit, etc. turn about is fair play.

that's such an ignorant comment! Everybody knows that CIA is prohibited from taking action on domestic soil and can only work in foreign countries.

Re:Smallest violin ever

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA wants to read my email, know what websites I visit, etc. turn about is fair play.

that's such an ignorant comment! Everybody knows that CIA is prohibited from taking action on domestic soil and can only work in foreign countries.

Going for the +5, Funny, are we?

Re:Smallest violin ever

[cavreader]

"CIA wants to read my email, know what websites I visit" If this was actually true the perpetrator would have been in custody the minute he touched anything to do with the Director of the CIA. With all the magical powers attributed to the NSA and CIA in regards to capturing electronic information how could any one get away with hacking anything to do with the government? I mean supposedly the government is analyzing all the internet traffic in real time and sending out kill squads to deal with the violators.

I guess this highlights what government CAN do..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. when they have access to your data.

Ever wonder about the 'embarrassing' leaks of personal information (whether they be from email, voicemails, etc) - especially on celebrities who speak out on subjects where the government wants you to believe their version of a story? (Especially 9/11?).

How about journalists? Michael Hastings was about to publish a story on the CIA. Had contacted Wikileaks and died in an accident (if you believe the official story contrary to history or evidence) shortly after?

The US government has already shown they cannot be trusted with our data, but lesser known is that this data collected is SHARED with other nations, even if you trusted yours do you think other governments should have access to your data?

How about private companies that provide services to those security apparatii?

We need to take our privacy back - we have already seen that laws aren't the answer (because they will ignore the law and lie to us about it)

It's a pity our intelligence community have taken on the belief that they are better than everyone else, and don't serve the citizens any more, but the interests of the power elite. They could have been our best protection from them.

I feel so old....

[Anonymous Coward]

when I remember it was done to Palin and it was a good thing.

Good times, good times.

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to take a while, but eventually the masses will understand the importance of privacy. There are many crazy people out there that have nothing to lose and their only mission in life is to destroy others for whatever illogical reason they choose.

Kennedy says hello

[tomhath]

JFK doxed Nixon a couple of times back in the 1960 campaign. You can look it up.

People finally catch up to Bruce Sterling

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see people finally getting on board with Shockwave Rider (pub. 1975) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider

Re:People finally catch up to Bruce Sterling

[Gibgezr]

Awesome book. Also highly recommend two of his other works, "The Sheep Look Up" and "Stand on Zanzibar", if you liked "The Shockwave Rider".

doxxing

[Noah Haders]

I don't like the word 'doxing'. To me it looks like it would be pronounced d'oh-xing. I prefer doxxing. Who's with me?

Re:doxxing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me. Boxing makes sense to me. Boxxing, on the other hand, is something TOTALLY different. Go do a search on it if you dare.

Absolute zero of sympathy reached.

[theCzechGuy]

But how could this cause any damage to anyone? Surely, they have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide, right? It offends me when the CIA, some media or anyone else behaves as if a) this is a serious problem and b) we should give anything more than 0 shits.

Re:Absolute zero of sympathy reached.

[Anonymous Coward]

YES!!!

Incompetent poster?

[Okian Warrior]

When the CIA director has his AOL account "hacked", it is a demonstration of his utter incompetence, not "doxing".

This is an excellent example, a departure point for discussion.

Per Bruce's article:

The CIA director did nothing wrong. He didn't choose a lousy password. He didn't leave a copy of it lying around. He didn't even send it in e-mail to the wrong person. The security failure, according to this account, was entirely with Verizon and AOL. Yet still Brennan's e-mail was leaked to the press and posted on WikiLeaks.

Also, unlike a certain presidential hopeful, Brennan didn't have any CIA sensitive information in his personal E-mail. It was simply personal stuff about him, nothing that compromised security.

And yet, internet sheep immediately jump to a conclusion of "incompetence", a charge that would ordinarily haunt a person in future job prospects for the rest of their life.

One obvious step would be to hold the providers accountable for security failures.

Re:Incompetent poster?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The CIA director did nothing wrong. He didn't choose a lousy password. He didn't leave a copy of it lying around. He didn't even send it in e-mail to the wrong person. The security failure, according to this account, was entirely with Verizon and AOL. Yet still Brennan's e-mail was leaked to the press and posted on WikiLeaks.

Yes, and Bruce is wrong. The fact that Verizon and AOL have weak security is well known and ought to be obvious to anybody with any kind of knowledge of computer security. If a CIA director stores information that he obviously values on systems that he ought to know can be trivially breached, it calls into question his competence.

One obvious step would be to hold the providers accountable for security failures.

It would be. But since these security holes have been well known for many years and have hurt many people, the fact that these providers haven't been held accountable for them in the past shows that the government doesn't give a fuck. If they now crack down on providers because a government official was caught with his pants down, that is simple vindictiveness and arbitrariness.

It was simply personal stuff about him, nothing that compromised security.

For high government officials, the release of personal information does compromise security, because it makes them susceptible to identity theft and blackmail. But even if it didn't, evidently he didn't like this information being released, yet he stored it on a system he ought to have known was woefully insecure.

And yet, internet sheep immediately jump to a conclusion of "incompetence", a charge that would ordinarily haunt a person in future job prospects for the rest of their life.

I sure hope so!

Exacltly

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like statistics, data is all about the presentation. You can be painted as a bad character for even the most harmless of actions depending on how it is presented.

Yes, and No

[s.petry]

There are plenty of reasons for people to hack into politician's email. Doxing is one of them, but so is investigating wrong doing. Sometimes searching for the wrong doing can lead to bashing. People can get caught early, or have access to the "other" mail server and just dump for their 5 minutes of fame. Is that Doxing? *shrug* I think that depends on intent, and in most cases no.

Yeah, this guy tells us what security people have been saying for more than a quarter of a century. How can the rest of us cash in on this scam of repeating common knowledge and making money?

Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides?

I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

You did all that? No!

(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security...apk

Shares Some Attributes of Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "... In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use against the powerful."

This is exactly what doxxing is, and in that respect it shares tactical (strategic?) space with IED's, hostage taking, beheadings, destruction of historical monuments, etc. There is also a notable lack of a reliable, respectability-seeking leadership to control the troops (doxxing is even more extreme in this respect than the currently hot terrorist groups).

As such I cannot support doxxing, not even in the abstract. It's too much like an anarchic free-for-all. While the leaders of the Three Letter Agencies have done little to endear themselves to me, I cannot rule out that they may become respectable again in the future. Yet who will turn down the mute button on Anonymous and all the other self-appointed determiners of truth, beauty and freedom?

It's just all too much like the Red Faction, Symbionese Liberation Army, and Aum Shinrikyo of days gone by. While information release isn't quite in the same class of damage as killing and maiming, it can still cause plenty of damage and the victims don't get any due process. Too bad the Three Letter Agencies don't believe in due process these days but I still do.

future

[Spaham]

awesome !

best way to mobilize politicians. They'll finally understand why cryptography, privacy are important !

Live too long

[Roger W Moore]

You forgot: (5) Live too long.

Socially acceptable behaviour changes over time in unpredictable ways. 10-20 years ago a mildly homophobic comment would have drawn no notice today you would get drummed out of office. Go back another decade or two and casual sexism was socially acceptable. People's, and society's, view of what is ok changes with time something become taboo and others become more accepted.

Coren22 proven a LYING scumbag punk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent back in 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POST BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks since the free model does NOT work with AD specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine). Most people out there don't run a home LAN. They have single systems.

APK

It amuses me

[gijoel]

That law enforcement and security agents seem to believe that they are the guards in the panopticon, when in fact they're just another prisoner.

Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

Is that YOUR fake site for MORE LIES Coren22?

Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

What's new about

[Anonymous Coward]

left wingers engaging in computer crimes for political purposes?

The hacking of Sarah Palin's e-mails ring any bells? How about the main stream press actively embracing that criminal act and encouraging the public to help them dig for dirt in her private e-mails.

I still laugh at the FACT that they went through Sarah's PRIVATE e-mails (her government ones were ALWAYS available on the server in the Alaska government, unlike Hillary Clinton's which Hillarty kept on a private server) where one might expect evidence of wrong-doing and they found NOTHING.

Now Let's see what was in all the tens of thousands of emails Hillary deleted rather than hand over to the courts or congress as lawfully ordered.

Come to think of it.... where's all the social justice warrior hacking of left-wing politicians???? Oh. yeah. It's NOT the pursuit of TRUTH or JUSTICE; it's just partisan criminal action like the Watergate break-in that will not be investigated because a leftist is in the White House. Fred Thompson, the lawyer, actor, Republican Senator and, former congressional staffer on the Republican side of the Watergate investigation just died - HE was one the the many Republicans in Washington who helped get rid of Republican Richard Nixon for his political crimes (Thompson was the guy who asked Butterworth the question that unmasked the White House taping system). There ARE no Democrats in Washington who will EVER help fight corrupt Democrats.

You are factually wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Valerie Plame was NOT outed by Bob Novak, nor by Dick Cheney or Scooter Libby. The leaker confessed to Patrick Fitzgerald (the independent prosecutor) long before Fitzgerald nailed Libby.

It is a well-documented historical FACT that the leaker was Colin Powell's assistant Richard Armitage (NOT a Cheney stooge or ally). Fitzgerald went on to prosecute and jail Libby for having a different recollection of a phone call from that of the other person on the line at the time (a "crime" with no proof or documentation and which was not part of what he was charged to investigate) and NOT for leaking Plame's name, which Libby did not in fact do. I am NOT a fan of Bush or Cheney or anybody else involved on either side in this affair - I just detest false history being passed-around until it becomes so "accepted" that more people believe it than believe in the actual facts (for this reason, I am a HUGE fan of Buzz Aldrin punching-out the moon-hoaxer who used to follow him around (smile))

Oh, and note to all you Cheney-haters who still cite the Plame case: Valerie Plame was NOT an undercover CIA agent in the field when she was "outed"; she was working in a comfortable office in Washington D.C. and plenty of people knew who she was. Are any of you "outraged" that President Obama "outed" our actual under-cover CIA station chief in Kabul Afghanistan????? Yeah, I thought so. Your faux-outrage over the Plame matter was just a political tactic - you people cared nothing for Plame or national security - if you did you'd be calling for Obama to be prosecuted and jailed as many of you were clamoring for with Cheney over Plame.