Slashdot Mirror
FCC Admits It Was Never Actually Hacked (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The FCC has come clean on the fact that a purported hack of its comment system last year never actually took place, after a report from its inspector general found a lack of evidence supporting the idea. Chairman Ajit Pai blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration for providing "inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people." It was so galling to everyone looking for answers that the GAO was officially asked to look into it. The letter requesting the office's help at the time complained that the FCC had "not released any records or documentation that would allow for confirmation that an attack occurred, that it was effectively dealt with, and that the FCC has begun to institute measures to thwart future attacks and ensure the security of its systems." That investigation is still going on, but one conducted by the FCC's own OIG resulted in the report Pai cites.
Pai's statement was issued before the OIG publicized its report, as one does when a report is imminent that essentially says your agency has been clueless at best or deliberately untruthful at worst, and for more than a year. To be clear, the report is still unpublished, though its broader conclusions are clear from Pai's statement. In it he slathers Bray with the partisan brush and asserts that the report exonerates his office: "I am deeply disappointed that the FCC's former [CIO], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I'm also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn't feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office. On the other hand, I'm pleased that this report debunks the conspiracy theory that my office or I had any knowledge that the information provided by the former CIO was inaccurate and was allowing that inaccurate information to be disseminated for political purposes." UPDATE: The complete Office of Inspector General report has been released, refuting claims that a cyberattack was responsible for disrupting the FCC's comment system last year.
Pai's statement was issued before the OIG publicized its report, as one does when a report is imminent that essentially says your agency has been clueless at best or deliberately untruthful at worst, and for more than a year. To be clear, the report is still unpublished, though its broader conclusions are clear from Pai's statement. In it he slathers Bray with the partisan brush and asserts that the report exonerates his office: "I am deeply disappointed that the FCC's former [CIO], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I'm also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn't feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office. On the other hand, I'm pleased that this report debunks the conspiracy theory that my office or I had any knowledge that the information provided by the former CIO was inaccurate and was allowing that inaccurate information to be disseminated for political purposes." UPDATE: The complete Office of Inspector General report has been released, refuting claims that a cyberattack was responsible for disrupting the FCC's comment system last year.
Taking a page right out of Trump's book... blame the guy who came before you.
It's that some unknown parties were abusing the comment system and automatically generating comments supporting getting rid of net neutrality. When reached, many of the people said they didn't even know what it was, and definitely didn't fill out the comment form.
In addition, there were some very peculiar things going on with it. Such as the timestamps correlated with the names in order (alphabetically inserted).
Someone was definitely doing something screwy, and it was in support of dropping net neutrality. Somehow I think Ajit, being the slimeball that he is, won't be looking into this.
Ok... this is a mostly IT audience which should have noticed the red herring when this happened.
They claimed it was a "hack". No one hacks a web site to skew comments... they script the submissions. Bots. Or humans employed to manually add scripted comments.
So think about it- the FCC leadership is either so incompetent, or so evil, that they blamed the "truth" on hackers in order to avoid the appearance of unpopularity.
I point this out resigned to the fact that not many people care. An exercise in futility. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
He wasn't 'let go', he left on his own, long, long, long before the report that implicated him. Even if he was the one to blame (he wasn't), it doesn't change the fact that, first, the FCC's comment system was a POS that shouldn't be used to get public opinion, and second, that someone used the fact the POS comment system failed to get partisan legislation passed. Sounds like an inside job to me.
And of course, who's to blame but Obama! Man that guy sure does get around.
Don't just sit there and lie. The supposed hack they're talking about occurred during the first week of May, 2017. Here is the story as originally reported right fucking here.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
And the original:
http://thehill.com/policy/tech...
You are welcome on my lawn.
if you don't fire _all_ of them. When they let one go the one that got 'canned' goes to a cushy job at the telecoms (or whatever lobbyist group is buying whatever law we're talking about) and then another gets replaced.
This won't stop until Americans make refusing corporate & PAC money the primary litmus test for their candidates; _especially_ in primary elections. You can't serve two masters. Either you serve the people or you serve the donor class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here's the thing -- when YOURE the one who has been caught lying, trying to pass the buck on to your predecessor just makes you look more like a douchebag.
Pai is simply trying to shift the blame for his own lying. He's the one that claimed this was hacking. He's the one that tried to game the comments using this line and he's the one that right up until the IG report came out claimed it was hacking. Now that the report is out saying he's a liar he's trying to deflect that to say it's not his fault.
He's the head of the FCC, everything the FCC does is his fault, even if he wasn't the jackass on TV making these claims he's now blaming on someone else he would still be responsible. But I guess because he was nominated by Trump he's in the Trump class where he dosn't take responsibility for anything that happens under his watch.
So much for responsible government administration where people take responsibility for the people who serve under them, in the new Trump paradigm the leader isn't responsible for anything, including the things they actually did do.
Technically, what happened actually does fit the definition of a DDoS attack. Oliver found a deep link that wasn't supposed to get much traffic, exposed it and encouraged people to send lots of traffic there..
Not if the traffic is intended to actually use the service offered at link. DDos attacks try to block servers by keeping connections open as long as possible WITHOUT transmitting data.
Didn't Oliver merely encouraged people to use their free speech by using a feedback form that was especially intended for this kind of feedback?
I would not want to give businesses or agencies a blueprint for handling critics by setting up a web form on a server too weak to handle it and then sue for hacking when some user feedback brought it down....
bickerdyke
I think you mean that they are using someone who has been gone for a year as a scapegoat to hide their blatant lies.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.