Electronic Burglary in the Senate 1391
earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."
The goods (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft backs the Republicans.
Microsoft shares exploit with the Republicans.
Democrats get sodomized.
Fuhrer Bush and Reichstag Security Head Ashcroft smile.
You KNOW it's true because it's on slashdot!
You're forgetting: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You're forgetting: (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft is also in the top 10 contributors to the Democratss this year with Kerry & Dean receiving the most significant portions of it.
Part of the story is left out of the Globe article... it's pretty widely believed on the Hill that this "unauthorized access" was a purposeful sharing of the information by authorized individuals.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
The newsmax story is rather improbable, if illegal leaking had been going on Kenneth Starr would have investigated it. In fact the only illegal leaking going on was by Starr's office. It is somewhat unusual for a prosecutor to demand immuity from prosecution themselves as a condition of dismissing charges, yet that is exactly what Starr did.
I have a theory that GW Bush is trying to be the worst President in US history by repeating every one of the worst mistakes of his predecessors:
- Watergate break in = Republicans spy on Democrats
- Vietnam = Iraq
- Reagan era deficits = Bush era deficits
- Hoover recession = Bush recession
- 1876 vote fraud = 2000 vote fraud
- Isolationism = Go it alone unilateralism
- Tea pot dome = Enron, Halliburton, Harken, etc.
Some day the lapdog republican news media will suddenly realise that Bush has sold them down the river along with the rest of the country.well then (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
Any historian will tell you that declaring war is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for the great depression and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
Any economist of any reputation will tell you that the promise of a tax cut in ten years time has negligible effect on the economy. Also a tax cut that benefits people with very high disposable income already has little effect since these people usually run out of things to buy long before they run out of money.
I could easily go out an buy a new car, but I would have nowhere to put it. I could have the kitchen redone if I wanted to put up with the house being a wreck for 6 months and the associated stress.
I don't think you will find many economists with credibility outside the far right who will claim that cutting inheritance tax stimulates the economy short term.
The Bush tax cuts were justified by claims that the Clinton surplus would stretch out as far as the eye could see. You can hardly claim that they are crafted to bring about a recovery from recession unless you are willing to admit that Bush and the admin are total liars.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
means increased capital investment, which
results in improved productivity.
The problem with that theory on this go-round
is that the attractive investments are in
China, Thailand, and Malaysia, not in the U.S.,
so that the funds are flowing to improve
productivity where that improved productivity
is likely to maximize its profitable return.
And it ain't here, bubba.
Re:The goods (Score:4, Informative)
I just know the history, during the 'isolationist' period the US invaded Cuba, the Phillipeans, imposed the 'open door' (read colonial occupation) policy on China, engineered a coup in Panama for the sole purpose of building the canal under total US control. And so it goes on.
The term isolationism refers to the exercise of power without reference to any strategic alliances. It was certainly not a pacifist period in US history.
The isolationists disliked the league of nations for the same reason that they hate the UN, it would restrict exercise of US power at a time when the US was becomming a world power.
Re:Ahhh, the reputable Boston Globe (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
Well, that's only about 5 companies, so it's entirely possible that 5 large, conservative corps would like to avoid angering the party that currently controls all 3 branches of government. Go figure.
Yes, that is *exactly* the case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without this filter, we would each have to spend hours each day dealing with the un-discounted accounts of Bigfoot Performing Dark Rituals with Aliens on their UFO's to cause Devil Boy to Possess retired woman's Toaster in Desmoins.
So yes, unattributed "quotes" about unsubstanciated ideas that belch forth from untrustworthy sources can, and indeed must, be assumed to be crap, and therefor safe to ignore.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys in the US have a problem - both your major parties suck.
Plus, you've got all these unelected bureaucrats behind the scenes, holding tons of power for decades, pulling the strings etc. Heh in a Disney movie those bureaucrats would be the evil Grand Viziers.
Heh and the US electronic voting systems are a big joke. With those crappy systems, sending UN/independent observers to monitor your elections won't help at all.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Few people realize that other parties exist. (I think it's funny they're called third parties, all of them.) USians have been raised to belive that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away." Personally, I think it's the other way around. In truth, I really don't mind a two party system -- it's just that the two parties currently in power suck.
People can't find a candidate they trust, so when it comes time to vote, they either vote for the party their parents voted for, or the cute one. Unfortunately, they don't recognize the third party candidates' names because the Two Parties have made laws that make it tough for third parties to raise funds for a decent campaign.
Maybe this year I'll do a write in. CmdrTaco, maybe?
Yeah, I hate 'em. My state [geogia.gov] uses those stupid Diebold machines. *shudder*
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, both the major parties suck. And there's probably more of a problem there than you realize, since it seems you don't live here. My problem is this: Most people (maybe 60%, 70% of people I encounter) say, "I'm a Republican," or "I'm a Democrat." Never "I'm an independent thinker who can make individual choices on individual issues." It's amazing to me how many people think that not quite agreeing with part of their chosen party's platform is some kind of moral dilemma. I also know about 12 people who will mindlessly vote Republican because the party doesn't support abortion -- to the extent that if a rare Rep. candidate was pro-choice, they wouldn't have paid enough attention to know that and would vote for said candidate anyway.
Yeah, the system itself is a problem, but the citizens as a whole support it very, very strongly. And they do it automatically, too -- their opinions are so ingrained it usually looks more like indoctrination than free thought.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas you'd be likely to get something a bunch of jokers whipped out in VB which can't even ensure that the total vote counts aren't negative. Already happened in the US.
Shouldn't it be treason to ship code of such low quality for _supposedly_ such a critical purpose?
But maybe it doesn't really matter - in many countries the choice is between Evil or Wicked. It's just to keep the people satisfied.
If you notice there's never a choice for "none of the above" or "reopen nominations".
Neither is there an option for a negative vote - you can't say "No". You can only vote for and never against. It'll be more useful if people could say No to candidates. That way you could actually win but have a net negative score. That'll be rather more useful than spoilt votes. Can't brag if that happens
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone in Bush's whitehouse compromises an agent whose mission involves intercepting terrorists trying to buy weapons of mass destruction, compromising a front company set up by the CIA for such purpose, and you think it is the same thing. Even if the accusations from your questionable source are true, at worst it is making public investigations by people on the outside: it is not stealing internal papers of Congressman. It is not compromising national security. I thought Republicans cared about fighting terrorism. I guess that is just when it involves giving away defense contracts. When it comes to something that could actually be effective, it just doesn't rise to the same level of importance does it?
Not to mention the whole lying to Congress about WMD thing. Lying to Congress vs lying about an affair in civil court: which matters more? But since Bush lied in only 17 words, it doesn't count, right? I guess "I did not have sex with that woman." doesn't count either; I mean that is only 8 words.
Some of the stuff your link is talking about is public record anyway. I don't see indication of breaking and entering to obtain said files there. Even just obtaining the files in this case, was done illegally.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: The following is half joke - sadly it's only half.
It's just beyond their imagination that someone other than them could do a decent job at it. So when somebody makes the president look bad, and may even endager their continued power, that person risks the success of the war on terror. I would cite Bush's coments in the State of the Union speach suggesting that not reelecting him would effectively give up on the war on terror. Discouraging behavior that could cause a loss of Rupublican power must be done at any cost, even one that presents a set back to the war.
Spying on Democrats is a natural and proper course of action then. It's almost a shame the CIA won't do it for you.
Much more important is solidifying your base. You know that most Americans won't notice a judge being appointed without approval from the senate, especially if you announce it friday afternoon. You do know that the not discussed part of the Republican base that would appreciate an appointment of an argueably racist judge to a federal bench on the weekend of Martin Luther King day would appreicate that action and be sure to vote. Karl Rove was sitting in his office and got to put a check next to his todo list item: "Secure the racist vote."
I could continue to rant at this point, but I won't. Clinton was a good president, and would have been great if he didn't act so stupidly. He at least half deserved to be impeached. His behavior embarassed his office and interferred with the progress he was making on many fronts.
But folks, it's time to stop calling Bush a liar. It's just not fair. To be a liar, you have to actually understand what you're talking about.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Republicans got their independant council, remember?
Actually, as I recall, the independent council statute was passed after Watergate by a Democrat-controlled Congress. That statute had an expiry date which lapsed in the '90s. There were independent council investigations on every US president from Ford through Clinton. Nobody wanted it to be renewed because it had been used by both parties to whip the other party's presidents. If your statement were true, then when the expiration period occurred, the Republicans would have brought it back, as they have since come to dominate both chambers. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Perfected? I don't recall people close to a Republican president finding themselves suicided. I have not heard of a poll being kept open in Chicago to ensure a Republican President had sufficient electoral votes to be elected. In my home state of Arkansas, I've not heard of the Republicans filing a last minute law suit before a court to ensure that certain polling areas were kept open after they were supposed to be closed. (This last number was perpetuated in Pulaski County, AR by the Dems because they alleged the polls weren't opened long enough, although a law is on the books that says that if people are in line to vote, the polls remain open for them to vote. Those that were informed to remain open were in heavily Democrat areas.)
Re:The goods (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp ?txtName=Microsoft [opensecrets.org]
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password
Basically, someone screwed up, and as we know, computers will do exactly what you tell them to do, not necessarilly what you want them to do. Whether this thing was running Windows, Linux, or DOS, if the person setting up the system didn't secure the folders properly, they are going to be avilable to anyone. The only question is, if they were publicly available, was it really illegal, or wrong, for the Republicans to view them? Wrong, is probably easy to answer, it should have been obvious from the content of the files that they were meant to be confidential, but illegal is another story. It would seem that the Democrats did not take reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality, so can they really claim that the Republicans broke into thier system and stole the documents? Or is it just a case of the Republicans getting lucky because of this oversight?
And lastly, what ever happened to testing? If the tech had spent a few minutes logging in as different users, and checking that they couldn't get to specific places, this should have been found.
Damn Republicans (Score:5, Funny)
Power Corrupts, and... (Score:5, Funny)
Power corrupts."
And PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that members of Congress and the President routinely usurp powers not granted to them (or even worse, explicitly denied to them) is criminal and is a direct violation of their oaths of office. The fact that we, the citizens of the US, have allowed them to do so without punishment, is shameful.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
We're about 20 years overdue.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Women have had the right to work, but after WWII the family requires both spouses to work in order to pay the bills. That's not really any great leap forward for, uh, womankind. And for society as a whole, it's a step backwards.
I think I'm a neotraditionalist. I would gladly be a stay-at-home dad. But in my hypothetical family of the future, we probably couldn't afford that.
Do you see what I'm saying? Not that women must be kept at home. I'm saying that in terms of economic power, both men and women are so degraded nowadays that both must work to make ends meet. That's regressive. In other words, men and women are exploited equally. That's no victory.
W@tergate ?? (Score:3, Funny)
I haven't had my caffeine this morning... (Score:3, Funny)
Confidential files (Score:4, Funny)
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, I've lived for brief periods of time in towns where nobody locks their doors. I don't think it's dumb at all that this is treaspassing; most people wouldn't care if you randomly wandered in for a friendly chat, but they have the right to toss you out if you're being a bastard, and a right to their privacy.
Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
By want, I assume that you meant took. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But when you competitor does, it's pretty clear that it's theft.
Soft files (Score:4, Interesting)
John Stockwell, former CIA agent, described the phenomenon of a "soft file". He had been a field agent, in half a dozen field offices, for his first decade or so in the CIA. His final field post being in Vietnam, just prior to the fall of the South.
Following his return from Vietnam he got a plum post, back in HQ, co-ordinating the CIA's 1975 Angola efforts.
This was during a period when the CIA was starting to get a lot of Congressional scrutiny. And the response to this was the destruction of a lot of official files -- together with the creation of unofficial "soft files". Since the soft files had no official existence they couldn't be subject to a normal subpoena ro FOIA request. The drawback to them was that your colleagues could only request a copy of them through word of mouth. But this drawback was worth living with if the contents would destroy your career, if subjected to outside scrutiny.
Should CIA employees keep soft files -- whose intent is to cover their tracks and deceive the American public? In my opinion absolutely not. CIA employees are supposed to carry out policies, not make them.
Is it then okay for Politicians to keep soft files? I dunno.
Both of you are right/wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
They also trade some of that power to corporations and rich individuals in return (generally) for money so that they can buy votes so they can continue to get more power (or maintain the power they have).
What about electonic election memos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
besides, this isn't the same. if you correctly interpret the 2600 definition of hacking, the GOP folks should have disclosed the security vulnerability, not exploited it for their own benefit.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Since both parties are stinkin liars, I don't think you can believe either story.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
> about it along time ago.
Reminds me of that scene in the Simpsons when Bart and Lisa are arguing about hockey. Bart starts swinging his arms saying, "I'm going to swing my arms like this, and if you get hit, it's your own fault".
Simple point: these Republicans had no business digging through anyone's files. Saying, "oh, by the way, we've got access to some stuff that you don't want us to see. Hope you fix your security breach soon, or we're liable to dig through your stuff again!" isn't much of an excuse.
Unless these Republicans would like us to just assume from now on that they have no ethics and act accordingly.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Source code wants to be free (or so thinks 95% of the /. readership -- disclaimer: I'm part of that 95%), but I think you'd take an entirely different approach when you start talking about private memos.
If I access your computer and steal your private journals or letters to your sweetheart and leak them to the media is that "freeing information"? And don't go saying that they deserved it because it wasn't password protected (according to the article the techie neglected to put a password on the documents) -- if I steal handwritten letters to/from your sweatheart out of an unlocked filing cabinet does that make it ok?
The truely disgusting part about all of this is that the "Liberally-biased media" (in the eyes of Fox News and all the Conservative pundits) probably won't even pick up on this -- think we'll be seeing this on CNN or MSNBC anytime soon? I doubt it. Imagine the uproar if the Dems got caught doing something like this....
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Interesting)
We all cheered then, didn't we?
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
- it was publicly disclosed that they were leaked -- Slashdot didn't steal the memo and then secretly use it to undermine Microsoft -- and
- more importantly, the Microsoft memos weren't leaked due to a security exploit -- they were leaked, not stolen -- and
- the programming community hasn't made any secret about exploits in Microsoft's security when they are found.
The Republicans' responsibility was to report the security breach, and to not exploit it regardless of whether it was fixed. (Leaving your door unlocked may be stupid, but it does not make it legal or ethical for others to steal your things.)This incident is really quite different from the Halloween Memo; it's much more akin to Cliton allegedy breaching the FBI files of political enemies. IMO, that would actually have been a valid foundation for an impeachment case
Re: Imagine the uproar if the Dems got caught... (Score:5, Informative)
The 'Dems' were not caught spying on cell phone call. The call was intercepted by a couple in Florida who paid a $500 fine.
The tape was, in fact, leaked to the media by a democratic congressperson, according to this article (which is not friendly to the congressperson):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/c
It is disingenuous, at best, to call what happened an example of "spying" on phone calls by Democrats. An elected official received the tape from ordinary citizens; no goverment employees or party apparatchiks involved in the interception of the call.
I would also like to see some evidence to support your contentions about "big laughs" and "fun little caper".
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is /. and you probably didn't read RTFA but there was no hacking. The technician screwed up.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people consider this to be like Watergate, but I see it as far worse. The original Watergate crime was a single breakin relating to a political campain, this has to do with private internal discussion of Senators about matters of government. Ok, sure there might have been some real partisan politics mixed in, but the Republican staffers would have had to wade through a lot of messages to get to the parts they wanted to publish. I don't think that it's treason, but it's damn near.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they employ the same security consultants as Valve software?
Best wishes,
Mike.
Another thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Does this mean the party that controls the senate gets to hire the technician who manages the servers? Am i the only one who sees a problem with that?
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
You are probably trying to be funny, but what is not funny about this is if these computers were cracked by one of us and not a Republican staffer, these same Republicans would be howling for blood and nailing asses to walls. This is complete and total bullshit. There was a security problem that could be fixed and the Dems did not fix it. But the Republicans cracked their computers and shared confidential information. They broke the DMCA and several other anti-cracker laws in the process. Someone pointed out that the Dems have pulled this kind of thing as well, but two wrongs do not make a right. The staffers should be treated just as any other civilian would be in this case. And the Dem admin who refused to patch the machine should be fired and investigated to see if s/he is not part of this on the sly.
Some choice points from this article:
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about it before November 2003.
He said, she said. Regardless of the truth, the Republicans had no right to crack computers just because the potential for exploitation was there. Republican prosecutors and judges would never accept this as a defense for a cracking case, in fact they would laugh as they sent Mr. Cracker off to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison and have done so repeatedly in similar cases. A cracker who informs his/her target of the potential exploit before using it to break into a computer is never afforded any kind of legal protection.
Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Again, bollocks. These were confidential memos which were clearly meant only for their recipients, just like all office memos and business emails are. And I love the blame-the-victim here, where they try to put the blame on the Dems for having an exploitable computer. So by placing their confidential memos on a machine that can be cracked, they are in fact releasing this info to the public with no intellectual property rights (like copyright) asserted? Really? So if I crack the TIA computers that means the Republicans released the information for free into the public domain? The Microsoft Source that was stolen is actually legal, free, and clear? Can I get an affidavit from John Ashcroft to this effect?
All this adds up to prove that the Republicans' vaunted belief in the rule of law is complete bullshit. The party has been taken over by outlaws who seem to think the law does not apply to them. The fact that this kind of cracking can occur at the highest levels of government with NO investigation into prosecution leads directly to a determination of gross negligence on the part of Bush, since he is teh top cop in the country and it is his job to make sure the laws are enforced and obeyed, especially by the staff of his party members.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Interesting)
DMCA Violation!!!!!
Re:Confidential files (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't exactly a remote exploit, It is more like putting something on a public share that should have been on a private share.
Oh, really? So you know the exact nature of the computer glitch for a fact? Would you care to reveal your sources? Because the rest of us are pretty much guessing here. Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
And I know that I have in bored times browsed around the various public shares at various workplaces and been appalled at the "private" information that was available.
I am sure that this is true. However, you are not supposed to be browsing around looking for unprotected shares to take data from. Even though you do not have to expoit any code flaws, you are exploiting other security flaws. Yes, doing this is illegal and it has been punished before. Yes, it does seem kind of silly. But basically when it comes to computers, or anything else for that matter, you are not suppose dto be browsing around where you do not have a legitemate right to be. To do otherwise is indeed wrong.
Even if this is what happened (perhaps the dems put this data in My Documents folders on public desktops running Windows 95 with those folders shared without a password!) it does not make the Republicans' accessing and use of the information kosher.
Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Patriot Act says that it's legal! (Score:5, Funny)
We are exactly 20 years off on our calendar.
Re:But the Patriot Act says that it's legal! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, the conundrum!
Re:But the Patriot Act says that it's legal! (Score:5, Insightful)
I say if the media is so liberal, why doesn't it attack everything Bush does? Hell, I never even see anyone questioning anything.
I just want to know the status of a few things:
Where is my 9/11 report?
Where are the WMD?
What's the status of the anthrax investigation?
What's the status of the leak investigation?
I'm not disagreeing, just felt like bringing these up. This shit should be on the news, in the 45 minute loops, until the whole story is heard.
The current administration seems to have everyone so scared of terrorists, they've become distracted.
Clueless... like a fox (Score:5, Interesting)
While it sounds like the Dems' tech guy is missing his distro of Clue, I wonder... what if he/she left the backdoor open on purpose?
Here's a scenario:
1. Repo tech tells Demo tech about security problem.
2. Demo tech realizes that any security breach could bite the Repos in the butt if discovered.
3. Optional: Tech tells Demo leadership about the plan.
4. Demo tech keeps an eye on traffic through the breach, letting the Repos pull info until...
5.
Step 3 is optional because it assumes cluefulness on the part of political leadership, which I wouldn't want to assume. But there are some tech-savvy members of Congress (surely!) who might understand the honeypot concept.
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked down in the Pentagon for two and a half years. I thought I had a really good grip on political machinations, having read a lot of polysci theory and having always been marginally decent at manipulating people. When I got down to Arlington I realized that the political power players are like sharks in a vast tank full of guppies.
I couldn't even believe the level of shit that people were capable of doing, willing to do, and doing every day to advance their careers and positions. A clever honeypot trick like this wouldn't be a wondrous masterstroke to top off someone's career - it'd be a move executed before they finished breakfast!
Sometimes I'm really upset by our divisive and angry Two Party System; it seems like nothing ever gets done. Other times I am very, very grateful that the government is not one gigantic unified son of a bitch, because then all those manipulative, controlling and totally evil tendencies would be aimed squarely at me.
Having clearly marked opponents gives them something to aim for and exert their energy upon.
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:4, Insightful)
Realize that now one party controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branch of our government.
Do we have a Two Party System anymore? And if you think we still do, will we for very much longer?
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see what difference it would make. Whether the Democrats laid a trap or not, the Republicans would have still violated computer fraud statutes and behaved unethically.
The Republican behavior would be particularly reprehensible because they keep running on "values" and "ethics". Unlike blow jobs in the White House, which are amusing but otherwise irrelevant, stealing political strategy memos is something that cuts to the heart of ethics in politics. If these allegations are confirmed, they would show the people involved to be completely unethical, and I would hope they'd get thrown in jail for it and barred from public office.
heh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Skip from this incident of Republicans spying back to the years during the Clinton White House, wherein the FBI was found to have pulled confidential files on tons of prominent Republicans and provided that information (quite illegally).
Quick link to info on Filegate [judicialwatch.org]
Quick summary for people who don't remember 1998: "[There was a] class action suit on behalf of the more than 900 Bush and Reagan appointees and possibly others whose FBI files were unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, has admitted that there was an "egregious violation of privacy without justification."
It goes around, it comes around, Watergate wasn't the first time, and this isn't the last time.
Politics.
feh.
Re:heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Though honestly, I'd like to know what this "glitch" is. Sounds like someone had a rootkit, and the tech didn't patch windows.
Louis Freeh was also shown to be a partisan liar (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you weren't familiar with those, the WhiteWater scandals were shown to be completely baseless. As a matter of fact, several independent government agencies acquitted the Clintons of wrongdoing from the very beginning. Despite this, Freeh continuned to play up to his Republican buddies in Congress.
While we're meditating on this era, let's remember the outrageous scandals that neo-conservatives used to ruin a great presidency.
Criminal (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, however, doesn't this make them terrorists and entitled to a free, one way, all expenses paid trip to Cuba? [navy.mil]
Digital Commandments (Score:4, Funny)
It's the Dem's fault (Score:4, Funny)
Should have used DRM! (Score:4, Funny)
They should have used Digital Rights Management:
Ideological opponents: ( ) Allow (+) Deny
Grr! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to go GOP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
Re:Way to go GOP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
Wow, you say something I can agree with for once!
They won't think anything of it. You might have some real outrage from the handful of decent Republicans in the Senate (McCain, Snowe, Collins all come to mind), but the party establishment itself (which was taken over by the Southern religious right wing a long time ago) won't say a damn thing.
It's the same level of hypocrisy they use when they all fall in behind George-I-was-too-busy-snorting-crack-to-report-for -my-National-Guard-duty W. Bush, but bash McCain (or other Patriots like Senator Cleland) as being "unpatrotic". They actually ran attack ads against Cleland linking him to Bin Ladin -- the man lost three of his limbs in Vietnam! Yet how dare we criticize Bush for snorting crack and avoiding the war (not to mention his DWI) -- he's the President after all and you need to respect the office.
Hell, since I'm ranting, let's talk about yelling at the Dems for "blocking" Bush's nominates when the vast majority of them have been confirmed (rubber-stamped is more like it). The Democrats in the Senate have been a whole lot nicer to Dubya then the Republicans ever were to Clinton -- much to my dismay.
There are a few decent Republicans (mostly in the Northeast where they actually still stand for fiscal responsibility and haven't been taken over by the religious right) -- but they are few and far between -- and I won't vote for any Republican for Federal Office until they expunge the Southern Religious Right from the party. Which is really too bad because there are actually a few Republicans that I like and am in a position to vote for -- I hope Giuliani run's for Governor of NY and not the Senate seat open in 04. It'd kill me to have to vote against him, but I would because we can't allow the Republicans to continue to control the Federal Government.
Re:Way to go GOP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if I felt like they are going to vote with the religious right/big brother'ish Republicans (*cough* John Ashcroft *cough*), I would. In that case it becomes a lessor of two evils argument.
We have that problem where I live, and our state deficite is out of control. People vote for the "nicest" guys and then blame the national government for state problems when state officials can't get their jobs done.
I didn't say I voted for the "nicest" guy. My example was Giuliani who has been called many things in the past, but trust me, "nice guy" is not one of them.
I would love to see him run for Governor of NY because Pataki is a friggen idiot and our state always seems to put up weak Democratic candidates for Governor (how else would a Republican win in a state where Dems outnumber them 5 to 3)? McCall was an absolute joke -- Pataki crushed him.
However if Giuliani runs for the Senate seat as a Republican then I will be compelled to vote against him -- unless he's running against Adolph Hitler himself. Until the Republicans stop taking away our civil liberties, destroying the environment, and shoving their religious opinion up my ass I'm not going to do anything that would help them keep power in Washington.
oh btw- About that whole "Southern Religous Right", you do know that the south has been a mainstay of the Democratic Party for the last 40 years right? This only changed recently.
Actually that changed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. He's even quoted as saying "We've lost the South for the next few decades." The Democrats that managed (or still manage -- Zill Miller is one of them) to stay in power are Republicans in all but name. At least the Republicans that stay in power in the Northeast actually stand for some of what their party (used to) preach -- fiscal responsibility being the number one item. How odd that the Democrats know how to balance a budget better then the Republicans?
Really the technician's fault? (Score:4, Informative)
That's about all the article says about the "glitch" that occurred, presumably due to human error. At first I thought the account was probably M$ Windows related, since it is would be harder with Linux/UNIX to "accidentally" create accounts which were accessible to anybody.
But then, the technician could have done anything stupid like assigning the easily guessable password across to all accounts. Or who knows, maybe they were using a database system or other software which created accounts on top of the OS.
A little more information about the OS/software in use would certainly shed more light on who was actually responsible for the glitch...instead of blaming it outright on the technician.
Clueless media (Score:5, Insightful)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake
That wasn't a computer malfunction. The computer and the software worked exactly like the way they were supposed to work.
Novak again? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year,
> monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically
> passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The
> Globe.
> Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who
> leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband
> contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi
> nuclear programs.
So, Novak leaks the name of a CIA operator for political gain to hide the fact that Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. Then he blows the cover of a CIA front operation to further his story. Why isn't this guy in jail?
More importantly, some Republicans keep doing crazy stuff like this. We still don't know which "senior Bush official" leaked the info to Novak, and Bush seems uninterested to find out who committed this crime. The Republicans have been desperate to bury Watergate's effect on their image, but stuff like makes it alive and well.
Re:Novak again? (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually probably legal for Novak to have published that information. However, it's certainly illegal for whoever leaked that information to have leaked it to him.
The reason no one is going to jail for this is that the person responsible for investigating this, the Attorney General, is appointed by the person whose office was responsible for the leak. And though Ashcroft has recused himself, the people directly and ultimately responsible for the investigation are both presidential appointees.
This is why we need an Independent Counsel law. Unfortunately, after the multi-year investigation of Clinton's penis, the Democrats in Congress were happy to let the law lapse (and the Republicans had never supported it, though they were glad to be able to take advantage of it while it lasted).
Oh Sweet Irony...Put Them In Prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
That to me, is the definition of irony.
You got a love it : "Glitch" (Score:4, Insightful)
No political fallout for these crimes (Score:5, Insightful)
In this situation, the Republicans come away looking like the sly rogues who "got away with it," and the Democrats look like beleasguered victims... and at the end of the day, most people would rather be the victimizers than the victims, and thus will identify with the Republicans.
The law & Prison (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when will we see the perps in prison? Not that Whitewater, this-is-just-a-camp-with-a-fence type prison, but a real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison? (Probably never.)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Republicans cannot be trusted.
I can't believe this isn't big news! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reply up there about "this is business as usual", but I can't think of any possible excuse or mitigating of extenuating circumstances for this sort of crime. Saying that "well it's been done before" certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it.
It's hard enough to take our government, and my role in it, seriously. Blowing off this kind of scandal certainly doesn't help.
Having morality and ethics make one liberal?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe you said such a thing. Morality and ethics aside? What sort of argument is that? Having expectations that government work in a smooth and orderly fashion, in a manner that will express the will of the people, is not a liberal position. Saying "morality and ethics aside" is like saying "notions of civilization aside". If being conniving, crooked and dishonest are your ideas of how a political philosophy should work, please point me to the other side.
Hold On Now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: "I didn't do it, but even if I did you couldn't prove I did anything wrong."
Now we see the moral *squishiness* of the individuals involved. If these files had been national security documents (government documents) or salary action documents (also government documents), would Miranda still claim that they were open season for anyone who wanted to read them?
Does anyone still believe that the USA Patriot Act will be used exclusively for criminal investigations?
CyberGate (Score:4, Insightful)
The devil (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are "government documents" but not "official business." And it's not stealing because they were "disclosed" by someone making a mistake setting up security. You heard it straight from the Senate Majority Leader's staff: If a sysadmin mistake allows you to get into a system, then everything in the system is freely "disclosed" and there's no penalty for copying it.
Also, documents can be "government" but not "official" - presumably the Republican Party is the only "official" government by now?
Tantalizing Watergate Parallells? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just remember Watergate. The story simmered in the background through the summer and fall of 1972. Few people paid much attention to it. In 1973, the thing suddenly went critical and took out a major chunk of the Republican leadership over the next year and a half. The major crimes in Watergate happened during that quiet period in late 1972. But the scandal ripped the lid off a festering pool of nastiness with all kinds of secondary consequences. Guys like Agnew got nailed for things completely unrelated, but without the scandal, they never would have been investigated. If this blows up, watch for a lot of other things (Haliburton?) to suddenly show up on the law-enforcement agendas.
Nixon, Rumsfeld, & Co. (Score:4, Interesting)
Didja know that Rumsfeld was a member of Nixon's cabinet?
"Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); and, as Counsellor to the President, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972)."
- Source [whitehouse.gov]
The Rumsfeld-Cheney-Nixon connection is also interesting:
"When President Richard M. Nixon selected Rumsfeld as White House counselor in 1970, Cheney joined him as his deputy. In August 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the presidency and asked Rumsfeld to be his chief of staff. Rumsfeld immediately sought out Cheney."
- Source [state.gov]
Rumsfeld never got press as a major Watergate player. But this is interesting:
"Rumsfeld was not entirely divorced from Nixon's political operations. There is no sign that he was involved in any of the illegalities of Watergate, but he was willing to offer Nixon other help of a not particularly exalted nature--some dirt on political enemies, some covert ties with a prominent pollster. The Nixon tapes reveal that Rumsfeld often worked with and was a special favorite of John Mitchell and Charles Colson, Nixon's roughest political operators, who viewed Rumsfeld as savvier than other White House aides."
- Source [theatlantic.com]
Mitchell was an obstructor of justice [wikipedia.org], and Colson was a hatchet man [cox.net]. Rummy was close with those guys? Must be sweet to have a resume like that -- fits right in with the Bush administration.
-kgj
Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Comp (Score:5, Informative)
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any one-year period;
(5)
(A)
(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(iii) physical injury to any person;
(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar infor
Bad choice of passwords (Score:4, Funny)
Hold the phone... (Score:4, Interesting)
A few other things to clear up: This was not a "glitch," instead it was a simple permissions issue where certain security policies were not implemented properly or at all.
Second: If a document is readable, people will read it. Right wrong or otherwise I don't really see what the big deal is. These people are supposed to running our fscking country not trading dirty secrets about how to screw the president out of a judicial nominee.
Sure the people who weren't supposed to have access should have said somthing, but by the same token I can say the admin should have double checked to make sure they didn't have access.
If the honeypot theory is correct, and Demos knew the documents weren't secure whey would they allow stupid shit like "hes a latino" go there in the first place. If anything they would place false documents there and make he republicans look bad when they come out with all these lies and rumors.
In my opinion this doesn't even hurt the republicans credibility...so what if they were seeing stuff they weren't meant to see...the shit found more than makes up for any "ethical" issues involved. I say we pass a law that anything written, typed, or electronicly produced by any of our governmental representatives (that isn't top secret or national security) should be made public within 24hours of its creation.
Its time our government was held responsible for all the BS it creates.
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Hypocricy in the law (and enforcement) (Score:4, Insightful)
If any individual person (one of us, the slashdot reader, for instance) did something like this, we would be under investigation or arrest rather quickly. This is referred to in the media as "hacking". It doesn't matter one whit whether or not the victim was "wide open" or not. NOT have unbreakable defenses up on your computer does not make it A-OK for anyone to waltz on in and do whatever. It is considered a crime and many "hackers" have been prosecuted for this.
The Republicans are getting away with it. It is OK for them to do this but any human being (they aren't human) does the same thing and they're looking at jailtime.
Bullcrap! Say I. Equal enforcement of the law. Hacking into computers you do no own is considered a crime and it should be handled as such. It is obvious that Senator Hatch, hypocrit of all hypocrits, belongs in jail. His pukes did it (he probably thought it was cute and funny). How about I do it to his personal systems? Still funny? Still OK?
The one thing we might all agree on (Score:4, Interesting)
In this day and age, responsible file protection on the part of our elected officials is mandatory. I realize that's a loaded remark, but no matter how you slice it, something has to change within our Congressional offices and infrastructure. Either someone hacked protected files or someone failed to protect files that should have been protected. I have general administrative access on our LAN and even I occasionally stumble across files I can't access. There are multiple levels of security for all things digital and either someone is misusing them or neglecting there use. Is their a third alternative?
Soap Box:
I too am disturbed by this revelation.
But, if negligence is a factor (on either side), or some level of corruption, or misrepresentation of the people, then let us use our tricameral system to resolve it. Otherwise we are guilty of doing nothing but whipping up yet another impotent hysteria-of-the-moment using mass media. Take them to court. Elect new representatives. Our system of government is designed to be manipulated by the citizenry, intending to enact the will of a majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Problem is that the majority don't participate. The only ones doing the manipulating are an ambitious minority, some championing worthy causes, others power hungry and greedy, perhaps even rotten to the core, but all an ambitious minority just the same.
Patriot Act cyber terrorists! BURN THEM! (Score:5, Interesting)
On the slim chance that any of the Republican senators are prosecuted, how much would you like to bet that they get off with a reprimand and a slap on the wrist?
Now, if the janitor in that office had been caught paging through the Dems' (or the Repubs') confidential memos, you can be sure he would have been prosecuted as a computer criminal. Judges are getting more heavy-handed as of late, and it's becoming increasingly more popular to invoke the Patriot Act in cases of computer crime. There's a very good chance that our poor janitor would have been tried, and convicted, as a terrorist.
But, because the criminals in this case are rich, powerful, important white men with many friends in government, they'll likely get off scot free.
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
A good quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule. Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
These were not password protected files, they were on a network available to any members of the Judiciary committee. When the Republican's first learned of this (both sides were affected by the mistake) they fixed their files and told the Democrats to do the same. When they didn't, they took advantage of it.
It was unethical, but the only worse thing in politics is to be incompetent. Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
"What's the big deal?" (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've read many times here on Slashdot every time someone comes to the defense of various enchroachments of civil liberties: "If the Democrats haven't done anything illegal, what have they to worry about?"
Wake up, for Christ's sake! This is how power given to the government is abused. It will always be abused, which is why we have to protect our privacy at all costs.
Expected consequences (Score:4, Funny)
Since it will take months to sort out whether a crime was committed, I've drafted a summary of expected consequences for people who do this sort of thing:
Please note that the RIAA may seek additional punishment if the material was copyrighted. So kids, think before you act
Much ado about nothing... (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't another Watergate for the Republicans, this is a StupidGate for the Democrats. Not only were the Democrats using taxpayer funds to pay for the production and storage of their political documents, they were giving Republicans free access to them. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The DNC's private servers would have been a better place to put these non-governmental documents, not on a taxpayer funded server. Everyone of those documents belong to the people of the United States which members of the Republican party in the Judiciary are...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Burglary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Now as a network admin, I am in a position of trust. I can more or less poke around the system at will, read any files I'd like, and sift through everyone's email. While it is techically possible, if I were ever caught doing this I would be fired.
I'm not even sure I would get to clean out my desk.
This is not a matter of Joe Hacker forwards an internal memo. This is a matter of one competing faction within an organization abusing his or her access to a computer system. That is bad enough. They had to take it a step further and PUBLICIZE the information they found.
Joe Hacker is an outsider acting on his own. The Halloween memos and such, he has an informant on the inside. He may embarrass a company. He may steer a lawsuit. The worst damages are monetary.
Jane Insider, on the other hand, is committing betrayal. She is seeking to influence elections and the operations of government. All this while working for an elected official.
Both Joe and Jane should probably get an extended stay at Uncle Sam's Federal Resort. Joe for theft, Jane for treason. It doesn't matter WHAT party you are working for. You do not fold mutilate or spindle and elected official's documents.