Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberal Hackers at it Again
Powerline ^ | March 11, 2009 | John Hinderaker

Posted on 03/12/2009 4:00:38 AM PDT by drellberg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: drellberg

Just called Wells Fargo to cancel mine. Agent said they are getting all kinds of calls and they are all coming from Minnesota. If they catch the offending people just send them up here for a little “ice fishing”.


41 posted on 03/12/2009 8:40:07 AM PDT by timydnuc (I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drellberg

Nothing would exonerate Wikileaks from releasing the partial donor list, nothing. I don’t know why they did it, unless it was the same reason that a kidnapper sends an ear to the victim’s family, or to prove that they actually had the numbers. They claim that they did it to get the contributors’ attention. I’m not trying to defend their decision to post some of the numbers. But what they did does not somehow justify Coleman’s original errors, or his claims of being hacked.

Coleman’s db wasn’t hacked originally. Coleman’s IT security was lax. His storage of the numbers with their security codes is illegal. That was my original point in sum.


42 posted on 03/12/2009 8:40:17 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“When are the repubics going to start fighting back as hard as the libs are fighting us?”

Probably because most folks are who conservative generally have a great sense of decency and following the proper rules and etiquette in all things. Just compare how the Republicans handle defeat to how Al Gore and his fans handled his defeat in 2000. To the liberal(at least the modern liberal, anyway), the ends justifies the means since no matter what he does, he can always justify in his mind that he is committing the act in the name of “social justice.” I also find liberals tend to crave power more since their religion is the creation of a bigger and larger state whereas conservatives want a smaller government with less authority over the lives of its citizens. I surmise their out-of-control lust for more and more power drives many on the Left to act in a way that I don’t find to the same extent among folks on the Right.


43 posted on 03/12/2009 8:42:40 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer; drellberg

Pick up your weapon and follow me.


44 posted on 03/12/2009 9:35:00 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

When do we storm the Bastille?


45 posted on 03/12/2009 9:37:44 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

While I agree with you about why dims are the way that they are, if we do not start fighting fire with fire... we will walk the wilderness for another 45 years of minority status... and I for one will do everything that I can do to actually wage the same kind of war against them that they wage against us.

LLS


46 posted on 03/12/2009 10:15:09 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CPT Clay

I keep mine close these days!

LLS


47 posted on 03/12/2009 10:18:47 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: drellberg

Remember the new acronym:

O ne

B ig

A ss

M istake

A merica!


48 posted on 03/12/2009 10:25:36 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
Palin Hacker

But, how ofen have they done these things and not been caught?

49 posted on 03/12/2009 10:37:47 AM PDT by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

I don’t know how to evaluate your assessment that Coleman’s people screwed up. I’ll take that at face value and concede the point.

I don’t think this diminishes my fear one bit. Some evil force STILL had to be poking around the Coleman site looking for ways to do damage. And having found the data, whether by criminal means or not, they sent emails out saying to these 51,000 plus donors that they were in possession of their credit card information. I don’t find this act of intimidation any less chilling for having been catalyzed by a Coleman screw up, even if you are correct on that point.

And if this is why the MSM is looking the other way, I don’t find the MSM any less culpable. This is an act of intimidation, pure and simple. And it is of a breathtaking form and impact.

Or are you somehow maintaining, worst-case-scenario, that they act was any less heinous for having been enabled by some screw up IT person on the Coleman campaign? You seem to think that this point is relevant. I am having a difficult time understanding why.


50 posted on 03/12/2009 11:58:21 AM PDT by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
“Excuse me, worst-case scenario, but NO. Even if all that you say is true, Wikileaks sent a spreadsheet with thousands of credit card numbers in a mass mailing. Are you saying that this is anything short of criminal?”

He is right. If you do some research and look into wikileaks, it would appear that wikileaks actually did Colman's contributors a favor by letting them know that their credit card info had been hacked and had been floating around the Internet for several weeks before wikileaks became aware of it.

They only published the last four digits and security codes so that Colman's contributors would know that they were telling the truth. They did not publish the full credit card numbers so that anyone reading the data could use them illegally. Apparently they contacted the Colman campaign first but Colman did nothing to warn his contributors, so they they warned them instead.

PS. it was/is against the law for Colman's campaign to keep security codes on record. They messed up and it is likely Colman's campaign and not Wikileaks that will be held liable for any fraud committed using the hacked information.

The original hacker/hackers are unknown, but it wasn't wikileaks. It is claimed that instead of being hacked, that it was accidentally exposed to everyone on Colman's website for a short time on January 28 due to incompetence of his web site crew.

51 posted on 03/12/2009 12:06:16 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: monday

OK, I am beginning at least to understand your basic point, as well as the point being made by worst-case-scenario.

I still disagree, and just as vehemently. Under what scenario, Monday and Worst-Case-Scenario, is it Wikileaks’ place to send this email? Why is it their responsibility to do this? And even if I grant all that you are claiming, how could it STILL not be interpreted in a chilling fashion?

Here is a hard core left-wing group emailing 50,000 Coleman contributors saying “We have your credit card information.” Do you think that wikileaks did not give any thought to how that might be interpreted? Do you think that a significant fraction of the recipients interpreted this as anything other than a threat?

I’m frustrated that there isn’t significantly more outrage on this point, even if I concede all that the two of you are saying. And I’m still in the dark as to why this is appropriate behavior.

And I don’t think I would ever hire worst-case-scenario’s IT firm if he and his employees take the stance that once information is compromised, even momentarily, it is entirely in the public domain. I can’t imagine that I could trust him.


52 posted on 03/12/2009 12:24:49 PM PDT by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
see #51 and check out these links to see dirt wikileaks has exposed on Chicago Dems.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Nadhmi_Auchi
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_and_ACORN:_Chicago-The_Barack_Obama_Campaign%2C_2004
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_and_ACORN

53 posted on 03/12/2009 12:27:50 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: monday

“it would appear that wikileaks actually did Colman’s contributors a favor ...”

I’m not trying to be difficult. I really just want to understand. Having been to the wikileaks web site, could you in your wildest imagination conceive of the possibility that these reprobates had any interest in favoring Coleman’s contributors?

This “doing you a favor” was a fig leaf for a veiled and reprehensible threat wasn’t it?

If you stand by your position, I’d be interested in having you describe for me the thought process by which the folks at wikileaks arrived at the idea ... “Hey, those poor, poor Coleman contributors. Someone needs to go to a lot of trouble and expense tracking them all down and telling them they just might get ripped off. Darn, I guess it’s up to us.”

I assure you that events did not unfold in the way you are representing them.


54 posted on 03/12/2009 12:31:12 PM PDT by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Thanks for the tip on Bank of America's ShopSafe.
55 posted on 03/12/2009 12:33:37 PM PDT by McGruff (If the War on Terrorism is over, do the terrorist know that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
“And having found the data, whether by criminal means or not, they sent emails out saying to these 51,000 plus donors that they were in possession of their credit card information. “

They weren't trying to intimidate Colman's donors. They were trying to warn them to cancel their credit cards since Colman himself refused to do so. They didn't hack the information themselves, but someone did submit the information to them. That person may or may not have been the original hacker.

The point is, that information had been floating around the Internet for weeks and no one had bothered to warn Colman's donors that their information was being passed around by hackers and criminals. Wikileaks did Colman's donors a favor by informing them about this fact.

56 posted on 03/12/2009 12:38:23 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: monday

OK, I know I am now reaching the point of being truly annoying, but I have a specific question that you may be able to answer.

If someone comes by information about credit card numbers legally, let’s say through an anonymous email, or a visit to an unprotected web site, etc., is it then legal to retransmit those data to others?

I ask, because if it’s legal, it shouldn’t be. Right?


57 posted on 03/12/2009 12:38:26 PM PDT by drellberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
“Here is a hard core left-wing group emailing 50,000 Coleman contributors saying “We have your credit card information.”

See the links on #53. They aren't left wing so much as anti government secrecy, and yes I think they thought they were doing Colman's donors a favor. They probably also thought they were exposing Colman as a fool and his campaign as incompetent. Two views that are hard to argue with given Colman's refusal to take responsibility for the accidental release of his donors information to the Internet.

58 posted on 03/12/2009 12:47:53 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
“If someone comes by information about credit card numbers legally, let’s say through an anonymous email, or a visit to an unprotected web site, etc., is it then legal to retransmit those data to others?”

No, I don't think so. Wikileaks didn't retransmit the full credit card #’s however. They did receive them from who ever passed on the info to them so that person could probably be prosecuted. If you receive credit card info as an email from someone, you haven't broken the law though just as long as you don't pass it on to someone else.

59 posted on 03/12/2009 12:53:36 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: drellberg
““Hey, those poor, poor Coleman contributors. Someone needs to go to a lot of trouble and expense tracking them all down and telling them they just might get ripped off. Darn, I guess it’s up to us.”

Actually it was no trouble or expense at all. They had all the affected donors email adresses in a convenient spread sheet format. It would have taken them about five minutes to write the email and send out a mass mailing.

60 posted on 03/12/2009 1:01:11 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson