Did COVID Data Whistleblower Hack Florida's Emergency Alert System? Police Raid Home (miamiherald.com) 210
FriendlySolipsist writes: Independent journalist Rebekah Jones, a scientist fired by the Florida state government because, she said, of her refusal to manipulate official COVID-19 data releases to coincide with political considerations and who now operates website floridacovidaction.com, had her home raided by the FL state police who seized computers and cellphones, the Miami Herald reported. The FDLE affidavit in support of the raid was published by the Miami Herald and asserts that an unauthorized internal message was sent to the "ReadyOps" system within the state Department of Health from an IPv6 address associated with the Comcast account at Jones residence. "The Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Monday raided the home of a former Department of Health data analyst who has been running an alternative web site to the state's COVID dashboard, alleging that she may have broken into a state email system and sent an unauthorized message to employees," reports the Miami Herald. "But Rebekah Jones, who was was fired from her job in May as the geographic information system manager for DOH's Division of Disease Control and Health Protection and who has since filed a whistleblower complaint against the state, denied having any role in the alleged intrusion into the state web site and instead said she believes Monday's action was intended to silence her."
Slashdot reader mtrachtenberg shares a thread on Twitter of Jones describing what happened.
Slashdot reader mtrachtenberg shares a thread on Twitter of Jones describing what happened.
Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, a search warrant based entirely on the IP?
She was terminated 6 months prior to that. They have absolutely no better evidence, yet they claim probable cause she was the one accessing an account with a widely shared username and password.
Shame. Shame on you. That judge should be disbarred.
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not clear from this description what happened. Did the message get sent to *all* members of function 8, or just some? Is this "hack" as simple as someone sending an email to an alias, like 'function8@florida.gov'?
From any article I've read, there's not enough information to tell that there was actually a "hack" or if the government is just calling it one to make it sound more serious. The state will always use the most ominous terms to describe the situation for purposes of obtaining a warrant and prosecuting.
It's possible that this woman has committed a crime, but until more details are made public, I am extremely reluctant to believe it's true. Even if she did send an email to a group of people, it's unclear to me that she "hacked" anything, and surely it's no crime to send an email to a valid state email address.
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Informative)
There are things that she said that indicate that the post was not in her sort of language
"In a message Monday, Jones denied sending the Nov. 10 text.
"Pretty sure if I was gonna go through the trouble of learning how to hack, then hacking DOH of all places, I'd be damn sure to get the death count right," she said, saying the accurate death toll on Nov. 10 was 17,460."
reference https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com]
The offending text said 18,000 - being an uptight geek type who has built a website out of irritation about her former employer being fast and loose with the numbers this rings true. I suspect she was the one who was hacked and the message sent maliciously in order to get access to her contacts lists on her confiscated hardware. If this was the case then something very bad just happened.
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be right. Maybe they're just fishing for the non-state email addresses of state employees who are leaking information to Jones. This seems like a heavy-handed way to do that, but today's US law enforcement is not known for subtlety.
Public APIs (Score:4, Informative)
This is not (legally) about the work she's been doing on her own since she got fired. All the data she is scraping is publicly available. She's centralizing it, making it easily accessible and readable, and turning the raw numbers into more informative statistics. So it's not what this raid (legally) is about. It's theoretically about access to a second system.
Of course, it is (in fact) about her making the governor look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nobody's leaking info to her (Score:5, Informative)
However that only happened because of the work of whistleblowers in resisting a state cover-up. Now the state wants to uncover the insiders who scuppered their plans...allegedly.
Re: (Score:3)
The language from the article also seems odd:
In a search warrant, an investigator with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement said a person at Jones' home who was using her email address illegally gained access to a state-run communications platform and sent a group text Nov. 10 telling people that it was "time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead."
I read that as "IT forgot to turn off her email address and she used it to send a message to her old co-workers".
Though if that were the case I w
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Informative)
Did the message get sent to *all* members of function 8, or just some?
This article from CNN [cnn.com] gives more information about the number of people who received the message. Approximately 1,750.
Also, she is saying there are numerous errors in the message she wouldn't make:
"I'm not a hacker," Jones said. She added that the language in the message that authorities said was sent was "not the way I talk," and contained errors she would not make.
"The number of deaths that the person used wasn't even right," Jones said. "They were actually under by about 430 deaths. I would never round down 430 deaths."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, 1,750 people received the message. But what's the membership of function 8? Again, did the message get sent to *all* members of function 8, or just some? Or does it matter? I tend to agree that she wouldn't make the error she points out, since the whole reason she got fired was for insisting upon accuracy.
My instinct is that the warrant is horseshit, but I don't know why they'd do it other than to harass Jones. That may be enough for them. But it seems like long enough since she quit that why would the
Re: (Score:3)
why would they care?
To impede her current work, to set her up as an example to other whistleblowers, to financially inconvenience her, and simple petty vindictiveness. If they've got her computers they're probably trying to get data on people that she's corresponding with to harass them as well. As long as they've got her equipment she's dead in the water, and the police will hold on to it until it's obsolete or they "accidentally" destroy it.
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Back to IP Addresses (Score:3)
"At no time were weapons pointed at anyone in the home"
This is entirely accurate if the officers aim their weapon down an empty hallway or stairwell, and having not seen the video, I don't know how they carried their weapons, aim is even not the word to describe how you carry a weapon most of the time, it's more about pointing it in a safe but useful position.
I get it though, the homeowner felt intimidated, scared, and anyone with sleeping loved ones at the other end of a house watching an officer with a we
Re: (Score:3)
Again, if you have it drawn and pointed , you must be willing to point it at someone who jumps out, and therefore, you are intending to point it at someone potentially, unless you're claiming that having your gun out is an...accident.
Fuck no. Basic firearms safety. If it was drawn and pointed, they intended to be ready to point it at a person, because they can no longer guarantee it won't be pointed at a person.
Re: (Score:3)
If it was drawn and pointed, they intended to be ready to point it at a person, because they can no longer guarantee it won't be pointed at a person.
Very true, I’ve watched the video and from the tone of voice, and the fact it was pointed where people could be standing at times, such as someone coming into the stairwell, it’s a recipe for a dead child if someone even makes a loud noise. All this over a civil non violent at its core “crime” under “investigation” where the video reveals everyone cooperating.
Re: (Score:3)
I saw in another article where there was 1 shared username/password for this mailing list, so it appears someone used that to send the message. And then supposedly they tracked it to her via IP. But just the fact that there was a single, shared username and password says a lot about how this was run.
Re: (Score:3)
No, though parking near the house seems like it would work well. Or getting access to any unpatchable IoT device in the house. An IP address is pretty poor proof.
automainion tied to public email in with easy name (Score:2)
automainion tied to public email in with easy names like that?
If I send mail to functionX@florida.gov am I an hacker?? an hacker for sending outbound mail?
Re: (Score:3)
The "hack" - by whoever did it - consists of using a username/password combination shared by everyone with access to the system. Apparently this username/password combo is rarely, if ever changed. So, even if she "hacked" the system, it means that she would have used the credentials that were given to her. Far more likely is that one of the other dozens of people with access to the system compromised the credentials - who knows how widely they have been distributed.
Based on this supposed "hack", the police
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree without more detailed information we cannot form a viewpoint.
Sending an email would certainly not be a hack, that's the entire point of email. If that's what happened I'm sure she has already contracted lawyers to get this overturned and her property returned (I wonder if some of it will be damaged beyond repair, or disappeared? Extra-judicial state punishment if so) ASAP, and then initiate proceedings against whoever asked for the warrant, and the judge who approved it, for whatever the law is agai
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're wrong. Amendment 4 to the US Constitution requires probable cause.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re: (Score:3)
Please read what I wrote. I did not say that no evidence was required. If the accusation is that the hacking came from an IP associated with the scientist based on existing evidence. That is enough for a search warrant. Could the IP match be flawed? Yes. Is it possible the police lied on the search warrant? Yes. Is that enough for a conviction in court that she hacked the system? No.
No, because an IP address should be reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
An IP is not a unique ID, they change, they can be accessed by various parties depending on network setups (e.g., open wifi), and so on.
This is, at best, reasonable suspicion. That does not meet the bar of probable cause the the OP mentioned. You said that the level of evidence was sufficient. I do not agree. I didn't say you had *none*, just that it doesn't rise anywhere close to the level of probable cause. There are too many ot
Re:Back to IP Addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think that that's enough to establish probable cause for the search. The big question is how far they will go in the search. The legitimate target of a search would be browser history showing she had logged onto the state system from a particular machine.
But I suspect what they're really after are her emails, to find out who inside the department of public health has been feeding her data; receiving such data is not a computer crime.
This whole thing is a massive overreaction. Pointing a gun at someone is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible unless that person represents an imminent threat to someone's life. Serving a warrant is not a license to put someone's life at risk.
Also: Crippling her operations. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I suspect what they're really after are her emails, to find out who inside the department of public health has been feeding her data; receiving such data is not a computer crime.
I suspect that it's also about crippling her ongoing operations.
By seizing he machines they both knock her off the net and deny her access to her own contact list, records, and other tools for discovering and publishing more embarrassing information. Even if she has off-site backups she needs to buy a new machine, do a restore (pumping all that data over a tapped line) and loses the changes she made since the last backup. All this while distracted by the ongoing legal attack.
(And then they can just do it again.)
Re: (Score:3)
Our experience here in Washington is that once the police have your computers you're not getting them back for years if ever. More often than not **IF** you do get them back they're no longer functional, and frequently they come back with someone else's browsing history on them.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like reasonable suspicion. "Reasonable cause" isn't a legal standard. Warrants require probable cause, not mere reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:3)
I point it out because we have two standards. You can't use half the name of one, and half the name of the other, and expect any rational being to know which of the two you meant.
This being Slashdot, we then assume that you're a moron from another country who hasn't the slightest idea how the US legal system works.
It was wrong. Don't play footsie with it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is Slashdot, nobody here knows how the Internet works. It's all just clouds and apps and mobile devices!
And cats (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot, nobody here knows how the Internet works. It's all just clouds and apps and mobile devices!
And cats. Don't forget the cats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Back to IP Addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, which SHE knows, as she is a tech worker and would have also known about proxies to hide IP. She would also know they logged it.
Re: Back to IP Addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
You must not have worked in tech recently, to think all tech workers know how networks work.
Re: (Score:3)
It's Flori-duh. Of course there's bad security on the server side.
Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
If the state lies to its people for policital reasons, then it really is an attempt at manipulating democracy.
Exposing this, should result in praise. Not prosecution.
Re:Hero (Score:5, Informative)
So far, there is no evidence that the state lied.
Yes, they have [sun-sentinel.com]. And it's been ongoing [sun-sentinel.com] since the pandemic started [governing.com].
As far back as May [cnn.com], DeSantis was having the numbers manipulated to play down the number of cases and deaths, including not naming nursing homes where deaths were occurring. Recently, DeSantis hired a conspiracy theorist [nypost.com], who moonlights as an Uber driver, to do data analysis for covid information. WTF?
STOP SPREADING FACTS (Score:3)
I dont get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: I dont get it. (Score:2)
It's not likely. It's just the SOP because bravery just means stupidity using the modern American English vernacular...
Re: (Score:2)
Because the most likely place for a police officer to get shot or assaulted is in someone's home, either when executing a warrant or for a domestic dispute. You deal with that on a daily basis, you get a feel for where you want to project force as a deterrent to a violent ending, rather than allowing what you hope will be a peaceful situation to escalate until force has to be applied.
Re:I dont get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. The crab fisherman on tv have a more dangerous job. Being a cop isn't even in the top 10 anymore.
Re:I dont get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just being a repairman is a more dangerous job. I face more danger on a day to day basis than the cops do. And to add to that, I have to worry about being shot by cops. The first time I ever got pulled over (in Santa Cruz) was literally for nothing (driving a cheap car at 2 AM) and I wound up with two cops pointing guns at my face, fingers on triggers. I learned as a child that you never point a gun at anything you're not about to shoot, and you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot, which means I am doubly lucky to be alive with two chucklefucks both pointing guns at me for no reason.
When you hear "fuck the police" or for that matter a mere "defund the police" you know there's at least one story behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is [cnn.com], especially after the police wait three days to call for an investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, next time you need a cop, be sure to call a social worker.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or hours.
If I "need a cop" what I really need is a concealed carry permit... which is super hard to get in California, where they ignore the right to keep and bear arms. Or I need one in my fucking pocket, and they don't come in pocket size.
Literally the only time I've called the cops is when my car got stolen, and I only did that because I didn't want liability if whoever stole it used it to commit a crime — I knew I wasn't getting that car back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I dont get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, next time you need a cop, be sure to call a social worker.
The next time when you "need a cop", just remember that, as per the supreme court of the US, the police has no obligation to protect you.
So go ahead and call the cops, but be prepared to be tortured and brutally raped for 14 hours [wikipedia.org], have your children murdered [wikipedia.org] or beaten into a coma and suffer permanent brain damage [wikipedia.org], get carved by a knife-wielding madman while the cops cowardly hide away [wikipedia.org] and so on, while you are waiting for them to help you.
The only stories that end up with "defund the police" come from morons who don't understand how a civilized society is supposed to work. Or who don't want to live in one.
A civilized society muzzles its guard dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I dont get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh huh. The cops just pulled you over for "driving a cheap car at 2AM".
That's correct.
Meanwhile you were probably driving drunk or headlight out, etc.
Who the fuck are you to call me a liar? I have a verified identity that goes back over a decade here. You don't.
Cops have better things to do than to pull random "cheap cars" over.
Apparently they do not. Cop suckers always say that shit, though.
It always turns out that the "guy pulled over for nothing" was in a stolen car, or driving erratically, etc.
I was not in a stolen car, and I was not driving erratically. All my lights and signals were working. After being required to sit on the curb for about an hour in the cold with no jacket or shoes on, I was sent on my way without so much as a warning because I had done nothing wrong.
If you were a cop what would be your incentive for pulling "cheap cars" over?
To show what a big man I was, after being a bully in high school, or maybe because I thought the car might contain a minority that I could harass [theguardian.com].
Now fuck right off, Ivan. The non-trolls are trying to have a conversation, and don't need you.
Re:I dont get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Repairmen don't deal with that."
I used to work at IBM, and knew actual people who on multiple occasions were held at gunpoint, locked in rooms, and had vehicles blocked in until they fixed whatever they were called for to the customer's satisfaction.
Re: (Score:3)
The most hazardous part of police work is that it involves people, because some people just don't want to live by anyone's rules but their own.
And once you make the next logical step of realizing that police is also comprised of people, you will begin to understand the problem of giving them too much power and too little accountability.
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of police killed "in the line of duty" are due to vehicle accidents, IMONSHO that's largely because they drive like assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
BS. It's an American thing, the police are too used to using force as the first move. The police here (Montreal Canada) showed up at my neighbor's on a domestic dispute call. As soon as they police showed up the place went from screaming and throwing things to dead silence. Never once did I see the police pull their guns. The same went for a few years ago when the police came to my door saying a call to 911 came from a number registered to my apartment (I had just moved in recently) and they needed t
Re:I dont get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops get shot in homes because they act as aggressors while in homes, instigating peoples urgency to defend themselves on their own property. I have no sympathy for some asshole that waves a gun around someones home, getting shot for doing so. There's better alternatives, as seen in much of the rest of the developed world.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we put way too much credence in "feelings" like that.
Here they were serving a warrant about a non-violent computer use violation to a cooperative but disoriented family, and with small children in the house too. And I do not doubt that the officer *felt* completely justified in pulling a loaded gun and pointing it at the children, but why? Suppose it was because he was emotionally unstable and this was too much excitement for him to handle. Or maybe he was just having a bad day. Those are reasonab
Re:I dont get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
> I dont get the point of always waving their guns around there in US. How likely is it to be needed if you raid a reporter and her families home?
Please don't pretend there's a "point". This just gives the enemies of the People more power.
She was on to something, probably, and this is pure fear and intimidation, to send a message to the other people that if they speak up, tyranny will reign down on them and their families.
cf. Julian Assange rotting in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
tyranny will reign down on them and their families.
Rein, reign, and rain are all different words... pls stahp
Re:I dont get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As far as the original situation in this post is concerned, I don't really know what went down (of course), and I was merely pointing out that going into the house of a r
Re: (Score:3)
That might be rebuttable by saying "sure, and if the police didn't routinely pull their guns first, and therefore probably shoot first, those statistics could be wildly different". in that same year of 2019, there were just over 1000 fatal shootings _by_ police. I can't find, from a quick search, how many _non-fatal_ shootings there were.
Yes, and of course I did not search for how many non-fatal shots were taken at officers either. I was just trying to illustrate that the risk of death from gunfire is very low for police.
Of course each interaction escalates. The police believe they are at risk so go in guns first, but because they always go in guns first any interaction starts escalated. Having been in the US but living elsewhere the entire body language and attitude of police is very aggressive - such as an officer conspicuously placing t
Our police are not professionals. (Score:2)
Their education and training requirements are (mostly) a joke outside a few well-funded areas. They're authoritarian hicks with a badge.
(Other) criminals make them (somewhat) necessary as most humans are idiot savages (remember the average IQ is only 100 and street thugs are often well below that) but the public aren't capable of WANTING professionalism or understanding what that means.
The US is an idiocracy by cultural inclination since the Crown dumped its waste people here. Anyone who works in a hugbox o
Re: (Score:2)
No knock, guns out warrants were originally passed because of raids on gangs or meth labs or other places you're likely to meet armed resistance. The tool then expanded in use to other situations.
Can you imagine if this happened in America? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Common mistake. When people hear someone will be held accountable, they assume it means responsible parties.
In developed societies, we cannot go around holding those in charge accountable because then who would run our country...
Don't catch you slippin' up
Guess what I think? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With guns drawn. Don't forget the guns part.
Seriously - even if she did this, and even if you need to confiscate all her gear - just send a cop with a badge and a warrant to knock on the door.
At the same time (Score:3)
The raid was happening governor Ron DeSantis was having a circle jerk with Trump over the new vaccines. Even funner is none of the vaccine manufacturers were invited to this love fest. https://thehill.com/policy/hea... [thehill.com]
This raid is about retribution for not manipulating numbers. Much like how in July they were creeping up and Trump told hospitals to stop reporting to the CDC. https://abc7ny.com/trump-cdc-r... [abc7ny.com] Yes the swamp drainer felt his flunkees knew more than the CDC and had them edit reports.
Hack? (Score:5, Funny)
I feel like the term 'hack' (even in the wrong sense) is being horrendously overused these days.
If you'll excuse me, I'll have to go back to reading "15 Ways To Hack Your Breakfast"
binden may need to pardon (Score:2)
binden may need to pardon
Re: (Score:2)
That only works for federal crimes. Florida has its own state laws which make unauthorized access to someone else's account a felony.
IPv6? (Score:2)
The FDLE affidavit [...] asserts that an unauthorized internal message was sent [...] from an IPv6 address associated with the Comcast account at Jones residence.
IPv6?
Is that a thing?
I had Comcast in Mass. up until two years ago.
My machine had both IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces.
Comcast gave me a regular old cable modem/NAT router that connected on IPv4.
Is it different in FL?
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6? Is that a thing? I had Comcast in Mass. up until two years ago. My machine had both IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces. Comcast gave me a regular old cable modem/NAT router that connected on IPv4. Is it different in FL?
You probably just barely missed the switch. I've had an IPv6 address on Comcast for about two and a half years.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 has taken off with ISPs of late. My Cable ISP (Suddenlink) is also using it. My last four ISPs acted like they'd never heard of it but I've got it now.
Who are you going to believe? (Score:2)
Who are you going to believe, a data scientist or the governor of Florida. --- Joke here.
Seen fewer cops at a drug take down (Score:3)
Not sure what the norm is in Florida, but, I've seen fewer cops hit a dealer's house in other jurisidictions.
And I cannot remember ever seeing that many involved in taking down a suspected data thief elsewhere.
The raid does appear to have been over-manned, which often is an indicator of political pressure from up the food chain.
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm taking the side of the one that was held up at gunpoint by badge cucks for a nonviolent crime.
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot to mention kids. Her kids and husband had to watch their wife and mother being taken away because she thinks facts are important, by guys with guns... the absurdity of the American system is beyond belief. These pigs were basically prepared for a data scientist with a family to have a showdown in her living room... I don't know what level of cognitive dissonance this is but it should be considered a mental disorder..
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do remember that police are under zero obligation to enforce the law as per a supreme court ruling. The wife-beating badge-waving Ku Kucks Klan did this via their own free will because it allowed them to take their rage out on a woman who was smarter than them.
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That guy was making threats and similar BS, which I consider to be violent crime.
Re:Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's amazing to me is the level of doublethink of people who readily accept the idea that their political opponents manipulate election results, manipulate statistical data for political means, and are ready to use force to silence the opposition... and at the same time vehemently deny even the possibility that their political favorites could possibly do exactly that. The cocktail of anger, naivete, and delusion it takes to achieve this mental state is frankly staggering.
Re: Are we at that level already, America? (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing... "Well, it's Florida."
For our international siblings, google "Florida man meme". Obviously there are crazies all over but Florida has high transparency in its crime and a news media that digs through them for the most sensational stories. So they are the squeaky wheel on the crazies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
depends if you think Geography belongs in STEM. The NSF calls it spatial science [nsf.gov]. Jones managed GIS systems for the department of health.
Re:Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been hearing that Clinton lost due to election fraud since 2016
I'm not going to say that not a single person bleeted that 2016 was lost due to fraud, but in terms of hearing that falsehood as something started and repeated and amplified by prominent politicians at the time, this is revisionist history horseshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Voter suppression and voter purging is not accusing fraud, nor is false stories.
Hacking in the context of her quote there presumably refers to foreign hacking peddling in disinformation. Charitably, I'll give it to you if she really means hacking voting machines and flipping votes, but she doesn't expressly say that and I doubt it's what she means.
Finally, this is from one interview in Sept 2019, hardly "since 2016" repeated several times a day in a barrage of tweets or press conferences, nor is it remotely
Re:Are we at that level already, America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, do a quick search [independent.co.uk]. From no less prominent a politician than Hillary we have this quote:
"he knows he's an illegitimate president," she said. "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories – he knows that"
It's all the same animal, from party to party.
Did anyone in 2016 call governors demanding that they overturn the will of the voters in their states? Were there dozens of failed lawsuits alleging voter fraud without proof? How about death threats against multiple polling workers and elected officials? Do you think what's happening now is truly equivalent to what happened in 2016?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you're the one without the patrician blinders on, buddy.
To be fair, I've only ever known you as a disingenuous false equivalence peddling dipshit, so nothing about your assertions about this surprises me. I'm confident in stating that non-dipshits can tell the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. An article in the independent is the same thing as daily tweets, filing upwards of 50 lawsuits without evidence, threatening certifiers, calling governors to throw out results.
It's about as "the same animal" as an elephant is to a fucking flamingo.
Re:The owner of an IP is responsible (Score:5, Informative)
Dunno, maybe in shithole countries. In civilized places the criminal responsibility is personal and you're innocent until proven guilty. And being unable to identify anyone else is not proof.
Re: The owner of an IP is responsible (Score:2)
What complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it though? And was it a hack? The accusation seems to be that someone emailed an internal mailing list. That is not a crime. On top of that, where did they find the IP? On the web server? mail server? Or was it in the headers before it got to the server? Finding an IP in the logs is not enough, I've seen that go wrong enough times.
Also, it's not even true [cnet.com] that in the US the owner of the IP is responsible.
responsible for infractions not criminal ones (Score:2)
responsible for infractions not criminal ones no you don't get an DUI if you loan an car out and that driver is DUI
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are the owner of the vehicle but who was driving it? That's why automated systems are civil fines and not criminal.
Comcast public hot sport may of been used as well (Score:2)
Comcast public hot sport may of been used as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not *hacking*, but it runs afoul of both state and federal laws against "unauthorized access". That's a felony, even if you don't do anything technically fancy.
For example imagine you ask one of your old coworkers for his login so you can retrieve some personal files from the company's servers. You're using genuine system credentials, so it's not hacking, but unless that coworkers is officially allowed to grant access to those computers that's unauthorized access and you're facing prison.
Now under tho