On 01/11/15 19:33, intelemetry wrote: > It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit. >
ha ha, I'm not sure government uses any corps that actually know what they're doing :D > oshwm: > > >> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: >>> Where is the OPM link in .7z format? >>> > >> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out >> links to data? > >> As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- > >> Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources to >> conduct government business got what they deserved (leaked). > >> Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the >> appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not deserve >> their details to be leaked. > >> Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and >> preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be leaked >> (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). > >> The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or >> indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal >> information because they become huge and irresistable targets for >> crackers. > > >>> - intelemetry >>> >>> oshwm: >>> >>> >>>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people >>>>> on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL >>>>> account and published emails and documents found inside, many >>>>> of them personal and sensitive. >>>>> >>>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word >>>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge >>>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and intimidate >>>>> people on the internet. Someone would threaten a woman with >>>>> physical harm, or try to incite others to harm her, and >>>>> publish her personal information as a way of saying "I know a >>>>> lot about you—like where you live and work." Victims of >>>>> doxing talk about the fear that this tactic instills. It's >>>>> very effective, by which I mean that it's horrible. >>>>> >>>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker >>>>> had a more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate >>>>> Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal >>>>> papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder for an eager >>>>> press. This doxing was a political act, and we're seeing this >>>>> kind of thing more and more. >>>>> >>>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal >>>>> correspondence, documents, and information they would rather >>>>> be private >>>>> >>>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this >>>>> to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North >>>>> Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a huge amount >>>>> of corporate data, and published it. This included unreleased >>>>> movies, financial information, company plans, and personal >>>>> emails. The reputational damage to the company was enormous; >>>>> the company estimated the cost at $41 million. >>>>> >>>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents >>>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That >>>>> same month, different hackers did the same thing to the >>>>> infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke >>>>> into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities and >>>>> published personal photographs, most containing some nudity. >>>>> In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. >>>>> >>>>> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated >>>>> doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an >>>>> effective attack this can be, and how an individual can use >>>>> the tactic to do considerable damage to powerful people and >>>>> institutions, we're going to see a lot more of it. >>>>> >>>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living >>>>> in a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated >>>>> attacker will circumvent network security. Even worse, most >>>>> internet security assumes it needs to defend against an >>>>> opportunistic attacker who will attack the weakest network in >>>>> order to get—for example—a pile of credit card numbers. The >>>>> notion of a targeted attacker, who wants Sony or Ashley >>>>> Madison or John Brennan because of what they stand for, is >>>>> still new. And it's even harder to defend against. >>>>> >>>>> What this means is that we're going to see more political >>>>> doxing in the future, against both people and institutions. >>>>> It's going to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a >>>>> factor in anti-corporate activism. More people will find >>>>> their personal information exposed to the world: politicians, >>>>> corporate executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken >>>>> individuals. >>>>> >>>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. >>>>> Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of >>>>> them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at >>>>> a company where their information is stored, like those >>>>> celebrities with iPhone accounts and every customer of Ashley >>>>> Madison. Regardless of the method, lots of people will have >>>>> to face the publication of personal correspondence, >>>>> documents, and information they would rather be private. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can >>>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for >>>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social >>>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and >>>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this >>>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting the >>>>> doxers is so difficult. >>>>> >>>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the >>>>> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But >>>>> we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no >>>>> choice but to rethink our online data shadows. >>>>> >>> >>>> Political figures in most countries have been using their >>>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' >>>> in order to avoid information being subject to oversight, most >>>> probably because its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very >>>> least not good for the image of governments. >>> >>>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in >>>> the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal >>>> life that may happen. >>> >>>> If people in power act properly in their professional dealings >>>> then their is an argument against d0xing their personal >>>> information but once they start to try to hide information then >>>> it's open season on every aspect of their life. >>> >>> >>> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
