A shared server is a shared resource. Public to a certain community, if you will. Hence, my use of a hallway as an analogy.
IF it is true that the Dem IT folk left the folders wide open, and they were already visible (which is *normal* in most cases of shared server resources), then I see little difference between the two following scenarios:
1)
Rep IT, going through shared space: "Hey, you left this open. We can see the files if you don't block it."
Dem IT: "Oh, okay, thanks." (Proceeds to ignore the suggestion.)
Rep IT: "But... well, okay then."
2)
Rep, walking down hallway, sees Dem put down folder of documents and walk off: "Hey, you left this folder out. We can read the files if you don't take it with you."
Dem: "Oh, okay, thanks." (Proceeds to walk away, leaving folder)
Rep: "But... well, okay then."
*From the above information posts*, the Reps did not hack into anything in the sense of breaking permissions or encryption. They had access to the shared folder space, as a community resource. The Dems left sensitive documents out in the open. The Reps took advantage of that, and even told the Dems that the access was possible.
*IF* the above information posts are true, I don't see where any laws were broken. Sad, but true.
the worst part is that according to both sides of the story, the Republican techno geek actually told the Dems. that their accounts were set up wrong and should be fixed, and they weren't for over a year.
Not according to both sides:
Quote:
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.
I do think, though, that if this was a deliberate thing (it's still not apparent either way to me right now, but I suspect), that this would be very serious. If someone left the stuff in the hallway, it would not have the same repurcussions, if it were still unethical. It depends on how purposeful this breach was.
PS: it's a little hilarious that the Republicans and Democrats need their own computer technicians. Who knew the geek life could be so partisan?
If someone walks into your house and steals your TV...
did they not break the law because a window was open?
Actually using your analogy, it would be more akin to watching the TV through a neighbor's window when they have no window coverings.
Could that be against the law? Possibly, if you were on their property, but what if it was your property too or from your property?
Many of the "hacking" laws people mention here have to deal with computers that don't belong to them. However the federal government owns these computers and the use was by federal employees. I'm not saying it was morally right, but in terms of breaking laws, I think it would be a very hard case to prove.
You know sort of like Bill, Hillary and their hundreds of FBI files including many of the Republican leadership....
Last I checked, misuse of those files was a crime as well, but it would have been too hard to prove the intent.
Bunge, alcimedes posted some background info on this and unless you care to call him a liar, or post a different accounting of the incident, you shouldn't chastize someone for mentioning information based off that info.
Airsluf's post was just fabricated, that's all. It's not based on anything. Not alcimedes' post, not law, not anything.
So if you're a federal employee and "hack" into the FBI or CIA's system...
no foul?
If they had just read the files... taken notes... and had left things untouched... I doubt anyone could have figured out what was going on...
but they actually had the files ON their own hard drives... FRIST'S hard drive...and were distributing them to the press and other republican's... FRIST'S hard drive.
And Hatch had the nerve to claim it was a "guilt ridden" Dem staff member giving the stuff to the press.
Oh... by the way... the PLAME investigation has gone to a grand jury.
So if you're a federal employee and "hack" into the FBI or CIA's system...
no foul?
If they had just read the files... taken notes... and had left things untouched... I doubt anyone could have figured out what was going on...
but they actually had the files ON their own hard drives... FRIST'S hard drive...and were distributing them to the press and other republican's... FRIST'S hard drive.
And Hatch had the nerve to claim it was a "guilt ridden" Dem staff member giving the stuff to the press.
Oh... by the way... the PLAME investigation has gone to a grand jury.
It's amazing how you bring up my own point and add nothing. That is exactly the point. How is it hacking when it is your computer. We aren't even talking about a different department, branch or anything else. We are talking about a server to which they were authorized and some files or accounts had the wrong permissions.
If your wife saved her files to the wrong location and you were able to see and access them, did you just "hack" your own computer? Don't try to change the scope because that is exactly what we are talking about. The had accounts on the computer and full legal access. The files in question were simply viewable because someone had set up security measures wrong. They didn't have to do anything to access them. The files were supposed to require a level of access that required typing a password. Instead they just came up on the screen when clicked.
How is that a crime? The article goes over all the possible outcomes because that is what an informative article covers. It mentions everything from the staffer possibly being censured or charged to Estrada being on the Supreme Court.
It didn't say the files were on Frist's hard drive. Rather it said the computer that was the server was in his office. Does it not make sense that the Senate Majority leader, would have the server in his office?
As for your conclusions about reading and taking notes. There isn't any proof beyond that now. That wasn't what caused the uproar. It is that the read material and notes were mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and the Novak column. The Democrats obviously recognized the material. Whether it had been moved, stored or anything else, they would have obviously recognized their own talking points, letters, characterizations and plans.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in late November confirmed that the ongoing probe has found Republican staff wrongdoing. One unidentified staff member was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, Hatch said.
So at least Hatch is willing to admit to wrongdoing.
Oh and I'm sure Frist never accessed his own server.
If you're on the network and it says "Democratic Senators Judiciary Server" and you go in and pull files off... YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES.
Doesn't matter if you need a password or not.
If you walk into a Senator's office while they're out to lunch and go rifling through the file cabinets and make copies...
you're breaking the rules.
You don't get it, or are not reading. The server was serving both parties. The only difference was permissions. Frist would likely have the server in his office since he is the leader of the Senate.
You click on a file that is supposed to ask you for a password and it doesn't ask you for a password and comes up.
How the hell is that hacking by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming that you should be arrested because you pick up your cordless phone and hear my conversation because it is on the same frequency.
I'm saying they did more than that OBVIOUSLY because there's evidence of it... if they had done JUST that... it would have been very difficult to figure out what was going on.
I'm saying they did more than that OBVIOUSLY because there's evidence of it... if they had done JUST that... it would have been very difficult to figure out what was going on.
And YES that would be breaking the rules too.
So would that be like disclosing someone works for the CIA but not knowing they were undercover or had top secret clearance?
We honestly don't know if there is evidence of doing more than looking at the files. I think that is what the computers have been taken to check. However assuming it is just an opening the files with the wrong permissions issue, I don't see how anything can be done about it.
The thing is if we keep getting enough of these reports it won't matter if they officially broke the law or not. It just looks extra bad. And will reflect on the coming election in kind.
You click on a file that is supposed to ask you for a password and it doesn't ask you for a password and comes up.
How the hell is that hacking by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming that you should be arrested because you pick up your cordless phone and hear my conversation because it is on the same frequency.
Nick
Right. So, I go up to your house and try your door. The door's that's supposed to be locked, with a key.
I try the door, that door that's supposed to be locked, and it opens. So, I march in, find your diary, and I take it.
How the hell is that theft by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming I watched your wife get undressed through the bathroom window from the street and it was her fault when I got caught developing the pictures because she left the curtain open.
Comments
If someone walks into your house and steals your TV...
did they not break the law because a window was open?
IF it is true that the Dem IT folk left the folders wide open, and they were already visible (which is *normal* in most cases of shared server resources), then I see little difference between the two following scenarios:
1)
Rep IT, going through shared space: "Hey, you left this open. We can see the files if you don't block it."
Dem IT: "Oh, okay, thanks." (Proceeds to ignore the suggestion.)
Rep IT: "But... well, okay then."
2)
Rep, walking down hallway, sees Dem put down folder of documents and walk off: "Hey, you left this folder out. We can read the files if you don't take it with you."
Dem: "Oh, okay, thanks." (Proceeds to walk away, leaving folder)
Rep: "But... well, okay then."
*From the above information posts*, the Reps did not hack into anything in the sense of breaking permissions or encryption. They had access to the shared folder space, as a community resource. The Dems left sensitive documents out in the open. The Reps took advantage of that, and even told the Dems that the access was possible.
*IF* the above information posts are true, I don't see where any laws were broken. Sad, but true.
Originally posted by alcimedes
the worst part is that according to both sides of the story, the Republican techno geek actually told the Dems. that their accounts were set up wrong and should be fixed, and they weren't for over a year.
Not according to both sides:
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.
PS: it's a little hilarious that the Republicans and Democrats need their own computer technicians. Who knew the geek life could be so partisan?
wonde if they'll find gay porn on Frist's hard drive. hehe
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You don't get it. They broke the rules. The law.
If someone walks into your house and steals your TV...
did they not break the law because a window was open?
Actually using your analogy, it would be more akin to watching the TV through a neighbor's window when they have no window coverings.
Could that be against the law? Possibly, if you were on their property, but what if it was your property too or from your property?
Many of the "hacking" laws people mention here have to deal with computers that don't belong to them. However the federal government owns these computers and the use was by federal employees. I'm not saying it was morally right, but in terms of breaking laws, I think it would be a very hard case to prove.
You know sort of like Bill, Hillary and their hundreds of FBI files including many of the Republican leadership....
Last I checked, misuse of those files was a crime as well, but it would have been too hard to prove the intent.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bunge, alcimedes posted some background info on this and unless you care to call him a liar, or post a different accounting of the incident, you shouldn't chastize someone for mentioning information based off that info.
Airsluf's post was just fabricated, that's all. It's not based on anything. Not alcimedes' post, not law, not anything.
no foul?
If they had just read the files... taken notes... and had left things untouched... I doubt anyone could have figured out what was going on...
but they actually had the files ON their own hard drives... FRIST'S hard drive...and were distributing them to the press and other republican's... FRIST'S hard drive.
And Hatch had the nerve to claim it was a "guilt ridden" Dem staff member giving the stuff to the press.
Oh... by the way... the PLAME investigation has gone to a grand jury.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So if you're a federal employee and "hack" into the FBI or CIA's system...
no foul?
If they had just read the files... taken notes... and had left things untouched... I doubt anyone could have figured out what was going on...
but they actually had the files ON their own hard drives... FRIST'S hard drive...and were distributing them to the press and other republican's... FRIST'S hard drive.
And Hatch had the nerve to claim it was a "guilt ridden" Dem staff member giving the stuff to the press.
Oh... by the way... the PLAME investigation has gone to a grand jury.
It's amazing how you bring up my own point and add nothing. That is exactly the point. How is it hacking when it is your computer. We aren't even talking about a different department, branch or anything else. We are talking about a server to which they were authorized and some files or accounts had the wrong permissions.
If your wife saved her files to the wrong location and you were able to see and access them, did you just "hack" your own computer? Don't try to change the scope because that is exactly what we are talking about. The had accounts on the computer and full legal access. The files in question were simply viewable because someone had set up security measures wrong. They didn't have to do anything to access them. The files were supposed to require a level of access that required typing a password. Instead they just came up on the screen when clicked.
How is that a crime? The article goes over all the possible outcomes because that is what an informative article covers. It mentions everything from the staffer possibly being censured or charged to Estrada being on the Supreme Court.
It didn't say the files were on Frist's hard drive. Rather it said the computer that was the server was in his office. Does it not make sense that the Senate Majority leader, would have the server in his office?
As for your conclusions about reading and taking notes. There isn't any proof beyond that now. That wasn't what caused the uproar. It is that the read material and notes were mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and the Novak column. The Democrats obviously recognized the material. Whether it had been moved, stored or anything else, they would have obviously recognized their own talking points, letters, characterizations and plans.
Nick
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in late November confirmed that the ongoing probe has found Republican staff wrongdoing. One unidentified staff member was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, Hatch said.
So at least Hatch is willing to admit to wrongdoing.
If you're on the network and it says "Democratic Senators Judiciary Server" and you go in and pull files off... YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES.
Doesn't matter if you need a password or not.
If you walk into a Senator's office while they're out to lunch and go rifling through the file cabinets and make copies...
you're breaking the rules.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Oh and I'm sure Frist never accessed his own server.
If you're on the network and it says "Democratic Senators Judiciary Server" and you go in and pull files off... YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULES.
Doesn't matter if you need a password or not.
If you walk into a Senator's office while they're out to lunch and go rifling through the file cabinets and make copies...
you're breaking the rules.
You don't get it, or are not reading. The server was serving both parties. The only difference was permissions. Frist would likely have the server in his office since he is the leader of the Senate.
You click on a file that is supposed to ask you for a password and it doesn't ask you for a password and comes up.
How the hell is that hacking by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming that you should be arrested because you pick up your cordless phone and hear my conversation because it is on the same frequency.
Nick
Hacking wasn't required to break the rules...just LOOKING at the files was.
Do you think it was an ACCIDENT they were leaking the inner party documents?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's not hacking... it's tresspassing. AND breaking the rules.
Hacking wasn't required to break the rules...just LOOKING at the files was.
Do you think it was an ACCIDENT they were leaking the inner party documents?
Then from earlier from you...
If they had just read the files... taken notes... and had left things untouched... I doubt anyone could have figured out what was going on...
Sounds like someone is moving the bar.
Nick
I'm saying they did more than that OBVIOUSLY because there's evidence of it... if they had done JUST that... it would have been very difficult to figure out what was going on.
And YES that would be breaking the rules too.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
how is that moving the bars?
I'm saying they did more than that OBVIOUSLY because there's evidence of it... if they had done JUST that... it would have been very difficult to figure out what was going on.
And YES that would be breaking the rules too.
So would that be like disclosing someone works for the CIA but not knowing they were undercover or had top secret clearance?
We honestly don't know if there is evidence of doing more than looking at the files. I think that is what the computers have been taken to check. However assuming it is just an opening the files with the wrong permissions issue, I don't see how anything can be done about it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You don't get it, or are not reading.
You click on a file that is supposed to ask you for a password and it doesn't ask you for a password and comes up.
How the hell is that hacking by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming that you should be arrested because you pick up your cordless phone and hear my conversation because it is on the same frequency.
Nick
Right. So, I go up to your house and try your door. The door's that's supposed to be locked, with a key.
I try the door, that door that's supposed to be locked, and it opens. So, I march in, find your diary, and I take it.
How the hell is that theft by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming I watched your wife get undressed through the bathroom window from the street and it was her fault when I got caught developing the pictures because she left the curtain open.
I mean! Be reasonable! I'm a Republican!