information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :]

[intelemetry]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit.

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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=FLPZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----