21–30 of 32 posts
Interesting how they chose not to actually show any emails by themselves, just through wikileaks iframes... perhaps a CYA thing.
Is hrod17@clintonemail.com seriously the best Hillary goddamn Clinton can do? Not hillary@clintonemail.com? What the hell is the 17 for? Even my grandparents have more coherent email addresses, and they don't even have a whole domain effectively for themselves.
Interesting how they chose not to actually show any emails by themselves, just through wikileaks iframes... perhaps a CYA thing.
This is the institution that pressed hacking charges against a kid scraping JSTOR from a broom closet.... they seem very protective of content sourced via their brand.
By the time Swartz was arrested and identified, it was out of MIT's hands.
Sorry if I am being naive, but who is making sure these e-mails don't have sensitive information in them? For example, password reset requests or I don't know... perhaps national security information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the institution that pressed hacking charges against a kid scraping JSTOR from a broom closet.... they seem very protective of content sourced via their brand.
MIT did not press charges against Swartz. They did bring in outside law enforcement when they had an unknown party trespassing and installing equipment in a wiring closet, and who caused MIT to temporarily lose JSTOR access, thereby impacting research activities, and they had no idea what that unknown party was trying to accomplish. By the time Swartz was arrested and identified, it was out of MIT's hands.
Sorry if I am being naive, but who is making sure these e-mails don't have sensitive information in them? For example, password reset requests or I don't know... perhaps national security information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, kept sent his password in plaintext. It was found among the initial Wikileaks dumps and then several of his accounts (both personal and professional) were compromised, which lead to more leaks. There definitely is sensitive information in there, but to answer your question: I'm sure some of it is being screened, but obviously not all of it.
For me, it is not acceptable to leak sensitive information about high rank political figures. --bring on the downvotes--
Is hrod17@clintonemail.com seriously the best Hillary goddamn Clinton can do? Not hillary@clintonemail.com? What the hell is the 17 for? Even my grandparents have more coherent email addresses, and they don't even have a whole domain effectively for themselves.
Sorry if I am being naive, but who is making sure these e-mails don't have sensitive information in them? For example, password reset requests or I don't know... perhaps national security information.
Nobody. WikiLeaks is playing politics and doling them out as they see fit.
Sorry if I am being naive, but who is making sure these e-mails don't have sensitive information in them? For example, password reset requests or I don't know... perhaps national security information.
The password reset email [3] you seem to obliquely reference was actually a phishing scam that appears to have led to this hack. Note the fake bit.ly reset link. Finally, we know these haven't been tampered with because we can validate the DKIM signatures. [4]
[1] CNN's saying "it's illegal" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
[2] Lawyer saying it's legal - https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...
[3] The spear phishing email that busted them - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899
[4] Erratasec discussing DKIM validation - http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikile...