Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#51

Post by Georgelemental »

dralley wrote: post #18
Georgelemental wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazes me that, after the events of the past 3 years, so many people still think Russia is the major foreign influence on our politics.

The existence of other influences does not diminish the fact that Trump is enamored with Putin (and most "strong man" dictators generally, but Putin in particular) and it does impact his foreign policy decisions and those of his administration (Hegseth straight up canceled weapons shipments to Ukraine for 2 weeks in the aftermath of the Oval Office meeting thinking it would please the boss).

Trump is currently quite mad at Putin because Putin refused to accept Trump's terms. They are not friends, and never have been. Meanwhile, there's another foreign leader that Trump has decided to start a war on behalf of—but the leadership of the other American party loves that foreign leader just as much as Trump does, so their loyal media outlets downplay it and distract with the fake Russia nonsense.

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#52

Post by yostrovs »

compass_copium wrote: post #49
abc123abc123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not good. What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job. On the other hand... you _do_ have a point here. Care must be taken to make sure that the persons business does not profit by the PR and media exposure related to the position they are taking. I don't…

I disagree. I think the caliber of public employee, and their integrity, would be much higher if they were "only" allowed to collect their salary. No state employee would be allowed to run a business like this while employed where I live (sapphire-blue New England state FWIW). Government positions are fairly, but not extravagantly, compensated, prestigious and come with excellent benefits. They should not be an avenu…

The person should also work for minimum wage, since that is a sign that the welfare of the community is more important than the employee's own. Perhaps weekly self immolation sessions would take that up a notch? What about divesting one's family because they might take attention away from important government work?

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#53

Post by etothet »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #48
bdcravens wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he owned it before he became the director if it matters All the more reason that those who "serve" in the government should be required to divest of their business interests. The traffic such a site would get due to the tribalism prevalent in US politics makes it a fat target, and potentially a national security threat.

This is not good. What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job. On the other hand... you _do_ have a point here. Care must be taken to make sure that the persons business does not profit by the PR and media exposure related to the position they are taking. I don't…

I’m not a CPA, but aren’t there plenty of legal ways to divest in a business where you’re not directly involved, but where you can still get a share of any profits?

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#55

Post by mikestew »

yostrovs wrote: post #52
compass_copium wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the caliber of public employee, and their integrity, would be much higher if they were "only" allowed to collect their salary. No state employee would be allowed to run a business like this while employed where I live (sapphire-blue New England state FWIW). Government positions are fairly, but not extravagantly, compensated, prestigious and come with excellent benefits. They should not be an avenu…

The person should also work for minimum wage, since that is a sign that the welfare of the community is more important than the employee's own. Perhaps weekly self immolation sessions would take that up a notch? What about divesting one's family because they might take attention away from important government work?

You’re not even going to try to argue in good faith, are you? No one suggested anything close to what you’re saying.

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#56

Post by bdcravens »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #48
bdcravens wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he owned it before he became the director if it matters All the more reason that those who "serve" in the government should be required to divest of their business interests. The traffic such a site would get due to the tribalism prevalent in US politics makes it a fat target, and potentially a national security threat.

This is not good. What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job. On the other hand... you _do_ have a point here. Care must be taken to make sure that the persons business does not profit by the PR and media exposure related to the position they are taking. I don't…

> a low paid, public job

I think there should probably be a level at which those requirements kick in, but keep in mind that most of the jobs we're talking about pay around $200k/year, with many of the daily and life expenses included as benefits, pushing the equivalent salary even higher.

It's not like they lose their money or lose the ability to invest their pre-public money. They could sell their business interests, then take the proceeds and put the money into a broad market fund (to prevent company- or industry-specific conflicts of interest). I'd even suggest making them exempt from capital gains should they choose to sell.

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#57

Post by compass_copium »

etothet wrote: post #53
abc123abc123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not good. What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job. On the other hand... you _do_ have a point here. Care must be taken to make sure that the persons business does not profit by the PR and media exposure related to the position they are taking. I don't…

I’m not a CPA, but aren’t there plenty of legal ways to divest in a business where you’re not directly involved, but where you can still get a share of any profits?

If you're getting profits, it's an avenue for bribery.

"Hey Ka$h, can we have a quick discussion about my federal racketeering case? Btw I just purchased 10000 $40 shirts from your store to give away."

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#58

Post by bdcravens »

yostrovs wrote: post #52
compass_copium wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the caliber of public employee, and their integrity, would be much higher if they were "only" allowed to collect their salary. No state employee would be allowed to run a business like this while employed where I live (sapphire-blue New England state FWIW). Government positions are fairly, but not extravagantly, compensated, prestigious and come with excellent benefits. They should not be an avenu…

The person should also work for minimum wage, since that is a sign that the welfare of the community is more important than the employee's own. Perhaps weekly self immolation sessions would take that up a notch? What about divesting one's family because they might take attention away from important government work?

The roughly $200k/year that department heads, congress, etc get is hardly minimum wage. No one is even suggesting they should lose the assets they've built up, just that they shouldn't be allowed to own a business while serving the public.

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#59

Post by scratchyone »

class4behavior wrote: post #45
alright2565 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't understand that command before pasting it in your terminal, then you probably shouldn't be editing the Arch Linux wiki.

Then write and highlight exactly that! ( e.g. "Never copy or execute code you do not understand! This is only for people who already know what will happen! Confirm:") Forget about teaching people bad patterns. It's annoying when others assume everyone experiencing something under the same context and considers the same things as them.

To be fair, just because you understand the code you see doesn't mean its safe to copy-paste. Many of these compromised sites will show something that appears to be a benign command but will be something entirely different when you copy them.

Not good to get people into the habit of copying and running code in their terminal.

Re: FBI director's Based Apparel site has been spotted hosting a 'ClickFix' attack

#60

Post by incidentist »

petesergeant wrote: post #34

I would like to see serious cross-party dialogue on how to avoid ending up in a situation where there’s an FBI director who sells meme clothing. I don’t think it’s unfair to blame cowardice and venality of individual Republican politicians in the face of being primaried, although it definitely needs an asterisk that we don’t know that the left’s Senators and Congressmen would do any better under the same situation.

I would say it is up to republicans to do something about the clowns they appointed into high level office, and it’s up to democrats to continue their pattern of not appointing clowns like this into high level office.
Post reply on HN