Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Government Privacy Security United States IT

Hackers Leak List of FBI Employees (vice.com) 128

Posted by timothy from the gotta-watch-these-guys dept.
puddingebola writes: The hackers responsible for the leaking of DHS employees made good on their threat to reveal the names of 20,000 FBI employees. From the article: "The hacker provided Motherboard with a copy of the data on Sunday. The list includes names, email addresses (many of which are non-public) and job descriptions, such as task force deputy director, security specialist, special agent, and many more. The list also includes roughly 1,000 FBI employees in an intelligence analysis role."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers Leak List of FBI Employees More

Hackers Leak List of FBI Employees

Comments Filter:

  • Statement From FBI (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Criminal masterminds released stolen and useless HR data.

    We're too incompetent to catch them.

    They're too stupid to realize that this shit is worthless. I guess their too young to remember a thing called a phone book. It had everyone's contact info in it and everybody had a copy.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't recall phone books saying "John Smith (FBI AGENT) ...... (555)-555-1234"

  • Asinine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @08:57AM (#51468717)

    This is asinine. There are good reasons why some of the employees of the DHS and DOJ aren't made public. For people working in an intelligence analyst role, an undercover agent, or something along those lines, leaking that information could make those people or their families vulnerable to kidnapping and violence. I understand leaking information about secret or top secret operations, especially when it's unethical and/or infringes on the rights of the people. This serves no such purpose. It's a juvenile action. Just because you have unauthorized access to do something and you have the skills to do so, that doesn't make it right.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @08:59AM (#51468725)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Asinine (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:06AM (#51468787) Journal

        If operational security was taken seriously or important these organizations would be much much smaller. The more people who know a secret the harder it is to control. If the three letters want to be effective they need to go back to their original mandates and downsize to the minimal number of people required to execute on them.

        The FBI tries to be the everything of law enforcement, they should not. In fact they should probably not even have arrest powers. I would argue make them investigators of federal but domestic crimes only. Let them investigate, turn the arrest warrants over to the marshal service to pick folks up.

        • It takes a lot of people to watch everyone all the time.

        • The federal marshals work for the judicial branch. Their mandate is to search for escaped prisoners and such, people that have already been convicted of a crime. The FBI is tasked with the enforcement of federal laws, which has some overlap with escaped prisoners and such but the federal marshals don't have much overlap with what the FBI does.

          The FBI not having arrest powers is an interesting idea. Let the FBI investigate but once it comes time to arrest then let the local sheriff perform the arrest. Th

      • Ho-hum, this is nothing more than a list to sell to spammers. Of course it will be very telling how the FBI handles these folks. Because if they can do it, so can I.

    • Re:Asinine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:19AM (#51468847) Homepage

      This is asinine. There are good reasons why some of the employees of the DHS and DOJ aren't made public. For people working in an intelligence analyst role, an undercover agent, or something along those lines, leaking that information could make those people or their families vulnerable to kidnapping and violence.

      But you know what, it really boils down to "if these agencies are going to spy on us, often in violation of the law and our rights ... and then use parallel construction to commit perjury, why should we care?"

      I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is the reasons these people don't want their information made public are their own problem. Especially when they show so little regard for us.

      Just because you have unauthorized access to do something and you have the skills to do so, that doesn't make it right.

      So, when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury via parallel construction so they can lie about how they got information and deny you legal process, or otherwise ignore the law ... is that right? Because a lot of people disagree that "because we said so" is a valid reason.

      Yes, it's reckless and dangerous .. but it seems the kind of thing which is intended to say "not only can we not trust you bastards, you can't even secure your own shit." I can see the point: when law enforcement stops caring about our rights, it's well beyond the point where we should care about them.

      There's an awful lot of anger over the fact that law enforcement has taken the attitude of we'll do whatever we can get away with. So, are they entitled to expect anything different?

      But let's not pretend that there aren't on-going abuses by these agencies which happen all the time, and which undermine the very rights and freedoms they pretend to be protecting.

      • I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is the reasons these people don't want their information made public are their own problem. Especially when they show so little regard for us.

        It might seem a bit harsh to blame the low-level guys and girls for the high-level decisions (which is who most of 'these people' are). OTOH, the lower-level people are pretty much all accomplices in crimes against the constitution (and humanity in general).

        I'm definitely not saying it should be open season on each and everybody in those organisations, but it is hard to feel sorry for any 'collateral damage' done here.

        There's even a case to be made to purposefully 'hurt' the larger part of an organisation.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by e r ( 2847683 )
          I'm going to go ahead and mention the guards at the concentration camps.

          The low-level people are the edifice of tyranny. The super genius evil mastermind has nothing without henchmen. Politicians and tyrants have nothing without jack-booted thugs. And our little self-righteous think-of-the-children tyrant wannabes in the west are nothing without the army of "low-level people" keeping the surveillance state running.

          The low-level people just shrugged and violated the law and everyone else's privacy this w

      • these people ... show so little regard for us.... when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury...not only can we not trust you bastards... So, are they entitled

        Most of the people on that list aren't doing any of the the hings you complained about. You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella. This hack hurts the individuals more than the agency as a whole. It won't stop any of the things you listed. I hope my employer doesn't do something you don't like, because then me and 30,000 other innocent people who work for this company suddenly get on your shit list, and you

        • Re:Don't blame every individual (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @11:13AM (#51469891) Homepage

          these people ... show so little regard for us.... when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury...not only can we not trust you bastards... So, are they entitled

          Wow, that's a nice hack job of a quote you did.

          Most of the people on that list aren't doing any of the the hings you complained about. You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella.

          I'm not advocating it, I'm not condoning it, but I sure as fuck understand it.

          The problem is, the agency as a whole has raised the ire of a lot of people. It's not like you can only target the people who do this stuff, and it's not like they give a shit.

          The problem is, when they use things like Sting Rays or other blanket surveillance crap, suddenly other innocent people can end up on their radar without any legal basis other than "while we were listening to everybody else we saw this and then suddenly investigated you for fun". They do this shit to us already.

          So, are we supposed to extend a courtesy to law enforcement they won't extend to us? Because that's some pretty wishful thinking.

          because then me and 30,000 other innocent people who work for this company suddenly get on your shit list, and you think it is okay to release our personal data.

          You're not on MY shitlist, I'm not the one doing this stuff.

          But I'm afraid I can understand why someone who is angry at the FBI isn't willing to extend a courtesy to the rest of the members of the FBI that, as an agency, they don't extend to us -- because they don't concern themselves with our rights while they do this. These people work for an agency which is doing some things which are fairly widely known to violate your rights, bypass the Constitution, and ignore the letter and spirit of the law.

          Which means the people lashing out at that agency aren't discriminating between the janitors, and the guys running the programs -- any more than the FBI are worrying about the rest of us.

          Illegal blanket surveillance doesn't prune out the innocent people either. Parallel construction to lie in court about how they came to be looking at you violates your right to due process and the right to see your accuser, instead of someone who has fabricated a story after the fact to make it look like they didn't break the law -- you know perjury.

          I have a hard time seeing this as some egregious offense against their rights while they do the same to us.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

            Wow, that's a nice hack job of a quote you did.

            Yeah, I was more highlighting the cases where you were lumping everyone in the FBI together, rather than making an actual quote. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

            I'm not advocating it, I'm not condoning it, but I sure as fuck understand it.

            Fine, it sure sounded like you were condoning it through your justifications. If that is the case, I withdraw my criticism. So given that statement, it makes me re-evaluate your intentions in the original post:

            But you know what, it really boils down to "if these agencies are going to spy on us, often in violation of the law and our rights ... and then use parallel construction to commit perjury, why should we care?"

            I now see that you put that in quotes, as though the "us" was the voice of the hackers. I didn't understand that before. Fine. But hold on j

            • So I take you to be a reasonable person worth engaging in discussion of

              LOL, now that's a first.

              So, basically, rather than responding to you point by point, let me point you to this [slashdot.org] story on the front-page.

              And everything I said earlier, and say not boils down to "fuck you, FBI, you ignorant bastards who feel we should cede our freedoms to hypothetical scenarios without proof or probable cause, and in direct violation of the law".

              When the head of the FBI is a fucking moron who things secrets from law enforce

        • >This hack hurts the individuals more than the agency as a whole. It won't stop any of the things you listed.

          If someone considers the three-letter agencies criminal, it's easy to see how demonstrating to the "innocent people" who in that person's view are accomplices that they are not safe, is going to act as a deterrent for current and future employees. This stuff scales, because it affects the organization's job market as whole, and thus may eventually have an effect on what the organization actually d

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kbonin ( 58917 )

          If you have honor, and your employer does something deplorable, and its evident that such action is now considered normal, the only honorable reaction is to QUIT THAT JOB. I've done so, others have done so. Anyone still working for the FBI, NSA, or most divisions of the DOJ is demonstrating that they have decided that it is acceptable for the government to routinely commit crimes that were once considered more egregious than the majority of the acts of the criminals they now claim to be pursuing. Anyone

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

            Agreed, especially the part about "evident that such action is now considered normal." Isolated incidents aren't enough. It's the pattern of behavior throughout the company, especially one's own superiors, that matter.

            I would add some more limitations:
            1. Don't quit because of the actions of another division you have no contact with.
            2. Instead of quitting, do the right thing until they fire you. Ex: As an NSA employee, instead of using exploits to install trojans, write-up an explanation of the exploit an

        • You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella.

          What? They all chose to be under one umbrella, called The FBI. Nobody had to lump them there, that's who gives them all a paycheck.

      • Especially when they show so little regard for us.

        it's well beyond the point where we should care about them.

        That's entirely beside the point.

        If the FBI, NSA, DHS, or any other government agency broke the law, that's a problem. It shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten. It should be the subject of debate, lawsuits, impeachment, and ultimately an election ending the career of those responsible. Those are all things that the law allows.

        There's an awful lot of anger over the fact that law enforcement has taken the attitude of we'll do whatever we can get away with. So, are they entitled to expect anything different?

        The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry. That's not a good reason, and it's what makes those hackers criminals. They crosse

        • "it's well beyond the point where we should care about them."

          That's entirely beside the point.

          No, that's exactly the point.

          The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry.

          The law doesn't allow thw FBI to do blanket surveillance without a warrant or commit perjury either, and yet ...

          Let's reframe the argument... People in prison are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They're well past the point where we should care about them, so it's fine w

      • "could make those people or their families vulnerable to kidnapping and violence"

        Realistically, has anything like this ever happened in the existence of the FBI? Its a great movie plot, but at least in the US, political based kidnappings are unheard of.

    • Re:Asinine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cbiltcliffe ( 186293 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:41AM (#51469025) Homepage Journal

      This serves no such purpose. It's a juvenile action. Just because you have unauthorized access to do something and you have the skills to do so, that doesn't make it right.

      I read it as "You want a backdoor key to every encryption scheme in the world, and you can't even keep your own employee lists safe?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      The hackers are stupid too.

      Why?

      The FBI is charmingly quaint in how it deals with computer crime because it is made up of government employees using government procedures.

      Now, however, you're making them care on a personal level about taking out hackers, which has a tendency to increase the effectiveness of people in previously mundane positions.

      Kids, the first rule of treasure hunting is: "Don't wake the dragon".

    • I don't know. It serves about as much purpose as occupying a government building.

    • But, but, but, if they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

      Oh wait that is a nonsense statement.

    • This is asinine. ... undercover agent, or something along those lines, leaking that information could make those people or their families vulnerable to kidnapping and violence.

      How the hell is that +5 Insightful?!? I seriously doubt undercover FBI agents are using their real names! The only time their real name should come out is sometimes at trial.

      Just because you have unauthorized access to do something and you have the skills to do so, that doesn't make it right.

      Agreed...

    • These records have been compromised and the only way authorities have been made aware is by a public leak. Previously this information was surely compromised in secret and lives were at stake. Now that these lives have been made aware they may be safely extracted before they are taken advantage of. Just like a software exploit that may be passed around in the underground (or in the NSA) before Apple/MS/whoever can fix it, people are still vulnerable in the meantime.

  • It would be interesting to see if they still have some folks working on the X-Files.

    Now if these hackers want to win the Triple Crown, they need to do the NSA next.

  • Not the brightest in the bunch? (Score:5, Funny)

    by unencode200x ( 914144 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:16AM (#51468837)
    Stealing and publishing the information of 1,000 FBI agents including ones that work in intelligence seems like a good way to get 1,000 FBI agents motivated to bust you.

    • yes... but encryption... they can't catch people anymore now that they can't crack their iPhones...

      • Good point. Yet another "reason" to go after evil "encryption." It's getting ridiculous. I even hear non-techie people talking about it.

  • Backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxwrangler ( 582055 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:22AM (#51468865)

    And yet there are people who still think these folks could keep an encryption backdoor secure. They can't even keep the front door closed.

    • Exactly my thought. Especially considering the value difference between an employee list, and a backdoor key to every encryption method on the planet (I know, I know....except OTPs), there's no way in hell every hacking group on the planet won't be trying to break into the FBI/NSA/etc to get their hands on this key.
      If they actually manage to force through some stupid encryption backdoor law, I give it a month, tops, before someone evil.....make that "someone else who's also evil".....has the backdoor key.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Details that are just set out in english in full, left out in plain text on a networked system?
        Honey trap?
        Any files found that are not on secure, encrypted systems and airgapped could just be bait in parts or full.
        A number of front companies, contractors, terms, projects are just waiting with CCTV, tracking, cameras, 24/7 surveillance teams or online website profile traps.
        Any of the very unique search terms are flagged and tracked.
        Any smart nation would just have flooded the US with generations of c

  • The best part about this... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thedarb ( 181754 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:34AM (#51468977)

    Is we can use it to start making a hiring blacklist for the private sector. Refuse to ever employ anyone who's ever worked for the FBI. Hopefully this list can grow to include NSA, as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

      a) Intentions aside, FBI/NSA have some of the smartest people working for them. Why exclude them from the private sector?
      b) Blacklisting them will ensure that they continue to work for the FBI/NSA or other government agencies, defeating the whole intention of your point
      c) None of these people set the policies, or make the laws. Why are you hating on them so much?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MBasial ( 565610 )
        I think the idea is that some of us suspect that people who "leave" the NSA to work at Google, etc., have not exactly cut all ties to their "previous" employer. You don't need a backdoor if one of your people walked in the front door with a suitably-edited resume and got hired. Those of us who object to illegal techniques like parallel construction see people who are willing to violate the rights of their fellow citizens as undesirable hires. Knowing who used to work for agencies where unethical practices a

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by phorm ( 591458 )

        I think the reasoning behind such a decision is this:

        Given the number of companies that are showing compromises that look suspiciously deliberate, can you really *trust* somebody who is known to be/have-been working for an intelligence agency not to be a plant?

  • Remember the leaked NSA employee manual? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In response to the NSA's Clipper chip with "escrowed" master keys, the FOUO NSA Employee' Manual was publically leaked. With a public outcry, the Clipper proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

    http://theory.stanford.edu/~donald/NSA.doc.html

    Not much is changed in more than 20 years except our masters persevering at taking more bites of the poisoned Apple.

    http://theory.stanford.edu/~donald/NSA.doc.html

  • they could crack his encryption.... I guess they'll never catch him now...

  • I'm not a big fan of government, or cops, or government cops, and I'd wear a tinfoil hat if I could afford the tinfoil, but releasing a blanket list of 20,000 employees seems more evil than good. I'd like to think that at least 20-30% of the people who work for the FBI aren't evil - maybe 10-15% for the NSA - and those people shouldn't all have their names and emails released on a stolen list. Go after the corrupt ones, post pictures of their illegal affairs and taking money under the table, wiretap their h

  • Encryption backdoors (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hai guise! You can, like, totally trust us to keep safe the keys for your encryption backdoors on your phones. Just ignore the fact that we can't even keep simple HR data secure. *waves hands* We totally know what we're doing when we propose encryption backdoors. It's safe!!1!

  • Makes sense (Score:3)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @10:33AM (#51469435)

    We should have complete transparency at the federal level, this makes it easier.

  • So you're saying I should apply since the list won't have my information and I have a completely clean dossier (which is French for dossier) to run the track up the ladder of authority and power? Yisss! Burn notices for everyone else but this guy!

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close