Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Privacy Cellphones Communications Network Security Software The Internet News Politics Technology

Hacker Publishes Cell Phone Numbers of House Democrats (thehill.com) 82

Another day, another leak. A suspected Russian hacker known as "Guccifer 2.0" has published the phone numbers of House Democrats on his website Friday. The Hill reports: "The document was obtained from the cyberattack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The hacker also published DCCC shared passwords to several online databases and news networks. The dump also included the memos on the House race for Florida's 18th district, including opposition research on the Republican contenders, which is being vacated by Democrat Patrick Murphy as he vies for the Senate. The hacker also claimed to have breached House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's computer and published a memo sent to her about a 2015 fundraiser for Morgan Carroll, who is running for a Colorado House seat against Republican Mike Coffman."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hacker Publishes Cell Phone Numbers of House Democrats

Comments Filter:
  • by The New Guy 2.0 ( 3497907 ) on Friday August 12, 2016 @07:15PM (#52694359)

    Not much is lost when a list of phone numbers and names is published... remember what happened when Paris Hilton (hotel chain rich girl and occasional TV star) had her SIdekick list published. Those who didn't want to be called changed their number quickly, and some who did want to be called such as low-rated TV personality Justin Gunn made bank collecting information... he even made a Current TV video bragging about his newfound fame.

    Remember, everybody in the US House of Representatives is up for reelection right now. So, those phone numbers can be pointed at contribution-taking call centers and taken to the bank..

    So, is this the first WIn10 hack or just a lazily e-mailed document?

    • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Friday August 12, 2016 @07:26PM (#52694401)
      "Not much is lost..."

      Which isn't quite the same as saying "much is gained." Damn congresscritters, anytime I "email" one (they seem to think filling out a web form is somehow email), they'll start spamming me from a "we don't reply to email sent to this address" source. Fuck 'em. Spam 'em. They deserve it. They're supposed to represent us, they're not the special snowflakes they think they are.
      • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday August 12, 2016 @08:05PM (#52694557) Homepage Journal

        Well, blame the Constitution, which was devised for a tiny nation of fewer than four million... That's including the 18% that were slaves. We're over 80x larger than we were in the 1790 census, but the House is only seven times as big. It's considerably less representative than the framers envisioned.

        If the House had grown proportionally there'd be almost five thousand reps and more of them would answer their own correspondence. It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too. With modern IT it'd be perfectly manageable. You'd have to build a new Capitol though.

        • by DaHat ( 247651 )

          You'd have to build a new Capitol though.

          True... but just imagine the fun of the result!

          Want to get some legislation passed? You and your supporters must show up on the floor and face off face to face with those who oppose you. Your goal, move the legislation a minimum of 10 yards in 4 attempts. If you succeed, you receive a 'first down' and get to start the process over.

          Your ultimate goal however, is to drive the legislation to the other side of the floor to what we could call, the 'end zone' at which poi

        • by Anonymous Coward

          The federal government was meant to represent the states rather than the people, which matches up quite nicely to how the overall representation has scaled.

          Maybe one could trace our problems back to the senate being chosen by the populace rather than the states as a large part of our problem. "Oh no, it's much more *efficient* to have just one entity control everything, that's what we should do..." You are seeing the results of that - rulership by mob mentality.

          Not to mention, imagine how much "would get do

        • Well, blame the Constitution, which was devised for a tiny nation of fewer than four million... That's including the 18% that were slaves. We're over 80x larger than we were in the 1790 census, but the House is only seven times as big. It's considerably less representative than the framers envisioned.

          If the House had grown proportionally there'd be almost five thousand reps and more of them would answer their own correspondence. It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too. With modern IT it'd be perfectly manageable. You'd have to build a new Capitol though.

          Such a large body has it's own problems. The Federalist papers, #58, discusses the topic, and the founding fathers actually did consider population growth and it's impact on representation. Summary here. [wikipedia.org]

          • by hey! ( 33014 )

            Madison's arguments in this case are specious -- at least as regards to enlarging the house. Take the argument that a larger house essentially dilutes the talent pool. It's true that for a fixed size population if you make the house sufficiently larger you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill seats. But enlarging the house proportionally to population has no such effect. He argues that a larger house is too poorly coordinated, but he does not reckon on the existence of political parties and t

        • You really think increasing the number of congresscritters would serve a purpose? Then you're just have way more lawyers too stupid to practice law living in sheltered conditions. It's not like lawyers need to be a protected species, so why bother?

          • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            You really think increasing the number of congresscritters would serve a purpose? Then you're just have way more lawyers too stupid to practice law living in sheltered conditions. It's not like lawyers need to be a protected species, so why bother?

            I do.

            First it lowers representation costs. When you have 1 per 30,000 (that's 10,000 reps), it's a lot harder to buy a majority off. $1B over 5001 reps is only $20,000 each.

            Second, there's no need to pay them the exorbitant costs - just a local office. We can even

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 )

          It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too.

          If people didn't blindly vote based on party, gerrymandering wouldn't work.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hackwrench ( 573697 )
        It is high time we as a world took another look at what kind of government we want to have. We have been saddled far too long with a government foisted on us by the world ruling class composed of Hobbesians, Hamiltonians and Muslims, nonexhaustive, but the most prominent and consistent of the bad actors who believe that Man is an ultraviolent monster and needs an all-powerful government in order to have peace.
    • Call 'em all up at random, and say random nonsense stuff like: "It is very warm in Odessa this year. The camels are in heat!"

      Or just a random "numbers station" string: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      We'll have the whole NSA chasing their own tails in a few days!

      However, to be fair, we will need a list of Republican numbers, as well.

    • Funny, when police use cameras to watch protests where people are voluntarily being in the open and visible to everyone around, in case someone decides to destroy someone elses property or cause bodily harm, it's an invasion of privacy because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't apply.

      However, when phone numbers, passwords and so forth which are hidden from view for various reason are exposed, suddenly the invasion of privacy doesn't apply.

      No, no hypocrisy whatsoever.

      • When I provide a cell phone to my employee and pay for it, I sure as FUCK would want to know the number!

  • Annoying American politicians on their personal cell phones seems rather juvenile. How about publishing Kim Jong Un's cell number so we can have some REAL fun?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "We have to hack the emails to know what's inside them!"
      -Nancy Pelosi's hacker

  • On the theory that hackers are technological leaders, it looks like they are leading us down the drain.

    Each time I seriously consider the Fermi Paradox, I keep coming to the conclusion that technological civilizations are quite prone to suicide via insanity. We are apes with nuclear bombs and biological weapons and no understanding of what we are doing. We have reached the point where we could accidentally exterminate ourselves at any time, but soon it will only take one madman to do it on purpose. Never be

    • No understanding? I know that our understanding is limited, but no understanding, really? And who taught you your understanding of apes?
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      On the theory that hackers are technological leaders, it looks like they are leading us down the drain.

      Each time I seriously consider the Fermi Paradox, I keep coming to the conclusion that technological civilizations are quite prone to suicide via insanity. We are apes with nuclear bombs and biological weapons and no understanding of what we are doing. We have reached the point where we could accidentally exterminate ourselves at any time, but soon it will only take one madman to do it on purpose. Never been a shortage of madmen.

      The transition from naturally evolved intelligence to rationally designed intelligence appears to be quite rocky. My quatloos say we're gonna lose and exterminate ourselves first.

      "Mommy help I need a safe space the hax0rz keep picking on my favorite political party!"

      • That's an excellent rebuttal that answers every one of his points spot-on.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          Seems to be basic lack of human understanding there, but mostly I think you two are just making my point, so I should thank you.

          Unless it is just one of you with a sock puppet. Seems like a lot of trouble, but given such a weak position, you might think you need it.

          It doesn't matter who is acting in an uncivilized manner towards whom. But before I waste so much time, why don't you set the stage by actually trying to defend your socipathy? Probably Libertarian insanity on the thin evidence.

    • by bug1 ( 96678 )

      Technology cant make us more human, we need to work that out for ourselves, and thats where we are lagging.

      • by shanen ( 462549 )

        Hmm... I'm not sure it's a matter of being more or less human. I think that guided evolution of our technology is fundamentally logarithmic, while the random evolution of our biology is linear. Philosophy can help bridge the gap, but you can argue that philosophy is as morally neutral as technology.

        I've already confessed that I don't see a good solution, but I wish you had one to offer. Sometimes I think what we need is some kind of regulator on the speed of technological progress, because I don't see much

        • by bug1 ( 96678 )

          How about we just make sure the benefits of technology spread to all the people, equally.
          The way i see it at the moment, technology concentrates power through its tendency to create global monopolies, its not the way capitalist societies are supposed to work.
          Intellectual Property rights need to be reformed, thats the only way i think we can control the speed of technological evolution.

  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday August 12, 2016 @07:33PM (#52694441) Homepage Journal

    The FEC is not investigating the DNC for moving $61 million from local elections into the Hillary Clinton campaign [rollingstone.com], even though that would appear to directly violate FEC regulations, and possibly money laundering laws as well. (It literally rearranged the primary political landscape.)

    However, the FEC did say that Bill Maher made an excessive and impermissible [dailynewsbin.com] donation to the Bernie Sanders campaign. They're definitely on the ball and looking after our interests!

    Oh, and new E-mails from the Clinton server [cbsnews.com] have surfaced from a FOI request by Judicial Watch.

    Remember how Hillary said she deleted *only* personal E-mails that would be of no interest to the investigation? Yup - several work-related E-mails in the new batch, which were not given over to the FBI. (Also, these were released under by the State Department under court order, which means that the State Department had them and didn't make them available to the FBI either.)

    And of course, it's not about the lies and corruption that these leaks uncover... it's those evil Russians meddling in our internal political affairs. What right do they have to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

    I've gotten 'kinda jaded about whether it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to remove personal details from a leak and such. Go ahead and dox the lawmakers, maybe it'll get them to make better laws to protect their privacy, and by accident, protect ours as well.

    Maybe I should start a petition on Change.org to get some of these problems addressed. That always works.

    • The world ruling class see Man as an ultraviolent monster that needs all-powerful government to survive. To what extent would you go to if that's what you thought?
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Reading your post, I couldn't help but think of this A Clockwork Orange [imgur.com] poster, and once again I wonder how many present day twenty-somethings (or even thirty-somethings) have even heard of the film. I've always believed it should be regarded primarily as an instructive and cautionary tale with regard to government apparatus. -PCP

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      It's that damn Vast Right Wing Conspiracy still at work. Making the DNC move money around illegally, forcing Hillary! and the State Department to hide e-mails, and even causing the Russians to get involved. It's all Rush Limbaugh, dontcha know!
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      even though that would appear to directly violate FEC regulations

      The article you linked doesn't claim that.

  • Breaking news ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mattyj ( 18900 ) on Friday August 12, 2016 @07:37PM (#52694459)

    Democrats have cell phones and do research on how to win elections. More at 11.

    More like Guccifer 0.2.

  • Mrs. Clinton is having trouble with people complaining about her e-mail server, while the truth is she's been facing the limits of IT and backup for years. Today there's multi-TB hard drives... but those weren't available during the Bubba Administration. Seems like nobody in politics can keep a contact list private these days.

  • After both parties get hacked and all the dirt is on the table, it would be utterly shocking to find out they're only as corrupt as we suspect they are.
  • who happens to be either Barbara Boxer (D-umshit) or Dianne Fienstein (D-tached) and tell them to STFU and retire already?

    / breath
    // I'm not holding it
    /// retire already, you 2 old dipshits
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is there any evidence that this "Guccifer" is a Russian hacker or is that just something the incompetent FBI is claiming?

    • Only circumstantial evidence. Hackers who work for an intelligence service are never going to get caught, much less extradited. Of course, the same can be said of ANY elite hacker.

      IMHO, it's not the Russians. They are widely suspected of getting Hillary's emails by monitoring the original "Guccifer". If so, they would want Hillary as POTUS because they could easily control her via blackmail. Hell, they don't even need the actual emails. The mere threat should be enough.

  • Given that politicians are allowed to pay bribes to obtain unlisted numbers of private citizens.
  • Hacker publishes URLs of 435 major websites
  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Saturday August 13, 2016 @08:08AM (#52695909)
    Changing your phone number is mightily inconvenient. What would be really helpful would be if say Google and Apple set up something so that you change your number, tell Google and Apple about the change complete with a list of all people you want to know about it (that could be for example your address book on your phone), and then they go and update your phone number on all Android phones and iPhones where the user is on your list.
  • by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Saturday August 13, 2016 @10:50AM (#52696257) Homepage

    ... fully funded by Congress, I have ZERO sympathy for politicians getting hacked.

  • Here's the URL for the an article on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com] (Disclaimer: I have no relationship w/ Ars Technica. I just happened to read the article there.)

    Sure, public email addresses are just that: public. Apparently the released info goes further:

    For the Reps:

    • Home addresses
    • Home phone numbers
    • Names of family members

    If I read the article right, similar personal info for aides and support staff was released. And this was only done for the Democrats. No information, pers

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...