Libertarian Accused of Faking 1.5M Net Neutrality Comments Using Data-Breached Addresses (buzzfeednews.com) 60
BuzzFeed says they've identified two firms which "misappropriated names and personal information as part of a bid to submit more than 1.5 million statements" pretending to oppose net neutrality regulations:
The anti-net neutrality comments harvested on behalf of Broadband for America, the industry group that represented telecommunications giants including AT&T, Cox, and Comcast, were uploaded to the FCC website by Media Bridge founder Shane Cory, a former executive director of both the Libertarian Party and the conservative sting group Project Veritas. Cory has claimed credit for "20 or 30" major public advocacy campaigns in recent years, including, he says, record-setting submissions to the IRS, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and "probably a handful of others." On Media Bridge's website, the company has described itself as having expertise in "overwhelming government agencies" with avalanches of public submissions, and has publicly dubbed its approach to marshaling comments the "Big Hammer." In the FCC campaign, Cory was working for Ralph Reed -- a high-powered political strategist and titan of the Christian right who himself was working for Broadband for America. Cory, in turn, enlisted LCX Digital to find the commenters...
BuzzFeed News ran large samples of the email addresses in those files through Have I Been Pwned, a website that identifies whether an address has been exposed in any of hundreds of major data breaches. The results were stark: In one particular group of 1.9 million comments, according to BuzzFeed News' analysis, 94% of the email addresses belonged to people who had fallen victim to a hack known as the Modern Business Solutions data breach, in which millions of people's personal information, including full names, birthdates, home addresses, and email addresses, had been stolen... All these comments were uploaded by Cory, using his Media Bridge email address. (Some of the comments were full duplicates; after removing them, there were just over 1.5 million comment-and-email combinations.)
In its letter to BuzzFeed News, Media Bridge contested the idea that email addresses showing up in breached databases were a sign of improprieties. In fact, it said, a "high match rate" is a sign of validity, since most Americans appear in breached databases....
Two of the commenters were named Luke Skywalker and Boba Fett -- and yet mysteriously "the names and street addresses were exactly as they appeared in that breach... A separate spot check by BuzzFeed News of 100 randomly selected Media Bridge comments revealed a similar pattern -- even down to a street address that used underscores instead of spaces."
In addition, Buzzfeed found that "almost all" of the remaining 6% appears to just be "recycled" identities drawn from comments left in 2016 when the FCC was considering a new rule that would allow cable consumers to use their own set-top boxes -- a regulation that the cable industry opposed. "One year later, 99.9% of those exact same names and addresses appeared on the FCC's website, weighing in on an entirely different policy debate -- net neutrality. They were uploaded by Media Bridge."
BuzzFeed News ran large samples of the email addresses in those files through Have I Been Pwned, a website that identifies whether an address has been exposed in any of hundreds of major data breaches. The results were stark: In one particular group of 1.9 million comments, according to BuzzFeed News' analysis, 94% of the email addresses belonged to people who had fallen victim to a hack known as the Modern Business Solutions data breach, in which millions of people's personal information, including full names, birthdates, home addresses, and email addresses, had been stolen... All these comments were uploaded by Cory, using his Media Bridge email address. (Some of the comments were full duplicates; after removing them, there were just over 1.5 million comment-and-email combinations.)
In its letter to BuzzFeed News, Media Bridge contested the idea that email addresses showing up in breached databases were a sign of improprieties. In fact, it said, a "high match rate" is a sign of validity, since most Americans appear in breached databases....
Two of the commenters were named Luke Skywalker and Boba Fett -- and yet mysteriously "the names and street addresses were exactly as they appeared in that breach... A separate spot check by BuzzFeed News of 100 randomly selected Media Bridge comments revealed a similar pattern -- even down to a street address that used underscores instead of spaces."
In addition, Buzzfeed found that "almost all" of the remaining 6% appears to just be "recycled" identities drawn from comments left in 2016 when the FCC was considering a new rule that would allow cable consumers to use their own set-top boxes -- a regulation that the cable industry opposed. "One year later, 99.9% of those exact same names and addresses appeared on the FCC's website, weighing in on an entirely different policy debate -- net neutrality. They were uploaded by Media Bridge."
Wait, did the Libertarian party do this? (Score:2, Funny)
That said, it's not too hard at all to deal with intra party corruption. Set rules that nobody takes corporate PAC money. Make all financial transactions transparent. Only vote for candidates who campaign on policy. Ignore platitudes and "feels".
This is why I became a Democrat. There are wings of the party doing these things (Justice Democrats and the "Berniecrats").
As for not playing, all that does is create a powe
What now, troll? (Score:1)
Perhaps if you read the article again you'll have your answer.
Sometimes the original article contains information.
Never mind, you're just trolling.
E
Re: (Score:1)
Only vote for candidates who campaign on policy. Ignore platitudes and "feels".
This is why I became a Democrat.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How's that DSA working out for you and your party there ?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there are lots of "3rd parties", but they are small and ineffectual, and thus unable to win any higher political positions.
So you either vote repub, or demo, and if you decide to NOT choose the lesser evil, you've decide to lay back and let them cornhole you mercilessly and have no right to complain about it.
Re:Wait, did the Libertarian party do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
or was it one of their people? Do we have evidence the party itself was involved?
He was a former executive director of the LP.
Libertarians have a long history of defending monopolies and anti-competitive behavior, believing the market will magically fix it. I agree with the LP on many issues, including that government cronyism and regulatory capture is often at the core of these problems, and I consider myself a lowercase libertarian.
But there is an appropriate role for regulation, and NN prevents a clear conflict of interest. If a company has an effective local monopoly on Internet service, they should not be using that pricing power to favor their own content.
That doesn't mean the party itself is corrupt (Score:2)
That said I agree with the sentiment that the free market isn't a magic fix. My biggest beef with the Libertarian (big L) party is that they seem to favor interference with the free market when it suits them while demanding laissez faire capitalism when it's convenient. The Pauls (Rand & Ron) are notorious for this sort of behavior, but I see it in
Re:Wait, did the Libertarian party do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians have a long history of defending monopolies and anti-competitive behavior, believing the market will magically fix it.
Which, of course, it doesn't.
There is no "free market" and never has been. The whole "invisible hand of the market" thing is bullshit too, and relying on it would lead to abuses and horrors that would dwarf anything going on today.
This is the blind spot that most libertarians seem have: they never stop to think that *they* might be the ones getting fucked, it'll always be the other guy.
It'll never be YOUR wife or YOUR child who dies from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance, it'll always be some other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Free Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so they'll be safe, right?
But it won't be your wife or your kid, no way. And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that's the magical Libertarian answer to any problem that occurs: Don't prevent a problem from occurring through regulation or legislation, just sue someone after something bad happens!
Re: (Score:3)
This is the blind spot that most libertarians seem have: they never stop to think that *they* might be the ones getting fucked, it'll always be the other guy.
I think there's a collection of blind spots. One is that they're the never the ones getting fucked. Another is they believe they can get to be the one that fucks over other people for money. The final one is the same failure mode of communism (in it's pure form of to each according to his need etc); it would work if everyone was nice.
Don't prevent a pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a really good laugh, ask a Libertarian where property rights come from, who would enforce them, and how.
The fuzzy-minded bullshit will flow like a river but you'll never get a clear or sensible answer.
Re: (Score:2)
People dying from rushed drugs is bad. People dying because medical tech is 10 or 20 years behind where it should be because development is slowed is much worse.
But the latter doesn't show up in front of the cameras, so the parent poster won't rage about it, just the much smaller former group deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
But the latter doesn't show up in front of the cameras, so the parent poster won't rage about it, just the much smaller former group deaths.
If that was the topic under discussion I would most certainly 'rage' about it. But this was about Libertarians and their deluded world-view.
Re: (Score:1)
Google "no true Scotsman fallacy." Nevermind. Obviously a troller/intentional obfuscator.
Re: (Score:1)
"Funny"? De gustibus etc. But seriously, WTF is wrong with you moderators?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a political party
It's not- it's a loosely-coupled group of shallow-thinkers who can't even agree amongst themselves what "Libertarian" means, or what a Libertarian society would look like. It's all vague bullshit about "less regulation" and "more freedom" and "self-reliance" and it all falls to pieces as soon as you begin to examine it critically.
Ask a libertarian where property rights come from and how they might be enforced, then sit back and enjoy a good laugh.
I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who would have ever thought such a fine, upstanding, god-fearing Christian like Ralph Reed would be involved in such illegal activities. Surely this is the work of the devil.
Even more shocking is conservatives would be involved in this charade. The people who keep talking about the rule of law would never dare to stoop such nefarious shenanigans as to lie to a government agency. This must have been a liberal trick to besmirch their pristine reputation.
God-fearing Christians (Score:3, Funny)
Real Christians don't fear God. They follow the word of Jesus Christ.
The unlawful activities of these people, Ajit Pai, and the POTUS are nothing like what Christ would do.
What Would Ajit Pai do - cripple any competition for Verizon /disgusted
What Would Donald Trump do - boost the Trump brand and talk about "ratings" even when trotting out foreign leaders
E
Re:God-fearing Christians (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm afraid that the last 2000 years of Christianity disagree with you quite firmly.
The old testament God though... (Score:3)
He expected you to fear him and was a cruel bastard though. ;)
Asking people to murder their own children, even of an entire town, butcher goats, and do all kinds of nasty things, if they didn't obey, and sometimes even just so they would.
It certainly is a funny book, if you don't imagine living in such a world. AM, the AI, would love it.
So... I don't know much about Judaism, but ... aren't they kinda following the old testament? So they are expected to fear God, no? ...)
(Any Jewish people here? I'm curious
Re: (Score:1)
I'm from Israel, hope that counts. For some it's not Jewish enough... *shrug*
I wasn't taught to "fear" God... but then I'm not very religious so maybe I missed the subtle points.
The concept is "do what he told you to do and it will all work out swimmingly." -- Like a dad kinda thing.
At the end of the day there is "that which you profess to be" and "that which you are."
People who are cruel to others, lie to get their way, are greedy ****ing bastards at others' expense,
they aren't following said funny book
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Israel, hope that counts. For some it's not Jewish enough... *shrug*
Being from Israel doesn't make you Jewish at all.
Being a Jew makes you Jewish. Being from Israel makes you Israeli.
I hope that helps you understand why people don't assume your race or religion from your country of birth.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are expected to fear God, no?
Not exactly, no. Being god's chosen people puts one in a specialish position except that god is still a massive dick and if a smiting is coming your way there's not really much you can do about it anyway. Plus also old blessed-be-he is actually a massive nerd and is far more interested in pedantry over the letter of the law than over the spirit of it so it's fine to endlessly argue minutiae to find insane loopholes.
In some senses it's very like the religions with the mo
Re: (Score:1)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=no+t... [duckduckgo.com]
Let' freedom ring (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I even sent two submissions with different viewpoints. Only one was sent from myself....
Does the FCC care it had fake submissions? No, they had firmly made a decisions and were simply following through on the requirements. Public comment is required, but it doesn’t impact the decision in any way.
If you want change you need to write to your representatives and volunteer. Put some effort into fixing the things wrong with government.
Show up to your primary (Score:3)
For the Democrats this means Bernie Sanders & the Justice Democrats. Settle for Liz Warren if you have to. For the GOP, well, I honestly don't know. I don't know a single GOP candidate who's refused corporate PAC money let along a wing of the party that does. Please speak up if such a thing exists, I'd love to see them get on the no corporate $$$ band
Re: (Score:3)
and refuse to vote for any politician who takes corporate PAC money in the primary.
What about union PACs?
For the Democrats this means Bernie Sanders
Bernie accepts PAC money. His biggest donor is the postal workers PAC. He also accepts corporate money. His biggest non-PAC donor is Google.
Bernie Sanders - Campaign contributions [opensecrets.org]
That's why I said "Corporate PACs" (Score:3)
Also, saying Bernie's biggest donor is Google is disingenuous at best and a lie by omission at worst. Sanders gets virtually all of his money from small dollar donations. This makes sense, without a PAC Google is limited in what th
Re: (Score:1)
This makes it perfectly acceptable to accept their money because their interests align with the interests of the voting public
6% of private sector workers are in a union. About 30% are self-employed. So I disagree that union PACs have interests aligned with the public.
For public sector unions (where most union PAC money comes from), their interests are directly opposed to the interests of the tax paying public.
Their interests are aligned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. Union PACs _are_ corporate PACs. Unions in the US are corporations in another guise.
Re: (Score:3)
and refuse to vote for any politician who takes corporate PAC money in the primary.
What about union PACs?
For the Democrats this means Bernie Sanders
Bernie accepts PAC money. His biggest donor is the postal workers PAC. He also accepts corporate money. His biggest non-PAC donor is Google.
Bernie Sanders - Campaign contributions [opensecrets.org]
Nice misrepresentation of the data there, Bill. ALL of the $10,918 contributions attributed to Google are from individuals, not the corporation. If those individuals contributed $200 or more with the year (likely since we're 3/4 the way through) , the campaign is required to record the name, address, and employer of the donor [fec.gov] ("Contributions aggregating over $200").
Oh you sweet summer child ... (Score:2)
... This is so 1980s.
No modern think tank pays politicians anymore.
Hell, they don't even lobby anymore.
Nowadays, you just make sure your lobbyist IS the politician.
You pick one of your own, inject him via making sure that everybody you can vote for is one of them, and reward him after his political career is over.
Why do you think Sanders was booted, and Trump is hated by them. Not because they think they are evil or wrong. But because they are too independent and uncontrollable. Not ye usual lobbyists.
(Alth
How did Conversative Media do this? (Score:3)
Re:How did Conversative Media do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people are fundamentally tribal, and what the tribe actually does isn't relevant. If the leaders of the tribe point in a direction, it's human nature to follow. It takes actual willpower to look at the people on your side of the fence and ask "Are these people actually representing my interests?" I'm not claiming any special intelligence or insight, it's just that I don't particularly like people very much, and really don't trust any large conglomeration of them. So I refuse to join political movements, and while I definitely have biases and an overarching philosophy, no political party could ever match my own views, so in a way I feel particularly liberated. I don't have a debt to any ideology, and don't feel I have to fall in step with a political party. The downside is, of course, that voting really does feel like voting for the least bad. It's not a positive activity, it's a fundamentally depressing one.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just politics either. It's reinforced in sports, at work, in education, etc. I agree with you that rejecting tribalism has been liberating, but it's a pretty lonely and depressing existence too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never advise people to ignore their tribal nature. Accept your biology.
Just stay clear of the 'hard tribal' attitudes, with groupthink and hard edged good/bad judgements and stuff. But putting your group a bit before the others, I don't mind. Groups also bring motivation and meaning.
There are also virtual tribes, which can be little more than ideas. That' s a way to belong to a group without actually belonging to one. The 'scholar' ideology for instance can be fanatically individualistic but the need to
Re: (Score:1)
I thought this was about fraud committed by a Libertarian? The people involved with the Libertarian party are almost all a loathsome bunch of drug legalizers. They care nothing about the other platforms or the original purpose of libertarianism, nor would they understand them. What does this have to do with conservatism?
In any case, the answer to your question is that corporations do not have the force of law compelling them into providing the end users only the government-ma
Re: (Score:3)
Less Government intervention is strong individualism. Net Neutrality is Government intervention. InfoWars is not "Conservative Media" just like TYT isn't "Liberal Media.".
How is that Straw man working for you ?
Re: (Score:2)
Less Government intervention is strong individualism
Whether it is any of these categories, is it positive? I think it depends on how it is used. It is simultaneously used to reduce domestic production and also creates favorable deals are passed along to overseas dealers that can end...badly.
As long as there is an EPA or a minimum wage or whatever china has besides free fuel, it's not so much free as literally subsidized trade. It can be good for the consumer in the short term but it certainly doesn't help whatever world EPA goals you were intending to mee
Re: (Score:2)
Less Government intervention is strong individualism
Not if they just trade government for another form of collective, namely corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
Since when does "conservatism" mean "strong individualism"? Philosophical conservatism is basically skepticism in putting too much faith in ideas and not enough in practical experience.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the message being pushed to conservative/libertarian grassroots was that Net Neutrality was being abused to the opposite effect of its intended purpose. As far as I can tell, libertarians aren't opposed to net neutrality itself though I suspect most (foolishly) think that the more neutral and best behaved networks would win the marketplace without the help of government.
It makes theoretical sense as giant mega-corps couldn't survive without government support (contracts, subsidies, en
As usual, deception in the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Shane Cory runs Media Bridge, an internet PR firm, and has since 2013.
Cory worked for Project Veritas as a PR flack for part of 2011, and was booted from the Libertarian Party even earlier, in 2008. Yet the summary and the article feel the need to highlight these associations (even though they have absolutely zero bearing on the accusation) DESPITE knowing that Media Bridge was hired by the industry group "Broadband of America". It's telling that the article chose to highlight those old associations, and not his previous membership in the Democratic Party, his company's work for the IRS, or his previous employer American Commitment (another industry group).
In other words, this guy runs an internet PR astroturf and fake-comment company. He has for years, and has had a bunch of different customers during those years. Calling out specific ones, while ignoring others, just shows the bias of the article's author... which, considering this is BuzzFeed, was pretty obvious from the get go.
The delusion of digital uniqueness. (Score:3)
I don't get this: Why do people still believe there is any way to associate one online ID with one person?
Be it an IP address, a HTTP session cookie, a login user name, an e-mail address, or whatever.
I personally know of a hall full of Chinese people, solving CAPTCHAS all day for money. So that does not help either.
I doubt even passport checks would help for high profile cases.
ALL online votes (e.g. on Reddit or election systems) or reviews (e.g. on Amazon or IMDB) or bids (e.g. on e-Bay) and view counts (e.g. for ads) or whatever MUST be considered automated and manipulated.
The whole design of your service and interface must be constructed with that assumption, from the ground up.
If you can't, then it is not viable, or you'll be lying to yourself and us if you did it anyway.
Who opposes net neutrality? (Score:2)
Should it really come as a surprise? Of those that even know what it's about, and care enough to voice an opinion, the only ones who are against it are large telcos. Or can you name a single reason why a person (a real one, i.e. no corporation) would oppose it?
Not a true Libertarian (Score:2)
Why dont they just email these people (Score:1)
libetarians are people (Score:2)
Obviously idealists can commit crimes too. Duh. Just because someone is pro freedom doesn't mean they are perfect in every way. They could even be criminals who also believe that governments are inherently bad. There is no contradiction there. Yes they can be accused of hypocrisy because they claim to be a voluntarist, but Christians claim to believe all sorts of selfless ideals while acting very very selfishly and never helping anyone but themselves. It's quite common. Integrity is rare. Libertarianism is
Fuck integrity (Score:2)
All that matters is the win, the typical libertarian attitude; bodes well if they manage to achieve their efforts to strangle democracy and seize more control.