Clinton Circle | Hacker News Reader

Clinton Circle

clinton.media.mit.edu

103 pointscesifoti27 comments

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.

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.

I miss Aaron a lot, but thank you for treating the incident objectively.

Why not let wikileaks serve the emails on the MIT page? It's the way the web is supposed to work. Also, the wikileaks archive is the "official" copy in some sense.

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.

The 17 is for '17, aka 2017, the year she was to become president.

Maybe a very shitty security-by-obscurity scheme? 'They will never guess my email handle!'

She prolly has both of them. Would u want a bunch of unknowm ppl bothering u on your main line?

How many email addy's u got?

"by MIT"

Would "by Berkeley" make you feel better?

No, but "by Clemson" might.

For an industry that claims to be a pure meritocracy I'd really love it if it were practiced more with regard to schools.

We are a meritocracy in the original sense of the word: those given the most merits make the rules.

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.

Certainly not WikiLeaks.

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--

So I see you're a big fan of Richard Nixon.

No one cares about your stance without what kind of logic you used to arrive at that stance. Please share why you feel this way and I will happily upvote you, even if I disagree with it.

Is it more acceptable for political figures of lesser rank? Why the distinction?

These are emails from a private organization. Leaking info about a candidate ≠ leaking sensitive classified gov't info. If there's classified govt info on the private servers then who is responsible are the officials for not respecting expected limits between their government aparatus and their professional extension service. Now I personally don't think it's practical to expect them to seperate them completely, or that there was much of any wrong doing from hilary's side. She's trying to be effective. She's not excelling at that as an executive as well as she has historicly achieved as a back-door politician. Infosec is lacking. i think that's good though. Keep them dumb. It improves their transparency with us, their electorate. Let's get over it and focus on the issues.

Nobody. WikiLeaks is playing politics and doling them out as they see fit.

Whoever provided the leaked data is free to share that information differently if they are upset about how WikiLeaks is doing so.

Uh, the emails were already leaked, hiding them here doesn't stop that leak... Anyone can get them online at wikileaks. People running the campaign had weeks at this point to reset passwords and warn people.

AFAIK Clinton's were originally sourced from State Department, who censored it appropriately.

One issue is that presupposes you can recognize classified information if the markings for that have been removed. This came up with Sidney Blumenthal's forwarding of NSA Top Secret/SAP/SCI GAMMA intelligence, which by definition few people would recognize just from the format and style.

Despite what you might have heard from CNN [1], it's not illegal [2] to read wikileaks.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com