4 ms·

In this context, "component" means an agency that's part of the DOJ. The FBI, for example, is a component of the DOJ. They're simply stating that Main Justice w

In this context, "component" means an agency that's part of the DOJ. The FBI, for example, is a component of the DOJ. They're simply stating that Main Justice wasn't hacked.

sitkack 11y ago
Justice was hacked a hellava long time ago.
- pc86 11y ago
  [citation needed]
  - cafard 11y ago
    Ca. 1996, the DOJ web server was hacked by somebody. At this point, I don't remember the details--Adolf Hitler as AG, a naughty picture or two. It shouldn't be hard to find.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      That makes for nice headlines, but anyone who actually understands this stuff knows that hacking the public-facing web server is not a big deal and not really related to obtaining private info like this. Edit: I just remembered, there is (of course) a relevant xkcd for this: https://xkcd.com/932/ https://xkcd.com/932/
PietdeVries 11y ago
Makes you wonder, if these secret services can't keep their own data safe, what's gonna happen with the data they capture from us?
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  That's one reason why such data should only be captured for specific targets, not en masse...
- lallysingh 11y ago
  I don't wonder. It'll get hacked and stolen, repeatedly. Government isn't technically competent by itself, and doesn't know how to select those who are.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    So other governments are having this much of a problem and this frequently?
    - nickff 11y ago
      Other governments are less appealing and visible targets.
      - cmurf 11y ago
        Why? What's the metric? All governments have the same kinds of data and potential for embarrassment. And in terms of GDP, the U.S., E.U. and China are in the same ballpark.
  - lloyd-christmas 11y ago
    > Government isn't technically competent by itself, and doesn't know how to select those who are. This is just dead wrong. I think you're conflating "Government" and "Politicians". The government pays tech very well and hires intelligent people. I once did a consulting gig and went in with your exact mindset. It was the only time I've ever been fully confident that I was the dumbest person in the room. The reason they'll always lose is the sheer quantity of attacks. Every day we have front page posts critical of the US government. That sentiment (clearly) extends far beyond the front page of hacker news. I'd wager you wouldn't have to put much effort into finding anti-governmental rhetoric in the comments section of a cooking website. Beyond that, the weak link is rarely the technical side, e.g. Snowden. I think we all can be confident they will lose the information, but I really don't believe it's because they are technically incompetent.
    - cjslep 11y ago
- fweespeech 11y ago
  It'll get captured from time to time. Its precisely why mass surveillance is a terrible fucking idea. They'll never admit it gets stolen either.
- rcurry 11y ago
  Oh, you mean like all the personal information I had to submit to the Defense Investigative Service when they did my background check for a security clearance? Why, it's funny you should ask! I just got a letter from the Office or Personnel Management about three months ago, proudly informing me that all that data is now in the hands of some foreign intelligence service. Of course, they claimed it was the result of a "sophisticated" attack, which is government fail-speak for "We left your data on a bus, and a hobo took it".
  - avukich 11y ago
    >> Of course, they claimed it was the result of a "sophisticated" attack, which is government fail-speak for "We left your data on a bus, and a hobo took it". No it isn't. The hack of OPM was very well publicized. It was a long time project of the Chinese government to break into OPM's computers. I don't believe everything I read, but in this case I know is exactly what happened.
  - eli 11y ago
    Didn't the Chinese government more or less admit it was behind the OPM hack? That doesn't prove the data was well secured or that the attack was especially sophisticated, but surely China is a capable adversary.
  - atourgates 11y ago
    My wife got the same letter from her time working at the VA. Fingerprints, social security number and all the other personal details that they required.

In this context, "component" means an agency that's part of the DOJ. The FBI, for example, is a component of the DOJ. They're simply stating that Main Justice wasn't hacked.

sitkack 11y ago

Justice was hacked a hellava long time ago.

pc86 11y ago
[citation needed]
- cafard 11y ago
  Ca. 1996, the DOJ web server was hacked by somebody. At this point, I don't remember the details--Adolf Hitler as AG, a naughty picture or two. It shouldn't be hard to find.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That makes for nice headlines, but anyone who actually understands this stuff knows that hacking the public-facing web server is not a big deal and not really related to obtaining private info like this. Edit: I just remembered, there is (of course) a relevant xkcd for this: https://xkcd.com/932/ https://xkcd.com/932/

PietdeVries 11y ago

Makes you wonder, if these secret services can't keep their own data safe, what's gonna happen with the data they capture from us?

edwhitesell 11y ago
That's one reason why such data should only be captured for specific targets, not en masse...
lallysingh 11y ago
I don't wonder. It'll get hacked and stolen, repeatedly. Government isn't technically competent by itself, and doesn't know how to select those who are.
- cmurf 11y ago
  So other governments are having this much of a problem and this frequently?
  - nickff 11y ago
    Other governments are less appealing and visible targets.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      Why? What's the metric? All governments have the same kinds of data and potential for embarrassment. And in terms of GDP, the U.S., E.U. and China are in the same ballpark.
- lloyd-christmas 11y ago
  > Government isn't technically competent by itself, and doesn't know how to select those who are. This is just dead wrong. I think you're conflating "Government" and "Politicians". The government pays tech very well and hires intelligent people. I once did a consulting gig and went in with your exact mindset. It was the only time I've ever been fully confident that I was the dumbest person in the room. The reason they'll always lose is the sheer quantity of attacks. Every day we have front page posts critical of the US government. That sentiment (clearly) extends far beyond the front page of hacker news. I'd wager you wouldn't have to put much effort into finding anti-governmental rhetoric in the comments section of a cooking website. Beyond that, the weak link is rarely the technical side, e.g. Snowden. I think we all can be confident they will lose the information, but I really don't believe it's because they are technically incompetent.
  - cjslep 11y ago
fweespeech 11y ago
It'll get captured from time to time. Its precisely why mass surveillance is a terrible fucking idea. They'll never admit it gets stolen either.
rcurry 11y ago
Oh, you mean like all the personal information I had to submit to the Defense Investigative Service when they did my background check for a security clearance? Why, it's funny you should ask! I just got a letter from the Office or Personnel Management about three months ago, proudly informing me that all that data is now in the hands of some foreign intelligence service. Of course, they claimed it was the result of a "sophisticated" attack, which is government fail-speak for "We left your data on a bus, and a hobo took it".
- avukich 11y ago
  >> Of course, they claimed it was the result of a "sophisticated" attack, which is government fail-speak for "We left your data on a bus, and a hobo took it". No it isn't. The hack of OPM was very well publicized. It was a long time project of the Chinese government to break into OPM's computers. I don't believe everything I read, but in this case I know is exactly what happened.
- eli 11y ago
  Didn't the Chinese government more or less admit it was behind the OPM hack? That doesn't prove the data was well secured or that the attack was especially sophisticated, but surely China is a capable adversary.
- atourgates 11y ago
  My wife got the same letter from her time working at the VA. Fingerprints, social security number and all the other personal details that they required.