6 ms·

Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

78 points by choko 14y ago

engtech 14y ago
title didn't convey the content of the article, or why it would be of interest to HN. I thought it was political stuff at first vs tech news. A better title might be: Anonymous' steals Romney's tax return for blackmail extortion
- tstegart 14y ago
  Actually, I think the thieves are anonymous in that they aren't known yet, not "Anonymous" the hacker group.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    If that's the case then "anonymous" shouldn't be used as a noun.
  - engtech 14y ago
    I assumed it was A-nonymous when I read the article, but on re-read I think you are correct. That probably explains why the story hasn't exploded more like other stories about Anonymous or Lulsec have.
- choko 14y ago
  Thanks for the advice.
splatzone 14y ago
They've provided no real proof that they actually have the tax returns. I'd be surprised if this is genuine.
- debacle 14y ago
  If it is genuine, then the Romney campaign has proof.
  - readme 14y ago
    If it is genuine, I don't know why they think they'll get away with it. Also $1M is way too low of an amount to blackmail Romney for. Talk about selling yourself short.
    - debacle 14y ago
      Yes, the low amount is what makes me suspect that it's fake. If this were real, and the true aim was extortion, we would have never heard about it.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - cpeterso 14y ago
        Perhaps the blackmailers assume they are more likely to get money from people who want the records revealed. 1 million people could pay $1 each, Kickstarter-style.
        MartinCron 14y ago
        I would gladly pay a dollar (or donate to a charity of Mitt's choice) to have him release the records, just so we could move past them and try to talk about something of substance for a while.
    - scarmig 14y ago
      Eh, I'm not sure. It's pretty clear what's in Romney's returns at this point (a lower than average income tax rate, though it's hard to say whether it's closer to 5% or 15%), so I don't see a huge downside risk for him in them being released. If they upped their demands to, say $10 million, we're talking about real money, even for Mitt. Enough to get an extra percent of the vote or so in a moderate sized state. Unless there's something genuinely illegal in the returns, a couple days of renewed interest in them might be preferable to giving up a bit of money at the margin (though, paid media is fairly well saturated now, so it might not be that useful). From Romney's point of view, too, there'd be no guarantee that paying 10 million would prevent them from being released. There's no accountability for the Anonymous. With 1 million, though, it's just a no brainer. That said, I doubt they have anything. Reeks of BS to me.
- atlbeer 14y ago
  For me the telling thing is the "1040" bit. I'm no billionaire but, even my meager tax return is more than a simple 1040 form.
  - arjunnarayan 14y ago
    yeah but the critical figures people want, including the sum total of tax paid is on the 1040.
appliance_guide 14y ago
Now if only they could steal Obama's college transcripts he's paid over a million dollars to keep sealed...
- rayiner 14y ago
  Equally relevant!
  - grandalf 14y ago
    Point taken, but I'd be happy if candidates just released both sorts of information and weren't so afraid of being transparent.
    - myko 14y ago
      Is it normal to release educational transcripts? I thought taxes were pretty much a given, but not so with college transcripts. Also the OPs assertion of paying 1 million dollars to hide Obama's transcripts is so ridiculous on its face I'm surprised people willingly post things like that online.
      - Jach 14y ago
        Fun fact, we have Romney's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. McCain only provided two years of returns too when he was running. It's not a hard-precedent to provide "everything you have", either tax records or birth certificates or transcripts or letters of recommendation... But looking at it from a politician's perspective: if it can only help you, fine, release it. Otherwise why bother? Unless the damage from not releasing exceeds the damage from releasing (which I think is becoming the case for Romney), it's just unnecessary information.
        myko 14y ago
        I thought we had his 2010 returns and an estimation of his 2011 returns?
    - 14y ago
tantalor 14y ago
Is it safe to accept a ransom via BitCoin? Theoretically how might they be caught?
- rms 14y ago
  If the people accepting the Bitcoins for ransom own the Silk Road? Let's face it, all Bitcoins eventually end up on the Silk Road.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  It's safe to accept it, but once you have it laundering and spending it is more difficult.
hugh4life 14y ago
What I find interesting is the future(or current) possibility of political opponents hacking each other and then blaming it on "Anonymous" or entrepreneurial hackers. Or heck, infiltrate companies that do business with the political opponent and then blame "hackers" who don't exist.
- jeffool 14y ago
  Or media outlets, given the whole "celebrity cell/email hacking scandal". Or even rival companies that find dirt.
- mey 14y ago
  So Watergate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
- duiker101 14y ago
  I really hope you didn't just give them the idea.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Can this be considered terrorism? Surely, blackmail, but also terrorism? Just curious. edit: Since I received record fast downvotes, I'll clarify that this is not meant to be a political comment, jesus.
- mtgx 14y ago
  If you want to dilute what the words means to the point it can mean just about any crime, sure. But if you're referring to the strict term, then no.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion Which word am I diluting exactly? If Romney is as afraid of releasing his taxes as many imply, would he not be fearful of their release? edit2: thanks for the replies, I think I understand why y'all disagree and I think that I agree with you. It's not systematic and it's not being used to intimidate others, it's too focused, basically.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      Part of the idea of terrorism (and hate crimes, for that matter) is that the victims aren't just the ones immediately impacted, but other people as well. The aim of terrorism is to create a climate of fear in those who live. I will always remember the first time I flew on an airplane after September 11, 2001. I strongly doubt that this act was designed to strike fear into the hearts of all of the other fabulously wealthy presidential candidates who refuse to disclose their tax returns.
    - benburleson 14y ago
      In my opinion, the reason this does not classify as terrorism is that 99.999999% of the world is not afraid of being blackmailed for the release of their tax returns.
    - brown9-2 14y ago
      The entire idea of blackmail is that you fear the thing being held against you.
semenko 14y ago
Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S I'm not very familiar with the Bitcoin protocol: Can all users view the values of these two bitcoin accounts -- or BTC in transit?
- andreyf 14y ago
  Yes, the transactions to and from these accounts are available here: Stop release: https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8 https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW... Full release: https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Those amounts that look like 8 bits of binary are interesting, but don't seem to convert to meaningful ascii. That would have been fun.
    - colanderman 14y ago
      Apparently it's an imgur URL?
    - grenouille 14y ago
      It actually is ASCII data (byte == binary_btc_amount * 256), spelling the string 'http://i.imgur.com/5k6Rf.png http://i.imgur.com/5k6Rf.png. This PNG image is a QR code, which decodes to the string '01101000011101000111010001110000001110100010111100101111011010010010111001101001 01101101011001110111010101110010001011100110001101101111011011010010111101101001' (newline added for layout, not actually present). This, in turn, is a binary ASCII encoding of the string 'http://i.imgur.com/i http://i.imgur.com/i. But that's a 404 page, so this whole thing seems a bit futile. FWIW, the PNG file coincides exactly with the one generated by http://qrcode.kaywa.com/ http://qrcode.kaywa.com/ for the binary string.
      - 14y ago
deweller 14y ago
The hacker activist group named Anonymous is not involved in this claim. But rather the statement comes from an anonymous group claiming to have stolen digital copies of the records.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- coffeeThermos 14y ago
  By putting the price at $1,000,000 they might have a chance at actually getting the information. Sure they could have put the price at 10 or 100 million dollars, but the probability that Romney would pay out would be miniscule. I am sure at the ransom price is more money than these guys have ever seen. Why not price the information at a rate which somebody might actually pay? Since bitcoin is decentralized, I cannot imagine any law passed could successfully outlaw it.
alkimie 14y ago
It is fascinating that none of the major news outlets seems to have reported this as of yet.
mherdeg 14y ago
This kind of stuff has the potential to be so much fun, but always ends up being so boring. Remember when a 4chan user hacked into Sarah Palin's not-public-record Yahoo! Mail account and managed to post screenshots to /b/? But then the user totally failed to publicly archive the mail? And somehow got caught? Total disappointment.
oldgregg 14y ago
Damn. Who knows if this is legit, but assassination markets are coming, it's only a matter of time. Obviously it won't start with ACTUAL assassinations-- but hide your data, hide your mistresses. If abused assistants and underpaid file clerks ever realize they can make 100x their salary by leaking data with a bounty there is going to be a culture changing shit-storm.
- Bud 14y ago
  Not really. The file clerks and assistants in question would have to do far more than simply "realize" that they can leak data. They would have to magically acquire the expertise to leak it untraceably, to handle all the financial arrangements untraceably, and not get caught in any other ways. Meanwhile, the most powerful people in the world will be going after them. This is already an extremely difficult proposition, and will only get more difficult with time.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
What if it's all a scheme to drive up the value of bitcoin via speculation? Increased attention to the currency will have some bidding up the price, so anyone just holding bitcoin could profit, even if without 1 coin being sent to either address. Of course, if someone did try to make the payment and purchase a million bucks of bitcoins, that would drive the price sky high.
- brucehart 14y ago
  My first thought is that it would do the opposite: increase political pressure on Bitcoin so that it may become more difficult to use (legally). This would drive down the price since many buyers are speculating on Bitcoin becoming more mainstream one day.
brentk 14y ago
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/ http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-d...
- jredwards 14y ago
  To spare everyone the trouble: unrelated satire from months ago.
ender7 14y ago
I don't understand why they made this a public posting. Romney isn't incentivized to pay up once the blackmail is public knowledge -- payment is equivalent to admitting guilt. Might as well keep your money and take the hits. I don't see any situations where this beats contacting the campaign privately, with a document or two in hand to prove that you have the real stuff. Unless, of course, if this is just a stunt that someone is running on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to actually pay the money.
- brokentone 14y ago
  So far they've made $0.30 BTC and the story has hardly broken...
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Romney would never pay directly, that's not an option that is even in the realm of possibility. Surrogates, though, or better yet supporters... The ideal outcome for the person who made the post is that Obama and Romney supporters get in a bidding war.
- jredwards 14y ago
  I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that he could make the payment privately, deny that he ever did so, and then take the position that no one was ever in possession of the documents and the whole thing was just a scam and the documents were never released because no one ever had them. It's plenty likely that the whole thing IS just a scam and they don't actually have the documents.
- corry 14y ago
  A possible motive is to force Romney's hand to release it himself. It still makes him look bad - but not as bad as a bidding war between his supporters and detractors.
- sp332 14y ago
  This isn't about getting Romney to pay, it's about getting some suckers to send a little money to the addresses on their own. Here's the balance for the "stop release" account https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8 https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW... and the "promote release" account https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...
brokentone 14y ago
Some of us developers have been working on the rehabilitation of the term "hack" and "hacker" (Hacker News anyone). The various Anonymous/LulzSec attacks of the last few years have been amusing and most have not been directly attacked individuals or been extortive (however, they've still been illegal, and I have not agreed with them). Although a politician, Mitt Romney is still a person. No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable.
- jj00nathan 14y ago
  "No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable." You realize Mitt Romney is campaigning for the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? Don't get me wrong, I generally think law enforcement should have privileged access to private data, but you disrespect your philosophical position by pretending to apply it in a manner where the outcome is predetermined through uneven application.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? The president of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution. Sure, some do it better than others, but I can think of a dozen worse violators of getting personal information that people have decided not to share.
  - brokentone 14y ago
    Sorry, I should have been more precise. The general public does not have rights to personal information an individual has declined to share. Now, this obviously excludes public information which the individual wishes wasn't available (arrest records, political contributions). I agree with you that the presidential office has made executive orders and signed bills recently (Obama and Bush both) that have substantially increased governmental reach and reduced privacy. But this doesn't give the public to take what they want willy-nilly. It does give the public the right not to vote for someone they feel has a double standard on privacy issues.
dia80 14y ago
Surely if it's true he needs to release his tax records and play "Don't give in to criminals". Might even make him look good / a victim. The chance of seeing the inside of a jail massively outweighs the chance of these guys getting any money...
corry 14y ago
The ransom note has pretty specific language: "Romney's 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied." Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim. But even if those specifics are true, how will anyone know that they really have the returns? Maybe they just figured out where the returns were stored and are trying to force someone else's hand.
- jasontn 14y ago
  By taking a line item deduction and making it public to the penny. Unequivocal confirmation.
  - corry 14y ago
    Good point, that would be the 'proof of life' in this case (at least for Romney and PwC).
- gwern 14y ago
  > Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim. These specifics are either public information or not. If they are public information, they can be checked by a member of the public and confirmed to be wrong or right; but if they are public information, they could have been obtained by such security breaches or by accessing the same public information used to check them. So if they are public information, they do not prove anything. If they are private information, then perhaps only PwC/PwC-employees can verify; presumably some of them will. But, if there was no security breach then PwC will deny that there was a security breach, and if there was a security breach, PwC will - like most companies - deny that there was a security breach because there is no possible advantage for them to confirm it. So regardless of whether this private information is accurate, the only party in a position to verify the information is also in a position with powerful incentives to claim that it is false. What is necessary is some sort of trap-door or one-way data: information which is private, but can still somehow be publicly checkable. None of these details seem to be such trap-doors. I figure these details are either public (building plan listing the existence of suite 260; location of PWC offices and having 3 floors all are trivial bits of info) or are made up for the purpose of seeming plausible.
tlrobinson 14y ago
"anonymous group" not THE "Anonymous"
- wmil 14y ago
  Isn't the point of the name supposed to be that anyone can be THE Anonymous?
  - qbrass 14y ago
    If you claim to be Anonymous, you get to be Anonymous. If you act anonymously, you're just being anonymous.
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
    Yes, but AFAICT these people didn't claim to be "Anonymous" "An anonymous individual or group..." The original article says nothing about them claiming to be "Anonymous" as the HN title implies, only that they acted anonymously. Adjective, not noun.
tlrobinson 14y ago
It seems likely this is just a scam to get random Romney and Obama supports to send Bitcoins to the scammer.
amalag 14y ago
They need to release a few random line items as proof, otherwise it's a nice scam.
salimmadjd 14y ago
KARL ROVE ALERT! This is a very similar in spirit to past tactics alleged against Karl Rove. This enables Romney to dodge the Tax issue by having it release this way and have all the focus pointed toward an "anonymous" group. Don't fall for this!
- salimmadjd 14y ago
  I wonder why this one was down voted? Think about the timing, releasing this during DNC. Think about the nature of the alleged hack, so unprecedented. Think about the random process, this has never happened before. All these combined and hearing alleged doggy practice of Karl rove in the past can leade you to conclude the shady motivations behind this
tlow 14y ago
This is quite clever; it seems it is possible that all three groups could possibly pay. Would they be able to remove that amount of money from the bitcoin system without affecting the conversion rate substantially, or is this loss near negligible?
jmsduran 14y ago
I'm calling their bluff, sounds very much like a scam to get money off people who fall for it.
DonnyV 14y ago
Kind of a coincidence this comes out right after the FBI Apple hack. Looks like someone wants everyone to look the other way.
evilDagmar 14y ago
I thought there was supposed to be an effort to ensure accuracy in posting titles--Anonymous didn't have a damn thing to do with this.
deweller 14y ago
PricewaterhouseCoopers PR managing director Chris Atkins says: “We are aware of the allegations that have been made regarding improper access to our systems. We are working closely with the United States Secret Service, and at this time there is no evidence that our systems have been compromised or that there was any unauthorized access to the data in question.” See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4481292 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4481292
adastra 14y ago
There is an important piece to this story that is missing from all the current news articles: a different earlier post on pastebin, dated 9/2, did not make mention of any kind of ransom: http://pastebin.com/zdU1TK40 http://pastebin.com/zdU1TK40 That earlier post simply said "The group will release all available files to the public on the 28 of September, 2012." That says to me that a second group saw the original post and decided to try and make some money off it as a scam. Of course it's also possible that they just changed their minds over the weekend. I'm not sure what either scenario says about the likelihood that this is real, but it definitely makes things more interesting. It's also worth noting that PWC is currently saying they have seen no signs that any data was taken.
dantiberian 14y ago
1 Million USD = 93,000 BTC at an exchange rate of ~$10.70

78 points by choko 14y ago

title didn't convey the content of the article, or why it would be of interest to HN. I thought it was political stuff at first vs tech news. A better title might be: Anonymous' steals Romney's tax return for blackmail extortion

tstegart 14y ago
Actually, I think the thieves are anonymous in that they aren't known yet, not "Anonymous" the hacker group.
- nollidge 14y ago
  If that's the case then "anonymous" shouldn't be used as a noun.
- engtech 14y ago
  I assumed it was A-nonymous when I read the article, but on re-read I think you are correct. That probably explains why the story hasn't exploded more like other stories about Anonymous or Lulsec have.
choko 14y ago
Thanks for the advice.

splatzone 14y ago

They've provided no real proof that they actually have the tax returns. I'd be surprised if this is genuine.

debacle 14y ago
If it is genuine, then the Romney campaign has proof.
- readme 14y ago
  If it is genuine, I don't know why they think they'll get away with it. Also $1M is way too low of an amount to blackmail Romney for. Talk about selling yourself short.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Yes, the low amount is what makes me suspect that it's fake. If this were real, and the true aim was extortion, we would have never heard about it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - cpeterso 14y ago
      Perhaps the blackmailers assume they are more likely to get money from people who want the records revealed. 1 million people could pay $1 each, Kickstarter-style.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        I would gladly pay a dollar (or donate to a charity of Mitt's choice) to have him release the records, just so we could move past them and try to talk about something of substance for a while.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Eh, I'm not sure. It's pretty clear what's in Romney's returns at this point (a lower than average income tax rate, though it's hard to say whether it's closer to 5% or 15%), so I don't see a huge downside risk for him in them being released. If they upped their demands to, say $10 million, we're talking about real money, even for Mitt. Enough to get an extra percent of the vote or so in a moderate sized state. Unless there's something genuinely illegal in the returns, a couple days of renewed interest in them might be preferable to giving up a bit of money at the margin (though, paid media is fairly well saturated now, so it might not be that useful). From Romney's point of view, too, there'd be no guarantee that paying 10 million would prevent them from being released. There's no accountability for the Anonymous. With 1 million, though, it's just a no brainer. That said, I doubt they have anything. Reeks of BS to me.
atlbeer 14y ago
For me the telling thing is the "1040" bit. I'm no billionaire but, even my meager tax return is more than a simple 1040 form.
- arjunnarayan 14y ago
  yeah but the critical figures people want, including the sum total of tax paid is on the 1040.

appliance_guide 14y ago

Now if only they could steal Obama's college transcripts he's paid over a million dollars to keep sealed...

rayiner 14y ago
Equally relevant!
- grandalf 14y ago
  Point taken, but I'd be happy if candidates just released both sorts of information and weren't so afraid of being transparent.
  - myko 14y ago
    Is it normal to release educational transcripts? I thought taxes were pretty much a given, but not so with college transcripts. Also the OPs assertion of paying 1 million dollars to hide Obama's transcripts is so ridiculous on its face I'm surprised people willingly post things like that online.
    - Jach 14y ago
      Fun fact, we have Romney's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. McCain only provided two years of returns too when he was running. It's not a hard-precedent to provide "everything you have", either tax records or birth certificates or transcripts or letters of recommendation... But looking at it from a politician's perspective: if it can only help you, fine, release it. Otherwise why bother? Unless the damage from not releasing exceeds the damage from releasing (which I think is becoming the case for Romney), it's just unnecessary information.
      - myko 14y ago
        I thought we had his 2010 returns and an estimation of his 2011 returns?
  - 14y ago

tantalor 14y ago

Is it safe to accept a ransom via BitCoin? Theoretically how might they be caught?

rms 14y ago
If the people accepting the Bitcoins for ransom own the Silk Road? Let's face it, all Bitcoins eventually end up on the Silk Road.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tlrobinson 14y ago
It's safe to accept it, but once you have it laundering and spending it is more difficult.

hugh4life 14y ago

What I find interesting is the future(or current) possibility of political opponents hacking each other and then blaming it on "Anonymous" or entrepreneurial hackers. Or heck, infiltrate companies that do business with the political opponent and then blame "hackers" who don't exist.

jeffool 14y ago
Or media outlets, given the whole "celebrity cell/email hacking scandal". Or even rival companies that find dirt.
mey 14y ago
So Watergate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
duiker101 14y ago
I really hope you didn't just give them the idea.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Can this be considered terrorism? Surely, blackmail, but also terrorism? Just curious. edit: Since I received record fast downvotes, I'll clarify that this is not meant to be a political comment, jesus.

mtgx 14y ago
If you want to dilute what the words means to the point it can mean just about any crime, sure. But if you're referring to the strict term, then no.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion Which word am I diluting exactly? If Romney is as afraid of releasing his taxes as many imply, would he not be fearful of their release? edit2: thanks for the replies, I think I understand why y'all disagree and I think that I agree with you. It's not systematic and it's not being used to intimidate others, it's too focused, basically.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Part of the idea of terrorism (and hate crimes, for that matter) is that the victims aren't just the ones immediately impacted, but other people as well. The aim of terrorism is to create a climate of fear in those who live. I will always remember the first time I flew on an airplane after September 11, 2001. I strongly doubt that this act was designed to strike fear into the hearts of all of the other fabulously wealthy presidential candidates who refuse to disclose their tax returns.
  - benburleson 14y ago
    In my opinion, the reason this does not classify as terrorism is that 99.999999% of the world is not afraid of being blackmailed for the release of their tax returns.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    The entire idea of blackmail is that you fear the thing being held against you.

semenko 14y ago

Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S I'm not very familiar with the Bitcoin protocol: Can all users view the values of these two bitcoin accounts -- or BTC in transit?

andreyf 14y ago
Yes, the transactions to and from these accounts are available here: Stop release: https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8 https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW... Full release: https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Those amounts that look like 8 bits of binary are interesting, but don't seem to convert to meaningful ascii. That would have been fun.
  - colanderman 14y ago
    Apparently it's an imgur URL?
  - grenouille 14y ago
    It actually is ASCII data (byte == binary_btc_amount * 256), spelling the string 'http://i.imgur.com/5k6Rf.png http://i.imgur.com/5k6Rf.png. This PNG image is a QR code, which decodes to the string '01101000011101000111010001110000001110100010111100101111011010010010111001101001 01101101011001110111010101110010001011100110001101101111011011010010111101101001' (newline added for layout, not actually present). This, in turn, is a binary ASCII encoding of the string 'http://i.imgur.com/i http://i.imgur.com/i. But that's a 404 page, so this whole thing seems a bit futile. FWIW, the PNG file coincides exactly with the one generated by http://qrcode.kaywa.com/ http://qrcode.kaywa.com/ for the binary string.
    - 14y ago

deweller 14y ago

The hacker activist group named Anonymous is not involved in this claim. But rather the statement comes from an anonymous group claiming to have stolen digital copies of the records.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

coffeeThermos 14y ago
By putting the price at $1,000,000 they might have a chance at actually getting the information. Sure they could have put the price at 10 or 100 million dollars, but the probability that Romney would pay out would be miniscule. I am sure at the ransom price is more money than these guys have ever seen. Why not price the information at a rate which somebody might actually pay? Since bitcoin is decentralized, I cannot imagine any law passed could successfully outlaw it.

alkimie 14y ago

It is fascinating that none of the major news outlets seems to have reported this as of yet.

mherdeg 14y ago

This kind of stuff has the potential to be so much fun, but always ends up being so boring. Remember when a 4chan user hacked into Sarah Palin's not-public-record Yahoo! Mail account and managed to post screenshots to /b/? But then the user totally failed to publicly archive the mail? And somehow got caught? Total disappointment.

oldgregg 14y ago

Damn. Who knows if this is legit, but assassination markets are coming, it's only a matter of time. Obviously it won't start with ACTUAL assassinations-- but hide your data, hide your mistresses. If abused assistants and underpaid file clerks ever realize they can make 100x their salary by leaking data with a bounty there is going to be a culture changing shit-storm.

Bud 14y ago
Not really. The file clerks and assistants in question would have to do far more than simply "realize" that they can leak data. They would have to magically acquire the expertise to leak it untraceably, to handle all the financial arrangements untraceably, and not get caught in any other ways. Meanwhile, the most powerful people in the world will be going after them. This is already an extremely difficult proposition, and will only get more difficult with time.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

What if it's all a scheme to drive up the value of bitcoin via speculation? Increased attention to the currency will have some bidding up the price, so anyone just holding bitcoin could profit, even if without 1 coin being sent to either address. Of course, if someone did try to make the payment and purchase a million bucks of bitcoins, that would drive the price sky high.

brucehart 14y ago
My first thought is that it would do the opposite: increase political pressure on Bitcoin so that it may become more difficult to use (legally). This would drive down the price since many buyers are speculating on Bitcoin becoming more mainstream one day.

brentk 14y ago

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/ http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-d...

jredwards 14y ago
To spare everyone the trouble: unrelated satire from months ago.

ender7 14y ago

I don't understand why they made this a public posting. Romney isn't incentivized to pay up once the blackmail is public knowledge -- payment is equivalent to admitting guilt. Might as well keep your money and take the hits. I don't see any situations where this beats contacting the campaign privately, with a document or two in hand to prove that you have the real stuff. Unless, of course, if this is just a stunt that someone is running on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to actually pay the money.

brokentone 14y ago
So far they've made $0.30 BTC and the story has hardly broken...
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Romney would never pay directly, that's not an option that is even in the realm of possibility. Surrogates, though, or better yet supporters... The ideal outcome for the person who made the post is that Obama and Romney supporters get in a bidding war.
jredwards 14y ago
I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that he could make the payment privately, deny that he ever did so, and then take the position that no one was ever in possession of the documents and the whole thing was just a scam and the documents were never released because no one ever had them. It's plenty likely that the whole thing IS just a scam and they don't actually have the documents.
corry 14y ago
A possible motive is to force Romney's hand to release it himself. It still makes him look bad - but not as bad as a bidding war between his supporters and detractors.
sp332 14y ago
This isn't about getting Romney to pay, it's about getting some suckers to send a little money to the addresses on their own. Here's the balance for the "stop release" account https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8 https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW... and the "promote release" account https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...

brokentone 14y ago

Some of us developers have been working on the rehabilitation of the term "hack" and "hacker" (Hacker News anyone). The various Anonymous/LulzSec attacks of the last few years have been amusing and most have not been directly attacked individuals or been extortive (however, they've still been illegal, and I have not agreed with them). Although a politician, Mitt Romney is still a person. No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable.

jj00nathan 14y ago
"No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable." You realize Mitt Romney is campaigning for the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? Don't get me wrong, I generally think law enforcement should have privileged access to private data, but you disrespect your philosophical position by pretending to apply it in a manner where the outcome is predetermined through uneven application.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? The president of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution. Sure, some do it better than others, but I can think of a dozen worse violators of getting personal information that people have decided not to share.
- brokentone 14y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more precise. The general public does not have rights to personal information an individual has declined to share. Now, this obviously excludes public information which the individual wishes wasn't available (arrest records, political contributions). I agree with you that the presidential office has made executive orders and signed bills recently (Obama and Bush both) that have substantially increased governmental reach and reduced privacy. But this doesn't give the public to take what they want willy-nilly. It does give the public the right not to vote for someone they feel has a double standard on privacy issues.

dia80 14y ago

Surely if it's true he needs to release his tax records and play "Don't give in to criminals". Might even make him look good / a victim. The chance of seeing the inside of a jail massively outweighs the chance of these guys getting any money...

corry 14y ago

The ransom note has pretty specific language: "Romney's 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied." Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim. But even if those specifics are true, how will anyone know that they really have the returns? Maybe they just figured out where the returns were stored and are trying to force someone else's hand.

jasontn 14y ago
By taking a line item deduction and making it public to the penny. Unequivocal confirmation.
- corry 14y ago
  Good point, that would be the 'proof of life' in this case (at least for Romney and PwC).
gwern 14y ago
> Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim. These specifics are either public information or not. If they are public information, they can be checked by a member of the public and confirmed to be wrong or right; but if they are public information, they could have been obtained by such security breaches or by accessing the same public information used to check them. So if they are public information, they do not prove anything. If they are private information, then perhaps only PwC/PwC-employees can verify; presumably some of them will. But, if there was no security breach then PwC will deny that there was a security breach, and if there was a security breach, PwC will - like most companies - deny that there was a security breach because there is no possible advantage for them to confirm it. So regardless of whether this private information is accurate, the only party in a position to verify the information is also in a position with powerful incentives to claim that it is false. What is necessary is some sort of trap-door or one-way data: information which is private, but can still somehow be publicly checkable. None of these details seem to be such trap-doors. I figure these details are either public (building plan listing the existence of suite 260; location of PWC offices and having 3 floors all are trivial bits of info) or are made up for the purpose of seeming plausible.

tlrobinson 14y ago

"anonymous group" not THE "Anonymous"

wmil 14y ago
Isn't the point of the name supposed to be that anyone can be THE Anonymous?
- qbrass 14y ago
  If you claim to be Anonymous, you get to be Anonymous. If you act anonymously, you're just being anonymous.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  Yes, but AFAICT these people didn't claim to be "Anonymous" "An anonymous individual or group..." The original article says nothing about them claiming to be "Anonymous" as the HN title implies, only that they acted anonymously. Adjective, not noun.

tlrobinson 14y ago

It seems likely this is just a scam to get random Romney and Obama supports to send Bitcoins to the scammer.

amalag 14y ago

They need to release a few random line items as proof, otherwise it's a nice scam.

salimmadjd 14y ago

KARL ROVE ALERT! This is a very similar in spirit to past tactics alleged against Karl Rove. This enables Romney to dodge the Tax issue by having it release this way and have all the focus pointed toward an "anonymous" group. Don't fall for this!

salimmadjd 14y ago
I wonder why this one was down voted? Think about the timing, releasing this during DNC. Think about the nature of the alleged hack, so unprecedented. Think about the random process, this has never happened before. All these combined and hearing alleged doggy practice of Karl rove in the past can leade you to conclude the shady motivations behind this

tlow 14y ago

This is quite clever; it seems it is possible that all three groups could possibly pay. Would they be able to remove that amount of money from the bitcoin system without affecting the conversion rate substantially, or is this loss near negligible?

jmsduran 14y ago

I'm calling their bluff, sounds very much like a scam to get money off people who fall for it.

DonnyV 14y ago

Kind of a coincidence this comes out right after the FBI Apple hack. Looks like someone wants everyone to look the other way.

evilDagmar 14y ago

I thought there was supposed to be an effort to ensure accuracy in posting titles--Anonymous didn't have a damn thing to do with this.

deweller 14y ago

PricewaterhouseCoopers PR managing director Chris Atkins says: “We are aware of the allegations that have been made regarding improper access to our systems. We are working closely with the United States Secret Service, and at this time there is no evidence that our systems have been compromised or that there was any unauthorized access to the data in question.” See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4481292 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4481292

adastra 14y ago

There is an important piece to this story that is missing from all the current news articles: a different earlier post on pastebin, dated 9/2, did not make mention of any kind of ransom: http://pastebin.com/zdU1TK40 http://pastebin.com/zdU1TK40 That earlier post simply said "The group will release all available files to the public on the 28 of September, 2012." That says to me that a second group saw the original post and decided to try and make some money off it as a scam. Of course it's also possible that they just changed their minds over the weekend. I'm not sure what either scenario says about the likelihood that this is real, but it definitely makes things more interesting. It's also worth noting that PWC is currently saying they have seen no signs that any data was taken.

dantiberian 14y ago

1 Million USD = 93,000 BTC at an exchange rate of ~$10.70