How to Crack #Weinergate Wide Open
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: A couple people on twitter said, paraphrase, “but Weiner has not accused them of hacking his account.” Bluntly, that isn’t necessary. All you need is one person accusing Goatsred or PatriotUSA76 or any other specific person of being the hacker, and those people can sue their accuser for defamation and obtain those records as part of the course of the trial.
Also its worth noting that they would then have the right to call Weiner to the stand.
Okay so here is the conundrum. This entire Weinergate mystery could be solved in about fifteen minutes work. All Weiner has to do is report it to authorities and then Twitter would be subpoenaed for data such as the IP address from which that tweet originated and that is that. But the problem is Weiner is being, well… a Weiner about this and not calling the cops.
I mean he can call the cops to bully a reporter…
…but not to deal with an (alleged) hacker that has made his life hell. And that might be for one of two reasons:
1) He’s guilty, or
2) He’s innocent of this, but guilty of something else.
I give zero consideration to the possibility he is completely innocent because if he was innocent he wouldn’t act like this.
So how do we get around the fact Weiner won’t report it? Simple. Have someone who has been accused of being the Weinergate hacker sue their accuser for defamation. I believe that has happened to Goatsred and we know this has happened to PatriotUSA76.
Are you seeing where this is going? So then, as a matter of course, the case would turn on whether there as a hacker at all. Which means of course that then the Plaintiff (possibly Goatsred and/or PatriotUSA76) would be able to subpoena the IP data from Twitter. Indeed, they would be very likely to be allowed to examine the computers that Weiner has access to, his emails and on and on…
And in fact, come to think of it, isn’t this precisely the sort of thing Judicial Watch does all the time? Hmm….
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, while there is nothing wrong with the press (and I include the blogosphere in that term) pursuing the hacker angle, as far as what I think happened, until and unless Weiner reports it to the police, I am going to believe he sent the pictures.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Bingo! And since Wiener’s liberal proxies and interested others are trying to make a case that ‘Dan Wolfe’ is ‘The #Hacker!’, it would make sense to stop that kind of nonsense. BUT — knowing how rabid liberals can be in protecting their cubs, and seeing that ‘Dan Wolfe’ has some complications in his life that could make him vulnerable to personal attacks, I doubt he’ll sue.
starboardhelm (e93080) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:39 pmthere is no hacker here
just a liar what likes the youngstuff
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:44 pmNot only that, but Wolfe is possibly in Virginia, and suing would cause him to have to appear in New York for the proceedings. Is it possible that Breitbart could finance the man and make it worth his while to pursue? This would be a brutal kneecapper to little weiner if he is hiding more of these kinds of incidents.
xamn (0671c5) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:46 pm“unless Weiner reports it to the police, I am going to believe he sent the pictures.”
THIS!!!
Johnny 5 is alive (5ccc5e) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:48 pmxamn
um, you’re wrong about having to go to NY. He was defamed in all 50 states, and thus the cause of action would lie anywhere he wanted it to. He could sue in virginia, under virginia law and be fine.
indeed, theoretically he could go to england and sue, although then he would face an anti-slapp suit if he did that. But suing in Virginia–or whatever his home state might be–won’t have that effect.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:55 pmHey isn’t it time to finally quit pounding the Wiener? I mean I enjoy watching that sanctimonious little putz take it in the shorts as it were. But if you keeping pounding on this–having been at it for a week or so now–you’re going to grow hair in the palm of your hands.
Let’s close up Weinergate.
Rahm Yoo Manual (0e06a9) — 6/5/2011 @ 12:57 pmOf course he sent the photo. He is actually smart enough to listen to his lawyer at this point. Sending a photo of underwear is not porno, the intended recepient is over 18, no outright solicitation for sex, etc. In other words, the little liberal wennie loudmouth hasn’t broken any laws, yet…
As so many have pointed out in other places, the minute he goes to the police, then he has potential legal problems.
Should such twits be in congress? No. However, Democratic districts have been known for reelecting scuh people for decades.
Cheshirecat (0cd6a2) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:04 pmIf that could indeed work it would be deliciously ingenious!
I would simply sit back and enjoy my schadenfreude…
Fuzzlenutter (42b8fe) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:08 pmIsn’t also the case that Twitter or Yfrog could sue Wiener over false claims about the security of their accounts?
EchoTango (b15053) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:08 pmNew theory that dovetails nicely with all known facts: Weiner may have used an iPad to take/send pic.
George (ee9f62) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:09 pmThe problem isn’t his sending the picture. The problem is that he said he was HACKED. As a federal official, this is a serious allegation and should be pursued unless, of course, he lied. The moment he tells federal law enforcement a lie, then he has committed a crime.
Like with Bill Clinton, the crime isn’t the sex, it is the lying under oath.
Arizona Bob (aa856e) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:12 pmSeixon (George Gooding) is a wonderfully clear tech-issue writer. I’ve read so many eye-glazingly bogglesome tech explanations related to #weinergate – his lay out key points and issues in an orderly and comphrehensible way withougt fuss or misdirection.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:32 pmDebbie Wasserman-Schultz says the Anthony Weiner is dealing with a “personal problem”.
Is DWS suffering from early-onset Alzheimers?
“…Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
This goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values.
What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men…”
AD-RtR/OS! (f756d5) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:43 pmH/T- Legal Insurrection
To be honest, I think it’s too late to find out anything. Had he been serious about finding this “hacker”, he would have reported things and requested an investigation immediately. Most likely, Weiner has deleted all the crotch-shot photos he’s taken. (according to “anonymous Dems in congress” who have spoken to the media- this is why Weiner is “unsure” if the photo is one of his own)
And I don’t think Tweetdeck saves any posting history when you send tweets out and then delete them. Possible that Twitter can prove something… maybe.
The most we can expect is for one of the wide-eyed, gushing 20 year olds to admit they got a similar pic from Weiner.
Riiiiight.
Jewels (c7b6c5) — 6/5/2011 @ 1:53 pm“All Weiner has to do is report it to authorities and then Twitter would be subpoenaed for data such as the IP address from which that tweet originated and that is that.”
Why do the police have to wait for it to be “reported” ?
jvc (6fa251) — 6/5/2011 @ 2:07 pmBut wouldn’t those accused bloggers be limited purpose public figures for whom constitutional malice would need to be shown for recovery? And if constitutional malice needed to be shown, wouldn’t the case be dismissed on a motion to dismiss before discovery could even be conducted?
eaglewingz08 (83b841) — 6/5/2011 @ 2:16 pmWeiner is guilty! guilty! guilty!
Brad (d9a8d4) — 6/5/2011 @ 2:20 pmJvc – how many names do you plan on posting under?
JD (318f81) — 6/5/2011 @ 2:37 pmHow can you defame a pseudonym? Mike Stack may now be able to claim something, since he’s been outed (and what’s happened to him, btw, proves that Patriot was right to be paranoid, even if he was also a weasel).
Weiner’s guilty, obviously, of either this or something much, much worse. Patriot’s mildly interesting, but not nearly as much as Weiner’s guilt.
DHM (ea325d) — 6/5/2011 @ 3:10 pmOops. Just checking in to see if there is ANYTHING non-weiner being posted. Guess not.
See you later… Much later.
Gesundheit (d7ea47) — 6/5/2011 @ 3:24 pmWeiner fatigue?
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 6/5/2011 @ 3:25 pmA lot of pixels have given their lives trying to explain how someone tried to do Weiner dirty and Weiner innocently wants everyone to forget it (the people at Mediaite must be lined up outside the chiropractor’s office after their contortions).
But really, Weiner is a politician. As Woody Allen said, these guys are a notch below child molesters. They should be considered guilty absent countervailing evidence, especially when they refuse to ask for an official independent investigation. Don’t journalists always talk about comforting the afflicted and blah blah blah…?
MU789 (b5e80f) — 6/5/2011 @ 3:46 pmmu789
> As Woody Allen said, these guys are a notch below child molesters.
Funny, that a guy who dated his wife’s daughter said that.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/5/2011 @ 4:11 pm1,794,305,493,666,666,659 names.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/5/2011 @ 4:11 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_re_us/libya_russia
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/5/2011 @ 4:42 pmIf jvc sold his pseudonyms and donated the proceeds to the Treasury, he could retire the National Debt.
AD-RtR/OS! (f756d5) — 6/5/2011 @ 4:48 pmWe still don’t know who broke weineergate, how it was broken and why, do we?
Anyway, I have proof that Rep. Weiner violated the constitutional
separation of powers doctrine, when he intervened in a bankrutpcy matter and sent an ex parte letter to a bankruptcy judge on his office stationery co-signed by two NY state (Democratic) legislators. This happened more than ten years ago. I tried to call this to the attention of officials, of the media and got nowhere.
I guess, in view of Weinergate, a sophomoric (sad, really) photo
David Zukerman (e172e8) — 6/5/2011 @ 5:32 pmis worth taking note of — constitutional violation by a Democratic congressman draws yawns. Well, maybe Someone Above took notice. And maybe Weinergate won’t be over until we know all the facts.
“Anyway, as far as I am concerned, while there is nothing wrong with the press … pursuing the hacker angle”
Well, apart from the fact they totally suck at it.
The big thing today is The Daily Mail has engaged some tech experts to weigh in with a technical opinion on whether any of these scenarios work or don’t based on how this social media site actually works.
Hooray. Brace yourself for the IP addresses you refer to, better yet the routing info, meta data tagged into the hosting pages, information that Twitter uses to run its site, properly route it’s messaging and which will explain the source of this posting once and for all.
Well, no. The revelation – that Daily Mail has presumably paid to get from their tech guy – is that if you look at the Tweets, they all say “via TweetDeck”.
This is what the media did in trying to thumbs up/down the hacker theory with their resources and time and access to experts that could have actually explained this to the public. They revealed nothing every single one of us couldn’t do ourselves.
And within hours, the blogger this was intended to debunk has his own debunking post up saying they’ve failed, stating why this doesn’t mean anything and we’re back to square 1. Because this added no understanding of WTF is involved so nobody is any the wiser as to which of these is an accurate description of what occurs.
This makes a strong argument that the media isn’t capable of pursuing the hacker angle and if they do, they won’t do anything useful and will just waste everyone’s time. That’s what’s wrong with them doing that.
Meanwhile, Twitter’s a large, prestigious company. Maybe none of their current or former staff have ever put that company name on their LinkedIn CV and it might be really hard to contact someone who can offer an informed explanation of what the public doesn’t know, or maybe not.
backstop (b11060) — 6/5/2011 @ 5:36 pm@David Zukerman — 6/5/2011 @ 5:32 pm
“Anyway, I have proof that Rep. Weiner violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine… I tried to call this to the attention of officials, of the media and got nowhere.”
So try harder. How about you upload that evidence to somewhere well known and accessible like Scribd, so that when tell someone you have this, people can instantly verify that. Differentiate you from just someone making another claim on the internet.
Meanwhile, someone with more pull with the media than you might also notice this when you talk about it on blogs and then it might go somewhere.
Without this the only thing anyone has to go on is whether you’re a good speller.
backstop (b11060) — 6/5/2011 @ 5:46 pmAaron:
I think you have made two fairly serious legal errors:
1. In your article, you say that anyone who is accused of being the hacker could sue their accuser. This isn’t necessarily so. If someone accuses another based on publicly available evidence, that’s not defamation (as Johnny Cochran found out when the NY Post said unkind things about him and he sued.) You don’t have to be right, but you mustn’t imply special knowledge that isn’t accurate. (OJ Simpson murdered two people. Alan Weiner did something grossly improper on Twitter. Neither of those guys can successfully sue me.)
If Weiner is the accuser, it’s a little different; there would be an implicit assertion of facts outside the public record. Otherwise, it’s a problem.
2. In the comments, you make the strong claim that the alleged hackers could sue in their home state. I can see how Mrs. Partridge would see it that way, but I’m not convinced Calder v. Jones requires that finding in this case. Since I don’t know the specific details of the alleged defamation you are thinking of, I could be wrong, but given my position above, it’s far from clear.
2.5. You can’t drag Weiner several hundred miles for a deposition, unless the law in Virginia and New York is way, way different than the law I’m familiar with.
3. Editorial comment: Using the legal system for this kind of thing strikes me as misguided or worse. To me, the tone sounds like saying, “find some poor sucker to sue in order to subpoena Weiner and depose him.” Perhaps I misread it. Given the update, I don’t think I did.
–JRM
JRM (cd0a37) — 6/5/2011 @ 8:48 pmAaron, maybe you’re not paranoid enough.
Look at all the effort being poured into Weinergate. What is it being deflected from? Is this a wag the dog incident? Is there some other shenanigan taking place in DC?
{^_^}
JD (bcdcf2) — 6/6/2011 @ 1:21 amAaron:
From a technical perspective, getting the IP address of the tweet isn’t 100% proof (or even in my mind beyond a reasonable doubt) that Weiner sent that tweet. A competent hacker would cover his tracks. One way of doing so and assuring the blame stayed pinned on the target would be to compromise a computer that Weiner uses, then send the tweet from that computer. The compromise could be physical (someone pranking him from his own keyboard) or it could be technical and remote. In the latter case the computer in question could be infected with malware that allows remote control.
Do I think that’s what happened? No. But there is room for a jury or judge to consider that a reasonable possibility.
And I question the timing too. What are we being distracted from?
Dan S (e3abd8) — 6/6/2011 @ 5:10 amDan
1) i suspect that this entire post is about to be moot.
2) no, it doesn’t clinch it, but it is still pretty damning.
and what are we being distracted from? justice thomas, of course, silly! (being tongue-in-cheek there)
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/6/2011 @ 5:56 amLooks like a pattern will make IPs less of an issue.
The statist motto has often been, “for the children!” Let’s see if that is in the headlines this time. Weiner is for the children with certitude.
Dan S (e3abd8) — 6/6/2011 @ 6:46 ami thought from the beginning that there was a distinct possibility that the original story could turn out to be false, but the subsequent revelations would deflate the weiner. i said it was sort of like tiger woods. the best evidence is that woods was sleep-driving on the first night of the scandal. but that was enough to get the women to start talking and things went to hell from there.
of course one major difference was that i was sad to see that happen to woods…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/6/2011 @ 6:54 amThanks for taking notice, backstop. Thing is, media isn’t much interested in high-handed political conduct by Democrats. GOP isn’t much interested either. My most recent, pre-Weinergate mention of his constitutionally-improper letter on the Dayton Seaside property tax manipulation by NYC was in The Wave, Rockaway, Queens weekly, May 20. That letter mentioned how others who knew or should have known about Dayton Seaside — Alan Hevesi and Joe Bruno, found themselves in difficulties, unrelated to Dayton Seaside. Bill deBlasio, now NYC public advocate, and a HUD official when Dayton Seaside went down — he sent me two stonewalling letters — hopes to be next mayor, especially now that Weiner’s mayoral ambition is probably ended. I was a Dayton Seaside principal, now on food stamps — and have not asked for Celestial intervention. But if Bill deBlasio’s is thwarted in his NYC mayoral ambition, would seem to me, after Hevesi, Bruno and, now, Weiner, Someone Up Above has been keeping an eye, while biding time, on the Dayton Seaside property tax manipulators, and their allies.
David Zukerman (142e60) — 6/6/2011 @ 10:54 am