Worst damage control ever?
Guest essay by Brandon Schollenberger
Despite my joking comments about having mad haxor skillz being a source of amusement for many people, it appears some people actually believe I hacked the Skeptical Science forum’s website. Rob Honeycutt, a key team member at Skeptical Science, has referred to my actions, saying things like:
“Back door” was used by me as a metaphor. Hack = “To break into comp sys with malicious intent.” An easy hack is still a hack.
when did theft become legal?
When Shub Niggurath expressed his disbelief at my actions being called hacking, Honeycutt explicitly said it was hacking:
Yes, accessing involved effort and some determination to filter thru 1000’s of images 2 locate 1s that cld be taken out context.
Clearly, Rob Honeycutt claims my “effort” to find this directory was hacking. The problem for Honeycutt is Google used the exact same process.
It crawled and saved a cached version of that directory.
That means, according to Rob Honeycutt, Google hacked Skeptical Science!
And according to Honeycutt, that makes Google dumb:
![dumb_zps70081796[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/dumb_zps700817962.png?quality=75)
Personally, I disagree. I think the only person who was “dumb enough to publicly expose private files” was John Cook for configuring his server to have “private files” displayed in a public directory. It seems to me Honeycutt is damning his own team with his comments. And he really nails them in the follow-up exchange:
![Priceless_zps4d11ebf1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/priceless_zps4d11ebf11.png?quality=75)
If you look at this Skeptical Science post. That post currently links directly to six stolen documents. Those documents were illicitly obtained by Peter Gleick, and Skeptical Science happily promotes their dissemination. According to Rob Honeycutt, that is dumb and unethical.
Google hacked Skeptical Science. Skeptical Science was unethical in disseminating files Peter Gleick illicitly obtained. John Cook was “dumb enough to publicly expose private files.” That’s what Rob Honeycutt has basically said. And that’s pretty much all anyone at Skeptical Science is saying about their Nazi images.
Related articles
- LOL! ‘Mad Haxor Skillz’ Godwinize ‘Skeptical Science’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Skeptical Science takes ‘creepy’ to a whole new level (wattsupwiththat.com)
UPDATE: Lucia has an interesting discussion of the issue here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-sks-nazi-images-thoughts-on-fair-use/
I remember when I didn’t understand how the internet worked.
They’re peed off because their likely scam (to fabricate a supposed ad hom attack from sceptics by use of the pics) was foiled. I can’t think of any other reason for them making the pics in the first place.
Yes, this guy is a talkative idiot.
But did he answer the one question that no-one can fathom?
Why did John Cook allow himself to be portrayed in Nuremburg Rally style?
I mean, why would anyone not just delete the pics and kick the bottom of the bloke who made the images?
It’s weird.
It appears that R. Honeycutt is a pure propagandist, and should be treated as such. It seems that very little thought goes into the rationality of what he says, before, or after, he says it.
Well, the Nazi imagery looks more and more appropriate each day.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
…why is this sounding more and more like our current government
If it’s in a publicly accessible directory, and it’s crawlable, there can be absolutely no expectation of privacy. The analogy I’d use is a public figure walking around naked in front of the windows, then complaining that the media is publishing pictures of it.
Besides, nobody actually cares. I’m more amused by their inability to comprehend how their web server works than the childish images they had in there.
So what was their excuse for the Nazi pics anyway?
Maybe somebody needs to ‘splain robots.txt to these guys. Yeah, if you don’t tell the spiders they aren’t welcome, they make themselves at home even if they’re the only ones who ever visit your site.
But none of these images were “private files”.
All these images were placed in a public directory (as evidenced by the fact that a person could simply go to the right URL an view them, without a password or anything).
All these public images were linked from a public web page (see screenshot above).
There was no notice to search engines saying that they were not supposed to look (using robots.txt) at these public files or the public web page linking to them.
There was no notice to people saying that they were not supposed to look at these public files or the public web page linking to them.
How was anybody supposed to know that despite all this publishing to the public, that they were intended to be private? Telepathy?
Complaining about these public files is like parading in fancy dress inthe street with a neon sign saying “look at me”, then allowing national media (newspapers etc) to show pictures of the event, and only after all that complaining people weren’t supposed to look at your “private” antics.
Some context on what goes on in that forum (also found through an open public access to their forum) is discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/
IF you publish it to a live, public spot, it is fair game. “Security through obscurity” is NOT a security method. Simply pulling up a directory is NOT a “hack” and I can’t imagine that it would pass a laugh test in court.
Having said that — wanna bet that the AGW alarmists are probing sites like this to find that file that says, “Exxon and BP are sending us a big check to publish their latest planted scientific-looking graph”? Cause you KNOW they are. Heck, betting they’d PLANT it, then wait for another leftist hacker to find it! Ask people on the Right who have had their email hacked how the Left operates. Obama’s data collection in the last 2 elections borders on “very damned spooky” and I have to wonder where that data really came from (*cough*NSA*cough*).
In my opinion the SKS people should be thankful that these images came to light now. People with no real concept of internet security shouldn’t be planning things like “false flag operations”, if that is indeed what they were planning.
If these images had been fired in anger just how long do you think it would have been before they were traced back to SKS and nailed embarrassingly to their door. I would give it less than a day. Look at how long it took before Gleick was identified.
The premature discovery leaves room for the SKS people to claim uncertainty as to what exactly the images were intended for. Perhaps they were not planning to use them to try to discredit skeptics. Maybe they just have a bit of a strange nazi fetish.
Ancient standards applied: Proverbs 6:31 NIV
You’d think a bunch of propagandists like the folks at SkS would have the sense to keep quiet about this so it’d blow over. The more they talk about it the longer they keep it alive and current in people’s minds. But nothing these guys do really surprises me anymore.
I’ve worked in IT since the mid 80’s. In no way was what Anthony did any kind of hack. All the software, though poorly configured, was behaving exactly as configured. No attempt was made to compromise accounts/passwords. No attempt was made to subvert the normal operation of any system. He just accessed it. As a previous poster just pointed out, obscurity is not security. Obscurity is a valid strategy as part of an overall security policy, but if its the only arrow in your quiver then you clearly don’t have a clue.
Other than the possibility of brewing a false flag attack, it is incomprehensible. But then so is SkS general attempt to defend the indefensible, whether climate science itself, or their 97% consensus about it that Brandon helped expose elsewhere.
The SkS crowd should learn to follow Churchill’s advice that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Good show, Brandon. Enjoying it.
I recently attended a seminar of a renowned security expert (one of the top 15 in the world). over 90% of “hacking” is social engineering. Basically what Gleick did. He never mentioned web crawlers as a source of hacking.
The Scott Mandias and the Gorebots are out on climate patrol every day at NPR. Every now and then, a little reality intrudes:
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/06/209462713/earth-scientists-pin-climate-change-squarely-on-humanity#comment-999212978
R Honeycutt? Was that not a character in Asimov’s robot series?
I love this clowns, whatever his real name is, logic.
If he does it, it is A Ok.
If it is done to him, it is a low dishonest blow, by evil people.
Sounds like a product of our public school system for sure.
This ethical disconnect is the trait of a cult,in a collective of weak minded people, like the “cause”, the chosen ones are automatically given a pass, but any who doubt are evil by definition.
Brings to mind the old joke of a man so crooked, that he cannot walk straight.
From the link that Antony Watts just posted:
Crazy? Perhaps. But note:
either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history, sic.
Well, the world didn’t work like they guessed it would. So they are committed to guerrilla warfare in the sphere of public thought.
If Gleick was weak in their eyes then morality has been jettisoned. Theft, deceit and fraud is OK for The Cause.
Their cause is beyond good and evil in their eyes.
But only their eyes.
At least, my insight into their psychology is that they are not beyond merely failing to be good.
If I understand this, Honeycutt is arguing that accessing files in the normal manner from a public web site is unethical if the owner of the web site did not intend to make those files public.
I guess the theory is that you don’t have the right to enter a stranger’s house even if he leaves the front door unlocked. Such a theory might find support if there was a good reason for a web surfer to think those files were never intended to be made public. Was there any such reason? I can’t imagine what it might even be.
Look, we can’t expect “progressive” climate alarmists to live up to the standards of conduct they expect from others. They don’t have any standards. Their mantra is “no rules, only results”. So in their minds, the end justifies the means no matter what the means.
We are not dealing with what we would consider normally adjusted people here. We are dealing with people who have a profound sense of entitlement and “noble cause” corruption runs rampant through these circles. They believe that unethical behavior is justified if it is for the advancement of what they see as a noble goal.
Basically, they are about as emotionally mature as your average 8 year old, so behavior such as this does not surprise me. They play many of the same social games that kids on an elementary playground do. If you don’t “believe” in their theories, then you have “cooties”.
Honeycutt…”Yes, accessing involved effort and some determination to filter thru 1000′s of images 2 locate 1s that cld be taken out context.”
If they were taken out of context, please put them in context. I really want to know in what context they should be taken.
There may be a completely rational explanation for wanting to be portrayed that way, so yes, the correct “context” would help me out here and probably prolong my enjoyment of this peek into the minds of the chosen ones.