Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Jersey Mayor and Son Arrested For Nuking Recall Website

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the ah-new-jersey dept.

Crime 180

phaedrus5001 writes "The mayor of West New York, New Jersey was arrested by the FBI after he and his son illegally took down a website that was calling for the recall of mayor Felix Roque (the site is currently down). From the article: 'According to the account of FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus, Felix and Joseph Roque took a keen interest in the recall site as early as February. In an attempt to learn the identity of the person behind the site, the younger Roque set up an e-mail account under a fictitious name and contacted an address listed on the website. He offered some "very good leads" if the person would agree to meet him. When the requests were repeatedly rebuffed, Joseph Rogue allegedly tried another route. He pointed his browser to Google and typed the search strings "hacking a Go Daddy Site," "recallroque log-in," and "html hacking tutorial."'"

cancel ×

180 comments

Should have used Duck Duck Go (4, Interesting)

evilRhino (638506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103513)

Using Google for criminal enterprises is bad news bears.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103585)

They probably figured out his search history by using his local browser history when they would have confiscated his PC as evidence. So that wouldn't have helped. Also... "recallroque log-in"? Ha, I guess some people really do think Google is magic and can pull answers out of thin air. And "html hacking tutorial"? That's almost cute.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (4, Informative)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103679)

Nope, you are wrong, they figured out his search history directly at the source. With other words: GOOGLE. Oh, and btw, if you try to search for something illegal, at least have the intelligence to do it from brand new (or stolen) computer, without any ID already entered, with just created email accounts, from any "Free" wireless spot, and once you are done, you better burn this computer. Just an advice....

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103893)

Or just use TOR. And don't say "tor can be compromised". That's only true if they are already monitoring you. if you're doing something you've told nobody about and not already being monitored, you're fine.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (3, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103943)

If only the CEO of google, Eric Schmidt, had reminded us that they're bound by the law to hand over information to the authorities.

Remind me again why he was lambasted for that?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104289)

LOL.

These days Google has more shills on Slashdot than racks in their server rooms.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (2)

sortadan (786274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104363)

Google is actually good about publishing this data (much more than any other company I know of online). Would be good if they broke it down further by requester and state, but at least you get an idea from last years data: 5950 requests, complied with 93%, disclosed info on 11057 users. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/?p=2011-06 [google.com]

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (2)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104371)

Because these days the law is pretty much nothing more than someone with a lot of money and power says it is. Especially when one is Google. What do you think would happen if Schmidt said instead loudly and publicly, "No, Federal Government, we're not giving you a god damned thing without a proper warrant, etc....oh, and if you try to force us, well....we just might leave the country or seriously degrade our services here for you and your cronies, in the name of Freedom, Liberty, etc." ?

Do you really think the Federal Government would win that one in any court, let alone the one of public opinion?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (3, Interesting)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104513)

Yes.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104601)

Because these days the law is pretty much nothing more than someone with a lot of money and power says it is.

By "these days" you mean: for the last 6000 years?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103967)

Nope, you are wrong, they figured out his search history directly at the source. With other words: GOOGLE.

[[citation needed]]. I see nothing in the article that backs that statement. The only mention of Google at all is the part of the article quoted verbatim in the summary.

Nah, stick with the classics. (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104255)

if you try to search for something illegal, at least have the intelligence to do it from brand new (or stolen) computer, without any ID already entered, with just created email accounts, from any "Free" wireless spot, and once you are done, you better burn this computer.

It's traditional to use the PC on your dickweed boss or cow-orker's desk.

My boss and colleagues are excellent, so I would have to use the head of HR's computer.

Luckily there's a building master key in the computer room's DR box.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104439)

new computer? burn? That sounds exhausting!

Why not just use a live CD or a bootable flash drive OS?

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104497)

Heck no, There's a whole host of new PC's hitting the market for ~$50 (just mentioned one right here on Slashdot yesterday by APC.) Heck, but 10 and throw a party. Hackers delight! Just make sure you, order it anonymously and have it delivered someplace that can't be traced back to you. Helps if you aren't a puter pro too.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104045)

All major browsers include porn mode now, but judging by this guy's uber hacking skillz he is probably still running IE6.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103589)

Given this guy's background and MO, I'm surprised he didn't use (Bada) Bing

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103665)

-1 (Groan)

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (0)

sapgau (413511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103921)

lol

Party afiliation not important (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103697)

Since "GOP", "republican", "right-wing", or "conservative" wasn't prominently featured in the headline or first paragraph, it was obvious what his party afiliation was. Party affiliation is most often ommitted by the left, for the left. Although a comment listed him as an "independent conservative democrat", which covers most of the bases I suppose.

Re:Party afiliation not important (-1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103771)

Since "GOP", "republican", "right-wing", or "conservative" wasn't prominently featured in the headline or first paragraph, it was obvious what his party afiliation was. Party affiliation is most often ommitted by the left, for the left. Although a comment listed him as an "independent conservative democrat", which covers most of the bases I suppose.

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised. But you can rest assured if he was a proper GOP guy, his mug would show up on Fox with a big, fat D behind it. Whoops, no idea how that happened.

Put him right up there with William Jeffers, too stupid to do corruption properly. You know the D's and R's who remain are smart about their corruption. It's a selection pressure.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103835)

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised. But you can rest assured if he was a proper GOP guy, his mug would show up on Fox with a big, fat D behind it. Whoops, no idea how that happened.

Fox News is awful! If they can do that in your imagination, think about what they can do in real life!

Re:Party afiliation not important (2)

toadlife (301863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104071)

From your link (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104377)

To be fair, FOX isn't the only Network to do this. As we can see by our favorite diaper-wearing Senator.

Which then points to a mistake by MSNBC. Fox is crap. But really, they screw up badly enough that ginning up fake conspiracies isn't really necessary.

OH MY GOD, THEY SWITCHED THE LETTERS|!!!!DERP!!!11!!! THEY OBVIOUSLY DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!11!!! Wait, you mean this shit happens all the time everywhere on every network? STILL FAUX NEWS!!!111!!!!!

I mean, come on, the god damned world economy is on fire and you waste our fucking time giving credibility to this shit?

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104519)

Why choose... I say he was Incompalicious!!!

Re:Party afiliation not important (0)

nugatory78 (971318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104107)

Fox News is well know to pull this trick when a Republican is in trouble. Then at a later date, print a retraction in the credits.

Re:Party afiliation not important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103851)

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised.

Why surprised? That's how Democrats handle problems: by silencing them.

Re:Party afiliation not important (0)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104007)

Wow. When the facts don't come out your way, you invent an imaginary scene in your head where that aligns with your mantra: Fox News Bad, Democrats Good. Mmm, tasty kool-ade.

Re:Party afiliation not important (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104081)

I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised. But you can rest assured if he was a proper GOP guy, his mug would show up on Fox with a big, fat D behind it. Whoops, no idea how that happened.

You mean, like that "Bill Clinton" guy who did not commit purgery when he lied under oath? Obviously a Republican. And his Republican wife who couldn't find the billing records (sitting on a table in the White House). And then there was that Republican Wiener guy who charmingly send photos of hid namesake to teen-age girls. And now we have the Republican Barack Obama, who failed in his promises of cutting the deficit in half in his first term, closing Gitmo in his first year, passing budgets, protecting the Constitution, and all his other failed promises.

Too bad we didn't get truthful, honest Democrats instead of these creepy, lying, cheating Republicans.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104477)

"I looked him up expecting to see he was an R and was quite surprised."

So, you're saying you're a partisan asshole who rushes to judgement.

YOU are what is wrong with this country.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103807)

Bingo. Omitted affiliation gives it away every time.

Re:Party afiliation not important (3, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103977)

You left out the bit about how lefties are all godless blasphemers who want to destroy the natural order of the world by allowing women to go around with their heads uncovered or even drive cars.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104029)

Yeah, sad but true.
Come on guys, if we don't cut out the bad apples we'll be as bad as the republicans. If we support a culture where we look after our own it'll just fester those rotten apples.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104055)

You see anyone defending this jack-ass?

Re:Party afiliation not important (1, Funny)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104129)

Well remember. We should not put his party affiliation because after all it was just him and his son against a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy an innocent democrat.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104201)

huh?

Did I miss the kool-aid? What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Party afiliation not important (5, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104271)

Democrats attack their own when they do stupid shit like this. Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation, or that maybe taxing the people who have all the money isn't socialism.

--Jeremy

So you've never heard of Cory Booker. (1, Flamebait)

ifwm (687373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104533)

Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation, or that maybe taxing the people who have all the money isn't socialism.

Drink that Kool Aid chief, then educate yourself about Cory Booker, the man who denounced Obama's perpetuation of the drug war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/cory-booker-drug-war_n_1541082.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/cory-booker-walks-back-criticism-obama-campaign-bain-105420351--abc-news-politics.html [yahoo.com]

Seriously though, the fact that you ran off about this subject literally days after such a high profile refutation of your claim speaks to how grossly uninformed you are.

Re:Party afiliation not important (1, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104491)

You misunderstand. It is news when a corrupt politician is a Republican. When a corrupt politician is a Democrat that is no more news than when the sun comes up in the east. What makes this story news is that the FBI arrested him, not the fact that he is a corrupt Democratic politician, so there is no reason to mention his party affiliation.

Re:Party afiliation not important (2)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104509)

He's the mayor of a "small New Jersey hamlet" whose closest advisor seems to be his 22 year old son. I doubt party affiliation means much of anything.

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103799)

especially when you search for "how to get arrested for hacking a website"

Re:Should have used Duck Duck Go (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103897)

Doing:

Following the shutdown, Mayor Roque used the messages retrieved from the compromised accounts to identify the people who ran and supported it. On February 9, he used his iPhone to call the Hudson County (New Jersey) government official, identified in the criminal complaint as Victim 1, who had anonymously established the recall website. The older Roque then claimed to have proof that the official was involved with the site.

"Mayor Roque stated that he, the Mayor, had a friend in high levels of government who had shut the Recall Website down," the complaint alleged. "According to Victim 1, Mayor Roque stated that everyone would pay for getting involved against him."

is even worse.

When "hack" someone's registrar account and remove one of their domains to take down their website it's probably best not to look up who they are in the registrar records you now have access to and then call them to gloat^Wconfess.

Certainly saves a few steps for the FBI.

Forgot something (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103519)

The kid should have searched "Tor" while he was at it. That would have kept the FBI occupied for a few more weeks.

So easy to get search terms from google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103527)

I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be charged with something.

But, doesn't it seem odd that for this relativity minor case that the FBI can get your whole search history from google?

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

0xdeaddead (797696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103619)

One can only wonder if these guys were targeted, or if its just the system in general... I've always suspected the 'grid' is to keep politicians inline..

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (5, Insightful)

alfoolio (1385603) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103703)

At first glance the FBI seems overkill but the 'relatively minor case' involved an elected official engaged in federal crimes. That pretty much is right in the FBI's bailiwick.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104397)

an elected official engaged in federal crimes.

They should have far more resourced directed at them then say file sharers who are not elected officicals.

He who writes the laws should have 'em applied to them 1st.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104515)

You receive 5 points for use of the term "bailiwick".

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103719)

Where do you think the term "warrantles searches" came from? Judge Napolitano can't stop talking about them.

The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act gave the FBI the power to write their own permission to enter a premise, or demand data, without a judge issued warrant. CISPA will make it even easier. No need for paperwork at all.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (-1, Offtopic)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104115)

I. Think.. Y.ou.for.got..some...periods. ..Can..you..tak.e..some.of...mine.?

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104413)

That's the actual name of the Act

Dipshit

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104417)

No. That is the actual name of the act in abbreviated form. U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. == Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Penn&Teller did a whole episode about it on their Bullshit program.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104573)

Then why didn't you write F.B.I. and C.I.S.P.A. as well?

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104545)

('< ~Hello, beautiful!

Wakka wakka!

Minor? (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103733)

Suppression of free political speech and intimidation by an elected official is a "minor case"? If so, it shouldn't be.

That said, I have to wonder if this wasn't a corruption investigation by the FBI in the first place, though you'd think if it was, they'd jump at the opportunity to "meet".

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103775)

Let's see...
A politician who performs an obviously illegal act in full violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution - check.
A politician who tries nuking a website/server that is parked somewhere across state lines - check.

Yep. I can see a good warrant coming off of this one. And given the interstate angle, it's not odd at all.

Re:from whom? (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103821)

You can ask google to not save your searches.

You can recover searches from a computer if you have physical access to the computer as long as the person didn't do any wipes.

At no point in the story does it say where the information about searches was recovered from. So yes, it is possible that the authorities contacted google and the got the information, but more likely they just got it off the computer.

Re:from whom? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104213)

Not only will Google allow you to not have your searches saved. Google will actually show you all of the search info they have on you and allow you to individually delete things you want gone.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103857)

The FBI tends to get a little touchy about things like election fraud.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104531)

I think that's the FEC's responsibility, and they tend not to be touchy at all.

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

cowdung (702933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104575)

I thought the TSA was the one that got all touchy!

Re:So easy to get search terms from google (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104229)

Why are you implying they got them from Google? Does it say they got them from Google? All they need to do is view the search history from his personal computer to find out what sort of searches he has been making on google or any other site.

Slashdot down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103529)

"The mayor of West New York, New Jersey was arrested by the FBI after he and his son illegally took down a website that was calling for the recall [slashdot.org] of mayor Felix Roque (the site is currently down).

So, now we can read on slashdot that slashdot is down?

Re:Slashdot down? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103961)

They messed up the link when it was first posted. It's fixed now.

Geez... slashdot's editors screw up once in 15 years and you're all over it. Cut them some slack. Do you expect them to get the summary perfect every time?

Re:Slashdot down? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104263)

Very Funny.

Quick, someone call the cops! (4, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103533)

He's going to hack into our div tags!

Politicians Going Roque! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103543)

Technological evolution of politics.

They should have gone ater terrorists' websites (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103565)

If they were "nuking" Al Qaeda websites, maybe they would not get in trouble.

Genius! (4, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103575)

Googling for "recallroque log-in" is just pure genius. Why hack if google will just point you straight to the credentials you need!

Actually... (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103673)

Try searching for, "This document is confidential" on Google. You would be surprised by what sort of things turn up.

Re:Actually... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103827)

Try searching for, "This document is confidential" on Google. You would be surprised by what sort of things turn up.
....and even more surprised how many agents turn up at the door tomorrow.

Re:Actually... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103949)

0 ?

Re:Actually... (0)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103979)

This is the sort of fear-mongering that kills curiosity and makes for a generation of sheeple. Don't we live in a first world nation without fear of the gestapo kicking in our door?

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104343)

I think he means what will turn up in the search results, not at your door. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Re:Actually... (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104499)

....and even more surprised how many agents turn up at the door tomorrow.

this is the post HeckRuler was responding to. your reading glasses are not on tight enough, or your filter isn't low enough.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104569)

No, we don’t! That’s the POINT!

Re:Genius! (2)

3nails4aFalseProphet (248128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103699)

It's kinda sad what a few Google searches can turn up. http://www.hackersforcharity.org/ghdb/ [hackersforcharity.org] Of course, searching from his own computer wasn't exactly bright.

Re:Genius! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104311)

Should've googled for "how to become an evil uber hacker".

isn't our survaylence society grand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103583)

remember, big brother is watching you.

Re:isn't our survaylence society grand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103915)

also remember, we're watching big bother... and we don't like what we see ;-(

Politicians are scumbags (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103627)

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

Re:Politicians are scumbags (0)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103683)

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

You are under the illusion that there are people who are not scumbags. How quaint.

Re:Politicians are scumbags (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104231)

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

You are under the illusion that there are people who are not scumbags. How quaint.

Just because you and everyone you know is a scumbag, doesn't mean we all are.

Re:Politicians are scumbags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103845)

Politicians are scumbags

After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.

That's not at all like what I read in his Wiki article [wikipedia.org] !

Boy howdy, I wonder who wrote that one! Looks like someone else [wikipedia.org] noticed it too.

Re:Politicians are scumbags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104021)

I wonder where they came from? It's not like they came from our schools, our churches, our towns, or anything like that. I think they're alien invaders. I'm working on how they use mind control techniques to get good, honest, logical people like us to vote for them.

That's all? (3, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103687)

" three counts of intentionally accessing computers without authorization or intentionally causing damage to a protected computer"

You'd think the threats and other stuff would kick on a few other charges than those. ianal but I bet even I could find at least a half dozen additional things to nail them with.

I wonder if they'll let him keep his job. (Politics are bizarre.)

Oh come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40103761)

Nuking from orbit, isn't that a bit extreme?

Re:Oh come on... (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103793)

> Nuking from orbit, isn't that a bit extreme?

It's the only way to be sure.

Meme warning (4, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103781)

Great. Now every website hacking attempt would be called "going rogue". All "roguelike" discussions will be censored and prosecuted. And God help you if you are found in possession of a certain amulet...

Re:Meme warning (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103803)

except it's Roque, not Rogue

Re:Meme warning (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104001)

Dibs on the first Roque-like where you have to dive into the dungeon of google to find the amulet of LOIC and evade the fuzz on your way out.

good thing (2)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103883)

the web site won't be needed anymore.... that town will get their new mayor one way or another (recall or resignation)

the best part about this story though is that this idiot got into office on a recall election that ousted the town's previous mayor.

Re:good thing (4, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104349)

1. Set up a honeypot with a web front that calls for the recall of a politician you don't like
2. Wait for it to be attacked by that politician
3. Tell the FBI
4. Lulz!

More importantly...Don't phone "Victim 1" after. (4, Insightful)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40103941)

This article indicates that Roque the Younger called "Victim 1" to 'say that the page had been taken down by “high government officials and that everyone would pay for getting involved against Mayor Roque.” '

Now that is poor hacking skills!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html [politico.com]

Hacking is an Art (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104137)

I bet the how to hack go daddy left out the important steps. Don't use a computer you normally use. Don't use your Home IP or any IP that can be traced to you. Go out the the middle of nowhere suburbia find an Open WiFi, and never go back there after you're done. And use as many proxies between you and them as you can. That's what makes hacking an art. Any script kiddy can run a Wipe Out a Go Daddy web site script, but can they do that and not get caught.

West New York (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40104211)

I once took a bus from North Bergen to West New York by accident... its a ghost town. Everything is shuttered and closed down there.

FBI Special Agent Ignace Ertilus (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104403)

Wow, that must be in the top three most awesome real person names ever.
I'd buy the comics based on the name alone!
I bet he fights arcane AIs with nothing but his trusty cyberspace deck and deep knowledge of neurolinguistics.

Name that Party! (2)

zioncat (632849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104429)

A negative story about politician doesn't provide political affiliation of said politician?
It's time to play the classic game of: Name that Party [google.com] .

Re:Name that Party! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104587)

I don't understand why you think it is necessary for the news to mention the party affiliation of a corrupt politician when that affiliation is the Democratic Party. Are there Democratic politicians who aren't corrupt? The news media obviously does not think so, since they do not believe there is any reason to tell people what party a corrupt politician is affiliated with if that party is the Democratic Party. While on the other hand, it is important to point out those rare examples of corrupt Republican politicians because they are so rare. I mean after all, the news media does not have a bias in favor of one party or the other (at least they keep telling us that).

Where's the party affiliation? (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40104517)

The party affiliation of the mayor is, again, absent from the Slashdot summary. One guess which party he belongs to.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...