Beta
×

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!

Hacking the Governator

kdawson posted about 8 years ago | from the call-that-a-hack? dept.

382

mytrip writes, "The Democratic rival to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged that his aides were responsible for obtaining a controversial audio file, in which the Governator was heard disparaging members of other races, in a move that has led to allegations of Web site hacking. A source close to Angelides told CNET News.com that it was possible to 'chop' off the Web links and visit the higher-level 'http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/' directory, which had the controversial audio recording publicly viewable. No password was needed, the source said." And jchernia notes, "As an aside, the California Highway Patrol is running the investigation — maybe the Internet is a truck after all."

cancel ×

382 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Moo (2, Insightful)

Chacham (981) | about 8 years ago | (#16093670)

So calling someone passionate, but mentioned a way to denote tham as a group is a bad thing?

Am i missing something here?

gross generalizations (1)

imaginaryelf (862886) | about 8 years ago | (#16093713)

"They all are very hot," the governor says of Cubans and Puerto Ricans. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it." See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/09/09/GUV.TMP [sfgate.com]

Yeah, that's right up there with all black people can play basketball, cuz you know, it's in their blood man!

Re:gross generalizations (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093728)

Yeah, that's right up there with all black people can play basketball, cuz you know, it's in their blood man!

Does this make "White Men Can't Jump" a racist docudrama of street b-ball players living on the edge? Damn! Sweet!

Re:gross generalizations (0, Troll)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | about 8 years ago | (#16093807)

Nope, it's impossible to be racist against white people, in fact it's impossible to be racist if you're not white actually. Not nice, but an inconvenient truth.

Re:gross generalizations (0, Troll)

Sj0 (472011) | about 8 years ago | (#16093893)

Correction: A legal fiction created by Politically correct goons.

Probably a bunch of crackers and Jews. Definitely the Jews. It's impossible to be racist against Jews because they're white, you know.

Re:gross generalizations (1)

Chacham (981) | about 8 years ago | (#16093764)

And what exactly is wrong with that comment?

Inflection does play a factor. If one is saying that blacks are basketball players, as in women are baby makers, yeah, it's an insult. But if one is saying that blacks are basketball players because they are keenly athletic, that is a compliment, isn't it?

Re:gross generalizations (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 8 years ago | (#16093841)

But if one is saying that blacks are basketball players because they are keenly athletic, that is a compliment, isn't it?


Disclaimer: I think this all much ado about nothing.


That said, it's not a question of whether the adjectives used are 'complimentary' or not, but rather the generalization across an entire race that offends (some) people. They feel that racial generalizations (aka stereotypes) are unhelpful and inaccurate, and have a major history of abuse.

Re:gross generalizations (1)

Chacham (981) | about 8 years ago | (#16093952)

They feel that racial generalizations (aka stereotypes) are unhelpful and inaccurate, and have a major history of abuse.

The opposite is true as well. Why should negativity win?

Re:gross generalizations (4, Insightful)

Grym (725290) | about 8 years ago | (#16093970)

That said, it's not a question of whether the adjectives used are 'complimentary' or not, but rather the generalization across an entire race that offends (some) people. They feel that racial generalizations (aka stereotypes) are unhelpful and inaccurate, and have a major history of abuse.

So what? This was an off-hand remark made in private. Have we come to the point where every word one says must be parsed and examined for any trace of anything that might offend the most hypersensative among us lest he or she be branded a racist?

-Grym

Re:gross generalizations (1)

PixelScuba (686633) | about 8 years ago | (#16094003)

And it was on his website why? I just read a story a few klicks down talking about Facebook and people should 'be careful because anything you put on the internet is freely available to anyone who wants to find it'. Sounds like the Governor should heed that advice.

Re:gross generalizations (3, Funny)

mordors9 (665662) | about 8 years ago | (#16093767)

I never hear about them complaining about the large penis stereotype though...

Re:gross generalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093824)

Boy, there's some things you just don't talk about in public.

Re:gross generalizations (2, Funny)

snuf23 (182335) | about 8 years ago | (#16093858)

Which is why I always feel bad for the black guys out there with small dicks. On the flip side thanks to the reverse stereotype for Asian's I bet girls think "Wow not bad for an Asian" when they find an average weiner.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093759)

So calling someone passionate, but mentioned a way to denote tham as a group is a bad thing?
Am i missing something here?


Characterising an entire race in any way is racism. I suspect you are missing a lot there.

Re:Duh (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093923)

Characterising an entire race in any way is racism.

All white people are white.
All black people are black.

P.S. Washington Heights is hot because it has part of the black people and part of the white people, and that together makes it.

Re:Moo (3, Informative)

Darth Liberus (874275) | about 8 years ago | (#16093933)

No, that's the way normal human beings interact. Only people who have never really spent much time in a diverse, multiethnic environment get offended by such things... the rest of us tease each other constantly and have a grand old time.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093675)

first post

Correction (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093676)

Title should be Hacking the Gropenator

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093773)

The title shouldn't have "hacking" in it at all!! How was this a "hack"?? Am I missing something?!? No password was involved. The MP3 file was publicly available on Arnie's server with no login or anything of the sort required. The file was just sitting there for ANYONE to see, listen to or download. How is this a "hack"???

How about the title, "Arnold's Secure Server?" or "ASS" for short.

If that's hacking (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093677)

then my grandma is a copyright violator. Oh, wait ...

Wow, they must be really good... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093680)

Chopping off URLs.... oh my, these h4x0rz are scary as shit! Hide your megabytes, kids!

beware the internet chop shop (1)

User 956 (568564) | about 8 years ago | (#16093907)

Chopping off URLs.... oh my, these h4x0rz are scary as shit!

Why do you think they've got the CHP involved? Someone obviously stole Governor Schwarzenegger's internets and took it to an internet chop-shop, where it's dismantled and sold for parts.

Re:Wow, they must be really good... (1)

JeffAMcGee (950264) | about 8 years ago | (#16093926)

I hope no one finds out about that dangerous hacking tool for firefox: Uppity [mozilla.org] . It adds a button to the browser that goes to the parent directory.

Think of the children...

Disparaging Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093684)

I don't consider calling a mix of races 'hot' disparaging.

Re:Disparaging Comments (3, Funny)

causality (777677) | about 8 years ago | (#16093695)

You're thinking too objectively about it. Just relax and let it be played enough times on the media and it will try to become true.

that's not hacking (1)

lateralus_1024 (583730) | about 8 years ago | (#16093686)

That's how my friends and I get our online CS programming assignments tested before submitting them.

Deep linking, move alone (4, Insightful)

kherr (602366) | about 8 years ago | (#16093692)

Gee, content freely accessible via URLs on the WWW? What a novel concept.

This is simply a matter of deep linking. Just because there's no page with a link to a URL doesn't magically make the accessible URL off-limits. Security through obscurity isn't. If the governator didn't want people to get it they shouldn't have posted it on their web site. Or at least put some form of authentication on it.

Re:Deep linking, move alone (1)

garcia (6573) | about 8 years ago | (#16093833)

Security through obscurity isn't.

You are even making it seem more exciting than this was. It wasn't security by anything. It was a public webserver without *any* standard protections enabled.

I wonder how soon there will be a draft of a bill to make any "unwanted intrusions" into a webserver illegal in CA.

Re:Deep linking, move alone (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 8 years ago | (#16093844)

Security from a technical perspective may be different from security from a legal perspective.

Analogies are usually less apt than the author claims them to be, but I'll use one anyway: Saying that security through obscurity doesn't offer legal protection against intrusions is like saying that if I hide my house key under the door mat, then anyone is implicitly welcome to use it to come into my house (perhaps even to take my stuff, depending on how far you extend the analogy).

Is it the same (at least, for legal purposes)? I don't know. I do vaguely recall this (altering URLs to access unlinked content) coming up in another case, but I'm too lazy to do a search.

Re:Deep linking, move alone (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 8 years ago | (#16093899)

I'd counter with the RFC for HTTP. The protocol is designed to provide content located in a designated directory structure on the file system. Anything located in that file structure that isn't specifically covered with a password is supposed to be available to any browser. And as for someone saying that it wasn't provided in an index or referrer page, I'd compare it to large college textbooks or anthologies that don't have every single entry itemized in a table of contents or index, and how published content (which I believe the Web has been acknowledged as) would compare.

Fact of the matter is that this audio clip was put in a place that was easily found and was obviously placed there intentionally. If it wasn't there intentionally, the webmaster is responsible through negligence, not the opponent's campaign.

Oh, there's also the little matter of it being posted on the government's web site, which is supposed to belong to every resident of California...

Re:Deep linking, move alone (1)

PAjamian (679137) | about 8 years ago | (#16093925)

This is content placed in a location which is public by design (a public web site on the internet).

A better analogy would be to put an embarrasing photograph of yourself up on a billboard that has it's view blocked by a building then claiming that anyone who tries to see the billboard by looking up from the other side of the building is trespassing on your private property to gain unauthorised access to your private photographs.

Re:Deep linking, move alone (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 8 years ago | (#16093968)

Analogies are usually less apt than the author claims them to be, but I'll use one anyway: Saying that security through obscurity doesn't offer legal protection against intrusions is like saying that if I hide my house key under the door mat, then anyone is implicitly welcome to use it to come into my house (perhaps even to take my stuff, depending on how far you extend the analogy).

I think your analogy is apt in general, except in this case it wasn't a key under a door mat. Files on an open, non-password-protected web site are like piling up stuff on the sidewalk in front of your house. Telling anyone the url for that open site is like putting a "free stuff here" sign on your pile stuff.

If it turns out there was something on the bottom of the pile you didnt mean to give away, IANAL but I believe the technical term is, "tough titties."

Re:Deep linking, move alone (1)

Ruvim (889012) | about 8 years ago | (#16094060)

no, it's more like making a huge poster outside your house, inviting anybody inside of your house and hopping that someone doesn't open an unlocked door of one of the rooms in your house.

password protected (1)

sponga (739683) | about 8 years ago | (#16093924)

Well watching the local news channel and some quotes by the officals up there in state. They said it was "password protected" and the FBI was getting involved. The governor said he likes to record some of his speeches to look back on and they must have been for only Republican officals with a password for them only is what I am thinking more.

Re:Deep linking, move alone (4, Insightful)

cpuffer_hammer (31542) | about 8 years ago | (#16093930)

I would say that the individual sent a request for a copy of the recoding to the governors office. The office was foolish and send a copy of the speech to the requestor. Sounds to my like a staff training problem. Staff member will have to go for reeducation, and be reprogrammed.

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093694)

So basically, the governor of California fell victim to a "hacking" method that porn sites figured out how to fix ~8 years ago.

Congrats!

Not "Hacking" (5, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | about 8 years ago | (#16093705)

I'm sorry, this is not "Hacking," it's the way the web works. They sent the web server a URL, requesting a document, and the web server gave it to them. They didn't do anything nefarious, underhanded, or tricky. The didn't claim to be anybody they weren't, there was no phishing or pretexting or anything like that involved.

Imagine they had called the governor's office and said "Hi, got anything incriminating about the guv on file?" and when told "Sure, would you like a copy?" they said "Yes please!" What would people think then? It's the same darned situation here.

--MarkusQ

Re:Not "Hacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093873)

Actually, this sort of thing /has/ been considered "hacking", at least in the UK.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/11/tsunami_ha cker_followup/ [theregister.co.uk]

In this case, someone was convicted under the relevant legislation, for appending "../.." to a URL to gain "unauthorised access".

At the time, this was one take on the situation:

(quoting from El Reg article linked to above)
Dr Neil Barrett, a computer crime expert recently appointed to advise
the EC on Microsoft issues, said: "...the access was unauthorised. He
came to a site for which he did not have permission to exceed the normal
user levels of access and attempted to elevate that access. Now, it's
true that security professionals do such things - on penetration tests -
but that's where permission has been given."
(end quoting)

So be careful, before you decide what the law might, and might not, consider "hacking".

Re:Not "Hacking" (0, Troll)

Grym (725290) | about 8 years ago | (#16093879)

I'm sorry, this is not "Hacking," it's the way the web works. They sent the web server a URL, requesting a document, and the web server gave it to them. They didn't do anything nefarious, underhanded, or tricky. The didn't claim to be anybody they weren't, there was no phishing or pretexting or anything like that involved.

I don't know how you can be so supportive of this activity as it's a dangerous and unclear line to take. Exactly what separates this from an SQL injection attack or spoofing a session ID within a URL? Afterall, you're just sending the webserver a URL/packets, how it responds is their problem, right? I don't think so. It's not like they were just choosing URLs at random. Even if the accused did the most basic form of this attack (i.e. server directory listings), they were still intentionally using URLs designed to trick the server into giving them access to material they knew they weren't authorized to access.

Is it illegal? Probably not, but I'm sure the courts will decide that one. Is it lame? Very. And I think it should call into question the type of campaign they're running. The democratic campaign decided to show their asses, and all for what? Because of a comment that even the victim in question didn't find offensive.

-Grym

Maybe it was designed that way (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 8 years ago | (#16093935)

I don't think so. It's not like they were just choosing URLs at random. Even if the accused did the most basic form of this attack (i.e. server directory listings), they were still intentionally using URLs designed to trick the server into giving them access to material they knew they weren't authorized to access.

I have personally designed web sites that worked this way. Back in the early days of the web some web site owners deliberately made web sites "look" like ftp sites. In many cases, they point to the very same directory. It still happens today. Perhaps the Governor's webmaster did this on purpose. Perhaps those viewing the page assumed that was the case. After all, the alternative is that the Governor has an incompetent webmaster and it would be irresponsible to assume such a thing if a reasonable alternative existed, right?

Re:Maybe it was designed that way (0)

Grym (725290) | about 8 years ago | (#16094014)

Perhaps the Governor's webmaster did this on purpose. Perhaps those viewing the page assumed that was the case. After all, the alternative is that the Governor has an incompetent webmaster and it would be irresponsible to assume such a thing if a reasonable alternative existed, right?

That's a bit of a stretch. The webmaster intended to make this--by all accounts--private information public? You tell me: is that really a believable assumption to make? Secondly, I find it hard to accept that the accused just innocently happenstanced upon this. If that was the case, why didn't they inform the webmaster? And if they did make the assumption that it was intended to be there, then why did they release it to the media? Afterall, it was already public from their point of view, right?

It's lame. Admit it.

-Grym

Re:Not "Hacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093939)

authorized

You keep using that word . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

The reason it's different from an SQL injection attack is that it's not abusing a flaw in the server. The server is doing exactly what it's designed and set up to do. In other words, if your webmaster isn't an idiot, you *want* it to be accessable by anyone, because you're configuring software to make it accessable. In putting this speech on a publically accessable (through correct usage of the software, where it performs as designed), you are authorizing everyone on the planet to have access to it. If you don't want your server to make that part public, hire a webmaster who's not dumb and have them put a password on it. Better yet, *don't put it on the internet at all*.

That said, the fault lies with the incompetent webmaster. It may be an easy mistake to make, but anyone worth anything would know to make directory listings private.

Not Lame - Oppo Research (1)

BlackGriffen (521856) | about 8 years ago | (#16093945)

The aids were likely told to go over all of the governator's speeches to see if anything he said could be used against him in the court of public opinion and they stumbled across more files than were linked to on the web site. The line between this and hacking is easy to see and bright in color because this isn't just the web server responding the way it responds, it's responding the way it was meant to respond.

It's the fault of Arnold's team if they're too stupid to realize that putting something like this in a publicly accessible directory of the server is 100% pure stupidity.

A better analogy is Arnold team left out boxes of recordings of his speeches and all the boxes say "take one." And behind the front row of boxes was a box with an embarrassing recording in it.

Re:Not "Hacking" (5, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | about 8 years ago | (#16093965)

I'm sorry, this is not "Hacking," it's the way the web works. They sent the web server a URL, requesting a document, and the web server gave it to them. They didn't do anything nefarious, underhanded, or tricky. The didn't claim to be anybody they weren't, there was no phishing or pretexting or anything like that involved.
I don't know how you can be so supportive of this activity as it's a dangerous and unclear line to take. Exactly what separates this from an SQL injection attack or spoofing a session ID within a URL? Afterall, you're just sending the webserver a URL/packets, how it responds is their problem, right? I don't think so. It's not like they were just choosing URLs at random. Even if the accused did the most basic form of this attack (i.e. server directory listings), they were still intentionally using URLs designed to trick the server into giving them access to material they knew they weren't authorized to access.

The difference, as I stated, is that they were using the system the way it was designed to work. The whole reason browsers have address bars is so that you can type in URLs. The reason web servers respond with a list of the files in a directory is so that users can type in a partial URL and get a comprehensible list of alternatives to choose from.

Spoofing, SQL injection, etc. involve using things in ways that they were never intended to be used, breaking them in order to get access to something that the system was designed to prevent access to. It is the exact opposite of what happened here.

And as for your final point, how are they supposed to know that they aren't supposed to have access to something, when it is made available to them using the basic public interface as it was designed to be used, and none of the dozen or so ways to prevent them from gaining access were used? That seems to me to be a much more dangerous precedent, since you could retroactively criminalize almost any use of a web site by saying "Well, you should have known that you weren't supposed to look at that page!" and suddenly you've made somebody into a cyberterrorist by fiat.

--MarkusQ

Re:Not "Hacking" (1)

PAjamian (679137) | about 8 years ago | (#16094002)

What separates it is that an SQL injection attack and spoofing session IDs are attacks designed to take advantage of a security vulnerability. Going up one level in a directory tree by chopping off the last bit of a URL is just finding public content on a webserver that is posted in a place other than the norm, or to put it a bit differently...

Webservers are specifically designed to serve up content that is *anywhere* in thier public webspace as long as there are no access restrictions on the content or directory that the content is in. A web application that suffers from an SQL injection vulnerability is not designed to give admin access to the application because someone knows some magic SQL code to put in a form field, that is a side effect of bad coding and not a designed function of the application.

Of course it's not hacking (1)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | about 8 years ago | (#16094038)

I don't know how you can be so supportive of this activity as it's a dangerous and unclear line to take. Exactly what separates this from an SQL injection attack or spoofing a session ID within a URL?

It's both nothing and everything. No difference between the two in terms that someone typed in a uri, lack of auditing/checking what goes up the webpage (in terms of plain directory listing or unescaped sql statements in script files), let someone got what they wanted. Both results in data ending up in the wrong hands.

However, an SQL attack and spoofing session ID usually requires knowing more than going to the parent directory, as in, instead of removing what was already given (turning something given in the form of http://example.com/private/directory/page [example.com] into http://example.com/private/ [example.com] ), the 'attacker' (I dislike your use of this term) would have to add something that they were not given (http://example.com/private/directory/page?sid=123 45, or http://example.com/private/directory/page?login=ha cker&pass='%20or%20true [example.com] . Anything after 'page?' was not given to the user in the first place). That's the main difference.

Afterall, you're just sending the webserver a URL/packets, how it responds is their problem, right? I don't think so. It's not like they were just choosing URLs at random. Even if the accused did the most basic form of this attack (i.e. server directory listings), they were still intentionally using URLs designed to trick the server into giving them access to material they knew they weren't authorized to access.

The directory was not random, it was the path given. Server directory listing is not an attack, it's relatively easy to search for open directories (server directory listings) with a search engine. They did not trick the server or anything, all they did was go up a directory. How would you define "knowing" what files are not authorized for access? The server did not return 403 Forbidden, the server gave them the user the files.

Final note, time for bad analogy time - if anyone likens removing parts of a uri as an illegal act, think about stripping drm from an audio file - both involves bytes removed to have more raw access to the data (data that are not exactly given out).

Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (4, Informative)

dgerman (78602) | about 8 years ago | (#16093715)

Disparaging? hardly. This is just a sensationalist way to report the news. Here is the actual comment (from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/09/08/AR2006090800599.html [washingtonpost.com] ):

  "I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

the article continues...

'Garcia, who is Puerto Rican and the only Latina Republican in the assembly, appeared with Schwarzenegger yesterday and said she was not offended by the governor's comments. Garcia earlier told the Times that she refers to herself a "hot-blooded Latina."

"I love the governor because he is a straight talker just like I am," she said.'

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1, Insightful)

MECC (8478) | about 8 years ago | (#16093889)

"I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity. That's racism by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not said traits are good or bad - its still racism.

'Garcia, who is Puerto Rican and the only Latina Republican in the assembly, appeared with Schwarzenegger yesterday and said she was not offended by the governor's comments. Garcia earlier told the Times that she refers to herself a "hot-blooded Latina."

Forgiveness or acceptance by one member of an ethnic group doesn't magically make it 'not racist'. Just because Chappell might refer to himself as a nigger, doesn't mean Arnold can refer to blacks that way and have everything turn out okay. It would still be racist. Believe it or not, racism involves race and is contextual.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 8 years ago | (#16093927)

"I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it." Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity. That's racism by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not said traits are good or bad - its still racism.


I'm sorry, that's asinine.

You're trying to say that saying "Asian chicks are hot" is racist.

Maybe not all asian chicks ARE hot. Maybe you're generalizing. So what.

AMAZINGLY, people of different races have physical differences. Cosmetically different -- not 3 arms or purple noses or anything, just small differences. That's a fact. And some people find some of those differences attractive. OHNOES. What a travesty.

Calling that racism is a step too far.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | about 8 years ago | (#16094006)

"They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

Actually, Arnie is being racist. His comment implies that those who don't have the "black blood" and the "Latino blood" don't "make it." Whatever the hell that means.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1)

1729 (581437) | about 8 years ago | (#16094017)

AMAZINGLY, people of different races have physical differences. Cosmetically different -- not 3 arms or purple noses or anything, just small differences. That's a fact. And some people find some of those differences attractive. OHNOES. What a travesty.
The governor wasn't talking about a physical characteristic. RTFA.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1)

Isotopian (942850) | about 8 years ago | (#16093940)

However, if one takes your argument to it's logical termination, one must conclude that if you point out anything about any race, anyone can take any level of offense to it.
The difference is whether or not a majority of all races takes offence to a statement, or just a small subset. Because you can safely ignore the opinions of minorities. That's how democracy works.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (4, Insightful)

groman (535485) | about 8 years ago | (#16093958)

Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity. That's racism by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not said traits are good or bad - its still racism.


Umm, no it's not, at least about as much as targetting Cosmo towards women is sexism. Racism requires either preferential treatment, prejudice or implicit or explicit claim of superiority. Simply attributing a neutral personality trait to a broad ethnic or cultural group and using historical ethnic or cultural heritage as supporting evidence is NOT racist. It's a broad generalization, maybe, but it implies no claim to superiority nor attempt to disparage.

Ok but pretending all races are the same is stupid (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 years ago | (#16093981)

Seriously, if not being racist means pretending like there are no racial division, then everyone is a racist and you make the term meaningless. Clearly different races are different physically, if nothing else. That's why the whole concept exists in the first place. If we all looked the same, there'd be no concept of race like there is today.

Well, something else we know is that humans like to use generalities. We like to generalize traits, trends, whatever. Helps us deal with understanding overall patterns in data. Thus it should be no surprise that traits get generalized to races. Happens to other things too, you can see all the traits that get generalized to geeks (like not having girlfriends) here on Slashdot.

So if you are going to get all bent every time someone makes a race related observation, ask yourself why. Is it because you think they are a bad person, with a malfunctioning brain? Or maybe is it because you yourself find that you generalize based on things like race, but don't want to admit or verbalize it?

Look the answer to racial division in this country isn't to hide it, to try and pretend like we are all the same and make it taboo to talk about. The answer is to talk about it, to laugh about it, and to understand and accept it. We are all different, physically, mentally, socially, etc. We need to celebrate our differences and understand that they aren't a reason to hate. Trying to hide away from them and make them taboo won't do any good.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (2, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | about 8 years ago | (#16094005)

Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity.

"Hot" is a personality trait? I thought it was a set of physical features dictated by genetics.

Which by definition, is tied to race.

People of Asian decent are generally shorter than most people. That's not racist. It's genetics.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1)

1729 (581437) | about 8 years ago | (#16094020)

"Hot" is a personality trait? I thought it was a set of physical features dictated by genetics.
RTFA. He wasn't referring to physical features.

Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly (1)

carlback (46333) | about 8 years ago | (#16094056)

Hello,

I'm with the governor!!!! Latina girls are hot. All latin's girls please don't be offended but you have an extra 2 points on a 10 point scale on being hot because your latin.

I apologize for any offense to the Latino community but as a matter of public record I stand by my statement.

Carl

Wasn't this a crime in the UK? (4, Interesting)

ptbarnett (159784) | about 8 years ago | (#16093717)

I vaguely remember someone in the UK that was convicted of the computer equivalent of trespass for doing something like this: manually removing the trailing elements in a URL.

Re:Wasn't this a crime in the UK? (4, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 8 years ago | (#16093856)

I vaguely remember someone in the UK that was convicted of the computer equivalent of trespass for doing something like this: manually removing the trailing elements in a URL.

When the GST (tax) was launched here in 2000 the tax department had a web site where you could query something about your tax and the cgi script it used had an argument like ?tfn=nnnnnnn where the n's are your tax file number (9 digits).

So this guy tried a couple of combinations, got the details of others, and took it to the tax people with advice to change their security arrangements.

So they did, by locking him up.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (2, Insightful)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | about 8 years ago | (#16093718)

Is it just me, or did this whole thing make you feel like you were on crazy pills? I didn't find anything remotely racist in what he said. He was giving her a compliment. I wish people spoke about me and said,"You know, its just that mix of Norwegian and German... it just makes him hot." The only person that says that about me is my wife, but I guess that will have to suffice. Regardless, Arnold, you can talk about that crazy hot blood in my veins whenever you feel the need to bud. Not that it would matter. Apparently another political candidate being offended "for" someone makes it wrong. What kind of pills were those again?

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093751)

The only person that says that about me is my wife

You have a wife!!! Are you sure you belong here??

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

partisanX (1001690) | about 8 years ago | (#16093762)

You clearly are not a californian democrat desperate to see Schwarzenegger replaced. The Dems don't seem to have much of a chance against him so expect more mole hill issues like this being made into mountains in the next couple of months. SOP.

Regarding the comment from Jchernia:
As an aside, the California Highway Patrol is running the investigation -- maybe the Internet is a truck after all."

No, NO YOU FOOL! They're running the investigation because it's the INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY! DUH!

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | about 8 years ago | (#16093812)

Ahhh, yeah. I lived for a couple years in Cali when I was young but now I live on the East Coast and try my best to stay away from the strange political realm that is California. I guess we'll see what else comes about in the next few months. Whatever the case I hope it is more interesting than this smoke thats being blown about now.

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 8 years ago | (#16094082)

Actually, most of the Democrats I know think that the LA Times made far too big a deal about this, and the couple that I've talked to in the last few hours think that Angelides is an idiot if he knew about this before it was first reported, and that if he really didn't know about this and disapproves and has a backbone that he'll have a press conference tomorrow where he will fire the two who downloaded the clip for poor ethics. However, no one really expects that, especially since Angelides spoke out when the reports first appeared a few days ago, claiming that it was "deeply offensive to all Californians." Apparently, I'm not a Californian, despite living here my entire 30+ years of existence, nor is any person with whom I've discussed this, despite their residence in California, sometimes for much longer than I've been here.

As for the CHP running the investigation, it's not at all surprising. What we refer to as the Highway Patrol is what other states call State Police.

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#16093827)

...Arnold, you can talk about that crazy hot blood in my veins whenever you feel the need to...


Wait, are you hitting on Arnie???

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | about 8 years ago | (#16093839)

Come on, its Arnold!

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 8 years ago | (#16093869)

I didn't find anything remotely racist in what he said. He was giving her a compliment.


Compliments can be racist. E.g. the classic "that black guy was so articulate during the job interview!", with its connotation that black people are usually inarticulate. Or the ever-popular "Asians are so smart and hard-working!". In both cases, the person probably means well, but they are still engaging in racist thinking: assuming that someone's race is an indicator of some other trait which is not, in fact, racially/genetically determined. This tends to annoy the target of the compliment because they (rightly) feel that they are being unfairly typecast/pigeonholed.

Re:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. (1)

Isotopian (942850) | about 8 years ago | (#16093954)

I always feel that I'm being unfairly typecasted/pigeonholed by people always being offended at what I say.

Well some of them can only speak "Nigger" 24/7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16094000)

A smart educated hard-working african american can help you make that diversity quota with somebody you would have hired anyway!

all caught up now (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093884)

So, someone didn't hack a web site, and someone didn't make racists comments. Right then, all caught up on the news.

Disparaging? (1)

aaronfaby (741318) | about 8 years ago | (#16093719)

Uhh... so saying that she's attractive is disparaging?

Re:Disparaging? (1)

1729 (581437) | about 8 years ago | (#16094046)

Uhh... so saying that she's attractive is disparaging?
No, but saying that all Puerto Ricans and Cubans are hot-tempered is.

Big deal! (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 8 years ago | (#16093723)

"I mean, they (Cubans and Puerto Ricans) are all very hot...they have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them and together that makes it,"

Big deal! I actually heard hispanics saying just the same kind of thing about themselves.

Re:Big deal! (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 8 years ago | (#16093775)

Big deal! I actually heard hispanics saying just the same kind of thing about themselves.

Totally. And that's exactly why I don't get why black people get all upset when I call them the N-word.

sounds like the grad student thing from a year ago (2, Interesting)

iammaxus (683241) | about 8 years ago | (#16093732)

Anyone remember this? http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/03/08 /harvard_rejects_119_accused_of_hacking_1110274403 / [boston.com] Seems like the media supported the concept that it was hacking. Given, it required more work than in this case, but it was still a case of freely accessible URL.

predator, starring two future governors (1)

dopaz (148229) | about 8 years ago | (#16093740)

GET TO THE (url) CHOPPER!

Disparaging? (3, Funny)

RelliK (4466) | about 8 years ago | (#16093752)

Nice spin there. All he did was call one lady hot. BFD! As much as I think the governator is a joke, this is just getting ridiculous.

Re:Disparaging? (1)

klaun (236494) | about 8 years ago | (#16093881)

Nice spin there. All he did was call one lady hot. BFD! As much as I think the governator is a joke, this is just getting ridiculous.

While I agree that his comments were not disparaging, he definitely did more than call one lady hot. He characterized a group of people in a particular way based on their race. I think mainly the idea is that it was probably in poor taste for a governor to say. I imagine that some people might interpret it as being indicative of a predilection for making generalizations about people based on their race, and perhaps not all of those generalization are so benign.

gov (0, Troll)

ralph1 (900228) | about 8 years ago | (#16093758)

The only reason he was run in calif is because calif. has alot of presidents. by having a man who can not be one was an affective block letting texas have a shot and it worked californians were duped.

State Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093801)

"As an aside, the California Highway Patrol is running the investigation -- maybe the Internet is a truck after all."

Or maybe because, like many other states, the Highway Patrol is a state police force, and not a city or county agency.

Everything's hacking in the mind of idiots (2, Insightful)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | about 8 years ago | (#16093815)

I'm just waiting until there's a move by content providers to ban popup blockers because they prevent people from seeing ads ... thus costing someone potential ad revenue and when someone is deprived of potential revenue (even if the loss of potential revenue is only in their imagination) it is now the equivalent of theft.

There are quite a lot of people who view competent computer use as a form of magic. They are deeply scared of technology, vote people into office who don't understand technology and expect them to legislate their fears away. So if someone accesses information on a website in an unintended manner, it must be computer hacking. What's really funny is that some people who use the Internet everyday, looking at URLs everyday and think manually changing the URL is hacking.

It is all part of an idea that if you use a product in manner which was not intended by the creator it is some sort of crime. If you look at a website in the wrong way, you're a criminal. The people running the website have no responsibility to keep their private files out of publicly accessible directories. If you use home-brew software on an electronic product, you're a criminal. Most of the time it's about a loss of potential revenue.

It was public (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093817)

If the Governor's office thought it was so controversial, why was it on the site in the first place? I agree that it was made public when they uploaded it to their website.

Personally, I don't see the controversy. He repeated a stereotype--which he apparently agrees with--but one that has positive as well as negative connotations. Many of the hispanics I know would consider themselves "hot-blooded" and generally hot (as in attractive).

Nothing to see here; move along.

CHP (5, Informative)

matt2413 (135292) | about 8 years ago | (#16093818)

The CHP merged with the California State Police in 1995. They are the law enforcement authority on CA state property.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/history.html [ca.gov]

Re:CHP (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | about 8 years ago | (#16093898)

I thought they were just patrolling the information superhighway.

Heh heh..you kow...because people used to call it that.

I give up.

Did I miss something? (0, Offtopic)

PavementPizza (907876) | about 8 years ago | (#16093821)

Did I miss something? Who the heck is kdawson? No offense, just don't remember the name from before on /.New guy?

Directory Listing Denied (1)

dilute (74234) | about 8 years ago | (#16093825)

That's all it would have taken. It's the default setting in IIS, but not the default in Apache2, as far as I recall. Anyway, the Gov's web site neglected to apply this fundamental protection. Tough crap, This is pretty silly stuff anyway.

Re:Directory Listing Denied (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about 8 years ago | (#16093866)

Actually in Apache2 it denies directory listing by default. You have to turn it on per directory.

Who's next (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | about 8 years ago | (#16093832)

Isn't it Bruce Willis's turn to make disparaging remarks about a racial or ethnic group? It does seem to be the favorite sport of over the hill action stars.

Some free Apache Advice for ARRRNNOOLLDD (1)

xmas2003 (739875) | about 8 years ago | (#16093840)

Options -Indexes

Here we go again... (0, Offtopic)

vought (160908) | about 8 years ago | (#16093874)

Republican makes off-colo remarks.
Democrats do oppo research on it - by downloading the clip from the Internet.
democrats demonized in the press for doing the same thing as everyone else i.e. downloading and playing the file,/b>
Democrats look worse than Republican who originally made off-color remarks.

Lather rinse, repeat.

Good old liberal media - at it again!

Re:Here we go again... (2, Informative)

humble.fool (961528) | about 8 years ago | (#16093937)

"I think it's less liberal than it is oppositional." - Karl Rove on the media, one of the few times I've agreed with the man.

A truck? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093890)

"maybe the Internet is a truck after all."

My love for you is like a truck, Berserker

Would you like some making fuck, Berserker

My love for you is like a rock, Berserker

No hacking, just stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093966)

Not only was directory listing enabled, but the filenames are easily guessable. Anyone with basic knowledge of how to construct a URL could have gotten those files.

Obviously, top administration officials are trying to make IT staff the scapegoat in this, which they've tried to do on numerous occasions that the press and public never hear about. A lot of IT people who work for Arnold have their jobs threatened constantly. It's the A/V people who put this on the server in the first place.

Nevertheless, there was probably some demand made months or years ago by Administration officials that made this possible, never documented (few things are in that place), and quickly forgotten.

And it's getting worse, as the tab for state resources investigating a non-event gets higher.

That said, the people (suits) in charge of the governor's website are total idiots. Arnold might have a new Communications Director by the end of the week.

No harm done.. (1)

nephridium (928664) | about 8 years ago | (#16093980)

Next time when Arny really says [youtube.com] or does [youtube.com] something [youtube.com] stupid, they'll be more careful.

Hacking the Governator? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 8 years ago | (#16093988)

I didn't know he was open source...

Line Terminator (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#16093992)

How long before Schwarznazi makes "asking related questions" a crime, like chopping off the more specific part of a URL? Especially if he automatically spits out answers that reveal he's a robot from the future who hates people sent here to destroy us?

Ridiculous (1)

DarkNinja75 (990459) | about 8 years ago | (#16094008)

This shouldn't even be news. Taking out some text from the URL is hardly illegal being that it's all accessible to the general public.

CHP == State Trooper (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about 8 years ago | (#16094047)

The California Highway Patrol are California's State Troopers.

Coming soon to IE7... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16094064)

Read-only address bars. ...to prevent "security" risks like typing in gooogle.com
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>