Joburg hacking case will make you angry

b166er

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
389
#2
I wonder if the City of Johannesburg realises that they are making so many people laugh so hard at their assessment of this issue that we have coffee, milk and tea coming out of our noses.
 
Last edited:

Bern

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,675
#4
I really hope the mainstream media (i.e. not just tech publications) get in on this story and report it correctly.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
6,479
#5
There is hardly any media (be it online or offline) capable of reporting something trivial as this correctly. Perhaps I am expecting too much from people having internet connectivity, but it is a frequent (and scary) reminder how clueless even IT experts are in such trivial matters.

On a side note - no update yet. We guess that Hawks/CCU are busy going through evidence and at some point will charge or refer to prosecutor. Although we have no insight into the complaint/affidavit it is very evident that only one person is investigated.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
65,025
#6
I really hope the mainstream media (i.e. not just tech publications) get in on this story and report it correctly.
Well I've emailed the newspaper that carried a bull**** story, hopefully they'll respond.
 

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
64,479
#7
I really hope the mainstream media (i.e. not just tech publications) get in on this story and report it correctly.
I think the problem is that it takes quite a bit of work for a journalist who is unfamiliar with the case to find out what really happened. Much easier and safer to just re-write a press statement, and then get comment for added perspective.
 

Electric

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
14,228
#8
Unless they report on this internationally, I don't think many ppl will understand it.
 

Jola

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
18,126
#9
Nothing new here, CoJ has always been (and is quickly getting even more so) grossly incompetent.
 

ab-user

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
323
#10
There is hardly any media (be it online or offline) capable of reporting something trivial as this correctly. Perhaps I am expecting too much from people having internet connectivity, but it is a frequent (and scary) reminder how clueless even IT experts are in such trivial matters.

On a side note - no update yet. We guess that Hawks/CCU are busy going through evidence and at some point will charge or refer to prosecutor. Although we have no insight into the complaint/affidavit it is very evident that only one person is investigated.
Do we have permission to acces / read / quote / reply to this post? :twisted:

If so, agreed. They are clueless, and attempting to blame-shift / save face / pass the buck. Hope it backfires on them the way it should.

Rather they take the money and pay their electricians. OK, not really! Rather use the money to catch those who "sabotaged" the substations.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
6,479
#11
Do we have permission to acces / read / quote / reply to this post? :twisted:

If so, agreed. They are clueless, and attempting to blame-shift / save face / pass the buck. Hope it backfires on them the way it should.

Rather they take the money and pay their electricians. OK, not really! Rather use the money to catch those who "sabotaged" the substations.
Remember - it will hardly cost them any money. You open case with SAPS, SAPS will investigate and people alleged of crimes have to defend. If insufficient evidence pre- or during trial, case closed. Taking recourse is not impossible but will take time.

One would think that some government body (public protector?) would ask questions why an almost 1bn Rand IT project can have such sloppy implementation - perhaps time will tell.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
4,422
#12
Do we have permission to acces / read / quote / reply to this post? :twisted:

If so, agreed. They are clueless, and attempting to blame-shift / save face / pass the buck. Hope it backfires on them the way it should.

Rather they take the money and pay their electricians. OK, not really! Rather use the money to catch those who "sabotaged" the substations.
The thing is, I can't believe a word which comes out of CoJs mouth, now.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
5,482
#13
There is hardly any media (be it online or offline) capable of reporting something trivial as this correctly. Perhaps I am expecting too much from people having internet connectivity, but it is a frequent (and scary) reminder how clueless even IT experts are in such trivial matters.

On a side note - no update yet. We guess that Hawks/CCU are busy going through evidence and at some point will charge or refer to prosecutor. Although we have no insight into the complaint/affidavit it is very evident that only one person is investigated.
Just out of interest for others here on this forum, here are the normal investigation / prosecution procedures.

Once a case is reported at a police station, it will be registered and then transferred to an investigation department, albeit the normal detectives or any other investigation unit such as the Hawks.

The various commanders at these units will read through new case dockets and assign it to an investigating officer. The commander will supply the investigating officer with guidance on what is required next in the investigation.

Now the police investigation will begin officially. The police will get all the required affidavits. If needed, they will subpoena banks, services providers or whomever if they need evidence in a specific case. The case docket will be sent to the commander of the investigating officer on several occasions. They will re-look at the evidence and decide what else is needed and instruct the investigating officer to obtain the required evidence. This process will continue until the police are satisfied that their investigation is completed.

When an investigation is completed the police will contact the suspect in the case and obtain a so-called "Warning Statement". This statement will then be included in the case docket. Suspects are not required to provide a warning statement and they are free to decline.

The case docket will now be sent to a prosecutor at court. The prosecutor will look at all the evidence presented by the State. The prosecutor will also look at the Warning Statement of the suspect. If the prosecutor determines that there is no case to be answered by the accused and there are insufficient evidence, they will 'Nolle Prosequi' the case (Refuse to Institute Prosecution). But, if they feel that there is sufficient grounds for prosecution, they will charge the suspect.

If a Warning Statement is not provided, generally prosecution is instituted with immediate effect, so that the suspect can state his side in court. In very, very few instances will a prosecutor refuse to prosecute without a warning statement, but usually in these few events there will be no reasonable chance of a successful prosecution.

The prosecutor will now decide if the evidence in the case docket is sufficient - or not. If not, the prosecutor will return the case docket to the investigating officer with requests to obtain further evidence. Once the police complied to all the requests from the prosecutor, the prosecutor will now do either one of two things:

1. Issue a Warrant of Arrest
2. Issue a Summons

The case docket will now go back to the police and they will either arrest the suspect or serve the summons. The suspect will now appear in court and be charged officially. The suspect will now become an accused.

The police themselves cannot institute prosecution. They are merely the investigating side of things. Only the courts can institute prosecution.
 
Last edited:

Totempole

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
3,283
#14
I'm pretty sure that the "We've been hacked!" defence was just a way to try and cover up their gross negligence with people's private info.
As you can see in my post from 27 August. I must be psychic because this is what I was saying in the first place. :)
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
5,482
#15
As you can see in my post from 27 August. I must be psychic because this is what I was saying in the first place. :)
You guys are right, however, I do not think they are trying to cover up anything at all. They are merely trying to divert media attention from their s**t website to so-called 'Hackers'.

Unfortunately in SA there is no law against negligence with other people's data - not criminally not civilly - unless you run an online payment system. There is only one law that is still to come, but this law will exclude government units from this. So, this is why I think they do not want to cover anything up - there is nothing to cover up that would have broken a law.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
#17
Do we have permission to acces / read / quote / reply to this post? :twisted:

If so, agreed. They are clueless, and attempting to blame-shift / save face / pass the buck. Hope it backfires on them the way it should.

Rather they take the money and pay their electricians. OK, not really! Rather use the money to catch those who "sabotaged" the substations.
That electrician story is more incompetence. The electricians are being paid way too much. City Power let it get to that. In fact, the city let it get to that.

Not one of those parties deserves any sympathy. But, the residents get caught in the crossfire.
 

Bern

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,675
#18
I think the problem is that it takes quite a bit of work for a journalist who is unfamiliar with the case to find out what really happened. Much easier and safer to just re-write a press statement, and then get comment for added perspective.
I haven't really been looking, but have you not had other media groups contact you or do you know of them requesting information from the tech savvy media outlets?
 

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
64,479
#19
I haven't really been looking, but have you not had other media groups contact you or do you know of them requesting information from the tech savvy media outlets?
No-one contacted us. Strange since most of the reporting, and the initial report, happened on MyBroadband. Some reporters did contact Gerd, which is better than any news publication.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
6,479
#20
No-one contacted us. Strange since most of the reporting, and the initial report, happened on MyBroadband. Some reporters did contact Gerd, which is better than any news publication.
Adding to that, for the sensationalist mainstream media, this story is not newsworthy. I must admit, my life-history is not as colourful as Snowden or McAfee and as such not a good sale for news publications. Although the background is not really technical, news publications seem to be not equipment to digest any form of response and form their own opinion - pretty much everything is rehashed and in some instances misquoted/taken out of context.

Nothing more to do then wait & see for the next steps taken by CCU/SAPS.
 
Top