Joburg hacking case will make you angry

House said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cover up... Divert... Same thing.
 
I don't need this to make me angry.
I get angry every month when I get my rates bill and its WRONG! Get overcharged f**ked up one month, then billed almost nothing the next.... such is life with the cANCer government...
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought the media would love to sensationalise a story about private user data being made public by government, the Googlebot angle is also a headline waiting. Gov not protecting data is a much bigger story than a simple hack, especially since it leads to more stories around bad government security practices, possible tender issues etc. The hacker angle sells one day's worth of papers, the true issues should sell many days worth of papers as the angles are brought to light.
 
Bern said:
I thought the media would love to sensationalise a story about private user data being made public by government, the Googlebot angle is also a headline waiting. Gov not protecting data is a much bigger story than a simple hack, especially since it leads to more stories around bad government security practices, possible tender issues etc. The hacker angle sells one day's worth of papers, the true issues should sell many days worth of papers as the angles are brought to light.
Click to expand...

The CoJ refuse to talk to the media, and the media do not have the tech savvy to discern the facts from this. So it's a no-story to them. It's all speculation. The only thing they've had confirmation of, whether it is true or not, is a hack.

CoJ's PR partners are working well on this. They're an unscrupulous bunch, and a group of liars, but they're doing their jobs...
 
DJ... said:
The CoJ refuse to talk to the media, and the media do not have the tech savvy to discern the facts from this. So it's a no-story to them. It's all speculation. The only thing they've had confirmation of, whether it is true or not, is a hack.

CoJ's PR partners are working well on this. They're an unscrupulous bunch, and a group of liars, but they're doing their jobs...
Click to expand...

Maybe we just need to explain in to them in a simpler way:

"If you make your facebook profile public you can't be upset when everyone sees your naughty posts and pictures" - apt re another recent article in this line...
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
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.

[highlight]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.[/highlight]
Click to expand...

This is where opposition parties need to start applying pressure and force an investigation by the public protector into the CoJ and all of the tenders+contracts related to the billing system implementation, maintenance and support (not just the total lack of access control to personal details).

The incorrect billing problems where people receive bills for R20k+ have gone on for far too long with very little noise being made by opposition parties, this is all part of a much larger can of worms that needs to be opened and returned to Lithuli House from whence it came.
 
asking why the opposition is not doing their job will get you called nasty things and is verboten (sp)

Anyway the mainstream media are likely to coddle on as soon as their is international coverage or the matter goes to court. I strongly suspect that before either of those events occur there will be an attempt at gradual de-escalation and burying of the whole story. The idea that the CoJ doesn't have logs - and so would be dependent on statements in this forum smells of wanting to depend on a misguided attempt to infer malicious intent on an accused - which is irrelevant to the section.
The idea of charging under ECT 86 is ludicrous - as I've said before, in so far as one can look to US precedent the Weev case depended on a conspiracy to commit unauthorized access - - the jury had to find on the basis of a pretty long complaint and some solid evidence - that the persons to the conspiracy intended to access the system in a manner that falls foul of the applicable US statutes [for anybody following the matter a fairly interesting factor of the appeal is whether the conspiracy charge is therefore a felony or misdemeanor] precisely because the "trespass criteria" which has traditionally applied in hacking suits would have rendered an acquittal. It would take a special breed of cocksure for a prosecutor to commence proceedings in court - sadly our system has produced a situation where genuine fearlessness is punished and idiotic cocksure miscarriage is overlooked.

Once I have MWEB set course for round 2 and my two other articles that I am working on are on course I'll get properly to researching the comparative law on this one it looks like there is a lacuna in the literature. The CoJ has made me angry enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X