Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[leftysergeant]

The hacker would have had to known to use TweetDeck if they wanted to make it appear to be from Weiner. Again, not impossible that couldn't have happened, but it adds a layer of complexity that the hackers would have had to be aware of to pull it off.

What unneccessary complexity? Do you think those drongos have meaningful lives outside of aiding the sludge monster?

Sounds like you are making a case for Weiner to do the right thing and let the police get to the bottom of it. Almost like he has an obligation to humanity to prevent further crimes against it. Wait, I thought you said he has no obligation...

Weiner has a life and to take the time to give the sludge monster and his herd of steers what they deserve would be a distraction from what he has an obligation to do, which is to make Ryan and Cantor look like idiots so that congress can get back to doing what the people have every right to expect them to do.

Little boys like Ryan can go cry in their beer on their own time over how unfair it is that God gave Weiner more class and sex appeal and a better-looking wife than the typical Republicon gets. We aren't interested.

 

[Unabogie]

Anytime someone is arrested, cited, indicted, they are assumed by the authorities of being guilty. How perverse of them!

He doesn't have to do anything to put this behind him except report it to the authorities. That would have saved him hours questions from reporters, with the simple answer, "I reported it to the police. Check with them to see what they found." Is innocence would have been proven in the 15 minutes it would have taken to identify the IP address. That's of course if he was innocent.

More evidence that his tale is unraveling: According to TweetCongress.org the picture was transmitted using TweetDeck — a popular Adobe desktop application that links up with social networking sites.

Chet Wisniewski, a senior security adviser at security software company SophosLabs, said the TweetDeck stamp “does make it more plausible that it did come from him.”

This information doesn’t rule out the possibility that his Twitter account was infiltrated. But experts say it adds another hurdle for his alibi.

“The complexity goes up,” said Chris McCroskey, the Texas software developer who founded TweetCongress.org.

“Here’s the thing that solves it all,” said McCroskey, “for him to call for a criminal investigation. All they have to do is look at his TweetDeck and see if it came from there, see what IP address [it had]. The local police department or Capitol Police could probably figure this out in 15 minutes.”

Robert Stribley, a senior information architect at Razorfish reasoned that if Weiner used the TweetDeck app, “it would probably make it less likely his account was hacked.”

Matthew Green, chief technology officer at Independent Security Evaluators, said that if the offensive tweet had been transmitted through something other than TweetDeck that night, it might have gone a long way to exonerate Weiner.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/05/060511-news-weiner-1-4/

This article is disappointing. It doesn't provide any details to support the idea that Weiner's explanation is "unraveling". It merely says that he posted from Tweetdeck. Yet they quote TweetCongress as the source yet provide no link to TweetCongress. Why don't we start there?

Anyone have a link to TweetCongress' assertion that the Tweet was sent via TweetDeck?

 

[Neally]

The key difference - and one that applies to the incident being discussed - is that only the prosecution has to make a case to support their presumption.

In other words, what the prosecution or the police or anyone presumes doesn't amount to a damn thing unless they can prove it.

What an excellent point a dazzling display of insight into how the criminal justice system works. Who is perverse again?

Weiner has a life and to take the time to give the sludge monster and his herd of steers what they deserve would be a distraction from what he has an obligation to do, which is to make Ryan and Cantor look like idiots

So it's more important to make than to Ryan and Cantor look like idiots than to prevent crimes against humanity?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you don't want to have your methods of argumentation and evidence compared to 9/11 Truth people's methods of argumentation and evidence, don't use those methods.

I haven't. Your comparison is so superficial as to be meaningless.

As to my alleging a conspiracy, yes, I have. That's because it has been well-established there was one. A number of people were quietly working together in early May trying to find a way to bring down Anthony Weiner with a sex scandal. That's well-established by evidence. There is the testimony of people they contacted and harassed in this effort. There are screen-shots of their communications. Even Breitbart seems to be admitting that these folks were engaging in an organized effort to get Weiner, now that he's in danger of considered part of the group rather than a dupe.

And within that body of evidence is nothing to suggest that they tried to fabricate any evidence. Quite the reverse, in fact: their repeated attempts to contact people whom Weiner followed reveal that they were looking for evidence, not trying to invent it. So I'm afraid that you're doing exactly what you claim I'm doing but which I'm not: following the tactics of 9/11 truthers by inventing conspiracies when the evidence indicates no such thing. The only relevant conspiracy here would be one to frame Weiner - a "conspiracy" that attempted to discover and reveal the truth would hardly deserve that title, would it?

 

[tyr_13]

The only relevant conspiracy here would be one to frame Weiner - a "conspiracy" that attempted to discover and reveal the truth would hardly deserve that title, would it?

That's hardly an accurate description of what we know though the evidence. Perhaps these people were only dealing with real evidence, and harassing underage girls, but perhaps they decided to get him though any means.

Even if they were willing to fabricate evidence, that doesn't mean they didn't find real evidence either of course.

I have a feeling that if it turns out Weiner did send the photo, you'll dance around saying how unbelievably unreasonable anyone who ever speculated against it were, and if it turns out that it wasn't him your detractors will do the same. Right now, we don't, and we can't, know what happened.

And besides, as has been pointed out several times, if he did what he is accused of, so what? If they did what they are accused of, that's actually criminal and bad.

 

[leftysergeant]

And within that body of evidence is nothing to suggest that they tried to fabricate any evidence. Quite the reverse, in fact: their repeated attempts to contact people whom Weiner followed reveal that they were looking for evidence, not trying to invent it. So I'm afraid that you're doing exactly what you claim I'm doing but which I'm not: following the tactics of 9/11 truthers by inventing conspiracies when the evidence indicates no such thing. The only relevant conspiracy here would be one to frame Weiner - a "conspiracy" that attempted to discover and reveal the truth would hardly deserve that title, would it?

Bull feathers. Just associating with the sludge monster is proof that they are of particularly base character and worthless to society. They get no benefit of the doubt on that score. The sludge monster manufactures evidence, so we have automatic probable cause to suspect that that is what they did. They have the burden of proof that they did NOT commit a crime here.

They would have to contact the people who follow Weiner in order to get the cookies that would allow them to manufacture their garbage. Even a non-cyber-geek like me can figure that out.

Were you not so intent on proving that the sludge monster is capable of performing a more useful role in society than some homeless drunk face-down in the gutter, you would probably figure that out as well.

Why you show so much undue admiration for the sludge monster and the perverts who surround him is beyond me.

 

[johnny karate]

What an excellent point a dazzling display of insight into how the criminal justice system works. Who is perverse again?

Anyone who thinks someone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

I feel like I've already made this point abundantly clear.

 

[marplots]

Why you show so much undue admiration for the sludge monster and the perverts who surround him is beyond me.

I agree, but there's another consideration. The people out to get someone are the people most likely to find something to pin on that someone.

Yes, they are not to be trusted, but even so, one has to look at what they've come up with to see if they've managed a coup this time.

As an example, I've learned some great stuff about evolution by way of creationists trying their hardest to come up with a counterexample. They are the ones interested in doing so, and when they think they have one (and it is shown bogus) the people who know what's going on get a chance to explain things -- and I get educated on how an eye evolves.

So the gadflies have a role. It's not particularly honorable or tasteful, but their vested interest works as an unpaid, if biased, alternative view. Their agenda pollutes it, but still it is not entirely without value.

 

[Unabogie]

So, no one has a link to TweetCongress explicitly saying the original Tweet was from TweetDeck? Do we know ANYTHING about that Tweet? I still haven't even seen a cached version of it.

 

[leftysergeant]

So the gadflies have a role. It's not particularly honorable or tasteful, but their vested interest works as an unpaid, if biased, alternative view. Their agenda pollutes it, but still it is not entirely without value.

By extension, that principle could be perverted to show that Hitler was of some use to humanity.

Godwin be damned. People have recieved death threats after the sludge monster slimed them.

 

[A'isha]

So, no one has a link to TweetCongress explicitly saying the original Tweet was from TweetDeck? Do we know ANYTHING about that Tweet? I still haven't even seen a cached version of it.

I looked, but couldn't find anything on TweetCongress (I can't find the stored twitter stream at all).

The article does say it was "exclusive" information, and quotes the guy who runs TweetCongress, though.

Still, a direct screenshot of the captured tweet in question would be nice.

EDIT: If the picture tweet did come from TweetDeck, that makes the exploit story a lot less likely, and the idea that Weiner posted it himself a lot more likely.

 

[Unabogie]

I looked, but couldn't find anything on TweetCongress (I can't find the stored twitter stream at all).

The article does say it was "exclusive" information, and quotes the guy who runs TweetCongress, though.

Still, a direct screenshot of the captured tweet in question would be nice.

EDIT: If the picture tweet did come from TweetDeck, that makes the exploit story a lot less likely, and the idea that Weiner posted it himself a lot more likely.

It would indeed mean that a password for Twitter was necessary, so I agree that if the yFrog exploit is ruled out that's a point in favor of Weiner being the sender. I still wonder about these two guys and their prediction that a scandal was about to break. For me, that's almost too much to overlook.

If a mob guy says "it'd be a real shame if anything happened to this nice little establishment of yours, like a fire...", and you don't pay him, and the next day the place burns down, even if it looks like the guy was going to cash in on his insurance you still have to look at the mob guy first.

 

[marplots]

By extension, that principle could be perverted to show that Hitler was of some use to humanity.

Godwin be damned. People have recieved death threats after the sludge monster slimed them.

I'd be hard pressed to make a case for Hitler.

On the other hand, there are groups all over the place with agendas and bias. Am I to disregard everything Greenpeace puts out just because I suspect they have an ax to grind? Doing that would circumscribe what I can look at to a narrow circle of ideamongers who I happen to share biases with.

I don't think I have to support a group's agenda to look at what they have to say, or that I should dismiss everything they come up with out of hand, solely because they came up with it. This is exactly how they got to be a "sludge monster" in the first place -- failing to look at other points of view.

Is the choice really between disallowing the whacky to avoid death threats or accepting Hitler?

I'd like to think that what we do here in the forum is listen to a case and evaluate it based, not on who's making it, but on the merits of the case.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I looked, but couldn't find anything on TweetCongress (I can't find the stored twitter stream at all).

The article does say it was "exclusive" information, and quotes the guy who runs TweetCongress, though.

Still, a direct screenshot of the captured tweet in question would be nice.

EDIT: If the picture tweet did come from TweetDeck, that makes the exploit story a lot less likely, and the idea that Weiner posted it himself a lot more likely.

http://wireupdate.com/wires/17945/exclusive-documents-show-tweetdeck-use-in-weiner-lewd-photo-tweet/

Sorry about the broken URL - number of posts and all that

Anyhow, the pertinent data is linked there, and here is a summary:
"McCroskey confirmed to WireUpdate that Weiner’s tweet along with the tweets of other members of Congress are stored in a database that is not available to the general public. Every time a current sitting member of Congress sends out a message from a verified Twitter account TweetCongress captures that message regardless if the Congressman later decides to delete it.
TweetCongress’s software captures all the information Twitter API makes available — including the source application for tweets."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Once again, it's a big surprise that an Anti-Weiner Activist would quote a self-serving post of his own, and a blog from some nutcase who proudly displays an Obama = Communist banner.


GB

Just FYI - I quoted my own post because I thought I already pointed out the relevant fact there, a quote from Weiner himself that stated he did not authenticate to yfrog.

Also, the other link was simply to provide evidence that the blackberry twitter app uses yfrog as an image asset, and does not require you to have a yfrog account. As I block lots of ads, I don't know what banner ads you may have seen on the sight.

Third, I am a pretty liberal progressive, and have nothing against Congressman Weiner. I just happen to think the evidence points to the fact that he tweeted a picture of his junk publicly by accident because he is not technically savvy.

It seems like the facts keep supporting this possibility - at least at this point, we see that the post about hockey came 5 minutes after the picture post, and both from tweetdeck. So the whole yfrog hack looks out ... as I said earlier.

 

[Nova Land]

I look forward to the statistical data regarding successful indictments made on "He was acting weird" you will surely be providing to drive this point home.

I don't need to provide further data that proves my point that the presumption of innocence principle applies to trials. Outside of that, people are arrested, cited, indicted, because they are assumed by the authorities of being guilty. The court presumes them innocent, prosecutors presumes them guilty. Tell me again who is perverse?

You are right about one thing: in our criminal justice system there is a presumption of legal innocence until a person has been found guilty in a court of law.

You are right about another thing: individuals in our society are perfectly free to believe a person is guilty before the person has been convicted.

What you seem to fail to understand, though, is that while you and I as individuals are free to assume a person is innocent or guilty based on whatever silly standard we choose -- such as the I think he was acting weird, 'cause he didn't do what I think he should have done standard that you're embracing -- police and prosecutors in their official capacities are not.

Police can (and must) assume a person is guilty and arrest them before they are convicted; and prosecutors can (and must) assume a person is guilty before they are convicted. If they could not arrest and prosecute a person before the person was prosecuted and found guilty, there would be an incredible Catch-22 to the system. But they are legally required to do this based on evidence -- not on hunches or gut feelings or speculations.

If police do not have sufficient evidence, they are not permitted to arrest someone. If they do arrest someone without sufficient cause, the person can bring legal motions to obtain release (and may be able to bring legal action to sue for false arrest). Similarly, if prosecutors do not have substantial evidence to support prosecution, they are not allowed to proceed with the case.

When the matter goes to court, the evidence is examined and evaluated to see if it is indeed sufficient to show that the person is guilty. Evaluating evidence in this way is not a perfect system, and occasionally evidence will be deemed to show a person is guilty when they are actually innocent or innocent when they are actually guilty. But careful examination of evidence, based on good skeptical principles, is still the best method we have for discerning truth in matters such as this.

That's the point some of us are trying to get across to you: while you are perfectly free to assume guilt or innocence based on whatever silly methods you choose, the particular method you are choosing to use here is as likely to give you the correct answer as to guilt or innocence as a dowsing rod is likely to give you the correct answer as to the presence or absence of water.

Virtually everyone acts in ways we think are sensible some of the time and in ways we think are strange some of the time. Thus it is always possible to look at strange decisions an accused person has made and pronounce them guilty (for people you have pre-determined are guilty) and to look at normal decisions an accused person has made and pronounce them innocent (for people you have pre-determined are innocent). The behavior of Wolfe and Stack in this matter is much stranger than the behavior of Weiner in this matter, but for some reason you choose to ignore the strange behavior of the people you aren't interested in declaring guilty and focus solely on the strange behavior of a person you are interested in declaring guilty.

Johnny karate made a very sensible suggestion: look at the track record for the I think he was acting weird, so he must be guilty method and see how many successful arrests, indictments, and prosecutions have been based on it. If you are interested in discerning the truth (as opposed to trying to score debating points) you'd do well to listen to suggestions like johnny's.

 

[Emet]

Sorry about the broken URL - number of posts and all that

You need 15 posts to link a url. And you have 2 hours to edit your posts.

 

[Nova Land]

According to the article, the offending tweet came from TweetDeck. Weiner had been posting only from TweetDeck that entire night. The hacker would have had to known to use TweetDeck if they wanted to make it appear to be from Weiner.

And according to what we know, Wolfe and Stack were following Weiner obsessively. It sounds like tweets made with TweetDeck leave different traces than tweets not made with TweetDeck. So if Weiner had been using TweetDeck that day, why would Wolfe and Stack not be aware of this?

Cannon claimed there was a vulnerability in yFrog which would enable a person other than Weiner to have made the crotch shot tweet, and that if someone had done that the tweet would have had exactly the appearance which in fact it did have. This appears to be true. If you are correctly summarizing the article you cited, nothing in it refutes what Cannon said.

All the article seems to be saying is that in addition to knowing the method Cannon outlined, the person would need to know that Weiner was using TweetDeck that day. I fail to see why a self-proclaimed computer whiz such as Stack wouldn't be able to know that.

Is there something more to what the article is saying than that? If so, please explain what it is.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What an excellent point a dazzling display of insight into how the criminal justice system works.

I look forward to the statistical data regarding successful indictments made on "He was acting weird" you will surely be providing to drive this point home.

...Amanda Knox...cartwheel...

 

[Bjorn]

If a mob guy says "it'd be a real shame if anything happened to this nice little establishment of yours, like a fire...", and you don't pay him, and the next day the place burns down, even if it looks like the guy was going to cash in on his insurance you still have to look at the mob guy first.

And even more so if the guy didn't have any insurance.