I don’t know how to evaluate your assessment that Coleman’s people screwed up. I’ll take that at face value and concede the point.
I don’t think this diminishes my fear one bit. Some evil force STILL had to be poking around the Coleman site looking for ways to do damage. And having found the data, whether by criminal means or not, they sent emails out saying to these 51,000 plus donors that they were in possession of their credit card information. I don’t find this act of intimidation any less chilling for having been catalyzed by a Coleman screw up, even if you are correct on that point.
And if this is why the MSM is looking the other way, I don’t find the MSM any less culpable. This is an act of intimidation, pure and simple. And it is of a breathtaking form and impact.
Or are you somehow maintaining, worst-case-scenario, that they act was any less heinous for having been enabled by some screw up IT person on the Coleman campaign? You seem to think that this point is relevant. I am having a difficult time understanding why.
They weren't trying to intimidate Colman's donors. They were trying to warn them to cancel their credit cards since Colman himself refused to do so. They didn't hack the information themselves, but someone did submit the information to them. That person may or may not have been the original hacker.
The point is, that information had been floating around the Internet for weeks and no one had bothered to warn Colman's donors that their information was being passed around by hackers and criminals. Wikileaks did Colman's donors a favor by informing them about this fact.
I am saying that it does not have to be “some evil force” that was POLITICALLY inspired. There are people that do this because they are trolling for credit card numbers and other financial information. They use computer sniffer programs that employ bot-netted computer systems linked (unbeknownst to the owners) all over the world.
They do it for money. They don’t care who you are, or who you vote for, just that you have exploitable financial data. There are huge rings of these fraudsters all over the world, sniffing numbers and selling them for as little as 10 cents a card. It’s major business. That’s why we receive all these instructions on how to keep our financial data safe over the web.
I read one analogy that explained that Coleman’s team did the equivalent of leaving the financial data in a box on their front sidewalk. Is it theft if someone walks off with the box or the stuff without asking you? Well it’s not being “hacked” if you leave the info on open directories on the internet.
Is it “intimidation” if someone calls you to say they found your wallet in the street, or your checkbook? That’s what these Wikileaks guys did with their emails - how is it intimidating? For what nefarious end? It’s not like anybody at Wikileaks took the info and made similar donations to Franken. The only people who might be scared would be the Coleman financial directors, who can get into major trouble because they had a legal obligation to inform the donors that their credit card data had been compromised, and the financial/IT team didn’t inform them.
The evidence all points to unsecured data being obtained by thieves openly. There was no political or ideological reason behind it. Your fear is correct but misplaced. The evil people to be scared of are the loose association of thieves selling collecting and selling long lists of financial data, usually from bases in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Google “credit card fraud rings” if you need more info, or if you need to feel nervous about shopping online.