He is right. If you do some research and look into wikileaks, it would appear that wikileaks actually did Colman's contributors a favor by letting them know that their credit card info had been hacked and had been floating around the Internet for several weeks before wikileaks became aware of it.
They only published the last four digits and security codes so that Colman's contributors would know that they were telling the truth. They did not publish the full credit card numbers so that anyone reading the data could use them illegally. Apparently they contacted the Colman campaign first but Colman did nothing to warn his contributors, so they they warned them instead.
PS. it was/is against the law for Colman's campaign to keep security codes on record. They messed up and it is likely Colman's campaign and not Wikileaks that will be held liable for any fraud committed using the hacked information.
The original hacker/hackers are unknown, but it wasn't wikileaks. It is claimed that instead of being hacked, that it was accidentally exposed to everyone on Colman's website for a short time on January 28 due to incompetence of his web site crew.
OK, I am beginning at least to understand your basic point, as well as the point being made by worst-case-scenario.
I still disagree, and just as vehemently. Under what scenario, Monday and Worst-Case-Scenario, is it Wikileaks’ place to send this email? Why is it their responsibility to do this? And even if I grant all that you are claiming, how could it STILL not be interpreted in a chilling fashion?
Here is a hard core left-wing group emailing 50,000 Coleman contributors saying “We have your credit card information.” Do you think that wikileaks did not give any thought to how that might be interpreted? Do you think that a significant fraction of the recipients interpreted this as anything other than a threat?
I’m frustrated that there isn’t significantly more outrage on this point, even if I concede all that the two of you are saying. And I’m still in the dark as to why this is appropriate behavior.
And I don’t think I would ever hire worst-case-scenario’s IT firm if he and his employees take the stance that once information is compromised, even momentarily, it is entirely in the public domain. I can’t imagine that I could trust him.
“it would appear that wikileaks actually did Colman’s contributors a favor ...”
I’m not trying to be difficult. I really just want to understand. Having been to the wikileaks web site, could you in your wildest imagination conceive of the possibility that these reprobates had any interest in favoring Coleman’s contributors?
This “doing you a favor” was a fig leaf for a veiled and reprehensible threat wasn’t it?
If you stand by your position, I’d be interested in having you describe for me the thought process by which the folks at wikileaks arrived at the idea ... “Hey, those poor, poor Coleman contributors. Someone needs to go to a lot of trouble and expense tracking them all down and telling them they just might get ripped off. Darn, I guess it’s up to us.”
I assure you that events did not unfold in the way you are representing them.
OK, I know I am now reaching the point of being truly annoying, but I have a specific question that you may be able to answer.
If someone comes by information about credit card numbers legally, let’s say through an anonymous email, or a visit to an unprotected web site, etc., is it then legal to retransmit those data to others?
I ask, because if it’s legal, it shouldn’t be. Right?