Anatomy of a Privacy Nightmare 275
itwbennett writes "Gennette Cordova knows first-hand how impossible it is to erase yourself from the Internet. The 21-year-old college student was the hapless recipient of a photo of a Congressman Anthony Weiner bulging in his boxers. Ms. Cordova then 'watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location, links to any social networking site I've ever used, my old phone numbers and pictures have been passed along from stranger to stranger.' She then tried to remove her personal information from the web, one social network at a time. But the fact is, 'until a site's Webmaster removes the offending content, it will remain accessible via search engines like Google,' says blogger Dan Tynan."
Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (Score:4, Insightful)
It happened to her. Just like one day it could happen to you.
No, it won't. But that's just because I am one boring person and I don't share much online. But hats off to your ridiculous fear mongering. While Gennette Cordova herself wasn't a celebrity or public figure, she worked for one and probably should have been careful about broadcasting that to the world.
I don't care if I work at goddamn McDonalds, I'm not going to associate my employer with anything online. One day I'm going to get done with work, get on twitter/facebook/slashdot and paraphrase Fight Club:
Because one of these days some manatee is going to come into the restaurant demanding his slaw and this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from drive-thru to drive-thru with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into customers and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.
And I'm not going to be fired for venting.
In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!? No? You grasp that concept?! Well what is so hard to grasp about putting your freaking life story on the internet only to be shocked when it's fed back to you by everyone on the goddamn planet?! It was true then and it's true now. Keep what you want to remain private as private. What changed after she got the photo that suddenly made her aware that everyone can see her profiles? What changed? Now other people are posting that same information? Because it was publicly available to anyone and any search engine? Ridiculous. Hoisted by her own petard.
Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (Score:5, Insightful)
Did she work for him? Everything I read said she was just a student and had never met him. I haven't read that much, though, so I could be wrong.
And a lot of these things she didn't even put on the internet. Go to a site like Spokeo.com and put in your name. I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to a site like Spokeo.com
Doesn't even get the right country for me. Not even the right continent.
That was fun! (Score:2)
Having an incredibly common name is a wonderful thing sometimes. There are literally thousands of me in there. Even in my current town, there are approximately ~400 that people they've pulled up - and *none* of the results have my current address (even after drilling down manually *myself*) - they had exactly one addy/name combo that matched, that was inaccurate by over 3 years. I popped in via open proxy to insure that they didn't dredge through their visit records and get a sniff. :)
Good luck finding out
Re: (Score:2)
I did. It was hilariously wrong.
It has me confused with my father (same name, except I have a middle name and he doesn't). They get my middle initial wrong. The weird information hybrid of my father and I are has a lot of things wrong. Apparently "our" hobbies include travel and cooking (I travel a handful of times a year by car, usually only for a weekend), and the most complex thing either of us have cooked is frozen waffles. It says we're a Capricorn, but I'm a Capricorn and my father is an Aquarius. It
Re: (Score:2)
nobody by that name lives or has ever lived at those addresses as far as I know.
yet, perhaps spokeo.com is seeing into you future. However, it doesn't really matter, as perception is reality when applied to the lives of other people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point. There is a ton of information publicly available that I didn't directly put there myself.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate shitsites like Spokeo because they decided to opt you in to their "service" first, and you have to specifically go opt *out* - which I did. At the time, their process sucked, and they pretty much required you sign up for their site in order to opt out of their shit.
Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that that's not a useful reply.
I've done numerous things that are matters of public record, including buying a house. This means that there is, perforce, a lot of information available to others about me. If I didn't want that, I couldn't buy a house, marry, divorce, reproduce, or do many other things people rather want to do with their lives. If you want to rent a decent apartment, it helps to have a good credit record, which means having a credit record. Basically, if I want to live a halfway normal life, I leave a large public trail.
Also, the meaning of public information has changed over the years. Back in the 1980s, if I wanted to access assorted public records, I'd go to the main County office building, look up the ID number of the record in the microfiche room, take that to the records room, and wait several minutes and pay a small fee. It was certainly possible to build up a dossier of publicly available information about me, but it took time and expense. Nobody would do it unless I, personally, was of interest to them. Nowadays, it's possible to get that stuff on the Web interface quickly, easily, and without charge.
Similarly, the extent of private information turned public is much greater. If my father did something in public that was stupid but legal, and wound up being reported in the local newspaper, he could live it down or move away. In order to find that article, an investigator would have to go somewhere where they kept all the issues (such as the newspaper itself or a historical society), which would be local, and dig through them. If my son does something equivalent, it will be searchable to everybody on the internet pretty much forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you used a bad example, since the settlement company was your lawfully paid agent. If you did not know what you were hiring someone to do on your behalf, then you should have read some of those papers you were signing. That is my point.
I don't know about the laws in your state, but where I am, the price you pay for a house is part of the public record; you can't not have it available. Regardless of the "settlement company", if any, or what papers you did or did not sign with them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, however the rules on all that was made back well before the internet or even the grandparents of the people who would eventually create the internet were born. There is ultimately no solution to the problem so long as the media feels entitled to release the names of people who may or may not have done anything wrong. It's one thing to release the names of politicians that have been caught cheating, it's quite another to release the names of people who just received the photos with or without any part
Re: (Score:2)
Something is not quite right here... (Score:2)
When I went to read the article that is linked, I went down into the comments. The FIRST one, among many others along the same line, is from an online 'reputation' company basically advertising how important their services are because of this convenient incident. Included is a way to contact them for their services.
On what planet do bloggers suddenly allow ads like this in their comments... when they are not working together?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!?
I'd be pretty damn surprised. I don't think that many serfs could read in 1568.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be pretty damn surprised. I don't think that many serfs could read in 1568.
True, but what if that printing contained a woodcut rendering of his penis?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that many serfs had access to scanning electron microscopes in 1568.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!?
Yes, in the same way that if in 1994 I posted stuff to a webpage, sent the URL around my neighborhood, expecting everyone to be web-savvy. IIRC, serfs weren't big on literacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you leave both your home and car doors unlocked, since its not your fault if someone steals something from your house or you car.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you apply that to women who wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys too?
We all know that women in skimpy outfits should stay in open, well lit areas where the the male and lesbian population can enjoy looking at them. That's how those stories got started.
Re: (Score:2)
He's playing the stump card with the press and argued the validity of the questions reporters had...that might work on the floor, but in the context of a 5 second news blurb, you're screwed, they'll show a few words and that's it. It looks defensive...aka, guilty.
It's his typical style. I've watched him debate on C-SPAN and he tends to be bull headed, passionate, a
Alleged picture (Score:2, Insightful)
There is significant evidence that Weinergate was a frame set-up from the beginng. I do feel sorry for this girl, as she is as much a victim of this mess as Rep. Anthony Weiner, but please don't accuse the representative of actually sending the photo directly to her - she was the vehicle of a hack-job, not the target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A picture of a man's junk coming from a guy called "Rep. Anthony Wiener", going to some random student. It sounds like this is in reverse, this is a targeted prank by one of the girl's acquaintances. I mean, the man's name is "Wiener" and there's a picture of a man's gentleman's sausage coming from him, that is too perfect, it sounds like this girl probably rebuffed the advances of the wrong nerd.
It wasn't sent from an account that was simply titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner", it was sent from Rep Anthony Weiner's Twitter account, which is also titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner". It also was not just some random student. It was a student who was following Weiner.
Also, if this were a hack, the FBI should be involved. I know I would want the FBI involved if it was my career on the line. So far, Weiner has refused any FBI involvement and wants to handle the "investigation" by a private firm, one that would be
Re:Alleged picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alleged picture (Score:5, Informative)
However in this specific case I agree it probably wasn't a real hack. For chrissake he won't even deny the picture was of himself.
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean someone who's trying to frame a set-up would change the passwords AND the emails to an account in order to help keep his frame job secret?
Damn, that's what I've been doing wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
If his account was actually hacked, he would no longer have access to it.
C'mon slashdot, I expected better than this from you. Some bullshit blog says this, OK fine, whatever, they don't know shit about technology. But I thought we at least pretended to know what the fuck we were talking about on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Because maybe he has a pair of boxers that look like that? They are not uncommon. Are you really so distinctive from the waist down to just about the top of your thighs that you would be able to say "with certitude" that a picture somebody else might have snapped of you (perhaps with a cell phone as you changed at the gym) is or is not you? I don't know that I could.
I agree he's handling it (no pun intended) in a really weird way. Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me. If it later turned out that it was, so what?
If it later turned out that it was, you can be shown to be at best incompetent at judging photos, and at worst a liar. It makes a lot more sense to say things like, "I have no idea where this photo came from, and it's probably not me."
Incompetent liars (Score:2)
Doesn't that pretty much define most of our politicians anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to want to demonstrate that you're better than the average politician... ...even if the downside of this approach is that it is, almost by definition, using "weasel words," although it is also telling the whole truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I think if he said it wasn't him (although I'd use your modifier of "probably") and it later turned out it was, I don't think anybody in their right mind would hold him accountable.
Why not? I mean, as you said:
If you have superior crotch identifying ability from your long experience of staring at crotches (including your own) then I take my hat off to you.
...then why would you imply you did by saying that you are certain that's not your crotch?
It wasn't his Tweet (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't him. He was set up using a "feature" of Yfrog that leaves a gaping security hole. [blogspot.com]
I submitted [slashdot.org] the story from CannonFire yesterday, but it's still pending.
Re: (Score:2)
Things That Make You Go HMMMMMM....
Re: (Score:2)
He has come out and said that it could be a photo of him, but if so, it was distributed without his knowledge or permission [nytimes.com].
Considering the evidence that the photo was a plant, there is more than the necessary minimum reasonable doubt as to its origin.
I admit Weiner showed poor judgment his response to the situation. But just because he's inept at dealing with the situation doesn't mean he's guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The picture probably is of him. There's nothing wrong with having undie pics of yourself. The problem is when you distribute them unsolicited.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure there's anything seriously wrong with that either. It's not technically obscene. I mean, some Calvin Klein ads and swimsuits show more. Granted, sending it to someone unsolicited may be rude or possibly inappropriate, though the recipient is an adult and without a request to stop it's not any sort of harassment.
Re: (Score:3)
you prove that negative! prove it!
Re: (Score:2)
I've got some gray boxerbreifs, and used to drink a lot, I can't even categorically deny that it is me.
in the interest of, erm, full disclosure (Score:2)
See? It's not that hard.
um...
Re: (Score:3)
I have a pair just like them! And I think there may even be some scantly clad pictures of me out in the world. If it had shown up on MY twitter feed I would be hard pressed to unilaterally deny being the subject. I don't believe it was me, IIRC I wasn't wearing that pair of underware that night, but it could be a pic of me from years ago with the time stamp altered.
-Rick
Re:It wasn't his Tweet (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, but I will NEVER click a link mentioning a "gaping hole" ever again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It wasn't his Tweet (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it says "gaping hole" but it's a safe link and describes technical details of the hack.
I hadn't heard of it yet, so for those who are confused as I was...
Someone frames a congressman by posting a tweet under his name to the woman mentioned in the summary. The tweet included a picture of someone's wiener (not shown in the above blog post). The woman became infamous as the implied scenario was that the congressman was secretly sexting her but accidentally made it a public tweet.
It actually turns out that the guy who "discovered" the pic and spread the news was most likely the same person who uploaded it and planned the whole thing.
Now the woman in the subject has been harassed as a result of being connected to this incident, she tried deleting her twitter account to make it go away but she's permanently tainted from it.
From the blog post above, using the yfrog twitter service can expose you to anonymous 3rd party tweets using your name.
Life gives you ilemons? (Score:5, Funny)
Look, kid, you just got the kind of publicity money can hardly buy. Get on the phone to ICM, get an agent, and pitch a reality show to TLC pronto. You will be able to pay off the college tuition and buy a house for your mom.
You are going to be famous/notorious anyway. Might as well make a buck from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Life gives you ilemons? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or at least do something inventive with it. I'm sure there's some funny Monty Python/Portal combination jokes just waiting to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
The parrot is a lie!
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably do something with Holy Grail / the Animal King. How did it become King, anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, either turn lemons into lemonade... or golden showers....
She should cash in on her instant fame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
I RTFA but couldn't find an explanation of how being sent a photo via twitter caused her personal information to be passed around the way the summary describes.
Re: (Score:2)
It gave her her five minutes of fame. In the modern world, that amounts to basically having six billion stalkers.
Twitter only enters the equation because "OOOOH, bad boy congresscritter used a COMPUTER THINGAMABOB to sexually harass a staffer!" (no pun intended).
Re: (Score:2)
It gave her her five minutes of fame. In the modern world, that amounts to basically having six billion stalkers.
That and she's undoubtedly provided plenty of digital footprints for six billion stalkers to follow, categorise, and trade. That's right folks. You are safe within your "social media" fix because, after all, nobody would ever be interested in you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
entirely caused by her actions
Slashdot: ever helpful (Score:3)
It's good to see that Slashdot is respecting this woman's desire not to have her name and age posted everywhere on the internet.
Try buying a house. (Score:5, Insightful)
Transparency has always been used (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that could even be more of a problem if I suddenly became 'famous' which fortunately, se
A tricky problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I've long since gotten used to the idea that everything I say online - going back to Usenet days and even before - will stay with me forever. Some times you just have to remind people that it was X years ago and people/opinions change. Would you take advice from someone in mid-life whose opinions hadn't changed since their teens?
That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise. The article about this guy is still on my site, you can even find it by searching there, but you can't find it by searching on Google. (Robots.txt plus referer blocking specific to that post, for those who care.)
The lesson is that the existence of information and the ease with which it may be looked up are two different things. Dirt is just too easy to find, for the same reasons that gold is too hard: search engines' evaluation of "importance" or "relevance" doesn't always match any sane human's. While it should be *possible* to find someone's decade-old forum posts, perhaps it's not quite right for the most inflammatory thing they ever said to be the very first thing that shows up in a casual search . . . and it often will be, because controversy drives higher rankings. Making stuff just a little bit harder to find, like we all do here with low-rated comments and like I basically did in this little anecdote, deserves more frequent consideration as an alternative to deletion.
Re: (Score:2)
[...]That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. [...]
Did you happen to check to confirm his story? Does he really have a family? Once a con artist, after all, ... and maybe it was potential marks, not employers, who were finding out his history by Googling him.
Re: (Score:2)
Valid questions. Yes, I did some homework to convince myself that the story was valid, but that would have made the anecdote too long. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly true. As a society, once again technology has advanced faster that our social maturity. That's no reason to slow technology, it's a reason to think more carefully and advance our social maturity.
We need to recognize as a society and as individuals that at some point, the past really is gone. People do grow and change. None of us would be very happy to be treated as if the years of change since we were 5 never happened. I'm sorry Mr. Johnson, we can't hire a manager with a history of cookie theft an
Re: (Score:2)
I should take lessons in civility from someone who joins the conversation with "You're a dick"? I don't think so. It's hardly a surprise that someone who acts like that would take an extreme "forget what happened" attitude, either. Very self-serving of you. Maybe an argument for people to be kind and forgiving shouldn't be delivered with such jarring contrast to your own behavior.
For what it's worth, I don't want to punish this guy forever. That's why I made the post un-searchable, helping him "move pa
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Even aside from the fact that anyone can get their own blog, he has commented on my site and I have allowed him to. If he wants to add more in his own defense, he may and he knows that.
"Sociopathicall
Re: (Score:2)
It may be "findable with search" on his site, but I sure as heck haven't been able to find it. Perhaps it's now only searchable by his name (which I don't know), or by something related to the scam. The closest I could find was his blog post on trytobreak.com's scam, which didn't seem to mention any names. So, it seems like it's effectively hidden unless someone is searching specifically for that name, and in that case they'd have to know to search his site for the person's name. It seems pretty effectivel
Re: (Score:2)
Why not be civil and help him move past the idiot stage of his life?
...because there's no guarantee that he'll have only one idiot stage of his life. Suppose he reverts to his old ways, and the future mark discovers (belatedly) that the GP had information that could have warned him, but made it hard to find out of some sense of fair play (or whatever we're calling it). The future mark, I suspect, would not be amused by this revisionist history.
(The fact that one never knows what someone will do in the future is the reason wise public institutions do not name their buildin
The internet isn't private (Score:2)
Too bad people need to learn the hard way. People are like that.
Re: (Score:2)
This why I feel the story is messed up. This isn't a privacy issues as much as a fame issue. It is not something new.
Welcome to the land of Duh. (Score:2)
If you put info out there.. it will be out there.
This is a good example of people not respecting XYZ because it didn't happen to them, right up until it happened to them. I wish people were smarter.. figure out that whole *actions have consequences* thing.
Bzzzzt Wrong Answer (Score:2)
Wrong.. once it is on the interwebs, it lives forever in caches and history scrapers etc..etc.. once you go digital..you dont go back.
Solution? (Score:2)
So the solution is to go mainstream too and give a few interviews denying everything in the hope those interviews will get the upper hand over the gossip?
It might. Future will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to post "poof" that the gossip is false -- then actively try to purge the "proof" from the Internet and thereby leverage the Streisand effect and conspiracy theories to sway public opinion. "If it wasn't true, why would people try to erase it?"
Bonus: Use fake the DMCA take-down notices as part of your eradication strategy.
how about a deluge of fake info (Score:2)
There is no privacy (Score:2)
There is no such thing as privacy. Privacy requires a compact between people that what person B knows about person A will not be distributed. Well, today what you know is worth money, so goodbye compact. Even if all it does is create one more visitor to a web site with ads, that translates to real or at least potential money in someone's pocket.
Then there is mirroring, archiving and copying. Sorry, but lots of stuff is mirrored and archived. The minute it appears the mirroring and copying start. This
Summary: he's not handling it right (Score:2)
People on the right think that Rep. Weiner attempted to direct message a picture of his privates to a girl but accidentally sent it on his feed were everyone could see it.
People on the left think that Rep. Weiner's twitter account was hacked.
Either way, he's not handling things properly.
If his account was hacked, then someone has the ability to send out faked messages from a public official. This needs to be investigated to see if it was just him not being careful with his password or if there's a security
Let me save you all some time (Score:2)
Keywords: hot, pic, pictures, bangable
She's short and "full-figured" so unless that's your type, you won't find her hot. You may like her rack if you find Playboy centerfolds arousing.
Don't delete, obfuscate (Score:3)
like watching a twelve-year-old (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is obviously a "foreign object".
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does that mean? The photo was in his boxers? The Congressman's boxers were bulging? What does any of this have to do with the guy's net accounts?
A tweet with a link to a picture of a left-leaning erect penis (within boxers) was posted "@" her via Tony Weiner's twitter account. The Congressman says he was hacked (plausible given the left-leaning wiener), and since he was hacked, there is no story here. Move along. Move along.
Re: (Score:3)
Tony - The problem wasn't the alleged hacking... the problem was the odd behavior for someone who supposedly had their account hacked... You know the same way that TO's brother posted some stuff on his Twitter account. The simple question of, "So, that wasn't a picture of you?" was met with extreme anger, and no answer. A simple chuckle, and "No, but I wish it was" would have ended the story right there.
In fact, even if you said, "Yes, it was me. I honestly don't know how someone got that picture" this
Re: (Score:2)
That last interview with Wolf Blitzer, it sounded like he was saying that there ARE pics like that of him, but he couldn't say if that was one of them nor how it got onto his twitter feed. There was a fair bit of tap dancing in his answers though, so who knows... more importantly, who cares?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are spot on with you analysis. I don't understand why he is skirting around the issue of whether or not it's him. A simple answer of "No, I wish" or "Yes, I don't know how somebody got that picture" (it isn't a crime to have your photo taken in your underwear - it's a little odd if you posed for it, but it could be a candid picture) or even "I honestly don't know" (after all there is very little in the picture that is distinctive and if it's a picture somebody else took - again candidly - him mi
Re: (Score:2)
And if he says he was hacked, it's true, no? And his embarrassing attempts to deflect questions from the press don't suggest he just MIGHT be playing a little loose with the truth?
*IF* (and that's a big *IF*) he is lying, he (and all public servants (elected or appointed)) who engage is such compromise behavior put themselves up for risk of blackmail should the wrong person/group find out. And as public servants, their actions on behalf of the public
Re: (Score:2)
And if he says he was hacked, it's true, no? And his embarrassing attempts to deflect questions from the press don't suggest he just MIGHT be playing a little loose with the truth?
I suggest that hacked isn't quite the right word. I think that someone he knows -- a staff member, a relative, a friend -- posted the picture.
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
As Jon Stewart noted, apparently both Congressman Weiner and the penis lean hard to the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interweb [wiktionary.org]
Threadjacking to say this up front: (Score:3)
It was NOT Weiner's wiener. Jon Stewart, who roomed with the guy in college, said on The Daily Show,m that Weiner's package is NOT that large. Of course, having a less than impressive package, Weiner might claim that it could be his enormous package in the picture. But look at the known facts: this was publicized by serial liar Andrew Breitbart. The user who brought this to Breitbart's attention has an unhealthy fixation on Weiner, and has stated his desire to destroy the man. It has been demonstrated exact
Re: (Score:3)
More background on this disgusting and illegal smear job here: http://www.salon.com/news/andrew_breitbart/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/02/breitbart_patriotusa_emails [salon.com]
No, a setup by Andrew Breitbart (Score:3)
The young woman in question is a hard core leftist and absolutely enamored with Anthony Weiner, jokingly claiming he (among a number of lefty politicians) is her boyfriend although they have never met. That was why she was chosen by Breitbart and his accomplices for this smear of Weiner. Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show last night (and the night before) that he roomed with Weiner in college and Weiner's wiener is not that big. Today, yfrog disabled the email submission system due to a known bug that was u
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/06/new.york.weiner/ [cnn.com]
Anthony Weiner just publicly admitted to sending the picture. He just publicly apologized to "everyone in the media", including Breitbart, for lying. Direct quote from Anthony Weiner: "I lied because I was ashamed at what I had done, and I didn't want to get caught." (taken from CNN article linked above) He has also publicly admitted, direct quote, that he had: "exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last t