So what if Joe's site was hacked on election day?

[Philosoraptor]

I mean, what's the harm? You don't go to Joe's website to vote, and you don't go there on election day to learn about Joe, what's the big panic? His website isn't a polling place is it?

This wouldn't even qualify as vote tampering or fraud would it?

[Kingshakabobo]

1. They use the email server to get out the vote. nt

[Mz Pip]

2. Sort of like

the phone jamming crap the Repugs pulled in 2004.

It's not ok. I don't know who did it, but whoever did is a creep IMHO. Mean spirited politics at the very least, illegal at the worst.

I don't care who did it. It's not something that can be justified by "What's the harm?"

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. There is harm.

Sometimes, people do go to campaign sites to learn about a candidate before they go and vote. If Lieberman's site is down or hacked, then they can't do that.

[Philosoraptor]

4. So if he loses he has a legitimate legal complaint?

I'm just asking cause I'm ignorant. If he loses can he claim its because somebody hacked his site? Will this be used by future politicians?

Can WE claim the same after November's elections?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. That I can't say.

I don't know the laws with this regard. If I were a betting man, I'd say the legal complaint, if any, would be minimal.

[Catchawave]

5. I wish the Lieberman people were this upset

for 2000 results :cry:

I think GOTV phones are more important on Election days than the internets. But they are getting some Joesympathy votes out of this today....so if Ned Lamont loses.....hmmmmmmmmm?

If you all haven't already, please see Skinner's thread, he has proof the hacking is a LIE. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. There Is A Lot Of Harm To It. People Go There For Information And Updates

and for whatever other reasons. Regardless of the reasons, it is harmful because if it was hacked by anybody, it is an attempt to thwart democracy and affect even slightly an election on election day. We can NEVER tolerate or dismiss such actions even when those actions occur to someone we don't condone or support.

[Philosoraptor]

7. I agree.

If it were proven that it was hacked, that would be a crime. But could it be proven that it had a negative affect on the election?

[mom cat]

11. If it was hacked, we cannot approve of such tactics.However, it

looks like skinner and others have shown that it was not a hacking.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Please Stay In The Direct Context Of The OP.

Both replies to my statement, including one from the OP themselves, dismissed my point so to speak with a "yeah, true, but it wasn't hacked so blah blah".

The whole damn premise of this thread was to ask "so what if it was? It isn't important!". That means the direct assertion and assumption to be made was that if it WAS IN FACT HACKED, it isn't important.

So my statement was responding with if it WAS IN FACT HACKED, it is DEFINITELY important. That was the direct context of the OP and that's what I responded to. That doesn't mean I'm saying "I think his website was truly hacked!"

[Philosoraptor]

13. correct, I said "if"

That has yet to be proven. And yes, we seem to disagree on the importance of it, but I've been wrong on many, many occassions, so your point probably carries more weight.

[mom cat]

16. Since when do people stay within the direct context of the OP here

on DU? I rarely see a thread that does not meander.
As for your "what if" question, I usually do not respond to them because they artificially manipulate the discussion. I would rather wait for proof than even pretend for a moment that the site was hacked.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. You Really Need To Get Your Facts Straight.

You had the gall to say "As for your "what if" question, I usually do not respond to them because they artificially manipulate the discussion. "

What the hell do you mean MY what if question? Are you not following along with this?

The OP asked the question of if, NOT ME! I was simply offering my opinion on the THEORETICAL what if question. So please, follow along here. This wasn't my what if nor have I attempted to manipulate a goddamn thing so your entire post is misplaced a bit.

And as far as meandering discussion goes, yes threads do meander. But my request isn't in reference to whether or not a thread meanders, as I could care less and expect it at times. What I do request, however, is that if someone is going to respond directly to me that at least their reply should be directly in context to mine or at the very least not based on a completely false premise.

[mwooldri]

9. Personally I think that there should be zero campaigning on election day.

All sites should be "thank you, now go and vote!" on that day. IMHO of course.

But we are in a world where it matters.... to the last vote. Joe's website shouldn't have been tampered with anyway... highly unlikely it's Ned Lamont. Also seems that it really is a billing problem on the part of Joe Lieberman.

And if that is the case, it's easy for us to bring the site down. The popular site slashdot is so known for this, there is the slashdot effect, when a story posts the site that is the source for the story is so overloaded that it shuts itself down.

On an aside note: did a few traceroutes and looking at Netcraft.com as for information on joe2006.com and nedlamont.com. Seems like Joe was using budget hosting. Ned Lamont's using the same people as Howard Dean did for deanofamerica.com - though IIRC that's a dead site. But the address and the routing is still there.

Mark.

[Philosoraptor]

10. I agree

all campaigning has always stopped at midnite monday.

[Bluebear]

14. It's disenfranchising the voters! Joe said so!

:rofl:

[mcscajun]

15. I'd like to know how hacking someone's website could impact

their e-mail server. Seriously.

I know if my webpage is screwed up, I can still send e-mail. But of course, I don't host myself, and I've never been hacked. When I worked for a major NYC bank, our webservers and mail servers were completely separate.

So how is this web hacking a problem for LIEberman's e-mail "get out the vote" efforts? Can anyone explain this?

[RB TexLa]

18. I'd have much more people watching the tires on the vans and the phone

lines than concern for the website. The vans are votes today not the website.