Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/anonymous-group-allegedly-hacked-romney-tax-records-franklin-firm

by choko • 14 years ago

78 110 14 years ago

engtech2• 14 years ago

title didn't convey the content of the article, or why it would be of interest to HN. I thought it was political stuff at first vs tech news.

A better title might be:

Anonymous' steals Romney's tax return for blackmail extortion

tstegart• 14 years ago

Actually, I think the thieves are anonymous in that they aren't known yet, not "Anonymous" the hacker group.

nollidge• 14 years ago

If that's the case then "anonymous" shouldn't be used as a noun.

engtech2• 14 years ago

I assumed it was A-nonymous when I read the article, but on re-read I think you are correct.

That probably explains why the story hasn't exploded more like other stories about Anonymous or Lulsec have.

choko• 14 years ago

Thanks for the advice.

splatzone• 14 years ago

They've provided no real proof that they actually have the tax returns. I'd be surprised if this is genuine.

debacle3• 14 years ago

If it is genuine, then the Romney campaign has proof.

readme• 14 years ago

If it is genuine, I don't know why they think they'll get away with it.

Also $1M is way too low of an amount to blackmail Romney for. Talk about selling yourself short.

svachalek• 14 years ago

Seriously, who else immediately thought of Dr. Evil demanding "one MILLION dollars"? Makes a good story but sounds bogus to me.

atlbeer• 14 years ago

For me the telling thing is the "1040" bit.

I'm no billionaire but, even my meager tax return is more than a simple 1040 form.

arjunnarayan• 14 years ago

yeah but the critical figures people want, including the sum total of tax paid is on the 1040.

appliance_guide• 14 years ago

Now if only they could steal Obama's college transcripts he's paid over a million dollars to keep sealed...

rayiner3• 14 years ago

Equally relevant!

grandalf• 14 years ago

Point taken, but I'd be happy if candidates just released both sorts of information and weren't so afraid of being transparent.

b_emery• 14 years ago

"It would be illegal under federal law (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) for Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School to give any former student’s records to reporters or members of the public without that person’s specific, written permission."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

tantalor• 14 years ago

Is it safe to accept a ransom via BitCoin? Theoretically how might they be caught?

rms• 14 years ago

If the people accepting the Bitcoins for ransom own the Silk Road? Let's face it, all Bitcoins eventually end up on the Silk Road.

tlrobinson4• 14 years ago

It's safe to accept it, but once you have it laundering and spending it is more difficult.

hugh4life• 14 years ago

What I find interesting is the future(or current) possibility of political opponents hacking each other and then blaming it on "Anonymous" or entrepreneurial hackers. Or heck, infiltrate companies that do business with the political opponent and then blame "hackers" who don't exist.

jeffool• 14 years ago

Or media outlets, given the whole "celebrity cell/email hacking scandal". Or even rival companies that find dirt.

mey• 14 years ago

So Watergate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

duiker101• 14 years ago

I really hope you didn't just give them the idea.

drivebyacct22• 14 years ago

Can this be considered terrorism? Surely, blackmail, but also terrorism? Just curious.

edit: Since I received record fast downvotes, I'll clarify that this is not meant to be a political comment, jesus.

mtgx• 14 years ago

If you want to dilute what the words means to the point it can mean just about any crime, sure. But if you're referring to the strict term, then no.

drivebyacct22• 14 years ago

>the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion

Which word am I diluting exactly? If Romney is as afraid of releasing his taxes as many imply, would he not be fearful of their release?

edit2: thanks for the replies, I think I understand why y'all disagree and I think that I agree with you. It's not systematic and it's not being used to intimidate others, it's too focused, basically.

ddod• 14 years ago

There's no actual strict definition of terrorism; just a bunch of disparate attempts at one by various government agencies. The reason this is, is because it's so painfully, obviously subjective. If we use the definition provided by drivebyacct2, the use of the term itself is the best example of its definition. Most accounts of terrorism are merely just criminal acts that a certain party wants to paint as extranormative. It's interesting to bring up the question of whether this hack could be considered terrorism, as I'm sure if it's real, some Republicans will have interest in calling it that. That's the nature of the illusive concept of "terrorism". Sorry for the off topic discussion!

protomyth• 14 years ago

Only if they stretched a couple of the rules. They can use the wire fraud rules quite a lot easier and put them in jail for a long, long time.

malkia• 14 years ago

I don't think so. Since it would bring fear, only if the people were wrong in the first place (not innocent). And that fear is nothing like fear for your life, or the life of the others, or fear of being sexually molested, or offended by any other physical or psychological means.

oostevo• 14 years ago

Not really, per Bruce Hoffman (a Georgetown University professor that's an authority on the subject)

"Terrorism is ... violence - or, equally important, the threat of violence - used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim."[1]

Certainly this is political, but I think it's a stretch to call releasing stolen tax returns violence.

[1] Hoffman, Bruce. _Inside Terrorism_. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Print.

semenko• 14 years ago

Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S

I'm not very familiar with the Bitcoin protocol: Can all users view the values of these two bitcoin accounts -- or BTC in transit?

andreyf• 14 years ago

Yes, the transactions to and from these accounts are available here:

Stop release: https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW...

Full release: https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

Those amounts that look like 8 bits of binary are interesting, but don't seem to convert to meaningful ascii.

That would have been fun.

deweller2• 14 years ago

The hacker activist group named Anonymous is not involved in this claim.

But rather the statement comes from an anonymous group claiming to have stolen digital copies of the records.

alkimie• 14 years ago

It is fascinating that none of the major news outlets seems to have reported this as of yet.

mherdeg• 14 years ago

This kind of stuff has the potential to be so much fun, but always ends up being so boring.

Remember when a 4chan user hacked into Sarah Palin's not-public-record Yahoo! Mail account and managed to post screenshots to /b/? But then the user totally failed to publicly archive the mail? And somehow got caught? Total disappointment.

oldgregg• 14 years ago

Damn. Who knows if this is legit, but assassination markets are coming, it's only a matter of time. Obviously it won't start with ACTUAL assassinations-- but hide your data, hide your mistresses.

If abused assistants and underpaid file clerks ever realize they can make 100x their salary by leaking data with a bounty there is going to be a culture changing shit-storm.

Bud• 14 years ago

Not really. The file clerks and assistants in question would have to do far more than simply "realize" that they can leak data.

They would have to magically acquire the expertise to leak it untraceably, to handle all the financial arrangements untraceably, and not get caught in any other ways. Meanwhile, the most powerful people in the world will be going after them.

This is already an extremely difficult proposition, and will only get more difficult with time.

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

What if it's all a scheme to drive up the value of bitcoin via speculation?

Increased attention to the currency will have some bidding up the price, so anyone just holding bitcoin could profit, even if without 1 coin being sent to either address.

Of course, if someone did try to make the payment and purchase a million bucks of bitcoins, that would drive the price sky high.

brucehart• 14 years ago

My first thought is that it would do the opposite: increase political pressure on Bitcoin so that it may become more difficult to use (legally). This would drive down the price since many buyers are speculating on Bitcoin becoming more mainstream one day.

brentk• 14 years ago

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-d...

jredwards2• 14 years ago

To spare everyone the trouble: unrelated satire from months ago.

ender7• 14 years ago

I don't understand why they made this a public posting. Romney isn't incentivized to pay up once the blackmail is public knowledge -- payment is equivalent to admitting guilt. Might as well keep your money and take the hits.

I don't see any situations where this beats contacting the campaign privately, with a document or two in hand to prove that you have the real stuff.

Unless, of course, if this is just a stunt that someone is running on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to actually pay the money.

brokentone3• 14 years ago

So far they've made $0.30 BTC and the story has hardly broken...

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

Romney would never pay directly, that's not an option that is even in the realm of possibility.

Surrogates, though, or better yet supporters...

The ideal outcome for the person who made the post is that Obama and Romney supporters get in a bidding war.

jredwards2• 14 years ago

I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that he could make the payment privately, deny that he ever did so, and then take the position that no one was ever in possession of the documents and the whole thing was just a scam and the documents were never released because no one ever had them.

It's plenty likely that the whole thing IS just a scam and they don't actually have the documents.

corry3• 14 years ago

A possible motive is to force Romney's hand to release it himself. It still makes him look bad - but not as bad as a bidding war between his supporters and detractors.

sp3323• 14 years ago

This isn't about getting Romney to pay, it's about getting some suckers to send a little money to the addresses on their own. Here's the balance for the "stop release" account https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW... and the "promote release" account https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL...

axusgrad• 14 years ago

Someone was sending "binary" (10101) amounts of bitcoins to the address, to spell out an imgur link as a joke.

brokentone3• 14 years ago

Some of us developers have been working on the rehabilitation of the term "hack" and "hacker" (Hacker News anyone). The various Anonymous/LulzSec attacks of the last few years have been amusing and most have not been directly attacked individuals or been extortive (however, they've still been illegal, and I have not agreed with them).

Although a politician, Mitt Romney is still a person. No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share.

This attack is despicable.

jj00nathan• 14 years ago

"No one has rights to his personal information he has not decided to share. This attack is despicable."

You realize Mitt Romney is campaigning for the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right? Don't get me wrong, I generally think law enforcement should have privileged access to private data, but you disrespect your philosophical position by pretending to apply it in a manner where the outcome is predetermined through uneven application.

MartinCron5• 14 years ago

the office that is the single worst violator of that philosophy in the world, right?

The president of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution. Sure, some do it better than others, but I can think of a dozen worse violators of getting personal information that people have decided not to share.

brokentone3• 14 years ago

Sorry, I should have been more precise. The general public does not have rights to personal information an individual has declined to share. Now, this obviously excludes public information which the individual wishes wasn't available (arrest records, political contributions).

I agree with you that the presidential office has made executive orders and signed bills recently (Obama and Bush both) that have substantially increased governmental reach and reduced privacy. But this doesn't give the public to take what they want willy-nilly. It does give the public the right not to vote for someone they feel has a double standard on privacy issues.

dia80• 14 years ago

Surely if it's true he needs to release his tax records and play "Don't give in to criminals". Might even make him look good / a victim.

The chance of seeing the inside of a jail massively outweighs the chance of these guys getting any money...

corry3• 14 years ago

The ransom note has pretty specific language:

"Romney's 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied."

Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim.

But even if those specifics are true, how will anyone know that they really have the returns? Maybe they just figured out where the returns were stored and are trying to force someone else's hand.

jasontn• 14 years ago

By taking a line item deduction and making it public to the penny. Unequivocal confirmation.

corry3• 14 years ago

Good point, that would be the 'proof of life' in this case (at least for Romney and PwC).

gwern• 14 years ago

> Anyone at PwC will instantly know if this is true or not. My guess is that the specifics will check out (why else include them?) and give credibility to the claim.

These specifics are either public information or not. If they are public information, they can be checked by a member of the public and confirmed to be wrong or right; but if they are public information, they could have been obtained by such security breaches or by accessing the same public information used to check them. So if they are public information, they do not prove anything.

If they are private information, then perhaps only PwC/PwC-employees can verify; presumably some of them will. But, if there was no security breach then PwC will deny that there was a security breach, and if there was a security breach, PwC will - like most companies - deny that there was a security breach because there is no possible advantage for them to confirm it. So regardless of whether this private information is accurate, the only party in a position to verify the information is also in a position with powerful incentives to claim that it is false.

What is necessary is some sort of trap-door or one-way data: information which is private, but can still somehow be publicly checkable. None of these details seem to be such trap-doors.

I figure these details are either public (building plan listing the existence of suite 260; location of PWC offices and having 3 floors all are trivial bits of info) or are made up for the purpose of seeming plausible.

scarmig5• 14 years ago

One strategy would be to have stolen a bunch of returns from a dozen (well-known?) individuals and then have them confirm that privileged information was taken.

Wouldn't entirely prove it to the public because it could be some kind of clever conspiracy, but taking it to a large enough size would make it fairly plausible.

That's the only way I can think of to get around relying on PWC or the Romney campaign for confirmation.

tlrobinson4• 14 years ago

"anonymous group" not THE "Anonymous"

wmil• 14 years ago

Isn't the point of the name supposed to be that anyone can be THE Anonymous?

qbrass• 14 years ago

If you claim to be Anonymous, you get to be Anonymous.

If you act anonymously, you're just being anonymous.

tlrobinson4• 14 years ago

Yes, but AFAICT these people didn't claim to be "Anonymous"

"An anonymous individual or group..."

The original article says nothing about them claiming to be "Anonymous" as the HN title implies, only that they acted anonymously. Adjective, not noun.

tlrobinson4• 14 years ago

It seems likely this is just a scam to get random Romney and Obama supports to send Bitcoins to the scammer.

amalag• 14 years ago

They need to release a few random line items as proof, otherwise it's a nice scam.

salimmadjd2• 14 years ago

KARL ROVE ALERT! This is a very similar in spirit to past tactics alleged against Karl Rove. This enables Romney to dodge the Tax issue by having it release this way and have all the focus pointed toward an "anonymous" group. Don't fall for this!

salimmadjd2• 14 years ago

I wonder why this one was down voted? Think about the timing, releasing this during DNC.

Think about the nature of the alleged hack, so unprecedented. Think about the random process, this has never happened before.

All these combined and hearing alleged doggy practice of Karl rove in the past can leade you to conclude the shady motivations behind this

tlow• 14 years ago

This is quite clever; it seems it is possible that all three groups could possibly pay.

Would they be able to remove that amount of money from the bitcoin system without affecting the conversion rate substantially, or is this loss near negligible?

jmsduran• 14 years ago

I'm calling their bluff, sounds very much like a scam to get money off people who fall for it.

DonnyV• 14 years ago

Kind of a coincidence this comes out right after the FBI Apple hack. Looks like someone wants everyone to look the other way.

evilDagmar• 14 years ago

I thought there was supposed to be an effort to ensure accuracy in posting titles--Anonymous didn't have a damn thing to do with this.

deweller2• 14 years ago

PricewaterhouseCoopers PR managing director Chris Atkins says: “We are aware of the allegations that have been made regarding improper access to our systems. We are working closely with the United States Secret Service, and at this time there is no evidence that our systems have been compromised or that there was any unauthorized access to the data in question.”

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4481292

adastra2• 14 years ago

There is an important piece to this story that is missing from all the current news articles: a different earlier post on pastebin, dated 9/2, did not make mention of any kind of ransom:

http://pastebin.com/zdU1TK40

That earlier post simply said "The group will release all available files to the public on the 28 of September, 2012."

That says to me that a second group saw the original post and decided to try and make some money off it as a scam. Of course it's also possible that they just changed their minds over the weekend.

I'm not sure what either scenario says about the likelihood that this is real, but it definitely makes things more interesting. It's also worth noting that PWC is currently saying they have seen no signs that any data was taken.

dantiberian• 14 years ago

1 Million USD = 93,000 BTC at an exchange rate of ~$10.70

Anonymous allegedly hacked Romney tax records

Related Stories