The Emporia Gazette

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I kinda miss the turkey legs.

August 27, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack who?

Now if the Gazette computer would just block cracks IP address from their computer ?

August 27, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

I agree, Steve, but it'd be tough to do if she is using a mobile device like a cell phone or a laptop with internet through a cellular company. Even if she's using a laptop with Wi-Fi, she could just go around to Wi-Fi hotspots and get a different IP every time. Probably not worth the effort. Plus, if she's visiting the site every day, it increases the site's traffic and looks good for advertisers. (see right side o' screen) The Gazette uses Google Analytics to track traffic on their site, so they probably like obsessed people like crack visiting every hour. If you block them, then you lose their traffic and potential advertising dollars with it.
Good riddance, I say; less fluff to go through.
'enry

August 27, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

na na na, na. na na na, na hey hey heeeyy. goodbye.

lyrics to the song, all gloating intended.

August 30, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I didn't agree with crack revealing people's identities or displaying their pictures like he/she did with the couple getting off the L-Cat. That definitely crossed the line so I say good riddance because it soured me from participating on this forum as often as I did prior to a couple of weeks ago.

September 1, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

I think the Gazette should require everyone on the blogs to use their real names. I believe then we would truly have civil discourse rather than the hit-and-run tactics of hiding behind a pseudonym.

And yes, I am Denise Dorcey!

September 2, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

If you can't abide by the Terms & Conditions spelled out then you don't deserve to be allowed to participate. Plain and Simple. So has the Gazette taken care of the "bug" that crack exploited yet?

September 2, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

open_eyes,
Yes, the "bug" appears to have been fixed, but one could argue that it would have never been fixed without crack's over-the-top antics. I think that is why the title of this board asks if you view her as a martyr. crack must have known the things she was posting would result in her banishment, yet she chose to do it to protect your privacy by sacrificing herself. Quite the noble and selfless deed, if you ask me. Still, it's nice not to have to weed through all her ramblings.
'enry

September 2, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

No, I don't view her as a martyr. There are any number of ways to have drawn the Gazette's attention to it. And I saw nothing noble or selfless in cracks constant stereotyping and belittling attitude.

September 2, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

open_eyes,
It is my understanding that several users contacted the Gazette about the problem prior to crack's involvement. I don't know if the Gazette didn't realize the extent of the issue or if they just chose to ignore it before crack put it out there for all to see.
There's no doubt in my mind that crack was acting in her own interests as well. Considering the number of "friends" she has made on here, protecting user privacy and keeping posts anonymous was probably considered a priority from her perspective. Granted, her tactics may have been extreme, but she did produce results where others failed.

R.I.P. crackinsack. You will be missed...well, probably not. :)
'enry

September 2, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So I guess the point is if there is a loophole in a law or regulation that can be abused one needs to break it to draw attention to it, or something along those lines............. hmmm........... well, I'm just glad it wasn't a school crossing where the sign or stoplight wasn't working that was being complained about (and ignored). I suppose if the city ignored it long enough crack would sit down the street waiting for her chance and run over some kids to get their attention. I'll bet that would get results. :)

September 2, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

You have a good point, open_eyes. The difference, though, is that running over some kids would be against the law whereas crack's actions broke no law. Distasteful? Yes. Illegal? No.
Another difference is that user data was already exposed and being accessed, so the "crime" had already occurred before crack brought it to light. For your scenario to be the same, some kids would have had to been ran-over already. Also, crack could have just videotaped the actions and posted it for all to see. In both examples, it seems someone needed to provide proof there was a problem before anyone was willing to fix the problem. By posting evidence of the user privacy problem (or by providing video of the crosswalk), crack provided proof that stirred the action to remedy the problem.

The person who blows the whistle isn't necessarily the person who committed the "crime", even though they sometimes get punished for blowing the whistle. I’m kinda glad people can’t see my personal info anymore, aren’t you? You are correct. The bottom line is that there were probably better ways to get the point across without making the problem worse.
'enry

September 2, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

I believe the main point here was not only the name calling but mainly Cracks disclosure of "personal" info. In my way of thinking, she did "break" the rules and truly showed no common sense. She had a "right" to her views in "debating"but not the "right" to slander others.

September 2, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Henry, first of all, crack DID break the Terms & Conditions. So, while it apparently it wasn't "illegal" in your law terms, it was in violation of the agreement that all posters are required to pledge to follow to be able to post here.
Secondly, only crack went so far as to actually post and display info (against the User Terms). There is a difference between it being available and someone actually doing something with it.
While I'll agree that apparently that was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Gazette taking action, I will not give the person that broke the rules (the "law") a free pass for doing so. There are any number of ways that people could have more forcefully brought it to the Gazette's attention. Apparently nobody worried that much about it until then, POSSIBLY because nobody ever dreamed that anyone would be so childish, immature, and classless as to actually do what crack did. I mean, I myself just kinda assumed that we were all adults here.

We could have always tried 17 UN resolutions first before taking action :)

September 2, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

chiefsfan (anonymous) says...

Ok, I'm from out of state, and must have totally missed some interesting things happening in my beloved home town. Anyone care to fill me in? And, for the record, crack is not a martyr in my eyes and will most definately NOT be missed!!! In fact, I'm as thrilled as a person can be.

September 2, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

YY4U,
crack did NOT use "hacker code" to access the site. She used a function that the Gazette provided! That's right, anyone and everyone with no hacking skills whatsoever could have looked up user information using a function the site provided. That's not hacking.
crack simply posted the results of using this function to call attention to it and to illustrate how easily it could be accessed. The problem was that ANYONE could access it because the site was broken...it didn't take any sophisticated computer hacking.

open_eyes,
Sure, everyone who posts here and are actually from Emporia might be "all adults here", but this site is accessible all over the world. Do you really want your personal info out there for the world to see? crack made them fix it before someone found it and used it with malicious intent.

sandman,
It was under_score who pointed this flaw out to crack in the first place. (here http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...) It would appear that he broke the rules too, yet his account is still active. Strange. It sounds like under_score was exploiting this flaw for God knows what. At least crack posted what she was able to find. Thanks to crack, under_score can’t access this information any longer.
I bet you weren’t aware under_score was accessing this data. I bet you’d be surprised to find out how many other people were doing the exact same thing. Rather than use that data for personal gain (like others may have been doing), crack posted fairly harmless information in order to show it was a problem. Again, this was the last option for her as others had already contacted the Gazette about the flaw and under_score (and others) had already referenced it in the message boards.

I think you are all missing the point. The question is: did the “harm” of crack’s postings outweigh the benefit of fixing the flaw or vice versa? The benefit is clear, but what was the harm of her postings?
‘enry

September 3, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I give my credit card, and hence the number, (personal info that COULD be abused), to waiters/waitresses in restaurants all the time. So they have access to personal info.

It's what they DO with it that matters.

Again, crack (and anyone here) could have and should have used different methods to draw the Gazette's attention. Using the worst available route doesn't justify it. Reminds me of Barney Fife robbing the Mayberry bank to prove the security is lax.

I realize this is a common way of thinking for certain people, but the ends don't always justify the means.

September 3, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

open_eyes,
You still have a very good point and that's why we all didn't post the things crack did; because we knew better.
Giving your credit card info to the waitress is the same as giving your personal info to the Gazette. The waitress isn't supposed to show the other customers your card, but that's essentially what the Gazette was doing. crack saw the waitress showing other customers and announced to the others, "Your data isn't safe and I can prove it by listing the names on the cards!" Due to the outburst, crack was banned from the restaurant, but the waitress was fired and your data is now safe again.
crack didn't give out any harmful information; she only provided what was necessary to prove to people that she was given access to it by someone we all falsely trusted with our personal information.
‘enry

September 3, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

YY4U,
It is my understanding that only portions of crack's account have been disabled. (like the ability for her posts to be displayed to the public) This is why she is able to create new forum discussion TOPICS, but not actually post to them. In other words, she is still able to login to the site, but with limited functionality. The only reason her user name doesn't show up as the creator of this thread is because her profile page was removed.(so you couldn't see her posting history)

If the Gazette removed the account ENTIRELY, all history of her posts would be removed from the servers and someone else could simply sign-up as a new "crackinsack". Keeping the account history in the system ensures it stays in its semi-disabled state.

It is also my understanding that the Gazette has not provided any explanation to crack as to why her access was partially revoked, so how is she supposed to know if she can still use the site or not?

In summation, crack is only doing what the Gazette site allows her to do using the normal methods. (signing in and posting) No "hacking" is being done here. Since crack is still able to login (with limited functionality) I don't think that means her access was truly "rescinded" nor does it mean she is inappropriately accessing the site. If the Gazette doesn't want crack accessing the site whatsoever, they should contact her via the email on file.

P.S. Making false accusations is also a crime! Are you sure you know what you’re talking about?

This is just my opinion based on observation and speculation, of course. I'm glad to be rid of her. Crack kills!
'enry

September 3, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

YY4U,
You are most welcome, friend! You have to remember that on the other end of the keyboard, poor crackinsack is a real person. If people go 'round claiming she's a hacker, that might raise the eyebrows of certain state/federal agencies. You wouldn't want crack's front door kicked in due to your false accusations would you?
I hear you on the finger dyslexia... Sometimes I'll read a post after submitting it and slap my forehead. (Doh!) Seems like my fingers have a mind of their own sometimes; they just type what they want regardless of what I’m thinking.
'enry

September 3, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

The only picture most of us ever got of crack is a good look inside his/her nostrils because most of the time his/her nose was so high in the air. Whilst us common folk jes' shuffle along and keep our eyes on the ground les'sen we gits put in our place by our betters.......... ;-)

September 3, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes, good one and so very true!!! Maybe "Crack" will realize that the air down here isn't so bad after all. These fall days, really wonderful!!! So sad she didn't realize that with another right gone and bit the dust it just makes it "dustier"for her and closer for one of her "prized" "rights" to join.

September 5, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Personally I don't miss under_score any more than I do crackinsack. under_score's only goal was to agitate, crackinsack however did occasionally have a valid point.

November 4, 2009 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, I would like to comment, but won' t !

November 4, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )