The Jig Is Up: Yfrog Disables E-mail Upload Service; Anthony Weiner Stands Vindicated

The Jig Is Up: Yfrog Disables E-mail Upload Service; Anthony Weiner Stands Vindicated
byphenry

The blog Cannonfire, which closed the case yesterday on the so-called "Weinergate" affair when it demonstrated conclusively how anyone could use a simple technique to publish any picture they wanted to another person's Twitter stream, now reports that yfrog.com has disabled the e-mail service that enables such exploits, thereby acknowledging the existence of a security problem and tacitly acknowledging that it has been abused. In short, it is no longer possible for a reasonable person to believe that Rep. Weiner was not framed by an outside party.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/06/has-yfrog-responded-to-yesterdays-post.html

...............

Yfrog has not issued a statement about why this service has been disabled, but I think we can assume it is not a coincidence. Bear in mind that the site's operators would have access to all of their server logs and it should be a fairly trivial task to determine exactly which e-mail account had been used to send each picture uploaded to yfrog using the e-mail service, even if the site itself had not been architected to store this information with each photo as internally visible metadata. If the supposedly incriminating photo had been uploaded to Rep. Weiner's account from an e-mail address he had never used before, this would be immediately apparent.

MORE (plus links):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/02/981422/-The-Jig-Is-Up:-Yfrog-Disables-E-mail-Upload-Service;-Anthony-Weiner-Stands-Vindicated?via=siderec

:shrug:

if they can still insist that BO is a Muslim/commie/pinko/socialist/whatever after a long-form birth certificate, then certainly AW is STILL guilty of sending a pic to a woman who denies ever knowing the man ... politics changed forever, thank you very much Sarah Fucking Palin.

just one woman's opinion.

report similar emails from Weiner then there were none and it makes it even clearer that this is not his email. Also so close on the heals of the other NY naked chest congressman scandal this was an attempt to revenge the NY lose in a rethug area. Rethugs are bad looses. Weiner is totally the victim in this event.

This site you are illustrating should out their user.

Mission accomplished.

the possibility of his being our first Jewish President. Personally I would love that, he's smart, tough, and did not get emmy/oscar dramatized over this incident. He knew the truth would come out and just played it out.
The media looks really stupid right now...

Resign? In breitfart's wettest dream/


Troll alert!

That's my opinion.

His name has always been his biggest obstacle but I think he will be President in 8 years or so, assuming we still have elections and all the other clap trap that surrounds "'Murkin Democracy".

Most people are angry at the media for their stupid coverage of the biggest non-story of the century.

People do NOT like witch hunts. The Clinton witch hunt should have taught them that. People don't care about this trivia and find it appalling that with all that is going on in this country, CNN et al spent an entire weekend of valuable air-time on this garbage. The real story was Breitbart, who is funding him, why is he still operating after the numerous times he has been discredited and why does the media enable these smears.

Shame on CNN. I think they totally disgraced themselves this weekend and many, many people have told them that, Anderson Cooper and Wolfe Blitzer, on twitter and FB and anywhere they can find them.

Weiner will be fine, in fact this may get him MORE votes. It backfired. Even my Republican relatives were disgusted by the whole thing, wondering why this country doesn't discuss real issues, instead of this kind of infantile nonsense.

CNN outdid Fox on this non-story.

corporate media handmaidens are still looking for another stained blue dress. The Clinton witch hunt that centered around a stained blue dress was the tip off that the media was in the Republican camp. I stopped watching TV news when Ken Starr would make daily appearances providing masturbation dialogue for the depraved who never had a blowjob.
More people are concluding that our media is propaganda that would make Goebbels look like a rank amateur. When the Russian people understood that they were being fed propaganda disguised as news Pravda, TAAS and Izvestia became national jokes.
The question for us is: When will our government collapse?

In short, it is no longer possible for a reasonable person to believe that Rep. Weiner was not framed by an outside party.

How do you figure? All I see is the discovery of a security hole, not evidence that it was used. Nor any indication of why the woman was among the less-than-1% of his Twitter followers that he followed back.

He should call the cops! They'd subpoena the logs, have this whole thing done in a day. Why hasn't he?

I haven't read or heard anything one way or the other, but sometimes people are trying to get followers and request that the people they follow, follow them as well.

I rarely use Twitter; only signed up to follow my kids. I have followers I never heard of even though I never tweet. Not sure how they found me or why they follow me.

It sounds like me with facebook. I only signed up so that I could read my grown children's facebook's about my grandchildren. I have never posted on it but lots of people have asked me to friend them. I just ignore all of them. I told my husband that most people want to have lots of facebook friends, I want to be the first one who never has even one. lol

I am guessing he agreed to follow her as a sort of friendly PR gesture.

And a few of them took him up on the invitation.

and I occasionally get followers (know by e-mail announcement). Never have posted:shrug:

The only "reason" a reasonable person would still suspect him is that he already stands accused by actors who have a stake in ruining his reputation. Manufacturing such a "reason" was their whole goal.

Why do you cling to this explanation?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wrong. Next?

He said he didn't recognize it but he couldn't swear it hadn't started off as a picture of him.

I think he was being overcautious, but my guess is that he'd rather seem unsure now than state confidently the picture has nothing to do with him and risk a small chance of being proved wrong later.

In any event, I expect this will all be pinned down in great detail before long.

But nobody's saying he sent it to the woman in Seattle. The claim is that, while possibly trying to send it to her, he tweeted it publicly.

All that matters is that he didn't send it to the young lady. Which he didn't.

The claim is he (possibly trying to send it to her) tweeted it to all of his followers.

I believe Weiner is innocent, but the fact that there was a security hole does not prove, or even imply, that the security was breached.

It's like saying that the fact that a car is capable of being driven above the legal speed limit proves that someone has been speeding.

Also, identifying a flaw in your logic does not imply that said person disagrees with your overall conclusion-just the method that was used to arrive at that conclusion.

The reason is that he invited all of his followers who also wanted HIM to follow THEM to send to him a certain message -- and about 1% of them did.

Nor, most mysteriously, why he's not certain if a picture is of his crotch or not.

what men would like you to believe. The only real difference is in the type of under ware. We should all be thankful the pictures was not of a thong or speedo. ;-)

Also, whoever hacked into the computer knew about the young woman because s/he had the tweet directed to her. The hacker probably had found out enough about her to know she lived in Washington. (She doesn't actually live in Seattle, she lives in Bellingham.)

But your last question is the one that I still have. There would be nothing wrong if he did have such a picture though, assuming he didn't send it to anyone he shouldn't have. But what he's saying just prolongs this incident.

It's just weird that a tweet he acknowledges he made, not long after the fake tweet, mentions Seattle.

No wonder you're not satisfied

in question..

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

do you fish?
my Uncle Joe loved to fish more than anything.

again, thanks for being there to remind me of some of my favorite people...I can picture him on his boat...

peace, kpete

grew up fishing on creeks, lakes and rivers, once I went deep sea fishing near Panama City, Florida, that was a blast.

kpete, you're one of my favorite people as well and I consider you to be a DU treasure.

Peace to you, Uncle Joe.

These assholes are really getting carried away about this crap

and Breitbart.

Most excellent news.

worth leaving this image here

that Breitbart doesn't know Dan Wolfe? This is a good cover post by Breitbart.

He has succeeded in changing the conversation, so that almost nobody is talking about the excellent work that Weiner does. I hope that changes soon.

They know Brietbart (R) is a discredited Republicon liar-propagandist. And still they lapped his shit up as if they were starved for it.

Disgustipating.

they have gone on about this NON STORY FOR DAYS !!!!! Why do they obsess on C$^# so much ?

Disgusting! We need a thread with the Contacts the cable shills . We must .. We ALL must tell them
what we think of their Betrayal ... How dare they Choose that this is more important to my family
than news from fukushima daichi....How dare they ?

Thanks for posting. Weiner's one tough and wiry rep. He HAS TO BE, given the district he reps for. I'd do anything to have him rep our district rather than the corporate leech we now have. :puke:

they want to know if the picture is of him and why a congressman would take a picture of himself in his underwear. The fact that he does not categorically deny that it is a picture of his junk gives his detractors, and the frenzied media, reason to keep the story alive. Even Rachel Maddow said it would be "creepy" to take such a picture of himself. (I, on the other hand, think it's hot!)

If he says it's not him, they'll ask him to prove it or some such silliness. They'll ask how many girls he sends messages to or if he's ever done this before.

She even refuses to say certain words on air that are really not at all obscene and wouldn't even be bleeped if she said them. And, of course, they are always parts of quotes anyway. I just can't think of an example right now, but her NOT saying the word usually draws more attention to it than if she had just said it. Her producers will even show a graphic or text with the word written out on the screen while she self censors on it.

Kinda funny! I bet she blushes easily too. :blush:

He did say it's not his picture.

he may have been sending pics to his wife...

What matters is whther he sent it to someone else as well - and honesttly, THAT shouldn't even matter to anyone except him and his wife -unless the person that received the pic was underage or in Weiner's employ. Neither of these conditions apply here. It's all a smear.

Smear, fear, keep it unclear
Distract, react, stay on the attack..

Seriously, did he say that?

Do you have a source?

when Hackman says something like this guy is either really really smart or really really dumb. Time will tell but my gut says really smart at this point.

It makes no sense that he would do so: he's intelligent, he's married, and he's not Republican.

That said, someone apparently got a hold of a picture that Weiner has not denied is of his junk. In fact, Weiner has specifically held back from denying it. And I think it was John Stewart who pointed out that, if you see a picture of somebody's junk and can't say for sure that it is not your junk, it's probably a picture of your junk.

Someone he knows, someone close enough to him to know about that picture, sent it to the woman, maybe to mess Weiner up, maybe as a puerile joke. I don't think Weiner sent the picture.

More to the goddarned point: so what? The woman -- not girl -- is an adult. End of freaking story. Oh, wait, pedophile Andy Breitbart has accused Weiner of sniffing the panties of little girls. I hope Anthony sues him for that particular slander/lie/swill. I'd like to see him take a cane to that slimey mendacious pus-puddle, in public.

And, BTW, if Weiner ever wants to run for the Presidency, I'll support him 100%.

something to the effect of "Is it okay if I say, 'I wish!'". I took that to mean that he stated his junk ain't that big.

...is the biggest, most important & most incrediblest story of all time.

Asbolutely.
:eyes:


All we get from it is just a view of another
layer of maggots in the soul of Breitbart.
:puke:

we've had two disasters in as many years that all but guarantee that much of life on earth is going to be destroyed. But that story is a non-starter. But Rep. Weiner's weiner, many, many a "news" cycle. :puke:

"They" have reported it ("if it is in the news then it is true").
Most Americans (at least Tennesseans) know nothing about THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, the rule that Reagan had removed. Before Reagan, "NEWS" programs were responsible for being honest.

Now, the Courts have upheld the right of "News" programs to LIE.

Most people do not know this, so when they see it on tee vee, they think it HAS to be true.

This is what we are dealing with. I have questioned hundreds of regular people about the veracity of tee vee news. Almost every one of them believe that if something is reported as (even implied) the truth, then legally, it has to be true.

Propaganda is insidious in many ways. People will tell you that they understand what propaganda is, yet they do not believe that their "News" program is legally allowed to be biased. UNREAL but very true. Honest, I said it didn't I ?...

I have been following this subject on MSM, but have not heard any of this. They are just makng out that it is true, and the congressman is lying. It is amazing to me that the MSM ignores all the research that people here and othersites did to figure this setup occured. Has anyone sent all this stuff to the MSM to look into, or the Congressman Weiner so he put out the truth in what happened.

I now "get" that you can post a photo to your twitter account by sending an attachment to a "secret" email... but can you address that to a specific individual in this fashion?

Or was that part of the story fraudulent?

everyone who follows you sees it. The address is just part of the message like this:

@FBaggins This is how it would be done with a link to a picture here.

except of course for his inexplicable behavior afterwards.

I guess that all that's left to ask is how the perp got access to a picture that the congressman can't say for sure isn't him.

I would think the first question is, who benefits from this focus on the Congressman? Besides Clarence Thomas, that is.

Is some digital crotch of uncertain identity really more important than corruption on the Supreme Court?

I don't put much stock in either an embarrasing photo from a guy who was the most eligible bachelor in the Congress just a few short months ago... OR the business with Thomas. He may be "corrupt", but this business doesn't demonstrate it. I have no idea WHY he failed to fill the report out properly, but corruption isn't a posibility. It's just silly to pretend that he was trying to hide his wife's employment when everyone knew that that's where she had worked. It came up here more than once years before this was an issue and any lawyer who tried a case before him certainly knew it. So I'd love for the "scandal" to bite him in the butt... but I don't put much stock in it.

The only thing of interest that remains for me is what I posted. The Congressman's handling of the issue baffles me. Doesn't mean he's guilty of anything... just that it doesn't seem to make sense. Then if it IS a photo of him I wonder how someone else got it. Someone who, reportedly, was claiming that he had such photos weeks ago.

That is, I'd only get that hypothetical tweet if I followed EFerrari and FBaggins

it would go to the person it was addressed to, FBaggins.

But if you check the default on the settings, it's to be visible to you, the @ (whom you must be following), and anyone who follows both of you.

And no, followers of FBaggins would not get it. They wouldn't get it unless FBaggins retweets it.

"People will only see others' replies in their home timeline if they are following both the sender and recipient of the update." That's precisely what I said. If I send to @FBaggins, his followers will not see it unless he retweets it. My followers will see it and he will see it.

"People with protected accounts can only send replies to people they have approved to follow them." We didn't discuss protected accounts or private messages at all. You do not have to follow someone to send them a tweet. I sent a reply to Pabs and I don't follow him but read his tweet here at DU, for example.

It's really not as complicated as it sounds.

I'm not sure why you took issue with my claim that people will only see @ replies if they follow both the sender and the @

Your reply to me will be visible to me, you and to your followers.

The whole conversation is only visible to you, me and people who follow us both.

Unless (!) we're using a tag or even a key term (like #Wikileaks or Wikileaks, say) and then anyone searching for that term would get all the tweets containing it.

With Facebook for instance, I can upload a photo by email and the subject line becomes my status. So all of my "friends" can see it... but I don't think that I can send an email that will upload a photo and send it to a given individual.

hacking on their accounts via computers, phones, etc... I wonder how successful they are at fighting this type of terrorism?

The photo was AW but was secretly taken at the House fitness center locker room without his knowledge.

Is it me? Maybe.

See how that changes the perspective?

Unfortunately I was one of them -