Well-Known Email Prankster Ends Up With Sensitive Document From Jared Kushner's Lawyer

from the sold-out-by-autocomplete? dept

Careless handling of sensitive emails isn't just a problem for Trump's top advisor, Jared Kushner. Having rolled into office on the echoing cries of "Lock her up!" Trump's team nonetheless continued to use private email accounts for official correspondence. Kusher did this twice: using both a Republican National Committee account as well as another personal email address.

It's a security issue as well as a transparency issue. Personal email accounts -- while convenient (and conveniently opaque) -- are little more than attack vectors for cybercriminals and state-sponsored hacking. Making this security problem worse are Trump team legal reps, who can't seem to stop communicating with staffer-spoofing accounts.

A prankster known only by his Twitter handle (SINON_REBORN) has a few admin team trophies on his wall already. The prankster has already duped White House Special Counsel Ty Cobb with an impersonation of White House Media Director Dan Scavino. That followed successful pranking of Breitbart editors and White House Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossett.

The latest victim is Jared Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell. He's been stung twice, as the Verge's Sarah Jeong reports.

This is the second time that Abbe Lowell, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, who began representing Kushner in June, has fallen for a prankster who calls himself SINON_REBORN (a reference to the original legend of the Trojan Horse). Two days ago he corresponded with kushner.jared@mail.com, as the fake Jared Kushner asked for legal advice on whether to remove correspondence on his private email account that featured "adult content." Fortunately for Lowell, the conversation didn't go far, ending with, "Don't delete. Don't send to anyone. Let's chat in a bit."

This email exchange likely gave Kushner's lawyer a few mental images he wished he'd never had. A more descriptive recounting of the email exchange at Business Insider shows Abbe Lowell tangling with possibly unfamiliar fetishes.

"I need to see I think all emails between you and WH (just for me and us)," Lowell wrote. "We need to send any officials emails to your WH account. Not stuff like you asked about. None of those are going anywhere."

"But we can bury it?" the prankster responded. "I'm so embarrassed. It's fairly specialist stuff, half naked women on a trampoline, standing on legoscenes, the tag for the movie was #standingOnTheLittlePeople :("

That Lowell believed this was from his client raises questions about the frequency of emojis in Kushner's communications. But this exchange wasn't the end of it. The next email the prankster received from Kushner's lawyer was unsolicited, but it contained a sensitive document.

We don't know exactly what happened, but the most likely scenario is that Lowell's mail client autocompleted to the fake Kushner email address, landing a sensitive letter right in the prankster's inbox. SINON_REBORN then reposted the letter on Twitter.

The document is a committee-eyes-only letter from the Senate Intelligence Committee, ordering him to preserve emails from his personal account possibly related to the ongoing Russian election interference investigation. Presumably these emails wouldn't include half-naked trampoline Lego porn, but Lowell's response to take the discussion offline suggests there are still several ongoing discussions the Intelligence Committee won't be able to access.

Is this administration's operational security worse than the last one's? There's not enough data available to tell. But SINON-REBORN's pranks were already well-known before this latest administration gaffe, suggesting a lack of detail orientation by admin members and their legal representation.

Filed Under: abbe lowell, email, jared kushner, prank

DailyDirt: Can't Trust Your Tastebuds

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Our senses can be fooled pretty easily. A blue dress can look like it's white. And if our eyes can be fooled so easily, our tastebuds don't really stand much of a chance. If someone tells you a bottle of wine is aged and expensive, it's not easy to disprove that assertion with a taste test. Here are just a few other ways to fool people's tastebuds.

• Jimmy Kimmel regularly tricks unsuspecting people for his late night talk show, and one of his pranks includes setting up an organic juice taste test that actually gives people samples of beverages such as Skittles blended in water, melted Creamsicles, Tang or Fun Dip dissolved in water. When people think they're drinking a natural/organic juice, they'll tell you it's fresh and not too sweet or sugary -- even when it's basically sugar and water with artificial flavors. [url]
• People who attend commercial food conferences might not be food experts when it comes to telling the difference between a McDonald's meal and an organic alternative to fast food. McNuggets are definitely tasty, and who can tell what tastes "organic" anyway? If you tell people it's organic, they'll believe it's organic. [url]
• Plating high end cuisine is an art that can make almost any food look a bit more appetizing. It's amazing how good a sliced up hot pocket with ranch dressing blobs can look. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: food, jimmy kimmel, prank, senses, taste, tastebuds
Companies: mcdonald's

DailyDirt: Fact-Checking Is Hard...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Journalism is a tough business, and it's not getting any easier. Reporters need to be more skeptical than ever (especially around April Fool's day) and keep an eye out for pranks or stories that sound too good to be true (or are obvious publicity stunts). Sometimes there's a fine line between what's newsworthy and what's simply entertaining, but here are a few stories that might have needed a more critical editor.

• Husband and wife team Gary di Silvestri and Angelica Morrone paid their way into the Sochi Olympics. The couple deposited some funds into a Dominica bank to get legitimate citizenship, and then they formed a ski team to represent the Caribbean island. The press covered their biographies just like any other Olympians (but maybe that shouldn't have happened). [url]
• Local news stations are always looking out for heart-warming human interest stories, but perhaps they should screen people who claim to be yo-yo masters a bit more rigorously. Andy Kaufman would be amused by this hoax. [url]
• Just about every morning news show does some kind of cooking segment, especially around the holidays when people are looking for recipe ideas for family gatherings. Unfortunately, the folks as WSAW-TV have pulled this video from Youtube, but you might still be able to find it to try the awful recipes. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: angelica morrone, chef, gary di silvestri, hoax, prank, publicity stunt, sochi olympics, yo-yo master

Whether Dumb Starbucks Is A PR Stunt, A Joke Or Real... Its 'Parody' Claims Are Pretty Questionable

from the and-undermined-by-its-own-statements dept

There's been a bunch of buzz making the rounds concerning the launch of the "Dumb Starbucks" coffee shop in LA -- which looks just like a regular Starbucks, but with the word "Dumb" in front of everything. And that includes the menu: And the drink sizes: And, yes, even the CDs the shop "sells" at the counter: So, what's going on? Lots of people are assuming some sort of PR stunt or prank. Starbucks insists it has nothing to do with it and that it's not happy about it. A few have suggested that it's a Banksy art project, but this seems to go way beyond his usual efforts. The most reasonable theory so far seems to be that it's a prank for the Comedy Central show "Nathan For You." It definitely seems to fit with similar pranks that the show has done before, as detailed on Hacker News.

That said, the operators of the coffee shop are claiming that it's okay to do this because it's a parody, as they explain in this FAQ: If you can't read it, here are the basics:

Is this a Starbucks?

No. Dumb Starbucks is not affiliated in any way with Starbucks Corporation. We are simply using their name and logo for marketing purposes.

How is that legal?

Short answer - parody law.

Can you elaborate?

Of course. By adding the word 'dumb', we are technically "making fun" of Starbucks, which allows us to use their trademarks under a law known as 'fair use'. Fair use is a doctrine that permits use of copyrighted material in a parodical work without permission form the rights holder. It's the same law that allows Weird Al Yankovic to use the music from Michael Jackson's "Beat It" in his parody song "Eat It".

So is this a real business?

Yes it is. Although we are a fully function coffee shop, for legal reasons Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorized as a work of parody art. So, in the eyes of the law, our "coffee shop" is actually an art gallery and the "coffee" you're buying is considered art. But that for our lawyers to worry about. All you need to do is enjoy our delicious coffee!

Are you saying Starbucks is dumb?

Not at all. In fact, we love Starbucks and look up to them as role models. Unfortunately, the only way to use their intellectual property under fair use is if we are making fun of them. So the "dumb" comes out of necessity, not enmity.

That's all very interesting, but looks more like it was written by someone mocking the concept of fair use rather than by anyone with a legal understanding of fair use. Beyond confusing copyrights and trademarks (both of which do have a fair use doctrine, though they're somewhat different), by more or less admitting that they're only doing this as a cover to be able to use Starbucks' name, rather than as legitimate social commentary, they're basically giving up their fair use defense. Not that it wouldn't make an interesting case. As a big supporter of fair use, it's still a little worrying when people pretend it allows for things that it almost certainly doesn't allow for, as that leads to a cheapening of the concept of fair use.

Still, chances are this is all a prank that will be revealed shortly (perhaps by the time I get this post finally written, edited and posted...) and so the actual legal questions concerning whether this is parody will never be tested. However, it does make me wonder about ways that someone could legitimately use fair use within a retail setting to mock a rival.

Filed Under: copyright, dumb starbucks, parody, pr stunt, prank, trademark
Companies: dumb starbucks, starbucks

DailyDirt: Swatting Is Not A Harmless Prank

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

What do people like to do with their free time? Most people probably enjoy doing normal things like reading, surfing the web, watching TV, playing sports, or playing video games. And then there are some who apparently like "swatting" -- a potentially deadly prank where phone hackers make emergency calls reporting violent crimes, life-threatening hostage situations, etc., while spoofing their caller IDs to make it seem like the calls are coming from their target's phone number. Unfortunately, for the targeted victims, this means heavily armed police SWAT teams descending on their homes, sometimes breaking down doors and bursting into their homes. Here are a few eye-opening stories about swatting.

• One of the best phone hackers out there might be a guy named "Li'l Hacker," who happens to be blind and started "phone phreaking" when he was just 14. What started as an "innocent" hobby turned bad when he started associating with a gang of phone hackers led by an ex-con. [url]
• Security reporter Brian Krebs may have been one of the first journalists to have been the target of a swatting. Having reported about hacking crimes for over a decade, Krebs was used to being the target of attacks. His website is frequently disrupted by DDoS attacks. But this time, at least a dozen police officers showed up at his door with pistols, shotguns, and assault rifles pointed at him. [url]
• Even celebrities can't escape swatting. Victims have included Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Selena Gomez, Justin Timberlake, Russell Brand, Rihanna, and Chris Brown, just to name a few. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: attacks, brian krebs, phone hacks, phreaking, police, prank, swat team, swatting

DJs' 'Dihydrogen Monoxide' April Fool's Prank Results In Suspension And Possible Felony Charges

from the is-actually-Dolan-water dept

April Fool's Day. Either you love it or you hate it. There's not much middle ground. As a writer on The Internet, April Fool's Day is a 24-hour deathtrap composed of plausible stories that will set you on fire the moment you press the Publish button. It turns even the most cheerful of writers into a deeply cynical curmudgeon, one who approaches each possible scoop with more suspicion than the heavily-bearded guy down the street who's building a bunker under his garage and frequently answers the door wearing nothing but a shotgun. (Much of this reverts back to normal following the "holiday," but each year adds another layer of resentful suspicion. In fact, if you cut open a writer, you can simply count the rings to determine how many years they've been in the business.)

For many people, though, April Fool's Day is a 24-hour period filled with lighthearted pranks and sub-Onion quasi-satire. They love cheerful shenanigans and they love being fooled. Except when they don't. Then it's suddenly "gone too far" and concerned foolees start pressing for "something to be done about it." This is one of those stories, the kind where you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can temporarily fool enough of them that someone gets seriously pissed off.

Florida country radio morning-show hosts Val St. John and Scott Fish are currently serving indefinite suspensions and possibly worse over a successful April Fools' Day prank. They told their listeners that "dihydrogen monoxide" was coming out of the taps throughout the Fort Myers area.

If you're not familiar with the term "dihydrogen monoxide," you'll be thrilled to know that the compound is damn near everywhere. Not only that, but its ubiquity has prompted many a petition to be signed fervently in favor of banning the dangerous-sounding substance completely. No one's really sure what makes it so dangerous, but anything containing two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen can't be completely safe.

Of course, anyone who's paid attention over the last couple of decades (at least) knows that dihydrogen monoxide is water. What's surprising is that a couple of pranking DJs could find enough people unaware of this fact to a.) pull off the prank and b.) possibly face felony charges. Wait... what?

[A]pparently, the station, the water works, and perhaps the authorities are still trying to figure out if the two hosts could face felony charges for, again, reporting that the scientific name of water was coming out of the pipes. "My understanding is it is a felony to call in a false water quality issue," Diane Holm, a public information officer for Lee County, told WTSP, while Renda stood firm about his deejays: "They will have to deal with the circumstances."

It seems unlikely the DJ duo will actually face felony charges, but they are currently suspended after being yanked off the air in the middle of their morning show. Apparently, enough people expressed their concern about dihydrogen monoxide leakage that the local water utility was forced to issue a statement.

These reactions to an April Fool's prank that occurred on a day when pranks are to be expected seem rather overblown. The DJs are suspended indefinitely for technically telling the truth and the station has indicated the pair are facing additional punishment. Sure, nobody wants to feel like a fool, but that is the totality of April 1st. If this many people can't take being taken for a ride on the foolingest day of the year, then it's a clear sign that the national sense of humor is in critical condition. (We've already eulogized the national sense of proportion and scattered its ashes across a variety of moral panics and Terms of Service outrages.) To put it in more familiar terms, "If you can't laugh at yourself, the terrorists win."

[It appears the terrorists have won. (Again.) A poll on the radio station's website (warning: ads frickin' everywhere even with Adblock) shows that 78% of the respondents believe the DJs should return to the airwaves "never." (Poll is no longer live, but an "indefinite" suspension could technically lead to returning "never.")]

Filed Under: april fools, dihydrogen monoxide, felony, florida, prank, radio djs, water

Chamber Of Commerce Sues Yes Men; Someone Just Gave Protestors A Lot More Attention

from the a-lot-of-happy-yes-men dept

While we weren't sure that the EFF was correct in suggesting the Yes Men's fake U.S. Chamber of Commerce website was a parody, we did think that it was rather short-sighted of the CoC to try to takedown the site, since it would only serve to give the Yes Men and their anti-CoC campaign more attention. Apparently, the folks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still haven't quite figured this out. They've now gone a step further and are suing the Yes Men for trademark infringement. Again, the trademark claim is probably stronger than the original copyright claim, but this is a really dumb move. All the Yes Men want is more attention in their campaign against the CoC's stance on climate change, and you know what gets them a lot of attention? Getting sued. Of course, given how backwards the Chamber's views on intellectual property are, perhaps it's no surprise that they wouldn't realize how such a plan would backfire.

Filed Under: attention, copyright, lawsuit, prank, trademark, yes men
Companies: chamber of commerce, yes men

Chamber Of Commerce Uses DMCA Claim Against Yes Men Prank Site

from the this-won't-end-well dept

There was a lot of news a few days back when notorious pranksters, Yes Men, set up a fake press conference pretending to be the US Chamber of Commerce, announcing that it had changed its controversial stance on climate change -- which had recently driven some large companies, including PG&E and Apple, to leave the CoC. The fake press conference, along with a fake website and fake press release, apparently fooled some in the media -- including Reuters -- until someone from the real Chamber of Commerce burst into the room and confronted the pranksters. The video is great: Part of the hoax was a fake website at www.chamber-of-commerce.us, and apparently the real Chamber of Commerce has sent a DMCA takedown on the site. The EFF is responding in support of Yes Men, saying that the site is a parody, which is protected fair use. While I think that the Chamber of Commerce is pretty dumb to issue the takedown -- only giving the Yes Men more attention -- I'm not sure that the parody defense will stick here. While the site is for the purpose of criticism, the site is most certainly not an obvious parody. It's designed to look real. Thus, the bigger issue may actually be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, as the site could certainly confuse users, but there are other ways to deal with such things that don't involve a DMCA takedown.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, parody, prank, yes men
Companies: chamber of commerce, eff, yes men

News Station Falls For April Fool's Prank, Turns to DMCA As Remedy

from the take-downs-don't-actually-make-things-go-away dept

Improv Everywhere, a comedic performance art group based in New York, has a history of pulling off hilarious and impressive "scenes of chaos and joy." Running "missions" such as the annual "No Pants Subway Ride," a food court musical, sending 80 people into Best Buy dressed as employees and getting 200 people to "freeze" during rush hour in Grand Central station, these guys are masters of the flash mob and the harmless prank. Last April, in a mission called "Best Game Ever," they showed up at a little league baseball game with signs, peanut vendors, programs and even an NBC sponsored jumbotron with live commentary and player stats to turn an ordinary event into something extraordinary.

Building on that theme, Improv Everywhere's latest mission was to create the "Best Funeral Ever," to pick a random funeral from the obituaries and show up to make it "truly awesome." It sounds terrible, and the video is pretty horrifying... until you realize it's from April 1^st. The next day, they confirmed it was an April Fool's joke and that it wasn't a real funeral -- all of the "family members" were actors. Lots of people fell for it (I definitely did at first), but best of all was the local CW 11 news team that covered the YouTube video as if it were a real funeral. Charlie Todd, founder of Improv Everywhere, uploaded a video of the newscast with the following commentary:

So basically the extent of their reporting is watching a video on YouTube and then describing it as fact on air. They didn't bother to email Improv Everywhere for comment, call the cemetery to verify, or try to get a quote from the"family." They just watched the video and threw it on TV. Great journalism!

The story was on the news channel's website too, but was later removed without any explanation or correction. Now, two weeks later, Todd has received a copyright notice from YouTube that his video of the newscast was removed due to a copyright claim from Tribune (the station's parent company). First of all, it's pretty silly to try to hide the mistake rather than owning up to it and posting a correction (Streisand Effect anyone?). But beyond that, it's pretty ironic and hypocritical that the news organization, which used the Improv Eveywhere video without permission or even proper attribution, would send a take-down notice to the owner of the that video who was commenting on their commentary. Todd writes,

It's OK for them to air content that we shot and own, but it's not OK for me to upload their footage of the content they took from me? It's "fair use" for the news to take a video off of YouTube and broadcast it, but it's not "fair use" for a citizen to expose their poor reporting on his own content?

Fair use or not, Tribune just found a great way to draw more attention to the fact that their "journalists" fell for the prank and seem to be pretty embarrassed about it.

Filed Under: april fool's, copyright, dmca, improv everywhere, prank
Companies: cw-11, tribune company