Correspondence relating to circulation of leaked LPF emails
[The following material relates to the circulation to the DSP NE of certain emails leaked from the LPF email discussion list]
Statement by Melbourne LPF comrades re accessing of Linda Waldron’s email account
May 7, 2006
STATEMENT BY MELBOURNE DSP COMRADES IN THE LENINIST PARTY FACTION
RE: UNAUTHORISED ACCESSING/HACKING OF COMRADE LINDA WALDRON’S ACCOUNT, THE NATIONAL LPF EMAIL DISCUSSION LIST AND THEFT OF 524 EMAILS
On May 1 2006, Comrade JB issued a statement to the Melbourne DSP executive confirming the unauthorised accessing of Comrade Linda Waldron’s personal email account. The unauthorised accessing of Comrade Waldron’s account by majority leadership comrades enabled the accessing/downloading of over 520 personal and political emails. Among them were over one hundred emails from the National LPF email discussion list, which were forwarded to the National Secretary of the DSP. The statement issued by comrade JB was sent to Comrade Waldron by Melbourne DSP Branch Secretary, Margie Windisch on May 2, 2006.
The statement issued by Comrade JB read as follows:
LPF Emails in Melbourne
When Dick Nichols was in Melbourne he opened Outlook Express on one of the computers in the office and discovered lots of LPF list emails in the inbox. This computer is generally not used for email and so no one would normally open Outlook Express on it. He alerted myself, Margie and Sue B to this fact.
Having read the content of some of the emails we considered it important to send them the Peter Boyle. Proof of this is still available on the computer. After one of the emails was forwarded to Margarita and it bounced it became apparent that emails were coming from Linda Waldron’s hotmail account. Presumably Linda set this up at some time in the past and forgot about it.
At no point was Linda’s email hacked. These emails became available by accident on a computer that is for the use of all DSP members. The content was sufficiently important that it was considered necessary to alert the nation leadership.
JB
Despite claims in this statement, Comrade Waldron is absolutely certain she did not set up or authorise the setting up of the “shadow” hotmail account in the Outlook Express system on the DSP office computer. This account was set up by someone else without Comrade Linda’s authorization or knowledge.
The unauthorised “shadow” hotmail account on Outlook Express allowed for her personal hotmail account to be accessed (ie. hacked) without her knowledge from another portal. Therefore her personal email account was “hacked into” and her emails did not just become “available by accident on a computer that is for the use of all DSP members”. They were deliberately accessed without her permission or knowledge (nb: the Macquarie Dictionary defines “hacking into” as “to gain unauthorised access, as to the information stored on an organisation’s computer, or the computer itself, or the organisation itself”).
Comrade Waldron and Melbourne LPF comrades first became aware of the unauthorised hacking of her account and the LPF national email list on February 18, when Comrade Waldron noticed an email she did not send in her account. The email, with the subject line “LPF”, had been sent to Comrade Windisch and cc’d to Comrade Waldron and contained an attached file with two LPF emails inside.
On discovery of this, Comrade Waldron changed her password on February 19. On February 21 Comrade Waldron queried Comrade Windisch about the “bounced” email. According to Comrade Windisch, she had only received one email from an unknown source. At the time of the query, neither Comrade Windisch, Betzien, Nichols nor Bolton informed Comrade Waldron that they had access to all of her personal emails, that they were available on the office computer or that they had been forwarded to the National Secretary of the DSP, Peter Boyle. Comrade Waldron only became aware of this after Comrade JB’s statement was issued – two and half months after the emails were first accessed by comrades Nichols, JB, Windisch and Bolton and forwarded to Comrade Boyle.
Unauthorised accessing/hacking of other comrades’ emails.
On Thursday, April 27, the National Secretary of the DSP released 130 of the stolen political emails, without formal consultation with the DSP National Secretariat. Melbourne LPF comrades note that the political emails “released” by Comrade Boyle, include emails up to and including March 5. Thus emails after 18 February and up until March 5 were not accessed via the unauthorised shadow hotmail account on the Outlook Express (as Comrade Waldron had changed her password, thus preventing access from the shadow account). These emails had to have been accessed by other means. This suggests that the majority leadership comrades have access to other comrades email accounts and may still have access.
On May 1, the National LPF Convenor and DSP National President, Comrade John Percy issued a statement on behalf of the LPF to the DSP NE protesting the unauthorised accessing/hacking of Comrade Waldron’s email account, the violation of the LPF’s constitutional rights to internal faction discussion and the theft of the 130 emails. Attached to the National LPF statement is a written account by Comrade Ambrose Andrews (Canberra DSP comrade/LPF member) regarding the attempted hacking of the National LPF list by a National Executive Majority leadership comrade. The NE Majority leadership comrade in question has since admitted to being the hacker.
No right to privacy
DSP comrades in the Melbourne LPF completely reject the arguments made by Majority leaders, Comrades JB and Dave Holmes, that DSP comrades have no right to personal privacy. According to Comrade JB (at the May 1 DSP Executive Meeting) DSP members have “no constitutional rights to privacy” and any expectations of privacy were “liberalism”. Similarly, according to Comrade Holmes any expectations of privacy by DSP comrades are “bourgeois liberalism”.
While the constitution does not give comrades a specific right to privacy, comrades do have the right to be treated honestly, in a comradely manner (as per the DSP constitution, Article 4, Paragraph 1, Section H) and to have their personal privacy respected. The Organisational Principles and Methods of the Democratic Socialist Party notes that “because of its political basis, the party expects its members to act towards one another with honesty and responsibility (pg 66 The Party, The Political and the Personal by Pat Brewer). The Organisational Principles goes on to ask, “when you join a party like the DSP [does] every aspect of your life come under the authority of the decisions of the party? The answer is clearly no. The DSP is not a totalitarian party. Its jurisdiction does not encompass everything … there are many areas where the party does not assert a position or exercise its authority” (pg 68, The Party, The Political and the Personal).
The party does have the right to act “if a comrade’s personal actions affect the political tasks of the party” (pg 67, “The Party, The Political and the Personal”). But note that it is a comrade’s actions that the party has the right to act against – not their opinions or views, including the opinions and views expressed within a duly constituted faction. The action normally to be taken in such situations is to “discuss out the problem with the comrade concerned to try to resolve the problem politically with a mutually agreed solution” (pg 67, “The Party, The Political and the Personal”). At no time has any member of the leadership approached Comrade Waldron or any member of the LPF for such a discussion. Instead the National Secretary and other majority leadership comrades involved, kept secret for two and half months the fact that they had access to Comrade Waldron’s personal and political emails.
It should be noted that disciplinary action can only be taken against a comrade for violating the DSP constitution. Comrades cannot be disciplined for holding views at variance with the majority. The Program of the DSP states “the party must above all be democratic. It must guarantee the right to hold and argue for different policies and proposal for action within the party…” (see p65) Under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Section I of the DSP constitution, DSP comrades have the right to form factions for the express aim of “promot[ing] changes in the political line or activity of the DSP and in the composition of the DSP’s leadership bodies”. As a member of a properly declared faction, Comrade Waldron and other DSP comrades who are members of that faction, have the political and constitutional right to be able to have private discussions regarding how to implement and attain the objectives outlined in the faction’s founding declaration and platform, while remaining loyal to the DSP and its program.
Lenin and Cannon on privacy
Comrades JB and Holmes assert, however, that DSP comrades don’t have a right to privacy and any expectations that such a right should exist is “bourgeois liberalism”. This assertion radically contradicts the views held on this by Vladamir Illyich Lenin and American Marxist and founder of the US Socialist Workers Party, J. P. Cannon.
For instance, Lenin prepared a report after the Second Congress of the RSDLP which is reported on page 19, volume 7 of his Collected Works. His 1903 report, Account of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, took the form of a letter which he mailed to whomever he pleased. Lenin began his report with the following words: “This account intended for personal acquaintances only, and therefore to read it without the consent of the author (Lenin) is tantamount to reading other people’s letters.”
As American Marxist, Peter Camejo noted regarding the degeneration of the US Socialist Workers Party under the leadership of Jack Barnes, “Lenin would have been expelled from the SWP for his methods of functioning, undoubtedly charged with anti-Leninism. So would have Cannon, who likewise did many of the things for which members of the SWP are now being brought up on charges of, such as writing private letters on political matters to whomever he pleased” (Peter Camejo, Against Sectarianism: The Evolution of the Socialist Workers Party 1978-1983. Our party reprinted this pamphlet shortly after Camejo published it in the US. See The Making of a Sect by Doug Lorimer for more information on the political/organisational degeneration of the US SWP).
Comrades JB and Holmes and other majority leadership comrades, however, are now trying to justify their unprincipled behaviour as being in the tradition of Marxism, Leninism and Cannonism. Comrades in the Melbourne LPF completely reject this assertion.
Majority Justification: The ends justify the means (but what ends?)
The Melbourne DSP comrades in the LPF understand that no prior discussion about the stolen emails – how they were obtained, their content, or discussion about their impending release – was discussed formally by comrades on the National DSP secretariat. This is despite Comrade Boyle being in possession of the LPF emails for two and half months prior to releasing them.
If the National Secretary and other majority leadership comrades were as concerned as they now claim to be about the contents of the LPF discussion list then why didn’t they raise the issue two and half months ago when they first obtained these emails? If the content of these emails is so destructive to the DSP as claimed, or violated the Constitution of the DSP, why weren’t disciplinary charges brought against Comrade Waldron and other LPF comrades, allowing us to formally respond to any such charges? We can only conclude then that the theft of these emails and their release was not done in the interest or for the protection of the DSP but as a factional manoeuvre in the interests of the Majority leadership.
However, this factional manoeuvre by the majority leadership which has violated the constitutional and political rights, as well as the individual right to privacy, of LPF comrades is now being justified in grand Marxist terms.
Indeed for Marxist morality the ends do justify the means. But as Leon Trotsky pointed out “the end in its turn needs to be justified”. As Trotsky notes in Their Morals and Ours, morals have a class basis. We don’t respect the bourgeoisie, their state agencies, their laws and their fake moral principles. In time of revolution and civil war, the most extreme measures will sometimes become necessary and justified. But within the revolutionary party we do have principles and standards, which include comrades’ right to privacy, and the right of a faction to have internal political discussions.
The unprincipled course of action by the majority leadership only raises a much more important question: if the majority leadership is willing to carry out such a violation and destroy all trust within the membership of the DSP, what could their ends be? It also raises other questions: where will the majority leadership draw the line? When you are set on your objective and willing to carry out such actions as these email hackings, where will it stop? What else are you willing to do and what party rules, norms and traditions would you be willing to distort and destroy in pursuit of your objective?
How does violating comrades personal and political rights, including violating the rights of a properly declared faction to internal discussion address the fundamental political questions which are currently in dispute within the party? How is it in the party’s interest? How does it defend the party?
If the end, however, is to destroy all comradely trust between comrades and within the party, then the actions of the Majority leadership are justified. If the ends are to harass and intimidate one section of the party because they have a political difference with the majority then the hacking is justified. If the ends are to rewrite and violate the Program, Constitution and Organisational Principles of the DSP, then the actions by the Majority leadership are justified.
In Their Morals and Ours, Trotsky notes “that to a Bolshevik, the party is everything”. However, he also notes that Marxist and Leninist theory/ideology can be distorted and become degenerated and this degeneration can be hidden “under the cult of party”. If this happens, Trotsky stated, “actually it destroys and tramples the party in filth”.
For Bolsheviks, notes Trotsky, “there can be no contradiction between personal morality and the interests of the party, since the party embodies his consciousness the very highest tasks and aims of mankind”. The majority leadership, however, by their unprincipled actions, have created a contradiction which undermines the interests of the party, its membership and its democratic principles. We therefore reject completely the majority leadership arguments that they have acted in defence of the party.
Signed:
Bob Lewis, Gillian Davy, Jo Williams, Jorge Jorquera, Kim Bullimore, Linda Waldron, Ray Fulcher, Roberto Jorquera, Ron Lynquist, Scott Lewington, Stephen Garvey
Email from Comrade Waldron to Melbourne Executive
Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 3:47:36 PM
Subject: Request for formal investigation into privacy violation
To: Melbourne DSP Branch Executive
cc: DSP National President, John Percy; DSP National Secretary, Peter Boyle; DSP Assistant National Secretary, Sue Bolton
Subject: Request for formal investigation into unauthorised access of my personal email account and theft of personal emails.
Dear Comrades,
On February 17 2006 an unknown member of Melbourne DSP branch accessed my hotmail account and forwarded 2 LPF emails to Melbourne Branch Secretary Margarita Windisch.
I have strong reason to believe that more emails than the two Comrade Windisch has admitted to receiving were also accessed by this comrade and/ or unknown others.
I request that the branch executive immediately commence an investigation into this violation of my privacy.
I have not approached the DSP executive before as I discussed this violation with Comrade Margarita Windisch several days after the event and was then satisfied with her response.
Events since Thursday 28 April when 130 emails were released by National Secretary Peter Boyle to the DSP National Executive gives me strong reason to believe that I am a victim of more violations than I originally thought.
In accordance with new revelations I request an investigation into:
The unauthorised accessing of my email account on February 17
The response taken by Comrade Windisch on receipt of these emails and any action she took with these or any other emails stolen from my hotmail account
Whether or not this violation and any other violations against me were discussed and approved by Melbourne DSP leadership
I wish to be offered the opportunity to make a formal statement of protest to DSP leadership bodies about an unlawful, unconstitutional and unethical crime of which I believe myself to be a victim.
Comradely,
Linda Waldron
Email from Melbourne Executive to Comrade Waldron
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 9:51:11 AM
Subject: re: your request for an investigation into access of personal email account
Dear Linda
The Melbourne DSP executive discussed your request for a formal investigation into the access of your emails. JB presented a statement to the executive (which is attached) explaining how this happened. The executive decided that if you were not sadisfied with the statement (which cleary outlines that at no point in time was your email hacked into but that the information passed on to Peter B was available on a public computer accessable to all comrades), and still wanted to persue a formal investigation you would have to make this request to the DSP NE.
As your account and the emails in question are still on the computer you might want to consider getting it deleted by one of us or coming in and doing it yourself.
comradely
margarita
for the Melbourne DSP executive
Notes on the unauthorised accessing of Comrade Linda Waldron’s email account
From: Ron Lynquist and Kim Bullimore
On May 1, Comrade JB confirmed that he and other comrades had accessed Comrade Linda Waldron’s email account without her permission. On Tuesday, May 2 Comrades Ron L and Kim B, with the permission of Comrade Linda W, went to the Melbourne Resistance Centre to examine how Comrade Linda’s email was accessed.
Upon opening the Outlook Express on the Fax Computer, we noticed immediately there were two inboxes set up in the account – one for Outlook express and another for Hotmail. Upon further examination we noticed that the inbox of the Outlook Express identity was empty. However, when you clicked on the hotmail identity, we noticed three things:
1. There were 524 emails in the hotmail inbox, both personal and political which belonging to Comrade Waldron.
2. A popup box immediately appeared, which included comrade Linda’s personal email address and a preset password.
3. To access the Hotmail inbox, you had to click on the popup box before entering.
This contradicts the statement issued by Comrade Betzien at the DSP Executive meeting on May 1 that Comrade Nichols just “opened Outlook Express on one of the computers in the office and discovered lots of LPF list emails in the inbox
While Comrade Nichols, who is not assigned to Melbourne branch, may not have been aware that the email sign in listed in the popup box was comrade Linda’s, it was clear that in order to access, read and download the emails you had to deliberately click on the pop up box of an account that contained emails that were not Comrade Nichols and belonged to another person/comrade.
According to the statement issued by Comrade Betzien, it was only “After one of the emails was forwarded to Margarita and it bounced it became apparent that emails were coming from Linda Waldron’s hotmail account. Presumably Linda set this up at some time in the past and forgot about it”.
As noted above, to enter the hotmail shadow account you had to deliberately click on the pop-up button which contained the email sign in and password. While Comrade Nichols may have not immediately realised the email sign-in listed was Comrade Linda, it would have been easy to identify with little trouble, as it is listed, along with other comrades email on the branch phone and email list posted in at least three places in the computer room, next to other computers in other offices. In addition, most comrades have a personal copy for their information and use. It would have been quite easy for Comrades Nichols, Betzien, Windisch and Bolton to identify the account as Comrade Linda’s personal account. It seems strange they say they did not realise it was hers until an email forwarded to comrade Windisch “bounced”.
Comrade Linda arrived in the Resistance office after she had finished work and she confirmed with that she had never set up the account and never asked anyone to set it up for her. This then leaves the question of who set up the unauthorised shadowing of Linda’s email account, when and why. This should be investigated further. As Comrade Linda did not set up this account or ask anyone to set it up for her, it is incorrect to assert as Comrade JB’s statement does, “Presumably Linda set this up at some time in the past and forgot about it” and “At no point was Linda’s email hacked. These emails became available by accident on a computer that is for the use of all DSP members”.
The hotmail shadow account was set up deliberately, without the authorisation of comrade Linda, by unknown person/persons. This allowed for her hotmail account to be accessed or hacked without her knowledge from another portal. Therefore her email account was hacked into and her emails did not just become “available by accident on a computer that is for the use of all DSP members”.
We also note no date was given as to when exactly comrade Nichols first accessed the email and when he and other comrades ceased accesssing. However, Comrade Linda discovered that someone had access to her email on February 18 and changed her password on February 19. We were unable to access the account properly (the pop up box kept popping up constantly) as Comrade Linda has since changed her email password and has now ceased using this account because of the violation of her privacy. However, we were able to scroll thru the listing of emails and noted that the last email in the account was dated 17/02/2006 while the first one was dated 18/10/04 (from Linda’s university supervisor).
The emails cited by Comrade Boyle, it should be noted include emails up to and including March 5. Thus emails after 18 February up until March 5 were not accessed via the bogus/shadow hotmail account on the Outlook Express. These emails had to have been accessed by other means (this indicates that Majority leadership comrades have access to other comrades email accounts and may still have access).
Finally, it should be noted that Comrade Ron made a “copy” of the inbox and set up a temporary folder in the Outlook express account identity as we were worried that it may be deleted. Comrade Chris Slee was present when we did this. We attempted to copy the scroll of emails but were not able to do so.
We think a person with more in depth knowledge of computers needs to examine the shadow account to determine hopefully when it was set up and by whom. Comrade Linda has requested Comrade Windisch and JB not to delete the emails until after a full investigation has been conducted into the situation.
LPF Emails in Melbourne
When Dick Nichols was in Melbourne he opened Outlook Express on one of the computers in the office and discovered lots of LPF list emails in the inbox. This computer is generally not used for email and so no one would normally open Outlook Express on it. He alerted myself, Margie and Sue B to this fact.
Having read the content of some of the emails we considered it important to send them the Peter Boyle. Proof of this is still available on the computer. After one of the emails was forwarded to Margarita and it bounced it became apparent that emails were coming from Linda Waldron’s hotmail account. Presumably Linda set this up at some time in the past and forgot about it.
At no point was Linda’s email hacked. These emails became available by accident on a computer that is for the use of all DSP members. The content was sufficiently important that it was considered necessary to alert the national leadership.
JB
Letter to DSP National Executive re LPF Email List
To Peter Boyle
DSP national secretary
DSP NE members
Dear Comrades,
We vehemently protest the hacking of the LPF email list, and the violation of the privacy of individual LPF members, and the violation of the rights of the LPF itself. Reading other comrades’ emails is unprincipled. (Read what Lenin thought of this in attachment 1 below.) It violates our right to have private political discussion amongst LPF members. And it appears that the majority comrade or comrades doing the snooping would have had access to read all of Comrade Linda Waldron’s other emails from that period, both personal and political.
Your email states that you received the LPF postings “from a number of comrades who stumbled upon them by accident. These comrades acted responsibly by doing this.” “Stumbled upon by accident”? What a joke! Stole another comrades’ emails, from several months, and posted them off to Peter Boyle? “Acted responsibly”? Only from the interests of the majority leadership faction, not the interests of the DSP.
This was no “stumbling upon by accident”. This looks like it’s part of a concerted attempt by some members of the majority leadership to hack the LPF List. After Linda Waldron realized her email account had been violated, she changed her password, thereby probably cutting off the access to our List for majority snoopers.
Subsequently, the majority leadership has tried to hack into our list in other ways. A member of the DSP National Executive has attempted to gain fraudulent access to our list by trying to impersonate LPF comrade Ambrose Andrews. This NE member took out a Yahoo email beginning “ambrosea” and emailed the list asking to be subscribed to the LPF List at this email address also. I checked with Ambrose, and he confirmed, that was not him, but an infiltration attempt.
Attached with this letter is a posting by Ambrose Andrews to the LPF List detailing the events and how he was able to determine just who was behind the bogus email and the attempt to hack into our list. (Attachment 2.) Please circulate that to the NC also. In fact it needs to be read by the whole DSP membership.
We had feared, and had been saying to ourselves for many weeks, that it’s likely that the majority leadership would try to dredge up some organisational scandal, and try and ramp up the level of factionalism, at or before the May National Committee meeting, in order to try to solidify their supporters, polarise the party, and divert attention from the fact that their line has failed, that Socialist Alliance is dead in the water. Well, here it is, but it’s no scandal and embarrassment for the LPF, but a scandal for the majority leadership, indicating a further debasement of our party’s norms.
Now that you have circulated about 130 of our postings between January 15 and March 5 to the National Executive, and propose to circulate them to all members of the National Committee, we say fine. Perhaps comrades will learn something, realize that LPF members are continuing to think, educate themselves, and discuss amongst themselves. In fact, now that you have violated our right to have a private discussion among LPF members, we are completely happy for the emails you are circulating to be made available to the whole DSP membership.
We have nothing to be embarrassed about with these emails. In fact, the majority has a lot to be embarrassed about in the content of these posts, as they record the majority’s further degeneration and unprincipled attacks on LPF comrades, harassment both petty and major, and the mounting examples of the refutation of the majority’s political line in practice. But perhaps you will realize that, and decline to make them available to the whole membership, while all the while hypocritically scarifying and scandalizing comrades about the horrible LPF and its terrible email list.
We have nothing to apologise about in regard to the two pre-congress posts either. The minority discussed amongst itself. A crime? Some comrades posted emails to some other comrades? So what? Was the minority in the PCD merely isolated individuals, unable to communicate, talk, email in preparing our reports for the Congress? That’s not the Lenin or Cannon tradition, but a very different tradition.
You write that the contents of our list postings “reveal that the faction is systematically encouraging its members to see their primary loyalty as being to the LPF instead of the DSP, and that the faction is on a totally unjustified split trajectory.” These are totally false charges.
Firstly, our loyalty is to the DSP and the Program of the DSP and we will defend the party and our program to the best of our ability. However, we currently do not have political confidence in the majority leadership to do this. That is the very nature of a faction, we want to change the political line and change the leadership. Certainly with the majority’s distorted understanding of democratic centralism and what a faction is and should do, we should never have formed (even though you passed a motion at the congress that we should form a faction!) For the majority, it seems that although the DSP constitution supports the formation of factions (and it’s totally within the tradition of the Bolsheviks and Cannon’s SWP), it’s only OK as long as the faction is ineffective, or doesn’t discuss amongst its members!
Secondly, the LPF is not on a split trajectory at all. In fact, the battle is to stay in the DSP, to win it back, and convince its members not to be demoralised about revolutionary socialist politics and give up, in the face of a political and organisational decline in the leadership of the party that we have worked so hard to build. It is the majority actions since the congress which have effectively had a split dynamic – sacking LPF comrades from full-time assignments, knocking LPF members off branch executives, limiting LPF comrades in their assignments, and attempting to institutionalise a culture of ostracisation of LPF members.
Some questions demand answers:
1. How long have you had our LPF emails in your possession? How long have you sat on them, and why did you circulate them to the NE now, two weeks before the May NC?
2. Who else in the majority leadership was made privy to them before they were sent to the NE list? When did this happen?
3. Which comrade, or “comrades”, “stumbled upon them by accident” (hacked into) Linda Waldron’s email account? Linda quite rightly wants answers from the Melbourne majority comrades on this.
4. Did you know and sanction the hacking attempt on the LPF List by the NE member attempting to impersonate Ambrose Andrews?
5. Can you give us an assurance that the LPF has a right to meet, discuss in private, email each other without non-LPF comrades hacking in?
6. Can you give us an assurance that there will be no further attempts by majority leaders to hack into the LPF List?
Unless satisfactory answers are given to all these questions, you will be guilty of totally smashing any remaining comradely trust between comrades in the DSP.
If you are unable to give satisfactory answers to the questions regarding the thefts from Linda Waldron’s email account, an investigation committee needs to be set up to establish the facts about the hacking of the LPF list and Linda Waldron’s email account – who did it, did they just “stumble upon them by accident”, what did they do with their information, did they act with dishonest intent?
The offending comrades deserve to be censured and exposed, and although there can be no real compensation to Linda Waldron for the hacking and reading of her personal email account, perhaps it would be appropriate for the offending comrades to allow Linda and the LPF to view their personal and DSP email accounts. Do they have anything to hide?
Comradely,
John Percy
DSP national president
LPF convenor
Attachment 1.
A section from Peter Camejo’s pamphlet ‘Against Sectarianism: The Evolution of the Socialist Workers Party 1978-1983’
Our party reprinted this pamphlet shortly after Camejo published it in the US. It is from a section of the pamphlet sub-titled Organisational Questions (pp 37-38).
“Through the years, James P Cannon raised certain concepts of how a leadership should function. Many of these concepts were once known as norms in the SWP. For example, in trying to learn from the experiences of Lenin in Russia, Cannon argued that when a higher body, say an executive committee of a local branch, has a meeting, its deliberations should be kept to the members of that body.
The purpose was to make it possible for members of the executive committee to feel free to express their views without feeling that they would have to defend or be responsible for whatever they said before the entire membership. The executive committee discussion should aim at arriving at a collective decision. These norms are valuable but they are not the same thing as regulations or rules. Cannon himself wrote a letter to the party in 1965 making this explicit when he felt that the party leadership might be turning the norms into rules.
Another example of a norm that is not a rule is the concept that after National Committee meetings the National Committee members are not supposed to present their own reports on what happened at the plenum to select people but that reports should be presented to all members. These norms are never maintained once serious political differences, with tendency and faction formations appear. That is also a law of politics, as Cannon explained.
Barnes stated at the February 1982 National Committee meeting that he felt Cannon was wrong. Throughout the party those norms which reinforce centralism are being turned into regulations that bring disciplinary action if they are not followed.
Lenin, for instance, prepared a report after the Second Congress of the RSDLP which is reported on page 19, volume 7 of his Collected Works. His report took the form of a letter which he mailed to whomever he pleased. His letter begins with the following words, “This account intended for personal acquaintances only, and therefore to read it without the consent of the author (Lenin) is tantamount to reading other people’s letters.”
Today Lenin would be expelled from the SWP for his methods of functioning, undoubtedly charged with anti-Leninism. So would Cannon, who likewise did many of the things for which members of the SWP are now being brought up on charges, such as writing private letters on political matters to whomever he pleased”.
Attachment 2.
[lpf-list] Barnacle E. Pumpkin ‘stumbles upon’ the LPF list
Gather round, comrades and hear this tale of woe, for trouble lies in store for those whose ‘responsible’ conduct is determined by an excessively narrow ‘loyalty’.
On Monday, March 27th at 1:11pm, I was sent the following email:
– – – – – – – –
Dear Ambrose,
Just making sure… Did you also ask to be subscribed to the list at ?
Comradely,
John P
I have disguised the actual email address above]
– – – – – – – –
It was a good thing John had been cautious enough to check.
Half an hour later I saw John’s email and immediately replied emphatically in the negative.
Five minutes after that I proposed subscribing this phantom ‘Ambrose’ to a phantom email list, of a sort.
John had made a few observations on the basis of what we knew so far: Someone had to know I was an LPF member, and had to know the address to send the request to.
The faction declaration of course contained *an* address… which has been published in the Activist. As to my LPF membership, that’s known by comrades in Canberra, LPF members around the place, members of the NE and conceivably anyone in the party. Outsiders could also have obtained the Activist and guessed my LPF membership somehow.
For that matter, someone might have seen a leaked copy of a list email and wanted their own endless supply.
Motivated by a rather unattractive obsessive vengeful streak in my personality which came to the surface after I thought for a while about the implications (someone had tried, by means of identity fraud, to take out a free subscription to carbon copies of my LPF-related incoming mail) I created an additional Email ‘profile’ with a From: address of ‘John_eva@XXXX.com’ and set to work.
Instead of a full-blown fake mailing list with lots of fake posts from fake LPF members (which was tempting but hardly a priority) I created a single email, which superficially *appeared* to have come from the list, with the reply-to list address and a very short message:
– – – – – – – –
Subject: [lpf-list] pre-hookup notes From: John PReply-To: lpf-list@yahoogroups.com To: LPF ListBcc: ambroXXXX@XXXX.com Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:36:23 +1000
Comrades – another draft before the hookup. http:
//XXXX.XXXX.XXXX/lpf/docs/misc/dougl_mar_hookp_drft2.docComradely,
John
[I have disguised the actual (nonexistant) url and fake list address above] [the TO: address above was a nonexistent address on a domain I know to not have a mailserver]
– – – – – – – –
As it happens, I have access to a webserver or three. Since the yahoo admin interface apparently doesn’t provide a lot of meta-information about the messages to the moderator (such as the IP of this fraudulent subscription request), It was necessary to use other mechanisms to extract information about (and from) this hostile entity.
I wasn’t all that confident that the phantom Ambrose would take the bait, since i felt time was of the essence and I couldn’t really be bothered crafting a really convincing and anonymous fake list email. I thought it was still a possibility though.
The purpose of this whole exercise was to establish to the extent possible (I was hoping to at least learn the city of origin) the identity of the originator of this social-engineering attack on our list.
Since the parties involved could have been quite skilled in this kind of activity, It seemed the best approach would be to target their weakness – that is their burning need to know more about the LPF’s thinking and what we are discussing. This is what motivated them in the first place. The phantom documents on the phantom website mentioned in the phantom email to the phantom list would be psychologically almost impossible to resist clicking on for this curious character.
On the other hand if the phantom Ambrose was a cautious and sophisticated operator, it wouldn’t take them long to figure out who sent the email, [me!] sufficiently to get a bit of a scare… also not an unsatisfying prospect. That thought kept me chuckling all morning.
I started with a trial run… using one of my emails as the recipient instead of the phantom one above, just to see if I’d made any obvious mistakes, and make sure it looked OK at a glance.
After I decided it checked out, I established a mechanism on a webserver of my acquaintance to notify me of a category of server errors (i.e. 404 not found errors containing the string ‘LPF’)
Then, at about a quarter to ten on Tuesday morning, I set the wheels in motion, and sent the email above (the times are sometimes an hour out due to commonwealth-games related warps in the space-time continuum).
It didn’t take long for our villain to bite:
* – – – – – – –
* 10.22.196.147 – – [28/Mar/2006:10:12:35 +1100] “GET /lpf/docs/misc/dougl_mar_hookp_drft2.doc HTTP/1.1” 404 315 “http://XXXXX.XXXX.com/gfx/RndMl?Uid=f0f77gId=On4r6R9JfSM.S0.vyXr” “Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051010 Firefox/1.0.7 (Ubuntu package 1.0.7)”“““ [once again I have altered almost every detail of the above] [most of these details pertain to my *own* system, not those of the villain who I might mention uses a moderately distinctive software suite]
– – – – – – – –
fun, fun, fun!
Not only did they take the bait, they did so eagerly. From the information similar in form to that above, it was clear the person concerned has logged into their webmail account, mostly likely ambroseXX@XXXX.com and clicked on the extremely enticing pre-hookup draft discussion document.. Gold!
– – – – – – – –
Browser: “404 – not found”
Villain: Hmmm, what’s going on?
– – – – – – – –
phantom tried again…. twice. then phantom cut-and-pasted the address from the email text into the address bar.
– – – – – – – –
GET /lpf/docs/misc/dougl_mar_hookp_drft2.doc
– – – – – – – –
still no luck. hmmm
– – – – – – – –
Villain: maybe I can see the directory contents….
GET /lpf/docs/misc/
– – – – – – – –
nope.
– – – – – – – –
Browser: HTTP ERROR 404 NOT FOUND
GET /lpf/docs/
– – – – – – – –
nope,
– – – – – – – –
Villain: shite!
GET /lpf/
– – – – – – – –
Oh dear. By this time phantom Ambrose must be starting to twig…. surely!
Or at least given up for the moment.
Disappointment is indeed bitter.
By this time the real Ambrose is getting quite late for work, but watching this happening in real time, finding it hard to deal with all the adrenaline, and breaking out in fits of giggling albeit in a gothic and sick-feeling sort of a way.
So… by now we’re armed with quite a lot more information than we originally had.
Some human factors:
Firstly this person or entity is not fantastically careful about their online behaviour. It didn’t take them long to notice the ‘list’ email and to try and get hold of the non-existent secret documents from the non-existent LPF document repository (a draft discussion document in preparation for the next non-existent LPF phone hookup, I guess). They didn’t use any web anonymiser. The IP address they used resolved to a (possibly but not definitely domestic) DSL account in a certain state from a well known ISP.
We also had a fair bit of new technical information.
We knew what browser and version thereof they used, and operating system and version thereof.
We knew the IP they were connecting from, and at what time.
There were also a few things we didn’t know.
Like : Who is behind the machine?
Most DSL lines (unless you agree to pay a bit extra) have dynamically assigned IP addresses, which change with varying frequency.. usually not during a given connection ‘session’.
At this point, stuck for further information as to who or what was behind that IP at the time, I thought a lucrative possibility would be that this would-be-LPF-infiltrator (possibly a hostile rightist or one of our party’s opponents on the left) might be a contributor to some of the same email lists that I am on. Seemed worth pursuing and able to be done in an automated way with a modest effort.
Unix to the rescue
first : How many times does this IP of interest appear in the message sources in my Inbox?
– – – – – – – –
grep -c 10.22.196.147 ~/.evolution/mail/local/Inbox 12
– – – – – – – –
wow 12 times…. thaaats interesting. There’s a lot of IPs in the world.
sounds manageable… lets have a look at them in context….
– – – – – – – –
cd .evolution/mail/local grep -B 16 10.22.196.147 Inbox | less
– – – – – – – –
and… we have a prime suspect!
every occurrence (other than those in the bodies of my emails to myself and John P) were from one specific originator, and during the same time period.
It’d be too much work right now to disguise the amount of header information necessary to reproduce the effect here, but suffice it to say that outstandingly one Barnacle E Pumpkin [not his/her real name] was using the same internet connection at the time of the attempt to access nonexistent documents from the nonexistent document repository at a location that only a half hour before had been invented on the spot and sent to ‘ambroseXX@XXXX.com’.
A slightly more detailed and methodical examination of a couple of the emails from our suspect strengthened my confidence that I hadn’t made any blindingly obvious errors.
The pretty short time lag between the ‘list’ message and the web-hit reduces the window of opportunity for alternative complicated explanations like that PersonX of bad faith received the email and redecorated or re-framed it in such a way as to render Barnacle E Pumpkin squeaky-clean of hand and noble of purpose.
Other than me and John P (via the bounce message from the fake To: address), other technically clever forces could have gotten the information in between… but it would still have been quite a challenge for them to get Barnacle E Pumpkin’s IP making http requests to that effect. Keeping in mind Cointelpro and all that, this isn’t impossible, but Ockham’s razor tells me the overwhelmingly most plausible explanation for this series of events.
One thing to keep in mind here is that an IP can be the gateway for more than one computer (sometimes hundreds) to access the public internet. As Greg Adamson mentioned in his very good articles and talks in the past, the internet (ip4) is running out of allocatable numbers, so a lot of machines tend to share them. It’s also a security technique and a cost-saver to do so. Usually for official purposes these situations are reflected in the reverse DNS entry name. [words like gateways router or whatever…] Domestic or business DSL lines though often just look like a bunch of numbers and strings. So one possibility that’s still quite real is that a housemate or co-worker of Barnacle E Pumpkin was the guilty party.
The association between Barnacle E Pumpkin and that closely-guarded URL was strengthened a day later when I decided to look at the server logs to see if there were anymore hits. There were – and I had two new IPs of interest in two different time periods. Taking another look at my Inbox, I repeated the context-search for those two IPs in turn. Again the only occurrences were emails from Barnacle E Pumpkin.
After provisionally assuring myself with some degree of confidence that Barnacle E Pumpkin was at the very least (with the maximum possible generosity) a pointer to the culprit, I experienced a sensation of some discomfort. I informed John P of my at the time tentative concerns.
Which brings us to the source of my discomfort. Barnacle E Pumpkin is not a right-winger or an anarchist or an operative of a hostile left party. Barnacle E Pumpkin is a member of the Socialist Alliance. This member of the Socialist Alliance is not attempting to infiltrate the DSP for sectarian purposes because Barnacle E Pumpkin is with high probability a leading member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective attempting to infiltrate the internal discussions of the LPF.
Given specific knowledge of the person it was possible with some assistance on matters of human intelligence from the LPF to presume that the number of machines (and humans) behind that public IP at that time was not large, based on estimates of the Mailing List poster’s most likely physical location.
It’s a pretty dirty business. It didn’t feel comfortable having as I will here readily admit invaded the privacy of this websurfer. This kind of thing is unpleasant. Still more so when against all realistic expectations I nailed down not only the state and city but probably the street address to find that these days leadership of the party means spying on its members…. and investigating fraud might get you into all sorts of complications if you are successful.
I’m having trouble imagining how this could *not* be an offence against the party. Unfortunately it’s also another in the long list of organisational nightmares and headaches annoyances and atrocities that are always trying to dominate the foreground to the slower-moving political fight going on in our party. How much time do we want to spend at the NC pursuing organisational and disciplinary matters? We also have a responsibility to the party not to ignore violations.
At time of writing, the poor sod doesn’t necessarily even know he/she’s been busted yet! Tried to access that draft discussion document again and again for many days before finally going quiet.
(At one point waiting only a couple of minutes between each in a series of a dozen attempts. ‘reload, reload, reload!’. Must be very frustrating. Seems like Barney’s going a bit nutty)
Stumble responsibly, comrades.
Don’t fall into a ditch.
AA.
Letter from Peter Boyle in reply to Linda Waldron
Linda Waldron
21 Princess St
Kew 3101
cc Melbourne branch secretary Margarita W
Dear Comrade Waldron
The Melbourne branch executive passed on your request formal investigation to the DSP national executive.
The May 8 DSP NE decided not to set up an investigation into the leaking of the LPF list contents after the circumstances of the leaks had been explained. In two different cities, LPF list contents had been left accessible to comrades using multiple-user computer terminals in our offices. All the leaked material shown to NE members, except for the pre-LPF minority e-list contributions, did not come from the leak in
Melbourne.
I told the NE that I knew of no ongoing leadership majority assess to LPF list. I added that if the LPF leadership wanted a formal investigation we should have one. However, such an investigating committee would consider the political context and content of the leaks as that would be the only way to determine if it was right or wrong that the leaked material was shown to the leadership. LPF comrades on the NE (John P, Marce C and Doug L) did not request such an investigation.
Up to now, the national leadership has sort to deal politically with the factional situation in the party. We have favoured an educational and non-disciplinary approach but by setting up a formal investigation we could begin to go down a different path. This is why I recommended to the
NE not to call such a formal investigation.
The NE also does not support any attempts to “hack” into comrade’s emails or infiltrate the LPF discussion list. However, the NE rejected the idea that there is any absolute right to privacy, in life nor in the party. Comrades will obviously try to respect personal and professional confidences but only if these don’t conflict with more deeply felt loyalties. If personal political material is left lying around the party office or on a party computer and other comrades come across it, they will exercise their judgment as to what to do about it. If something is sufficiently disturbing they may show the material to others.
Undoubtedly these matters will be discussed further in the coming DSP national committee on May 13-14.
Comradely
Peter Boyle
DSP National Secretary
Letter to NC on leaked LPF material from Peter Boyle
May 10, 2006
To all NC members & comrades invited to the May 13-14 NC meeting
Dear Comrades
The DSP national executive meeting on May 8 decided to circulate to national committee members (and invitees) certain leaked LPF list exchanges that had been distributed to the NE by myself because this material was pertinent to reports being prepared for the NC.
The NE decided to invite all DSP organisers not on the NC, all Resistance organisers who are in the DSP but not on the DSP NC, and members of the national apparatus. Comrade Peter R from Newcastle was also invited as he is likely to take over as Newcastle branch organiser shortly.
The circumstances of these leaks are as follows: In two different cities, LPF list contents had been left accessible to comrades using multiple-user computer terminals in our offices. The comrades who came across this material decided they had a responsibility to bring it to the attention of the party leadership. The NE agreed with this assessment and that is why this material is being made available to the NC.
Comrades receiving this material should not forward it on to anybody.
The May 13-14 NC will decide whether or not to make the material available beyond its membership.
There are seven attachments and these will be sent in two emails: Attached to this email are the following word documents: Pre-LPF.doc,LPF_01.doc, LPF_02.doc & LPF_03.doc
A second email will have the remaining attachments: LPF_04.doc, LPF_05.doc, LPF_06.doc
Comradely
Peter Boyle
DSP National Secretary