Anonymous posts usernames and passwords of US Congress staffers

Wow. Bad move, Anon (and I&#x27;m the last person who would normally say that). This was a really crappy thing to do to innocent folks just trying to make an honest career, many of whom probably use the same credentials for their online banking and other important services. It gives a bad name to &quot;hacktivists&quot; (which are growing increasingly important in holding our government accountable) and will only take credibility away from the cause of transparency. Congress members will very likely take an &quot;us vs them&quot; mentality and lump Anon with &quot;them&quot; who want transparency wrt the NSA revelations.<p>Counter-productive and juvenile, that&#x27;s all this was.

Some of my favorite passwords from the list: notalentassclown3 password2 Password12 password5% password Password14 Password1 PASSWORD Password1@ password3# Password!1 Password45<p>etc...

I&#x27;m laughing now but I probably won&#x27;t be later.<p>I&#x27;m afraid that the government will use this incident as &quot;proof&quot; that what they&#x27;re doing thus far isn&#x27;t &quot;enough&quot; and they need even more power and control... and, given the victims of this attack, I&#x27;m certain they&#x27;ll get it.

I am very surprised the policy of password strength is very weak. Allowing &quot;smith&quot; as a password? It&#x27;s too weak that makes me suspicious about the origins of these passwords.

Favorite password: cody.stewart@mail.house.gov: iConstituent<p>Obviously this leak is bad, but I think it&#x27;s also humanizing. Staffers are people.

They&#x27;ve got nothing to hide, right? Is this FEMA? If our government can&#x27;t be arsed to secure their authentication servers and passcodes (eg. salt+hash+fuckitandusebcrypt), how the hell can they be trusted with other&#x27;s private data?

Some people use personally identifiable info in their passwords. Even though they shuffled passwords around so they don&#x27;t match the username, if the user&#x27;s name or address is in the password... yikes

Oh the classic and secure &quot;Password1&quot;. Mixed case and even alphanumeric.

So what do we have? A bunch of weak passwords. Not bad they are revealed, actually, should educate some a bit. Still, revealing the passwords without the email addresses would&#x27;ve been a bit more responsible.<p>On the other hand, do they really store house.gov passwords unencrypted? I&#x27;m not even talking about salted vs unsalted hash here, just plaintext? Seriously?

Searched for &quot;password&quot; - 36 results. The majority some iteration of &#x27;password1&#x27;, &#x27;Password1&#x27;, &#x27;password2&#x27;, etc.<p>Really wish government employees would be forced to use more secure passwords, or at the least heavily trained on the importance of them.

Grief, the passwords are so lame. Do these people not realize how important strong passwords are. Corker06. lol. Senate09.

I wonder how old this data is. I looked up one person I know who hasn&#x27;t worked on the hill since 2010.

Some of these are really easy to match up. Using part of your name as your password is epically stupid.

What is the point of doing this?

Can we get a warning in the title that this doesn&#x27;t just link to an article?

The first thing that came to my mind was: god, these are horrible passwords.

Whatever happened to plain old defacing a website, like back in the day? This &quot;dox&quot; obsession isn&#x27;t nearly as cool as proposing marriage to Madonna from a corporate website (though these days I guess it would be miley cyrus?)