By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two newly installed crosswalk signal boxes along East Colfax Avenue in Denver were compromised, broadcasting vulgar anti-Trump messages. While the incident was quickly fixed, it generated significant local discussion and amusement. The breach occurred due to the push-buttons retaining their default factory passwords, which are easily discoverable online, a vulnerability in smart city technology that cybersecurity experts warn is a persistent problem. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure has since updated the passwords at these locations and does not anticipate a recurrence.
Read the original article here
The recent hacking of Denver crosswalks to broadcast vulgar anti-Trump messaging has certainly stirred quite a bit of conversation, and frankly, it’s not hard to see why. When technology designed for public safety is repurposed for political statements, especially ones delivered with such strong language, it’s bound to grab attention. The core of the matter seems to be that these digital signs, which typically relay information about pedestrian signals, were manipulated to display explicit messages directed at former President Trump.
What’s particularly striking is the immediate public reaction, as described by some residents. One person living nearby expressed initial surprise, questioning if they had truly heard the messages. However, this surprise quickly turned into a feeling of being “enamored” and that the messages “made my day.” This suggests that for some within the community, the unexpected political commentary, despite its inappropriate nature, was a welcome, even uplifting, experience. It appears that for a segment of the population, these messages resonated deeply, offering a form of catharsis or a shared sentiment.
The reporting on the incident has also become a focal point of discussion, with many criticizing the way some news outlets, specifically CBS in this context, handled the story. A common sentiment is that these outlets failed to report the “actual facts,” opting for censorship and framing the messages as merely “vulgar.” This approach is seen by many as a disservice to journalism, especially when compared to the explicit content that was actually broadcast. The fact that these outlets acknowledged the messages were “too inappropriate to share” while simultaneously being responsible for reporting on public events has been met with considerable derision.
Digging a little deeper into the nature of the hacked messages, it becomes clear that “vulgar” might be a rather mild descriptor for what was transmitted. Reports indicate that messages such as “[expletive] Trump” and “Trump murders children” were broadcast using the device’s artificial voice. This is a far cry from polite political discourse and points to a significant level of anger and frustration directed towards the former president. The juxtaposition of these graphic statements with the everyday function of a crosswalk signal creates a jarring and undeniably impactful scene.
The discussion often circles back to the definition of “vulgarity” itself, particularly in relation to Donald Trump. Many who commented believe that the messages, while explicit, were fundamentally truthful. They argue that Trump’s own rhetoric and actions are inherently vulgar, and therefore, any messaging that points this out is not vulgar in itself, but rather a factual description. This perspective suggests that the “vulgarity” lies not in the communication, but in the subject of the communication.
There’s a strong sentiment that the media’s reluctance to report the explicit nature of the messages is a form of “self-censorship” or demonstrates a biased framing. Critics question why news organizations that cover violent events and war feel the need to shy away from reporting “naughty words,” especially when those words are directly tied to the content of a public hack. This perceived double standard fuels the distrust in mainstream media, with some labeling outlets like CBS as “Fox Lite” or “compromised.”
The ease with which these digital signs can be hacked is another point of concern and fascination. Some commenters have shared anecdotal information about the simplistic security measures on these devices, suggesting that the access codes are often easily discoverable. This aspect of the story raises questions about the security of public infrastructure and the potential for it to be exploited for various purposes, not just political messaging. The fact that this information is seemingly accessible through basic online searches adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
Ultimately, the incident in Denver highlights a significant polarization in public opinion and a deep-seated animosity towards Donald Trump for a considerable portion of the population. The decision to hack crosswalks and broadcast such messages, while controversial, is seen by some as a creative and necessary outlet for expressing their profound discontent. The debate over whether the messages are “vulgar” or “truthful” is a reflection of the broader societal conversations happening about political discourse, media responsibility, and the legacy of the Trump presidency. The truth, as some see it, is ugly, and in this case, it was broadcast through the seemingly innocuous hum of a crosswalk signal.