'Robin Sage' Social Hoax Duped Military, Security Pros 191
ancientribe writes "A social networking experiment of a phony female military security professional known as 'Robin Sage' (named after a US Army Special Forces training exercise) worked way too well, fooling even the most security-savvy professionals on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. It also led to the leakage of sensitive military information after an Army Ranger accepted 'Robin's' friend request on Facebook and his photos from Afghanistan exposed geolocation information accessible to 'Robin.' The researcher who conducted the experiment will show off his findings at the upcoming Black Hat USA conference in Las Vegas, where the real woman pictured in the profiles is scheduled to introduce him for his presentation."
Only link that matters (Score:5, Informative)
Is the fake facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.sage.641a [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That makes the people who accepted her friend invites a little less shameful in my opinion.
I was able to discover this tidbit of information by clicking on the racy profile picture in attempt to see more. Given that I already knew at that point that she was a security researcher posing as a Russian spy posing as a Defense Dept. employee - I am inclined to judge myself much more harshly than the folks named in the parent arti
Re:Only link that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, for a lot of the targets, that picture was probably all the social engineering that was needed.
Re:Only link that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually find it rather odd that they choose that picture. I know pretty much instantly that if I get a friend request of a girl in a bikini - unless I know her instantly I know it's just spam and ignore it. The harder ones are the ones showing people in regular everyday clothing (and a pic that doesn't look like it's a professional modeling pic). For that, you have to start thinking whether or not you met this persona casually at a party or something once, or if you know them from a class or something.
Just IMHO, I think it would make a lot more sense if they had simply used an attractive girl wearing a t-shirt/jeans or a sweater or something in a regular candid shot - maybe even doing the typical "myspace I'm taking a picture of myself" pose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> For that, you have to start thinking whether or not you met this persona casually at a party or something once, or if you know them from a class or something.
No, you don't. They're called Facebook friends. The only people in my list are people who are really my friends (or close relatives). Even if I know exactly who they are, I don't accept friend requests from anyone I don't have a strong personal relationship with.
And I know who all of those people are. No hard thinking required.
Re: (Score:2)
...No hard thinking required.
Easy for you to say. Some of us are like, ya' know, most Facebook users, you insensitive clod.
Re:Only link that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter's "tweets" do not come from little birds
No, twits tweet. That's why it's called "twitter". It's for twits.
I'm going to start a service called "twatter". It'll be for twats.
Re:Only link that matters (Score:4, Funny)
News flash: Windows' "folders" aren't real folders, Twitter's "tweets" do not come from little birds, and you are not in physical contact with your Linkedin "connections."
But cybersex still counts, right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. I have barely over a hundred on my FB list and they're all folks I know from school, SCA, or family. Now that I think about it, I've had a beer with everyone on my list. Even that weird comic author I partied with at MosCon, back in the '80's. Why would I let strangers see my stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Southern Christian Association. Or Satanic Church of America.
I can never remember which.
Ok, ok, Creative Anachronism; family of choice with funny clothes and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Satanic Christians of America
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that makes me one of the 17. I think you're severely under-estimating the number of people who aren't trying to see how many "friends" they can get on Facebook. If I get a request from a random stranger, I will send them a message trying to strike up a conversation. If they don't reciprocate, or their reciprocation sucks, I won't add them.
What is the point of having hundreds of "friends". The signal to noise ratio gets insane. You probably end up "Hiding" the large majority of them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So...
If facebook suddenly changed the name of your "Friends list" to your "Acquaintances List", would you immediately drop all of your friends and family? What about family members that aren't really friends?
Out of curiosity, what are "on facebook for".
The whole idea of social networking (even if you leave "websites" and ask people who talk about in person, face to face, social networking) is... expanding your social network by making new connections to new people.
Maybe you just want to use it as a personal
Re:Only link that matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Just IMHO, I think it would make a lot more sense if they had simply used an attractive girl wearing a t-shirt/jeans or a sweater or something in a regular candid shot - maybe even doing the typical "myspace I'm taking a picture of myself" pose.
Based on who friended 'her' and the kind of information 'she' was able to obtain, I'd say the choice of photo worked pretty damn well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually find it rather odd that they choose that picture. I know pretty much instantly that if I get a friend request of a girl in a bikini - unless I know her instantly I know it's just spam and ignore it.
If you read the article, you'll see the picture was intentionally chosen to throw up some red flags. FTFA:
Re:Only link that matters (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, TFS says he's a friggin' Army Ranger.
With that much testosterone, those guys aren't going to immediately assume it's spam. They're just going to assume they don't remember her. These guys walk with swagger because they know they're carrying an Army issued Big Pair (TM), which likely clouds their judgement sometimes.
I'd say more about TFA, but Firefox is telling me that the URL is redirecting in a way that can never resolve, so I have no idea of what it actually says. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
>I actually find it rather odd that they choose that picture.
That was NOT the picture Tom used for the main profile photo. It was a side head shot. Tineye.com did not find it anywhere else, btw.
Anyway, you must have never been to Defcon, or you would think these pics are pretty tame.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I'm life long geek (still have D&D brown books in white box) and yeah, there's no chance any bikini model type woman would be contacting me for any legitimate purpose. Now, if it was some kind of 'Queen of Mensa' or John Scalzi blog post reply, they'd have a better chance of getting me to click a link.
Robin Sage and 641a (Score:2)
"She" sent me a friend request on 2009/12/31, which I accepted, [hey, there's lots of cute hacker women] but we knew in a few days that something was fishy. See my post to "her" facebook wall on 2010/01/07.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000595856619&v=wall&story_fbid=238154768802&ref=mf [facebook.com]
After some background discussion with people in security you might recognize, some of us kept her on our friend list, to see what "she" was up to.
Anyway, thanks to all the corporate and government guys
Did he get to talk to a real girl? (Score:3, Funny)
Cool!
duped some military.... (Score:5, Informative)
...but anyone who has ever thought about going for the long tab would catch that name. Robin Sage, really? Come on! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think the sad thing is that 'security professionals' at least at the Federal level rely too much on internal systems and don't go looking for anything themselves. 'Oh well they're not in our Super Awesome Database (SAD) so I guess there's no problem and we'
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps google image searches are banned. :)
I wonder, does filtering one's access to things like that increase the risk of social engineering?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they were thinking with their brain at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
And her FB profile name includes 641a. That's the AT&T wiretap room number.
Hackers use fake names [Bob Cat is not my given name]. The name "Robin Sage" was an excellent choice for a hacker girl. However, 641a is not something anyone with a clearance would use.
Re: (Score:2)
True... but can she perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?
Say... that IS catchy!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not unusual for people to use fake names on Facebook, especially in the light of recent security issues. I have a sizable fraction of friends (and they are actual friends) who use fake names because they don't want all their data, photos, etc being so easily available to potential employers, family, or strangers. Such a fake name as Robin Sage probably worked in the h
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine these four people's [linkedin.com] shock and horror as they poofed out of existence because of gandhi_2's logic.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that there are people in the world with the name, but it would certainly ring a bell with many in the military world... not just US, either.
But if they poofed out of existence, they would experience neither shock, nor horror.
I'm pretty sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably could, but it is still sheer stupidity to post things like that on Facebook or any other site for that matter: Loose lips sink ships!
Re:I'm pretty sure (Score:5, Funny)
Portage. It's not just for birchbark canoes.
Re:I'm pretty sure (Score:5, Funny)
They're compiling ships from source now?
Fascinating!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What the hell else would you compile them from??
I'd say you are right (Score:2)
Two of my friends have been over in Iraq for all this recent shit. In many cases, they had Internet access. Usually it was at a net cafe or the like. Where they were was no big secret, and probably could have been traced by IP. In general it wasn't a secret where they were, you could find out where their unit was deployed overall.
Now, when they were out doing something? Well then not so much probably. Could well be classified. However, they weren't posting online about it as, well, they were out doing somet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When they are in the shit, they are not likely to be hitting on chicks on facebook.
Anyone who has internet connectivity is probably at a base that can be found on the Jane's website or Wikipedia, and Google Mapped to get recent satellite pictures.
Which is pretty pointless, since the "insurgents" already know where the bases are, and what they look like, and way more about their vulnerabilities than a satellite picture is going to reveal.
There's nothing more costly to security than security based on false fe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except overwhelming force.
And the Spanish Inquisition.
This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of how easy it would be to get the intel to kidnap the good friend/significant other of important militar
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't have to ban anything though. People can keep their work and social lives seperate.. there's no need to ban anyone's online social life.
I would say celebrities are more at risk from online stalkers/weirdos than military guys.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on the security clearance stuff. I'm pretty sure there are sub-groups that cannot have blogs and social-site profiles. But i don't think it's a problem for Big Army, it's more of a problem for Special Forces and similar groups. Rangers are.. well, i won't assign them to either group because someone would be unhappy either way.
I should also say that all military personnel are trained to identify these types of things: http://iase.disa.mil/eta/ [disa.mil] Though nothing is specific to social networks, m
Re: (Score:2)
What!?! Now where am I going to keep my password list?
Which emo chick is it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An apparent [facebook.com] gorgeous, six-pack stomached, bikini wearing, beauty queen interested in bi-sexual encounters.
Fuck, I knew what this was and I almost clicked "Add as Friend" too.
Leaked? You mean 'exposed' ? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone is putting up classified information in a publicly accessible location (even if it's restricted by the user giving explicit permission), isn't that the source of the information leak? Hasn't it already escaped the secure environment? Jeremiah Grossman even points this out. (I do like how they indicate he was duped, when he indicates that it's an automatic facebook bot that runs on his behalf that accepts all requests automatically - that isn't 'his' account.)
Of course, this assumes that the information was considered secure in the first place. I'm not sure you'd call it a security leak if the policy is to allow that information to be accessible to the public.
That aside, isn't this just an online-only update of the standard telephony scam that the military actually sponsored and publicized back in the late 60's/early 70's? To show how social engineering worked, they sat a woman down in a room with a phonebook and a phone, and asked her to get some general's schedule or something, and it took about 40 minutes?
We are already aware of the fact that organizations have social structures which allow for manipulation. Was there anything constructive about this, like a 'policies to avoid this' list? Or was this just another fluff piece, reiterating what was already well established?
Re:Leaked? You mean 'exposed' ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are aware that high explosives generate powerful and destructive shockwaves, and can fling shrapnel for startling distances at frightening velocities. However, they'll still watch Mythbusters, because actually seeing high explosives demonstrated [discovery.com] is cool.
Anyone who doesn't find a real-world demonstration of social engineering fascinating and instructive is either waaaay too jaded, or is trying waaaay too hard to pose as being jaded because of a mistaken association between cynicism and cool.
Besides, a reminder of the ongoing effectiveness of social engineering is always good, especially in light of all the interesting vectors now available.
But is it really impressive (Score:2)
Being able to "social engineer" someone by lying and convincing them you are someone you aren't doesn't really matter much. So they got to see pictures on Facebook... K. If those pictures WERE classified, then that is the real story (morons posting classified dox on Facebook) if not then it is a non-story. It is a big, wide, gap between convincing someone you are a person you are not, and using that to get them to give you access to sensitive data.
For example: I don't imagine you'd have much trouble using s
Re: (Score:2)
I wish someone would blow up social engineering.
Tuttle (Score:2)
Life imitating art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuttle_(M*A*S*H) [wikipedia.org]
Geolocation? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just checked an uploaded JPG against an original, and yes indeed Facebook does sanitize the metadata. I wonder where the geolocation info came from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just checking....
Re: (Score:2)
Who new? (Score:2)
Social engineering works - who knew?
I simply do not believe any of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Fucking Up 101 incorporates not believing some random person on the Internet (or in real life) who says they have a particular position. It would also encompass not posting pictures of your location to the Internet.
So the question we really need to ask is not, "How could the military/government be so dumb?" but, "What connections do these researchers have with the government, and what are they actually trying to achieve with this theatre?"
It would be so enticing for the "hacker community" to believe the story because it inflates their already unwarrantedly large egos: we're just so much smarter than the average person at solving puzzles, right? The government surely only employs easily duped idiots - even in significant security positions - whereas we are geniuses operating from our basements.
Bullshit.
All we've learnt from this is that Robin isn't what Robin's page initially claimed she is. As for what's actually going on, independent evidence is appropriately lacking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> "How could the military/government be so dumb?"
By consisting of normal human beings.
> It would be so enticing for the "hacker community" to believe the story
> because it inflates their already unwarrantedly large egos: we're just so
> much smarter than the average person at solving puzzles, right?
The "hacker community" also consists of normal human beings. People outsmart each other all the time. It's what they do.
> The government surely only employs easily duped idiots - even in
> signi
Re: (Score:2)
People are often gullible. Especially when they have led each other to believe that they are not.
For example, the guy described in the article has led /. to believe that he has managed independently to fool a heap of significant people in some way.
And, no, resting on your laurels is precisely the worst thing to do in such an environment. You are arguing that senior surgeons get lazy and start killing patients.
The fact that you tolerate and even support the government (any government) in its "security" operations is proof that you are also gullible.
Wait, what? I implied that the government employs a lot of damn smart people in security. I didn't say I tolerated or supported anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be gullible as hell then because I support the US intelligence services. Why? Because as crazy as it sounds, there really are people scheming to take advantage of us. Someone has to stand on the wall, as fucked up as that is. That's what lets us float around acting ignorant, someone out there is doing things on our behalf, sometimes terrible things.
I just watch like a bystander because the idea that my acceptance makes it legit, is well, ridiculous. I have no say in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
'US intelligence' aren't the ones 'standing on the wall'. They have 18 year olds who couldn't find any other form of employment for that, seeing as it involves actual dieing and whatnot.
Likely, those in 'intelligence' are out meddling in the affairs of other sovereignties, and are presently laying the foundation for our next wall of names dedicated to a pointless 'war'.
It is one thing to 'support the troops' - as in the guys who couldn't get a better job and whose lives are the first ones laid down when it
I take anything from the haxs0r types with salt (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when I used to work for the central network operations group on campus, we had a couple of guys on our newly formed security team (this was like 2000, network security was still something we were coming to terms with) who loved to go to all the conferences like Blackhat. Well any time they came back it was with stories of doom and gloom. They talk about the presentations by these people who could do these truly amazing hacks. When this was investigated further, said people turned out to be full of shit.
The one I remember best was a "security company" who talked about their amazing exploit tool for Windows. They could break in to any Windows domain just with a click. It was all they used anymore when clients needed access to something and had forgot the password. They couldn't release it because MS would sue them, etc, etc. I questioned them more about this and got some sketchy details relating to NT4 and so on. I then went and asked the guy who headed up operations (one of the smartest people I've ever known) if he'd heard about this. He said "Oh ya, it is this old NT4 exploit that only works in certain situation. I've got the tool right here." the security guys were just floored because, indeed it was what had been talked about and it wasn't nearly so cool (more or less you had to have an NT4 domain and not have fixed a problem with it, wouldn't work in our 2k domain).
As a more publicly known example, take Joanna Rutkowska who claimed to have invented amazing undetectable malware using virtualization. Slashdot and so on were all a tizzy about it, and people who are actually VM professionals like VMWare said "No, this won't work like you think it will and could be detected even if you could make it work." Here we are years later and what do you know, there are not all sorts of undetectable VM based malwares running around. She vastly oversold the whole thing.
Shit like this happened all the time, near as I could tell from the stories (I didn't go to the conferences). The haxs0r types going up and crowing about how l33t they are to others and drastically overselling what they were capable of doing. So I am very skeptical. I need to see proof, and not some half-assed presentation where details are kept secret, I mean real proof.
Generally it is not forthcoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we are years later and what do you know, there are not all sorts of undetectable VM based malwares running around
Ah, but if they're undetectable then how do you know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Three reasons:
1) It won't work. As I said, see VMWare's comments. They are people who have actually built working VMs and know what they are talking about.
2) Even if it was, you'd notice the effects. Computer gets rooted, rooted computer is used to do bad shit. That would either trip our IDS's or we'd get an e-mail from people who were getting attacked by said computers (this happens plenty with normal malware).
3) It cannot be immune to offline diagnostics. Load the disk up in another computer, look at the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pose a fair argument, but if it were true at all levels then wouldn't America be a heap of rubble right now? Trivial social engineering would allow even North Korea to dismantle US security.
The whole "government are humans just like you and I" seems vacuous. Yes they are, but people in significant security positions are humans with heightened acuity and a lot of training to protect them from trivial and non-trivial vulnerabilities (including social engineering hacks). The evidence is the very continued
How to win the war.... (Score:3, Funny)
Use the hormone appeal weapon of mass population. Works really well with isolated soldiers.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Final score in today's game (Score:2, Informative)
News for Nerds, Indeed (Score:2)
The researcher who conducted the experiment will show off his findings at the upcoming Black Hat USA conference in Las Vegas, where the real woman pictured in the profiles is scheduled to introduce him for his presentation.
when you have to specify that the woman is real ...
Look outside (Score:2)
Now that you clicked the link and have a new, hot friend, that might be her in the black suburbans dropping by to say "hi"
Whole Lot of Nothing (Score:2)
If you read TFA it basically says that a bunch of people were tricked into "Friending" this person. So what? How is that, by itself any more of a security threat than simply being on Facebook etc. at all? Then there's this
The Ranger then inadvertently exposed information about his coordinates in Afghanistan to Robin with his uploaded photos from the field that contained GeoIP data from the camera.
. What does that even mean? GeoIP usually seems to translate to "an ip address" but not too many cameras even have an IP address much less embed it in a photo. Some cameras do have a gps and can embed the actual latitude and longitude in the photo but that wouldn't be GeoIP anything
Army Ranger's Fault (Score:2)
Posting secret military pictures to your Facebook page is a breach of security, even if all your "friends" on Facebook have security clearance. Facebook itself doesn't have clearance. There's no guarantee Facebook staff can't look at the pictures. There's no guarantee someone can't crack Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Insurgencies are, particularly if they have the advantage of good suppliers, hostile terrain, culturally clueless enemies, etc. pretty good at holding ground, or at least exacting a nontrivial price for every month the occupying force wishes to "control" the area.
For projecting force into new areas, though, they are nearly useless. Some might argue t
Re:the army is obselete (Score:5, Insightful)
"And we will see this pattern occur again, and again, and again, until we learn that the most effective form of military action is motivated people defending their own land against a foreign invader."
Your military illiteracy is showing. That stuff only works against "foreign invaders" who follow the post-Nuremburg laws that outlaw effective war methods against unconventional opponents. It may help, in concert with other means, tire out an opponent in a non-existential police action, but an opponent who is powerful and free of restraint can make a desolation and call it peace.
Re:the army is obselete (Score:5, Informative)
I have no idea how this is relevant, and you're probably trolling, but seriously... the 2006 Lebanon war was NOT the first time a guerrilla army turned back regular forces. Look at the Anglo-Irish war from 1918-1921 for an example, or friggin' Vietnam. Or Afghanistan... every time anyone has ever tried to invade Afghanistan (the British twice, the Soviets, Alexander the Great, even). As to the rest of your post, your UID is low enough that you should be old enough to know better. Quit being 16, it's not becoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the American Revolution, etc.
Re:the army is obselete (Score:4, Informative)
We were actually not doing too very well before regular military discipline was brought in by Von Stueben and some other European career officers who came over to help their Freemason brothers further the Enlightenment. The French naval blockade of the Chesapeake Bay and some bad weather up the York River didn't hurt either.
Re:the army is obselete (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, if it weren't for the French, Americans would be speaking English today.
Re:the army is obselete (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and for that I'm eternally grateful, in much the same way my mother once got free dental work in France because her father had fought in the war (though mainly in Belgium and the Netherlands, then into Germany) and the dentist thought it was the least he could do to repay the debt he felt he owed to America. I know its fashionable to make fun of France and whatnot, but they're not bad people, and they are America's oldest friend.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I got the joke... but it's debatable as to whether or not we really speak English ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Alexander founded several cities in Afghanistan, and Genghis Khan and Tamerlane would each like to remind you not to believe the Afghans hype about their own inconquerability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And quoting Kipling...
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There could definitely be a reorganization of forces that the country could benefit from, but as attractive as the proposition of some sort of Libertarian Socialist (aka Anarchist) society devoid of central authority is, the chances of that being able to function for any length of time before faltering itself is pretty low. Catalonia when held by FAI/CNT in the Spanish Revolution (concurrent with the Spanish Civil War) is a prime example.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian Socialist (aka Anarchist) society
Wat? Did you mean to say Republican Democratic (aka Communist)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the terms weren't right in front of you, you just couldn't see anything but your own assumptions (whic
Re:the army is obselete (Score:4, Informative)
No, Libertarian Socialism is the technical term for Anarchism. One of the founding intellectuals of the movement, Mikhail Bakunin, was an outspoken opponent of Marx in the First International, saying that Marxist Communism would lead to a "Red Bureaucracy" and was a betrayal of Socialist principles.
Basically, the idea in Libertarian Socialism is for free individuals to group themselves on direct democratic principles along lines of free association, rather than submitting to a State that is purely an exercise of force. The Libertarian party in the US was infested by Randism and combines the anti-authoritarian aspect of libertarianism with unfettered capitalistic greed. Libertarian Socialism/Anarchism requires that people act in the group interest for the common good, but getting people to do that isn't exactly easy, which is why it wouldn't work on large scale.
Modern Left-Center type of "Social Democrats" were always viewed by both Anarchists and Communists as "counter-revolutionary," but that's the model that won out in most of Europe and which the US Democratic Party tends to lean as well. It's relatively benign, but seems to scare people on the economic right and let down people on the economic and social left quite often for not going "too far enough"
Re: (Score:2)
I've usually seen "libertarian socialist" explained as a synonym for "anarchist," though I imagine many anarchists would not accept that expression. Just as an example, Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a libertarian socialist.
As with many other political terms, "libertarian" is a self-description used by lots of groups with dissimilar or even antithetical political beliefs. In general, it's some sort of reference to a desire for liberty, or for liberation from oppression -- what constitutes oppression is a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think you have to allow him some latitude to form his own opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine why you would excuse illegal behavior from humans of one longitude, and not from another longitude.
Actually, I can't imagine why you think I'm at all concerned about where these humans come from. Indeed, they don't all come from one place. It's not about WHERE they are coming from, it's about HOW they are coming here.
Are you that dense, you don't get it? Illegal is illegal for a reason. If you don't like Federal immigration law, change it.
Really. We go through a LOT of trouble to secure
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Savvy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to take issue with this. Just because you play loose with your "personal" life does not mean you play loose with your security or your privacy. Perhaps you only happen to value privacy in a more limited sphere.
Re:Savvy? (Score:4, Interesting)