Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Interpol Chief's Identity Spoofed On Facebook

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the 304-other-criminals-liked-this dept.

Crime 64

An anonymous reader writes "Ronald Noble, Interpol's Secretary General, has revealed that cybercriminals have opened two fake Facebook accounts using his name and used them to gather sensitive information. 'One of the impersonators was using this profile to obtain information on fugitives targeted during our recent Operation Infra Red,' Noble said. 'This Operation was bringing investigators from 29 member countries at the Interpol General Secretariat to exchange information on international fugitives and lead to more than 130 arrests in 32 countries.'"

cancel ×

64 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659612)

How does spoofing his identity on Facebook help? Was someone dumb enough to send confidential information regarding a criminal investigation to one of these spoof users via Facebook? Please tell me that's not the case. But the article is short on details and I can't think of any other way such a spoof would cause any kind of leak.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659662)

My thoughts exactly.

If this scam actually netted them any info then whoever provided it needs to be hung out to dry. This is ridiculous in the extreme.

Hmmm (3, Insightful)

object404 (1883774) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659814)

Y'know, one thing to come of this is that it's probably a good idea to create accounts in social media/networking sites even if you'll never use them just to "reserve" your identity and to deter impersonators a bit, kinda like reserving domain names before cybersquatters bag them. Use a separate "throwaway" email account for them.

That way, if someone creates a fake account in your name, if people see that there's more than one account which has your name, it will give them cause to suspect that one of them is fake, making them more wary against fake accounts.

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659896)

Too bad names aren't exactly the unique thing they are, not is it possible to determine what future site/media will be the next big thing, nor are all social media/networking sites free.

Re:Hmmm (2, Informative)

muzip (1220080) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659944)

You're right that having a name alone is not enough. In order to show that you are indeed yourself, you have to provide a picture, some real information about yourself, and add some real friends... A double edged sword here.

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

object404 (1883774) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660082)

Well, better than having a sole impostor owning your name, no?

Re:Hmmm (1)

iiiears (987462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660376)

pgp/gpg sig?

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33660504)

How do you verify it belongs to the right person?

Re:Hmmm (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660614)

A digital signiture on it's own is only part of the puzzle for identifying an entity (wheter that entity is an individual or an organisation). You also need a way to determine that the key used to make that signiture really belongs to the entity in question.

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33661638)

Quite possibly not. If I'm only lightly active on Facebook, and someone mentions something about it, I may not realize that they've been communicating with an impostor. If I don't use Facebook at all, and someone mentions friending me on it, I can tell them right away that that's an impostor.

Someone isn't likely to dig me up without having a mutual friend on Facebook. If they see their friend friend me, and they know I'm not on facebook, or have never seen me there before, they're more likely to figure out it's a scam.

I think limiting your presence (this is crime/intelligence stuff we're talking about here, after all...) to official channels only, and letting everyone know that is probably the safest way. Of course, human nature being what it is...

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33661296)

You do see the problem with that, right?

    There are quite likely pictures of you on the Internet somewhere. If I knew you, I could try to associate a few friends that I'm confident that you know. Continuing, those friends would seem to be enough to verify your identity.

    The "real" friends could be another matter all together. Just because you've spoofed one target, why can't you spoof an entire cadre of spoofed profiles. With enough "friends", the spoof profile may seen more legitimate than the real profile (if it exists).

    Unfortunately, there isn't a good or right solution to this. They could require emailed or faxed copies of your identification (drivers license, passport, etc). Doctoring up identity papers isn't very hard, especially where the examiner won't have physical access to the original. Have a look at my United States Passport. [freeinternetpress.com]

    Needless to say, it's not my real passport. It did start out as the real one, which I then modified carefully. Under close examination, you would notice the lamination coming up on edges. In reality, the lamination isn't perfect because I carried that all around the world in my pocket. Under practical examination, you'll realize the photo and details probably aren't mine. :)

    So where do you go from there? Credit card validation sometimes works, except for the fact that you can buy a prepaid credit card with cash, and have it issued to almost any name you'd like.

    The only real solution would be an in-person interview and verification. That isn't foolproof though.

    So, we'll have to get over it. People lie. I would assume the secretary general of Interpol really wouldn't be lurking on Slashdot, and if he did, he wouldn't do it by title. And as others have mentioned, what kind of fucking idiot would provide confidential information to a contact via Facebook? Confidential data over a service run by a 3rd party entity, where no one in the organization is required to have any sort of clearance.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670954)

There is a solution. Too bad it's something which not many would like. The solution is to absolve all anonymity on the Internet, give everyone a biometric UID at birth, and be permanently associated with it. All interactions must go through a central server which ascertains that you are the correct person. Anyone found trying to commit identity fraud will be marked as treasonous, and given an extremely heavy penalty to dissuade such fraud. Needless to say it would be the end of Anonymous, along a host of other issues. But you would remove the majority of identity spoofing.

Re:Hmmm (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660234)

it's probably a good idea to create accounts in social media/networking sites even if you'll never use them just to "reserve" your identity

That's exactly what I've done in various places. The trouble is that there are so many slight variations that will fool all but the technically savvy and critical friends and contacts. And, you're still not safe, with all the news stories about hacked accounts and leaked password lists.

Re:Hmmm (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660856)

you might not be the only one to want a particular user name and/or to have the same name as you do (and spelled the same way and/or variations). Also you're essentially trying to copyright your own name, without failing to realize that essentially there is no way to copyright your name. If I wanted to be KlaymenDK I'd just make KlaymenDK_ or Klaym3nDK or something like that. That's a very dickish move to do.

There is no way to "own" your identity. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work. It sure does make it easier if your system gets compromised though, since it's usually pretty easy to compromise just your email address, and look for what sites you have registered to, and bam. This is why I mostly use different usernames for every game account/website/etc. Again, you can't copyright or trademark an identity, so it really is truly useless. If you've put the info on the web, you essentially just gave it away to someone or something. So a quick google search shows a klaymendk at a bunch of places. who is to know whose is whose?

While my name is supposed to be unique as the spelling is essentially incorrect (ellis island translation issues), there are 3 people with the same spelling and 6 with a different spelling, all living within my state. It's also a lot easier to actually hide yourself within a group of people with a common name (anonymous coward) than it is to hide yourself when stating "this is me".

Re:Hmmm (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33661168)

I agree completely -- online name registration cannot be guaranteed unless there was something similar to the domain-registration system, which would in turn obliterate anonymity.
I'm not sure how to read your "dickish move", though: are you saying it's dickish to "hog" your desired user name (akin to a domain shark), or to create lookalikes for spoofing (akin to a domain spoofs (which, BTW, can also be hogged, see http://gogle.com [gogle.com] ?

Also, you remind me of an earlier discussion regarding online names. Actually, we're a small army of KlaymenDKs, all of us preserving each other's privacy by pretending to be the same online persona. :-) It works quite well, even without it having to be a secret (which is why I can spill the beans here) because even with this knowledge, the who-is-who mapping doesn't get any easier.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33662200)

I realized I wasn't clear when I said dickish, so I expected to have to clarify and/or was going to reply to myself, but you already did.

I meant that both are somewhat rude, both my example of a: easily impersonating someone else's username and b: someone trying to "Claim" that username even if some innocent individual comes to some conclusion that ends up with them desiring the same username.

I also agree completely with what you are saying, and I really wonder what the solution is, because I believe something that can encompass multiple identities for a single username would actually be a good one. Why not have the 37 people that want "your mother, trebek" to be their username able to do so? I guess I'm thinking of like an IPv6 for usernames, but that would probably crush anonymity too. That idea just came to me, but I don't doubt that maybe others have come up with something like that already.

For me, I just resigned to different names - so that I remember them all, but it would take a lot of digging to find all the names I represent. Not like it can't be done, and anyone who has the old data would still be able to identify me, but neither of these are great solutions by any stretch.

Re:Hmmm (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33662238)

also I have no idea why that was posted anonymous.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671316)

If this scam actually netted them any info then whoever provided it needs to be hung out to dry. This is ridiculous in the extreme.

Probably they were hoping to snag some would-be informants rather than Interpol staffers.

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659714)

Was someone dumb enough to...

The answer to that question, however you end it, is most often "Yes".

Re:I don't get it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659788)

Was someone dumb enough to...

The answer to that question, however you end it, is most often "Yes".

Was someone dumb enough to... pretend like Ebonics is anything but nigger pidgin and the province of uneducated thug-wannabe coons who can't speak fucking English? "Dialect" my big, hairy, balls a danglin ass.

Re:I don't get it (-1, Offtopic)

AlecC (512609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659824)

The whole Ebonics system was just an attempt to "work" the system. The education system provided extra money for children whose home language was not English. This was going to highly motivated, upwardly mobile children with very supportive parents, mostly from South-East Asian backgrounds, who didn't really need extra support. Meanwhile, children from the "ghetto", with little or no parental support and apparently headed to repeat the cycle of little education and a life of crime, were getting nothing. Ebonics was invented in order to try and divert some of that money to what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as a better cause.

Re:I don't get it (5, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659716)

Apparently the whole summary is shit. According to the actual statement, someone attempted to impersonate him on Facebook and attempted to get information on the operation. There's nothing to indicate that anyone was stupid enough to actually fall for it. Of course they might have been, but there's nothing that backs up TFS's implication that this actually happened.

Re:I don't get it (1)

stuckinphp (1598797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659940)

Slashdot is basically a software shop. Ship it with bugs, let the users find them later for you (you know after the damage is done.)

Re:I don't get it (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659852)

As someone working in law enforcement, you have no idea...

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659990)

(from TFA)

"Our world is increasingly connected and networked and therefore also increasingly vulnerable to disruptions caused by intrusions and cyber attacks," he said. "Cybercrime is emerging as a very concrete threat. Considering the anonymity of cyberspace, it may in fact be one of the most dangerous criminal threats ever."

I have nothing to hide, but apparently I have a lot to worry about.

If Interpol’s Secretary General actually worries about the vulnerability, then perhaps it's not such a brilliant idea to store a lot of personal information on a bunch of servers???
To me, this is the best argument for privacy at the moment: I am not so much worried that Interpol will turn evil. But I am worried that they cannot guarantee that all our personal data is safe on their servers.

Re:I don't get it (3, Interesting)

AVryhof (142320) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660054)

I wouldn't be surprised. While at drill this weekend, I learned that one of our people got activated, and her CO told her in a Facebook message.

These types of things, as well as poor computer security practices in security agencies bother me.

Re:I don't get it (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660710)

Sounds like someone didn't pay attention during their OPSEC briefing.

Context (4, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659618)

The context of the statement

In short, INTERPOL is ideally positioned to represent law enforcement interests in developing global information security standards, as well as to assist in the implementation of such standards across its membership, including by developing specific standards for the police community.

But as you all know, even with the best standards in place, security incidents can always happen.

Just recently INTERPOL’s Information Security Incident Response Team discovered two Facebook profiles attempting to assume my identity as INTERPOL’s Secretary General. One of the impersonators was using this profile to try to obtain information on fugitives targeted during our recent Operation Infra Red. This Operation was bringing investigators from 29 member countries at the INTERPOL General Secretariat to exchange information on international fugitives and lead to more than 130 arrests in 32 countries.

This is why we constantly need to share our experience. INTERPOL’s Information Security Incident Response Team is a member of the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams –– or FIRST ––, which I assume most of you know. Being a member of the FIRST enables INTERPOL to learn from the experience of other members and to share our own experiences for the benefit of others. But again, it is also a way to draw bridges between the police community and information security professionals from the private and public sectors worldwide.

Also note that the actual statement says the impersonator was trying to gather sensative data, not quite the success as implied in the summary. The whole speech is available as a pdf here [interpol.int] .

I don't know about the rest of you but one of the original reasons I grabbed a Facebook account was to prevent just that kind of thing happening - the same reason I've registered the most obvious forms of my name in as many social networking and emailing services as possible - if I hold the accounts then I possess some control over other people's ability to misrepresent themselves as me.

Re:Context (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659710)

if I hold the accounts then I possess some control over other people's ability to misrepresent themselves as me.

Oh and I forgot to add... This is especially important to control rumours about the goat incident.

cappp (sorry, I just logged out)

Re:Context (4, Funny)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659778)

Well played my anonomous adversary, well played.

Re:Context (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33667312)

anonomous

You should use FF it has a built in spell check.

Re:Context (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660214)

Here's what computerworld said: Mind the 'was discovered only recently' seems to mean that they tried and succeeded for quite some time.

"...secretary general Noble revealed that criminals had set up two accounts impersonating him on the networking site during this summer's high-profile global dragnet, 'Operation Infra-Red'.
The fraud was discovered only recently by Interpol's Security Incident Response Team..."

And a new can of worms in open. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659620)

The way the DNS system work now, If you buy the domain cocacolacoacola.com , It will get from you from the corporation cocacola. You don't see something strange in that?, a city can name of the streets "coca cola", and the corporation will not own the street. But I digress...

If social networks continue to be important, and one is more important than all others, maybe judges will look at this the same way,and will see in very bad light if you create a account for Michael Jackson or Walt Disney. And I mean a crime to just create a empty one. Even if your name is Walter M. Disney (he.. names are not unique!)

Re:And a new can of worms in open. (2, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659690)

MMMmmmmmm Cloaca-Cola!

Only an idiot .... (3, Informative)

yams (637038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659626)

... would use Facebook to provide police level information, even to someone they know. At the least, they should be using an SSL secured e-mail service, if not the Interpol website (which, I hope, is SSL secured).

Re:Only an idiot .... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659762)

What? Are the interpipes free of phishing already? Weren't when I went to bed.
(that is to say: the total intelligence in this world is constant, the population is raising. Yes, idiots still exists)

Re:Only an idiot .... (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659942)

At the least, they should be using an SSL secured e-mail service, if not the Interpol website (which, I hope, is SSL secured).

Only if you refer to S/MIME as SSL and forget to mention PGP/MIME. Otherwise your SSL secured e-mail service suggestion is useless. Email is not secured same way as website traffic.

Re:Only an idiot .... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33665656)

Remember SSL only encrypts connections. Unless you trust every server in the email path and have them all configured to use SSL to talk to each other then it is not enough to provide security.

For real security you want an end to end encryption and authentication solution and even then you shouldn't access the system from untrusted devices.

Re:Only an idiot .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33674182)

That's what I meant - I couldn't have said it better.

no, it they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659628)

Interpol are not that stupid. People involved in the case would not pass information through a Facebook account. If this claim is being made, it is because Interpol want to make a point about Facebook (probably to increase information sharing with the authorities) and are using a claim which cannot be disproven.

Also, am FuckingNickName and it seems I have failed at my mission to post an opinion in one thread so anathema to /. readers that I reduce my karma from excellent to negative. "The authorities are actually quite intelligent and know what they are doing" was going to be my reasonable (outside the /. groupthink) angle in this thread, but it appears I cannot post using mine it for another 24 hours.

Re:no, it they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659736)

I can't your post. Learn to, you retarded!

Re:no, it they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33659756)

Dragon NaturallySpeaking is sufficiently accurate that I don't even bother to check what it has transcribed any more, allowing me to rant at leisure while reading something else.

When it makes a mistake, I always have Asperger's sufferers to point it out for the benefit of everyone else.

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659832)

We Asperger's sufferers have lazy quadriplegics to make unintelligible posts.

On that note, are you Tei from above?

Re:no, it they didn't (0, Offtopic)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660388)

Use more limbs. Humans are just about getting beyond the point of using a 100-year-old keyboard design (thank you Apple for bringing this forward), but they are still getting their voices and feet idle pointlessly at a computer workstation.

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659840)

Dragon NaturallySpeaking is sufficiently accurate that I don't even bother to check what it has transcribed any more, allowing me to rant at leisure while reading something else.

When it makes a mistake, I always have Asperger's sufferers to point it out for the benefit of everyone else.

I can't tell if this is standard narcissistic behavior or just basic ass-hattery. --This being an example of a person who lives so soundly inside a personal bubble reality that it doesn't even think it is necessary to go to the trouble of communicating correctly in order to believe that its thoughts are understood by the rest of the world; after all, why put in the effort since the universe and all of its contents are already a simple extension of its own ego? Babies exist for a period where there is no division between the "I" and the rest of the universe. In sociopaths, conditions exist which prevent the natural growth period of the brain into a state of natural separation where it is recognized that there is more than just the self.

This separation is required if compassion is to emerge. Those without compassion would not bother trying to communicate clearly. Who cares, after all about anybody else? The only reason to communicate clearly is in order to manipulate those peculiar "others" out there as though they were toys.

But of course, when the universe looks on at this broken behavior and points out that the ego in question is seriously mistaken in its assumptions, the reaction is abusive.

-FL

Re:no, it they didn't (-1, Flamebait)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660280)

When I read blithering idiots like you, "Fantastic Lad", who get so worked up in the bubble of their own special philosophy with its sophomoric understanding of humanity and insistence on how things should be, I find it easier to comprehend the atrocities man is able to commit.

All the seething ideological hatred dictators and warlords have had for a particular race or class or gender is nothing but obsessive anger over a misplaced apostrophe.

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#33662190)

Worked up? No. Just observing you, pointing out patterns and asking questions.

You might ask yourself why you find that so upsetting.

And it wasn't a mis-placed apostrophe. It was garbled weirdness of a high order and the particular brand of justification you used, among several other things and general observation over time. Basically, the bubble version of your reality is vastly different from the real one which everybody else can see.

Mirror, mirror. . .

You're not even picking your own words, reflecting back at me the same phraseology and style of communication I was using, (though the bitterness is your own special addition). This is also typical of the sociopathic individual. They have no personality of their own, and so they reflect those around them out of basic instinct, typically because the unknowing observer is then able to see his or herself in the sociopath, making detection less likely.

Again, just observing some known facts about sociopaths. I'm not judging you. As I said before, you might just be a regular asshat.

-FL

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33663742)

general observation over time

Oh, you're just one of those creepy stalkers who encounters someone on the Internet with more than one opinion he doesn't like and splatters with the crudest strokes an e-psychological diagnosis to summarily dismiss opposing ideas.

Even as the broken Turing readied himself to bite the apple, you'd still be telling him that you subjected him to treatment for illness, for his own good. What was his homosexuality, friend, if not a heinous misuse of idiom?

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#33669792)

Oh, you're just one of those creepy stalkers who encounters someone on the Internet with more than one opinion he doesn't like and splatters with the crudest strokes an e-psychological diagnosis to summarily dismiss opposing ideas.

Stalker? Ha ha! Don't flatter yourself. I simply pay attention to all the many thousands of things I read and tend to have a good memory. Trust me. You are not important. I know, it's probably asking the impossible for you to recognize that. Comparing yourself to Turing. . ? Oh dear! (And for the record, I have no problem with gays. I DO have problems with sociopaths and assholes, though.)

But if you want to clean up your act, you might try saying fewer thoughtless things and take the time to ensure your grammar doesn't make you sound like a retard.

Just a thought.

-FL

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33674338)

Someone merely with a good memory remembers your address.

A stalker hangs outside your house then pounces you with, "I've been watching you!" as if your front porch were simply on his route home.

You are a stalker and a hypocrite, a stereotypical sort who preaches selflessness while providing his name twice in his missives, a proto-troll who begins with a hyper-politically correct invective asserting that good grammar is a sign of compassion and rounds off his rhetorical Happy Meal by suggesting that the other house is a "retard".

Thank you, my homeboy, and good day.

Re:no, it they didn't (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#33682708)

A stalker hangs outside your house then pounces you with, "I've been watching you!" as if your front porch were simply on his route home.

Yeah, that's actually kind of paranoid. Maybe get some sunshine and fresh air?

You are a stalker and a hypocrite, a stereotypical sort who preaches selflessness while providing his name twice in his missives, a proto-troll who begins with a hyper-politically correct invective asserting that good grammar is a sign of compassion and rounds off his rhetorical Happy Meal by suggesting that the other house is a "retard".

Calling "Asperger's" is any different? And I'm the hypocrite? At least I was being fair.

But you know what? You win. I don't have the energy to spare. So please, believe whatever you will.

Thank you, my homeboy, and good day.

Righto. Bye.

-FL

False Flag? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659636)

FTFA: He revealed this information when addressing the attendees at the first Interpol Information Security Conference in Hong Kong, and pointed out that this is why experience and information sharing between INTERPOL and the various law enforcement agencies around the world is a must.

Or maybe just that Assange guy doing his thing.

So what is the news here now? (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 3 years ago | (#33659954)

So what is the news here?

1) That someone opens a fake account in the name of someone else (I presume that happens on a regular basis anyways), or

2) That some cluless idiots (sorry for the harsh words) do exchang SENSITIVE information on Facebook? And then they suddenly wonder how this information got into wrong hands?!

Come on (3, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660374)

Everyone knows that REAL international police chiefs only communicate via messages that will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Re:Come on (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#33663602)

A web-based chat system running on an Xbox360?

evil never sleeps & it doesn't want to make a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33660398)

by the time you can cypher whois the 'bad guys', you are probably already (voting for/contributing to the murder/mayhem generation machine) almost one. or as they say in bohemia (while they're sucking DOWn stuff, & feasting on nubile virgins); "they're dying anyway, plus, they only came from monkeys, so they're hardly worth fussing over, sell them more pills".

the search continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this 'universe'); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

How it went down (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33660694)

Fake Noble: hey, i lost my phone lol, i'm soooooo dumb. do you happen to have the numbers for international fugatives 1 - 130? k thx x0x0

Current Status: (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33661554)

Bustin' some international jewel thieves, yo.

Miscreant (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 3 years ago | (#33662012)

That crazy Lupin, what will he do next?

Why? (1)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33662424)

This is more a complaint with phishing in general, but why on earth are people so gullible? Is it so hard to do a quick search on the web? Send an e-mail to the corporate address of whoever claims to be contacting you? Pick up a phone and talk to customer services? Shoot, even asking a friend for advice would be better than nothing.

In this case, we're talking about the Chief of Interpol. Someone impersonated him to try to get information on a case. A case that they discussed. At a summit. IN PERSON. Whoever might have the information would probably have a direct line of contact to him, or an indirect line through a superior. I certainly hope no one fell for this because it is so ridiculously easy to figure out proper procedure, at least in my opinion.

Poor Zenigata (2, Funny)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33666392)

I hope he catches that damn Lupin!

How on earth does having a fb account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670066)

with a certain name, make confidential information on fugitives magically gather to that place?
Or is fb the official communications tool of interpol because they couldn't afford an email server?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>