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!

Hacker Sends Out Fake Tsunami Warning On Twitter

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the false-wave dept.

Security 100

An anonymous reader writes "A Twitter account belonging to an official adviser of the Indonesian president has been broken into by a hacker who posted a warning that a tsunami was heading for Jakarta. Andi Arief is Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's disaster management adviser and a frequent user of Twitter. But when he lost control of his account, a tsunami warning was sent out to Twitter users."

cancel ×

100 comments

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

I pity the fool. (1)

JDmetro (1745882) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347726)

Who is going to get his ass kicked when the cops catch him. Indonesia has the death penalty for being a jackass doesn't it?

Re:I pity the fool. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347756)

All the slash-retards will probably scream "OH NOES HE ONLY WANTS TO LEARN AND IS BEING REPRESSED FOR HIS CURIOSITY!!!" and post the "Hacker Manifesto" repeatedly, just like they did with Reiser and Mitnick.

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Interesting)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347836)

Personally, I resent people calling people like this hackers. There is a big difference from being curious to learn something new and being an idiot. This guy is being a jerk. Hackers learn an innovate. How much brain power does it take to post on Twitter? However, there is a part of me that wants to say that people should really check their sources and not believe something they read on a social networking site.

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348022)

Hackers learn an innovate

Which is the opposite of what the public does once they get a term defined for them, so how about hackers innovate themselves a new term. Net ninjas? Everybody likes ninjas these days, not much chance of someone hearing "net ninja" and thinking "Jerks like the one who raised a false tsunami alarm."

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

beh (4759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348246)

And that helps - HOW?

I bet you - within a year of 'net ninjas' becoming an acceptable term for those 'good' hackers, the media will start using it for those that stealthily attack systems, and - say - post something on twitter. (Just so that the media will use the latest slang available).

It's an exercise in futility...

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348880)

I would not assume that "net ninjas" were benign, quite the opposite in fact.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349930)

Good point. Let's call ourselves "Fuzzy Bunnies".

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

phillips321 (955784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349252)

so how about hackers innovate themselves a new term.

You mean like something cool like Penetration Testers???

Go figure i just checked and this is already taken for something....

Re:I pity the fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34354084)

so how about hackers innovate themselves a new term

Okay. From now on, any time someone does something like this, we'll call him an "interkin3tic."

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347940)

... Reiser?

What does murder have to do with computer crime?

Re:I pity the fool. (1, Offtopic)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347974)

Don't imply he did it. Reiser was framed!

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348000)

Either you're being incredibly facetious or you're completely crazy. He eventually turned a deal where he lead the police to his wife's body [wikipedia.org] as part of the deal. The evidence up to that point was pretty damning, but I believe that being able to locate the body should remove any remaining doubt as to his guilt.

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Insightful)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348034)

What if that isn't the real Hans at all? I think that he was kidnapped by aliens and cloned on behalf of the US Government, so they could eliminate competition for on of their puppet's projects, Sun's ZFS (this was back before Oracle bought them, and as a result they got Sun as well). Who would know where a body, that may have never lived in the first place, was besides Government satellites?

The only thing that doesn't add up is why they have brainwashed you to try discredit me....

Re:I pity the fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348134)

You were educated singularity stupid!!!

-wisest human

Re:I pity the fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348156)

Who would know where a body, that may have never lived in the first place

It was born a vegetable?

Hmm... these could be a sustainable and ethical food source.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348882)

Great defence there, I think you should pass it onto his lawyers in case they haven't thought of it.

Pot calling the kettle black, Pseudonym? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349700)

"The only thing that doesn't add up is why they have brainwashed you to try discredit me...." - by Pseudonym Authority (1591027) on Friday November 26, @02:21AM (#34348034)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366 [slashdot.org] Take a read of that, & you're talking about OTHERS trying to discredit you? You tried the same on ME, and got yourself "shot down in flames", easily.

Simply because you didn't even realize that HOSTS files can be cached by the local diskcache kernel mode subsystem like any file is (and yes, you tried to 'discredit me' on 1 of 10 points in favor of HOSTS files vs. other methods (like DNS &/or AdBlock)).

You ran like a whipped dog, & rightfully so: YOU WERE WRONG!

APK

P.S.=> Learn more about how computer systems really work before you try that again... apk

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

pacinpm (631330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348828)

THEY have killed her and than forced him to point body (THEY have let him know where it is first).

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

Software Geek (1097883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348324)

Who is going to get his ass kicked when the cops catch him. Indonesia has the death penalty for being a jackass doesn't it?

I, for one, do consider this to be a capital crime.
In the United States, where free speech is considered to be an inalienable right, it is nevertheless illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
This stunt is like shouting "Fire!" in a million crowded theaters.
It seems almost inevitable that when the dust clears we will find that several innocent people took this offical government warning at face value, behaved as if there were a tsunami on the way, and died as a result.
By what moral, ethical, or legal argument would you consider the jackass who sent the false alarm not responsible for these deaths?

Re:I pity the fool. (0, Flamebait)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348368)

In the United States, where free speech is considered to be an inalienable right, it is nevertheless illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

That's because people in the United States only pretend to consider free speech an inalienable right, but want to ban everything that they find offensive (or ban speech that they were retarded enough to listen to).

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363904)

As opposed to whom, exactly? Please, do inform us of the country with greater free speech protections.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364210)

As opposed to no one. I said nothing about another country having more free speech protections. It's just that the term "free speech" doesn't make any sense if it's not absolute. It's more like "mostly free speech."

As for other countries, they're either the same or worse. Still, the situation could be better.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366378)

Absolute free speech is what you want? Are you sure about that? Have you thought through the consequences?

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366520)

Consequences? Such as idiotic people believing every lie they hear? That's really the only 'consequence' that I see, and it can be solved by people researching on their own.

That said, any 'consequences' are worth it in order to gain true free speech. It's just becoming more and more restrictive, largely due to the stupidity of humans, not the fault of free speech.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364280)

Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zeland, estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia, and even the United Kingdom. However, that's just by press freedom [wikipedia.org] which almost completely ignores the consolidation of media interests in a few hands. The real story is in fact that many other countries should be rated higher than the states.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366360)

I suggest you check your list again and this time go check the laws. Most, if not all, of those countries have laws that effect free speech against one or more of religion(s), the government, the past, food products, corporations, and many other things.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34367354)

Swings and roundabouts; the USA has laws against telling people about circumvention of technical measures; allows ostracism for supporting drugs or communism; allows restriction of speech on radio (e.g. by the FCC). Also speech may be restricted by contract.

You may answer that some of these restrictions are unconstitutional and that it is just because of the politicisation of the supreme court that they are allowed to continue, however that argument would also apply to similar restrictions in several of the countries. In real life the fact that the US legal system is so expensive puts legal redress beyond the reach of normal citizens in many cases.

After that, we end up with only the practice. The idea of restricting protesters to "free speech zones" [wikipedia.org] as is done in the USA would be illegal in many of these countries.

The idea of the USA as a haven of free speech is outdated.

Re:I pity the fool. (3, Insightful)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348754)

Oooh goody! You wouldn't believe how many politicians we could ki- oh, right. These rules would only apply to the rest of us.

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348894)

By what moral, ethical, or legal argument would you consider the jackass who sent the false alarm not responsible for these deaths?

Cue the libertardians in 3...2...

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349322)

The man should be punished, but the official should also be punished accordingly and steps taken to prevent that from happening again.

Re:I pity the fool. (2, Insightful)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34350000)

" ... official should also be punished ... "

What crime did the official commit?

Re:I pity the fool. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348862)

How do you know the hacker is Indonesian? I doubt that the US (for instance) would extradite him if it turned out to be an American kid.

Take with a grain of salt (4, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347730)

Trusting twitter? Turn on the TV or radio. Perhaps check the meteorological service's website.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (2, Insightful)

rastilin (752802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347742)

That would be a good idea if it weren't a life or death thing. If you get a message saying "Death is coming, run for your life", going indoors to check the weather channel might not be the ideal course. Do you know the joke where during a firefight, the commander screams "heads up" and the dude in the back stands up and says "Why?"?

Re:Take with a grain of salt (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347778)

But if you have access to the internet then they still should include a link in the tweet to an official government site with more info. Plus such a link would help verify that the tweet is real.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (3, Informative)

rastilin (752802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347822)

You're right, it's a matter of convenience. If it takes any longer than a few seconds, I vote for running.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (4, Insightful)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347834)

Better a live fool 100 times than a dead fool once.

You never know how long you got after a tsunami warning unless they actually state it originated far enough away, as there's a few minutes delay before the warning reaches you.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347898)

You could just, you know, look at the water. A tsunami is a very long wave, so if it is coming, the water will recede before it comes back. It doesn't happen instantly, but when you see the water receding, you better hoof it!!

If the water does not recede, then there is no tsunami or a very small one.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347976)

How much time does that actually buy you? A handful of seconds? I don't know about tsunami dynamics, but I can't imagine it being that much.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348024)

You might not be close enough to the shore to see the water.

I suppose if you see people running past you away from the shore, it's not a good idea to run to the shore to see if the water is receding ;).

Re:Take with a grain of salt (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348032)

For those people who are within sight of the beach when they are checking twitter, yes, a glance would have been an indication.

For anyone who is more than seconds away from verifying themselves, which I would assume is most people who would be affected, no, that's idiotic. The minutes it takes you to observe the water level could be the minutes you'd need to get yourself and your family out of the danger zone. -Toward- the water is not where you want to go in the event that the tsunami was about to hit.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349510)

Twitter == Internet access

Check the weather online. Relying on Twitter is stupid.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348906)

You could just, you know, look at the water. A tsunami is a very long wave, so if it is coming, the water will recede before it comes back. It doesn't happen instantly, but when you see the water receding, you better hoof it!!

If the water does not recede, then there is no tsunami or a very small one.

Yes, because that is exactly how you would behave if you thought your life was in imminent peril.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349496)

so if it is coming, the water will recede before it comes back.

Unless it doesn't do that. I understand what sort of warning, if any, you receive can depend on local conditions. For example, if your beach is in a lagoon with a very restricted outlet, you might not see any drop in water level before the tsunami hits. Also, from glancing on the web, there's at least one iceberg triggered tsunami (Greenland 1995) which didn't generate that sort of warning (though the ice calving was visible from the beach, there was a few seconds of warning).

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349708)

Just to be clear. You believe that, on receiving an substantiated Tsunami warning, I should drive half a mile to the beach, just to check whether the water has disappeared?

Re:Take with a grain of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349884)

You seem very unclear on the meaning of "substantiated".

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348538)

Better a live fool 100 times than a dead fool once.

There IS though, such a thing as being too cautious. [darwinawards.com]

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349334)

What's to stop a fake link in the tweet? Besides, people already thought this was officially coming from the government. This isn't a failure of the people in relying on an insecure communication system, it's a failure of the government for jumping on the "trendy" bandwagon without thinking through all the implications. If they'd confined such reports to radio and television, for instance, it would have been a lot harder to spoof.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34350434)

Yes but most of the people in Indonesia don't have smart phones, and would probably get it via SMS

Re:Take with a grain of salt (3, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347864)

Which is probably why you shouldn't be relying on Twitter for issues of life and death...

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348924)

Which is probably why you shouldn't be relying on Twitter for issues of life and death...

Or the internet, newspapers, radio or TV.

In the UK, the BBC weather forecasters famously got it wrong the evening of the great storm of 1987. If I couldn't trust the BBC to give a sensible forecast, where else was I going to get better information?

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349384)

Well you'd be wrong to throw out all available data just because of one poor result. Generally the Met Office do a reasonably accurate job (as accurate as possible where weather is concerned), so to ignore everything they say just because of one error is not the best approach, especially since that error enabled them to further improve their systems [wikipedia.org] to ensure better accuracy in the future:

The Met Office conducted an internal inquiry, scrutinised by two independent assessors, and a number of recommendations were made. Chiefly, observational coverage of the atmosphere over the ocean to the south and west of the UK was improved by increasing the quality and quantity of observations from ships, aircraft, buoys and satellites. Continued refinements were made to the computer models used in forecasting, and changes were made in the training of forecasters. In addition, reforms in the way the Met Office reports warnings of severe weather were implemented, leading to substantially more warnings being issued in the future. Further deployment of improved tracking devices and improvements in the computer model simulations were supported by the purchase of an additional Cray supercomputer. Warnings for the Burns' Day storm three years later were accurate and on time.

The point is, with newspapers, radio and the TV it's much harder to "hack" that distribution channel, so while the information might not always be 100% accurate, you can at least be reasonably sure the information is coming from the correct source. Even a government-backed opt-in SMS delivery system would have been a more reasonable approach than Twitter - I'm sure cost savings were in no way a factor when deciding to go with the latter, of course...

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347792)

USGS FTW
 

Sent from my PDP-11

Using the PIP command I assume.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (3, Insightful)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347882)

Trusting twitter? Turn on the TV or radio. Perhaps check the meteorological service's website.

True. The only twit that I'd trust on this subject are along the lines of "LOL @tsunami".

I would wait for an official blog post from Susilo to find out if there is indeed a tsunami, and how does he feel about it.

For safety through redundancy, Susilo could also send out a message such as "Please 'Like' my 'Oh noes tsunami coming' facebook page and check out my youtube video of me on a webcam saying that a tsunami is coming!"

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1, Funny)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347936)

check out my youtube video of me on a webcam saying that a tsunami is coming!"

I just had to add a transcript for the youtube video...

"Hey everyone, it's me, Susilo here. I just made this video to talk about a tsunami, but first I just want to say hi to all my peeps, and thanks for your supportive comments. All you haters out there tryin to step to me and hacking my Twitter can just step off my grill. But what I really wanted was to just come on this video and say that there's a tsunami coming. So yeah, that's basically it, really. That's all I really wanted to say. So I guess you know, head to safety and shit... just... stay safe, and be nice in your comments. That's all I wanted to say in this video, so until next time, Indonesia rules!, check out my facebook page, and peace out."

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348978)

I would wait for an official blog post from Susilo to find out if there is indeed a tsunami

But why would a blog post be more official or convincing than a twitter post?

Re:Take with a grain of salt (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348302)

Trusting twitter? Turn on the TV or radio. Perhaps check the meteorological service's website.

Because it's so hard to broadcast a lie on public frequencies? I'd say it's easier: I myself with cheap consumer equipment have broadcast on FM, but I've never hacked a password.

No matter if the delivery medium is Twitter or radio, the communication originated from the office of Disaster Management. That is believable enough for me, thanks.

Re:Take with a grain of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349202)

Yeah, and that multi million dollar system of warning buoys that's already been cannibalized beyond repair

And this is why I don't use twitter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347750)

Really, I don't. I barely trust any of my e-mails, too many I get are offers for things that are obviously not real, or they are simply "phishing" to try to see if they can convince me to visit their website.

Somebody once said we could get rid of the postal service by putting government services on the Internet, and I just cringed. It's bad enough worrying about fraud in the mail, but on the Internet? It's so much worse I don't even want to bother with anything truly important. You can lie to me all you want about the sport's scores, or the latest porn, but don't expect me to do real business.

Psycho-Kinetic Energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347764)

It's a shame there isn't a technology to allow computer users to independently verify the authenticity of a message broadcast to many users...

Re:Psycho-Kinetic Energy (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347906)

Catenate RSA of users public keys with RSA of private key of sender at sender end.

RSA with private key of user to see if any key matches, and RSA public key of sender at recipient end.

Asshat (3, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347772)

He didn't "lose control of his account", and a hacker didn't "take over his account."

People in responsible positions shouldn't be asshats about their passwords.

Sorry, asshat, next time don't have an easily guessable dictionary password and blame the rest of the world for your folly.

E

Re:Asshat (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347916)

Hey now. That's an insult to asshats everywhere. I think you're looking for technologically inept nutbag.

Re:Asshat (1)

AlanCramer (1132757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348158)

So...was the password "asshat"?

Re:Asshat (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348236)

No. The password was "Password"

Re:Asshat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348588)

With a capital "P".

Re:Asshat (4, Insightful)

tsj5j (1159013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348580)

It's sad that such an uninformative troll post is modded insightful.

Nowhere in the source did they confirm that his account was compromised due to a weak password.
The source speculates it to be so, but given Twitter's security record it may not be so.
Perhaps his password was recovered with forgot password, or a vulnerability found.

Furthermore, weak passwords aren't the only way passwords get compromised.
More often than not, social engineering or a brute force of his publically available information is used.
He may have fallen for a phishing attempt in which a layman is unable to differentiate, or used an infected PC.

Most importantly, either technical inexperience or weak passwords doesn't justify impersonation or calling anyone an asshat.
Slashdot must accept that people are skilled in different fields, and IT is just but one of them.
There's this foolish mentality around here that everyone must be experienced and knowledgeable in IT, when slashdotters are themselves clueless in many other fields - for example, fashion or (.

Re:Asshat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34350602)

Since you can tweet via various methods (SMS, e-mail, web, whoknowswhatelse, etc) that seems like the easiest attack vector to me. You wouldn't even need the Twitter credentials if you could get into or otherwise impersonate any one of other things.

Re:Asshat (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348984)

He didn't "lose control of his account", and a hacker didn't "take over his account."

People in responsible positions shouldn't be asshats about their passwords.

Sorry, asshat, next time don't have an easily guessable dictionary password and blame the rest of the world for your folly.

E

And how do you know that it was an easily guesable dictionary password?

PS the asshat is the one who used the account to send out ogus emergency messages.

Re:Asshat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349294)

Assholes like you justify walking into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!" then?

Re:Asshat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34350718)

The Asshat is the guy that broke into a Twitter account that was not his and sent out a fake tsunami warning!

Re:Asshat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351306)

Seriously, blame the victim? Remember that if you ever get mugged....your bad for carrying cash.

Re:Asshat (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363926)

Really? So, if someone breaks into your house and steals from you, the cops should say "Sorry, asshat, next time don't use a crappy lock with short screws in the plate, don't use glass in your windows, buy a monitored alarm and use it, and blame the rest of the world for your folly.

Hey! There's a fake tsunami coming! (4, Funny)

ignavus (213578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347786)

It is all a matter of operator precedence:

fake (tsunami warning) versus (fake tsunami) warning

Re:Hey! There's a fake tsunami coming! (4, Funny)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347848)

It is all a matter of operator precedence:

fake (tsunami warning) versus (fake tsunami) warning

"fake (tsunami warning)" is standard gramatical precedence or whatever.
"(fake tsunami) warning" would be specified "fake-tsunami warning"

Please mod me down, thanks. I can't believe I replied to this.

Re:Hey! There's a fake tsunami coming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348876)

"fake (tsunami warning)" is standard gramatical precedence or whatever. "(fake tsunami) warning" would be specified "fake-tsunami warning"

Please mod me down, thanks. I can't believe I replied to this.

Well, it would have been nice, though, since "(fake tsunami) warning" could conceivably be interpreted as "(fake (tsunami warning)) warning".

I can't believe I replied to *this*.

Re:Hey! There's a fake tsunami coming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349114)

Who died and made you the president of presidence?

Qualifies as Terrorism (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347856)

I think this qualifies as terrorism. That the account may not have been secured well does not matter. Most terrorist targets are not secured well. This has the potential to cause panic and significant loss of life.

I hope they get this person and that the sentence will fit the potential damage.

To all those that think this is only a prank: It is about as much a prank as setting a building on fire. Occasionally stupid teenagers do this and then become murderers. This is similar. I do not see any reason for leniency.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347972)

Maybe the person concerned just didn't think it through enough to make it funny? A warning of a tsunami that was six months away, or that would hit only a tiny and highly specific area, would have been funny.Well, funnier. Maybe.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349184)

Maybe the person concerned just didn't think it through enough to make it funny?

That is what prisons are for. Not to rehabilitate or punish, but to isolate people who are stupid and their action have previously, and are likely in the future, to cause injury to other people. You protect society by isolating those that are not capable of functioning within it.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

jordan_robot (1830144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349618)

Bullshit. By that reasoning we would never release prisoners.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348036)

Doesn't terrorism require political or religious motives? I don't really see any in this case. This looks like some attempt at humor.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349004)

Doesn't terrorism require political or religious motives? I don't really see any in this case. This looks like some attempt at humor.

If I plant a bomb in a pub, does it really matter whether I'm doing it for a cause or simply for the lulz?

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352864)

According to Oxford Dictionary [oxforddictionaries.com] , yes.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349858)

Doesn't terrorism require political or religious motives? I don't really see any in this case. This looks like some attempt at humor.

Terrorism is, as the name says, about creating fear. Everything else is optional.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34354794)

Terror: Something that causes intense fear. [wiktionary.org]
-ism: a principle, belief or movement. [wiktionary.org]

I think Terrorism is a belief in something that causes intense fear.

-ist: One who follows a principle or system of belief. [wiktionary.org]

I think that Terrorists are those that promote and follow a belief in things that cause fear; You know, like your local evening television news anchors.

The people that blow stuff up illegally usually fall into two categories: Psychopaths or Activists.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Indeed. Who among us is afraid of a terrorist attack? To those that choose to live in terror, please consider that you should be more afraid of dying due to a car accident or heart attack than from a terrorist attack (given that the odds are much lower for the latter).

Some say that terrorists are those that use terror to oppress others. I agree, our political system is full of Terrorist; Look at all the freedoms we no longer enjoy thanks to all of the "Remember the Terrorists" acts/laws & procedures that have been imposed upon us.

The smiling politicians and faces of the media can be just as much terrorists as those planting bombs on a buss; Their effects may not be as dramatic, but are felt more broadly and for a much longer period of time.

Diluted terror is still terror. Choose not to live in fear, and don't believe everything you hear on the "news".

No, it does not qualify as Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348040)

I think this qualifies as terrorism. That the account may not have been secured well does not matter. Most terrorist targets are not secured well. This has the potential to cause panic and significant loss of life.

Not really... Only people reaching quite far can even phantom misinformation as terrorism. Secondly, this is not even close to yelling '"bomb" in a crowded theater' type of thing. This like yelling or pulling a fire alarm in a building. People that heed this warning should simply follow their evacuation plans as if it was a real thing.

If you want to punish this "prankster" (BTW, I think this is more serious than simple prank), simply add up the inconvenience of all the people that were affected by it. Heck, it's Indonesia. A month in jail and few whacks with a cane is probably what this person deserves.

But seriously, you need to get off your terrorism high-horse. You are starting to sound like McCarthy and his Anti-Communism rants.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348366)

Malicious prank? Definitely. But terrorism? Unless you can show me some evidence that someone got injured, or worse killed, as a result of this incident, you're overreacting.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348822)

I don't think there's any legal backbone with Twitter and if you use it improperly to warn others about potential dangers without legitimate source, then you're obviously at fault here. I don't know if hacking twitter should be a crime but I think this should be a lesson to anyone trying to use Twitter like this to re-think their strategy. I'm just waiting for the kid who did this to come out and say "I did it for the lulz".

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348916)

IThis has the potential to cause panic and significant loss of life of Twitter users

There you are. I've tried to make the message at least a little bit positive.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349328)

Setting a building on fire in GTA perhaps. This was not any official government Tsunami warning system, it was Twitter.

If he wanted to be a real criminal, he could have spray painted it on a train. Now THAT's official government property - though still not a Tsunami warning system.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349330)

Quiet you! I dont want to have to submit to a full body scan before using twitter.

Re:Qualifies as Terrorism (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363970)

But, there was no coercion, no attempt to force one's ideology, political, or religious beliefs upon others through the use of fear inspired by violence or threat of violence. This was just "a prank", a very dangerous, malicious, vicious prank on the level of shouting fire in a crowded theater after baring most of the doors.

This just in, who gives a fuck it's twitter. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34347886)

This just in, who gives a fuck it's twitter.

every dont happen.. (1)

Xylona (1947772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34348170)

"a warning that a tsunami was heading for Jakarta." ??? I must be missing something very obvious because I feel like this should not be the case! I appreciate the help so much...

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34348774)

...There'd have been a stampede of 13-year-old girls all shrieking "Z0MG, tsunami!!!1", while everyone else looked on in puzzlement?

Twitter used for mission-critical alerts? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349556)

Twitter being used for anything more than "ahah I saw this hot chick who had 'pink' across the back of her shorts" is laughable.
Only a third world country would rely upon twitter as they're emergency broadcast system...
Next thing you know, their entire telco infrastructure will be based on Skype.

So? (-1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34349766)

So a bunch of idiots with attention spans the size of nat got a fake warning.

No intelligent person uses twitter, and most morons are smart enough to not use twitter.

Anyone who basis their lives on what someone says on twitter or facebook deserves the result.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34350086)

Twitter was successfully used to find an outbreak of bird flu in China, 3 months b4 the Chinese government admitted there was a problem.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?