×

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!

MoD's Error Leaks Secrets of UK Nuclear Submarine

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the captain-ramius-did-have-a-scottish-brogue dept.

The Military 248

Tasha26 writes "UK's Ministry of Defence admitted that secret information about its nuclear powered submarines was leaked on the internet by mistake. A 'technical error' (i.e. turning the background colour of certain text to black) meant that sensitive blacked-out parts of the online MoD report could be read by anyone who copy-pasted it into another document. This accidental leak reveals, among many other things, how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor meltdown in a sub, and details of measures used by the US Navy to protect its own nuclear submarines."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

248 comments

hahaha (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846278)

the age old PDF gag... when will people learn
Step 1 ) Print
Step 2 ) Black Out
Step 3 ) Scan said document (2 bit)
( did not RTFA )

Re:hahaha (3, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 3 years ago | (#35846308)

Or perhaps
Step 1 ) Remove sensitive information

Re:hahaha (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 years ago | (#35846838)

Or perhaps
Step 1 ) Remove sensitive information

Hasn't this bitten people in the past when they shared a Word document that had quick save enabled or something like that?

Re:hahaha (2)

frozentier (1542099) | about 3 years ago | (#35846852)

Or perhaps Step 1 ) Remove sensitive information

Exactly. Why the hell would you put ANYTHING sensitive like that on any computer connected to the internet?

Re:hahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846370)

BUNGLING Ministry of Defence workers have laid bare Britain’s nuclear submarine secrets to our enemies.

A classified government report into the subs’ vulnerabilities

Appeal to law.

has been published online with key parts blacked out to prevent sensitive material getting into the wrong hands.

But a massive blunder has

Appeal to authority.

s meant anyone with basic computer knowledge could reverse the censorship – and read every word of the previously “restricted” report.

It reveals how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor m

Appeal to authority.

meltdown in a sub and details the capabilities of US vessels.

The report was published on Parliament’s website after a Freedom Of Information request by anti-nuclear campaigners.

Much of the most revealing information, entire pages in some cases, wa

Ad hominem.

as blacked out to prevent the secrets from getting into the wrong hands.

But in what was described as “a schoolboy error” the

Appeal to hypocrisy.

technique used by MoD staff to censor the document was easy to reverse. The bunglers turned the text background black – making the words unreadable – but cr

Appeal to incorrectness.

rucially left them in place. That meant anyone wanting to read the censored sections just had to copy the text.

The Daily Star Sunday will not publish any information that could jeopardise

Appeal to law.

e Britain’s fleet of nuclear subs.

But we can reveal the bombshell revelations contained in the secret paragraphs include an expert opinion on exactly how

Appeal to law.

much of a structural failure could cause a deadly core meltdown.

Such a disaster could, in certain circumstances, be caused by a lone rogue sailor, expert

Ad hominem.

ts said yesterday.

The ability of the nuke fleet’s reactors to cope with another potentially catastrophic accident – which we won’t detail – is described as “unacceptable” in the re

Appeal to authority.

eport.

The censored sections also discuss ways American subs deal with on-board disasters and reveal they are twice as safe as ours in key

Appeal to authority.

areas.

A senior MoD source said: “This is hugely embarrassing. Whoever is responsible should be sacked. The Americans will be furious their procedures have b

Appeal to incorrectness.

been exposed.”

Last night computer security expert Graham Cluely said the MoD had committed a “schoolboy error”.

The senior technology consultant at web sa

Ad hominem.

afety firm Sophos said: “It’s a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of computing would know how

Appeal to authority.

w to read it. I can only assume they gave it to a junior member of staff to deal with.

“If this document is like this, who knows what else is? It’s very sloppy security.”

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer, said: “All our e

Begging the question.

enemies are trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons and materials and any information in this document would be hugely interesting to them and potential

Ad hominem.

lly catastrophic.”

The report was written in 2009 and seen by just a handful of military top brass and politicians, including the Defence Secretary Liam Fox.

Last month he pledged to change

Appeal to popularity.

the reactor design and to replace it with a more up-to-date version when any new subs are commissioned.

But the old, flawed design is still being installed in subs now being built in Cumbri

Appeal to hypocrisy.

ia.

That means the security defects exposed in the report could remain in place for another 20 years.

The MoD last night replaced the report with a correctly blacked-out version and said they were “grateful” to the Daily Star Sunday for highlighting

Appeal to law.

the blunder.

A spokesman said: “As soon as we were told about this we took steps to ensure the document was removed.

“We take nucl

Ad hominem.

lear security very seriously.”

Two weeks ago two officers were shot – one fatally – on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder.
  M

Appeal to law.

MORE 'NEWS' HERE...
Share @:Digg StumbleUpon del.icio.us Newsvine reddit
            Want to Shout? POST A COMMENT

Visit Auto Trader today for the UK's largest selection of used cars for sale.

Appeal to emotion.

Re:hahaha (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 years ago | (#35846848)

So then... we gather that either you are against emotions, law, authority, etc. or you just like to make lists.

It's not the user's fault (4, Insightful)

purplie (610402) | about 3 years ago | (#35846444)

Most users are non-technical. This is an old issue and it's not excusable that the application didn't give a warning.

Re:It's not the user's fault (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#35846466)

How would the application know? The user is just drawing a black rectangle, or changing the background colour of the text. Deleting data from a PDF is easy - it's all stored as a dictionary of objects, and it's trivial to replace an object with a different one (you can do it in a text editor, and vim will even syntax highlight the PDF markup for you) - but if you use a drawing tool instead of a redaction tool in a graphical editor then that's user error. The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information. A tool that warns a user whenever they draw a rectangle that they're not redacting data would be insanely irritating.

Re:It's not the user's fault (1)

grumbel (592662) | about 3 years ago | (#35846598)

How would the application know?

If (background == foreground) {
    printf("Thats not doing what you want\n");
}

If the user is drawing a black rectangle over stuff the app could be clever enough to clip away everything that gets overdrawn instead of storing it in the file when doing PDF export (might help performance too).

The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information

When working with sensitive information that certainly couldn't hurt, that however doesn't excuse applications doing a shitty job in support the user doing that (metadata generally hidden down in some deep submenu, thus easily exported by accident, there might not even exist functionality to securely black out text in the first place, etc.).

Re:It's not the user's fault (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35846652)

Um, this was a PDF so Adobe was involved. Adobe has shown on countless occasions that they have no idea what security is or should be. I'm surprised they didn't offer to remove the 'black' for them if they bought the 'Redact the Redactions' plugin for a mere $199.95.

Sure... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 3 years ago | (#35846968)

The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information.

Sure, because that is the way it is in the real life, right?
When you paint a black rectangle over a piece of text you are adding information to that piece of paper. When you paint it all black it is positively LOADED with information.
In fact, it has ALL THE INFORMATION EVER right there on that black page - you just need to extract it out of there.

And don't get me started on those white pages that people think of as blank. HA!
I "borrowed" a piece of paper from a classmate back in school - he didn't even know it had every book ever written, every movie ever made, every piece of music ever recorded right there on it.
Including some that never existed in our universe (or ever will).

If you'll excuse me now, I'm off to watch the fourth and fifth Star Wars trilogy on it again. Han shoots first all the time.

Re:Sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847092)

The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information.

Sure, because that is the way it is in the real life, right?

Nope, which is precisely why users need to be taught "the difference between adding information to a document and removing information" when working with computers.

Re:It's not the user's fault (3, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 years ago | (#35846478)

Most users are non-technical.

Management should ensure that those should be properly trained to do their job. Those responsible for putting stuff on web sites (or where ever) should know what they are doing. Would it be acceptable to say ''he blew up the nuclear sub because he didn't know how to manage the reactor'' ?

This is an old issue and it's not excusable that the application didn't give a warning.

The application was probably instructed to turn the background black, it was probably not instructed to make certain text unreadable.

This is a management issue but, as ever, I can see them just blaming some muppet at the bottom of the pile.

Re:It's not the user's fault (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#35846560)

The other day the administrator in my department was organising a project to electronically sign all documents. Thats how they describe it anyway. They are going to scan a bunch of written signatures and paste them in to the documents which are "signed". There will be a directory (sorry, "folder") full of signatures to choose from.

Re:It's not the user's fault (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35846662)

Does this mean anyone who wants to sign a document as, say, the administrator of your department can use his signature with a simple copy & paste? If so you should issue a memo, "signed" by the administrator, announcing the cancelation of the "electronic signature project". ;-)

Re:It's not the user's fault (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 years ago | (#35846792)

They are going to scan a bunch of written signatures and paste them in to the documents which are "signed". There will be a directory (sorry, "folder") full of signatures to choose from.

This is modded +5 funny, but it is tragically common in the medical and professional world.
A lot of doctor's offices are printing out pre-signed perscriptions on 8x11 instead of hand writing/signing on perscription pads whose paper has security features.

Re:hahaha (5, Informative)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | about 3 years ago | (#35846730)

It absolutely boggles my mind that this can still happen.

Adobe specifically have put in a redaction feature into Acrobat Pro just to do this, and it couldn't be easier to use.

You select the redaction tool and drag your mouse over the text to redact. Select as many pieces of text as you want, they're hilighted while you're doing it so you can see what you're doing.

Then, when you're done, click the Apply Redactions button and it's done.

Not only is the text on the page redacted, but any metadata (and there's often quite a bit in your average PDF) that could potentially leak important information is removed too. You now have a PDF that's safe to distribute and I'd wager that it's actually easier to do it this way than it would be to draw black rectangles over everything you want to hide.

Avoid the Tsunamis (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846304)

Unlike a 10,000 ton nuclear power plant the submarine might be able to avoid tsunamis

Re:Avoid the Tsunamis (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#35846566)

Not if they are full of leaks.

Re:Avoid the Tsunamis (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | about 3 years ago | (#35846936)

If only the Navy used fusion reactors like the US Space Command does on its plasma vehicles, they wouldn't have such risky vessels. Ooops. I was not supposed to say that on the Internet. Or that our black triangle craft are powered by them. Ooops again. (slapping self on wrist. Look what happened to Bradley Manning, you idiot!)

Re:Avoid the Tsunamis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847070)

"Ooops. I was not supposed to say that on the Internet."

The Brits weren't either.
They were supposed to 'forget' the documents in an underground train.
It's a tradition there.

People Are Stupid (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846306)

Why are the people who control dangerous things always so stupid?

Simple: The vast majority of people are stupid.

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#35846358)

I'll use Hanlon's razor on your reply and merely point out that at least half the population are of above average intelligence.

Re:People Are Stupid (2)

second_coming (2014346) | about 3 years ago | (#35846420)

I'll use Hanlon's razor on your reply and merely point out that at least half the population are of above average intelligence.

Many intelligent people have zero common sense, which is often the reason for seemingly stupid acts.

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846484)

Actually, 50% of the population is of above MEAN intelligence, and 50% of the population is below MEAN intelligence. The fact is that much, much more than half the world's population is of below average intelligence...
Intelligence is also no indicator for sense and knowledge. A highly intelligent Chinese farmer who lives on subsistence and never attended a school could never manage a nuclear submarine reactor. Consequently, a sports-scholarship ivy league graduate is much more likely to be the person who manages a nuclear submarine reactor, even though they may not necessarily be very intelligent. They have, however, been given exposure to how such things are built, maintained and repaired.

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846600)

And some of the bellow average people apparently don't understand the difference between average, mean and median.

Re:People Are Stupid (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846698)

And some of the bellow average people apparently don't understand the difference between average, mean and median.

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 3 years ago | (#35846570)

while your quite correct in theory, one must remember that if your average your still and idiot to begin with.

the "average" person isn't smart enough to understand the difference in words like redaction , deletion and blackout.

Re:People Are Stupid (1, Funny)

Jawnn (445279) | about 3 years ago | (#35846642)

while your quite correct in theory, one must remember that if your average your still and idiot to begin with.

the "average" person isn't smart enough to understand the difference in words like redaction , deletion and blackout.

Or, say..., "your" and "you're".

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35846672)

while your quite correct in theory, one must remember that if your average your still and idiot to begin with.

Please, oh please tell me all those were intentional.

Re:People Are Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846800)

the "average" person isn't smart enough to understand the difference in words like redaction , deletion and blackout.

Or "you're" and "your". Or "and" and "an". Or "in" and "between".

Yes, yes. IHBT. :-P

Re:People Are Stupid (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 years ago | (#35846864)

I'll use Hanlon's razor on your reply and merely point out that at least half the population are of above average intelligence.

"Average" is not where I draw the line between stupid and smart. If there is such a line, it would be well above the mean line.

Re:People Are Stupid (4, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 3 years ago | (#35846374)

Actually, 50% of the people have below-average intelligence (assuming a Gaussian distribution), which is a far cry from a "vast majority". It's just that here on /. the average intelligence is above that of the general population (yea, I know), so we tend to look down on all the "others".
Using background color to black-out sensitive material may seem stupid to us on /., but it is understandable that someone who doesn't know much about computers will think it is secure, esp. since the final PDF file is uneditable. The question is why someone with, obviously, minimal computer skills is given such an important task?

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846424)

Because often getting these jobs is more about who you know then what you know.

Re:People Are Stupid (2)

alendit (1454311) | about 3 years ago | (#35846436)

Above average != not stupid.

And GP has answered your question - because there are not enough non-stupid people for every important task. So you have to go with people like me...

Re:People Are Stupid (4, Interesting)

u38cg (607297) | about 3 years ago | (#35846524)

Since there is no one way to measure intelligence, it's not really possible to say whether intelligence distribution is Gaussian (or anything else). IQ scores, however, are co-erced to a Gaussian distribution, one of the things that has always made me deeply suspicious of them. It is very clear that the natural distribution is *much* fatter tailed to the right than the Gaussian.

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 3 years ago | (#35846640)

Technically, it is obvious that the the "real" distribution of IQ scores in not Gaussian, if only because in a Gaussian distribution both tails should continue on to infinity, which is untrue for IQ scores (in both directions).

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846780)

The question is why someone with, obviously, minimal computer skills is given such an important task?

Because their formal CS degree allowed them to out an "uneducated" hacker from the position.

Re:People Are Stupid (1)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | about 3 years ago | (#35846828)

t here on /. the average intelligence is above that of the general population

Let's say this is what people here like to fancy. Now is it the truth? Not at all obvious to me.

People Make Mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846862)

Sometimes people just make honest mistakes, no one is perfect. Any one of you have made errors in judgement, which is how you learn not to make them. Granted this one in particular seems to be a rather stupid mistake, but it's a mistake none-the-less. I think people should be more shocked that we're using Fukushima-like reactors in a majority of nuclear submarines instead! And, there are almost a thousand submarines, if not more, in the ocean at the moment.

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847022)

Actually, 50% of the people have below-average intelligence [...] It's just that here on /. the average intelligence is above that of the general population [...] The question is why someone with, obviously, minimal computer skills is given such an important task?

You mean like the way that the text color isn't set on slashdots form fields (so if you have a dark theme, you're typing white on white)? Obviously I can add a rule to userContent.css but I like constant reminders of how careless / clueless people are -- nobody is so free from mistakes or oversights that they can skip checking and testing their work.

Re:People Are Stupid (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35846684)

Why are the people who control dangerous things always so stupid?

Simple: The vast majority of people are stupid.

Let's not forget that the vast majority of people who control dangerous things assume the vast majority of people are stupid so they don't do enough to protect things from the people who aren't as dumb as they should be.

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846700)

In America, Homer Simpson runs nuclear power plant

What is the British equivalence of Homer Simpson in the UK?

Re:People Are Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846812)

Or rather: everybody makes stupid mistakes.

Like that guy said a long time ago: errare humanum est.

Fukushima-style? (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 3 years ago | (#35846310)

"This accidental leak reveals, among many other things, how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor meltdown in a sub"

Is that it, now? Is every single thing to do with nuclear reactors going to be compared to Fukushima from now on? What about if terrorists wanted to create a Chernobyl-style meltdown, or how about a three-mile-island-style meltdown?
No really, it's fine, I don't mind throwing random keywords in there to grab extra attention when it's completely unnecessary.

Re:Fukushima-style? (5, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 3 years ago | (#35846346)

Fukushima is the Library of Congress of nuclear meltdowns. Just as 9/11 is the LoC of terror attacks. People love relative terms; nobody understands a 10^9 becquerel of radiation.

Re:Fukushima-style? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846494)

Is that it, now? Is every single thing to do with nuclear reactors going to be compared to Fukushima from now on?

And this is bad how exactly ?

Re:Fukushima-style? (5, Funny)

Kronotross (1671418) | about 3 years ago | (#35846624)

Obviously they meant that it reveals how easy it would be to hit the submarine with a tidal wave after it experiences a ~9.0 earthquake, thus disconnecting its power from the energy grid it relies on to cool its core.

Re:Fukushima-style? (5, Insightful)

TheSync (5291) | about 3 years ago | (#35846628)

Fukushima meltdown means your backup cooling method goes out after a scram (and tsunami), and you are basically screwed. This requires a failure of imagination about worst possible scenarios combined with a bad plant location.

Chernobyl explosion is a criticality accident. This requires a really high level of ignorant stupidity or purposeful attack.

Three Mile Island meltdown is that you don't realize a valve is open and your core water boils away. This requires a level of stupidity in human/machine interaction.

Re:Fukushima-style? (1)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | about 3 years ago | (#35846866)

You don't understand, now there are two levels on the seriousness scale for nuclear accidents: Chernobyl = the worst (obviously, since it was stinking commies who did it), Fukushima =much less serious [wordpress.com], to the point of being almost laughable, since it's "only 10%" of Chernobyl (up to now, but let's not get picky here) and done by Japanese that you hardly can look at with a scorn from a technology point of view.

Re:Fukushima-style? (2)

JamesP (688957) | about 3 years ago | (#35846938)

Not to mention that, the average nuclear submarine has between 0.01 to 0.001 the amount of fuel than one reactor at Fukushima (maybe less)

And a (slightly) different technology

Next thing we'll know they're calling a RTG "this is flying Fukushima "

Re:Fukushima-style? (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#35847026)

Is that it, now? Is every single thing to do with nuclear reactors going to be compared to Fukushima from now on?

Yes, because the official scale is based on the worst nuclear disaster to date, and that was Chernobyl but is now Fukushima supposedly. So now we're going to rank nuclear disasters in fractions of Fukushima until we have an even bigger disaster.

0_o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846320)

This... must be a joke or something... This can't be real...

Where's the doc? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846326)

Fuck UK national security. Where's the leak? It actually sounds worth reading.

Junior Member? (4, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 3 years ago | (#35846330)

From the article:

The senior technology consultant at web safety firm Sophos said: “It’s a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of computing would know how to read it. I can only assume they gave it to a junior member of staff to deal with.

On the contrary, a junior member probably would have had some computer know-how. They probably gave it to some old-timer who knows nothing about computers (apologies to all /. {1,2,3} UIDs; I am talking about mere mortals, and I will be sure to get off your lawn) and he just thought that if he changes the background, the words will remain blacked-out forever.

Oh, and BTW, what's with the last sentence?

Two weeks ago two officers were shot – one fatally – on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder.

I don't see how it is related to the article, except in regards of it talking about one of Britain's submarines. Talk about tangentiality.

Re:Junior Member? (2)

agw (6387) | about 3 years ago | (#35846414)

From the article:

Two weeks ago two officers were shot – one fatally – on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder.

I don't see how it is related to the article, except in regards of it talking about one of Britain's submarines. Talk about tangentiality.

Guy in suicide mode shooting his fellow soldiers in walking distance to a nuclear reactor IS worth mentioning.
It also reminds me of Hunt for Red October, which was a cool movie.

Re:Junior Member? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846586)

According to the guardian newspaper the shooting was caused by an argument over toilet usage.
Therefore in order to avoid nuclear catastrophe all subs should be fitted with more toilets post haste.

Re:Junior Member? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846806)

I don't see how it is related to the article, except in regards of it talking about one of Britain's submarines. Talk about tangentiality.

From the article:

Blame it on UK libel laws. The writer of TFA wished to make the point that there ARE rogue sailors without asserting that a specific sailor who recently shot two officers was such a rogue. "Such a disaster could, in certain circumstances, be caused by a lone rogue sailor, experts said yesterday." .... Now insert a bunch more text ... "Two weeks ago two officers were shot - one fatally - on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder." And voila, that pesky little libel problem is solved.

Daily Star? (4, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about 3 years ago | (#35846342)

On another note, why in the name of fuck is Slashdot posting anything from the Daily Star? The newspaper is most famous for its page-3 topless girls and their sheer determination to use words with as few syllables as possible.

Have a look at the website, the topics along the top, they've got an entire section dedicated to "Babes" and what's more the bottom of the article has the words "More 'News' Here". That's right, not even the website itself genuinely believes that it has real news there, instead opting to put the term in quotes.

Seriously...the daily star? Is this what slashdot has come to?

Re:Daily Star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846380)

Seconded.... WTF indeed

Re:Daily Star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846442)

I was not interested in the story until you mentioned Topless Girls ;-) I have now checked this submarines story and much like it.

Re:Daily Star? (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 3 years ago | (#35846496)

The newspaper is most famous for its page-3 topless girls

Which is something that Slashdot could use more of! Forget, "OMG! Ponies!" How about next April 1st, we see a page-3 topless girls Slashdot site. Sure should be more interesting than all of those other April 1st articles . . .

Re:Daily Star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846830)

How about next April 1st, we see a page-3 topless girls Slashdot site.

Dood, you're on the internet.
Here, lmgtfy [lmgtfy.com].
There are enough topless sites out there to fill the library of congress - no need to put them on slashdot.

Or /. could drop this April 1st BS altogether. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846918)

It long ago stopped being funny or amusing. No I just avoid reading it on April 1st.

Re:Daily Star? (3, Informative)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 years ago | (#35846506)

On another note, why in the name of fuck is Slashdot posting anything from the Daily Star? The newspaper is most famous for its page-3 topless girls and their sheer determination to use words with as few syllables as possible.

So what if they have pictures of totty in their pages, that is not what is being linked to. The Daily Star do not seem to have made the story up, the write up seems as good as you get anywhere else. It appears that the Daily Star alterted the MOD about their stupidity so they are the origin of the story & deserve credit for that.

If you are such an intellectual snob that you won't read the Daily Star, here is the story on the BBC [bbc.co.uk].

Re:Daily Star? (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 3 years ago | (#35846892)

It appears that the Daily Star alterted the MOD about their stupidity

So even the Daily Star is smarter than the Ministry of Defense now?

We are so screwed.

Re:Daily Star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846528)

Sorryzz... i know what you mean. In my defence, the same BBC News article pointed to Daily Star and comparing the two, there was more meat in Daily Star. You can check.

Re:Daily Star? (2)

Mark Hood (1630) | about 3 years ago | (#35846552)

Probably because they're the ones who broke the story - it's been picked up by slightly more high-brow outlets too, but it's a tradition that you link to the source of a story. Even the BBC point to them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13107413 [bbc.co.uk]

Unless you have a blog to pimp, and need the ad revenue... then you post your link on the front page and wait for the Slashdot effect to make you rich ;)

Tabloids on slashdot? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846356)

Surprised at the amount of articles that are appearing here that come from newspapers that in the UK have a record of poor journalism. Wouldn't have took long to get an article from a more respected source.

Wikileaks to blame! (2)

toetagger (642315) | about 3 years ago | (#35846372)

Obviously, this is all the fault of wikileaks & Julian Assange! It was his actions that awoke the appetite of the general public to consume dangerous information that they are not allowed to have. Even the safeguards put in place by the government to protect its people from such dangerous information, the Freedom of Information Act, is now no longer effective. We need to pass new legislation quickly to correct this issue at once!

Therefore, I submit the following legislation for review:
1) Make using Copy/Paste illegal
2) Remove the color black from all computer monitors
3) Imprison anyone with a daily subscription to The Sun, as they have been exposed to this dangerous information and need to be contained.

With these 3 simple steps, we can insure the security of our nuclear submarines, and therefore our people, for the next 100 years!

Re:Wikileaks to blame! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846564)

Hello,

1) Make using Copy/Paste illegal

here in Germany this will not happen, because our (former) defense minister needs this feature: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12504347

More likely they will censor search engine results.

Best Regards,
Jörg

the actual news (4, Informative)

johnjones (14274) | about 3 years ago | (#35846386)

DO NOT look at the Star newspaper it's like looking at the national inquirer....

the people who broke the news where UK channel 4

see this link for the story

http://www.channel4.com/news/britains-nuclear-subs-potentially-vulnerable-to-accidents [channel4.com]

the document seems flattened but is here
http://robedwards.typepad.com/files/declassified-report-to-mod-defence-board.pdf/a [typepad.com]

anyone actually able to copy and paste from it ?

why does the MOD use microsoft word for these type of things is beyond me...

regards

John Jones

p.s. do you think china et. al. have the same problems...

Re:the actual news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846498)

why does the MOD use microsoft word for these type of things is beyond me...

Because: a) they are huge fans of MS (MOSS everywhere, for example);
b) getting approval to get Acrobat writer and/or decent redaction software is more trouble than it's worth (see first point)

Re:the actual news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846546)

You are confusing the March "UK channel 4" story with a recent Freedom of Information request on nuclear sub. It's after the request that MoD published the supposedly blacked-out article but it wasn't, as per the Daily Star story.

Re:the actual news (1)

Mark Hood (1630) | about 3 years ago | (#35846574)

Actually the channel 4 item doesn't mention botched redactions - they're talking about the parts of the document you can read.

They even say:
"UK submarines compare poorly with these benchmarks, with the ability to tolerate only a structural failure equivalent to a..." Unfortunately the rest of the sentence, along with most of the following two pages, are blacked out in the released document.

So it was the Daily Star who tried the old trick of copy-paste and got lucky.

Re:the actual news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846590)

forget that wheres the link to page 3?

Excerpt from Reactor Guide (1)

mcnster (2043720) | about 3 years ago | (#35846422)

This reactor is equipped with bi-aperture loading facilities--fuel rods can be inserted in either aperture, or as we say in Her Majesty's Navy, "There is NO wrong hole." (with apologies to the late George Carlin)

Oh Great! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 3 years ago | (#35846448)

Now everyone's going to have one! Oh well, nothing for it but to start building a nuclear sub in my basement. I'm glad I kept all those old coffee cans around...

royals, weapon peedlers, eugenetics, no taxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846492)

to help offset the rising costs associated with doing extended unpopular depopulations, exterminations & religious conversions, in proven to be unfriendly (they don't roll over when a minion whips out a bible). areas. the mormons are haveing themselves cloned to help. dying/starving for them is the least the the rest of us unchosen can do. more unproven improper taxes have never not been paid again for any reason that can be made up.

tony blair, g. bush(es), rebranded as mormons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846516)

the thinking is that with the southern baptist chosen holycosters being thought of as so 'western', that it would be good to change us into a history that begins in the west, with a 'new' improved 'creation', less than 200 years ago. takes away a lot of distractingly poor behaviors we did by mistake, before, we ourselves were chosen. some of these quirky 'new' religions, although just as incestuous by design, do away with 1000's of years of unproven history, & few have more than a few million members, so attaining the glorious .5billion remaining manageable pop. is becoming easier than ever dreamed in the profitseize.

99.999% of worid pop. forced into mormonity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846606)

not alarming (unless you are one of the unchosen), or even a really big crowd, as the opposing population is to be tithed out to god, prior to the commencement of the official coronations, adulations & propagations of our new earthbound deities. praise be. praise me? sounds weird,,, again

Better BBC link (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846520)

The Daily Star doesn't cost very much in the UK because they don't need to pay for clothes for some of the models.

Here's the BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13107413.

Apparently something to do with blacking out parts of a report but the text still being there when you paste it into another document.

WYSWYG mindset strikes again (3, Insightful)

introcept (1381101) | about 3 years ago | (#35846630)

The problem is using programs that advertise themselves as WYSWYG editors when in fact they're not.

Now it's unreasonable to expect the every computer-literate but non-expert user to understand the data format, encoding and specific behaviour of every document editor. The blame here rests solely on the management that should have trained users how to manipulate sensitive documents using approved tools.

RTFD (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35846644)

Have you actually LOOKED at the document?

Its original classification was "RESTRICTED - UK EYES ONLY" which is basically a rather quaint old fashioned form of "UK RESTRICTED".

RESTRICTED is the lowest level that requires any special handling to speak of. We would tend to assume that foreign intelligence agencies already have everything that is RESTRICTED.

CONFIDENTIAL is the lowest level at which any serious effort is taken to prevent FISs getting hold of the information, and then exponentially more protective measures are taken as one moves through SECRET and TOP SECRET.

So whilst embarrassing, it doesn't contain anything that any halfway competent FIS would not have already been aware.

Move on, nothing to see here....

Importance of sub warefare against Taliban (2, Funny)

edxwelch (600979) | about 3 years ago | (#35847012)

I think these nuclear subs are well worth the expense. How else will Britain deal with Taliban aircraft carriers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...