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!

FBI Building App To Scrape Social Media

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the they-know-you-read-everything-you-can-about-bieber dept.

Facebook 133

Trailrunner7 writes "The FBI is in the early stages of developing an application that would monitor sites such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as various news feeds, in order to find information on emerging threats and new events happening at the moment. The tool would give specialists the ability to pull the data into a dashboard that also would include classified information coming in at the same time. One of the key capabilities of the new application, for which the FBI has sent out a solicitation, would be to 'provide an automated search and scrape capability for social networking sites and open source news sites for breaking events, crisis and threats that meet the search parameters/keywords defined by FBI/SIOC.'"

cancel ×

133 comments

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

FP FOR JESUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844133)

Jesus gets a frosty

He wants you to spread the good word

Re:FP FOR JESUS (-1, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844207)

Jesus gets a frosty

I'm an athiest.

Re:FP FOR JESUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844471)

Well, it's good for your immortal that you aren't an atheist. Because that would be bad.

Re:FP FOR JESUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844569)

I accidentally my immortal.

Re:FP FOR JESUS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845751)

His post was relevant because of his name. Joke, not troll.

Fucking asshole mods. I would agree with the mod if he didn't have Frosty in his name.

Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844141)

And this is different than Google's search engine how?

Re:Really? (1)

MikeyC01 (231948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844215)

If you believe the whack jobs out there, Google is run by the NSA so you would think they would just share what they have :)

Re:Really? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844417)

I thought Google is ran by the LiBeRaL mEdIa!!!

Re:Really? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844611)

I know right, all they hire are elite intellectuals.

Re:Really? (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845647)

I thought Google was ticked off that they couldn't get this, thus Google+.

As for govt monitoring and especially doing it by subcontracting to defense contractors, I have a long list of govt agencies and defense contractors that have spidered my little site through the years, and I mean a long list.

They might be tweaking to better assimilate random social site comments but they've been mining the web for years.

Re:Really? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844497)

In that results returned by Google are at Google's discretion. Should Google change their policy or cease to exist, or be brought down by a foreign cyber attack, FBI probably would like to keep operating.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844143)

#1

So. It begins. (5, Insightful)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844147)

You can already assume that your 'public' posts are being seen by people you wouldn't want to see it, but now you know that it is automatic. Depending on data sharing agreements these companies come up with with the FBI, they might even get access to private information.

Hopefully, the latter isn't an issue and they're just scraping public information, but even then, any hopes of not being carefully monitored are dashed. Assume that everything public (and most things private) will be read by people other than the intended recipients. Privacy? What privacy?

Re:So. It begins. (4, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844335)

So what?

Yes, I sound cavalier, but I see so many people on /. blithely affirming that people should just know that what they put on the internet stays there forever, and should just know that their SSID is being broadcast and it's a good thing that it can be tracked and stored, and should be fine with people capturing anything whatsoever that's done outside the house, or in the house with the curtains open...

So I can't see that anyone on Slashdot has anything to complain about here. Or is it different because it's not Google doing it?

Re:So. It begins. (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844565)

Google doesn't have the power to arrest me and send me to Gitmo without trial (NDAA). That's why I hate corporations but don't fear them. I only fear the government.

As for permanence, I can find my posts going all the way back to 1988. Who knew in 1988 that posts would be archived forever??? Anyway I don't use my real name anymore, and try to rotate my fake name every 1-2 years.

For the FBI:
terrorist
Ron Paul
militia
Constitution
gun
Liberty
airplane
MIAC REPORT
Yeah that sound catch their attention. ;-)

Re:So. It begins. (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844623)

Everyone flood their social media with "trigger" words and overload the system.

Re:So. It begins. (3, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844767)

List of supposed trigger words as of @ 2005

http://www.rense.com/general66/scgh.htm [rense.com]

Re:So. It begins. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844923)

6-28-5

Is tthis June 28, 2005 or May 28, 2006? Or perhaps even June 5, 1928? ;-) I wonder where that list came from? For all I know it was an invention of some Tim McVey-type character. A work of fiction.

Re:So. It begins. (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844965)

It most probably is a copy of the list that used to be on attrition.org , was unable to find attrition's original list, didn't look all that hard though.

Re:So. It begins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845255)

Google doesn't have the power to arrest me and send me to Gitmo without trial (NDAA).

I've always wondered why that is. Given your penchant for hating on the government at every opportunity, it obviously cannot be because said government keeps them from doing so.. ;)

Privacy? (5, Interesting)

liquidhokie (2044274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844337)

Who thinks Facebook is private? The whole point is to *not* be private, right? Otherwise... what is the point of Facebook?

If the FBI was going to start monitoring encrypted email, VPNs, and other things where you are *trying* to be private, I would be concerned (yes, I know-- whole 'nuther can o' worms). But Facebook? You are giving the info away as a user, that is the purpose of having a Facebook account.

Re:Privacy? (3, Funny)

webheaded (997188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844729)

I'm not giving away all my information on Facebook to the public. I keep things contained to people I actually know for a reason. Of course even then, I barely post much of anything because there are too many people on there. The fact of the matter though is that I didn't add the FBI to my friends list so they'd damn well better not be viewing my private information. It's not for them to have. I've specifically taken the steps MULTIPLE TIMES (thanks for constantly changing that Facebook, you assholes) to keep the information private. There's nothing particularly sensitive there but that really isn't the point. I said it was private and it had damn well better stay that way. I don't give a shit if it's out on the internet...it was understood that any random person should not be able to see my information when I marked all my profile fields and posts as FRIENDS ONLY.

Re:Privacy? (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845707)

I'm not giving away all my information on Facebook to the public. I keep things contained to people I actually know for a reason. Of course even then, I barely post much of anything because there are too many people on there. The fact of the matter though is that I didn't add the FBI to my friends list so they'd damn well better not be viewing my private information. It's not for them to have. I've specifically taken the steps MULTIPLE TIMES (thanks for constantly changing that Facebook, you assholes) to keep the information private.

The problem is, you posted the information. An old adage from the early days goes "never put online what you don't want the world to know".

You fell for the "privacy" settings. There is no such thing, because honestly everyone else can get easy access to that information.

Think about it - who benefits from people posting information on their website? Facebook/Google/etc. all benefit because it's useful for mining and marketing. How do you get the public to post their whole lives online? You implement "privacy" settings, giving them privacy theatre - because once it's online, it can't be taken off.

Hell, I'm sure Facebook, Google, etc. would hand over lots of information if the FBI posed as advertisers and bought a few ads.

And as long as someone else can see it, they can post it. Expecting Facebook to keep stuff private from reposts/retweets is just as good as emails that can only be read by one person.

There is only one "privacy" setting. And it's "everything you post is public". If you mark your post as "Only Me" - why bother putting it online? If it's "Only friends" then you're counting on them to not broadcast it to THEIR friends and so on (i.e., it's public).

Re:Privacy? (2)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844947)

I'm saying: don't assume it stops at 'public' stuff. That's stuff you could already assume would be consumed by people outside of your obscure circle.

After the whole NSA AT&T traffic sniffing stuff, I assume that anything that goes over the wire that isn't encrypted (and even some that is) can be seen by the government.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845209)

"Anything that isn't encrypted is mine, anything I can decrepit isn't encrypted"
-The FBI

Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (4, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844149)

I recently inactivated my account, but I know they still have all of that data. I looked, but found no obvious place to request that your data be deleted. Anyone have any first hand experience with getting them to actually erase your data?

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (3, Interesting)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844237)

If you are referring to Facebook, I don't think there is a damn thing you can do to get them to erase or not retain that data. I never started a Facebook account which would be the best advice I could give.

Wiki-leaks releases tons of information on the government and banks and they get punished for it, Mark Zuckerberg does the same thing to people and he gets praised.

On another note, my spell-check that Firefox uses wants to change "Zuckerberg" to "Rubbernecker". Interesting...

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844581)

Wiki-leaks releases tons of information on the government and banks and they get punished for it, Mark Zuckerberg does the same thing to people and he gets praised.

REALLY? You're comparing a group that publishes illegally obtained secret documents that discuss high level sensitive international operations with a group that has information that people willingly give to them, signing an agreement that explicitly allows this, and that information consisting most of the time of innocuous Farmville status updates.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (2)

M4n (1472737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844287)

You can with this www.zdnet.com/photos/how-to-delete-every-facebook-wall-post-wipe-your-timeline/6335458

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844361)

Even when you delete it, Facebook keeps it for their own nefarious uses, I mean demographic research.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (4, Informative)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844301)

It isn't your data. It is their data about you. Read the TOS you agreed to when you made the account.

Scream about it all you want, but you accepted the terms.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844661)

Well, you know, not everyone lives in the States where you can put any kind of garbage on paper. In other countries the data still remains under your control as this is a very basic and fundamental *right* and if you want to be removed, companies need to comply no matter what is written in a contract.

Now, you may start saying that this is a US company after all. Then again, since US arrogates itself the right to enforce US laws in other countries, I hope EU will have enough balls to do the same and black-out Facebook until they start complying with EU privacy laws . It's not that Facebook will be happy to loose such a huge number of users.

As a side note, and back on topic, I'd like to point out that the main problem is not the FBI snooping around. The real problem is that, in the long term, they will start pretending to be able to model social behavior; following a very long and prolific populist tradition of treating correlation as if it was causation. Then, after a period brain-washing the sheeple, they may simply start using such models to go after the populace.

What do you expect from a country that actively uses Polygraphs?

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844925)

Polygraphs are not admissable in court. If you get arrested you can refuse the test outright and you have nothing to lose since just passing a polygraph won't prove your innocence. People who willing post their life stories on the internet should not complain when that information is seen by others.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845331)

It doesn't change a single thing if it's not admissible in court. Just the fact that it's regularly by police, and in general to do screenings, tells me a lot about the common culture and what to which extent the Sheeple is prepared to be abused.

Then again, you don't even have to look at polygraphs, there are plenty of other abuses TSA, Habeas Corpus, DMCA and the list goes on and on and on. Funny it's still considered the land of the free by a lot of regular people. It's like everyone has been hypnotized for more that half a century. Oh wait...

And just to be picky: posting life stories in a walled garden it's not the same as generically posting something public on the Internet. Besides, there is this other fundamental right called right to oblivion that for all practical purposes can be enforced without many problems (barred things posted to distributed system without central authorities like usenet, p2p, freenet et al, which are clearly very different from Facebook).

It is as simple as that: we are in 2012, not in the Wild West where you can do what you want.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844753)

I don't recall screaming about it, or even complaining about it. I just asked a question. I'm well aware that I willingly gave them the info, I never even mentioned that aspect of it...

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

mythandros (973986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844765)

Unless you live in the EU where companies are subject to sane data privacy laws.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845095)

You can request your info deleted here in the states too. I just did it. No thanks to the people who responded by saying "read the EULA and STFU". Those are probably the same people that think a corporation is a person.

Douglas Adams had it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844813)

Sure, we COULD all take an hour to read and digest and understand every word of every user agreement of every web site we experiment with.

Just like mankind COULD have chosen to avoid the Dark Ages, and be 1000 years more technologically advanced. We should have been on Alpha Centauri by now. As Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council correctly stated, and he could have been speaking about EULAs, endless laws, or any other triumph of beauracracy:

"There’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now."

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844983)

By the way, I did a little research, and you can request your info be deleted.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845431)

A few points:

First, I realize my post seemed targeted toward you specifically. It is a general rant, no offense intended.

Second, requesting your info be deleted != your info actually being deleted.

The overall point is that is ridiculous for people to believe the crap they put on social media can simply be deleted. It is like shouting your personal details to a room full of people and then asking them to forget what they just heard. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

Even worse, there is no good way to keep all of your personal information from being broadcast. Even if you don't post anything on some social media site it doesn't mean your friends will not post something about you.

I am not defending Facebook in any way. The point is "privacy" is different today than it was yesterday, and it will be something else tomorrow. I don't like it, but pretending it is a containable problem won't make it better.

Re:Can you get Facebook to delete your info? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845183)

google???

http://www.facebook.com/help/search/?q=how+do+i+delete+my+account [facebook.com]

If you do not think you will use Facebook again and would like your account deleted, keep in mind that you will not be able to reactivate your account or retrieve any of the content or information you have added. If you would like your account permanently deleted with no option for recovery, log in to your account and then submit your request here.

Whether they truly delete it or not is beyond me, but it's not the same as deactivation.

They might look at Splunk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844157)

I know for a number of things, using the application Splunk has been great for monitoring various types of security and administrative logs... perhaps it can be adapted to look at social media sites in real time?

I have seen people use Splunk to try to correlate intrusion attempts with various things, be it weather, or even sports scores. It is a very useful tool.

Downside is cost... They generally license by the amount of data entered per 24 hour period, but the licenses can be negotiated.

Made For TV? (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844165)

Believe me, I understand why we should all be nervous about projects like this being carried out by the Three Letter folks.

But thinking about another aspect, this sort of thing is always outsourced to some defense contractor who in turn lakes way too long to soak the taxpayer for software that ultimately either fails or does itâ(TM)s job poorly.

Why donâ(TM)t agencies like the FBI recruit âoeSpecial Agentsâ to work in âoehacker labsâ to turn this stuff out in-house? I mean, such a job description is âoemade for TVâ, totally sexy! A bunch of hot young geeks in the latest styles sitting around with holstered Glocks, in a hacker lab with the latest toys?

Who WOULDNâ(TM)T want that job?

Re:Made For TV? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844233)

I have to ask what you use to post with because all your quotation marks show as "â(TM)" and "â".

Re:Made For TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844381)

When I post from work, we have to use IE wich has no installed spell-check, so I do it in Word and cut and paste. Sometimes I forget about the quotes.

Re:Made For TV? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844387)

It's what happens when you use the old (D1) posting form [slashdot.org] and type or paste characters that Slashdot doesn't like. Either he copied-and-pasted that from somewhere, or he composed it in Word and pasted it into the posting form, or he used the Alt-codes not realizing that Slashdot would scramble them.

The new (D2) posting form automatically replaces a subset of special characters with their HTML character entities, such as the decorative quotes (“ and ”). Of course, using the HTML character entities will work no matter which discussion style you're using, as long as that character is allowed.

Re:Made For TV? (2, Interesting)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845089)

The copy and paste buffer, even if you believe it to be plain text, contains bits per byte which are part of the overlying OS. Some people know where those bits are and manipulate them.

For example, when editing in MS-Word, open a plain text document--a real one (such as is generated by notepad). If you allow autospell to correct something, even if you save the document again as plain text, there will be an artefact of the autospell replacing text and some of it may be marked as UTF-8 (or other standard encoding in your OS). You think it's plain text but, until you really sanitize it with notepad or a true plain text buffer, those little tags will be preserved even if MS-Word tells you that the file is being saved plain text. The copy and paste buffer and HTML form buffers are susceptible to that sort of thing.

Networks are exploited in a similar manner. Every packet and frame transmitted has bits wrapped around at the beginning and end--those bits are electronic pulse timings which fill the hardware as the electronic signal goes from wire to chips. A router is a bank of repeaters with bitmasks used to control which packets go where. If you, for example, use a BASIC interpreter to operate on a TCP/IP stack (such as the uIP stack inside of Contiki-OS), you will be able to manipulate those bit timings (eg. peruse uip.c for "add arch timings") which you are unable to see using standard TCP/IP libraries on your modern day OS. Careful manipulation of PEEK, POKE, and READ (and using BASIC's open hole of deliberately mixing string and numeric variables) will allow you to generate packets which, when POKE'd back into the overlying OS network stack, will hit a router and have a priority to activate the repeater circuit because a priority higher than the network bitmask was used.

Precise knowledge of the packet generating process and the nature of the hardware to be targeted will allow the attacker to practically load an entire OS (such as the tiny ones listed on the wikipedia page for Contiki) onto the target hardware and, because it's all about nothing more than pulse timings, the "rootkit" will run concomittant to the code running in that hardware; concomittant meaning that it may or may not even be able to access the processes running in the cycles on the other side of the pulse timings.

Re:Made For TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844317)

Uh, you mean exactly like the TV show, "Person of Interest"?

"Scrape" (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844169)

As in, the bottom of the barrel.

They will know all of your dirty secrets because even if you don't spill, your friends will.

Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (5, Funny)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844181)

Do we really think that terrorists are going to be coordinating things via FB?

It's like that old joke, what was Bin Laden's last FB entry?

"BRB, someone's at the door"

*Seal Team 6 likes this

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (4, Insightful)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844219)

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

Egypt and Libya's uprisings were greatly facilitated by twitter and other social networking sites.

Not to say that we should overthrow the government, but, what about them using it to keep tabs on, say, the Occupiers and then using threatening, but legal, actions to undermine them?

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844669)

Not to say that we should overthrow the government, but, what about them using it to keep tabs on, say, the Occupiers and then using threatening, but legal, actions to undermine them?

The Occupiers are doing a splendid job undermining themselves, thank-you-very-much.
No need to interfere there as it might interrupt their steady descent into irrelevance.

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845267)

Thats like the old adage:

"Make sure you're on the winning team."

Back in the old days (before even my time), they lopped off the heads of the losing side!

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (5, Interesting)

tatman (1076111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844251)

I read a few articles during and after the mayhem in London the police where having trouble coordinating their efforts because the rioters were using social media to communicate their plans. If I remember correctly, someone in British government structure has proposed a law to allow them to shut down social media sites in "emergencies". So I would assume the FBI motivation is more on these lines as the likelihood of social media sites can get legally shutdown. (btw I am in no way advocating shutting down social media or validating gov attempts to monitor it--just offering my thought as to motivations behind the FBI project)

(Correction) Re:Terrorists putting ... (1)

tatman (1076111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844305)

should read: .... likelihood of social media sites can NOT get legally shutdown ....sorry about that

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844641)

So I would assume the FBI motivation is more on these lines as the likelihood of social media sites can get legally shutdown.

I recall that as well. Maybe the FBI doesn't want to shut it down, though- by passively monitoring, they can determine where the next gathering point will be. If they were to shut it down, another method of communication (not as readily intercepted) would be used rather quickly. It would probably take protestors time to learn which services (or accounts) were compromised and, by selectively targeting demonstrations, they (the FBI) could further obfuscate the data source.

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844303)

Do we really think that terrorists are going to be coordinating things via FB?

It's like that old joke, what was Bin Laden's last FB entry?

"BRB, someone's at the door"

No, it was "Osama needs credits for farmville :("

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844331)

Depends on how broad your definition of "terrorist" stretches...

The real pros, highly unlikely. The unpleasant-but-pathetic wannabes who end up getting sucked into FBI stings where the FBI has to do all the work because the perp is kind of a loser, quite possibly.

Assorted domestic political groups that the FBI wishes to harass or disrupt*cough* COINTELPRO*cough*, Yup, you betcha...

Given their sordid history, I strongly suspect that the FBI is interested in a definition of 'terrorist' that goes well beyond Mr. Ibn Muhumad Jihad al Anthrax and includes a fair number of much more prosaic domestic groups, who are probably twitbooking and facester-ing just as much as everybody else.

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844469)

It would be FOOLISH to assume that their intention is as they say, It may be just another means to Control the public.
  Terrorism likely just be the excuse.

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845061)

This isn't about terrorists. This is about Occupy Wall Street and the FBI being able to feed real-time intel to local police departments.

Re:Terrorists putting their plots on FB? (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845283)

Do we really think that terrorists are going to be coordinating things via FB?

Depends on how you define "terrorist". Since lots of agencies are quick to try to label you as one...

and here comes slashdot, late again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844183)

why does this site even exist anymore? reddit posts everything first, with less bias, and without all the self-loathing commentators screaming shill/troll/astroturf/mccarthyist label of the day.

Re:and here comes slashdot, late again (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844835)

why does this site even exist anymore? reddit posts everything first, with less bias, and without all the self-loathing commentators screaming shill/troll/astroturf/mccarthyist label of the day.

We're here specifically to annoy you, AC. Looks like we're on top of our game again.

Virtual Case File Project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844199)

Hope they've changed how they do IT.

Not news? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844211)

I thought we already knew that law enforcement agencies were watching social networking websites? They have caught people because of pictures posted online in the past:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/14/mexico-fugitive-facebook-arrest [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Not news? (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844271)

yeah, like, derp, everyone can read twitter, or that slashdot site or whatever it's called people who suddenly want to delete their shit because OH NOES THE GOVT CAN SEE IT: I got news for you, they already can We know what their keywords will be: @YourAnonNews #NSA #FBI #CIA #ENCRYPTION #BOMB

Re:Not news? (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845379)

FBI's Soliciation For Web Scraping Software Fools Public Into Thinking They Don't Have Such A Thing Already

Or maybe they don't, and they're tired of the CIA not sharing.

Haven't we all watched the video that shows the links between Facebook and the CIA?

in the early stages = v3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845479)

Okay, so v1 and v2 were fairly quiet, but now were about to be higher profile with the results of our database scraping... so now we publicly state we're working on it.

I can configure my low end 'smart' switch to duplicate all traffic coming in on a port to another. If I can do this, then you know that it's trivial for them to. No longer a need for the 'secret' room at the telco. Now we can just duplicate and redirect all traffic to a huge server farm. Raptor or velociraptor, or my balls... whatever you want to call it... they can filter sift and re-filter. It's being done already.

This is just a pointless opinion push article.

O rly? (0)

mrquagmire (2326560) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844213)

How many articles are we going to have about this?

Duplication of efforts? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844257)

The FBI and other three letter acronyms have been using programs for years that monitor the internet.

Echelon, carnivore, et all. Why do they need a whole new system just to include social networking sites?

Re:Duplication of efforts? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844401)

  1. The FBI cannot use NSA resources like Echelon.
  2. Carnivore is very limited in what it can do
  3. New communication systems can be exploited in different ways, and so new technologies need to be developed. The value of Facebook is not just in what people are typing, but in what their friends, friends of friends, etc. are typing as well.

Re:Duplication of efforts? (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844727)

Why do they need a whole new system just to include social networking sites?

Maybe so people think they don't have that capability?

Prediction.. (1, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844267)

Now trending: #FBIbastards

Breaking news!! (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844293)

Al-Zaida Terror1sts develop tricobalt salted antimatter bomb. Antardic ice sheet vaporized. Millions of penguins now homeless.

Backdoor Cisco Router Scrape! YOU WERE WARNED! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844373)

Spook BackDoors In Cisco Routers
- Older news, but still relevant!!
    Please save this story and repost it everywhere
    Especially in Security Discussion Forum Sites
- You should use OpenBSD or a hardened Linux distro
    For a router, NOT these blackboxes offered with
    proprietary hardware & firmware!

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/hackers-networking-equipment-technology-security-cisco.html [forbes.com]

"Special Report
Cisco's Backdoor For Hackers
Andy Greenberg, 02.03.10, 01:45 PM EST
The methods networking companies use to let the Feds watch suspects also expose the rest of us.

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Activists have long grumbled about the privacy implications of the legal "backdoors" that networking companies like Cisco build into their equipment--functions that let law enforcement quietly track the Internet activities of criminal suspects. Now an IBM researcher has revealed a more serious problem with those backdoors: They don't have particularly strong locks, and consumers are at risk.

In a presentation at the Black Hat security conference Wednesday, IBM ( IBM - news - people ) Internet Security Systems researcher Tom Cross unveiled research on how easily the "lawful intercept" function in Cisco's ( CSCO - news - people ) IOS operating system can be exploited by cybercriminals or cyberspies to pull data out of the routers belonging to an Internet service provider (ISP) and watch innocent victims' online behavior.

But the result, Cross says, is that any credentialed employee can implement the intercept to watch users, and the ISP has no method of tracking those privacy violations. "An insider who knows the password can use it without an audit trail and send the data to anywhere on the Internet," Cross says.

Cross told Cisco about his findings in December 2008, but with the exception of the patch Cisco released following the revelation of its router bug in 2008, the security flaws he discussed haven't been fixed. In an interview following Cross' talk, Cisco spokeswoman Jennifer Greeson said that the company is "confident in its framework." "We recognize that security is complicated," she said. "We're looking at [Cross'] findings and we'll take them into account."

Cisco isn't actually the primary target of Cross' critique. He points out that all networking companies are legally required to build lawful intercepts into their equipment.

Special Report
Cisco's Backdoor For Hackers
Andy Greenberg, 02.03.10, 01:45 PM EST
The methods networking companies use to let the Feds watch suspects also expose the rest of us.

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Cisco, in fact, is the only networking company that follows the recommendations of the Internet Engineering Task Force standards body and makes its lawful intercept architecture public, exposing it to peer review and security scrutiny. The other companies keep theirs in the dark, and they likely suffer from the same security flaws or worse. "Cisco did the right thing by publishing this," says Cross. "Although I found some weaknesses, at least we know what they are and how to mitigate them."

The exploitation of lawful intercept is more than theoretical. Security and privacy guru Bruce Schneier wrote last month that the Google ( GOOG - news - people ) hackings in China were enabled by Google's procedures for sharing information with U.S. law enforcement officials. And in 2004 and 2005, a group of hackers used intercept vulnerabilities in Ericsson ( ERIC - news - people ) network switches to spy on a wide range of political targets including the cellphone of Greece's prime minister.

All of that, argues IBM's Cross, means that Internet-related companies need to be more transparent about their lawful intercept procedures or risk exposing all of their users. "There are a lot of other technology companies out there that haven't published their architecture, so they can't be audited," he said in his Black Hat talk. "We can't be sure of their security as a result."

- http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=andy+and+greenberg&aname=Andy+Greenberg [forbes.com]

(C) forbes.com

Lest we forget Part 1:

https://www.networkworld.com/community/node/57070 [networkworld.com]

"Cisco backdoor still open
IBM researcher at Black Hat says opening for Feds exposes us
By Jim Duffy on Wed, 02/03/10 - 5:33pm.

The "backdoors" that Cisco and other networking companies implement in their routers and switches for lawful intercept are front and center again at this week's Black Hat security conference. A few years ago, they were cause celebre in some VoIP wiretapping arguments and court rulings.

This time, an IBM researcher told Black Hat conference attendees that these openings can still expose information about us to hackers and allow them to "watch" our Internet activity. Backdoors are implemented in routers and switches so law enforcement officials can track the Internet communications and activity of an individual or individuals under surveillance. They are required by law to be incorporated in devices manufactured by networking companies and sold to ISPs.

In this report from Forbes, IBM Internet Security Systems researcher Tom Cross demonstrated how easily the backdoor in Cisco IOS can be exploited by hackers. When they gain access to a Cisco router, they are not blocked after multiple failed access attempts nor is an alert sent to an administrator. Any data collected through the backdoor can be sent to anywhere -- not just merely to an authorized user, Forbes reports.

What's more, an ISP is not able to perform an audit trail on whoever tried to gain access to a router through the backdoor - that nuance was intended to keep ISP employees from detecting the intercept and inadvertently tipping off the individual under surveillance. But according to IBM's Cross, any authorized employee can use it for unauthorized surveillance of users and those privacy violations cannot be tracked by the ISP.

Cisco said it is aware of Cross's assertions and is taking them under consideration. To Cisco's credit, it is the only networking company that makes its lawful intercept architecture public, according to the recommendations of the IETF, the Forbes story states. Other companies do not, which means they may be susceptible to the same security flaws, or worse."

Lest we forget Part 2:

http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20040407-username [cisco.com]

"Cisco Security Advisory
A Default Username and Password in WLSE and HSE Devices
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20040407-username
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20040407-username [cisco.com]
Revision 1.4
For Public Release 2004 April 7 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Contents

        Summary
        Affected Products
        Details
        Vulnerability Scoring Details
        Impact
        Software Versions and Fixes
        Workarounds
        Obtaining Fixed Software
        Exploitation and Public Announcements
        Status of This Notice: Final
        Distribution
        Revision History
        Cisco Security Procedures

Summary

A default username/password pair is present in all releases of the Wireless LAN Solution Engine (WLSE) and Hosting Solution Engine (HSE) software. A user who logs in using this username has complete control of the device. This username cannot be disabled. There is no workaround.

This advisory is available at http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20040407-username [cisco.com] .

Affected Products

This section provides details on affected products.
Vulnerable Products

These products are vulnerable:

        The affected software releases for WLSE are 2.0, 2.0.2 and 2.5.
        The affected software releases for HSE are 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.2 and 1.7.3.

Products Confirmed Not Vulnerable

No other Cisco products are currently known to be affected by these vulnerabilities.

Details

A hardcoded username and password pair is present in all software releases for all models of WLSE and HSE devices.

This vulnerability is documented in the Cisco Bug Toolkit as Bug ID CSCsa11583 ( registered customers only) for the WLSE and CSCsa11584 ( registered customers only) for the HSE.

CiscoWorks WLSE provides centralized management for the Cisco Wireless LAN infrastructure. It unifies the other components in the solution and actively employs them to provide continual "Air/RF" monitoring, network security, and optimization. The CiscoWorks WLSE also assists network managers by automating and simplifying mass configuration deployment, fault monitoring and alerting.

Cisco Hosting Solution Engine is a hardware-based solution to monitor and activate a variety of e-business services in Cisco powered data centers. It provides fault and performance information about the Layer 2-3 hosting infrastructure and Layer 4-7 hosted services.

Vulnerability Scoring Details
Cisco has provided scores for the vulnerabilities in this advisory based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). The CVSS scoring in this Security Advisory is done in accordance with CVSS version 2.0.

CVSS is a standards-based scoring method that conveys vulnerability severity and helps determine urgency and priority of response.

Cisco has provided a base and temporal score. Customers can then compute environmental scores to assist in determining the impact of the vulnerability in individual networks.

Cisco has provided an FAQ to answer additional questions regarding CVSS at
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/cvss-qandas.html [cisco.com] .

Cisco has also provided a CVSS calculator to help compute the environmental impact for individual networks at
http://intellishield.cisco.com/security/alertmanager/cvss [cisco.com] .

Impact

Any user who logs in using this username has complete control of the device. One can add new users or modify details of the existing users, and change the device's configuration. Here are some more concrete examples of possible actions:

        For WLSE this means that an adversary can hide the presence of a rogue Access Point or change the Radio Frequency plan, potentially causing system-wide outages. The first action may cause long term loss of information confidentiality and integrity. The second action can yield Denial-of-Service (DOS).
        For HSE this may lead up to illegal re-directing of a Web site with the ultimate loss of revenue.
        In both cases the device itself may be used as a launching platform for further attacks. Such attacks could be directed at your organization, or towards a third party.

Software Versions and Fixes

When considering software upgrades, also consult http://www.cisco.com/go/psirt [cisco.com] and any subsequent advisories to determine exposure and a complete upgrade solution.

In all cases, customers should exercise caution to be certain the devices to be upgraded contain sufficient memory and that current hardware and software configurations will continue to be supported properly by the new release. If the information is not clear, contact the Cisco Technical Assistance Center ("TAC") or your contracted maintenance provider for assistance.

For WLSE, users need to install the WLSE-2.x-CSCsa11583-K9.zip patch. The patch can be downloaded from http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/tablebuild.pl/wlan-sol-eng [cisco.com] ( registered customers only) . Installation instructions are included in the accompanying README file, WLSE-2.x-CSCsa11583-K9.readmeV3.txt, in that same download directory. This patch is applicable to WLSE 1105 and 1130 software releases 2.0, 2.0.2 and 2.5.

For HSE, users need to install the HSE-1.7.x-CSCsa11584.zip patch. The patch can be downloaded from http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/tablebuild.pl/1105-host-sol [cisco.com] ( registered customers only) . Installation instructions are included in the accompanying README file, HSE-1.7.x-CSCsa11584.readme.txt, in that same download directory. This patch is applicable to HSE 1105 for versions 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and 1.7.3.
Workarounds

There is no workaround.

Obtaining Fixed Software

Cisco has made free software available to address this vulnerability for affected customers. Prior to deploying software, customers should consult their maintenance provider or check the software for feature set compatibility and known issues specific to their environment.

Customers may only install and expect support for the feature sets they have purchased. By installing, downloading, accessing or otherwise using such software upgrades, customers agree to be bound by the terms of Cisco's software license terms found at http://www.cisco.com/public/sw-license-agreement.html [cisco.com] , or as otherwise set forth at Cisco.com Downloads at http://www.cisco.com/public/sw-center/sw-usingswc.shtml [cisco.com] .

Do not contact either "psirt@cisco.com" or "security-alert@cisco.com" for software upgrades.

Customers with Service Contracts

Customers with contracts should obtain upgraded software through their regular update channels. For most customers, this means that upgrades should be obtained through the Software Center on Cisco's worldwide website at http://www.cisco.com./ [www.cisco.com]
Customers Using Third-Party Support Organizations

Customers whose Cisco products are provided or maintained through prior or existing agreement with third-party support organizations such as Cisco Partners, authorized resellers, or service providers should contact that support organization for guidance and assistance with the appropriate course of action in regards to this advisory.

The effectiveness of any workaround or fix is dependent on specific customer situations such as product mix, network topology, traffic behavior, and organizational mission. Due to the variety of affected products and releases, customers should consult with their service provider or support organization to ensure any applied workaround or fix is the most appropriate for use in the intended network before it is deployed.
Customers Without Service Contracts

Customers who purchase direct from Cisco but who do not hold a Cisco service contract and customers who purchase through third-party vendors but are unsuccessful at obtaining fixed software through their point of sale should get their upgrades by contacting the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC). TAC contacts are as follows.

        +1 800 553 2447 (toll free from within North America)
        +1 408 526 7209 (toll call from anywhere in the world)
        e-mail: tac@cisco.com

Have your product serial number available and give the URL of this notice as evidence of your entitlement to a free upgrade. Free upgrades for non-contract customers must be requested through the TAC.

Refer to http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/687/Directory/DirTAC.shtml [cisco.com] for additional TAC contact information, including special localized telephone numbers and instructions and e-mail addresses for use in various languages.
Exploitation and Public Announcements

The Cisco PSIRT is not aware of any public announcements or malicious use of the vulnerability described in this advisory.

Status of This Notice: Final

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND DOES NOT IMPLY ANY KIND OF GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE. YOUR USE OF THE INFORMATION ON THE DOCUMENT OR MATERIALS LINKED FROM THE DOCUMENT IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. CISCO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHANGE OR UPDATE THIS DOCUMENT AT ANY TIME.

A stand-alone copy or Paraphrase of the text of this document that omits the distribution URL in the following section is an uncontrolled copy, and may lack important information or contain factual errors.

Distribution

This advisory will be posted on Cisco's worldwide website at http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20040407-username [cisco.com] .

In addition to worldwide web posting, a text version of this notice is clear-signed with the Cisco PSIRT PGP key and is posted to the following e-mail and Usenet news recipients.

        cust-security-announce@cisco.com
        bugtraq@securityfocus.com
        first-teams@first.org (includes CERT/CC)
        cisco@spot.colorado.edu
        comp.dcom.sys.cisco
        firewalls@lists.gnac.com

Future updates of this advisory, if any, will be placed on Cisco's worldwide website, but may or may not be actively announced on mailing lists or newsgroups. Users concerned about this problem are encouraged to check the above URL for any updates.

Revision History

Revision 1.4

2004-April-12

Fixed URL for Cisco.com Downloads under Obtaining Fixed Software section.

Revision 1.3

2004-April-08

Updated Software Versions and Fixes section.

Revision 1.2

2004-April-08

Updated to include WLSE 1105 in Software Versions and Fixes section.

Revision 1.1

2004-April-07

Correction in the Obtaining Fixed Software section.

Revision 1.0

2004-April-07

Initial public release.

Cisco Security Procedures

Complete information on reporting security vulnerabilities in Cisco products, obtaining assistance with security incidents, and registering to receive security information from Cisco, is available on Cisco's worldwide website at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_vulnerability_policy.html [cisco.com] . This includes instructions for press inquiries regarding Cisco security notices. All Cisco security advisories are available at http://www.cisco.com/go/psirt [cisco.com] ."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/hackers-networking-equipment-technology-security-cisco.html?feed=rss_technology_security [forbes.com]

Public or Private? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844429)

What data will the FBI have access to? If it's just what's marked public which anyone can see then more power to them. If Facebook is giving them wholesale access to private data that's a matter of concern.

I'd like to optout unless I'm suspected of a crime (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844445)

Or is this the FBI saying everyone is a suspect in their books?

Re:I'd like to optout unless I'm suspected of a cr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844547)

Suggesting that you're not a criminal, tells the FBI you are a criminal.

Wake Up Mr. President! (3, Funny)

tgeek (941867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844535)

We have have highly credible reports that Farmville is planning a sneak attack on Washington. Air Force One is fueled and ready.

Here's what it'll be: (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844597)

It'll be a hundred million dollar application that searches Twitter for the "#bomb" hashtag.

Rectum Book! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844653)

We need a site where all adult's Rectums/anuses are photographed and cataloged according to name, just as faces are mapped, so should rectums be mapped for when they are jailed they smile for the camera with their face, and their anus.

Ok everybody,,, (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844659)

...make sure all threats are using social networks......

Re:Ok everybody,,, (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844883)

When you realize the foolishness of what is claimed you will then realize, if you are thinking for yourself, that this is just like the telecom spying on Americans years ago (post 9/11) with the claim they were looking for terrorist. (and the GOV let the telecoms off in a lawsuit against them)

But the much more believable probability, then looking for coded common language (language/vocabulary use is only relevant to the agreed upon meaning by those using it - meaning whatever those using it want it to mean.).... the more believable probability is to spy in the public's attitudes and perception which is extremely useful when you control the media (and we all know MSM in the US is completely controlled after the anthrax attacks on it post 9/11)

By knowing what the public is thinking you can used the media to manipulate the public as you see fit.

Guess what.. we have an election coming up.... and more war BS hype too... Like dudes... Deja Vu....

They weren't already doing this? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844677)

The only thing I'm surprised about is that they weren't already doing this. It's not like Facebook is new or anything.

As long as they are only scraping public posts, I don't see any problem with this. I'd even be fine with Facebook providing them with an API to make it easier to scrape public posts.

Damned /. Editors! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844761)

Misspelled 'scrap' again.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844803)

Everyone knows the Female Body Inspectors have been monitoring social media for years.

I thank you f08 your time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844833)

It'll Be Good for Policing Organized Crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844857)

I keep getting Facebook notifications about people attempting to acquire more cell phones and baseball bats, as well as coordinating with other people who need help with fighting crime bosses.

I disabled my facebook acount by... (1)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844931)

I deleted all pictures, I deleted all posts, I de-friended everyone, I changed the name, contact info, everything... after that I disabled the account. Why... let's just say some things should stay private. TMI. Less is More. I think everyone should just delete their fb account like I did. Trust me.

I assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844943)

That this app will be bloated and waste tons of resources.

Well That Explains It... (2)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844979)

The FBI keeps showing up in my "people you might know" list. Same with everyone else, I assume?

Track record (2)

trolman (648780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845011)

If this 'app' goes the way of the other FBI IT projects then we have no worries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File [wikipedia.org]

2001 Projected started just after 911. ... 2009 The FBI is years behind and millions over budget
2010 The FBI is $100 million over budget on the ... only half of the project's four-phase development had been completed
2011 The FBI's upgrade of its computerized case file system has hit another snag

Anybody hear of Palantir? (1)

undeadbill (2490070) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845069)

All it looks like to me is that the FBI is finally joining the other TLAs in putting out an RFP that specifically is tailored to the makers of Palantir getting a contract.

Re:Anybody hear of Palantir? (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845177)

Palantir. Those were in the ark of the covenant that the Israelites carried across the desert. There was one in the temple of the Lord that Samuel heard talking to him. The ancient Egyptians had a tuneable cochlear mechanism built into some of the pyramid temples which allowed them to listen to the palantir sequentially in a life-sized checkerboard fashion. Dragon Orbs are palantir using sunlight for full-screen on the wall projection.

And when the time for Pentecost was fulfilled the apostles were gathered in the upper room for fear of the Jews because they must be mind readers--how did they know, on Easter, that he had broken fast? He past the walking test, he had the shroud and napkin test, he had the numbers test, he could beat the blowgun with "Smile for the camera!", he was able to cue Lazarus to the vocal keys he was missing to prove that b*tch was lying... how did they know?

Duh, stupid, they've got mini-diamond listening dragon orb palantir spaced as perfectly as pac-man pellets around the entire town.

Well, thank goodness *someone's* scraping it... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845143)

It's gotten pretty darned crusty by this time, let me tell you!

too late (1)

pbjones (315127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845277)

I would guess that commercial interests are already raping the internet for info now, just buy off-the-shelf software.

Expensive RSS feed (1)

mindcandy (1252124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845329)

Okay, so the FBI want's to drop major coin on what's really just expensive news aggregation.

Don't immediately assume that because the government is doing it, that it's bad .. as much as I hate Twitter, fast happening or highly localized events often are posted there tens of minutes before they make any sort of major media.

There's millions of people running around with smartphones that constantly yap .. this is basically like surveillance cameras, but with automatic (and free) interpretation.

And before anyone complains about the privacy "implications" .. don't put private shit on the Internet. Period.

Chaff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845551)

I just heard a really loud boom, like an explosion or a bomb going off! - my new sig

Making the world safe for Corporatism! (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845605)

We need someone to make sure no one is engaging in un-American activities like free speech. Civil rights are the slippery slope to godless communism!
Load More 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>