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!

Chinese Spies Used Fake Facebook Profile To Friend NATO Officials

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the keep-your-friends-close-and-you-friends-list-closer dept.

Facebook 117

An anonymous reader writes "Late last year, senior British military officers, Defense Ministry officials, and other government officials were tricked into becoming Facebook friends with someone masquerading as United States Navy admiral James Stavridis. By doing so, they exposed their own personal information (such as private e-mail addresses, phone numbers, pictures, the names of family members, and possibly even the details of their movements), to unknown hackers."

cancel ×

117 comments

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

oh boy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326627)

Here we go...

Re:oh boy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326665)

Please dont misrepresent this. These government people are at fault here for being stupid.

Re:oh boy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326753)

Who doesn't have a fake facebook to friend pornstars and sluts? Chinese just get their jollies by looking at US officials private lives... *shrugs*

We've identified the problem (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327761)

==> NATO officials... with Facebook accounts...

Oh. My. God.

Re:oh boy (3, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330463)

Who doesn't have a fake facebook to friend pornstars and sluts?

I don't.

I don't have any FB accounts at all...fake or real.

Keeps things neater that way....

Re:oh boy (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331421)

Kind of like saying that women that are raped are stupid for having been in their homes at the time. Right?

ASL? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326629)

oh hai, asl?

Re:ASL? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39329763)

Atlantic Fleet/F&M/200+

d'oh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326639)

Homeland Security?!?!

Facebook is secure against hackers? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326641)

Who knew that if you weren't friends with someone, they couldn't see your data. Hmm. Seriously though. Senior NATO officials have Facebook pages! Dumb! Their private information is on those Facebook pages? Dumber...

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326895)

Who knew that if you weren't friends with someone, they couldn't see your data. Hmm. Seriously though. Senior NATO officials have Facebook pages! Dumb! Their private information is on those Facebook pages? Dumber...

Ah, no, Mr. Johnson happens to have a Facebook page. Mr. Johnson also happens to be married to Mrs. Johnson, and has two children and a dog. Mr. Johnson also happens to live in XYZ, America. Mr. Johnson also happens to have an email address, yes. And ALL of this information is probably public record and can be sourced from MANY different locations online anyway, so it's hardly "private information".

The fact that Mr. Johnson also happens to be a "Senior NATO official" isn't a sign of being dumb or dumber, unless it explicitly is against Government regulation, and since Facebook has pretty much always been approved for use by Government employees, I seriously doubt it's against policy to have an account while serving.

The only thing that would likely be an issue for OPSEC for certain personnel performing certain duties would be record of movement to develop pattern analysis. Now, if you're broadcasting that information like the average 13-year old girl (i.e. every 47 seconds), then yes, that is being dumb regardless of your job. If that's an issue, might as well ban Twitter and Facebook for damn near every Government employee who holds a security clearance.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327035)

The trick does he seperate work from personal. The current trend in OS's is to combine everything into one. See windows 8, iOS, andriod etc.

So if you can hack one you have easy access to another. Also realize youhack a personal network. Then wait for a secure machine to join it( NATO laptop) and hack it, or at least monitor the VPN connection.

You use ones personal life to inflintrate secure work networks.

It is why i dont use facebook, etc.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327113)

Uh... because the Chinese are going to friend you, somehow turn that into a compromised client machine without your knowledge and use that to get into a secure work network?

You should probably just not use the internet... you'll sleep better at night.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (2)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327401)

You don't know how social engineering works, do you?? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to access the internet; you'll probably sleep better at night.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327325)

Somehow I don't think the Senior NATO officials are OS-based...

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327055)

NATO guide to Facebook:

Using Facebook for personal use is perfectly acceptable, however do not use the system from work or make work related updates.

Good status update: On my way home, looking forward to a nice home-cooked dinner.
Bad status update: Just got out of a long meeting, looks like Spain is going to have some trade difficulties soon.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327835)

Good status update: On my way home, looking forward to a nice home-cooked dinner.
Bad status update: Just got out of a long meeting, looks like Spain is going to have some trade difficulties soon.

They're both bad status updates. Information regarding the length of the meeting is still being leaked regardless of whether or not the meeting is explicitly mentioned.

If you're "on your way home" at 3 in the mornig, odds are somebody is going to have some trade difficulties soon. (An adversary can draw similar conclusions - namely, that somebody isn't about to have trade difficulties - if that status report is timestamped 5:01 pm.)

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (2)

Dr Fro (169927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39329659)

I heard in my security class that during Gulf War I, some reporters correlated major strikes with the number of pizzas being ordered out late at night.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332093)

I heard in my security class that during Gulf War I, some reporters correlated major strikes with the number of pizzas being ordered out late at night.

Probably another post-hoc falacy.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

fedos (150319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327787)

"Going to Beijing again. looooooollll!!1"

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331727)

might as well ban Twitter and Facebook for damn near every Government employee who holds a security clearance.

How little you know, dear innocent.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327187)

Remember, you need to pay trillions of dollars in taxes for defense, so the idiots we put in charge of defense can friend enemy spies on Facebook.

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (4, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327209)

And even if you are friends with someone it doesn't mean they can see your data.

At one point of time Facebook in the "confirm friend request" step let you add friends straight to a friend list of your choice. You could lock down that friend list really tight, so that they couldn't see much, while you _might_ be able to see their data (and thus decide whether "Spongebob" is really someone you know). Doesn't seem possible now. You have to add them as friend first then move them to the restricted list. So there's a window of opportunity for them to get the data out. If I'm wrong about this do tell me how to do it.

But no matter what privacy "controls" and "promises" Facebook provides, Facebook can see all the data and actions, so NATO officials shouldn't be exposing confidential data and actions to FB. Especially since some of that data may be passed to people outside the USA whether by apps/partners or by people who are paid to moderate stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9118778/The-dark-side-of-Facebook.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330745)

Check again. In response to G+'s circles, Facebook made its friends groups more visible. Not sure how obvious it is that you can set privacy settings by friends group, though.

Also, assuming any intelligence agency can't read what you post on Facebook is ridiculous. I would like Facebook to not just randomly show my data to whoever, but protecting it from spies actively trying to get access to it? Sure, that would be nice, but really, expecting Facebook (or any company which hasn't signed an NDA of some sort) to keep important secrets? Huh?

Re:Facebook is secure against hackers? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330291)

Actually senior officials having facebook pages really doesn't matter. Once you get up high enough it's pretty hard to keep hidden who or what you are in peacetime. It's simply not practical, because you still have to drive your kids to school, and buy groceries.

There's probably a middle level, people who are actively involved in doing direct work that you don't want being paraded around publicly. But if you get called into congressional meetings (or called before parliament), if you have a press officer who works for you etc. well guess what, they know who you are, and what you're up to. It may be marginally lowering the barrier to finding out where they live, but seriously, if you can't follow a guy home from work to find out where he lives, dig up his employment record etc. well then you're not a very good spy.

Notice the name of the guy who had the fake profile. James Stavrdis. Do a google search for him. So right. How much is really practical to try and keep secret about who he is, or who he's friends with and what schools his children go to. The exact mission he's up to, sure, mildly problematic, but you now what he looks like, what books he wrote, when he was born etc. etc. etc. And that's in 5 seconds of google searching. He even has an official glog and website.

When you're high enough up, you become part of the public face of an organization, and facebook is nothing if not a place for public facing.

I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326649)

Admirals need friends too.

People are dumb (4, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326657)

Social engineering FTW ... again.

Anyone else not comfortable (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326663)

That senior government officials are posting things deemed sensative to facebook? I mean, really? Let's hope they don't share launch codes with thier "inner circle" of facebook friends.. /sarc

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (2)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326737)

Agreed! I'm on FB, but I don't post anything even remotely sensitive. Other than finding out when my last bowel movement was, there would be little point for a spy to "friend" me.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (3, Funny)

PIBM (588930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326765)

And you post that to facebook ? No wonder you don't have any friends!

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330015)

And you post that to facebook ? No wonder you don't have any friends!

Exactly, that is the kind of thing you tweet, so they can call ytou and get that great echo effect provided by public restrooms.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330247)

Yeah, that is what Twitter is for!

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326761)

I don't think personal details like these are considered "sensitive", exactly. It's pretty basic information that any spy (and most citizens, if so inclined) can find out with a few days worth of work. Facebook just makes it a lot easier, and also allows them to get more personal stuff they couldn't easily find, like pictures, which could be used to influence (bribe, extort, blackmail) them later. Which is why Facebook is pretty stupid overall: you never know what is going to come back and bite you in the arse later on.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (4, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39328577)

You obviously know little about how Social Engineering works if you believe that to be true. When I worked DOD it was recommended that we never post information to any Social network about where we worked, what we did for a living, who our co-workers were, etc.. This was not just for the protection of the Government, but also protection of your own family and friends.

I no longer work DOD, but when I did I did not post on anything including /. with my credentials.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326799)

The launch code is probably 1-2-3-4-5

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326903)

1-1-1-1-1 actually. Yay.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327241)

It's actually 4-4-4-4-4 but don't tell anyone.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39328541)

The code some idiot puts on their luggage

Gratuitous Spaceballs reference I take it?

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327001)

That senior government officials are posting things deemed sensative to facebook?

Most of things mentioned aren't particularly sensitive, they are things that are public, or at least not security-sensitive though private-for-efficiency information that would usually take a little more effort for spies to compile.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327073)

That senior government officials are posting things deemed sensative to facebook? I mean, really? Let's hope they don't share launch codes with thier "inner circle" of facebook friends.. /sarc

There are established rules about whether and how US government officials can use Facebook, just as there are for using email, or phones, or telegraphs or smoke signals. Nothing sensitive is suppose to be handled over any of these channels.

The guy whose profile was faked has apparently used his real Facebook profile to make announcements he was cleared to make publicly in the past.

It sounds like the people snared by the Chinese in this case were British officials.

Re:Anyone else not comfortable (3, Funny)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327151)

They mostly post battle plans for the next week. They say they're looking for suggestions but all they really want is compliments.

Really (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326669)

There is no other way to communicate online other than facebook for government officials???

Re:Really (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327393)

Everyone knows Facebook is the new internet communications channel, gah!

Re:Really (4, Funny)

drkim (1559875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327869)

Actually, all secret government posting are done on MySpace now, because nobody ever goes there...

Seriously, why? (4, Interesting)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326679)

Seriously, why do these people use Facebook anyway? It's just a massive security risk for people in that position, and presumably the only upside is they can post "Just nuked Tehran lol" on their wall when the balloon goes up..

Re:Seriously, why? (4, Insightful)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326779)

Because they are just people too. Who also want to stay in touch with friends & family?

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326923)

if only. they're not just people. there is a world of difference between joe six-pack and a NATO officer in terms of privacy.

Re:Seriously, why? (3, Insightful)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326925)

Because people in these high-profile and sensitive positions cannot expect life to be exactly normal. When the nature of the job means that you are advised to check under your car for bombs before you get in it, then a certain degree of caution is needed.

Re:Seriously, why? (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326945)

There's keeping in touch with friends and family and then there's checking in using 4Square when meeting with the President. A FB Page, in regards to a high-ranking official, should be kept separate from their working lives. No posting of your movements, no friending your colleagues unless you've met them and agreed to before hand (infact, that's common sense when it comes to FB normally).
The fact that this Admiral, out of the blue, adds them to FB and they don't bat an eyelid or even think to pick up the phone to ask him if it's genuine...

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327005)

No posting of your movements, no friending your colleagues unless you've met them and agreed to before hand (infact, that's common sense when it comes to FB normally).

The former yes, the latter not really. If I see a friend on FB I'll send him a friend invite. That's what the system is for. Why ask him beforehand if he wants to accept? He can just press decline like an intelligent human being.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326979)

You are aware that one can "stay in touch with friends & family" on the internet without using Facebook, correct?

News flash: people were communicating on the internet for decades before Facebook came along.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327419)

Because this thing called "phone" doesn't allow you to communicated directly with your friends and family.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327017)

Its not a massive security risk to use facebook. It all depends on what you post there. They probably use FB for the same reasons everyone else does.

Re:Seriously, why? (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327337)

It all depends on what you post there.

No that is the problem it depends on what YOU post there and what everyone you are FRIENDS with post there.

Maybe you don't post your going on vacation for week because you don't would be crooks to know for sure you are not at your house. Your girlfriend however is not so careful and or does not much care about her apartment. She posts she is out of town for the week and than tags you in some photos at the beech from her mobile.

Now anyone in either of your circles has a pretty good idea YOU are out of town. This is problem. Someone with an 'in' could be at the friend of friend level, depending on not just YOURS but your FRIENDS privacy settings and some time to pick through the site and workout relationships (even if the info is not shared, they could do it through pictures etc, odds are the girl with your arm around her waste is wife or girlfriend not a sister, etc) can derive lots of information based on what others post that YOU never shared.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327605)

Depending on your privacy settings you can limit tagging.

I would also hope none of my colleagues are dumb enough to post "On super secret recce-mission with *name*, lol. Location: Afghanistan"

You have a point though, that facebook can be used to collect quite a lot of information, thats why its important to be aware of these issues, to keep sensitive stuff off it. And/or use a fake surname.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328301)

> Depending on your privacy settings you can limit tagging.
You are a fool if you actually believe that works.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331121)

> Depending on your privacy settings you can limit tagging. You are a fool if you actually believe that works.

How? If I turn off location tagging, how can I possibly be tagged at a location?

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331049)

You have a point though, that facebook can be used to collect quite a lot of information, thats why its important to be aware of these issues, to keep sensitive stuff off it. And/or use a fake surname.

Or, even easier...just don't have any FaceBook accounts.

:)

I've never had one, never will....and my social life and communication with my friends hasn't suffered a bit.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331111)

It makes it a LOT easier to keep in touch with friends, both local and friends in other countries. Its a useful tool, at least for me.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328155)

I use FB as a personal phonebook more than anything. People change their phone numbers from time to time, and their email addresses as well. If they have a FB account, though, I can send them a personal message, or I can even chat with them directly. I NEVER post status updates, photos, write on walls, or do any of the other stupid things FB wants us to do. I can imagine that a NATO official would like to do the same. Now, if they're posting status updates or photos, then that's a bit worrisome, depending on the context. "OMG, found red sock in washer, ruined my whites," is fairly innocuous. "OMG, Putin is such a !@#$, I can't wait until he gets overthrown so I don't have to deal with him ," would have me concerned. If they added coworkers or business associates to their contact list, which these people are obviously doing, then I'd be VERY concerned.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328419)

Two corrections:

The third sentence should be "FB accounts are much more static, so if they have a FB account..."

The sentence about Putin was intended to have a "wink" emote at the end, but /. removes any text within angle brackets, and treats them as HTML. This changes the meaning of the sentence to imply that the official may be supporting any opposition groups to undermine Putin.

Seriously? (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326695)

I thought in this day and age, people (especially, ya know, important, educated people) would realize that doing things online is
the same as doing them in public... except there's always a fly on the wall...
a very smart fly... that never goes anywhere... and is a chatty cathy.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326727)

sorry for the double post, couldn't edit the previous, YES i know he was "tricked", my point was
what are they doing putting anything useful on social networking sites to begin with?
I would think with the way OUR military likes to do things, facebook would be a big no no.

Unknown Hackers? (5, Insightful)

JustinFreid (1723716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326705)

Registering for Facebook with a fake name hardly qualifies as hacking.
Surprisingly, the headline is more accurate than the story.

Re:Unknown Hackers? (3, Informative)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326847)

> Surprisingly, the headline is more accurate than the story.

More accurate than the submission, you mean. TFA (I'm new here) actually addresses that point:

This type of compromising attempts are called 'Social Engineering' and has nothing to do with 'hacking' or 'espionage', a SHAPE spokesperson said in a statement.

Re:Unknown Hackers? (1)

JustinFreid (1723716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326907)

Story was meant to refer to the submitter's description, not the source article.
I can see how you could have taken it to mean the article.

Welcome to Slashdot. I'm old here.

Re:Unknown Hackers? (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327093)

Abstruse Goose [abstrusegoose.com]

Re:Unknown Hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328561)

Haven't you heard? Violating the TOS of a website is considered hacking now. And yes, providing false information to Facebook violates their TOS, and is grounds for the account to be disabled, possibly deleted.

I deleted my FB account 3 months ago (1, Interesting)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326729)

As I'm getting older I'm starting to value my privacy more and more. So... I deleted all my friends, posts, and pictures on facebook and renamed my name to a fictitious character. As I'm getting older I value my privacy. If I want to talk about something I'll wait until I see them. I don't need everyone knowing my business. I think all of us here should do the same. Too many people are addicted to facebook. It's an illness. Do you have any idea how many work colleagues hit facebook during work hours or on the phone hitting fb during the commute home ?

You are the weakest link... (2)

DontBlameCanada (1325547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326733)

Too bad you won't say "goodbye!". This is another example of s*** floats to the top in government, military and business.

You keep using that word... (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326763)

...I do not think it means what you think it means. Fake Facebook profile == "hacker"?

Both Ways ... (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326777)

You can play this both ways! Set up honey Pot NATO "special palls" fake accounts with "too good to be true" details attached. This will keep everyone typing and uploading fake contrived pictures happily for weeks. Think of the lies they could feed each other, and how big the final facebook agency will become in terms of budget and company cars. It's the war of the future! :0)

goodbye! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326781)

Too bad you won't say "goodbye!
http://noithatducduong.com/.

I'd fire them (2)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326819)

While hindsight is 20/20, common sense should have prevailed when it comes to Facebook and security. Social networks should, on a general basis, be banned from all parts of the government in which security _could_ be an issue.

Re:I'd fire them (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327003)

banned from all parts of the government in which security _could_ be an issue.

Its not an issue of NATO officials using social networks at work vs home. Its one of revealing personal or family movements to foreign intelligence agents. Someone being deployed overseas, or attending a secret meeting can inadvertently reveal this when they post changing contact details. Or when their kids start posting photos of their friends at the new expatriate school.

Re:I'd fire them (1)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39329331)

banned from all parts of the government in which security _could_ be an issue.

Its not an issue of NATO officials using social networks at work vs home. Its one of revealing personal or family movements to foreign intelligence agents. Someone being deployed overseas, or attending a secret meeting can inadvertently reveal this when they post changing contact details. Or when their kids start posting photos of their friends at the new expatriate school.

The emphasis on _could_ was intentional, and in fact was meant to include what you've described.

spies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326825)

Are you sure they are spies but not some spammers?

I guess anyone talking to one of these official would very well be labeled as spies.

Spies use tricks everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326833)

That does it.

I want the Internet closed before 11.

Big Deal (2, Insightful)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326841)

Email addresses, phone numbers, family members? Those officials probably give out the same information when they sign up for customer appreciation cards.

NUKE THE MOTHERFUCKERS !! NUKE EM NOW !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326873)

Burn some more koruns !!

Shoot some more civiluns !!

And THEN declare YEEHAW !!

Because TwO can play that game even HOMIE !!

Like Like Double

Twitter: (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326935)

Tweet: I am accessing hi-security government documents right now.
Tweet: I am posting them online - please no-one look at them
Tweet: They are located at xafdsfd.fdsfdsfds.com please do not go there.
Tweet: They are not password protected so please don't open them.

Re:Twitter: (1)

SumterLiving (994634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327527)

I'd like to follow you on Twitter. My name is "Not_a_Spy" so obviously I'm a good guy. And I promise I won't look at those documents...scouts honor.

No damage (2, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327031)

Their personal information is their property, and they are free to share with with the rest of the world. As long as they don't post sensitive military information on Facebook, there is no damage done.

Re:No damage (1)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39329291)

This is disputable. Your personal information may be considered a security risk and need to be kept private -- possibly even for your own safety. For example, your spouse may work for the CIA, and your spouse may not even have a Facebook account. However, the "enemy" tracking your spouse would find some very useful information about your address should they happen to know that their target is also married to you. Then you post something like "*sigh* my husband/wife will be gone again, and I'll miss him/her so much" and suddenly they know he/she is on a mission.

Better at spying (1)

OldGunner (2576825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327039)

I'm not sure if the Chinese are better at spying, or just get caught more often.

Re:Better at spying (1)

RogueLeaderX (845092) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327917)

I'm not sure if the Chinese are better at spying, or just get caught more often.

That would suggest they're worse at spying, not better.

Alternately, Western media reports on Chinese spys getting caught but not Western spies.

Chinese? (2)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327057)

The article's headline and teaser lines mention Chinese spies, but the article itself provides nothing to back up this claim. Where are they getting this information from?

Re:Chinese? (2)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327213)

FTA:

NATO officials are reluctant to publicly state who was behind the attack, but The Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] says China is to blame. The publication quotes classified briefings in which military officers and diplomats were told the evidence pointed to “state-sponsored individuals in China.” The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] agrees, quoting a security source who says “the belief is that China is behind this.”

Hu Jintao likes this (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327105)

+1 thumb up

Even CIA officers have families... (5, Informative)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327291)

A friend of mine who retired from CIA after 26 years once told me that his family was only happy for six of those years... and not six consecutive years. Cut off from family and friends back home and in contact only by letters and the occasional "home leave" of a month or two, he was trying to fit back in to the country he spent his life trying to serve (back in the days when the Agency was less of an operational force and more of an intelligence gathering organization). I can see how Facebook would have made their lives more enjoyable with all the family and friends news (and even minutia). I'm sure it's a security risk par excellance but I can certainly understand why they'd do it. And I can especially understand why a wife, stuck inside an apartment in Djibouti trying to order six months of canned food from Denmark, might.

I don't expect Slashdot readers to grok it, though.

Re:Even CIA officers have families... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331255)

I apologize if this is a personal question, but, just out of curiosity, why did you friend serve for 26 years if it made his family unhappy?

Proof that NATO is run by IDIOTS (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327355)

This just shows that the top 1% who run this world are a bunch of idiots. No wonder the world is such a mess!

Re:Proof that NATO is run by IDIOTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330689)

I am glad NATO doesn't rule the world. They're just the muscle for those blatant morons actually running the world..

Clearly Facebook's Fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39327469)

Citizens of all nations shouldn't have to live in fear that Facebook will publish the most sensitive and private information of government officials and military secrets to their country's enemies. Facebook should be punished for revealing sensitive and private information entrusted to it to others.

Nothing like a good laugh to lift the irritation of having to futz with all the clocks again.

That's nothing... (1)

sidthegeek (626567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327589)

I was once friends with General Marriott Suites.

Chinese Spies == Unknown Hackers (1)

RobCull (1658279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39327599)

Well, obviously.

Why would people in the military even be on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328225)

Seriously, does it take half a brain to realize that a social-networking site is something they should be avoiding? Ok, so half a brain isn't necessary to be an official of any kind, just being a whole asshole, but still, there should be a class.

Then again, I don't have any such accounts at all. What do I feel about that? Great, since I know the benefits are not worth the price. It's the same reason I'd never hold a party at my house. Minor affair for major hassle.

So interesting. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39328937)

. . . but seriously, does anyone know where I can find some launch codes?

This is hilarious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39329195)

I'm sorry, it just is. I'll start feeling bad when the bodies show up, but until then, I'm going to laugh.

facebook is evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39329765)

didn't they get the memo?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>