×

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!

Copy-and-Paste Reveals Classified U.S. Documents

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the hate-when-that-happens dept.

Security 1325

cyclop writes "In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent that rescued the kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena. U.S. commission on the incident produced a report which public version was censored for more than one third. Now Italian press is reporting that all confidential information in the report is available to the public, just by copying "hidden" text from the PDF and pasting it in a word processor (Italian). The uncensored report can now be directly downloaded (evil .DOC format, sorry)"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1325 comments

Nothing for you to see here... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397681)

This happened before with an astroturfed Microsoft "Switch" campaign, among others, IIRC.

Oh dear (5, Insightful)

Lostie (772712) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397683)

That gives the term "security by obscurity" a whole new meaning... Hidden text?! What were they thinking!

Re:Oh dear (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397689)

The copy-paste method has already been employed and shown on /. a few times in the past.

Re:Oh dear (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397725)

Hidden text?! What were they thinking!

"In God we trust"?

Re:Oh dear (4, Insightful)

ssummer (533461) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397826)

I wish the original source of the story didn't reveal how they happened on the classified information. Who knows how much more juicy classified info might have come out in future PDFs...

It's illegal to knowingly download classified docs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397687)

I trust you will do the right thing.

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (4, Funny)

div_2n (525075) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397705)

Does that mean the government is guilty of entrapment for releasing a PDF with the classified text included?

I'd like to see them try to prosecute this.

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397728)

So would I, considering that the people distributing it are in Italy and therefore not subject to US law. Considering how annoyed the Italian government was about the incident and subsequent cover-up, I doubt that they'll agree to an extradition.

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (1)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397829)

Entrapment means you were persuaded or induced to commit a crime by law enforcement. Just being given an opportunity to commit a crime would not constitute entrapment. Otherwise, every sting operation in America would be entrapment. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm [slashdot.org]

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397711)

Believe it or not, US law only applies to the, ...er, US!

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (4, Funny)

mrsev (664367) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397717)

I know nothing! I just click all the links on a slashdot page and hope for the best!

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397721)

no that's a bit of bullshit for most of the slashdot reading population. The correct statement you should have said was "It's illegal for me to knowingly do knowingly download classified docs".

We, in Australia, don't have a law that says "you can't knowingly download American labelled classified documents", so I've quite eagerly clicked and read random bits of the document that I don't understand.

Yeah, right. (4, Insightful)

Sweetshark (696449) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397740)

It's illegal to knowingly download classified docs, I trust you will do the right thing.
I, for one, will do my duty as a citizen and read the document. Living in a state in europe, I will look if there is any information in it that might be vital to my countries existance and then do the right thing - which might even include distributing the document to others.

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (3, Insightful)

the_european (880429) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397759)

Classified?

Have you read it?

The original document says "UNCLASSIFIED" just on top of every page.

Re:It's illegal to knowingly download classified d (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397804)

The report is unclassified because they BLACKED OUT all the classified parts, which they figured out how to get around.

legality != morallity (5, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397793)

Since when is breaking the law morally wrong? The reason the US has guns is so that its citizents can break unjust laws and defent themselves from an unreasonable government. There is nothing "wrong" with breaking the law, and I wish peopld would start realizing that.

Only if properly marked as classified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397816)

If someone doesn't mark it properly, it's not your fault.

Er.. (0, Redundant)

Nifrith (860526) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397688)

I'm not of a legal profession or anything, but couldn't distributing "unclassified" classified information be illegal? Just a thought.

Re:Er.. (1)

Gorath99 (746654) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397703)

I'm not of a legal profession or anything, but couldn't distributing "unclassified" classified information be illegal? Just a thought.

Not if the document is classified by the US government and you're in Italy (and don't plan to go to the US).

Re:Er.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397706)

Yes.

Now then, one could argue that the reports publishers distubuted the document, so that its them thats at fault..

On a diffrent note, I wounder what software they used to "classify" the hiddern parts?

Re:Er.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397712)

American law applies in Italy does it?

Re:Er.. (2, Insightful)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397714)

But it was distributed. Just not shown. It you pass around a pack of papers and put one you hope nobody will look for at the bottom, can you really be upset when someone grabs exactly that sheet?

My guess is that it's going to be the staffer that released the document that's in hot water.

Re:Er.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397719)

I'm not of a legal profession or anything, but couldn't distributing "unclassified" classified information be illegal? Just a thought.

Well, then wouldn't they be accountable for letting it out in the first place?

Re:Er.. (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397732)

They've put it on an italian domain, and probably on an italian server. Given the political climate in Italy around this case, I seriously doubt that the italian government will cooperate with a US investigation (OTOH with Berlusconi, you never know)

Re:Er.. (1)

alangmead (109702) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397733)

The US government likely has a whole slew of laws about how its citizens should handle classified government documents. (most of them saying "don't") There is very likely nothing in Italian law about how its citizens should handle documents the US has declared classified.

Not distributing, just informing (5, Interesting)

smoany (832744) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397743)

The government did the initial distribution. It just did it unintentionally. Showing how the government did, in-fact, distribute the material itself is certainly not completely free of legal implications, but it is not the same as leaking the classified information. The main questions are: 1) Is it legal to show how to decipher a public transmission of the government to gain more data than intended (no matter how stupid the cypher is). I believe the answer to that question is an emphatic, "no it is illegal", despite what most of us, as technologically literate human beings see as a ton of fun. 2) Should this specific instance of hidden text be considered an encrypted message. Is a message written in Pig Latin considered encrypted? On the other hand, where do we draw the line on how hard an encryption scheme must be to crack before it's considered breaking governmental encryption. (Fellow geeks, please hold off on the comments saying "This is not truly an encrypted message" as for all intents and purposes, this message was unable to be viewed in its intended distribution format.) Tell me what you think! I'm not sure myself.

Original PDF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397692)

Does anybody have a link to the original PDF?

No smoking gun? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397696)

Interesting the the people that posted this don't point out any smoking guns. It's mildly interesting that they were able to thwart the ridiculously inane classified protections, but it's telling that they didn't find anything that further incriminated the U.S. service personnel.

It's unfortunate but if you choose to negotiate with kidnappers (and thereby encourage more kidnapping) and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?

Should I expect less if I make jerky motions into my pockets when a police officer pulls me over for a routine traffic accident?

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397720)

Also, no mention of Sattelite video showing the car was traveling 60 mph not 25-30 as the cunt said.

Re:No smoking gun? (1)

Danuvius (704536) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397738)

Also, no mention of Sattelite video showing the car was traveling 60 mph not 25-30 as the cunt said.
Ah! You are American. N'est pas?

Re:No smoking gun? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397750)

He probably still believes Iraq had WMD. As a former Republican who left because of Bush's lies to war I'm not surprised at this reaction. You either 1) realize you've been had or 2) become violently reactive whenever something challenges your worldview. I chose the adult behavior, realized I was had, and stopped believer those who lied to me.

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397794)

And now you're so principled you feel completely confident to stand up and speak your mind (as an Anonymous Coward).

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397814)

And a slashdot account is so personally identifable! Please, I've endured more scathing criticism than you can deal out (one of my brothers no longer talks to me).

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397789)

" Ah! You are American. N'est pas? "

He's American, and so doesn't understand that stupid Monkey Gibberish at the end of your sentence. Speak/Write God's language....American.

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397723)

Probably not, but then again you clearly live in the US.

Re:No smoking gun? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397726)

"Interesting the the people that posted this don't point out any smoking guns. It's mildly interesting that they were able to thwart the ridiculously inane classified protections, but it's telling that they didn't find anything that further incriminated the U.S. service personnel."
How is that interesting? It's the report by the US supposed to show that the US didn't do anything wrong. How is that a surprise?

"and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?"
If that really had been the case, it would have been unfortunate. However, the italian site is expicitly denying that this is what happened.

"Should I expect less if I make jerky motions into my pockets when a police officer pulls me over for a routine traffic accident?"
Well, I don't really know what you expect making jerky motions in your pants, maybe the police officer gets the hint and follows you to your appartement, however, to reiterate it again, the facts in this mess are far from clear, so stop pretending they were.

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397810)

"If that really had been the case, it would have been unfortunate. However, the italian site is expicitly denying that this is what happened." Of course they are denying it. They paid for her release and didn't want the US to find out about it. Now we discover satellite footage of the event confirms the soldiers story about how fast they were going. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050429/pl_afp/italyu siraqsatellite_050429162837;_ylt=Arjg3cLaI9SskuMfd pXZv8GsOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl [yahoo.com]

Re:No smoking gun? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397736)

Hardly.

After this : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/f rontpage/4503061.stm/ [bbc.co.uk] its obvious that the adminstration is willing to lie and twist anything inorder to get its own way.

I'd rather trust what the Italians were saying than what the White House was saying. They're proven liars afterall.

Re:No smoking gun? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397825)

They're proven liars afterall.

Q: "How can you tell a politician's lying?"
A: "The lips are moving!"

::rim shot::

Re:No smoking gun? (5, Insightful)

Tethys_was_taken (813654) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397739)

Interesting the the people that posted this don't point out any smoking guns. It's mildly interesting that they were able to thwart the ridiculously inane classified protections, but it's telling that they didn't find anything that further incriminated the U.S. service personnel.

It's better that the submitter didn't stuff his/her own opinions into the story. I, for one, don't really care for their views in the summary itself, that's what the comments are for.

Neither do I care for any BS political conclusions derived by the submitter. None of that belongs in the story, all this can stick in the discussion section. This summary makes the most sense I've seen in a long time :) It gives you the facts while leaving the opinions to the READERS.

Re:No smoking gun? (1, Funny)

cyclop (780354) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397757)

This summary makes the most sense I've seen in a long time :) Wow! This is a HUGE accomplishment here on /. ! Thank you.

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397744)

And also troop were flashing lights and fired warning shots that were ignored, so the car appeared to be a hostile enemy.

Sgrena lied from the beginning, [captainsquartersblog.com] and she knows the US can prove it. Why do you think she hasn't made a peep recently?

Re:No smoking gun? (5, Funny)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397766)

It's unfortunate but if you choose to negotiate with kidnappers (and thereby encourage more kidnapping) and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?

I think this falls under the same category as the famous Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy:

"I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him."

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397781)

and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?

"Italy had made all necessary contacts for safe passage, advising the US military at the airport as Sgrena was en route, Mr Berlusconi said."

"The driver twice called the embassy and Italy to say that we were heading towards the airport that I knew was heavily patrolled by US troops."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4325253.stm/ [bbc.co.uk]

Perhaps it wasn't the Italians or the troops that messed up this time.

Re:No smoking gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397787)

"It's unfortunate but if you choose to negotiate with kidnappers (and thereby encourage more kidnapping) ... is it any surprise this happened?"

So you are saying since they negotiated with kidnappers they had it coming?

Re:No smoking gun? (-1, Troll)

Homology (639438) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397799)

It's unfortunate but if you choose to negotiate with kidnappers (and thereby encourage more kidnapping) and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?

Curious enough, the kidnappers warned the hostage to be wary of US soldiers. The US soldiers attempted to murder her, and failed but murdered the Italian agent negotiating her release. The current Italian government is strongly supporting the illegal US occupation of Iraq, and still the US does this to a close ally. I'm a bit surprised that the government did not fall because of this. Like everywhere in Eurpoe, people is very much against this war.

Correction (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397702)

"In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who was travelling in a car that refused to slow down for a coalition checkpoint."

Further correction (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397724)

In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who was travelling in a car that - according to US troops - refused to slow down for a coalition checkpoint.

Re:Further correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397771)

Let those of us with mod points demonstrate our severe anti-Bush administration bias by modding in opposite directions two equally insightful (or, perhaps, uninsightful) comments whose only difference is that they take opposing viewpoints on an issue.

Re:Further correction (0, Insightful)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397798)

Are you fucking kidding me? Insightful my ass.
And what happened according to non-US sources?

RTFA. These Italian guys were obviously inexperienced for that kind of undertaking (ignorant of "rules of the game").
You don't zoom thru an armed checkpoint in Iraq.

Re:Correction (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397762)

n March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent whose country paid a random (and thereby funding the insurgency further and encouraging more kidnappings) for the kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena.

Further correction 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397779)

In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent whose country - according to unnamed US sources - paid a ransom (and thereby funding the insurgency further and encouraging more kidnappings) for the kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena.

Dear US friends... there is more than one US sponsored truth.

Re:Correction (4, Insightful)

orzetto (545509) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397784)

...U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent whose country paid a random (and thereby funding the insurgency further and encouraging more kidnappings)...
Ahh, I suppose this justifies it all then.

I'm going to question the judgement of this (5, Insightful)

capillary tube (861062) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397718)

There might actually have been respectable and perhaps important reasons for redacting some of that information. Not that it matters now, but it seems a bit imprudent to fervishly publicize information about troops that could have serious ramifications for them.

Re:I'm going to question the judgement of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397749)

"There might actually have been respectable and perhaps important reasons for redacting some of that information."
And there might not have been. Looking at what's a stake here, there might have other motives to redact some of the information and uncovering that is precisely what a free press is there for.

"Not that it matters now, but it seems a bit imprudent to fervishly publicize information about troops that could have serious ramifications for them."
Why do you assume that the journalists didn't think about that before publishing it, indeed even read through it and concluded that that was not the case?
Anyway, it now is out in the open and I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could have serious ramifications.

Re:I'm going to question the judgement of this (1)

capillary tube (861062) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397821)

"Why do you assume that the journalists didn't think about that before publishing it, indeed even read through it and concluded that that was not the case?" I'm sure that the journalists did give the concept some thought; however, they do not have the authority or expert ability to decide what classified information is acceptable to publicize. "Anyway, it now is out in the open and I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could have serious ramifications." I admittedly cannot; I have no experience with the subtleties involved in the classification of information and therefore will not make any decision as to what is and isn't acceptable for the public domain. The journalists who released this information do not have clearance and thus also lacks that ability, which is why I'm questioning their judgement. "And there might not have been. Looking at what's a stake here, there might have other motives to redact some of the information and uncovering that is precisely what a free press is there for." I'm pretty sure you will have no problem pointing out where the information published could indicate subversive motives for its classification.

Re:I'm going to question the judgement of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397753)

In many cases I would agree with you but in this case it seems better to make it public. For the safey of said troops. You know people that weren't suppose to see the text would figure this out. Then the people it was suppose to protect would be in ever more danger. You know, thinking that no one could get to the text.

Can they be this stupid? (4, Insightful)

jeti (105266) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397722)

I know it never pays to underestimate human stupidity.

But non the less - I wonder if people can really be this stupid. Perhaps making people think they accessed confidential information is just a trick so the report seems more believeale.

hi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397727)

Now some oil war supporters will start to bitch about wether it is illegal or not to distribute the TRUTH.

Irresponsible to post this. (2, Insightful)

Kilkonie (178841) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397741)

Obligitory opening post to start the major flame/anti-flame thread. So the topic is:

Why the hell would slashdot post something that seems pretty darn illegal on the front of their site?
If it's not illegal, it's just plain irresponsible. I recognize that the folks who run Slashdot are often characterized as kids with no journalistic integrity, but come on...

Re:Irresponsible to post this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397754)

The story is about irresponsible use of technology, if at all. Not about the content of the document.

Re:Irresponsible to post this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397805)

don't worry...
now the un-censored rapport is on every italian news site ;-)

Re:Irresponsible to post this. (5, Interesting)

cyclop (780354) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397806)

Since I submitted this story to /., I bite the flamebait.

Personally I have no clear opinions on the Calipari case, because in this cases all information that slips to civilians is of course filtered and in the best case only a pale approximation of the truth. There is too much truly classified information about this, like about anything relating to a war. Truth will perhaps eventually arise, but it's matter of years.

About illegality/irresponsability, well, you have to question not me nor CmdrTaco integrity, but the journalistic integrity of all major Italian media. All sites of prominent Italian newspapers and even Italian national television broadcast service are highlighting this scoop with great fanfare. The link to the unclassified document comes from and is hosted by the Corriere della Sera website, the major Italian newspaper.

So it's plain silly to think /. should have silenced this. If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else to post this.

Moreover someone already pointed out in comments that is better for people that may risk something by this disclosure to know they risk something. The vulnerability was there. It should have been an advantage for someone if it was secret. Being that much publicized, such info it is not an advantage for any enemy more.

obligatory babel fish translation (2, Informative)

willCode4Beer.com (783783) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397745)

Calipari, jumps the omissis of the Americans
On Internet the relationship in its interezza can be read. The Power of attorney of Rome will acquire the new document like open source

INSTRUMENTS
VERSION STAMPABILE
The READ PIU'
IT SENDES THIS ARTICLE
The USA relationship with omissis (AP)
ROME - They are omissis "only virtual", than they can be gone around with simple clic, those lies in wait for to the USA relationship on the dead women of Nicholas Calipari, published friday, and that they would have had to hide names, procedures and others you leave classified. Pecette black that filled up the 45 the pages of the document answered to obvious reasons of inner emergency, a way in order protect the anonymity of the marines been involved in the "tragic incident" of 4 March, when Calipari found the dead women for "fire friend" on the road for the airport of Bagdad.

Sin but that the USA commando had not made the accounts with the "copy and glue", that concurs to read the relationship in its interezza, without censorships. How? E' sufficient to open the document it originates them with the version reader of Acrobat, to select all the text and to make a copy and glue on Word or whichever editor. Or, easier anchor, to open rows "pdf" originates them, to cliccare on "Saves come..." and to choose a whichever various format from the "pdf" (always Word, as an example). A simplest technical operation that is in a position to executing anyone has a connected computer to Internet.

Between the parts of the relationship covered the military secret USA there is as an example the paragraph with the names of the members of the patrol who has talked nonsense against the car of Calipari, or the identity of the third man (an Italian agent) to the guide of the car with Giuliana Sgrena and Calipari, and still the understood one it with the procedures of I engage of the check point. Emergency "around to John Negroponte emerges also the operation" and the difficulties of that evening in the particular chain of commando americana.Tutti, with to many others, that they are hour becomes you of public dominion and that the power of attorney of Rome that it inquires on the Calipari homicide will acquire. It is how much is learned in atmospheres investigated you of Clodio Large square. The acquisition procedure is that one that the enquirers define of the so-called opened sources, that is news of interest for the judicial authority that but does not have some trial-like valence.

If it was me (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397746)

If it was me, I would have shot the car. It was clearly speeding towards their position. The driver was not paying attention. He had a spotlight and a laser pointer shined on them. They supposedly had the windows down in the car to hear for threats. They were going in excess of 50mph, and the driver admits he was not in the habit of checking his speed. Who's at fault? The driver.

I don't blame the soldiers at all.

Re:If it was me (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397769)

I do.

These assertions are denied by two of the witnesses, namely the two surviving occupants of the car. In my judgement, the soldiers are either lying to save their hides, or the investigation was meant to be a cover-up from the start.

Re:If it was me (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397807)

What? They were not paying attention to what was going on. They had the interior light on and talking. How do they know how fast they were going? How do they know the driver did or did not see the spotlight?

No, I think the Italian journalist is the one lying here. The guy was speeding and failed to stop. How are the soldiers to know who is in the car?

Re:If it was me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397815)

The satellite footage shows otherwise.

Congratulations, you are a great example (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397808)

"If it was me, I would have shot the car. It was clearly speeding towards their position."
It was? That's what not surprisingly those who shot claim, however I have seen no prove of that claim yet, and the other side is telling a different story.

"The driver was not paying attention."
He wasn't? Proof? And of course, see comment above.

"He had a spotlight and a laser pointer shined on them."
He did? Proof? And of course, see comment above.

"They supposedly had the windows down in the car to hear for threats."
They did? Proof? And of course, see comment above.

"They were going in excess of 50mph, and the driver admits he was not in the habit of checking his speed."
They were? Proof? And of course, see comment above.

Seriously, and some Americans wonder why others might not like the US? I don't say it was the soldiers fault and the Italians didn't do what you claim, I simply don't know, what I do know however is that the US' urge to deny any wrongdoing whatsoever, no matter what, acting as if the facts in this case were totally clear, though they clearly aren't, is deeply disgusting and doesn't endear the US to the Europeans and others.

So, if you are wondering once again why some people don't like you, just look at the parents comments, at similar comments already made here, that also were modded up and you might just get a hint about why there is a lot of Anti-Americanism in the world.

Which parts are classified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397755)

I guess, technically, it's all unclassified now, but which parts are supposed to be classified? Is it the stuff in bold in the TOC? None of it seems interesting enough to warrent classification.

This is also another example of why Adobe should just shut its doors. People seem to think pdfs are somehow magically unchangeable.
(The other reason Adobe shoud shut down is that Acrobat Reader 6.0 seems to slow my computer to a crawl and I curse to high heaven every time I accidentally click on a PDF link.)

Treason, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397758)

Yeah, so some dolt didn't do a good job with the black marker, so you couldn't believe your luck to show the world what a bunch of dummies our President/Military/Intelligence Officers are.

You didn't think about the fact that by exposing the enemy tactics that were removed from the original document, you're letting them know we know how they operate, giving them a chance to use that against our soldiers now.

Doesn't really matter what you think about the war. You've just sent how many american soldiers to their deaths. For what?

The implications... (4, Interesting)

kevinadi (191992) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397760)

...are scary. This, and numerous other pdf-related security breaches which happened (remember the blacked-out pdf that was modified to reveal its contents?) are all the more reason for MS pushing its software everywhere by declaring competing software are not as secure as theirs. Doesn't matter if the security breach originated from the user's lack of understanding of the most basic security concepts.

My fear is that knee-jerk reactions to incident like this someday could be as extreme as invoking the DMCA against copy and paste. That, and further control from MS for information in the government due to the inherent "security" of MS stuff. It's unimaginable that a corporation can be more powerful than the government, but more incidents like this and this will happen.

Funding Terrorism is NOT rescuing (-1, Flamebait)

RobertHS (880428) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397761)

The communist reporter was not rescued she was bought with money that will go to buy arms that will be used to kill 80% Iraqi civilians and 20% foreign soldiers. Nothing heroic happened, a payoff was made, and a phone call was not. Put in the same situation as the soldiers I would have done the same thing. It always amazes me when people are surprised nasty things happen in war.

Re:Funding Terrorism is NOT rescuing (0, Troll)

Cederic (9623) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397818)


If the foreign soldiers don't want shooting with the arms being allegedly bought with that money then

A : Get the fuck out of the country they have no right to be in anyway

B : Stop shooting innocent civilians for no good reason at all

It's not just coincidence that British forces suffer far fewer incidents and casualties than American forces, while also killing fewer innocent civilians.

American soldiers are badly trained, badly disciplined and quite frankly often deserve to die.

~Cederic

Re:Funding Terrorism is NOT rescuing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397828)

If that was your sister, would you make her a martyr to your principles?

Anyway, looks like they told the US authorities, but they in turn failed to tell the troops. The US's long term and daily management of Iraq has been a mess from the start.

Re:Funding Terrorism is NOT rescuing (2, Interesting)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397830)

The communist reporter was not rescued she was bought with money that will go to buy arms that will be used to kill 80% Iraqi civilians and 20% foreign soldiers.

Woah! Slow down and don't drink all the kool-aid at once! The incident was likely an accident, but you do nothing to help your argument by calling people 'communists'. On Limbaugh, you may win brownie points for what you said, but in a reasonable (or even Slashdot) argument, you unlikely to convince anyone with stupid retoric.

accident (2, Interesting)

d_strand (674412) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397763)

From scanning through the report I can only conclude that it was an accident. The US soldiers where poorly trained for the mission, and the driver of the car wasn't paying enough attention to his surroundings.

Tragic yes, but nothing more (assuming the italians agree with the description of the events of course, people can always lie)

That's what they get for using Microsoft! (2, Funny)

jerw134 (409531) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397765)

What? It was a PDF? You mean people can do stupid things with software that isn't made by Microsoft?

Pdftotext does it (5, Informative)

orzetto (545509) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397768)

Download the pdf and run pdftotext on it, it works.

Marx was right: Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

This was a very, very, bad idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397770)

Speaking as a veteran of the US Military, I can tell you that the logistical information chopped from that report will put soldier's lives at risk. Details of procedures, troop sizes, movements - and enemy intelligence reports *should* remain classified.

Way to go media. YOU SUCK.

Re:This was a very, very, bad idea (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397803)

Then, perhaps, the military should have the sense to use effective obfuscation techniques before releasing such details to the public. How difficult would it have been to physically redact a paper copy with a black marker before scanning it into a PDF rather than simply layering images of black boxes over the text?

VOIP (3, Interesting)

beyondtheblack (853555) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397772)

The US Military uses VOIP? And it failed during this incident? Why would they use technology that is hardly the most reliable to confer on the battlefield. Isn't that a little dangerous? I wouldn't trust my life to VOIP, no matter how secure/reliable a military network was.

Let's play the blame game (5, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397776)

It appears that this all boils down to a blame game - the US wants to defend its soldiers and assign blame to the Italians for not sharing information, whereas the Italians want the American soldiers held responsible for what is, essentially, a tragic circumstance in a war zone.

The Italians in the car weren't expecting a roadblock at that location, and the Americans didn't know about the rescue operation that was in progress...

what a waste (0, Flamebait)

hugzz (712021) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397783)

it's a shame it was wasted on this document. they'll be sure not to make the same mistake again. pity it wasn't saved for a document that shows something more important (how elections were rigged or government funded assasinations etc)

Frightening (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397786)

This is a frightening example of how little our bureaucrats know and understand the computers they use. One has to wonder how many similar occurrences of ineptitude have transpired, and what were the ramifications?

Who really made the scoop (5, Informative)

dotmaudot (243236) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397792)

Needless to say, no Italian newspaper ever cares to cite that the news was pointed out by an Italian blogger, Gianluca Neri of Macchianera [macchianera.net] .

Other PDFs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397795)

So how many other PDFs are there with 'hidden' text?

If you gotta die, die white (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12397796)

Hundreds, if not thousands of Iraqis have been killed in similar circumstances since the US liberation, and people are making so much fuss about one white guy ? Give me a break !

Insecurity Through Stupidity (4, Interesting)

superid (46543) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397800)

This is 100% of a case of people not being properly trained and not following security procedures.

Secret data must be stored only on computers cleared for secret processing. Secret documents can only be downgraded to unclassified by deletion of the text followed by exporting it to plain ASCII text only.

Word documents, Powerpoint presentations, PDFs, etc cannot ever be transfered from a secret computer to an unclassified computer even if the original file is unclassified. The only allowable format is human readable text. Basically, if you can't read it in notepad, you cannot copy it from a classified computer to an unclassified computer.

These are the rules, unfortunately not everyone follows them (convenience) or is properly trained.

Okay, that's written in Army-ese. (2, Insightful)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 8 years ago | (#12397809)

Does anyone who speaks Army jargon know what this is all saying, or can someone at least point out the salient points?

Like... what about those allegations that the Italians had paid several million Euros as ransom [google.com] to the kidnappers?

Kids, I know you want your people back--I'm sorry, but your hostages are already dead. Mourn for them, but don't pay off their kidnappers. That's stupid. That's Reagan-stupid. Ten million bucks buys a lot more kidnappings and suicide bombs.

You'd think we'd have learned this lesson by now.

--grendel drago
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...