Slashdot Mirror


Fraudulent Anti-Terrorist Software Led US To Ground Planes

The Register, citing this Playboy article, reports that a Nevada man named Dennis Montgomery was able in 2003 to connive his way into a position of respectability at the CIA on the basis of his company's claimed ability, using software, to "detect and decrypt 'barcodes' in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, the Qatari news station." Montgomery was CTO of Reno-based eTreppid Technologies, which produced bucketloads of data purported to represent "geographic coordinates and flight numbers" hidden in these broadcasts. All of which, it seems, was hokum, finally debunked in cooperation with a branch of the French intelligence service — but not, says the article, before the fabricated information, chalked up to "credible sources," was used as justification to ground some international flights, and even evacuate New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.

53 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. This just shows how broken it all is by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If one guy can pull this kind of stuff off, imagine what would happen if he "tipped" some of his worst enemies to them. And to the terrorist prison camps they go.

    1. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The spirit of McCarthyism lives on.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by aurispector · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite. This was just a scam although it could have been a lot worse. The basic problem is that a lot of people don't really understand technology. If there's going to be any Mccarthy style overreaction it should be to throw this guy in jail for a long, long time.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    3. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was referring to sopssa's post, which alluded to turning in innocent people.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I never understood why Bush planed to bomb AlJazerea until now.
      In case you missed it: Bush planed to bomb the TV station in an allied country until GB Premier Blair stopped him.

    5. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by Lakitu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's pretty much exactly what happened to a few of the people who ended up at Guantanmo Bay -- rewards were offered for tips that led to the capture of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers in Afghanistan in ~2001-2002. It worked great, as they began receiving a ton of tips from the formerly unhelpful local populace. It seems fairly obvious now that a not insignificant amount of the tips were completely fabricated, indicating that people who were completely unrelated to any real sympathy for al'Qaeda, or perhaps people who were the target of grudges, were doing things that they were not doing, or wanted to do things that they did not want to do.

      Nobody seemed to care very much, since it didn't involve US citizens, and since people had let fear control their lives and did not want to take any chances, no matter how remote they are. Hey Sarge, Habib from Jalalabnotgonnaworkhereanymore says this derka farmer in a village 10 miles away hates America! What are the chances Habib would lie to us?

    6. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by bytesex · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    7. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by DJRumpy · · Score: 2

      The basic problem is that we pay these folks to think like a paranoid (albeit with a little dose of common sense, and some thoroughness when needed). We basically got what we paid for. It sounds like some background checks where in order.

    8. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by ecbpro · · Score: 5, Informative
      If I remember right, he did bomb Al Jazeera in Iraq.

      the nation

    9. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The scary thing is that they did to background checks. And security checks. If you believe TFA, they did "due diligence" multiple times. The perps managed to scam that in two ways - first, they scammed the government into handing over millions for "R&D" and they pulled that scam off several times with different groups throughout the government. Second, they somehow managed to come in contact with a number of influential people, both within government and the just plain rich and dumb and they scammed them for all it's worth.

      Sociopathy and social engineering. A win every time. For a while, at least.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a story that gets brought up occasionally. Many Afghans were picked up, but unless there was more to go on than what an informant said they were released.

      or tortured to death despite being completely innocent..

    11. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Informative? Ahahaha. Right. That's one _hell_ of a source you have there. Don't get me wrong, Dubya was a retard and a horrible President but seriously, that's not what you'd call a credible source.

      On an entirely different subject...Oh my God, I just found out Bat Boy trapped Santa! Holy crap! I even have a source

      .

    12. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Informative
      No. They weren't. That's why you can't find the outcome.

      In August 2005, lead interrogator Specialist Glendale Wells of the US army pleaded guilty at a military court to pushing Dilawar against a wall and doing nothing to prevent other soldiers from abusing him. Wells was subsequently sentenced to two months in a military prison. Two other soldiers convicted in connection with the case escaped custodial sentences. The sentences were criticized by Human Rights Watch.

    13. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      or tortured to death despite being completely innocent. [wikipedia.org].

      And the people who killed him were charged with murder.

      No. The low-level guys got minor slaps on the wrist and the officers got awards.

      For example, the officer in command of the unit that tortured people to death at Bagram (Carolyn Wood) was awarded awarded a bronze star and then transferred to Abu Ghraib where the prisoner famous abuses then took place and then she was awarded another bronze star.

      So,just from that, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration (and their supporters) really just didn't care. But more fundamentally, it's been common knowledge in civilized countries for hundreds of years that if you set up a "justice" system without proper checks and balances (right to counsel, habeas corpus, etc) that your "justice" system is going to do bad things (torture) to innocent people.

    14. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by beej · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo

      Wikipedia has a pile of links at the bottom of the page you can follow.

      I can't find a record of a denial by the White House, and the guys who leaked the memo went to jail for it. Maybe the White House did issue an actual denial (I didn't search that much), and maybe there was something in the memo that wasn't Al Jazeera-related, that was why they went to jail.

      But apparently it's well-acknowledged by everyone that there was a memo, but whether or not that memo contained any information about bombing Al Jazeera has not been confirmed nor denied.

      That being said, I would be very shocked if this event didn't unfold in a similar form to the accusation. It would be a natural question as to whether or not to attack Al Jazeera—it's an uncontrolled media establishment operating in the war zone. If the question didn't arise, it would be remiss of those in charge. To actually bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar would be a capital B-A-D bad idea, so, if it was considered, it was rightly dropped.

      I really hope it didn't actually come down to Bush and Blair having a discussion about it. The idea should have been considered and discarded before it got that high.

    15. Re:This just shows how broken it all is by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So,just from that, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration (and their supporters) really just didn't care.

      Oh, they cared. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice ok'd the use of waterboarding on a per-prisoner basis. Dick Cheney was involved in meetings about exactly what methods would be used.

      It's not that the top brass didn't care: They did care, and approved of it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  2. diff needed by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frances Townsend, a homeland security adviser to Bush, said she did not regret having relied on Montgomery's mysterious intelligence. "It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. We were relying on technical people to tell us whether or not it was feasible," she said.

    "It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. We were relying on shit like this to maintain the illusion that we are doing something to combat terrorism. When he asked to close the museum of modern art, we were overjoyed. Talk about high-profile!"

    The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: stop training terrorists and betraying them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:diff needed by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11. Unless by 'betrayed' you mean the war ended, most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan, we were no longer needed so stopped training, and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.

      The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water. You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals. Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian's steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world. And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.

    2. Re:diff needed by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      stop training terrorists and betraying them.

      It's not just that. These people are also enraged at what they see as US imperialism in the Middle East. With all the invasions and troops deployed to the region, and all the coups, it is a wonder to me that the US isn't constantly being bombed by disaffected people of all stripes.

      --
      SSC
    3. Re:diff needed by Lakitu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      just an fyi:

      That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his inauguration speech in 1933 during the Great Depression. I was starting to wonder why I should bother posting this info until it prompted me to look for a bit more info on it and I found this cool site: http://www.bartleby.com/124/

      which contains the texts of the inauguration speeches for all of the Presidents of the US. Here's the actual quote, with a little more context:

      I AM certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.

      quite a contrast to the 43rd President!

    4. Re:diff needed by dlt074 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i agree with your first point, this whole "do something" disease has to stop. doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.

      as for your other point. while i don't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today, i know we train people we shouldn't train and they will come back to haunt us. however, i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up. stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it's our fault, if we just didn't upset them they won't beat/kill us anymore. ridiculous!

      take for instance Afghanistan. we "trained" them to fight the Soviets(biggest problem at the time). when the Soviets left, we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan, there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new "allies" to fight. leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal. do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government? we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass. damned if we do, damed if we don't. it's a little more complicated then, we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back. if anything, diplomacy with our enemies(Soviets) led to this.

    5. Re:diff needed by Lakitu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water. You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals.

      That's not entirely untrue. One of the reasons communist China existed as it did was because of pressure from the US for the USSR to declare war on Japan, most likely to help mitigate American casualties in any invasion of the Japanese mainlands. This pressure was also exerted to draw Soviet forces away from Europe, where there was a genuine fear about further war, after the Nazis fell, between the West and the Soviets. In hindsight this war was not very likely, but there was a genuine, well-founded fear and distrust of Stalin.

      This also probably served as an impetus for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both as a deterrent to the Russians, and as a way to end the war quicker, with a Japanese surrender to the USA, rather than letting the USSR grab up more territory.

      The implications of the victory of communist forces over the nationalist Chinese is a lot more obvious, with the China/Taiwan split, communism on the Korean peninsula, etc. Not to mention the authoritarian regime in China today is largely a spawn of the communist government.

      You do have a good point -- it's not quite cause-and-effect, it is much more complicated. That does not mean it's completely false. There has been lots of meddling in foreign affairs by the USA post-WW2, or post-WW1, which had largely been confined to the Western hemisphere and parts of the Pacific prior to that. There was certainly a great deal more isolationist feeling where people felt that goings on across the globe weren't quite their business, to the point where the political leadership of the USA had a very isolationist bent starting in the decades after the Revolution, declaring neutrality in any potential upcoming European wars. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the USA had been formed as a 'European' power, getting involved in the wars of the 19th century, like the Napoleonic wars, or the Crimean war?

      It seems we could benefit from a bit of that isolationist feeling, if it could be reciprocated.

    6. Re:diff needed by A1rmanCha1rman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

      When "their" interests dovetail with "our" own short-term self-interest, we brand them rebels, or better yet, freedom fighters. When they're on the other side, they're always terrorists...

      Conditions change, and the enemy of our enemy can no longer be our friend - betrayal ensues, and blood oaths are uttered - and suddenly the 180-degree transformation is complete. This is the folly of short-term, self-serving isolationist interest as a valid option for steering foreign policy.

      --
      I get up, I get down...
    7. Re:diff needed by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: stop training terrorists and betraying them.

      Bzzzzt!

      The only way to effectively combat terrorism is to stop freaking the fuck out. By definition terrorists want to create terror. So stop over-reacting. Stop treating terrorism as some special evil that is a force unto itself worthy of endless news coverage and the constant ratcheting up of 'safety' rules. Live our lives as the free and the brave, not pathetic slaves to fear.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:diff needed by spiralpath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the spirit of your post is true, I find it useful to distinguish acts of terrorism and terrorists themselves by the qualifier that they are indiscriminate in their targets: civilian, military, government, it doesn't matter (or they purposely target civilians). I learned this distinction from a fellow student of anthropology and it stuck with me.

  3. Flights by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “What were we going to do and how would we screen people? If we weren’t comfortable we wouldn’t let a flight take off.”

    Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open? It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.

    Seems like hysterical thinking for me.

    1. Re:Flights by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open?

      Good question. I imagine the answer is because the terrorist groups that most concern the CIA seem obsessed with passenger airplanes along with some combination of bureaucratic momentum and "fighting the last war" going on.

    2. Re:Flights by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because the US is now self-terrorizing, no bombers needed. We needlessly disrupt and frighten on our own to keep people on edge. And because once grown, government never shrinks, the massive increase in HSA and other such frightmongering will be a part of our culture (and budget) for the rest of United States history.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    3. Re:Flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      “What were we going to do and how would we screen people? If we weren’t comfortable we wouldn’t let a flight take off.”

      Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open? It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.

      Seems like hysterical thinking for me.

      Totally agree. I took Amtrak recently and I was *shocked* that there was absolutely no baggage screening or even a metal detector I had to go through to board the train--you just show up with your bags and walk in without any security, ID checks, or bag checks whatsoever. They don't even check for your ticket until about a half hour into the train ride. Sure, airport security sucks, but the last couple of major terrorist attacks in Europe were on trains and we still don't care about trains? This convinced me that the security circus crowd is correct...

    4. Re:Flights by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

      we still don't care about trains?

      You can't hijack a train, and take it somewhere else, later ramming it into a huge building full of people in some other city.

      And... try going the combination of things you need to do in order to, say, steer a train pulling large payloads of dangerous chemicals someplace it's not supposed to go. You have to take over the locomotive and get control of the railyard switching systems and be able to magically control other trains to make sure they're not in your way.

      Simply blowing up some passengers in the trains, a la Madrid, isn't as sexy in the US, since the attackers need to rise to the same level as their last large domestic attack, or appear to be (as they are) not as capable as they once were.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. Wait, what? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Funny

    Playboy article? I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles. Who knew?

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    1. Re:Wait, what? by rvw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Playboy article? I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles. Who knew?

      Naked girls, software, terrorists, fraud - enough to make a nerd reach new emotional heights.

  5. Deluisional idiot or con man? by walmass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The author was on NPR a few days ago [transcript and audio], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there :-)

    Here came someone with a magic box who provided an easy solution, and the eggheads and their political masters bought it hook, line and sinker. What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy's findings. Billions of dollars and some of the finest brains working there, and no one thought to call them? Looks like even in 2003 inter-agency cooperation wasn't going very well.He was CIAs asset, and they were not going to share.

    My conclusion: con man, and he will probably get away with this, because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.

    1. Re:Deluisional idiot or con man? by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the eggheads and their political masters bought it hook, line and sinker.

      Or the eggheads took one look and facepalmed, but the political masters used it anyway, fully aware it was bullshit. Fear is useful to them.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Deluisional idiot or con man? by rastilin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He told Bauder to listen to the phone. "'When you hear the tone, I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.'" Bauder, in other words, would be secretly communicating with Montgomery while the military guys watched the supposed software demo on another computer.

      ...and at the time, he seriously didn't find it the least bit suspicious? This stretches credibility, either they're all huge idiots, or they were playing along while the going was good.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    3. Re:Deluisional idiot or con man? by rwyoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      The author was on NPR a few days ago [transcript and audio], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there :-)

      Here is also video of a Rachel Maddow interview with the author: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/maddow_with_roston_on_the_incredible_magic_al_jaze.php

    4. Re:Deluisional idiot or con man? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to TFA, that's exactly what happened. Intel professionals called bullshit several times, but were essentially overruled because a) it might, just might, maybe in a parallel universe or with the right pixie dust, might work and b) more importantly advanced a specific political agenda with the higher ups.

      Social engineering at it's finest.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Pro-Terrorism software by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That software, coupled with the (ok, Hanlon should be right) stupidity of the ones believing in this software was right and acting according should be punished. They were doing the work of terrorists, spreading panic between people.

    In the other hand, should be a lesson to government between the difference of open and closed source. Snake oil is harder to sell if you can peek at the formula.

  7. Suprise surprise... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this? The guy who told them this nonsense, or the CIA guy who payed him to produce the "intel" they wanted to hear?

    Along with the recently-revealed origin of the "45 minutes" claim here in the UK, this starts to paint a picture of the way the War on Terror is justified: agencies don't make stuff up: they pay some idiot to make stuff up, so that when questions are asked, blame can go to the idiot instead of the highly-trained people that somehow end up listening to idiots.

    This also shows how easy it is to fool most people by treating computers like magic. You can't say stuff came to you in a vision anymore, but claim that magic software told you and most people are too scared of technical stuff to think to hard about it.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Suprise surprise... by joe_garage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      computers ARE magic to 99% of the population (if they own one or not) --- i fear that also goes for 'those in charge' (of us?)

    2. Re:Suprise surprise... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage. We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Suprise surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, And this is why information theory needs to be taught in kinder garden, the problems being that A. Most Teachers Don't Understand Information Theory and B. Nobody has come up with a way to conceptualize Information Theory in a way that can be thought to very young kids and then built on through out there education. B is probably quite doable but A is really going to be the big stumbling block. But since Information Theory can be applied to most anything it would very beneficial to our society to groove it in on the same level as a shape like a triangles.

  8. we won the war... by airdrummer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but fucked up the end-game, according to charlie wilson's war;-}

    an i saw this story on network news last night...

  9. Re:The easiest way to stop terrorism: by elnyka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Renounce Empire.

    <rant>

    The Lord's Army in Uganda is a terrorist organization, so was the Shinning Path in Peru. What empire does Uganda or Peru need to renounce? When a Sunny terrorist blows up a Shiite mosque in Pakistan, what empire does the Shiite minority needs to renounce?

    I could bring a large number of examples where terrorism has more to do with ideology, racism and religious fanaticism than with any notions of empire and its side effects. Just because the most notorious forms of terrorism (Islamic terrorism affecting the Western World) can be explained as a reaction of empire building, that does not mean the phenomenon of terrorism can be explained in those terms, much less solved from those premises.

    The easiest way to answer a moral question without actually answering it is by pitching empty slogans. It sure feels great to say them (oh man, do you feel me? I do stand for something, so cliche... I mean avant garde!)...

    ... but they are a dime a dozen and don't amount to much anyway. A moral point based on a fallacious premise is an empty one, a fallacy and a slogan. Try harder. Try better.

    </rant>

    On another note, if the story is true, I do hope Montgomery and whoever up the intelligence food chain that was too stupid to paid him for his snake oil go burn in hell.

  10. We proved him a fraud years back, no one listened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked for a Very Large Company looking to buy image compression software from this dude many years back. A co-worker did some extremely clever testing of the compression software that proved conclusively that the compression algorithms were cheating, and that it was intentional fraud. Upper management still wanted to believe the cheater and not our own internal debunking. Amazing how non-objective people can be, even (or especially) managers of scientists and engineers.

  11. you aint seen nothing yet by daveb1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    you aint seen nothing yet. There is this site called 4chan and the users are posting hidden messages in pictures. Some are harmless others ..... well i won't speculate here in a public place :P

  12. articles? by binaryseraph · · Score: 3, Funny

    Playboy has articles?

  13. Possibly nobody by doug141 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this?

    I know from someone who worked in the DOD these cons can come across a single desk more than once a week, with, interestingly, professional presentations totally at odds with the quality of the science. If it were your job to sort through these, and if you had to sort through HUNDREDS in your career, then the one con who got lucky guesses (law of averages and all) during your testing of him would end your career. Remember a 99% accurate test is wrong 1% of the time. Also consider it can be just as bad (or worse) if you turn someone away who did have something novel, especially if it costs lives.

    1. Re:Possibly nobody by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And it's a coincidence that the one hoax that happened to click with their existing obsession with spy-thriller plots to down airliners got accepted and the ones which can predict when Canada will invade or identify terrorists from their shoe sizes or estimate the odds of Mickey Mouse defecting to the Russians didn't? (I consider these to make about as much sense as each other).

      Yes, people should lose their jobs if they judge things based on the professionalism of the presentation instead of its content ("Good god! This isn't in green ball-point! Get me the President right away!"). Such a presentation, for something this wacky, would either have to be basically free of content, contain a different explanation from the one given now, or be detectable bullshit from even a quite cursory examination.

      And even if some bored guy in an office somewhere flagged it as potentially interesting, I cannot believe that, at some later point, they didn't ask even vaguely what it was supposed to do before paying the fraudster, or at least before closing airports.

      Also consider it can be just as bad (or worse) if you turn someone away who did have something novel, especially if it costs lives.

      This may not actually be true. What sort of odds can they have thought this had of actually working? What is an acceptable level of risk? Would you, for example, shut all the US's airports to avoid a 1% chance of one flight being blown up? How about 0.01%, etc., etc. The risk of coded messages in Al-Jazeera's signal (especially in the form of "barcodes", FFS) being used to communicate with terrorists vanishes into "background noise", buried beneath the various potential mechanical and human failures that we inevitably risk by flying (yes, I know flying is very safe; I'm just reminding you that nothing we do is risk-free).

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  14. Nice strawman. by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comparing our voluntary invasion of sovereign nations to WWII and the Revolutionary War is completely ridiculous. Afghanistan's government requested Soviet military support to quell the fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists from overthrowing their secular Marxist government. We decided to punish the CCCP by "giving them their own Vietnam." We gathered every crazy Islamic fundamentalist we could lay our hands on, trained them, and showed that it was possible to defeat a world superpower. We poured billions of dollars of weapons into the country, and Russia poured billions in, and we had a proxy war that completely destroyed Afghanistan, and killed possibly millions of people. Then, as soon as the Russians left, refused to give a dime to build anything.

    If it was just limited to Afghanistan, I could say it was an honest, one time mistake. However, we have invaded and overthrown so many democratic governments that it's almost a farce at this point to claim that we support freedom. It's obvious that we support whatever entity follows our orders. The only thing that will make the US care about your freedom is if you have some resource under your feet and a governent that is not playing ball.

    And here's the amazing part about your post:

    And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.

    Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral? Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.

    1. Re:Nice strawman. by mqduck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comparing our voluntary invasion of sovereign nations to WWII and the Revolutionary War is completely ridiculous. Afghanistan's government requested Soviet military support to quell the fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists from overthrowing their secular Marxist government.

      Not quite true. Afghanistan had a Marxist, Soviet-aligned government threatened by Islamist ("Islamo-Fascism" is a bullshit term that has nothing to do with history), US-backed insurgents, but they specifically told the Soviet Union NOT to send troops, knowing that it would severely harm the government's already fragile public support. The Soviet Union decided to be its usual arrogant self and figured that it knew socialism a hell of a lot better than the silly Afghans, and that its own interests were paramount (a US-backed regime on their border wasn't a happy prospect for them), and invaded anyway, toppled the Marxist government and installed a puppet regime.

      --
      Property is theft.
  15. sense is lacking by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everyone is under a lot of pressure to perform. I worked for a defense contractor for 2 projects. The 1st project was a success, and the 2nd was a complete disaster. On that 2nd project, the customers were asking for a great deal, and many of them didn't understand that. They wanted in 1 year what had previously taken 15 years to do, and instead of being helpful, kept on throwing up idiotic roadblocks, for political reasons. As in, no non-American software allowed, because terrorists might have programmed in back doors and booby traps. That wasn't the real reason-- what they were really trying to do was force the use of what they were comfortable with, which was Windows. Security was the ultimate excuse, and was roundly abused to justify anything they wished.

    Unfortunately, our management opted for dishonesty, in so far as they could agree on anything at all. Kissed up mightily, promising to do the job in 6 months knowing full well that they could not, and then tried to baffle with bull. Played along with the politicking. Leaned on their own people to rubberstamp things, or dress stuff up, and fought with each other over what we should do. Paralyzed by impossible and contradictory demands, and rank incompetence, we ended up accomplishing absolutely nothing. Gave the customers manure for a year, and that was not entirely unwelcome to some of the customers as they used us to hire a few favorites, and order equipment they'd get to keep after we crashed and burned. When enough of the customers at last got wise, the management blamed everything on us underlings and fired us all, to gain themselves more time. That didn't work for long, and finally, the contract was cancelled. Was the most miserable job experience I ever had.

    This sort of scam is entirely believable. The defense people are suckers for security theater. Not the brightest at seeing through it, nor are they particularly good at telling the honest and competent from the dishonest and incompetent, even when it should be obvious. They don't help themselves when they engage in their own brand of lying, and collude. Honest contractors have a rough time being heard above the noise made by the legions of incompetent liars who are willing to promise anything to get that contract.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  16. And thus so many people hate the US by Phrogman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its incidents like this that have produced a lot of the hatred towards the US overseas.

    Its important, if you claim the moral imperative, to show that you are ensuring your armed forces are living up to it. While I think the invasion of Afghanistan was the correct move, and I support the troops over there wholeheartedly (including those from Canada, my home country), I think Iraq was actually a mistake, or at the least has been grossly mismanaged. All the US is achieving is to produce a few thousand more people who hate the US in the end.

    All this shows is that Bush, Cheney etc (who are ultimately responsible for the horrendous abuses of the Geneva convention that have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo bay), really should be tried as war criminals. That won't happen because the US has evidently decided they are not subject to the same rules that they insist be applied to everyone else, but it should happen if the US truly was dedicated to supporting the goals of its Constitution and the agreements it has signed in the past.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid