Slashdot Mirror
'Motherlode' of Data Seized At Bin Laden Compound
itwbennett writes "The raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan Sunday also turned up an 'intelligence harvest' of computer-based data that was described by an anonymous government source as 'the motherlode of intelligence.' The data is being sifted through at a secret site in Afghanistan. An unnamed official was quoted by Politico as saying: 'Hundreds of people are going through it now. It's going to be great even if only 10 percent of it is actionable. They cleaned it out. Can you imagine what's on Osama bin Laden's hard drive?'"
Encryption only really works if you do it right, every time. Screw up only once, and you could leave enough crumbs to compromise it all.
He's been holed up in that place for 6 years now, with no one even coming close. Time for him to get comfortable and slipshod. The odds of him not slipping up at all during that time are slim.
Maybe it is all encrypted, or maybe there are enough clues left around to provide some real, useful information.
Besides, the real question isn't what is on there. It is who in the various governments and industry are quaking in their boots thinking THEY may be on a list identifying them as supporters.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If I thought I'd appear in any of that data, I'd already have disappeared.
I would imagine a big old truecrypt partition, though perhaps he didn't encrypt things for some reason?
The guy was 54 and the latter part of those years was spent in some pretty remote areas. I doubt he had much expertise in computer security. They probably relied much more on physical security, i.e. being to blow all their stuff up if the shit hit the fan (or their stuff going up in same bombing raid as them.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Do you know why there are so few competent suicide bombers?
Because only those who flunk their exams graduate from the training.
Governments don't actually face a choice between "share info and have leaks" or "don't share info and don't". That's a false dichotomy.
Leaks tend to happen when things are being covered up that should not be covered up. Leakers take huge risks, as the sad case of Mannings treatment shows. They don't tend to do it for shits and giggles, or because of some anarchic belief that all secrets are bad. In the case of the Manning dumps he did it because he thought there were a lot of scandals and other things being wrongly suppressed .... and he was right!
So we can see there's a third option, which is, don't cover up large numbers of scandals. Instead when you screw up, admit it, and ensure everyone can see the measures to take to prevent repeat incidents. There are plenty of organizations that do this. The US Govt is not one of them.