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?'"
Goat porn
Lots of snuff films
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Yeah, lots of pictures sexy...ankles!!
Obama's real birth certificate?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Suicide bombers rarely make the same mistakes twice.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
22 million email addresses in a file marked "sony.dat"
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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.
"Bin Laden" is "of the Laden family". The "bin" is akin to the Hebrew "ben", "son of" (e.g. "Yeshua ben Yosef", "Jesus son of Joseph".) The Arab equivalent to "of" (in this context) is "al", e.g. Saddam Hussein al Tikriti, Saddam Hussein from Tikrit.
As with other patronymics (e.g. the Scottish "Mac"), it's often used as a general family name, inherited for multiple generations. Osama bin Laden's father is Muhammad bin Laden. The original "Laden" is unknown, but goes back at least a century.
So it's perfectly reasonable to call him "bin Laden". It's his family name, at least a few generations back. Confusion arises only as with every other family name, in that there are a lot of bin Ladens out there, and you'd have to use his full name to be clear. But using just his first name would be equivalent to referring to the Chancellor of Germany as "Angela" or the Prime Minister of the UK as "Gordon": it's their personal name, and rarely used alone in public discourse.
You could use it that was as a deliberate insult of over familiarity. The New York Times took the unusual step of referring to him just as "bin Laden" rather than "Mr. bin Laden", which they reserve generally for the worst of the worst.
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.