Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Authorities Find Al Qaeda Plans Disguised In Porn

Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 1, 2012 @03:13AM from the will-just-be-in-the-other-room-looking-for-more dept.

According to CNN, which credits Hamburg-based newspaper Die Zeit, German investigators have uncovered a trove of more than 100 Al Qaeda documents recovered from a "digital storage device" (and memory cards) which were found hidden in the underpants of Austrian citizen Maqsood Lodin, who had recently traveled to Pakistan. The documents "included an inside track on some of the terror group's most audacious plots and a road map for future operations." Among these future plots: "[S]eizing cruise ships and carrying out attacks in Europe similar to the gun attacks by Pakistani militants that paralyzed the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008." The documents were reportedly neither in plain view nor simply encrypted, but instead steganographically embedded in a pornographic video.

332 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What is it with terrorists? by Lucas123 · 2012-05-01 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

They seem to love stuffing things down their pants, from bombs to porno-packed digital storage. This eventually will not turn out well for the propagation of their cause.
1. Re:What is it with terrorists? by Darinbob · 2012-05-01 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Most major struggles in humanity that have failed were due to excessive chafing.
2. Re:What is it with terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's the guilt that makes them hide the stuff deep in their pants. Otherwise they would do as the secret agents it the movies do: hide stuff in plain sight. When somebody puts sticks in their pants they are bound be up to no good although it might be fun.
3. Re:What is it with terrorists? by g0bshiTe · 2012-05-01 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  I see this opening a door for governments to now ban porn as it supports terrorism.
  
  Watch a gangbang, you're a terrorist.
  
  All I know is I want a t-shirt now that says "Money Shots Support Terrorism!"
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  or perhaps: don't steal porn? one of the many good reasons to actually pay for stuff is that there is an accountable retailer.
2. Re:Stego by Culture20 · 2012-05-01 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  one of the many good reasons to actually pay for stuff is that there is an accountable retailer.
  Yeah, like Sony.
3. Re:Stego by IamTheRealMike · 2012-05-01 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That sort of argument is unlikely to fly in front of a jury given all the other evidence against him. Bear in mind this wasn't just a random stop-and-search, they already suspected he was an al-Qaeda member. He tried to hide the incriminating files. Probably more that isn't in the story.
  Having said that, I think this sort of story just re-inforces the general impression that the counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big for the size of the threat it presently faces. If this is the way AQ move sensitive files around, they are clearly unable to recruit members with any technical sophistication. I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now. No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
4. Re:Stego by localman57 · 2012-05-01 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents
  I'm frankly surprised the child-porn sickos haven't been doing this for some time. Imagine a virus that installs a torrent client or other peer-to-peer style network on the computers it infests, then starts distributing porn from PC to PC. It would add a lot of plausible denyability to the fact that you had the stuff on your PC, if the virus was also there.
5. Re:Stego by cpu6502 · 2012-05-01 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  >>>child-porn sickos
  Careful there. The Supreme Court has ruled that child porn is illegal. Child nudity is not (else nudist beaches/clubs/websites would be banned).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:Stego by localman57 · 2012-05-01 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yeah. Pretty sure the word "porn" is right there.
7. Re:Stego by moeinvt · 2012-05-01 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  "a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight"
  Yes, but he wasn't concealing it in "plain sight". The storage medium was hidden in his pants. That's the part of this "plot" that doesn't make sense to me. If the authorities find something being 'smuggled' they instantly know the person has something to hide. Was the idea that he would feel compelled to hide this simply because of the porn itself?
  Sounds like another orchestrated stunt based on the plot of a cheap spy novel to perpetuate a culture of fear in the U.S. and Europe.
  There is no Al Qaeda.
8. Re:Stego by artor3 · 2012-05-01 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  So it just so happens that two videos on this guy's drive both contained Al Qaeda files? And he was smuggling them in his underpants because... he thinks porn is illegal? And it's just a coincidence that he was recently in Pakistan? And another coincidence that he was traveling with a man suspected of setting up the German branch of the Taliban?
  Come on, I know that 90% of anti-terrorism security is just theatre, and so we're conditioned to dismiss any successes it claims, but be rational.
  And anyway, there's an easy way to check -- go on the various torrent sites and download all the distinct copies of "Kick Ass" and "Sexy Tanja" you can find. Are any of them exact matches for the files this guy was transporting? If no, he's guilty. If yes, we gain valuable information on how Al Qaeda is communicating, and some lucky federal agent gets the job to download porn all day.
9. Re:Stego by cdrudge · 2012-05-01 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
  If you or I were caught with the video, then claiming that we knew nothing about any hidden content is plausible. But neither of us are suspected terrorists, had ties to suspected terrorist organizations, have traveled to regions of Pakistan known for terrorist training camps, or were found with multiple memory cards hidden in our underwear...that just happened to have a porn video with a lot of hidden content very pertinent to terrorist organizations.
  I believe in innocent before proven guilty and all that...but this guy was in serious trouble long before the contents of the hidden information was actually discovered. His life wasn't destroyed by the discovery, it already was. This just is another significant piece of evidence that chips away at it just being circumstantial evidence and piles on the beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever a German equivalent would be)
10. Re:Stego by tverbeek · 2012-05-01 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This isn't some random dude who got nabbed because something incriminating got planted on his laptop, "in plain sight" to be found by random no-thought-required screening. He was concealing it because he knew it would get him in trouble with security agents if found, and it was found because he and his companion "...were on a watch list, and when they handed over documents at a European border crossing, their names registered with counterterrorism agencies. ...Ocak is also charged with helping to form a group called the German Taliban Mujahedeen, and is alleged to have made a video for the group threatening attacks in Germany.... Prosecutors believe the pair met at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan's tribal territories and were sent back to Europe to recruit a network of suicide bombers." (from TFA)
  While your clever strategy is certainly possible, and can be effective at disrupting the kind of security theater that the TSA performs, that's not what's happening here. This is an example of good old-fashioned investigative, targeted counter-espionage working.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
11. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  If the authorities find something being 'smuggled' they instantly know the person has something to hide.
  Yeah. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument makes complete sense, after all.
12. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm frankly surprised the child-porn sickos haven't been doing this for some time
  You clearly over-estimate the size of the global child porn conspiracy. You and everyone else. But let's just keep using it as an excuse to destroy our rights.
13. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That sort of argument is unlikely to fly in front of a jury given all the other evidence against him.
  
  Correct. Most juries make their decisions based on emotional reasoning, rather than on the law. That's why so many people are in prison in this country compared to others, and also why so many innocent people are released from prison every year based on new evidence.
  
  Bear in mind this wasn't just a random stop-and-search, they already suspected he was an al-Qaeda member.
  And this is why juries so often convict innocent people: Suspicion equivocates to guilt for many people.
  
  He tried to hide the incriminating files.
  Pornography is prohibited in Pakistan, even when viewing it in the privacy of your own home. It's legal in Austria, the country he was from. So upon arriving in Austria from Pakistan, is it really that unusual?
  
  Having said that, I think this sort of story just re-inforces the general impression that the counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big for the size of the threat it presently faces
  Irony, defined: Saying that counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big, while unintentionally demonstrating exactly why it is too big.
  
  If this is the way AQ move sensitive files around, they are clearly unable to recruit members with any technical sophistication.
  The use of steganography is not exactly widespread; And despite the simplicity of the concept, most everyday people in this country couldn't tell you what it is, nor provide any examples of it. This is likely broadly true of the general population worldwide. So your argument here is invalid: The very use of steganographic techniques indicates an above-average level of technical proficiency.
  
  I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now.
  If you never try, you'll never succeed. Defeatism is not an attribute I want in any person, group, or organization who's charter is to save my ass from a suicide bomber. I sincerely hope you feel similar.
  
  No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
  They train all over the world, and yet very few of them succeed in their attacks. If I were rooting for the other team, I would conclude that the training is inadequate. However, I am not, so I am thankful their training sucks. Keep getting an 'F' in "Death to America 101" guys.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
14. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  Was the idea that he would feel compelled to hide this simply because of the porn itself?
  Pornography is illegal in Pakistan. It is legal in Austria. He was arriving in Austria from Pakistan when they found the flash drive in his pants. Do the math.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
15. Re:Stego by tverbeek · 2012-05-01 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  A fundie Muslim just might hide porn in his pants, not wanting his colleagues to know he's got it. It's at least more plausible than hiding it in MS Word documents or vacation snapshots, which would make no sense whatsoever to conceal. I'd guess that stego-encoding the info was a one-last-line-of-defense tactic, so that even if the files were discovered and the operative caught, or if he dropped the storage device somewhere, at least there'd be a chance that officials wouldn't find the plans. Kind of like OBL having a gun to carry around the house in Abbottabad, it wasn't really a lynchpin of their defense strategy, but it couldn't hurt and it just might help, so they'd be stupid not to try it.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
16. Re:Stego by dgatwood · 2012-05-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Given the Muslim attitude towards porn, it is no surprise that he would try to hide the incriminating files. That is not at all relevant evidence of guilt, and would probably be stricken from the record on first amendment grounds if the prosecution were foolish enough to bring it up.
  However, the fact that the person did try to hide it might be construed as probable cause to ask for a search warrant to look for further evidence, in which case either this guy has the ability to decode that information or he doesn't, so he's either probably guilty or probably not.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
17. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 04:34 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  If you or I were caught with the video, then claiming that we knew nothing about any hidden content is plausible.
  Justice is supposed to be blind. Whether I'm a 10 time convicted felon, or a school teacher who's never even gotten a parking ticket, the facts are the facts. That is what guilt or innocence is determined on.
  
  But neither of us are suspected terrorists, had ties to suspected terrorist organizations, have traveled to regions of Pakistan known for terrorist training camps, or were found with multiple memory cards hidden in our underwear...that just happened to have a porn video with a lot of hidden content very pertinent to terrorist organizations.
  All of those things are known as 'circumstantial evidence' and carry no weight whatsoever on their own. Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian. Being in Pakistan doesn't make you a terrorist. Holding a flash drive doesn't make you a computer expert. Get it?
  
  I believe in innocent before proven guilty and all that...but
  Like hell you do. You've already judged this man, based on circumstantial evidence provided second hand.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
18. Re:Stego by blinkin247 · 2012-05-01 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's simple enough; here, come to my for-pay site that is miraculously everyone's most recommended source!
  What you don't know is that you are helping me bankroll my criminal enterprise.
  Lesson: just because you pay a person doesn't make them reputable.
  
  --
  #define CLUE 0
19. Re:Stego by cayenne8 · 2012-05-01 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Pornography is prohibited in Pakistan, even when viewing it in the privacy of your own home. It's legal in Austria, the country he was from. So upon arriving in Austria from Pakistan, is it really that unusual?
  Sure it is. Why would anyone go to the trouble and potential penalties....and not just wait till he got back into Austria to download all the pr0n he wanted? Seems kinda bass-ackwards to me...doesn't make sense.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
20. Re:Stego by moeinvt · 2012-05-01 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument makes complete sense, after all."
  That argument is used by tyrants and authoritarian regimes to justify invasions of privacy. It's nonsense, and it's certainly not an argument that I'm regurgitating.
  To clarify MY comment:
  From the point of view of a person whose goal is to transport the "secret files", why disguise the data as porn AND try to smuggle it in your underpants? The latter technique totally undermines the usefulness of the former. Disguising it as porn would make much more sense on a laptop with 40GB worth of other porn.
21. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Which begs the question: why would he smuggle porn from a place where it's illegal to a place where it's legal?
  traditonally one smuggles things in the opposite direction.
22. Re:Stego by artor3 · 2012-05-01 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  He wasn't in Pakistan, nor coming from there, when he was found with the porn. Read the fine article before spouting off like you know what you're talking about.
  As for your dismissals of his travel to Pakistan and his traveling companion, I suggest you look up Bayesian inference. Some coincidences happen. But as evidence piles up, it becomes less and less likely to all be one big coincidence. The odds of this guy having two video files, both containing hidden terrorist documents, hidden in his underwear, shortly after a trip to Pakistan, while rebelling with a suspected terrorist are remote to say the least.
  And BTW, of course my "90%" of security is theater stat was made up on the spot. I never tried to pass it off as a real number. Nor did I say anything that even remotely suggested we try to find the IPs of people sharing these files. Pro tip: if you need to invent straw men to argue against, don't even bother posting.
23. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it is. Why would anyone go to the trouble and potential penalties....and not just wait till he got back into Austria to download all the pr0n he wanted? Seems kinda bass-ackwards to me...doesn't make sense.
  A lot of things in life don't make sense. It doesn't mean they are any less true. One possible explanation is that he had an addiction to pornographic materials. It's quite common.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
24. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  you arent engaged in deductive reasoning - far from it. youre trying to find arguments to support the forgone conclusions of your conspiracy theory, nothing more.
  and i'm sorry but someone with your level of paranoia isnt qualified to judge 'reasonable doubt'. fortunately we have juries for that, which are screened for people like you who go into something like this with your mind allready made up whats happening.
25. Re:Stego by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-01 05:03 · Score: 2
  
  A lot of things in life don't make sense. It doesn't mean they are any less true. One possible explanation is that he had an addiction to pornographic materials. It's quite common.
  Anyway, it seems like they brute forced the password and found a cache of REALLY suspicious documents. That's harder to explain away.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
26. Re:Stego by lightknight · 2012-05-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument appears to be a non sequitur; just some words to fill in the gap while they violate your supposed rights.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
27. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  The evidence presented does not exceed the standard of reasonable doubt. It is reasonable suspicion only.
  Yes, it can. Please stop. I am an attorney, and cannot count the times I've listened to people, always appearing pro se, that sound just like you as they present a sincere, logical argument that trashes their case.
28. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  But neither of us are suspected terrorists,
  Are you sure about that? I'd say it's more likely both of us are suspected of being terrorists. After all, we're both posting on Slashdot...
29. Re:Stego by KDR_11k · 2012-05-01 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The German authorities found the docs, Germany doesn't have jury trials.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
30. Re:Stego by elucido · 2012-05-01 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
  Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
  
  Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
  Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
  That is why there is an NSA.
31. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Oh fucking great. Cue the RIAA shill with the "downloading is helping terrorism" spiel.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
32. Re:Stego by blackraven14250 · 2012-05-01 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  If the scope of the Catholic Church child molestation conspiracy is any indication, the estimated size of the global child porn conspiracy is right around correct.
33. Re:Stego by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-05-01 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  The vast majority of them simply aren't that bright.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
34. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Jury? What jury?
  Hint: Not every legal system depends on the whims and emotional instability of 12 idiots. Some think it's more sensible to get verdicts from people who know the law.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:Stego by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Suspected terrorist does not usually mean 'guy who looks a bit shifty' it means 'person against whom there is other evidence pointing at terrorism'. Evidence in a criminal case is not taken in isolation. If you have blood on your hands and are found standing next to a dead body, that's more suspicious than if you're in a butcher's shop. If you have a recently fired gun, then that won't mean the same thing if you're in a firing range as if you're in a bank during an armed robbery...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
36. Re:Stego by FreeUser · 2012-05-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now. No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
  Pakistan isn't a necessary venue to learn how to do this sort of thing, but it (or similar isolated areas where brainwashing can occur with no external influences to offset) appears necessary to warp people into being willing to commit these sort of atrocities.
  "But Pakistan is our ally!" I hear someone saying ... well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
  
  --
  The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
37. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that the authorities were able to determine the content of the information starting with just what he had in his possession and without help from him suggests that the information was hidden by someone who was not an expert at that sort of thing.
38. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  What happens when it's free? And someone tells people not to watch porn because terrorists, what about every other video on the web? Stop downloading that too because it has a mass volume of downloads?
  What happens when we discover terrorists communicating in the binaries for free software?
39. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  First amendment to what? Based on context, I assume you mean to the US Constitution.
  You know this happened across the pond, right?
40. Re:Stego by tverbeek · 2012-05-01 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, it is grounds for suspicion, which is where your this-guy-is-an-innocent-victim line of "reasoning" first goes off track. He was already a suspect, and the notion that security agents somehow encoded and implanted credible-looking information into the porn in his underwear is more than a little fanciful. A court that has been presented with the actual evidence will determine whether there is reasonable doubt of his guilt; you simply don't have adequate information to make that judgment (although that apparently hasn't stopped you from acquitting him in your mind).
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
41. Re:Stego by mcgrew · 2012-05-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Most juries make their decisions based on emotional reasoning, rather than on the law. That's why so many people are in prison in this country compared to others, and also why so many innocent people are released from prison every year based on new evidence.
  
  Actually, no. We have "three strikes" laws, other countries don't. We actively target drug users and pretty much ignore the dealers, other countries have either legalized these drugs or only incarcerate dealers.
  Then there's corruption at the police and prosecutor levels. Illinois got rid of the death penalty when it was found that half the men there were innocent, and in almost all cases evidence helpful to the defendant had been destroyed or covered up, or evidence against the defendant was manufactured.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
42. Re:Stego by Devoidoid · 2012-05-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nudity is not required for an image to be deemed 'explicitly sexual' under Federal regulations.
43. Re:Stego by infinitelink · 2012-05-01 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Dear Opportunist, America has juries with the intent to frustrate the government from always having its way, period: because of juries, the executive (who purports to act in the name of the law), legislative (who makes the laws), and judicial (who rules on the laws) can all be nullified and hindered by ordinary people: even if not particularly practicing "nullification" per se, they can at least hang trials over and over if something is questionable. So long as one analytical and logical reasoner is in the jury, and something about a trial is dubious, the motion against an accused fails: that is, at least, if that person gives a damn about being honest and upright. Far from being insensible and stupid, it's a feature: get over it. Note that it's not just the government, but the accused as well, that can appeal to the emotions of a jury.
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
44. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  There is no need for technical proficiency to kill hundreds of people. The 9/11 plot was far more complicated than it needed to be. There are lots of ways to kill lots of people easily and cheaply. Thank God, the AQ seem (so far) to be too stupid to think of them.
45. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  There's now two possibilities:
  Either it's a setup and there's no reason to be alarmed because it's all a show.
  Or the terrorists are real but SO stupid that there's no reason to be alarmed because they are, well, too stupid to do any harm.
  In either case, we don't need stricter laws. If this shows anything, it is that the current laws are more than sufficient to sniff out the "terrorists".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
46. Re:Stego by alcmaeon · 2012-05-01 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
  According to the story, the video wasn't on the internet in plain sight but on a digital storage device "concealed" in his underwear. Now, going from just what we know about Pakistan, coming from that country, wouldn't the porn movie be the most conspicuous thing on the disk, not the least? I suppose he could have made this slightly more obviously suspicious by tying the memory disk up in a condom and slipping it in a full bottle of tequila, but only slightly.
  Even for a low IQ wannabe terrorist, would it not have been better to not put the memory card in the shorts, and, instead, hide the information steganagraphically in family pictures, a movie of a Pakistani wedding, or in an electronic Qur'an--none of which would have screamed "I'M TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING! LOOK AT ME! LOOK, LOOK!" to the equally low IQ "security" screeners?
  I call bullshit on this one.
47. Re:Stego by XiaoMing · 2012-05-01 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly, this man is innocent.
  In fact, so innocent he obviously didn't even know what to do with porn in general! He probably had all of that plurality of porn nested next to his genitals because that's how he thought porn was supposed to work as far as arousal goes!
  No chance of him being a total idiot trying to smuggle out terrorist information in an almost in-plain-sight medium while simultaneously being stupid enough to draw attention to it like wearing a raincoat on a hot summer day. Nope, no way that's a possibility.
48. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Most juries make their decisions based on emotional reasoning, rather than on the law. That's why so many people are in prison in this country compared to others, and also why so many innocent people are released from prison every year based on new evidence.
  Because... um... America is the only country in the world with emotions?
49. Re:Stego by gorzek · 2012-05-01 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  The 9/11 plot wasn't designed to maximize casualties but for maximum psychological impact--that's why they went for the spectacular image of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers. How many people can still easily recall the images of that day? That was the whole point. The number of people killed was a bonus for AQ, it just wasn't the point of the attack.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
50. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  > Yes, it can. Please stop. I am an attorney
  There goes the neighbourhood...
51. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn't in Pakistan, nor coming from there, when he was found with the porn. Read the fine article before spouting off like you know what you're talking about.
  "He had recently returned from Pakistan via Budapest, Hungary, and then traveled overland to Germany." That's the second sentence in the fine article.
  
  As for your dismissals of his travel to Pakistan and his traveling companion, I suggest you look up Bayesian inference. Some coincidences happen.
  
  Umm, okay. So thank you for agreeing with me, I think.
  
  . But as evidence piles up, it becomes less and less likely to all be one big coincidence.
  
  So if you have a muslim friend, know how to make basic electronic circuits, own a cell phone, and got at least a 'B' in chemistry, I should arrest and convict you of being a suicide bomber? Circumstantial evidence by itself is not strong enough for a conviction because a long string of coincidences, however unlikely, are still just a long string of coincidences.
  
  The odds of this guy having two video files, both containing hidden terrorist documents, hidden in his underwear, shortly after a trip to Pakistan, while rebelling with a suspected terrorist are remote to say the least.
  True, but remote or not, there needs to be something else for it to rise to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, not just "wrong place, wrong time".
  
  And BTW, of course my "90%" of security is theater stat was made up on the spot. I never tried to pass it off as a real number.
  
  Oh, I'm sorry, I thought someone who was throwing out big phrases like "Bayesian inference" would bother to spend five seconds googling before making a self-righteous post on an internet forum.
  
  . Pro tip: if you need to invent straw men to argue against, don't even bother posting.
  Pro Tip: If you can't make an argument without resorting to ad hominim attacks, don't bother posting. Also, you're a pompous asshole.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
52. Re:Stego by rrohbeck · 2012-05-01 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Burqa porn is probably much more available in Pakistan than in Austria. And since their Net isn't all that good, it's probably mostly sneakernet and DVDs.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
53. Re:Stego by rrohbeck · 2012-05-01 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  Well if you call every scantily-clad or even naked picture of someone under 18 "child porn" the world is full of it.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
54. Re:Stego by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway, it seems like they brute forced the password and found a cache of REALLY suspicious documents. That's harder to explain away.
  Well, it's not necessary for him to explain it at all. It's the job of the prosecutor to prove that the documents were put there intentionally, and/or that he knew they were there. The whole point of steganography is plausible deniability. If they were able to detect it, let alone 'brute force' decrypt it, then at the very least the techniques used were flawed. But that still doesn't prove anything by itself -- they need a way of linking him to the hidden data. They probably have it, and the article doesn't go into sufficient detail to identify how they linked him to it; But it is a required element to gain a conviction... otherwise, if they find him guilty, it's not based on any sound judicial principle, it's just a witch hunt.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
55. Re:Stego by downhole · 2012-05-01 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Would you rather depend on "the whims and emotional instability of 12 idiots", or the lust for power, desire to impose an insane ideology on others, and desire for sensationalist news stories to boost political careers of one idiot?
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
56. Re:Stego by Algae_94 · 2012-05-01 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn't in Pakistan, nor coming from there, when he was found with the porn. Read the fine article before spouting off like you know what you're talking about.
  "He had recently returned from Pakistan via Budapest, Hungary, and then traveled overland to Germany." That's the second sentence in the fine article.
  I can clear this up for you. When he was stopped in Germany, he wasn't in Pakistan. That's obvious. He also was not travelling directly from Pakistan as the article mentions he traveled overland from Budapest. What the GP was implying by this I don't know. Perhaps that it would look less suspicious to hid porn in your pants if you were flying direct from Pakistan, but not after a long trip overland through Eastern Europe.
57. Re:Stego by Hatta · 2012-05-01 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's simple enough; here, come to my for-pay site that is miraculously everyone's most recommended source!
  What you don't know is that you are helping me bankroll my criminal enterprise.
  Lesson: just because you pay a person doesn't make them reputable.
  Too bad, Culture20 already made a Sony joke.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
58. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  These wanna-be 'terrorists' are so very useful aren't they? Look at all the Big Corporations whose financial survival depends on them. They have a big financial interest in ensuring the continuity of the 'War on Terrorism'.
59. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Ive seen this exact thing in the wild years ago. My folks windows 2009 machine was basically part of a distributed IRC share. It was turning the computer into a porn host. I didnt stop to see what kind, Format and re-installed that shit.
  Seems like the smart way to stash illegal stuff.
60. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  One possible explanation is that he had an addiction to pornographic materials. It's quite common.
  You misspelled "possible" as "quite common" - what a strange and unlikely typo...
  Seriously though, I accept that pornography addiction and sex addiction are real psychological illnesses akin to gambling addiction. But it's clear to me that (mostly) men have found it very convenient to simply claim "I'm addicted!" when their SO's catch them masturbating to pegging videos, paying a prostitute, or whatever. It's not their fault, you see - they just need help, that's all. (OK, the problem of hiding porn from an SO could be entirely one of mismatched communication and expectations. Anyway..) I believe these addictions are far less common than most people (want to) think, and most often used to deflect blame.
  Furthermore, here in the US, it fits with the political agenda of socially far-right groups to demonize pornography by any means available, so it's in their interest to hype such addictions. Hyping drug and alcohol addiction doesn't get much ROI at the voting booths anymore, so they've moved on to more profitable misdirection.
  - T
61. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Even in countries with jury trials, the jury isn't expected to know the law. The jury decides matters of fact. It's the judge who decides matters of law.
  Perhaps the jury should decide matters of law, though. If the law is so complex that laymen on the jury can't understand it, even with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, how can the accused be expected to understand and follow it?
62. Re:Stego by Fjandr · 2012-05-01 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason this comment reminded me of the Klingon trial in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise.
63. Re:Stego by gmhowell · 2012-05-01 11:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The German authorities found the docs, Germany doesn't have jury trials.
  Just a train ride and a quick shower at the end?
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
64. Re:Stego by gmhowell · 2012-05-01 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would you rather depend on "the whims and emotional instability of 12 idiots", or the lust for power, desire to impose an insane ideology on others, and desire for sensationalist news stories to boost political careers of one idiot?
  Some people aren't happy unless the jackboot of authority rests lovingly on their necks.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
65. Re:Stego by mattack2 · 2012-05-01 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Justice is supposed to be blind. Whether I'm a 10 time convicted felon, or a school teacher who's never even gotten a parking ticket, the facts are the facts. That is what guilt or innocence is determined on.
  At least if what one sees on legal TV shows is even vaguely close to what really happens, prior acts *sometimes* are allowed to be told to the jury and sometimes aren't. If they're deemed relevant (similar acts, presumably).
66. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's not. They were molesting boys. Not producing child porn.
67. Re:Stego by artor3 · 2012-05-01 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  1) He traveled overland from Budapest to Germany. That's like a seven hour drive. Would you just leave a flash drive chafing in your nether regions all that time?
  2) You know I wasn't agreeing. You intentionally split my statement. Man, you must have rocked at debate club with logic skills like that.
  3) Nice line drawing fallacy. Let me make this simple for you. If I toss a coin, and it comes up heads four times in a row, that's chance. If I toss a coin and it comes up heads forty times in a row, I can be quite confident that it's not a fair coin.
  4) No, if the odds are sufficiently remote, it doesn't need anything else to meet the "reasonable doubt" criterion. You can always concoct some remote set of circumstances that would get someone off the hook. "I didn't kill him, it was my long lost twin brother!" That's what the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt" is for.
  5) You expected me to Google for a real number on "what percentage of security is theater"? Really? Really? Okay, you go Google it for me. Go get me the real number I should have posted.
  6) Pointing out that you used a strawman fallacy isn't an ad hominim (sic). Ad hominem isn't Latin for "thing I disagree with".
68. Re:Stego by Kittenman · 2012-05-01 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  The 9/11 plot wasn't designed to maximize casualties but for maximum psychological impact--that's why they went for the spectacular image of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers. How many people can still easily recall the images of that day? That was the whole point. The number of people killed was a bonus for AQ, it just wasn't the point of the attack.
  Not that I don't agree with your point, but the planes weren't jumbos - which are 747s. They were 767s. This could be an example of the psychological impact being larger than the facts themselves, causing inflation of the facts. And as Voltaire said, to the living we owe respect - to the dead we owe only the truth.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
69. Re:Stego by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-01 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't give the terrorists ideas.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
70. Re:Stego by dgatwood · 2012-05-01 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oops. I missed that part. That'll teach me to read the headline. :-)
  In that case, edit that to say, "...and, were this in the United States, would probably be stricken...".
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
71. Re:Stego by rtb61 · 2012-05-01 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  For a start, these plans are all just works of fiction without any corroborating evidence, the equipment actually required to carry out an attack. All major attacks to have been planned by government organisation, out of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, oddly enough both partners in crime with the US government war on terrorism.
  Seriously why is the major funder of terrorism and the major recruiter both in bed with the US government. Of course the recent attacks against Israeli's in foreign countries has also mysteriously disappeared of the terrorist radar, why, is it because no believed.
  Here's how to transport secret documents, buy second hand thumb drives, keep receipt, encrypt the files ensure save dates pre-date receipt. Police demand decryption password, answer, "How the fuck would I know the files were on there when I bought them I just haven't bothered to delete them yet".
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
72. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the way judges are appointed in Austria and Germany, I doubt sensationalist decisions are good for their career.
  Judges are there appointed by peers. I.e. other judges. If a spot in the supreme court opens up, the other supreme court judges get together to promote someone to their ranks. And while some of the lower courts make sometimes rather questionable decisions, the supreme court and constitutional court rulings are usually quite sound and sane, and these judges do enjoy quite some esteem in the population. Especially the latter who is quite quick at shooting down laws as unconstitutional, simply because they are NOT dependent on the whims of the population or politicians.
  By virtue of the setup of those courts it's virtually impossible to push some kind of radical agenda. You simply wouldn't get in a position where you could push it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
73. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  While I put rather little hopes in legislative and executive, both of whom have shown time and again that they are overpaid buffoons and self righteous bullies, I can say that our legal system is still quite well staffed. If a judge is trying to push an agenda or fails to render just and well justified verdicts, his chances to ever get out of petty court are slim to nil. Looking up the judicial branch I look upon very level headed, very reasonable people who deserve their place, and also my respect.
  Should this last bastion of liberty fall, it's time to go.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
74. Re:Stego by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  What is it with US politicians and the need to declare war on abstract constructs? War on terrorism, war on drugs, what will we get next?
  Can't you just fight something without making an elaborate fuss about it? I mean, it's not like drugs aren't being fought in most countries but few make such a fuss about it as the US. Also, looking around myself and my town, I can only say that NOT declaring war on something seems to make fighting it far more efficient...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
75. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  > So long as one analytical and logical reasoner is in the jury
  I thought they did their absolute level best to remove anyone with a clue > 0 from the jury before the trial though?
76. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  No No No, Each lawyer does his best to remove anyone with a clue for the other side. Usually that results in removing everyone with a clue, but not always.
77. Re:Stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  I have a really hard time understanding why these morons wouldn't either encrypt their docs with AES OR just send them over the internet via SSH or OpenVPN. I know for fucking sure that if I had to physically transport some sensitive information, I'd encrypt the hell out of it.
  It almost seems as if the governments themselves are setting up conveniently thwartable terrorist plots.
78. Re:Stego by ThanatosMinor · 2012-05-03 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  At least in criminal trials, juries are intended to be finders of fact only, which requires no prior experience or knowledge of the relevant laws. The system was designed this way on purpose and is potentially way more equitable than a system in which someone's job/career/reputation is at stake every time he or she reaches a verdict. 12 strangers may be more emotional than a single judge, but in the long run will probably be more fair.
  
  Nobody wants their case to be decided as soon as they find out they have the judge who thinks everyone is guilty.
79. Re:Stego by Coren22 · 2012-05-03 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, how many parents have pics of their kids playing in the bathtub? (hopefully not showing anything private...)
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
80. Re:Stego by rrohbeck · 2012-05-03 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't be the first time that a search warrant is executed based on pictures of nekkid kids in the bathtub.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
81. Re:Stego by downhole · 2012-05-04 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  So in other words, it's an impenetrable, elitist old-boys club with no accountability to anybody, but we can totally trust them to do the right thing because they're all just so smart and awesome?
  All right, that and my original post are a little tongue-in-cheek. But I inherently distrust this kind of elitist argument that some particular group of people are so much smarter and more wise than the general population that they should be given unchecked power over them with no accountability. First because pretty much any time anybody takes a close look at any group of people claiming to be the elite, you tend to find that they're just as stupid and corrupt as any other group of people. Second because even if you manage to find some group of people who are legitimately smart and awesome and put them in charge of everything, sooner or later, some of them will go bad, some will fail to keep up with evolving attitudes (for better or worse...), some will die or retire and be replaced by new people, etc, and you end up with the usual bunch of clowns, except now you don't have any checks against their power because you set the system up thinking that they were all perfect and nobody else was smart enough to second-guess them.
  That's why democracy has done pretty well overall - the general population may not be perfect or even pretty good, but nobody among us is enough better to be given unchecked power over them.
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
82. Re:Stego by gmhowell · 2012-05-06 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  I envy you. The last judge I encountered was this fellow. Not exactly the poster boy for 'level headed, [and] very reasonable'.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Honestly... by hubang · 2012-05-01 03:18 · Score: 2

I'm shocked that this didn't come out 10 years ago. Scary terrorists might be hiding secret communications in internet porn. It's alarming, and racy. All you need for a good news story.
1. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  The story did come out 10 years ago, this is the first time anybody actually claimed to find evidence.
2. Re:Honestly... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-01 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why is that scary? Intelligence agencies have used broadcast media to communicate with spies in the field for many decades now. Look up "numbers stations" -- you could tune in to many of these broadcasts any time you want.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
3. Re:Honestly... by Lumpy · 2012-05-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's just proof of how stupid they are.
  Really, smuggling it physically that way. This is pretty much proof the Taliban is nothing but bumbling morons.
  Real secret ops people who had any clue at all, would have done it differently. OTS Consumer tech has the ability to sneak a LOT past security checkpoints.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  the Taliban is nothing but bumbling morons
  You do know that The Taliban and "Al Quaeda" are not the same thing, right?
  I mean, even Bush knew that after Rumsfeld explained it to him for the millionth time or so.
5. Re:Honestly... by SilentStaid · 2012-05-01 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  I've yet to ever have any security actually boot my computer, let alone fire up my still installed but physically disconnected spare HD still in the laptop. I imagine they were being a bit more thorough with this guy - but I'd love to be able to test their methods. I'd be willing to bet I could sneak the library of congress by.
6. Re:Honestly... by Ambvai · 2012-05-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've got my computer booted before. Then I got hauled into the security office about ten minutes later when I realized that they rushed me out of there so fast that I never got the power cable for my laptop back, and they didn't believe me since the room they checked it in was supposedly out of use.
7. Re:Honestly... by Opportunist · 2012-05-01 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, those numbers stations are kinda scary. There's some kind of eerie quality to them. I don't know what makes them so scary, the inhumane, sterile voices used or the fact that there's something going on that you can't really grasp, but these broadcasts are really, really fucked up.
  Sometimes I wonder how much of it is just garbage to keep the "enemy" (whoever they may be for a certain numbers station) busy trying to break the code...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Squirrel!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:18 · Score: 0

Sir this is why we need to look through your pron collection
I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:18 · Score: 0

...how many times the authorities had to watch the video to figure out there was something wrong with it?
Amazing when hobbies and real-world applicability collide.
lol
1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, those breasts don't look right....
  No! I don't mean the bad boob job, I mean there's something wrong with the bits!
  I need higher resolution on that tit! Enhance!
2. Re:I wonder... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I need higher resolution on that tit! Enhance!
  
  I believe the correct technical term in this context would be "Augment!"
So now we know by Sulphur · 2012-05-01 03:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Why Bin Laden was watching porn.
1. Re:So now we know by gparent · 2012-05-01 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  It'd be really interesting if they went back to evidence and found something like this. unfortunately I doubt our good friend Laden would be down and dirty with steno plans, it'd be pretty stupid for the head of a terrorist group.
2. Re:So now we know by DigiShaman · 2012-05-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  While applying Just For Men on his graying beard.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:So now we know by rrohbeck · 2012-05-01 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, he could decipher the stego with his eyes. The man was a genius!
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
4. Re:So now we know by The+Mighty+Buzzard · 2012-05-01 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Look, I don't know about terrorists but just the porn pretty well describes quite a lot of my plans.
  
  --
  Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
5. Re:So now we know by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  "My black beard says ENERGY!"
  "Ah, but my gray beard says Experience."
  *two Bin Ladens merge into one*
  Just For Men lets you keep a touch of gray in your beard!
  *Shot of Bin Laden happily chatting with some other terrorists*
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Post video please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I really would like to see this video, so I can become familiar with their steganographic techniques.
You know, for science.
1. Re:Post video please by eugene+ts+wong · 2012-05-01 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, as a skeptic, I will not be convinced until I can see the evidence. They need to submit the porn to a magazine...I mean a peer reviewed journal.
  This needs to be reproduced in the lab, as well.
  
  --
  testing out my trending skills
2. Re:Post video please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  You know, 10 years ago there were a lot of claims that this was happening, and I imagine there was a three-letter-agency department assigned to screening all the potential stego carrier material.
3. Re:Post video please by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-05-01 03:40 · Score: 2
  
  This needs to be reproduced in the lab, as well.
  Are we saying there's bestiality involved
  In that case count me out :)
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
4. Re:Post video please by Bongo · 2012-05-01 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget to also examine the pork sausages and bacon.
  Anything else un-Islamic they could be carrying? A copy of "Feminism is for Everybody"? A CND flag? A kilt?
5. Re:Post video please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, it's my patriotic duty to make sure there aren't more of these messages out there. I bet they hide them in the really weird stuff too...
6. Re:Post video please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you realize that there are millions of pornographic videos out there? Now every single one of them is suspect! Personally I'm going to scrutinize every single one in detail until I'm satisfied that my national and personal security is no longer at risk.
7. Re:Post video please by Idbar · 2012-05-01 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm currently browsing an entire collection of "data" to see if I can uncover something. Everyone wants to become a stegano researcher today!
8. Re:Post video please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  ewwww
9. Re:Post video please by Algae_94 · 2012-05-01 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Will somebody think of the porn actresses! As if they didn't have enough stuffed in them, now they are being violated by terrorists' messages.
Evidence by CaptainPinko · 2012-05-01 03:20 · Score: 1

Lets say I'll be examining this "evidence" my self. I'm not quite sure they are up to the job, and I feel I should give them a hand.

--
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
1. Re:Evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Remember the first rule of wing-walking, and save a hand for yourself.
Dual Purposes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:20 · Score: 0

Pornography is counter to Islam. So, whoever has knowledge of the embedded plans will be honor-bound to destroy themselves and any others who have bared witness.
1. Re:Dual Purposes by bugs2squash · 2012-05-01 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sounds like they bared more than just witness.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
2. Re:Dual Purposes by El+Torico · 2012-05-01 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Pornography is counter to Islam.
  So is adultery, prostitution, and drinking alcohol, but it's easy to see those prohibitions being violated every weekend in the UAE and Bahrain.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
3. Re:Dual Purposes by cayenne8 · 2012-05-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Pornography is counter to Islam.
  So is adultery, prostitution, and drinking alcohol, but it's easy to see those prohibitions being violated every weekend in the UAE and Bahrain.
  Hey, I guess that does show that they aren't all bad.....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Dumb by IamTheRealMike · 2012-05-01 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Steganographically hide sensitive information in an innocuous looking video, and then hide it in your underpants thus guaranteeing it will arouse suspicion on discovery. How stupid are these guys??
1. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe... "arouse"!
2. Re:Dumb by localman57 · 2012-05-01 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Steganographically hide sensitive information in an innocuous looking video, and then hide it in your underpants thus guaranteeing it will arouse suspicion on discovery. How stupid are these guys??
  Maybe they mis-translated another article on security, that said you should have as many "layers" as possible between you and your attacker.
3. Re:Dumb by Dracos · 2012-05-01 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  The discord you point out is why I have trouble believing these stories as they are presented. Sophisticated obfuscation techniques thwarted by boneheaded transport tactics, all done by Muslim fundamentalists embedding secrets in porn. It's just a bit too contrived and shiny.
4. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  They should hide the stuff in Mormon documents and all kinds of Bible stuff, and carry it around their necks in a Jesus-shaped USB stick.
5. Re:Dumb by RobertLTux · 2012-05-01 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  crucifix shape would work better or a FISH maybe
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
6. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Is it any more "contrived and shiny" than a drug courier using the wrong entrance and getting a bunch of crooked TSA goons arrested?
  You're either a Muslim "victim" or a weak minded LCF.
7. Re:Dumb by Vintermann · 2012-05-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  The porn provides plausible deniability. If he gets caught, he's supposed to admit shamefully smuggling porn into countries where it's illegal.
  It's still pretty stupid, as there are easier ways to transfer both plans and porn than stego-ed and unencrypted on a memory card in your underwear. What kind of idiots know about stego but don't apply even basic encryption to the stegoed message?
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
8. Re:Dumb by geminidomino · 2012-05-01 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's just a bit too contrived and shiny.
  That was my thought, too. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical (yeah, right), but I'm smelling a new War on Porn brewing on the wind.
9. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  where have you been? some of the US presidential candidates were proposing that, among other things.
10. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  The discord you point out is why I have trouble believing these stories as they are presented. Sophisticated obfuscation techniques thwarted by boneheaded transport tactics, all done by Muslim fundamentalists embedding secrets in porn. It's just a bit too contrived and shiny.
  I don't see why it should be so unlikely. Just think how incompetent an average TSA agent is. Then realize an average Al Qaeda member is likely stupider.
11. Re:Dumb by gweihir · 2012-05-01 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Very stupid indeed.
  They also failed to encrypt the data (or to encrypt it well), because if they had, then we would not be hearing about it (chances are the authorities would not have been able to decrypt it, but alternately they would not want to broadcast their ability to break strong encryption). I also expect incompetent embedding. Well-embedded steganographic information cannot be detected. You may have to jump though some hoops though, e.g. digitizing from analog tape to get real noise and make sure the files cannot be compared to any "original" and you definitively need to understand the digital encoding very, very well.
  Still, I expect we will hear about the "advanced IT skills" the terrorists have today pretty soon.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
12. Re:Dumb by stephanruby · 2012-05-01 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  May be, he was just hiding the porn from his wife.
13. Re:Dumb by VoidCrow · 2012-05-01 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  If they found the documents, then barring a tip-off from external intelligence sources, the techniques they used weren't very sophisticated.
how was the data detected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:21 · Score: 0

So how did they find the documents? If the data was steganographically embedded into video how was it detected? And how was it decrypted? My guess Maqsood Lodin sang like a canary.
The real question: by ericloewe · 2012-05-01 03:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

How did they come to the idea of checking the guy's porn for hidden documents?
Were they interested in the porn but found (by accident) the not-very-well-hidden documents?
Were they tipped?
Did they randomly analyse the contents?
None of these sound likely...
1. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Has to be a tip off. These organisations have been infiltrated by the Western Security Services. I'm sure his superiors are as we speak conducting some informal 'interviews'
2. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  if he was not carrying it in his pants they probably would have thought nothing of it..
3. Re:The real question: by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-05-01 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  When terrorists that follow sharia law are trading and carrying sharia contraband and an obvious vector for stego, it isn't difficult to make the next mental step.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
4. Re:The real question: by tnk1 · 2012-05-01 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it is just standard procedure to analyze image documents for hidden content, no matter what the image is. And *especially* if it is smuggled in someone's pants.
  I mean, we've only been reading articles on steganography since what, September 12, 2001? You'd think even security services might have figured it out by now.
5. Re:The real question: by MastaBaba · 2012-05-01 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why wasn't it simply put up on YouPorn, or some similar website? It doesn't make sense: Let's hide our secret messages in this porn video so that no one can find our messages. And then, let's hide this porn video in someone's underwear... so that... no one can find it?
6. Re:The real question: by ericloewe · 2012-05-01 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just checked - TFA implies the guy was carrying the steganography software with him. They then seemingly brute-forced the porn he was carrying.
  This is pretty much the same as keeping an encrypted file next to a text file with one long line of text.
7. Re:The real question: by pz · 2012-05-01 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking that a memory card being hidden in someone'ss underpants would be sufficient motivation for an investigator to give the contents some pretty serious scrutiny. Memory cards are innocuous and ubiquitous. There are millions-to-billions of them in circulation given that there's one in many cell phones, and one in most cameras. If one of them was hidden, then there's got to be a good reason. To make the card less suspicious this fellow should have shot a video of his (or someone's) kids doing somethig mundane like having a birthday party, done the steganography on that, and left the card in a well-worn point-and-shoot camera in his bag. Steganography works best when it's in plain view.
  On the other hand, given that this card was found in the suspect's underpants means he was strip-searched, and so was under some pretty serious scrutiny already. Swallowing the card in a capsule might have been his only hope of transporting it undetected.
  
  --
  
  Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
8. Re:The real question: by Dogbertius · 2012-05-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Probably standard procedure to run a set of automated scans. Also, if the data was hidden via steganography in plaintext as opposed to encrypting it to look like (ie: Gaussian) noise in an audio/video file, then it sticks out like a sore thumb. You can just do local noise and autocorrelation estimates in small locales, and will be well on your way to figuring it out in no time. It's not that different from detecting how people have photoshopped an image, in the simpler cases.
  
  http://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/
  
  Hope you find it informative and interesting. :)
9. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  So there are some people in AQ that pull stupid stunts.
  Everyone assumes that because they are this thuper-thecwet tewowist organization, that the intelligence of its members is not distributed across a bell curve, just like any other organization?
  They're not some collection of James Bond types, just a bunch of Middle-Eastern goat-screwers that like to kill people and blow shit up based on some religious zealotry. It's sort of contradictory that you'd find a surplus of geniuses in that group, no?
  I mean, they've pulled off a couple of ops that they could call a success, but most of the time you get a dumb-ass that lights his balls on fire on a jet, another retard caught trying to light up his shoes on another jet, and my home-boy here, caught with thecwet messages shoved between the cheeks of his ass.
  What scares me is that they don't really think too many steps ahead- If they start rocking bio or nuclear terrorism, given their track record there is a decent chance that it'll take a bunch of the world down (most certainly wiping out many of their own people as well, but they don't seem to give a shit about -that-)
  ** Regarding the goat-screwing, mentioned above: Our unit stumbled (scanning with thermals) across this lovely situation no fewer than 5 times in one tour. There must be a lot of kids in Iraq that can't understand why they have the urge to head-but people.
10. Re:The real question: by cayenne8 · 2012-05-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why wasn't it simply put up on YouPorn, or some similar website? It doesn't make sense: Let's hide our secret messages in this porn video so that no one can find our messages. And then, let's hide this porn video in someone's underwear... so that... no one can find it?
  Hell, it is easier than that. There already are (and have been for ages) USENET groups that are dedicated to nothing but receiving encrypted messages. Often, people will have their chain of remailers post the return messages to these USENET groups...they sit there and anyone can retrieve them, but you need the private key and credentials to unlock them. You also need to know which one is yours within all the 'noise'.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  If German authorities are involved, they likely fabricated the whole shebang as an argument for the next "we want more power" law. They always tend to "accidentally find stuff" when it's convenient.
12. Re:The real question: by Vintermann · 2012-05-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  According to a poster above, they found the stego software as well, alerting them to the possibility of an embedded document. So, it was encrypted but the password was brute forced.
  Eh, can't really verify this. CNN mentions only a password. Reading the original article in might give more details, but it's such a pain. English version, anyone?
  The lesson, steganography is of little or no use if investigators become aware of the steganography method you use. Primary rule of steganography is you don't talk about steganography. Or, REVEAL NAME of the software.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
13. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  It can be a number of things, but most likely it is an automatic procedure done on any confiscated data. Stenography is widely used to hide things so most forensics tools do an auto check for files that look suspicious. Something like the file being larger than average may tip it off or it may be that the program used just checked everything on the drive for traces of stenography, i have seen that before. I wouldn't be surprised if the investigator just saw the porn and thought something like "I've seen this porn before, the file size looks a few KB off." In reality though, probably an auto scan that turned up a red flag.
14. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps they, unlike you, know that US and UK government agencies can rapidly crack public key cryptography. That said, you argument is still sound, because they could use the channel you suggest, but use only symmetric key cryptography, which is not crack-able with QC.
15. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Probably standard procedure to run a set of automated scans. Also, if the data was hidden via steganography in plaintext as opposed to encrypting it to look like (ie: Gaussian) noise in an audio/video file, then it sticks out like a sore thumb. You can just do local noise and autocorrelation estimates in small locales, and will be well on your way to figuring it out in no time. It's not that different from detecting how people have photoshopped an image, in the simpler cases.
  If you had a big enough sample set - say, all the pr0n ever posted to USENET, all the pr0n ever hosted on MegaUpload, and all the pr0n... well, you get the idea. We're talking about a lot of pr0n.
  If you had a big enough library of pr0n, you could just diff the two files and the embedded bits would fall right out. Even if you didn't know what they meant, they'd be a huge red flag screaming "look here!"
  For an educational time: (videos are SFW, and you don't even need to view them in order to complete the experiment.)
  1) Use something like youtube-dl.py to download a YouTube video. ( youtube-dl.py UiuiuwpgfNg )
  2) Back it up. ( mv UiuiuwpgfNg.flv UiuiuwpgfNg.old.flv )
  3) Wait a few seconds. Ask a friend to do the same thing from a different computer.
  4) Download the same video all over again. ( youtube-dl.py UiuiuwpgfNg )
  5) Compare the two files that were just streamed to you a few minutes apart. ( cmp -l UiuiuwpgfNg.flv UiuiuwpgfNg.old.flv )
  At around 40 kilobytes into an 11MB FLV (or 34MB .mp4), YouTube embeds about ten bytes of metadata. It does this in every video it stream to every client. (And if you can't view .flv flash video on your platform, try it with omFG-MHqWw4.mp4 like a boss.)
16. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that was something that unique to the US?
  
  --Posting AC due to mod points
17. Re:The real question: by gweihir · 2012-05-01 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect the videos failed to play cleanly or failed an encoding validation. Alternatively, the file could be compared to "originals" and the differences showed.
  As most "normal" porn is legal in Germany, hiding this stuff may itself have been hint enough to get them to analyze the files more closely.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
18. Re:The real question: by gweihir · 2012-05-01 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just checked - TFA implies the guy was carrying the steganography software with him. They then seemingly brute-forced the porn he was carrying.
  This is pretty much the same as keeping an encrypted file next to a text file with one long line of text.
  That would make sense. And it would make extracting the stuff potentially very easy.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
19. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't be surprised if most porn sites are filtered in such countries.
20. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  > just a bunch of Middle-Eastern goat-screwers that like to kill people and blow shit up based on some religious zealotry. It's sort of contradictory that you'd find a surplus of geniuses in that group, no?
  Some of them are doctors, man...
  *doctors*...
21. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument presupposes that the suspect is a terrorist.
Homerolled crypto by benjfowler · 2012-05-01 03:23 · Score: 0

Given what we know about religious people, their black-and-white utter certainty about themselves and the world, it's not hard to see why they'd be stupid enough to try and roll their own security software.
Frankly, I'm delighted that our enemies are so stupid, and ecstatic that their stupidity is getting them killed.
1. Re:Homerolled crypto by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-05-01 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  11 years later, some are calling them stupid, but given the state of the United States, their plans seemes to have worked perfectly. Homogenizing religious people as stupid or ignorant seems like a pretty dangerous thing to do.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
2. Re:Homerolled crypto by lightknight · 2012-05-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Home-rolled Crypto -> No Crypto. Taking a page from a certain book, if you need some information to stay secret, memorize it.
  Leaving physical evidence around, however, encrypted, invites people to take a shot at it. Keeping it in your head, along with torture training (think the military has many of its recruits go through something like that, where the harder someone tortures you, the more resolute you are to not give up the information), is the only way to ensure secrecy.
  Not that there aren't some people working to get around that (see the electrodes in the brain experiments going on), but given the inaccuracy of the results up until now, we're probably good for a while.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
3. Re:Homerolled crypto by blackraven14250 · 2012-05-01 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because the US didn't cause its own problems in the banking sector which hurt the rest of the economy....they may have helped it along a bit by causing a not-insignificant amount of debt fighting a war, but they're not the reason for the current economic situation by a long shot.
Jail time! by CanEHdian · 2012-05-01 03:24 · Score: 1

Buried inside them was a pornographic video called "Kick Ass" -- and a file marked "Sexy Tanja."
Several weeks later, after laborious efforts to crack a password and software to make the file almost invisible, German investigators discovered encoded inside the actual video a treasure trove of intelligence
He'll get 5 years in jail for the terrorism charges, and 10 years in jail for copyright infringement. It's would be interesting to get some more background information. Was it one of those 'vault' type encrypted USB sticks? Were the authorities not at all surprised but tipped off about the steganography, or did one of them work so hard on it because it was pr0n, but noticed some weird pixellation? In other words, if it was called "Yoga for beginners" would they have bothered?

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:Jail time! by Erikderzweite · 2012-05-01 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  >He'll get 5 years in jail for the terrorism charges, and 10 years in jail for copyright infringement.
  Hey! Steganography is Fair Use!
Thanks Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:24 · Score: 0

Next time anyone walks in on me watching porn, I'll just tell them I was looking for hidden terrorist plots.
"Honey i'm not watching porn i'm plotting to overt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:25 · Score: 0

"Honey i'm not watching porn i'm plotting to overthrow the western infidels ... HONEST!"
Job-saving thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:25 · Score: 0

First excuse the guy could come up with when his boss came into the office after hours and saw what he was looking at.
embedded in a pornographic video by cpu6502 · 2012-05-01 03:25 · Score: 1

Great now I gotta go through 50 gig of downloaded
video to make sure it's clean.
How tiresome.
Or I could just invite the DHS to look at it. Surely they wouldn't put me into indefinite detainment for a having Al-Queda porn/documents? Nah. That's conspiracy talk.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:embedded in a pornographic video by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  If it means less passive-aggressive conspiracy talk from geek filth, then, please, get yourself sent to Gitmo, by all means.
2. Re:embedded in a pornographic video by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could delete it, perv.
3. Re:embedded in a pornographic video by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  If you delete the porn, the terrorists will win (since we won't have a way to find their plans).
Not very good crypto or stego by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-01 03:27 · Score: 2

Without knowledge of the algorithm and key, with any even remotely good stego and crypto it sould be impossible to prove that anything is hidden, since good crypto looks like perfetly random data.
Even if the authorities strongly suspect that there is stego'd data, and they know the algorithm, the best they can do is extract a list of random bits corresponding to what they believe to be hidden.
If the setgo algorithm is sound, then there is no way of proving that the data source isn't just a bit noisy.
Then, there should be no way of decrypting the data, or even proving it is non-random.
Unless they used a very weak password, and the authorities new enough about the organisation to have a limited pool of crypto and stego algorithms to try.
Either that or they inferred the most likely one time pad, based on the presence of a beard and arabic sounding name on the suspect.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't be surprised if it was a bunch of bars bouncing up and down the screen made to look like a TV recording or some crap.
  Or really obvious structured static.
2. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by udoschuermann · 2012-05-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I can't claim to be an expert on the topic, but there are likely statistical methods to determine the probability that an image is naturally noisy, or made so by artificial means (i.e. proof that steganography is present). Even in extreme cases the crypto would still protect the message itself, until someone pulls out the $5 wrench.
  
  --
  --Udo.
3. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by v1 · 2012-05-01 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Steno doesn't require encryption. It prevents the information from getting into the hands of the opposition to begin with. They are probably under the assumption that trying to encrypt something (A) is a waste of time if they are likely to have the resources to break it and (B) will attract attention.
  Analysis of randomness is quite an advanced science. It's not nearly as difficult as you might imagine to spot an anomaly in random data. Few things in life are truly random, and if you are familiar enough with the kind of randomness in something, you will have a very good statistical chance of noticing it.
  As for the steno itself, there's a double-edged sword there. The same as encryption, only a fool designs his own. Without a really deep understanding of encryption it's easy to make a subtle mistake in you design that introduces a significant weakness. So on that hand we have to assume they are using something at least somewhat commonly available. But that's where the other edge gets you... it becomes MUCH easier to spot steno'd data when you are checking for a list of specific methods of steno. The analysis tool will scan the data against dozens or hundreds of common tools, and draw a nice graph with the line mostly hanging around the 2% point at the bottom, except for one eyesore of a spike for one of the tests. Then they take off the gloves and get to work.
  Just tossing out a very basic example, lets say they are steno'ing encrypted data into a big tiff by overwriting the LSB on teach byte. Visually you won't notice this because the difference is too small Mathematically the data you're storing is more-or-less flat random. BUT the data you replaced ISN'T. The LSB in an image is far from noise, and will have areas that are related by their relative position in the image. This will stick out like a sore thumb when you run a little analysis on the bits in the image. It'll be too random. And at this point your steno is busted, and it comes down to breaking the encryption. The lesson there is pretty basic - encrypted data will stick out about as well as data in the clear. All you're doing at that point is buying a little time. And intel agencies are both persistent and patient. You're better off investing more time in better steno.
  To throw in an analogy, look at smuggling. If a truck is being searched at the border and the smugglers did a good job distracting from the small hide where the goods are, they get past the checkpoint with zero problem. It doesn't matter if the goods are in a safe in the hole or just tossed in a grocery sac, being in a safe didn't help. On the other hand, if the guards notice the missing volume, you're done. It doesn't matter how well you've concealed the opening, it doesn't matter how sturdy the latch, it doesn't matter if the goods are in a safe. You've been found out, and you're done. They will tear the truck apart until they get into the hole, and bust open the safe. The same principles are at work with steno.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
4. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Unless, like this guy apparently had, you include the steganographic software on you as well and have well known ties to Al-Quida.
5. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-01 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Steno doesn't require encryption.
  That's correct. However, encryption is an excellent way of randomizing the data in a way that it would be immune to basic (or even advanced) statistical attacks.
  It's not nearly as difficult as you might imagine to spot an anomaly in random data. Few things in life are truly random, and if you are familiar enough with the kind of randomness in something, you will have a very good statistical chance of noticing it.
  There seem to be two points: one is that spoting anomalies is often not hard, though I believe that good crypto techniques output data that is statistically random. If not you can always get some truly random data, save it, then xor it with your real data, guaranteeing that the input to the crypto algorithm is statistically random.
  The other point is that you may be inserting randomness into something not really random, which would be suspicious. That's also true.
  bits about images
  Yes, care is required. Physical processes are one of the places where true randomness does exist. With a really good sensor, and good light, you will get more than 8 bits per pixel without noise. If you have low light levels, then you will start to get genuine randomness in the least significant bits.
  That would be OK for RAW images. For JPEG images, a little more care would have to be taken, since the algorithm does a good job of suppressing the low order bits.
  You can, of course always lower the data density, and store mostly zeros, so you will be mostly not altering the low-order bits. Even at 8 bits per field, you could store 180kB in an hour of video.
  The steno will hopefully stop people looking.
  If the quality of the steno is good, then cursory examinations won't show anything.
  Even if there is a slight anomaly and it looks like there may be hidden data, good encryption will ensure that the data doesn't have any obvious patterns, and it won't be obvious that it is something that has been encrypted.
  They then have to decide to spend huge resources trying to crack a password, which won't succeed if all the other files have stego'd chaff stored in them.
  Of course if they're really, really, really suspicious, they'll do it anyway and sufficiently good steganography will provide plausible deniability.
  At each stage, the agency has to decide to invest every more resources looking deeper (they have finite resources). Having good layers of steganography is more likely to make them spend resources elsewhere than having worse layers.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by v1 · 2012-05-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  At each stage, the agency has to decide to invest every more resources looking deeper (they have finite resources). Having good layers of steganography is more likely to make them spend resources elsewhere than having worse layers.
  While layering steno is certainly possible and may be a good idea in theory, I've never seen it applied. I think once you've already raised the eyebrow through the roof by layer1 stego'ing, they're going to get out a fine tooth comb on whatever they got out of that layer. If they're even halfway professional they'd be considering a layer2 steno, and you're already under the microscope at that point. I doubt it would help at all. Steno's purpose is to avoid suspicion and being scrutinized, and if you're already past layer 1 that's shot to hell.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
7. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-05-01 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  with any even remotely good stego and crypto it sould be impossible to prove that anything is hidden, since good crypto looks like perfetly random data.
  Well, in that case it would be trivial to detect, because ordinary steganographic channels do not contain much random data. Or do you think it would be innocuous to carry movie around that depicts white noise?
  Good steganography is very hard, it is based on a thorough analysis of the statistical properties of carrier channels and involves changing redundant data in them in a way that doesn't alter these properties. Unless you find some strong and huge source of real randomness in the channel, that's not very easy. Most existing steganographic tools are not based on any thorough analysis of the carrier channel and can be detected by statistical methods.
  That's not to say that nearly perfect steganography is not possible, it's just harder than one might think at first glance. You're right that any good stego needs to be combined with a prior encryption stage, because the data to hide should look random to start with or otherwise the problem would become fairly intractable.
8. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing in the CNN article precludes use of the $5 wrench.
  http://xkcd.com/538/
9. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, if the guards notice the missing volume, you're done. It doesn't matter how well you've concealed the opening, it doesn't matter how sturdy the latch, it doesn't matter if the goods are in a safe. You've been found out, and you're done. They will tear the truck apart until they get into the hole, and bust open the safe. The same principles are at work with steno.
  Yes, and no. Any safe can be "cracked" with a torch if necessary. Truly strong crypto can only be cracked with a $5 wrench.
10. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by plover · 2012-05-01 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Steno doesn't require encryption.
  That's correct. However, encryption is an excellent way of randomizing the data in a way that it would be immune to basic (or even advanced) statistical attacks.
  Actually, encrypted data stands out in these kinds of analyses prcisely because it's too well distributed.
  Steganography is often done by replacing the least significant parts of the original information with the secret message. For example, in a simple BMP bitmap, that might be the 0-bit of each byte used to describe color. But real world images don't have statistically perfect distribution of the 0-bits of color. (They also don't have LSBs with standard Unicode distributions of Arabic text, either.) Real photographic data is non random, all the way down to the 0-bits.
  Several years ago, when steganography was a hotly researched topic, some guy came up with a steganographic detector called OutGuess. It performed these kinds of analysis and would identify the kinds of steganography embedded in files, or if a file was clean. It had impressive results. So I know detection is a solved problem. Decryption is still the real issue, of course. But while hiding stuff in a video may baffle the amateurs, I would bet serious coin that the pros are analyzing a lot of images on a regular basis.
  
  --
  John
11. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by gweihir · 2012-05-01 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite true. If the investigators have the original file, they can compare and find the embedded bits. Of course they cannot prove the additional noise (and that is what it looks like if strong encryption is used on it) has not just been added, but it is highly suggestive. Especially if the noise was added incompetently, i.e. not following any of the characteristics of noise you would expect to find in there.
  This may not be proof, but it may be enough for a court to hold the person for an extended period of time.
  That said, I expect incompetent embedding or incompetently done crypto, maybe both and maybe use of a file from the Internet, that the investigators could use for comparison in addition. And I agree that competently done steganography is typically undetectable. But it is not easy to get this right.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
12. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by FlyingGuy · 2012-05-01 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  While you make come good points... Consider the following...
  1080P video has 2,073,600 pixels per frame (ppf). If the color depth (cd) is 24 bits, then that is (cd * ppf) places to hid a SINGLE bit!
  At 24 FPS 10 minutes of video = 14400 frames. Divide that by 8 gives a message of ~1800 words ( if not using unicode ).
  Each BIT of the message is hidden in 1 of 49,766,400 bits.
  Careful analysis will hide that bit in boundary regions ie: an area where color is blending into another color since the color variations are already randomized a bit to make the blend appear as seamless as possible, so setting a specific bit and then storing that location as part of the key, will, I would argue, make a statistical analysis for all practical purposes, impossible.
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
13. Re:Not very good crypto or stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  Either that or they inferred the most likely one time pad, based on the presence of a beard and arabic sounding name on the suspect.
  This is what scares me the most.
  If you have a usb-stick with encrypted data (or anything, really), they can easily produce a matching one-time-pad to make it look the stick contains anything they want. And it would probably work in court too.
Why, just why... by vikingpower · 2012-05-01 03:27 · Score: 0

do I have a very hard time believing this ? European police are notoriously incompetent at decryption. This smells of some new, illusionary monster created by some government to scare us into coughing up more liberties and money. ( I can know. I live in Austria. )

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:Why, just why... by TheMeuge · 2012-05-01 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The only way I can envision this actually happening the way the story is written, is if this particular method was well-known to the law enforcement and they had already worked out all the necessary tools for detecting AND breaking the hidden container.
  Otherwise, it sounds like a false flag operation to me.
  That's what I think, and I'm one of those people who wants to hit conspiracy nuts most of the time. That's how obvious this sounds.
2. Re:Why, just why... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  According to different reports, the guy had a memory card in his pants containing pr0n videos and stego software.
  You'd really need to be a TSA goon to not go "HUH" at that.
Hiding it in porn is cool... by bbbaldie · 2012-05-01 03:28 · Score: 1

...however, squirreling it away in a beer can would be heresy, and the torments of seven hells in the afterlife.
According to this video.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:28 · Score: 0

...Al Quaeda's plans including fucking America.
Steganography is suspicious on its own by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-01 03:28 · Score: 3, Informative

So you find some pornography files in a strange place (a guy's underwear -- maybe not that strange), and the reason you think there is some hidden message is...? Oh, yeah, you also found the steganography software that was used for encoding and decoding, and then just brute forced the passphrase (RTFA). So the fact that the memory card was in the guy's underwear is actually irrelevant -- the same thing would have happened had the card been in his wallet, backback, tablet, etc.

This is the classic warden problem, applied to terrorists.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  So you find some pornography files in a strange place (a guy's underwear -- maybe not that strange)....
  Maybe not so strange for you, Sparky.
  
  So the fact that the memory card was in the guy's underwear is actually irrelevant...
  Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of logic?
2. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-01 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's all about layers.
  Hiding data in your underpants is very suspicious.
  Keeping a steganography program along with the data is very suspicious.
  Having a big stash of porn if you're a fundementalist is a little bit suspicious.
  All those are independent.
  The fact it was in his underwear is definitely relevant, since the whole point of steganography is to hide. Every time you do something suspicious to make people look harder, you defeat the purpose of the steganography.
  If it was a memory card in his backpack, in his camera, which matched his camera, had consistent dates and had a bunch of touristy videos on it and nothing else, they might wehh lave not looked any further.
  Of course they might have done.
  But if most of the files were chaff and had embedded random data (to make the noise levels match) and one had encryped data, even with a moderately good password, they might well have wasted a ton of time on the wrong files and given up.
  The fact he had it hidden in his pants pretty much guaranteed that they looked until they found something.
  Of course if he'd done all that and had a really good password, they would have been SOL, either way. They would have probably been very suspicious, but unable to prove anything either way.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of logic?
  There are some who call him..... betterunixthanunix?
4. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by PhxBlue · 2012-05-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Of course if he'd done all that and had a really good password, they would have been SOL, either way.
  Obligatory xkcd: "Security."
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
5. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Of course if he'd done all that and had a really good password, they would have been SOL, either way."
  i kind of doubt that a strong password is going to stop any government agency that thinks you're involved in terrorism. Those guys have a blank check, all they have to do is say terrorist and millions of dollars gets thrown at them. It wouldn't be hard for them to phone up the NSA to get a server farm with several petaflops of computer horsepower to brute force the damn thing. or some drugs and a wrench a la XKCD. and who's to say they don't take a ghost image of the drives and analyze them at their leisure after they've let you go, passwords only slow people down just like locks.
  It sounds like anti-terror really had a boner for going after these guys, they were screwed no matter what.
  These guys would have been better off swallowing the plans and crapping them out later. At least I haven't heard of any suspected terrorist getting CAT scans, well... not yet.
6. Re:Steganography is suspicious on its own by Fjandr · 2012-05-01 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  These guys would have been better off swallowing the plans and crapping them out later. At least I haven't heard of any suspected terrorist getting CAT scans, well... not yet.
  They do Xrays looking for drug mules, and have for years. I would be surprised if at least one hasn't been done in a terrorism-related case somewhere already.
It's a Trap!!!! by Tharsman · 2012-05-01 03:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

We all know these religious zealots hate pornography! This must mean the reason they are doing this is instead to terrorize US citizens!!! How? From now on the TSA will request all pornography in your laptop or smartphone be carefully analyzed, frame by frame, before you board your flight!!! They may simply force you to trash your smartphones, laptops and tablets just like they do with your coke!
Conspiracy Theory B:
This was hoaxed by the TSA themselves so they have legal reasons to confiscate cool looking laptops, new top of the line smart phones, and expensive tablets!
1. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by hoggoth · 2012-05-01 04:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'll take CCTV cameras on every corner.
  I'll take warrantless monitoring of my email and phones.
  I'll take radiation scanners at every airport.
  But they can pry my porn from my cold dead fingers.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
2. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by cayenne8 · 2012-05-01 04:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm trying to picture what muslim pr0n actually is...or how one would even KNOW it was porm??
  I mean, you have some films of muslim chicks, covered from head to toe in those burka things....and have to imagine them nekkid underneath?!?
  Also, and this is purely my best guess. Not sure I'd want to see them. The men all insist on having those long scraggly beards. I have to guess under the burkas, the muslim chicks are a bit too hairy for my liking. I'm talking 70's porn type hairy, where you'd need a machete to get through it all.
  That brings up another question...muslims have food restrictions right? Can they have oral sex legally in their religion?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Cold, dead, and curiously heavily calloused.
4. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  But they can pry my porn from my cold dead fingers.
  But they can pry my porn from my cold sticky fingers. ftfy
5. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-05-01 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't you mean: "they can pry my porn from my wet sticky fingers" ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
6. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  I was going to say: How do you know he wasn't rather smuggling the porn using Al Qaeda documents as cover?
  I mean c'mon, I bet you porn is worth about the same prison sentence in Pakistan as terrorism plans are in Germany. Hell maybe he was doing both and just forgot to delete the porn for the return trip :D
7. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by doesnothingwell · 2012-05-01 05:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Their gonna being prying something else from one hand at least.
  
  --
  They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
8. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Gideon+Wells · 2012-05-01 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I remember a year ago people were stating and laughing at UBL for having porn in his hideout when he was killed for being a hypocrite. Others were claiming it was just extra gossipy goodness designed and hoaxed If it wasn't destroyed, maybe it wasn't all porn after all, and should be checked. Heck, if it was left behind some of it might even be this stuff.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
9. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by f3rret · 2012-05-01 06:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm fairly certain muslim porn is just regular porn, we all like the naked ladies.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
10. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Chrisq · 2012-05-01 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  We all know these religious zealots hate pornography!
  Sharia law allows them to rape non-Muslims, have sex with nine year olds, have "temporary" marriages that only last 10 minutes, be able to force their wives to have group sex with them etc. This makes porn pretty well redundant.
11. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by eln · 2012-05-01 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  From now on the TSA will request all pornography in your laptop or smartphone be carefully analyzed, frame by frame, before you board your flight!!!
  
  That's it, I'm going to get a job at the TSA.
12. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  and watch porn on the job !
13. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by maxwell+demon · 2012-05-01 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  I'm fairly certain muslim porn is just regular porn, we all like the naked ladies.
  I think Muslim porn has 40 of them. And all are virgins. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
14. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Dave+Emami · 2012-05-01 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  That brings up another question...muslims have food restrictions right? Can they have oral sex legally in their religion?
  I presume you're being facetious, but the topic actually came up in an article I was reading recently (in Slate, I think) about the life of women in a Bangladesh brothel and their conflict with the local clergy. The older women advise the younger women (sort of a master/padawan thing) that if they don't wish to engage in oral sex, to tell their customers that they refuse to do that because their mouths are used to recite the verses of the Koran.
  
  --
  
  "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
15. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by chrb · 2012-05-01 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  have sex with nine year olds
  Nothing unusual in that, historically Christian churches allowed girls to be married as young as 7:
  
  In canon law, puberty normally determines marriageable age, although the minimum age for marriage is seven years, "the age of reason", when a child is deemed capable of consent. The lawyer Estienne Pasquier notes that the Digest compiled by Justinian specifies fourteen years for men, twelve for women, but, he adds, if one is capable of carnal cohabitation before this age, marriage is permitted.
  Sexual intercourse below the age of discretion (seven) was not a crime, but merely “invalid,” and thus, inconsequential, as under Jewish law.
  “It is no uncommon case, especially in France, for a girl of scarce ten years to be married and a mother next year. . . . It seems portentous, and yet we sometimes see it, especially in Britain and Italy, that a tender child is married to a septuagenarian [i.e. a man in his seventies]. . . . Yet Church laws do not rescind such nuptials” - Erasmus
  In later centuries, some Christian commentators would denounce sexual relations with young girls as being equivalent to rape. In the sixteenth century, canonist Egidio Bossi argued for this interpretation on the grounds that a child could hardly be considered as being in a position to give consent. However, he recommended that the age of consent be fixed at only six or seven years of age.
16. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by bartoku · 2012-05-01 11:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Instead of up skirt shots, it was a bunch of pictures of ankles peaking out from underneath their burkas.
  No lie I saw it on the discovery channel that Arab men love when they catch a little glimpse of ankle...scandalous.
  
  Do religious food restrictions cover licking things, because if you are actually consuming something during oral sex you might be doing it wrong?
17. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-05-01 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Can they have oral sex legally in their religion?
  If legality is what you sought, no, they aren't allowed to enjoy oral sex in any way or form
  But then it's ISLAM we are talking about - it's a religion whereby legality is worth shit
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
18. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Or more simply
  Propaganda to ban, or censor porno!! Which would be surprising in Germany, unless the US is involved and it would be obvious coming from the US's mouth that they will start considering to censor porno, or force you, ISP's to track, or use "software" so they can track which site you go on involving porno.
  Just a thought!
  Really this a silly news article..
19. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  We all know these religious zealots hate pornography!
  Sharia law allows them to rape non-Muslims, have sex with nine year olds, have "temporary" marriages that only last 10 minutes, be able to force their wives to have group sex with them etc. This makes porn pretty well redundant.
  It allows demands that if a woman is raped, that she must then marry the rapist "to preserve her family's honor".
  fucking savages.
20. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  ...covered from head to toe in those burka things....and have to imagine them nekkid underneath?!?
  Well, apparently yes. A Palestinian friend of mine, who's spent some time working on programming projects over in Saudi Arabia, once told me that the guys over there would get all worked up over a promising-looking "BMO" -- "Black Moving Object"! The imagination is a powerful thing...
21. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by tibman · 2012-05-02 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  They look like women. The female form is very nice, Muslim or otherwise. In some cultures body hair is ok and others it isn't. Cultural Relativism.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
22. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by pnutjam · 2012-05-02 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, but this does nothing to change the stereotype of a backwards people who are stuck in the past. It tends to reinforce.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
23. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Middle-eastern women do tend to be a bit hairier but they shave just like Western women...in fact they dress up fancy underneath the burkhas to impress the other women when they take them off in women's bathrooms...no joke.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
24. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hope you have very "open" tastes...I think it would be like working the nudie scanners, for every 1 thing you saw that you wanted to see you'll have to look at 9 that you didn't.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
25. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Their gonna being prying something else from one hand at least.
  Tha'tll be two hands, thank you very much.
26. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  dude, its gay porn
27. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by coinreturn · 2012-05-03 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Conspiracy Theory B: This was hoaxed by the TSA themselves so they have legal reasons to confiscate cool looking laptops, new top of the line smart phones, and expensive tablets!
  No, they want to confiscate all porn to build up their personal collections!
28. Re:It's a Trap!!!! by chrb · 2012-05-04 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, but this does nothing to change the stereotype of a backwards people who are stuck in the past. It tends to reinforce.
  Well, that is the problem with religious people. Modern secular legal systems are obviously preferable to ones based on religious law. Though many Muslim countries do have higher ages of consent/marriage e.g. in Pakistan it's 16 years for both.
Been done by DarkOx · 2012-05-01 03:35 · Score: 1

I can't remember the name of the film, and it was not exactly modern stenography, but the plot was the Russians were sending secret messages to and from their embedded spies in the States via a series of porno videos.
Messages were being encoded as bar code segments used to make up the wall paper behind the 'actors'

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Steganography is about not raising suspicion by Hentes · 2012-05-01 03:35 · Score: 1

On May 16 last year, a 22-year-old Austrian named Maqsood Lodin was being questioned by police in Berlin. He had recently returned from Pakistan via Budapest, Hungary, and then traveled overland to Germany. His interrogators were surprised to find that hidden in his underpants were a digital storage device and memory cards.
Yeah, steganography pretty much fails when you shove the thing up in your ass. Law enforcers tend to find that suspicious.
1. Re:Steganography is about not raising suspicion by udoschuermann · 2012-05-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I bet that for a while there he thought he's a real smarty pants!
  
  --
  --Udo.
Staganography by capt_peachfuzz · 2012-05-01 03:37 · Score: 1

There - fixed it for you.
blonde, brunette, red-head by Culture20 · 2012-05-01 03:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Osama's wife: Do you always look at it encoded?

Osama: Well you have to. There's way too much information to decode the movie in realtime. You get used to it. I...I don't even see the blonde, brunette, and red-head. All I see is our nefarious plots. Hey, you uh... want a drink?
1. Re:blonde, brunette, red-head by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  You sir,
  Just made my day!
  Thanks,
  -Phil
2. Re:blonde, brunette, red-head by amicusNYCL · 2012-05-01 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well done, sir.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And how about spam? by udoschuermann · 2012-05-01 03:41 · Score: 1

I've been wondering for a long time whether spam is not also a means for them to disseminate instructions in some way. It doesn't appear to come from an identifiable source, and does not seem directed at any particular recipient, but the people who expect to find something there would be able to find it.

--
--Udo.
I know how this happened... by WombleGoneBad · 2012-05-01 03:42 · Score: 2

Muslim kid: "Cor look at the bajungas on her..."
(Crazy fanatic dad walks in)
Crazy fanatic dad : "OH NO!!! you have been corrupted by the filthy western decadance!! "
Muslim kid : "No dad!! look im using their own flithy videos against them, by hiding cunning terrorist plans inside them!! honest!!"
Crazy fanactic dad : "Ahh good son. Well done carry on"
(Crazy fanactic dad leaves)
Muslim kid (whispers) : "sucker! heh heh "
Re:Pakistan by bmo · 2012-05-01 03:42 · Score: 1

>Their only export these days seems to be terrorism.
And the only thing you seem to post is moronic generalisations.
Go look at the tag on some of your shirts or something. Obviously the goals of the "terrorists" has been to take over textiles.
--
BMO
Steganography is great for planting evidence by Lazy+Jones · 2012-05-01 03:43 · Score: 2

The "suspect" will never know ... As the "authorities" have undoubtedly discovered already.

--
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
1. Re:Steganography is great for planting evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  There is a serious risk of this, and it is hard to prove either way. Whether this is true or not the agencies have now a new way of getting rid of people they don't like. Simply plant steganographic content in their downloads, or whatever and then make sure a backdated binary for reading such content is available on the subjects drive or somewhere in the vicinity.
If they have developed an interest in Porn by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-05-01 03:44 · Score: 1

My god what next Televangelism?

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Interestingly... by catmistake · 2012-05-01 03:47 · Score: 1

I prefer to keep my porn steganagraphically em bedded under my matress for easy access.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
A summary of Al Qaeda's plans by DrXym · 2012-05-01 03:50 · Score: 1

Two holes at once.
Bad plan. by ddd0004 · 2012-05-01 03:50 · Score: 1

Aren't you suppose to hide something in a place they would never look? What's next, trying to smuggle their plans in a box labeled donuts?
I don't want to give Al Qaeda tips but embed that stuff on slide 5 of a powerpoint presentation named Corporate Synergistics or Business Process Best Practices.
Suspicion extreme by ehiris · 2012-05-01 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Importing porn to Germany from Pakistan is about the most suspicious thing anyone can do.
1. Re:Suspicion extreme by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-05-01 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Damn where are my mod points!!!!
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Great news for HoLand Security folks by cvtan · 2012-05-01 03:52 · Score: 1

Now they get to sit around watching Al-Qaeda videos so they can keep a eye out for the naughty bits.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Must be 4chan users... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 03:56 · Score: 0

Embedding files in images/video? Nothing new.
Modsareasleeppostsomesinks.png
Interesting... by soundconjurer · 2012-05-01 03:58 · Score: 1

So watching porn could protect America.
Recruitment Tool!! by cs668 · 2012-05-01 04:04 · Score: 1

Hiding it in port is probably a great recruitment tool!!!
1. Re:Recruitment Tool!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hiding it in porn, like a great recruitment fool!!!
What an intense load of horseshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:10 · Score: 0

So an Austrian kid goes on a SPY VACATION to PAKISTAN and then sews SECRET flash drives into his UNDERWEAR which contain PORN containing CRYPTO DOCUMENTS in them which have such critical TERROR IDEAS such as HEY LET'S SHOOT A LOT OF PEOPLE. And now those SECRET TERROR IDEAS are being REPRINTED WILLY NILLY and OPENLY BEING DISCUSSED by SENIOR WESTERN COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIALS.
What complete and total horseshit. "Al Qaeda" "communicates" by sending all their "secrets" in a package designed to draw as much attention as possible to itself? Using an inefficient form of crypto to stuff asynchronous documents into ultra-high profile data? And the Western security apparatus freely discusses these ~top secret plans~ with newspaper reporters? Bullshit.
This is an episode of NCIS, probably written by actual staffwriters, so that the yellow press can do a week of "EURO CARNAGE" headlines.
R3:4nd h0w 4b0t sp4m? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:16 · Score: 0

Naturally! How many IQ points must one lack to think otherwise? Who do you know who cracks open their wallets to pay for pharmaceuticals and wristwatches from dealers in JPEGs that look like an improperly assembled jigsaw puzzle seen through TV static?
Some of it is an outbound tunneling protocol for those inside networks, where they don't want to implicate themselves as the sender, so they broadcast to get plausible deniability of originating the data. (Broadcasting to a specific point or place would be a smoking gun.) Some of it is traffic shaping, often exploiting "immunity"...when you know what the reaction to a perceived attack is going to be and using it.
Don't freak out, though! This is how it's always been, and how it will always be...fish and F.ishermen. "Evolution: embrace your chance..."
it's a simple mistake, we've all made it... by Thud457 · 2012-05-01 04:18 · Score: 3, Funny

One time I was smuggling pr0n into Germany steganographically hidden in some made up terrorist plans.
Unfortunately, I had way more porn than plans.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:19 · Score: 0

They didn't use a virus, but the child-porn-traders did use stenography.
If you are a virus-writer in it for the lulz though, you'll have your virus pick a random picture from the currently-infected computer's "My Pictures" directory and dump it in the next victim's "My Pictures" directory.
For bonus lulz, you'll wait a month then change the user's screen-saver or desktop background to this newly-downloaded picture.
Then sit back and laugh knowing that from time to time, some businessman or 8 year old kid is shocked by having his desktop background turn into some other guy's p0rn and once in blue moon, it's illegal p0rn.
1. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by jbonomi · 2012-05-01 04:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  *steganography. Stenography is typing court transcripts.
2. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by localman57 · 2012-05-01 05:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And SteganStanography is the art of hiding secret messages in court transcripts.
3. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-01 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I thought steganography was the study of dinosaurs with large plates protruding from their backs and spikes on their tail?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
4. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No that's the art of hiding secret messages in a South Park character...
  - T
5. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  So if you want to find alternatives to a given picture, you should look it up in a stegosaurus?
6. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by frisket · 2012-05-01 08:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's steganology. Steganography is drawing pictures of such dinosaurs.
7. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-01 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  What do you call the art of hiding information inside a spikey-tailed dinosaur?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
8. Re:As seen on Law & Order:SVU by Coren22 · 2012-05-03 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Talent.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
fearmongering by quantic_oscillation7 · 2012-05-01 04:20 · Score: 0

a new plan to outlaw crypto? 1. control the internet (ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA) 2. outlaw all tools that can circumvent internet's control it's impossible that the so called terrorists are either hyper-smarts, like the ones of 911, able of bringing down the most powerful military forces of the planet, or hyper dumm like this one and several others
Could have been very good crypto and stego by Sloppy · 2012-05-01 04:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Both the stego and the crypto could actually be excellent and still be systematically weakened by a PEBKaC or even other layers. A few ideas off the top of my head...
Maybe the flash drive contained not only the data, but also some executable stego software (kind of like how having TrueCrypt installed, as an add-on rather than something coming in all default installs, is a way of announcing "hidden volumes very likely exist on this system").
Maybe the stego and crypto application software is excellent, but some other layer (e.g. the OS) left clues. Perhaps he occasionally updated the archive (it sounds like the movie contained multiple files), adding to it, and every time he used the stego software to write out a new file, the OS left copies of the file's previous contents sitting around in free space. (Ooh, or maybe the flash drive's own wear-levelling management: he copied the video to the drive once, then the video was updated and he copied the updated one "over" it onto the same drive -- bingo, this is my first guess as to what actually happened. I bet lots of not-necessarily-stupid people would make this mistake.) Then investigators notice two copies of the "same" video with different binary representations. Stego alert.
Maybe all the tools were perfect, but the user was an idiot. Perhaps after the guy's capture, they gave him back his flash drive and let him use a computer, and then he cooperatively typed his passphrase into the government's friendly computer, while thinking, "Muahaha, stupid infidels, now I will use this opportunity to delete my^H^H the only copy of the secret plans! I am so clever and they are so dumb!"
You can have good tools and still deploy them stupidly or use them stupidly. Or just foolishly enough, to tip your hand that you're hiding data. After that, decryption passphrase is recovered with a $10 wrench.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
1. Re:Could have been very good crypto and stego by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Other articles indicate that he had the software with him.
Very surprising they could decrypt/find the stego by renoX · 2012-05-01 04:30 · Score: 1

I find very surprising that they could find&decrypt the steganography: AFAIK, the first step is to encrypt the document and compress it, making the document "look like" a random number.
Then you mix the document with the movie..
So either the terrorists were lazy/stupid or there's something strange here: how did they find the hidden countent?
Now an excuse for the government to start... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 04:58 · Score: 0

A War on Porn!
Re:Very surprising they could decrypt/find the ste by ScentCone · 2012-05-01 04:59 · Score: 1

He had the steganography tools with him, as well. These guys are a very odd mix of somewhat clever and adolescently stupid in the extreme.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why? by ZankerH · 2012-05-01 05:07 · Score: 1

Seriously, how dumb are these people? By know, I'd expect strong encryption (ie, AES, via Truecrypt or similar software) to be mainstream enough for even Pakistani cave-dvellers to know about. Why bother with an obviously inferior means of encryption?
They're just hypocrites by Quila · 2012-05-01 05:07 · Score: 1

Didn't some of the 9/11 folks hit a strip club before meeting their 72 virgins?
1. Re:They're just hypocrites by Quila · 2012-05-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, don't forget that men can be virgins too. Maybe that's what they're going for, 72 young virgin boys. They certainly are popular for "entertaining" in some Muslim countries.
2. Re:They're just hypocrites by VoidCrow · 2012-05-01 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  > They might all look like this well known virgin
  Not funny, not nice.
3. Re:They're just hypocrites by Ozymandias_KoK · 2012-05-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  no, it was some buildings
4. Re:They're just hypocrites by Alan+R+Light · 2012-05-01 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a mistake to presume that Al Qaeda is staffed by religious fanatics. They are generally opposed to their own governments as much as ours, and attacked the U.S. because the U.S. was supporting tyrannical and corrupt governments in their region. Hopefully the Arab Spring has changed this somewhat.
  Like most religious wars, religion in this case is just used as justification. The conflict has other causes.
5. Re:They're just hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't some of the 9/11 folks hit a strip club before meeting their 72 virgins?
  Not that strange. After all, they should at least have an idea what to do with those virgins. Call it motivational...
6. Re:They're just hypocrites by Internetuser1248 · 2012-05-01 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  As Billy Connolly Said: 72 virgins is not a reward, it's a punishment. Give me 2 sluts any day.
Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:12 · Score: 0

...but instead steganographically embedded in a pornographic video
We all know how that worked. Take 72 virgins, tatoo one letter of the message on each buttock of each, and BOOM! off you go!
Of course, it takes some filming to construct a complete message. Abbreviations optional.
Good one, CIA. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:19 · Score: 0

Very convincing.
Why did they even announce this in to media? by elucido · 2012-05-01 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

That sort of argument is unlikely to fly in front of a jury given all the other evidence against him. Bear in mind this wasn't just a random stop-and-search, they already suspected he was an al-Qaeda member. He tried to hide the incriminating files. Probably more that isn't in the story.
Having said that, I think this sort of story just re-inforces the general impression that the counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big for the size of the threat it presently faces. If this is the way AQ move sensitive files around, they are clearly unable to recruit members with any technical sophistication. I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now. No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
If this guy really is a terrorist and they really did recover these encoded files they wouldn't be announcing it in the news as that is irresponsible and stupid.
So why is it being announced? It should be classified.
1. Re:Why did they even announce this in to media? by PaulBu · 2012-05-01 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  My thought exactly!
  Also, why not go one more step and put the video itself on some server, then he would only need to remember URL and password to decrypt it -- when was the last time you have tried to assume that random porn flick on youtube is steg-hiding Al-Qaeda docs and tried to brute-force the password? Of course there are people whose jobs is to assume that, thus, hide it a bit better, but terrorist would have to be Really Stupid to think that carrying a porn disk with hidden plans in your underpants would not invite further scrutiny -- or it is a made-up story, or there is more to it...
  Paul B.
Why isn't it classified? by elucido · 2012-05-01 05:20 · Score: 1

If he really is a terrorist why announce that we know how to break their codes and read their messages?
Maybe we shouldn't have.
1. Re:Why isn't it classified? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  To show them (and potential recruits) that what they're trying to do is futile.
They should have classified this case. by elucido · 2012-05-01 05:25 · Score: 1

What do they gain by announcing to the media that they decoded Al Qaeda's secret files?
Now every potential terrorist can learn what the USA is capable of or not capable of. It also alerts the terrorists using steganography in this way that the US government is onto them and this could trigger much more sophisticated methods which the US government wont be able to deal with.
So I don't see the point to it being in the media. I do understand why it's on Slashdot and I would expect to see it here but I also saw it on CNN. Generally its a very difficult problem to track down and detect terrorists and it's the job of the NSA.
1. Re:They should have classified this case. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Germany. The country is called Germany.
2. Re:They should have classified this case. by VoidCrow · 2012-05-01 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, he was also carrying the steg software with him. So now, all the world will know of the US security forces' fearsomely sophisticated ability to spot steganographically concealed stuff in the presence of a mountain of porn and a steganographic decoder.
Epoxy Resin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:28 · Score: 0

They'll need some sort of solvent.
1. Re:Epoxy Resin by fotoguzzi · 2012-05-01 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  "Epoxy resin!" I believe that is what Patrick McGoohan found in the test valve for the torpedo tube in Ice Station Zebra.
  
  --
  Their they're doing there hair.
Cruise Ship Terror Plot! by mevets · 2012-05-01 05:40 · Score: 1

It seems that they came up with a new plan...
1. Re:Cruise Ship Terror Plot! by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-05-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent. This means that soon the AARP will join the fight against the TSA's sexual molestation practices!
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
2. Re:Cruise Ship Terror Plot! by OldHawk777 · 2012-05-01 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Shoe bomber, we take our shoes off for TSA.
  Underwear bomber, we don't take our underwear off for TSA.
  That's the problem there is no consistency, TSA is always asymmetric-reactive.
  
  --
  Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
3. Re:Cruise Ship Terror Plot! by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-05-01 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Taking off underwear was a bit "too" much for them to get away with. However, "enhanced" pat-downs of "suspicious" persons sounds perfectly reasonable to most people. Bring this special treatment to the most suspicious segment of the population--those requiring medical support systems--whom are more likely to cruise than fly though and things will suddenly get a bit more interesting.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
At the congressional hearing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 05:51 · Score: 0

And that, Senator, is why I was watching porn at my desk every day.
This means ... by PPH · 2012-05-01 06:34 · Score: 1

... if you are still wearing underpants, the terrorists have won.
Gives a whole new meaning to a commando raid against al Qaida.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:This means ... by VoidCrow · 2012-05-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  heh, I foiled you by not drinking my coffee at exactly the right moment.
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by MikeyC01 · 2012-05-01 06:44 · Score: 1

Yes it's a victimless crime to possess anything, but the subjects of child porn photos are most certainly victims.
More fake 'terrorism'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:25 · Score: 0

wonder if this is yet another bullshit event, like the underwear bomber, or 9/11, or 7/7 - perpetrated so we'll give up our freedom for security.
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:30 · Score: 0

Depends on how you classify porn again. Some definitions have it being any image of someone under 18 clothed or not that are perceived in a provocative manner...including cartoons. While publicly circulating images of a naked child playing on the beach may be morally questionable, I'd hardly call the child a victim.
So dumb-dumb, who would look at porn in detail? by OldHawk777 · 2012-05-01 07:30 · Score: 1

Those poor dumb fellas, they just don't understand.
Infidels will always look at porn admiring the human figure or the great complexity of face and body contortion achieved by masturbators and fornicators.
They could have been far better at keeping their secrets; Only, if they had used a picture of UBL or Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib.
No one but a Muslim would have looked, scrutinized, or been offended by those pictures and no secrets would globally known.

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 07:40 · Score: 0

The GP wasn't saying anything to the contrary. The child is a victim to a different crime (the activities the image is a recording of). Unless you want to argue that the images hold power over these children simply by existing, and being in possession of them continues to victimize the children, there is no victim in possessing an image.
Porn = Terrorism by hemo_jr · 2012-05-01 07:40 · Score: 1

Now porn, like liquids on a plane, has been equated with terrorism. So anyone with porn is now a potential terrorist. The FBI must be jumping with joy. They have the perfect excuse to treat everyone as a terrorist.
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by girlintraining · 2012-05-01 08:01 · Score: 1

At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
The child who is asked to engage in sexual acts for the camera would disagree about it being victimless. The distribution of child porn doesn't harm anyone, fair enough, but the demand for it is the cause of the crime, and the crime harms people, so if you make possession and distribution illegal, it will ostensibly reduce the number of children exploited. That said, criminalizing cartoon or written depictions of underage sex is a true victimless crime; and if you made that argument against those abstractions, I'd agree with you. But 'real' child porn is not a victimless crime.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
They don't just have to be fanatics by Quila · 2012-05-01 08:26 · Score: 2

I knew some Saudi guys who were perfectly pious in their own country, but vacationed in Florida to booze it up and hit the titty bars.
I'm sure government is part of their motivation for some, but don't discount the main religious angle. We didn't support the theocracies of Taliban or Iran, yet there they are/were, providing funding and personnel to help kill us. We support Pakistan, and they don't like us because we support relative moderates who keep them from establishing the oppressive Taliban-like regime they want there.
This is jihad, war between the cultures. They consider us decadent infidels who must be stopped, especially since we support that big thorn in their side that they've been trying to destroy for over 50 years -- Israel.
1. Re:They don't just have to be fanatics by chrb · 2012-05-01 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  We didn't support the theocracies of Taliban or Iran, yet there they are/were, providing funding and personnel to help kill us.
  Taliban didn't do 9/11 - that was Saudis, who hated their U.S. client state dictatorship. It is unlikely that the Afghan Taliban knew anything about bin Laden's plans for 9/11. And now, after invading and overthrowing them, they have plenty of non-religious reasons to dislike the U.S. government. They did let bin Laden operate in Afghanistan when they were in power, but then again, plenty of revolutionaries/terrorists have operated out of the U.S. without being closed by the authorities (Cubans, IRA, etc.).
  As for Iran, there are plenty of non-religious reasons for them to dislike the U.S. government: the U.S. backed Saddam over them and sold him biochemical WMDs which were used against Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. And the U.S. overthrew the Iranian government. And shot down a civilian airliner. I'm sure you can imagine how outraged people would be if any government had done only one of those things to Americans.
2. Re:They don't just have to be fanatics by Dave+Emami · 2012-05-01 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I knew some Saudi guys who were perfectly pious in their own country, but vacationed in Florida to booze it up and hit the titty bars.
  On a less-extreme note, I recall the way people in Iran (at least the ones I knew) treated Ramadan when I was there. Theoretically, you're supposed to fast during the day, plus pray and reflect a lot in general. In reality, most folks fasted during the day, then at sundown everybody got together to stuff themselves, party, and crank up the (shudder) disco. Forgive them. It was the seventies, they knew not what they were doing.
  Note: not saying anything specific about Moslems, of course. Most Christians in the US are no more pious than that at Christmas or Easter.
  
  --
  
  "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
3. Re:They don't just have to be fanatics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, indeed guys, yes. What *I'd* like to know is how these Saudis managed to take down building 7...
4. Re:They don't just have to be fanatics by Internetuser1248 · 2012-05-01 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the US did support the Shah in Iran. I think that pissed some of them off.
5. Re:They don't just have to be fanatics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Here's everything you could want to know about WTC7:
  http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
  Don't bother to actually read it, though. You'll just dismiss it anyway.
The MPAA has won by gmuslera · 2012-05-01 08:27 · Score: 1

Now they have the perfect excuse to ask for all your media devices (portable storage, tablets, notebooks, smartphones) at borders/TSA/wherever and even require that you decrypt them. You could be hidden secret terrorist plots there, think on the children.,
And if they find pirated media, they could always plant there the terrorist plots to incriminate you. You could end in Guantanamo for an illegal mp3 now.
Blip Verts by StillNeedMoreCoffee · 2012-05-01 09:03 · Score: 1

Where can we view these video's?
Not so great an accomplishment . . . by mmell · 2012-05-01 09:43 · Score: 1

This is an al-quaeda operative we're talking about here. I mean after all, they were pictures of women, not goats. The German authorities had to know something was amiss.
Porno in the pants by Shotgun · 2012-05-01 10:17 · Score: 1

Putting digital storage packed with porno in his pants?
I think Al Queda needs to update their instructions, because I'm not sure that is how you use the porno.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by elucido · 2012-05-01 10:33 · Score: 1

At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
The child who is asked to engage in sexual acts for the camera would disagree about it being victimless. The distribution of child porn doesn't harm anyone, fair enough, but the demand for it is the cause of the crime, and the crime harms people, so if you make possession and distribution illegal, it will ostensibly reduce the number of children exploited. That said, criminalizing cartoon or written depictions of underage sex is a true victimless crime; and if you made that argument against those abstractions, I'd agree with you. But 'real' child porn is not a victimless crime.
The demand for is isn't the cause of child molestation which is the actual crime. Children would be molested whether it were filmed or not. Just like the demand of rotten.com hasn't resulted in a spike in murders.
I never said the production of child porn doesn't produce the victim. I'm saying the viewing of child porn doesn't create any victims. Possession of child porn doesn't indicate that the person possessing it is the maker of it and if they aren't making it then in that case they are arrested for having gross thoughts rather than for victimizing anyone.
Pure Hoax - CNN Sucked In ... again by fygment · 2012-05-01 12:42 · Score: 1

Think about it. An intelligence agency gets a 'treasure trove' of information and then tells the world that they found it ... oh, and it was hidden in a most compromising way that discredits the religious credibility of the purported religious fanatics.
Think: when the Allies during World War II broke the German codes, did they tell everyone they had? NO. They kept quiet about it and used the information against the UNSUSPECTING enemy. If they had done otherwise, the Germans would have changed their coding methods and the Allies would have been deprived of all that intelligence. Get it?
So if a US intelligence agency really had such information, they wouldn't be telling anybody ... kind of like they never told anyone that they knew exactly where Bin Laden was.
If I hadn't already done so, I would lose all faith in CNN's reporting ... or propaganda.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Windows 2009? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-01 13:17 · Score: 1

LOL, that's what you get for thinking "Windows 2009" was real.
Like Windows 97.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Reduce supply atrocities by cutting demand by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-01 13:23 · Score: 1

If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
1. Re:Reduce supply atrocities by cutting demand by elucido · 2012-05-02 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
  Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
  That works so well with drugs right? The supply in the case of child porn if it's created to make money could be reduced that way but then if it's about money the government could set up websites to sting people who pay money for child porn.
  If you're talking about child molestation, I don't think money has anything to do with it. So I don't see how we can arrest our way out of it. And like I said previously it hasn't worked on drugs so why would that strategy work here?
2. Re:Reduce supply atrocities by cutting demand by elucido · 2012-05-02 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
  Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
  
  If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
  Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
  When has that ever worked with an addictive substance? When you arrest drug users it doesn't result in a decrease in demand or supply. What it results in is more people being arrested and smarter suppliers.
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-05-01 13:32 · Score: 1

It revictimizes that person having such a horrible perverted picture of them out there - they are hurt everytime it is reproduced..
Here is for a less emotionally charged example: If one's SSN got on the Internet, each time one more person got a hold of it it (potentally) would result in further harm.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-01 13:57 · Score: 0

Go look at the tag on some of your shirts or something.
The tag in my "My parents went to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt says "Made in China".
So does the tag in my "Dead to the infidels!" t-shirt.
Kick Ass is pornography? by snobody · 2012-05-02 01:52 · Score: 1

I just find it interesting that the movie they mentioned as the steganographic carrier, Kick Ass, is referred to as pornography. Granted, the female super hero in the movie, Hit Girl, is a 12-year old, so the movie had a pedophile (technically ephebophile) vibe to it, but I didn't see anyone getting f*cked in the movie. Shot, stabbed, and beaten up, but no sex.
1. Re:Kick Ass is pornography? by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  There was a scene of Kick-Ass fucking his girlfriend in a back alley.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Only After Extensive Study... by DarthVain · 2012-05-02 04:14 · Score: 1

Did they discover the steganography.
Followed by:
German Interrogation Technique:
Germans: Ha! You call that porn? Make him watch some German stuff for a few hours!
Al Qaeda: No more! I'll tell you everything!
Re:Child porn is a virus and should be treated suc by elucido · 2012-05-02 21:52 · Score: 1

It revictimizes that person having such a horrible perverted picture of them out there - they are hurt everytime it is reproduced..
Here is for a less emotionally charged example: If one's SSN got on the Internet, each time one more person got a hold of it it (potentally) would result in further harm.

It revictimizes that person having such a horrible perverted picture of them out there - they are hurt everytime it is reproduced..
Here is for a less emotionally charged example: If one's SSN got on the Internet, each time one more person got a hold of it it (potentally) would result in further harm.
That may be the case and perhaps distribution should be a crime but distribution is not the same as possession.
Also I don't think a picture is the same as a SSN. You have a slight argument but only in the case of someone putting those pictures on a website or on a P2P service and distributing them. You also have the 4chan problem where people upload anything to and people who just stumble upon it will pick it up.
How far can you take censorship?