Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fears of Olympic Cyber Attack Detailed After Snooping Revealed

Posted by samzenpus on from the timing-is-everything dept.

First time accepted submitter Dr_Ish writes "The BBC is reporting that the opening ceremonies of last the Olympics last year were potentially subject to a cyber attack that could have cut all the lights and power. Of course, it did not happen. However, the interesting question is whether this is real, or whether this is a FUD story promoted by GCHQ to help shore up some credibility issues."

9 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. FUD by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A government of liars cannot be trusted. Whether the story is actually FUD or not doesn't really matter. We must greet every bit of information with skepticism... assume every story is FUD. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know the whole truth.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:FUD by Cenan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey now, I distinctly remember something about them putting anti aircraft guns on buildings, some of the people who had to live with a WWII era machine gun on their roof were, as I recall, quite upset about it. Or maybe it was missiles? I forget, point is, it is quite obvious to everyone that the security was perfect! And since the Red Baron did not show, we can conclude that at least one attack was averted.

      As for the rest of the money, weren't you entertained for a whole goddamn month by people jumping about and generally trying to accomplish feats of human stupdity (I mean, who swims 1000 meters? what the fuck?) - all for your amusement.

      --
      ... whatever ...
  2. I smell bullshit. by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I smell more government/industry stirred bullshit along the lines of the rest of the "we must have absolute control of the internets0rs because hax0rs will kill everyone and destroy the world" garbage we've had shoved down our throats the last five years. In exactly what reality would you have your fucking lights and power connected to the internet, exactly...?

  3. Oh no they could turn the lights off by thetagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am pretty sure that the fear of "terrorists" turning off the lights at a stadium is a good reason to throw away my personal freedoms!

    1. Re:Oh no they could turn the lights off by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially considering that the story is released almost a year after the alleged threat would have taken place.

      More conveniently, it is mere weeks since PRISM was exposed, and with governments scrambling to save their credibility, they need such stories, proving how useful it is.

  4. The threat never materialized by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In most fields, when you say that something is going to happen, but then it doesn't, then that means you were wrong. In secret intelligence, if you say something is going to happen, but it doesn't, then that means that you prevented it.

    You don't need pervasive spying to know that someone might try to hack into the electrical system during a highly publicized event, so the big takeway from this is that apparently they were not prepared for this kind of likely attack if they had to take any action to prevent the attack once they received the "credible threat" -- they should have already been prepared for a cyber attack... maybe some of the intelligence money would be better spent on preventative measures.

  5. Re:And so what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Olympics is a business markedly worse than most, in terms of nakedly abusive regulatory capture and overt plunder of the public who are unlucky enough to reside in its chosen location.

  6. Re:C'mon by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The best part? The article even lays bare the complete idiocy

    Thirty seconds at the opening ceremony with the lights going down would have been catastrophic in terms of reputational hit

    Ahh, so it's your reputation you care so much about, not, you know, actual threats.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  7. FUD by longk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to research people are more afraid of things they don't understand well (like cyber attacks, terrorism, nuclear energy) than things they do understand well (like train or car accidents), even if the number or deaths is much higher for the second category.

    Expect government agencies to go all out on cyber attacks. It sounds dangerous and nobody asks for details or proof.