Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Slovenia Claims To Have Hacked the FBI and Posted Emails To Pastebin

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the have-some-info dept.

Security 152

concertina226 writes "The information, posted by user Black-Shadow of the Slovenian branch of the hacktivist group, purportedly contains FBI domain email addresses and passwords for 68 agents, although the user claims in his post that the collected log-in details are 'not all ours'. The post also includes a short profile on FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, including sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fuk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46143911)

them this shit nigga

Sensitive information? (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#46143915)

... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.

None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.

Re:Sensitive information? (-1, Flamebait)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#46143963)

You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you(as is more common for people in law enforcement than others).

Re:Sensitive information? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#46144029)

You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.

If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book. Then they could use Google Maps to convert the street address to geographical coordinates. As for the other info, I fail to see how my wedding date, educational history, etc. would be particularly useful to a killer.

Re:Sensitive information? (2, Funny)

jesseck (942036) | about 10 months ago | (#46144113)

As for the other info, I fail to see how my wedding date, educational history, etc. would be particularly useful to a killer.

It depends on how devious the killer is... they may use the home address to kill your dog, kill your spouse on your anniversary, and then off you at a class reunion.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 10 months ago | (#46144255)

Oh shut the fuck up.

Re:Sensitive information? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144903)

While you were making shit up, you forgot to have them bypass the plasma flow regulator and boost the shields by 400%.

Re:Sensitive information? (2, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46144145)

If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book.

You are not FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, who (just a guess) probably isn't in the phone book.

Can you really go to the post office, give a name, and get an address?

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144223)

No, USPS isn't really in the business of looking people up, lol.

You can look up the county property records online for pretty much every major county in the U.S. All you need is the county and person's name. Perhaps only in the boonies you have to drag your ass to an office to look it up.

You can also look up court records in quite a few counties online, for free.

Re:Sensitive information? (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#46144361)

No, USPS isn't really in the business of looking people up, lol.

I have personally gone to the post office, given them a name, and got the address. There was a small fee, and I had to show an ID and sign a form. It was over ten years ago, so maybe they don't do it anymore, or maybe you are simply wrong.

Re:Sensitive information? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 months ago | (#46144363)

Yeah, online property records are a big privacy leak. You can do things to obfuscate it -- put the property in a land trust if your state permits it (do it when you buy it, as historical information is also available) or buy it in the name of a new mexico llc (which have minimal reporting requirements, so you don't have to disclose your ownership of the llc - you can use a NM llc in any state).

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 10 months ago | (#46144633)

It's not a leak, it is required to ensure a fair and equitable taxation system. Just like public criminal conviction records are essential for a fair and equitable justice system.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 months ago | (#46145155)

It's not a leak, it is required to ensure a fair and equitable taxation system.

You are going to have to explain that one. Property taxes don't vary by who owns the property. And if you don't pay the taxes, the state will seize the property, regardless of the owner of record so it isn't like you can get away with not paying just because your name isn't directly on the records.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46145179)

Privacy leak? Why the fuck would anyone want to hide this stuff?

Re:Sensitive information? (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 10 months ago | (#46144599)

Not only that, but a REALLY old client (Haines & Co in North Canton, OH) publishes what the call Criss Cross directory [criss-cross.com] . It has moved to more of an online service, but they still publish and sell a printed book. You can look up an address by phone number, You can look up a person by address, etc. You just need one piece of information and you can easily look up the rest

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46145193)

Nice, didn't know that one.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145277)

About 20 years ago there was a company selling that info on CD-ROM for the entire US, searchable in any number of ways. They probably didn't survive long once the web came along, although for all I know it's still available. Wasn't even very expensive.

Re:Sensitive information? (4, Informative)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#46144381)

You are not FBI director James Brien Comey Jr, who (just a guess) probably isn't in the phone book.

I wouldn't be so sure about that [whitepages.com] .

Re:Sensitive information? (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 10 months ago | (#46145131)

Checking your posted link, I found this rather funny (or telling, which would be scary):

People James may know

        Wen Wu
        Chengang Wu
        Cheng G Gong
        Fan Wu
        Chenggang G Wu
        Wen G Gong
        Cheng H Wu

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144835)

If someone wanted to kill me, they could get my home address either from the post office or the phone book.

ShanghaiBill? Come with me if you want to live.

Re:Sensitive information? (1, Troll)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#46144031)

You might be less inclined to think so if that information were provided to people who might want to kill you.

If it's public information, the government provides it to everyone.

If it's from a social networking site (like LinkedIn), the individual themselves provided it.

And, of course, that applies to people of all professions.

(as is more common for people in law enforcement than others)

Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot, but honestly I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.

Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144125)

Yea, I hear that line of BS from LEOs a lot

Among other things.

Fishing for crab is a far more dangerous profession than law enforcement could ever hope to be, for example. (I say hope, because I secretly suspect the paramilitant nitwits actually want a reason to roll down streets in military vehicles with infantry-style rifles pointing out the sides.)

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 10 months ago | (#46145383)

I've done commercial crab fishing, and you're mistaken.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46144183)

An ongoing feud between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Phoenix New Times peaked one day back in 2004 when the PNT published Arpaio's (easily searchable if you knew where to go) home address.

"America's Toughest Sheriff" Arpaio has been sheriff of Maricopa County AZ for 20 years, and he's controversy prone, so he's had hundreds of on-the-record death threats. In a 2011 article, there were eleven open cases of threats against him. Few people have a neutral opinion about Sheriff Joe. He's a love him or hate him kind of guy. The polls show that most of us love him. If you live here, ask your coworkers why they vote for him, and they'll all say the same thing. "Sure, maybe he is a racist, but we like a tough-on-crime, animal-protecting, deadbeat-dad-prosecuting local sheriff."

There's little doubt that the PNT brought a few more kooks out of their closet to the list of people looking to do Joe harm.

[Aside, there was a lot of he-said, she-said, no-you between PNT as the local police, but in the end, the PNT won a pretty big settlement after some bogus arrests in 2007 -- bogus so says the suit settlement.]

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 10 months ago | (#46144375)

Yes...but he is still a racist. As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona. He, and the bigots that keep voting his racist ilk in are ensuring that people like me don't spend a dime there.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 10 months ago | (#46144437)

Yes...but he is still a racist. As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona. He, and the bigots that keep voting his racist ilk in are ensuring that people like me don't spend a dime there.

What things has he done that are racist?

While I have heard his name before, I'm not terribly familiar with him, and haven't head of what he has done as a LEO that is overtly racist, or at least it hasn't hit the national news where I would have heard about it.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46144493)

In a wikipedia link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

He's big on the national news from time to time.

Re:Sensitive information? (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46144481)

As a man of Hispanic genetic heritage, I refuse to even travel through Arizona.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and certainly I propose voting on things with your feet and wallets, but the overall idea that Arizona is racist is a bit much.

Immigration issues, and border-related crime (and fallout from it) is a serious problem in Arizona. There's no simple solution. Everyone knows -- everyone -- that the people standing outside of the Home Depot on 35th avenue looking for day job are almost entirely illegals. Everyone knows plenty of restaurants where the kitchen staff are undocumented. Nobody even blinks when we report another house filled with immigrants held hostage by an extortionist coyote who promised to bring them to the promised land but kept them by force until their "ransom" was paid. We're used to seeing a house in the suburbs get busted for being a drug warehouse -- in a state where marijuana is already legal for medical use.

Largely things are great in Phoenix -- and the rest of the state -- but having a difficult problem with our proximity to the border doesn't make us a state full of racists.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145435)

...doesn't make us a state full of racists.

Americans in general are not warmongers, yet our government is.

The people of Arizona may not be racist, yet your government is.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145597)

Arizona is racists. Arizona also only voted in MLK holiday after the black players threatened to boycott the Super Bowl there. Live in a delusional land now don't you?

Re:Sensitive information? (2, Insightful)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 10 months ago | (#46145715)

"I'm not a racist but..."

In my book, referring to illegal migrants as just "illegals" is itself racist. At least dignify them with a noun that gives them some agency or humanity. The term "illegal" is solely about how they're affected by current laws and says nothing inherent to them.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#46144811)

Anecdotal evidence regarding one guy who's a known racist, [foxnews.com] has been investigated for abuse of power, [wikipedia.org] and is, generally speaking, a massive attention whore, is not what I would consider evidence of a systemic issue involving public records of persons working as LEOs.

Actually, never mind the other stuff - all the attention whoring is enough to get anybody on a whackjob's radar.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46144955)

I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.

Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.

I provided this particular data point (which trumps "never") only because I'm here in Phoenix, in his back yard.

As to him being racist or abusing his power -- there's IMHO a grain of truth to it all, but it's mostly a political battle. 20 years as Sheriff in Arizona, plus a penchant for the dramatic gesture (tent city, pink underwear) makes him a big target for others seeking to make a name for themselves. If a patrol officer gets in a fight with a brown skinned guy, papers like PNT will lead with "Arpaio's Office Fosters Racism!" :/

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#46145293)

I've never seen a situation where a LEO was stalked/killed based on publicly accessible info, because they were a LEO.

Joe most certainly has been stalked based on his information being public - and moreso as a result of his feud with the Phoenix New Times and their publishing of his data. You can argue that it doesn't have anything to do with him being a LEO, but with his beliefs, but now we're just splitting hairs.

No, it's not 'splitting hairs' - I myself have been stalked because of comments I made publicly; I am not a LEO, nor are the vast majority of people who are stalked by individuals accessing public records. Which is my point - most people who are stalked are not members of law 'enforcement,' and therefore we don't need to give special protections to LEOs just because, one fucking time, one of them got a little sand in his vagina. Hell, if anything we need to put more scrutiny on these public servants, to make sure they aren't abusing the access they have to non-public records.

Re:Sensitive information? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46145403)

I get that you think the man is putting us all down, and that's a fair opinion to have. [You don't see me advocating for special protections.] But your position on the matter doesn't contradict this specific case where credible threats against a law enforcement official went up after his address was made "more" public when a newspaper published it.

You said "never."
I said, "here's one."

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144233)

Much the contrary, LEOs use non-public databases to stalk/kill ex-lovers, people who cut them off in traffic, etc.

This, for a thousand times this!

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144193)

Haven't you heard? Law enforcement is no longer the FBI's mission. They have removed it from their mission statement. It's counter-terrorism all the way, baby!

Re:Sensitive information? (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144205)

I'm sorry, but those are still public records in the U.S. There are multiple sources for them:

1. Local newspaper archives. Typically local newspapers publish all recorded births and deaths.

2. Local public record offices. All across U.S., both birth and death certificates are public records and everyone can access them.

3. Local real estate records. Almost everywhere you can look up basic property records for free - the name of the owner, the address, the taxes due. To get details you may need to pay, but that's just administrative fee. In better counties, all of the records are freely available online, including GIS data.

I am in fact in favor of those remaining public no matter what. It prevents certain forms of corruption.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144459)

Not all of those provide all these data. I'm not trying to say it's a big deal, just that it's a deal at all, which is now an extremist position, apparently.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

swb (14022) | about 10 months ago | (#46144861)

I'd also guess that the head of the FBI has around the clock armed security, a home that has been hardened against attack & panic room, on-site fully automatic weapons, and an FBI tactical team on standby.

I wouldn't want to deliver a pizza, let alone attack the guy.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144929)

I suspect that you're wrong, though, about the security. The president(and their families), vice president, foreign dignitaries, officials in dangerous locations, people running for president, and former presidents are the only federal officials that have security provided, as a matter of law.

Re:Sensitive information? (3, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 10 months ago | (#46145457)

Sure, Secret Service protection is limited by law, but the head of the FBI has his own armed force and a ton of discretion on how to use it.

The FBI has a laundry list of people with grievances, from wingnut militia groups, criminal gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, a ton of terrorist groups as well as a lengthy list of foreign intelligence services keen to target the principal domestic counterintelligence organization of the US.

I'm sure he has personal discretion on how much protection to accept and it may fluctuate with threat levels, but the idea that this guy sits in some ordinary surburban house with no one watching and just his trusty FBI issued pistol just isn't realistic.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

citizenr (871508) | about 10 months ago | (#46145351)

You think his daughter goes to school in armored truck? One semi precisely aimed garbage truck and you end up with a very sad man.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145337)

>more common for people in law enforcement than others

[citation needed]

I think that's a baseless glorification of law enforcement. A B-list internet celebrity has several times the threat to their personal safety than 99.9999% of LEOs.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46143973)

Cue the turf war with Silicon Valley. Illegally collecting American's data is their job. Releasing it to the public for free is just plain un-american.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46144011)

Releasing it to the public for free is just plain un-american.

Good thing they were Slovenian.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144035)

So we can drone their asses?

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144095)

Sure, if you want yet another country to be saying "Fuck America".

You're running out of ones you've not yet pissed off recently.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144151)

I wonder how long America would last if the entire World declared war on America.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144365)

Germany lasted for six years, but then Hitler was much less evil than Obama.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

pla (258480) | about 10 months ago | (#46144405)

I wonder how long America would last if the entire World declared war on America.

We wouldn't win, but we wouldn't exactly "lose", either.

Keep in mind that the "cold" war merely warmed up a few degrees... The world still contains enough nukes to render our ball of mud into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland 10x over. And the US has a significant fraction of those (and possibly a majority of the functional ones, by most accounts of the state of the former USSR's stockpile).

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

rk (6314) | about 10 months ago | (#46144513)

Not long, as would the rest of the world. A global war would like that would stop all trade in and out of the US, and that would wreck the global economy for quite a while.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144567)

Oh no. Not disruption of trade. How will I get my energy drinks and protein bars?

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

similar_name (1164087) | about 10 months ago | (#46145135)

If budgets [tumblr.com] come in to play at all, it might be a close one.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46145467)

It it's short.
But if nobody uses nukes, then the US will quickly find itself unable to source enough raw materials locally.
If the war starts early in the winter, invading Canada won't be much help, and Mexico isn't easy terrain...

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 10 months ago | (#46144163)

Hence the proposal to have a 3rd party hold all of the data NSA collects. If more profits are made it's all good?

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 10 months ago | (#46144403)

Well the government already knows everything about me thanks to the federal and state tax returns I file every year. Add in my property records and drivers license and they have all they need if they really want to get in touch.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 10 months ago | (#46144039)

... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.

None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.

The geographical coordinates of his residence are almost certainly not. People at that level in National Security conceal the address of their residences from the public for good reason.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#46144117)

It's been 30 years since someone figured out how to bounce a laser off a window and hear conversations.

Re:Sensitive information? (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | about 10 months ago | (#46144173)

They don't put it on their Facebook accounts, but it's not treated like a matter of national security. They buy and sell their houses, and drive to work in their cars, same as everybody else. They don't expect it to be secret, and it would be practically impossible to keep it secret.

Most of them don't even have personal security guards. I imagine that most of them have home alarms, but it's likely not all that different from many other people who live in the upper-middle-class neighborhoods of DC.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144243)

Bullshit. It should be available in the county land records database, online and for free, for crying out loud. Unless he lives in some real boonies.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | about 10 months ago | (#46144319)

Yeah, I always figured they were public record but never realized how easy it was to find for free online until I bought a house. I periodically google my own name and one of the hits was a government site for figuring out if your home was in a flood zone. You could feed the site any address and it would list the property owner. Now that isn't to say that you couldn't use a dummy corporation or something to hold ownership of the house for you but I doubt many people go that far.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#46144793)

Land records only show who owns a house (which can easily be an LLC) not who lives there.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46145169)

Sure, but most people live in the houses they own :)

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46144051)

I have friends with secret jobs. They are not allowed to have accounts on social media sites for exactly that reason.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 10 months ago | (#46144391)

You've got the wrong friends. So do they.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46144445)

You think I should ditch friends of 20 years because they got a job with the government?

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144531)

Yes. That's what friends do: ditch each other for the pettiest of reasons.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

vikingpower (768921) | about 10 months ago | (#46144569)

In these times, yes. I would surely call a long-time friend to reason if he took, or turned out to have taken, a "secret" job with the US government. And if he would not take heed of my arraignments, I would end the friendship. There is a time to plant, and there is a time to uproot, says some 2500-year old wisdom.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46144789)

Wow. You're a huge douche.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46145413)

Don't worry, he's not from Earth, he's from IdealWorld, where, fortunately for the color-blind, things are all in black and white.

Re:Sensitive information? (3, Informative)

Whorhay (1319089) | about 10 months ago | (#46144397)

I've never seen someone with a clearance that wasn't allowed to have a social network account because of the job. I have however known a lot of people that don't have such accounts because it is just one more thing to worry about when a clearance review rolls around. Technically speaking though I think that even accounts like the ones we are using here are supposed to be disclosed as "Alliases" in your clearance paperwork.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144891)

I have friends with secret jobs.

Oh, like who?

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46144975)

Eric and Rob.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145347)

So, you have a secret job too? Or a need to know? Your friends should be fired. If the government gives you a secret job, it's a secret. That means that you tell your spouse, and everyone else, that you do job X, but you really do job Y. I have read memoirs where people with those types of jobs had to, for instance, pose as a Major working at the Pentagon, which can lead to an offer of car pooling from your next door neighbor. Great, now you're car-pooling with your neighbor, only problem is, you works for the CIA, and once you get the pentagon, then you have to find a way to Langley.

So if you have friends with secret jobs, you just blew their cover, and you just outed them as having loose lips.

(lol: captcha was "identify")

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#46144059)

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with all those resume-blasting sites. It's one thing to have all that information about yourself sent to a handful of interested companies. It's completely different to have it indexed for any google search or shmucks to set up some phishing operation. OT: I used to regularly get phishing phone calls people (sounded like they were calling from their apartment) using just this kind of information in an attempt to sound legitimate.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144273)

If you live in the U.S., posting the same stuff on social networking sites is frankly said just wasted effort. It is all a matter of public record, and anyone willing can look it up. Heck, there are even companies who regularly get this data from every fucking single public entity in the U.S. and collate them in databases. The access to those is provided as a paid-for service, but the prices are nothing to write home about. $50-$100 will find anyone overtly owning real estate anywhere in the U.S.

Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144141)

I went ot a job fair recently. I was told that they did all their recruiting through LinkedIN - they weren't taking resumes at the job fair and I but my tongue when I want to ask WTF they were doing there.

When I expressed why I was uncomfortable with creating a LinkedIN profile, I was told that LinkedIN wasn't like Facebook where people were posting crap or something like that - with a tone of "WTF is YOUR problem?"

You can't argue with employers because you WILL be labeled as "not having the skills" or "not being a good fit" or "not being a team player". You got to suck it up and play the game and unfortunately, that means giving up all of your privacy. The leftists have got a point, sadly to say.

Oh! The person I talked to was actually a technical team lead - NOT some HR person. So, consider that.

In the meantime, I weep for my loss of privacy in my quest to get a job to pay off my student loans.

At least I don't have a government that'll put me in jail or kill me for no reason - and I got a refrigerator! Happy days! I have a REFRIGERATOR!!!

Re:Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144213)

You're lucky you weren't escorted out by security and then arrested and charged with terrorism and thrown in jail. Disagreement of any kind is Violence, don't you know?

Re:Job Fair (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#46144285)

As far a US is concerned, I've got some news for you, and you must be living an ever sheltered life.

Ever got a traffic ticket? It's public record, usually available online for a free lookup. Ever purchased real estate? Same. Got born or died? Same. And so it goes.

Re:Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144465)

American women routinely use the results of public record searches as an excuse to dump their boyfriends, so it's a foregone conclusion that American men know about public records. Traffic ticket five years ago? You're dumped. Have fun with the fleshlight.

Re:Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144775)

Damn it! I knew I forgot to do something. I've been letting some loser dig me for three months. Gotta find the dirt on his broke ass, then get me a nice fit boyfriend.

Re:Job Fair (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#46145303)

Isn't turnabout fair play then? Drunk video of her barfing on Youtube = dumped.

Re:Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145407)

But that drunk video of her barfing on YouTube is SO HOT. And she brushed her teeth since then. Would still date.

Re:Job Fair (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 10 months ago | (#46144545)

When I expressed why I was uncomfortable with creating a LinkedIN profile, I was told that LinkedIN wasn't like Facebook where people were posting crap or something like that - with a tone of "WTF is YOUR problem?"

I know what you mean, the WTF is that one line in all ToS's that says "due to change at anytime". It doesn't help distancing themselves from Facebook, Twitter, or Google + when linkedin is fourth in line to use site log ons, when logging on to Slashdot.

and I got a refrigerator! Happy days! I have a REFRIGERATOR!!!

Congratulations on your new acquisition! :}

Re:Job Fair (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#46144837)

Was that company LinkedIn, by any chance? That's the only company I can imagine with that attitude. It's true though that LinkedIn isn't like Facebook: it's not really a "social" site at all, it's just a place to post your resume, with as few or as many details as you like, and a somewhat-screened contact system.

Also, when someone at a job fair makes some polite excuse for not anting to take your resume, well, maybe take the hint?

Re:Job Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145555)

They told me I should have a portfolio of my work, so I made a portfolio and showed it to them, and they still didn't want me! Asshats.

yeah except (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144299)

now 1,000,000 more crazies know about it

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144351)

Well, if he ever moves, all they have to do is hack the NSA next, then they'll have new address, phone number, the conversation with the pizza guy last Thursday, drone pics of him on the toilet....

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 10 months ago | (#46144367)

Reading Wikipedia (for all but the last item) is just about within the abilities of the typical Anonymous.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144529)

... sensitive information such as his date of birth, his wife's name, the date they got married, his educational history and even the geographical coordinates of his residence.

None of that is "sensitive" information. You can get all of that from public records, or from someone's Linkedin home page.

What's a phone book?

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144637)

If you work for the Government, especially one with sensitive information like the FBI, you generally do not use social media per standard policy. I have several friends who work as DoD contractors with the basic level of security clearance (which I think is "sensitive" but not "secret") and they were told to delete all public social media policies or you won't get your clearance and you basically won't have a career. I sincerely doubt that the Director of the FBI, who was previously a Deputy Attorney General, has a LinkedIn profile.

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

A wikipedia page, certainly, but most of that information is public information from news sites and his official bio from government sites.

Re:Sensitive information? (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 10 months ago | (#46145309)

It is sensitive and you will get prosecuted for posting it _if_ you live in US and those are royalty details. By royalty I mean upper echelons of power, not some cattle citizens.

Re:Sensitive information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145607)

You mean aristocracy, not royalty. Piss off an aristocrat, you will be denied trial. Backroom deals will be made, you will go to jail.

I hate to say it (1)

sandbagger (654585) | about 10 months ago | (#46144037)

But if he put a wedding announcement in his local paper, it's hardly sensitive information.

Pastebin shutting down? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144099)

Oh no whatever will I do without Pastebin?

Free Text Host [freetexthost.com]
PasteBay [pastebay.net]
Free Text Hosting [freetexthosting.com]
Free Text Host [freetexthost.in]
Text Uploader [textuploader.com]

Honey Pot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46144695)

How can they be sure they weren't just sucked into a honey pot?

Slovenia's Gangster Communist Computer God... (-1, Offtopic)

bmo (77928) | about 10 months ago | (#46144993)

The empirical scientific agnostic religion of ASTROCISM, created by the worldwide Slovene empire with the help of the Slovene TOP SECRET WORLD-WIDE COMPUTER ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA of THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO with its customs set up based upon the study of the Universe, primarily the study of our star, the Sun, "the giver of all light and heat and sole, sole sustenance of life on our planet, Earth," to aid the white Slovene spreading world population of Eurasia (Europe and Asia) which said population was composed of tiny independent farmers, namely a worldwide agrarian population.

The Slovenic empire through its religion of ASTROCISM made possible for man to advance to present day sophistication. THE ASTROCISM RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS AND FEAST DAYS WERE SOLELY TO ADVANCE THE AGRARIAN WHITE WORLD POPULATION WITH AUTOMATIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

...click here: http://www.bentoandstarchky.co... [bentoandstarchky.com]

ANYONE WANTING DETAILS ON ANYTHING IN MY EIGHT PAGE COMMUNIST GANGSTER COMPUTER GOD EXPOSÃ LETTER, PLEASE SEND POST PAID ENVELOPE.

FOR YOUR ONLY HOPE FOR A FUTURE.

FRANCIS E. DEC, ESQUIRE
29 Maple Avenue
Hempstead, NY 11550

P.S. I have a pawn shop typewriter now. The gov. gangsters have sprayed it with an odor that makes me sick and vomit. I type on the back door step in the fresh air.

Rezpresone przez Communistyczny Zbojecny Computerski Bog na calem swiecia nawet na odleglych planetach, WAS NIE ZAPOMINAM!

--
BMO

Re:Slovenia's Gangster Communist Computer God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145109)

Dude. Try anti psychotic medication. It works.

Re:Slovenia's Gangster Communist Computer God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46145529)

NO IT DOESN"T!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?