Twitter Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan 177
hypnosec writes "When you're the President of the United States, sometimes certain activities you're involved in can be hard to keep secret — and yesterday was no exception, after Twitter let it slip that Obama was secretly in Kabul. On Tuesday, the White House released a fabricated itinerary — consisting of all-day meetings in the Oval Office to cover up the fact that Obama was secretly flying to Afghanistan. Whilst only a few US journalists were aware of this event, by mid-morning, a lot more people were suddenly in on the revelation courtesy of Twitter. The first tweet to let the virtual cat out of the bag was Afghanistan news site TOLOnews which reported: 'United States President Barack Obama has arrived in Kabul to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai.'"
headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
I love to hate on twitter as much as the next slashdotter, but the summary makes it clear that the headline is incorrect and misleading, possibly to the point of damaging Twitter's reputation. What you *meant* to say was:
Re:headline incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
You'd think that'd be natively understood, but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
Re:headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't expect anyone to understand it without reading the article, the headline is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And most people here barely read the headline before posting as an expert on whatever article the summary might link to.
Re:headline incorrect (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Replace "Twitter" with "Wikileaks." They're not *exactly* the same, as there is presumably a human editor in the Wikileaks process, but it is nonetheless an interesting comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not at all the same since Wikileaks is an organization, not a communications medium. An accurate substitution would be something like replacing Twitter with the World Wide Web, which clearly does not make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it'll probably devolve into a thread about Obama. :-)
Back on topic, no-- the headline is HORRIBLE. There is a HUGE difference between "Twitter leaked..." and "... leaked on Twitter." When I first read it I thought it meant exactly what it says--that Twitter (the entity) somehow knew his location and accidentally published it--like, a tweet that was put in but set to be published later, or revealed by a geotag ("Posted by THE_REAL_BARACK via Mobile from Kabul") or something.)
Re:headline incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but it might devolve into a thread about Drudge. Most US web sites took down the story after they were contacted by the WhiteHouse. Drudge didn't take it down.
See:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/02/politics/obama-media-afghanistan/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well drudge had lost all credibility. IT's the world weekly news of politics.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
How about right now?
Twitter is bad, only because it sucks.
Seriously.. what is the point? Less space than a txt message on a cell phone. It practically begs to be used for the most boring, banal, and irrelevant crap in the Universe. It is the online version of tabloids, just with less content and less bat-children.
I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher" (if it really is him and not somebody working for him) and what color his last dump was, or that his oatmeal was lumpy,
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is good as an RSS for people who can't use RSS. Just post your actual message to a normal website or blog and "tweet" a link to it.
Since I actually can use RSS and I don't have a blog, it's useless to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a good way to give short feedback to companies/organizations that A) lack forums, and B) never respond to email. You can do the equivalent of shouting out in a crowd, and if what you say matches the feelings of the room others will shout it out too, and you might get a response.
The other good thing about Twitter is that it's a fast way for person-to-person conversation when there's no existing connection between them (i.e. no common forums they visit, etc.). When Austin and Bastrop had multiple
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL.
Yeah... okay. Explain to me what it is actually good for again?
Why on Earth would I want people (especially my friends and family who I actually like) follow me on a service where I deliver sound bites to them every couple of minutes about stupid crap?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Wait wait wait... I'm sorry but just because of your tone I have to ask you about this: Why, on this particular story, are you asking me about what valuable stuff Twitter does after stating that it's only used for the inane dribble of attention seekers? Even though the headline is misleading, you really don't see from that blindingly obvious clue what value Twitter does offer?
Look, I'd be happy to answer your question, but seriously, drop the 'tude. I can share what I know, I'm even happy to do so, but I'
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it.
IT's like saying mulitools suck becasuse you can't find a use for them.
"other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value."
that's a pretty huge social reason right there. But lets think WHY it works for revolutions. Quick exchanges of succinct information that only goes to eople who are interested in that information.
SO, yeah thwre are a bunch of people who choose to use twitter for , what you would consider, inane reasons. So what
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it.
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
I'm not sure why you think succinct lacks quality. It might lack depth, but that's different.
That is really my main issue right there. 140 characters is really not a lot. I think you will find that most short conversations contain more than that. I don't think depth is different than quality. The other issue to me is that it is such a one sided conversation. At least here we can have more than 140 words to converse with each other, other people are viewing it, and other people are moderating it. Twitter seems to be incredibly impersonal, which is contrary the purpo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is the exception to the rule. Twitter was not created for the purpose of aiding revolutions, but as a general communication tool. It fails for general communication, for many reasons that I gave, and as far as revolutions go any ability for citizens to communicate to one another is going to be helpful and not the exclusive domain of Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't bill Twitter as a general communication tool, anymore than I would bill the telephone, Skype or email as a general communication tool. Each serves a slightly different communication purpose, and both have their pros and cons.
Twitter is very effective as a link aggregator; I follow a collection of news outlets and journalists and it provides me with a nice, custom news feed. Incidents like the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement (and I'm sure there are other, better examples) show that it can be
Re: (Score:2)
There ar emany uses for twitter, just becasue that twit can' think of anything of value, he assumes there isn't anything of value.
The fact that you subscribe to specific people is completely lost on him. He doesn't gte it; whivch is fine. WHat annoys me is he immiedtly pouts aside in actual practical us people use it for. Basically Scotsman fallacy.
Twitter is used as RSS
"That's not what twitter is really for!"
Its used to organize groups:
"That's not what twitters for".
You can fallow something you enjoy
"No on
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they leaked it, but Twitter turned the leak into a collapsed dam releasing a wall of water down the valley.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An even more accurate way to look at it is "Obama's security team fails to do its job".
Re:headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell do you keep something like moving POTUS a secret? The convoy and Airforce One aren't exactly subtle.
Once this information is known by anybody, it can just as easily become public ... more so with things like Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
well, you could throw the journalists you invite to cover the visit into gitmo(and well, confiscate all their phones and other stuff first too).
though, why fly with af1? so the russians know exactly where he is?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are arguing that it is a non-story.
The rational approach seems to say that it is either:
A) a non-story, or
B) a slow-news-day story about how Obama's security team tried and failed to keep secret the president's whereabouts.
I'm not convinced that the grandparent thinks that it is a news-worthy story. He/She's only saying that choice B is a "more accurate way to look at it" than the original headline. It's kind of like saying that a fern is "more human-like" than a sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, they were too busy lining up the hookers. ;-)
Well, the original headline was copied verbatim from the first linked Article.
Whining about Slashdot writing an inflammatory headline that they didn't write is kinda pointless. TFS is pretty much a cut and paste as well.
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly why should it be secret, there is something horribly wrong with secret head of state meetings, something inherently corrupt and really security is not a good enough excuse.
The big secrecy seemed more to revolve around adding a decade to the hostile occupation of Afghanistan. Letting it all slide because an election is up and coming and the majority of people, globally are sick of America's military occupations of other countries. All with promises to rebuild infrastructure but reality o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think Slashdot's editors give two shits about the truth? This place is a tabloid with occasional interesting discussions.
Re:headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
People don't rat people out. Twitter rats people out. Eliminating Twitter eliminates the problem (sarcasm)
Twitter owns the tweets. (Score:2)
Twitter owns the tweets, tough luck, making twitter the publisher of a national secret. not that it matters..
besides, pretty much all tweets are user generated.. "via twitter" doesn't really add much info as long as twitter is mentioned.
not really a leak either (Score:2)
the meeting was only a secret before he showed up. After that well, there he is. This is hardly a leak OR a secret, more like "breaking news".
It would be a leak/secret if it came up before he landed, granted.
Oblig. XKCD (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? why do you love to hate twitter? it makes no damn sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
He could have also been there to remind them they owe us some money.
Did the president bring a baseball bat?
Re:headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.
As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
There is no route to Afghanistan that does not cross some other country's air space, and you can bet that not every single air traffic controller between here and Kabul keeps his mouth shut all the time. The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.
In this world, expectations of surprise visits are all to be taken with a wink and an nod. Even when the press in in a feeding frenzy over the Secret Service's bimbo in Colombia [dailymail.co.uk], this visit was well known in the US Press.
Its amazing that Twitter didn't break the news first. (It probably did, but nobody noticed).
Re:headline incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."
So when ATC routes AF1 around the most common tracks it can stay "incognito".
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/01/bush.pilot.reut/index.html [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."
Yeah, professional courtesy.
Still every ATC on the circuit and every hobbiest with a scanner knew exactly what was going on.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, the F16s will keep you well away from the 747.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what bothers me about that story. How the heck did another pilot get close enough to AF1 to perform a visual identification in the first place? I would think they would keep any object quite a long distance away from AF1.
Re: (Score:2)
They (AF1) know exactly what is out there, and they know that British Airways airliners aren't armed, and any deviation from BA's planned route would gain instant attention, and BA had no advanced warning that AF1 would be there.
Its not that big of a risk. Why would anyone try to intercept him in the air? The SS already goes way overboard on Presidential protection, yet the President walks around in public occasionally.
There are limits to what can and should be done for protecting the president. The Uni
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even the Taliban took several hours to mount an attack, but mount one they did - it was just too late.
You would have expected the Taliban to have an attack already in the can for the Bin Laden death anniversary. Maybe they just went ahead with that plan, realizing that an attack while Obama was there would be suicidal. (Not that they seem to have a problem with suicide) .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The advantageous thing for us about their structure is that they operate in cells and are very loosely organized. So while they are hard to track down, they also cannot quickly mobilize, either. When you have minutes to react, spreading information by word of mouth or through intermediaries simply isn't quick enough. Doubly so since they don't have satellites, planes, radar, or other technology that a modern army would have that would allow them to track a target. By the time they are just starting t
Re: (Score:3)
If you think that Iran can shoot down Air Force One you have a lot more thinking to do.
The moment there is a radar lock on AF1 that radar is going down. I am also sure that AF1 has fairly complicated counter measures. Not to mention the fact that if it were me in charge of AF1 security at least 1 of the aircraft flying with AF1 would be designed to obfuscate the entire flight from very sophisticated radars. Much less the ones Iran has.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly true, but it's not worth taking that chance, no matter how small it is.
Al it takes is one bad day and someone saying something they shouldn't. We learned this all too well in WWII. Loose lips sink ships. Just don't take the chance and keep things to yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Chances are what make life great.
I had a steel Tonka dump truck when I was a kid. I could skate off curbs in the thing and never damage it.
Replaced by safe crap.
Lawn darts. Illegal.
Good Fireworks are crap.
I watch 1-800-Bad Drug commercials. Suing companies for having "Inadequate warning labels"
Cold coffee now Everywhere. No fun allowed (Insurance would never allow it)
We are too focused on safety. I do not need a fucking warning sticker telling me to not use the hair dryer in the shower.
Anyone who does need
Re: (Score:2)
If the President, the Vice President, or any of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, or the Attorney General were attacked in a State aircraft and were killed, I would fully expect that the count
Re: (Score:3)
Valid point, but a minor correction. AF1 is not the plane. It's only AF1 when the Pres is on board. There are in fact at least two planes used as AF1.
Re: (Score:2)
Further point: Its call sign is never Air Force One. At times it used to be SAM 26000, but who knows what it is today, and it certainly wouldn't be using that on a surprise visit. Probably it flew the same route as daily Airforce C17 and C-5 Air Mobility Command flights and used one of their call signs.
Re: (Score:2)
At night, that could be easily disguised as a couple of tankers dragging a flight of F-15s across the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again, as you said they reported that he landed, but they did so while he was still en route.
Seriously? (Score:2)
Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.
I'm sorry Mr. AC. This is /. and the title clearly states that Twitter is the culprit in this case. And don't start in on what the summary or TFA states. On /. we only need to read the title, we're all too smart for summaries and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually provided the COWA (Cover Obama's Whereabout Act) that was secretly acknowledged by all the countries of the world and some extraterrestrial lifeform, it is the responsability of Twiter to make sure no secret information are leaked.
The decision of not-a-court-they-are-for-the-others includes a 3 day-2night stay in a Guantanamo Bay hotel for debriefing.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just grammar?
The company is called Twitter, so if the company would have released the info, the statement would have been "Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."
But, a single message posted on twitter is also referred to as a twitter, or tweet.
So the headline could likewise mean "A Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard messages on Twitter called "twitters", they are called "tweets". Either way, if the entire meaning of a sentence is changed then it can't be considered "just" a grammar error. That would only apply if the intended meaning was obvious despite the mistake.
Twitter? (Score:2)
Give it up. (Score:1)
You can no longer have things public in one part of the world and secret in another. Whether it's making different (politically convenient) statements at home and abroad, or opsec for something like this -- it doesn't work. You gotta keep it secret everywhere, or count on it being public everywhere. Maybe you'll get lucky and it won't come out, but you can't count on that anymore.
That said -- I'm not sure it was a "leak" in any opsec sense, or at least not the twitter part. If the local press were talking a
Visibility (Score:3)
Air Force One has to be the most uniquely recognizable aircraft on the planet. It's kind of hard to keep quiet when it flies into someplace, unless they flew in on a nondescript plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Air Force One has to be the most uniquely recognizable aircraft on the planet. It's kind of hard to keep quiet when it flies into someplace, unless they flew in on a nondescript plane.
They have more than 1 plane that looks like airforce 1. Get half a dozen of them, and fly one to Singapore, one to South Africa, one to Baghdad, one to Rio, one to Tokyo, and one to Kabul.
Twitter is a communication medium (Score:5, Funny)
Substitute another (imagine "Telephone leaked Obama's Visit to Afghanistan") to see how truly silly your headline is.
Workaround is obvious (Score:1)
Leak nonexistent trips of Obama and other brass on a semi-regular basis, until the enemy tires of responding to cries of wolf.
Memes (Score:5, Funny)
More like TROLOLOLONews, amirite?
(crickets)
Ah, the hell with ya.
Anyway, it wasn't leaked until he was on the ground in Kabul? Is that so bad?
Re:Memes (Score:4, Informative)
Presidential visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been unannounced for as long as I can remember, this is not unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is an active warzone, perhaps? And that there are many, many people right outside the wire with the motive and means to try to take down AF1?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So what your asking is : is it bad that the president of the United States of America is lying to his own country and the whole world to meet Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai ?
Nope. Not even on the same planet as what I asked.
so why is this one secret ? The tension is so strong in the middle-east that this visit, that is suppose to be a secret, is very odd if you ask me.
(squint)
Did you just answer your own question?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there WAS a 4 hour battle in a the capital not long afterward.....
Yeah, in Kabul they call that "lunch time". Amirite, guys?!
(crickets again)
Sheesh!
Why fabricate this? (Score:2)
Re:Why fabricate this? (Score:5, Informative)
As would be for any head of state flying into a warzone.
You don't really want to give some nutjob with a Stinger the landing time and flightpath, do you?
Internet leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (Score:2)
Enough said.
Re: (Score:1)
ARPA ultimately responsible for threatening POTUS security - now, that's a headline!
Locked down even tighter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What this means is info on a presidents trips will be locked down even further. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
Did you know about Presidential trips, including flight plans, before any sort of lockdown?
Will you know about Presidential trips, including flight plans, after any sort of lockdown?
If the answer is the same for both of these questions, then why exactly do you care if it's a good or bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people can care about more things then just themselves.
Not you, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people can care about more things then just themselves.
Not you, obviously.
Wrong.
Concerning yourself about things well beyond any of your control usually manifests itself into something called "stress". I prefer to minimize that in my life, and choose battles worthy of fighting.
Not you, obviously.
Have fun with that.
Metaphors (Score:2)
When is the physical cat ever let out of the bag?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't ever let the physical cat out of the bag, then you'll just end up with a bag with a dead cat in it. And that's no fun for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't ever let the physical cat out of the bag, then you'll just end up with a bag with a dead cat in it. And that's no fun for anyone.
Tell that to the dog.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not on speaking terms since he ate my last dead cat in a bag.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe.
This is a Boring Story without Prostitutes (Score:1)
Really? This is a Slashdot story? (Score:1)
Leaks about Presidential itineraries are not really big news. Thanks for keeping us losers abreast. Even adding in the Twitter reference this is really hardly worth our time.
NOt twitter (Score:2)
Twitter doesn't leak anything, it just delivers messages.
Also worth noting - The mailman doesn't write the letters you get, and you ISP doesn't compose all those emails you get.
Also, it' not much of a leak he's going there it it's a tweet that he is already there.
Re:Twitter is clearly a danger to American Freedom (Score:1)
Like it's not done already?
Re: (Score:2)
The explanation has already been given, he wanted the meetings to be secret so he wouldn't be killed while he was there.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is one motivated person with a Strela (or RPG if they are close enough, and you can't jam or spoof and RPG) who scores a hit in the right spot.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
President Obama made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the the killing of Osama bin Laden and signed a security agreement that pledges U.S. support through 2024
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but support comes in many forms. For example, how we "support" Pakistan or "support" Taiwan or "support" Israel.
I wouldn't be surprised if we set up a (semi-) permanent base there as a launchpad for future middle east and east asia operations. We have bases in Germany and Japan.
Tl;dr, pulling the troops out and continuing to support them are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No necessarily, it could also be a little something called 'lessons learned'. It would only be a fallacy if we knew the out come would not be desirable.
Ex: I bought a ticket to fly some where. I learn that place is a crap whole, but I go anyways knowing I won't have a good time because I have already bought the ticket.
Last time we where there, we just left without wrapping anything up, and the hole was filled by al qaeda.
So, yes there is legitimate non fallacious reasons to stay until a certain level of gov