Former Twitter Employees Charged With Spying For Saudi Arabia (engadget.com) 32
The Justice Department has charged two former Twitter employees for allegedly spying on behalf of the Saudi government. A third man is also being charged but didn't work at Twitter. Instead, he allegedly served as an intermediary for the Saudi government and the Twitter staffers. Engadget reports: The Justice Department has charged Ali Alzabarah (the one whose activities first surfaced) and Ahmad Abouammo with using their combined access to monitor Twitter accounts on behalf of the Saudi government. Abouammmo, an American citizen, reportedly snooped on three accounts that included one revealing inner details of Saudi leadership. Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen, is alleged to have obtained personal info for more than 6,000 accounts, including that of high-profile dissident (and Jamal Khashoggi ally) Omar Abdulaziz.
A third man charged at the same time, Ahmed Almutairi, is also facing spying charges but didn't work at Twitter. Instead, he allegedly served as a go-between for the Saudi government and the Twitter staffers. According to both clues in the indictment and a Washington Post source, the trio supposedly partnered with Bader Al Asaker, a Saudi official who runs a charity belonging to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. The Justice Department claimed that Asaker started grooming the Twitter employees in 2014 in a bid to obtain info. Asaker paid Abouammo a minimum of $300,000 (plus a $20,000 Hublot watch) for his espionage work, while Alzabarah reportedly became the director of bin Salman's private office. Twitter says that sensitive info was limited to a group of "trained and vetted employees," and that there were "tools in place" to protect both users' privacy and their ability to do "vital work."
The Washington Post reports that this marks "the first time federal prosecutors have publicly accused the kingdom of running agents in the United States."
A third man charged at the same time, Ahmed Almutairi, is also facing spying charges but didn't work at Twitter. Instead, he allegedly served as a go-between for the Saudi government and the Twitter staffers. According to both clues in the indictment and a Washington Post source, the trio supposedly partnered with Bader Al Asaker, a Saudi official who runs a charity belonging to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. The Justice Department claimed that Asaker started grooming the Twitter employees in 2014 in a bid to obtain info. Asaker paid Abouammo a minimum of $300,000 (plus a $20,000 Hublot watch) for his espionage work, while Alzabarah reportedly became the director of bin Salman's private office. Twitter says that sensitive info was limited to a group of "trained and vetted employees," and that there were "tools in place" to protect both users' privacy and their ability to do "vital work."
The Washington Post reports that this marks "the first time federal prosecutors have publicly accused the kingdom of running agents in the United States."
hmmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much for your sig, huh?
U mad bro?
Re: (Score:1)
When people smile and make a "hahahaha" sound, that's not angry. Angry is making a scowling face. Here, I hope this chart helps: https://www.autismcommunitysto... [autismcommunitystore.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When people smile and make a "hahahaha" sound, that's not angry. Angry is making a scowling face. Here, I hope this chart helps: https://www.autismcommunitysto... [autismcommunitystore.com]
I dunno, Make a compelling case for someone who gets annoyed enough to bust someone's chops over an apostrophe. Explain how that person is happy.
At best, they are severely Obsessive Compulsive, demanding sentence structure over the content of the sentence. More likely they are sad creatures, devoid of any useful input, yet think that somehow busting someone's chops over an apostrope makes them somehow relevant, most likely something they are sadly missing in real life.
Of course they could be trolling,
Re: (Score:2)
People don't have to be annoyed to bust other's chops. It's a status posturing thing, mostly. Doesn't mean anyone's unhappy. The thing is, by responding with anything other than "Thanks!" or "Haha, you got me!" you just come across as someone insecure about their own intelligence. I mean, I try to use good grammar and spelling but sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes I get called out for it. Doesn't phase me because I know that 99%+ of the time I get it right. So I just accept the correction graciously a
Re: (Score:2)
People don't have to be annoyed to bust other's chops. It's a status posturing thing, mostly. Doesn't mean anyone's unhappy. The thing is, by responding with anything other than "Thanks!" or "Haha, you got me!" you just come across as someone insecure about their own intelligence. I mean, I try to use good grammar and spelling but sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes I get called out for it. Doesn't phase me because I know that 99%+ of the time I get it right. So I just accept the correction graciously and move on.
You, though, seem exceptionally bitter about the correction. "Pehaps I am just helping them by helping them feel relevant in a world they are woefully unsuited to participate in" is really an over reaction, indicating anger and an attempt to "save face."
Oh dude, I did indeed make a grammer mistake. And I don't care. That''s the big problem for you. If I was writing a paper to be submitted for peer review, I'd do a lot of checking. I'd be checking all aspects of the paper, down to eliminating rivers. Down to proofreaders and taking their feedback.
But I'm just not that rigid in here. Because we aren't writing papers. We're having conversations, and someone in the corner complaning about unwarranted apostrophes isn't having input. What's next, diagramm
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is trying to correct your work. We're mocking you. For laughs. It's not a serious "fuck you" more like a "my grammar dick is bigger than yours." And for your information, there are multiple people piling on here. Not one person. My response wasn't over the top, neither were most of them. At first anyway. But the more obvious it became that you were really upset about being corrected, the more fun it became to goad you. It's juvenile, sure, but this is Slashdot, wtf do you expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar police? Please.
Extraneous apostrophication is a growing trend with troubling consequences: people don't understand very basic rules of grammar. It's everywhere, and it comes from people who just don't know any better. Ever been corrected for producing a plural without an apostrophe?
Re: (Score:2)
Ever been corrected for producing a plural without an apostrophe?
Only by loosers.
Spelink errr's intended.
The pointless pointing out of errors is a multifaceted attack. A really silly one.
First and foremost, it shows that the Grammar cop has absolutely no content to add to the discussion. The only possible use it might have is a diversionary tactic. Change the subject to punctuation. We see a lot of that diversionary tactic in here. A story about Hong Kong protesters is immediately shifted to a "But America is worse!". Someone gets a pee boner about my spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use apostrophes to produce plurals extraneously, then you have nothing to add to any discussion. Form matters!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody, they were likely doing this to get to Khashoggi.
Re: (Score:1)
they need to do hard time or maybe firing squad (Score:1)
they need to do hard time or maybe firing squad
Re: (Score:1)
The punishment needs to fit the crime -- sort of like cutting off the hands of thieves. So they should have their eyes poked out, fingers cut off, and tongues removed. Solves the problem of typing on a keyboard, reading the screen, and telling someone what they saw.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you weren't around [wikipedia.org]
Also, US I only allies with house of Saud (Score:4, Informative)
Also, the US has a good relationship with one element of Saudi leadership, the house of Saud. That's one part of government in country. The other part is the Wahhabi Muslim theocracy, which runs the schools and bunch of other stuff. Those aren't our friends.
It's more accurate to say "the US has some powerful allies in Saudi Arabia" than to say "the US is allied with Saudi Arabia".
Re: (Score:2)
Powerful allies in SA? Surely you jest. This is the country where the Royal Screwups are scared to death of their own women. They cannot defend themselves against the Iranians. And they were even scared of journalist enough to kill him. They're too scared of their own shadow to be powerful at anything. Best thing Doofus could do is a deal with Iran selling them Saudi Arabia. He'd go for it, he isn't the brightest bulb on the tree and Saudi Arabia is nothing but a pain the butt. Errrmm....come to think of it
Re: (Score:1)
From the devil himself - "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Er, Jonathan Pollard [wikipedia.org]?
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Pollard?
Twitter has some known issues here (Score:2)
Twitter - not a problem: https://mobile.twitter.com/27k... [twitter.com]
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud (Score:2)