Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Privacy

Data Breach Exposes RAF Staff To Blackmail 153

Posted by samzenpus
from the skeletons-in-the-closet dept.
Yehuda writes "Wired reports, 'Yet another breach of sensitive, unencrypted data is making news in the United Kingdom. This time the breach puts Royal Air Force staff at serious risk of being targeted for blackmail by foreign intelligence services or others. The breach involves audio recordings with high-ranking air force officers who were being interviewed in-depth for a security clearance. In the interviews, the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories — information the military needed to determine their security risk. The recordings were stored on three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared last year.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Breach Exposes RAF Staff To Blackmail

Comments Filter:
  • It's no wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by viyh (620825) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:04AM (#28119407) Homepage
    All the money that their government has goes to buying moats and other fun things for the MPs.
    • by Starayo (989319)
      Oh man, oh man, if I can get a moat, I'm going into politics!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by x2A (858210)

        The moat thing was a few grand! And this is a "scandal", is the word thrown about... compare that to other "scandals", such as stuff with stanford, madoff, aig, enron, to name a few off the top of my head... major collapses, hundreds if not thousands of people losing their jobs and/or life savings, and what do we have going on here? "A couple grand to clean my moat please!" *lol* I've never been so proud to be British.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by timeOday (582209)
          It's not the size of the consequences that matter to people, it's the perceived motive of self-interest. I learned this by living through Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal vs. Clinton's Monica Lewinski scandal. One got off, the other got impeached, and it had nothing to do with the actual consequences.
    • by sa1lnr (669048) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:15AM (#28120095)

      Bad as it is, the amount pales into insignificance when compared to what we have given banks.

      I bet there are a lot of bankers breathing sighs of relief that the focus of the public's ire has switched away from them.

      • Nothing has switched. Actually, people have been steaming angrily here for a while. I'm just waiting for the first to pop and accelerate some metal into a few banker's heads.

        Call me in time for the funeral, I gotta dust off my tapdancing shoes. I wanna dance there! Preferably on the coffin.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by x2A (858210)

          The focus of the news has certainly switched, and so the focus of the people who are just angry at whatever they're told to be angry about by what's in the news that day has switched...

          But at least we're not all dying of swine flu now.

          I wonder what's going to destroy society next week. One thing's certain - it's either going to be really really scary, or it's gonna make us really really angry! Maybe if we're really lucky, both!

    • by noundi (1044080) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:28AM (#28120167)
      Oh my god the UK recorded something and it leaked! Who could have ever imagined this possible outcome!?
    • Now, now, that's sensible spending. Although it would be cheaper to just hang them and not dump them in the moat, I'm very much for this practice!

    • The government efficiently collects all the data possible, assembles it together, and leaves it sitting around where outsiders can steal it. It sure reduces the workload for the criminals!! Hey, crooks have rights too!!

      Seriously - every one of these big brother data collection efforts is a sign that the politicos have their heads up their arses. It doesn't do the good guys any good, and it does the criminals no harm.

  • If I didn't know that, alas, such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible, I might think that "losing" these had to be some kind of set-up, and the recordings fake.

    • by noundi (1044080)
      I'm thinking: fine you wanted to grill them to make sure they weren't up to something fishy. But why record it!? What difference would that make!?
    • by 16Chapel (998683)
      *impressed*

      You, sir, could have a bright future in the intelligence services. After all, what better way to ensure that your people are immune from blackmail than to have the other side using false information...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by h4rm0ny (722443)

        After all, what better way to ensure that your people are immune from blackmail than to have the other side using false information...

        It doesn't matter so much whether the information is false or true, what matters is if you have control of the means of communication. Just ask John Kerry about the Swift Boat Veterans. Baseless information can do great damage if you have the power to shout it loudly enough. Meanwhile, BAE systems bribed a Saudi Prince over US$1billion to direct his country to make various a

  • Tell me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by orngjce223 (1505655) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:06AM (#28119419)

    why didn't they just encrypt the disks? If it's supposed to be sensitive information, store it securely!

    • Re:Tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by canipeal (1063334) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:45AM (#28119651)

      why didn't they just encrypt the disks? If it's supposed to be sensitive information, store it securely!

      Because that would require common sense and competence.

      • Re:Tell me... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 91degrees (207121) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:46AM (#28120229) Journal
        Requires competence. Most non-techies aren't aware that you can encrypt disk drives. They're also not aware that the Windows Password does nothing to protect the data if the device is physically stolen. Lack of common sense isn't really a fair criticism. Lack of competence certainly is.
    • Oh encryption isn't nearly as good as hiding it in an anal cavity. Even if they find it, they won't want to listen.

    • by fluch (126140)

      You must be new to the UK...

  • by leftie (667677) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:28AM (#28119551)

    "Ummm..."

  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:38AM (#28119605)

    These are the same idiots who are putting surveillance cameras everywhere, fingerprinting and taking DNA samples from musicians who are simply visiting the UK to play in a few clubs (then denying them entrance because the clubs hadn't paid a fee and agreed to report on them), and generally acting like fascists.

    They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society. Protecting it from unauthorized access? Not so much.

    Goddamn wankers!

    • by BlackSabbath (118110) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:03AM (#28119783) Homepage

      Indeed. I find it ironic that a nation that increasingly acts as if every citizen were a potential enemy of the state, is so free with information that could aid real enemies of the state.

      I do so wish George Orwell were alive to see the UK now.

    • by fantomas (94850) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:45AM (#28120225)

      "They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society."

      When were we ever a free society? When has any country been "free"? I suppose there's a philosophical discussion to be had here but I get the sense that

      • a: we might be as free now as we've ever been and
      • b: this is close to a conversation about a mythical golden age that never was (I like the definition that golden ages are invariably the belief that things were better two generations ago)...

      Interested to hear when you think the UK was a 'free' society. It would have to probably be after 1928 - universal suffrage, before then women under 28 couldn't vote so they weren't very free. Couldn't be 1939 - 1952 as we had identity cards then. Interested to hear your definition of 'free'.

      cheers.

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @05:34AM (#28120877)

        We gained more and more freedoms over time. Looking back, we certainly enjoy more freedoms today than we did a hundred years ago, at least in Europe. Most of mainland Europe was ruled by autocratic kings and emperors who restricted the exchange of ideas and discussions, criticising the government was often close to high treason. We sure came a long road from this.

        When you look at it with a finer grained system, you'll notice, though, that liberties are in decline, though, and have been since the 1960s, at least in my perspective. It's been especially rough in the last ten or so years, when people all over the world could easily communicate with each other and exchange ideas much more easily and rapidly than ever before. Such things frighten governments and other powerful people. Because it's also never been easier to "spill the beans" and whistleblow.

        Government and industry are quite close to each other these days, and neither wants some of their practices to be smeared all over the planet, for everyone to read. It's never been easier for people to get information into circulation, content is not just music and movies, it's also information and ideas, and they can be spread, multiplied and distributed just as quickly.

        And that's what scares not only the content industry, but everyone who could be threatened by the quick distribution of any kind of information.

      • by horza (87255)

        I think the golden age ended when Tony Blair rolled tanks into Heathrow airport in 2003. Combine the detention without trial laws, eborders effectively making all English citizens prisoners in their own country, RIPA (even that is a watered down version of what the government wanted to be a key escrow scheme), data retention laws for ISPs, pressure on ISPs to adopt IWF censorship, copyright laws run wild thanks to the States (eg garage owners sued for mechanics playing music in the back room where customers

    • by x2A (858210)

      The RAF did that?!! Huh... I thought that was the home office.

  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:41AM (#28119619) Journal

    the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security risk

    If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers? Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.

    The real problem is if they have done any of this and don't admit to it, they're disloyal, liars that shouldn't be given clearance. If they do admit it, they're too stupid to be in a position of authority. The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is "squeaky clean".

    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:48AM (#28119669) Homepage Journal
      How sick would a person have to be to be incapable of disloyalty?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by LaskoVortex (1153471)

        How sick would a person have to be to be incapable of disloyalty?

        This is a good question. This is also known as asking the wrong question. Please turn in your security credentials now and report to the Division of Thought Alignment for an adjustment.

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        Depends on the use. At the end of special forces training, the wash outs might get to write an essay about themselves.
        This time the readers will be looking for inner 'killer'.
        Show just the right combination of hate, rage and greed, out might get you into 'other' work.
        Most forces are looking for info about classic blackmail.
        The handing out of equipment of the back of a truck to the IRA, selling to the Soviets over 30 years.
        All because you like children.
        In reality entrapment is hard work, walk ins ar
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If they rule out every officer who's ever cheated on their wife, screwed a hooker or gotten stoned... there'd be no candidates left :-P Hell, two out of those three are pretty much standard issue for the military.

      Plus, remember that most of these guys got to where they were on qualifications (save a few from nepotism). Can this person lead soldiers (well, pilots, but the point stands), can they give orders, obey orders, and maintain their calm under adverse conditions? If they can, they're qualified (and

    • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:22AM (#28119891) Journal

      A lot of the people hiring will have indulged in all these behaviours and wont condemn someone for them. Rather it will make them part of the club. Use of prostitutes in the armed forces? Goodness - that could never happen! With some groups, the person who never touched drugs, doesn't pick up prostitutes is the one that makes everyone else uncomfortable. In Bosnia, the private military firm DynCorp was actually buying girls as forced prostitutes (and I do mean girls - some were fifteen. And this were US soldiers). Related, its one of the reasons women face a 'glass ceiling' in some areas, such as the upper military, high finance, etc. It's because the wealthy / powerful men who are accustomed to doing as they please feel uncomfortable saying: "hey lets all do some lines and pick up some hookers" when someone from "the other side" is amongst them.
      • by h4rm0ny (722443)

        I'd better correct myself before someone else does. I referred to the employees of DynCorp as "US soldiers". Whilst there are plenty of incidents of misbehaviour on the part of any nation's soldiers (it's that odd double standard that is expected of people who are paid to kill, but not to beat people up or hurt women), the employees of DynCorp were not soldiers but service personnel, e.g. mechanics on helicopters (bad ones, apparently). Unfortunately they were still protected by the US government's refusal
    • by LaskoVortex (1153471) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:41AM (#28119937)

      If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?

      If you threw out everyone who has ever done that one "immoral" thing, you'd have no one left. Everyone makes mistakes. Its even in the bible somewhere--a story about throwing stones (disclaimer: never read the bible). These are officers of a military. They are trained to kill people. Measure the morality of their actions against that fact and you'll find that indulging in something like and extramarital affair is minor by comparison. My only surprise is here is the lack of encryption.

      • by bsDaemon (87307)

        Yes, perhaps not as immoral as killing, but it is "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman", which is perhaps worse.

    • by Tom (822)

      If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?

      Yes.

      In fact, I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins, stupid mistakes or questionable acts at all.

      Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes, while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.

      Interestingly, all the /. crowd worries about is the amoral parts. For a blackmailing, a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous, depending on what it is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rich_r (655226)
      I think you'll find that the DV (developed vetting) process doesn't expect people to be angels. And that is how it should be. It expects the applicant to be honest with the people who need to know and allows them to build a bigger picture of anyrisk you may pose.

      An affair doesn't make an officer inherently disloyal to everyone, that's far to simplistic a view to take. If there's a pattern of behaviour, then that is a different matter. Same with finances. If your forever dipping into an overdraft or are m

    • by gedhrel (241953)

      The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters (and by extension the state machinery). If they already know, (and you'd be surprised how much they _do_ know by the time the interviews actually happen) and you know they know, the idea is that the information can't be used to blackmail you. For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff.

  • by jasonmanley (921037) <jman@math.com> on Thursday May 28, 2009 @01:50AM (#28119691) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me that many organisations would consider payroll, health and other HR info as private and hence restrict access to it on the network, but they wouldn't consider encrypting it with a passowrd - well at least nowhere where I have worked.
    And perhaps military institutions consider attack plans, weapons secrets and such as worthy of protection but not an "inteview" that we did "ourselves", "inhouse".
    We are learning more and more that this is a connected world - yes even your fridge will have an IP address and be on the net one day mark my words and EVERYTHING will need to be encrypted. Encryption grammar and other security verbiage will be second hand speak for moms and kids ...
    "have you packed your lunch"
    "Yes mom"
    "And MD5 SSL'd your homework via the kerebos LDAP certificate server? You know what happened last time when Mr Jones found your SSH key unencoded on the SELinux partition - I don't want to go through that again"
    "Arghh yes mom I have been over this 1000 times with you let it go - my friends and I were scanning photons of the prom dance when James accidentally Bluetoothed a letter from his brother in the army to Amy's communication jewellery which had a compaible 3DES encrytpion algorithm - now will you let it go!? Shees!"
    "I'm just saying is all - I have to go and buy some groceries and when I scan my embedded subcutaneous barcode it better not say that I have been SQL Injected because of a bad CRC checksum - I won't be embarrassed like I was the last time"
    • by shentino (1139071)

      And that's if we're lucky.

      I would rather have that then have a government mandated infrastructure that everything has to go through.

      Let's get quantum cryptography and hope to high heaven it doesn't get outlawed.

  • please explain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swampash (1131503) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:13AM (#28119829)

    Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?

    • by lindseyp (988332)
      I can't explain that. That was my first thought. Having been subjected to a lenghty and in-depth security screening many years ago, I was under the impression that many of those things would be insta-fail, especially if you wanted them kept secret and were therefore blackmailable.
    • Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)

      by bloobloo (957543) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:53AM (#28119987) Homepage

      Drug using: As long as it isn't in the last year, it isn't an instant fail

      Hooker-banging: Not a crime

      Ex-cons: In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered "spent"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      There's a limit. I.e., if you're the sort of person best described as a "drug-using hooker-banging ex-con" and that's it, you're not getting in. But if you're basically an upstanding citizen who in your younger days smoked a joint or two, visited a prostitute once or twice, or got caught shoplifting some low-value item, it would be stupid for the service to reject you on that basis alone. (Actually, as far as the prostitution bit goes, fighter jocks and hookers go together like ducks and water.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by daBass (56811)

      Why do so many folks expect the people we hire for our dirtiest jobs (like thermo-nuclear incineration of entire nations) to be do-no-harm nice guys?

      At best you are going to get people who act like the majority of the society they represent.

    • You want to read some history books (and sometimes even the newspapers) about what our nobility and occasionally royalty have got up to over the years.

    • Re:please explain (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tom (822) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:58AM (#28120311) Homepage Journal

      They're humans just like the rest of us?

      The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about. That doesn't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in all of them. I suspect the truth is rather boring, with one officer having done some drugs in his youth, a different one having an affair, a third one preferring professionals, several with completely clean sheets, someone with a conviction for some minor (but criminal) stuff done before he joined the force, etc.

      If you have to lay open your entire history - and background checks work like that - then it's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Can you fix the plane first time?
      Or are you a good boy or girl who sealed a tool in another jet .. again?
      Jet work is expensive. You have 2 options, hire contractors - like the USA does at 3X the pay grade.
      As every other person in uniform escapes the pain on base as soon as they can.
      Or you treat your next generation like members of the human race and they stay.
      Suicide is another 'problem', all that wasted tax payers money.
      Best to be open, keep it all nice and in house. Or you bring in cleared contract
    • by x2A (858210)

      By being good at their job presumably.

      It's not like they're gonna be using harriers to pick up prostitutes.

    • by bsDaemon (87307)

      I don't know, but that sounds like a fairly apt description of most Royalty itself. Good enough for the King and all that...

    • by Zerth (26112)

      Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?

      Isn't that a requirement for some posts?

    • by sjames (1099)

      The same way that drug using politicians and pundits get a pass even though they themselves claim we should lock drug users up and throw away the key.

    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      The article didn't make it clear, but this data-loss concerns only people who FAILED the vetting process.

  • by zetabrown (687996) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:13AM (#28119831)
    "extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories " - sounds like a viral marketing campaign for the RAF if you ask me - who knew that they had so much fun! I suppose the word 'raffish' had to come from somewhere.
  • Good to see the Brits have as bad a security as we do.
    • by Spatial (1235392)
      You see it went like this:

      They've got this vital data to back up, they want to do it right so they search the Internet for solutions. They come across this guy, Linus Torvalds, sounds like a stand up old chap. They follow his advice, but they don't know what an FTP server is; it's got "serve" in it so they logically assume it's a pub. They then proceed to mirror the data to every pub available and consider themselves "Real Men". Problem solved!
  • Annual reports from Whitehall departments show that the government has lost all data it ever held on anyone [today.com].

    Losses have occurred through couriered unencrypted disks, misplaced memory sticks, lost laptops, briefcases left on trains and files falling down the side of the tea machine. "The real scandal is that a train was running for them to lose a case on," said a source whose name has been lost.

    Treasury minister Jane Kennedy said the HM Revenue and Customs breaches did not necessarily result in data losses, or at least any that they have records of. HMRC said it takes data losses and security breaches "very seriously" and thoroughly investigates any breach that it does not lose track of.

    Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has served enforcement notices on various departments for their data losses, but the departments in question could not find their office addresses to accept the notices. They noted, however, that Mr Thomas' call was very important to them, and that he had been placed in a queue.

    Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reassured citizens that plans for an all-encompassing ID card linked to biometric passports and a universal medical record with the NHS would not change because of these losses. "We won't even be thinking about them."

  • How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?

    Yes, they should have been encrypted and yes, they should not have disappeared. For all we know some idiot stole them reformatted them and now hold their pr0n collection at home. Or the wrong ones were picked up for destruction and they have actually been securely destroyed.

    Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the mo

    • by N1AK (864906) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:48AM (#28120255) Homepage

      Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.

      Because with information of sufficient importance the very fact we don't have an exhaustive audit trail would be worrying (someone may of gotten access). The fact that we don't even know where it is? That, is scary. Not only is the risk that this data still exists, meaning that either careers will be ruined or national security will be endangered. But additionally it is a further reminder of how incompetent government can be with obviously important data.

      Although you may find the strength of feeling some people have regarding this breech to be unfounded, I expect I am not alone in finding your opinion that nothing bad will happen because "it rarely does" incredibly naive.

    • by TheP4st (1164315)

      Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.

      So, since something bad rarely happens from situations like these, lets skip encryption all together on sensitive data?
      Or, maybe it would be a good idea to prepare for the worst, and then be able to say "Sure we fucked up and lost these hard drives but they are heavily encrypted thus minimizing the chance for the actual information ever ending up in the wrong hands .

    • by sjames (1099)

      It's in the nature of security that if you no longer know where it is or who might see it that it cannot be considered secured anymore. If it is not secured, it is breached. Later, if they find the drives and can somehow PROVE beyond doubt that nobody ever looked at the data on it before wiping it out for their pr0n collection, they can declare it destroyed rather than breached, but good luck with that.

      Put another way, strategically, if data has been outside of your control for any length of time, you can

    • by AJWM (19027) *

      How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?

      Because security isn't about probabilities, it's about capabilities. If you don't know where the drives went, you have to assume worst case.

  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:29AM (#28120171) Homepage

    I guess the British government is now following the principle of "information wants to be free". :P

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Its called a distraction. See how the MP pay thing erupted and now this?
      Somebody wants the press and media distracted from something.
  • consequence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anonieuweling (536832) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @03:53AM (#28120289)
    All Royal Air Force staff involved can thus forget about any clearance at all since they can be blackmailed.
    I guess the military should compensate said personnel for loss of career possibilities and of course improve their data protection/storage/etc policies.
  • by legirons (809082)

    ah, the good old "tell us everything that would be useful for blackmailing you and we'll write it all down" method that RAF use for doing security-clearance... just trust us with all your embarassing secrets - what could possibly go wrong?

  • by cosanostradamus (1553391) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @04:12AM (#28120381) Homepage
    .
    Keep it in your head. There is no such thing as absolute security, therefore there is no such thing as security. If you don't want to share something, don't share it with anybody.
    .
  • late news...? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thredder (1211746)

    So losing sensitive data "last year" is only being reported now as a problem!?

    I hope that between losing the material and reporting it (several months later), some action has already been taken to minimise the potential for blackmail. ...or were they waiting a certain length of time to see if it turned up somewhere or was posted back to them before panicking.

    (I would say that I hope action has already been taken to prevent this from happening again, but I'm not that naive)

  • Please, if they have an ounce of backbone, they will tell them....
    "so what....what's new with this, look at our prince William, hell, if you haven't rung him out to dry, why start now?"

  • The real question is, do any of these recordings detail the rampant cannibalism that continues to plague the RAF?

    Yours etc.
    Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.

  • the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories

    First: So the RAF works just like Scientology?

    Second: Hey! If Scientology can keep all *their* blackmail info secure, why can't the RAF?

    Third: Maybe the RAF should hire Scientologists to secure their data

    Fourth: Kate Beckinsale in Underworld.

    Fifth: REDACTED CLASSIFIED
  • by gnarlyhotep (872433) on Thursday May 28, 2009 @11:34AM (#28124361)
    I prefer extortion. The X makes it sound cool. -Bender

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker

Working...