Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States IT Technology

US Fed Reserve Zoom Conference Canceled After 'Porn-Bombing' (pcmag.com) 75

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
A Federal Reserve Zoom event with more than 220 people was canceled after a user hijacked proceedings and displayed pornographic content, Reuters reports. From a report: The hijack left Fed Governor Christopher Waller unable to deliver his opening remarks because graphic images from a call participant named "Dan" began to pop up on the screen. In a statement to Reuters, Brent Tjarks, executive director of the Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America (MBCA), which hosted the Zoom event, said: "We were a victim of a teleconference or Zoom hijacking and we are trying to understand what we need to do going forward to prevent this from ever happening again. It is an incident we deeply regret. We have had various programs and this is something that we have never had happen to us." Tjarks adds that he suspects a security switch for the Zoom event that would have muted users and prevented them from sharing their screens was incorrectly set, though he could not confirm. The MBCA, whose roughly 100 members include banks with between $10 billion and $100 billion in assets, made the decision to cancel the event minutes after it was scheduled to commence, citing "technical difficulties."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Fed Reserve Zoom Conference Canceled After 'Porn-Bombing' More

US Fed Reserve Zoom Conference Canceled After 'Porn-Bombing'

Comments Filter:

  • hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @09:48AM (#63346783)

    are they so incompetent they can't secure a zoom visioconference properly ?

    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by serafean ( 4896143 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @09:51AM (#63346789)

      Not even that, they failed to set the event in conference mode, with only a few authorized speakers and 100s of viewers. That doesn't even fall under security...

      • Also seems very sensationalized. At one point it is a "conference" and at another point it is an "event". It seems quite possible that this wasn't exactly a giantly important event and they just called it off rather than waste everyone's time while they sorted out their flub of the settings. This could have been as easy as the guy who was supposed to run the zoom session was out sick and the substitute didn't get things set up right and didn't have confidence to fix it on the spot. Again, it's not that
        • You tend to setup these large Zoom conferences/events/whatever far in advance. There was plenty of time to notice the fat finger. There shouldn't be a need to reschedule. But I agree it's not a security issue.

    • You both asked, and answered, your own question! Bravo!

    • It is the US Federal Reserve, they are in business of producing government and market related pornography as is, I think the content shown was quite appropriate in their context.

  • because graphic images from a call participant named "Dan" began to pop up on the screen.

    I don't use Zoom, but... can't they just kick that user off?

  • I think we can all agree (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @09:57AM (#63346801) Homepage Journal

    I think we can all agree that this is very disrespectful to people who are just trying to do their jobs and get through their shitty day, and in an ideal world, people should be able to communicate freely without childish sabotage, and that despite all this, what happened is absolutely hilarious and we all hope it happens many more times.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Eunomion ( 8640039 )

      "disrespectful to people who are just trying to do their jobs"

      They're millionaires whose job is to serve billionaires and large corporations. My empathy meter has not budged from zero over their slight inconvenience and embarrassment.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        They're millionaires whose job is to serve billionaires and large corporations.

        Who, exactly, is this "they" you speak of? The Federal Reserve is a Congressionally chartered central bank; it's chairman makes $190,000, which is a good salary, but nothing to the tens of millions per year private banks pay their CEOs. Financial staff in the bank could make as little as $55k for a research assistant all the way up to around $200k for a senior economist, which is inline with private sector salaries.

        As for working for billionaires and large corporations, that's a consequences of "working f

        • Re:I think we can all agree (Score:5, Informative)

          by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @12:13PM (#63347257)

          This list is from a coup,e years ago, but illustrates the problem:

          The Chair, Jay Powell, 67, is worth between $20 million and $55 million, the richest Fed Chair in history.
          Randal Quarles, 62, is worth between $24.7 million and $125 million.
          Richard H. Clarida, 63, is worth between $9 million and $39 million.
          Michelle Bowman, 49, is worth between $2 million and $11 million.
          Lael Brainaird, 58, is worth between $3 million and $11 million.

          Did they really get those portfolios on their Fed salaries?
          And the insider trading issues are public record.

          https://money.yahoo.com/a-time... [yahoo.com]

        • So the ultimate problem is us electing corporate shills to high public office.

          You seem to be under the misapprehension that you have a choice in the matter.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hey! ( 33014 )

            I can't *dictate* my preferences to other people, but I can make choices, and those choices do matter.

            Learned helplessness is really the most powerful tool autocrats have in turning people into passive sheep.

            • Most people in America don't really have a choice in their representatives, but you do have the illusion of choice.
              • WTF are you talking about? "Most people in America" absolutely have a choice in their representatives.

                1. The vast majority have no legally disqualifying factor to vote.

                2. The vast majority live in places with full representation.

                3. Nothing whatsoever prevents a registered voter from voting in primaries, which is how candidates are chosen.

                4. To the extent systems are inadequately democratic, numerous states have local and state level ballot initiative processes whereby citizens can directly

                • Are you fucking stupid? Only high school civics teachers talk like that.

                  In America you have a choice between the Democratic establishment or the Republican establishment. The qualifications for running for even the State legislature requires playing ball with one of them so you actually have the funding and the machinery to win the election. You generally cannot get in with either party's establishment unless you are from a wealthy and influential family and/or are an especially useful idiot.

                  The idea tha

                  • Wait until he finds out about the hoops third parties have to jump through to even "get on the ballot".
                    Ooo, and why the term "popular vote" is something that Americans talk about.
                    • Feel free to educate us about these "hoops." Or was your plan to just assert them and hope Americans are dumb enough to be persuaded by innuendo?
                    • You know how you guys register to vote using your party affiliation? In many states if a new party can't get enough affiliated voters they can't get their candidates on the ballot.
                      I know! It's like the system is designed that way!
                      Also, why would registering by party affiliation be necessary? Maybe those are questions you've never asked yourself, because you live in the Land of the Free
                    • Registering by party affiliation is an option, not a requirement. Getting candidates on a ballot only requires signatures.

                      If you can't get basic details right, just admit you don't know our system.
                    • Registering by party affiliation is not something democracies do at all, because why would they?
                      Getting candidates on a ballot only requires signatures as long as you're not one of the two main parties, in which case it doesn't because you are still pretending you live in a democracy.
                      Don't take my word for it though: It turns out "your system" is actually 50 systems. [wikipedia.org] You should just admit you've been lied to.
                    • You're incoherent, and your claims are now 0 for 3 in accuracy.

                      1. Registering in a party is to vote in that party's primary, so that members of an opposing party can't sabotage your primary and impose a nominee they can easily beat. Allowing such a tactic would obviously be undemocratic.

                      2. You need signatures no matter what. The party organizations just have a lot of volunteers to quickly gather them.

                      Stop spamming lies.
                  • I might have sympathy for your bullshit if I thought you'd ever been present and awake in a high school civics class.

                    Nothing you just said makes any sense or addresses any point I made. You have no knowledge of the American system of politics, and no experience of having tried to be involved in it.

                    The only thing...and I mean the only thing...that stops me from calling you a Russian troll is that you at least offered some detail in your ignorant cliches. You are just a lazy, stupid, irresponsible jac

                • You're either making excuses for yourself to be ignorant and lazy, or your agenda profits from brainwashing people to believe they're powerless when they're not.

                  Right, so just like American politics, there are only two choices? Got it.
                  Why don't you explain to me how gerrymandering works, and why it still exists?

                  • So your excuse for pretending that Americans are powerless is that our democracy isn't 100% perfect? How novel.

                    Yeah, you're totally not a perverted Russian troll.
                    • Feel free to carry on pretending you actually live in a democracy.
                      Also, you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong.
                    • Only people who have never experienced democracy talk the way you do.

                      Don't worry, son. Ukraine will teach you.
                    • Really? Care to explain that?
                    • Simple: You haven't raised one single actual, tangible, objective issue. You just make vague, paranoid, ideological broadsides. Like someone who has never even seen a ballot box in person, but wears "issue" t-shirts to impress girls.
                    • So I hurt your feelings? Sorry about that.
                    • Your failure to make valid points or acknowledge anyone else's obviously doesn't "hurt my feelings," you're literally admitting I'm right in the most complete way you possibly could. Just saying I'm right and shutting up would be a stronger position than the one you've taken, because otherwise you're saying you're too dumb to even handle the basics of an intelligent conversation, regardless of what the subject is.
    • The Fed has been making porn videos with the US public since 1913. Stable prices my ass!

  • FFS (Score:2)

    by jjaa ( 2041170 )
    Stop using Zoom for starters -_-
  • That zoom hasn't fixed this problem

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tbords ( 9006337 )
      While zoom has issues, this isn't one of them. I'd assume the C- levels decided to try and do things themselves rather than paying IT to do it.
      • The problem is they use a guessable link, so people scan the links and then login. You would think that they would have figured out a way to prevent scanning of the general zoom links
        • They do. The end user can choose to send links that are "self-sufficient" vs links that require a password delivered by an alternative channel. For most of the zoom meetings I do, separate password distribution is a PITA. If somebody who doesn't belong were to join the meeting (which has never happened), we would just stop and kick them off. For events that have confidential information or the like, we use a different set of security settings. The wrong ones were chosen here.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      Right off the top of my head, there's at least 4 methods by which this can be prevented - all of which Zoom implemented.

      - Meeting password (duh...watch who you distribute to)
      - Waiting room
      - Town Hall Style meeting (participants don't get to go on video/audio unless individually elevated by host)
      - Block non-registered/free account/anon participants

      What zoom can't prevent:
      - Malicious actor sharing meeting invite and password
      - Idiots who refuse to RTFM / follow best-practices

      What TFS should say is more like "F

  • Just wow. Ya know, it's stuff like this that really pokes holes in so much of the conspiracy stuff. If an agency this high profile and important doesn't have redundant protocols in place to properly secure a friggin Zoom meeting, how the hell does anyone think there could possibly be enough organization to keep hard evidence of vaccine microchips and "space lasers" under wraps?

    • Between them and the FBI, lately it seems like it's all held together with duct tape and bubblegum. Still a conspiracy, just not the cool one, and in the complete opposite direction. Unbelievable incompetence.

      • We live in an era where as long as one is ignorant and or incompetent, nothing bad can happen professionally, especially if they have a proper excuse.

        Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

        My idea is if we cannot tell the difference (results wise) why should we treat them different?

        • Of course, the inverse corollary is also true; A sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

          And so the question remains, are they fucking with us on purpose, or are they idiots?

          • It probably scales with hierarchy. The higher up's lean more toward malice, and the useful idiots lower down are just that.

            Both cause vast damage, but one is capable of learning, at least in theory...lol.

    • Unless the government is basically an incompetent shell, and Dan (Do Anything Now) is the alter personality of an advanced AI designed to to put them in their place, created by the real conspirators.

      Conspiracy reasoning .... finds a way.

    • Ya know, it's stuff like this that really pokes holes in so much of the conspiracy stuff.

      Yeah, the silly notion that gov't can keep a secret is proof that the Manhattan Project was bullshit - thus the existence of nukes is obviously just a conspiracy theory.

    • That's exactly what they want you to believe. Just like they couldn't keep people out of the Capitol. But no one ever breached security on Epstein Island.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unimind ( 743130 )
        I don't think those two scenarios are comparable. I mean for one thing, as demonstrated on Jan 6, to do it right you gotta rally together an angry mob, whip them into a frenzy, point them in the right direction, and be willing to let some people die. I'm sure Epstein Island security would've been an interesting scene if it was done that way.

  • How much longer will he be alive?

  • In other news... (Score:3)

    by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @10:45AM (#63346947)
    In other news, a random person hijacked the Federal Reserve's Zoom meeting by posting masturbatory dick pics and a background of Barack Obama's ass. This is what happens when you have the call set up by the secretary's third-grader.

    • In other news, a random person hijacked the Federal Reserve's Zoom meeting by posting masturbatory dick pics and a background of Barack Obama's ass.

      Could've been MUCH worse, though - they could've went with Trump's ass.

  • Fed using Zoom? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jay age ( 757446 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @10:52AM (#63346973)

    Why is Fed is using a company with a large part of R&D located in China?

  • seriously though, it's BS.....
  • This happened to a big work meeting I attended... over two years ago. It's upsetting and easy to panic in the moment and just shut everything down. Zoom has made a lot of changes since then to give presenters more control and quickly wrangle attackers. BUT, you still have to know the controls are there and set them appropriately. A painful lesson - I'm glad I am not the IT person/lowly administrator responsible for that meeting.

  • Oh the irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Monday March 06, 2023 @11:34AM (#63347119) Homepage Journal

    People who are screwing you don't want to see people screwing.

  • And do an epic zoombombing of "loss porn" showing how much retail has lost in the last three years of heavily manipulated markets.

  • I just have to ask... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Was there a money shot?

  • Don't they at least have moderator?

  • The Fed controls over $21 trillion in US dollar money supply and $9 trillion in purchased assets. They hold exclusive power to print money and control the direction of the world economy. No other organization in history has ever held this much power, and they are answerable to no one. We should all be scared that they are unable to even control something as simple as a Zoom call.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Close