from the psst-do-you-want-to-see-pictures-of-naughty-ladies-in-burkas? dept.
And one for the start of the weekend. Vice News reports:
In addition to his library of English-language books on topics such as international law, voting irregularities, and the Illuminati, Osama bin Laden also had a pretty substantial porn collection.
But the CIA won't release bin Laden's stash of porn, which Navy Seals apparently seized during a raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan four years ago. That's because, unbelievably, it's located in an "operational file," which is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
An operational file is defined as:
(1) files of the National Clandestine Service which document the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence operations or intelligence or security liaison arrangements or information exchanges with foreign governments or their intelligence or security services;
(2) files of the Directorate for Science and Technology which document the means by which foreign intelligence or counterintelligence is collected through scientific and technical systems; and
(3) files of the Office of Personnel Security which document investigations conducted to determine the suitability of potential foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence sources;
Reuters first reported in 2011 that pornography was recovered from bin Laden's compound after he was killed by commandos.
"The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive," Reuters reported, citing anonymous officials. "The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials."
It has long been rumored that Al Qaeda used pornography to hide secret messages to its followers, according to a report published by The Telegraph last March.
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:33AM
I would not be shocked to find out that it is kiddy porn.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Funny) by nyder on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:35AM
Ya, I think it's goat porn also.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:45AM
Probably Bohemian Grove videos.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:50PM
Owl porn?
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:53AM
in those parts, it's donkeyporn =)
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:41AM
I am glad I really do not know this... But, and I am ashamed to actually type this but I am certainly not going to search for this, is there such a thing as camel porn? I can only assume there is.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:55PM
Are you even slightly aware that propaganda exists and is there to serve a purpose?
Ever heard of planted evidence?
Might is always right and whoever wins writes history, not matter how ridiculous it may sound (similar to the monkey courts at the WW2 Nuremberg trials). They will have to stay in power forever to keep information from leaking and people finding out the truth.
(All this has already been discussed in this same story and you need to be vigilant of those in power, because they lie and cheat)
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:11AM
I defer to Occam's Razor. It is simpler for this to have been true than it is to assume a conspiracy during a firefight. I suppose it could have been planted well after the fact and just added to the report at home but, really, it seems unlikely. And yes, I am well aware of the dishonesty in government. I am not sure what purpose this lie would serve.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:45AM
The last paragraph explains it all: this is steganography, and the intelligence community is not going to release the data because it contains Al Qaeda operational data that is steganographically encrypted. Doing so would reveal the extent of the information seized and could jeopardize ongoing operations against people mentioned in the hidden data or reveal double agents. If the CIA bagged a trove of FSB documents, do you think they'd post it on Wikilesks for your reading pleasure?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:16AM
How would pictures of nakes Stegasaurs help Al-quieda? Typical Intelligence community obfuscation. They cannot release the porn because they are still using it! Nothing to do with any secret messages or world domination plans. Except those of Gen. Petraifed and Jeb (not a real first name) Bush. Could that be it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @09:55AM
Search for "steganography" if you aren't trolling. You can hide messages in virtually any data.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:04PM
It doesn't really explain it at all. It's one possible explanation. Except it's a pretty bad one. To release a list of the titles of content of Usamas porn stash wouldn't by itself reveal the steganography or its content. It's not like they do it to ONE video or image and it magically appears in all -- unless they believe Al-Qaeda somehow infiltrated the porn industry and was in charge of the master tapes and all duplication.
Sure it they released the list some people would be search the net for every copy of said images or videos and look for steg content -- a sisyphus like task if there ever was one. I recall reading some papers on this a few years ago, they downloaded millions of images from the net by an automated process. They found indications of content in some by a matter of statistical analysis and various tools but found zero actual steg-content. It might have been there, they just couldn't extract it or it was false positives and nothing was actually there.
But they must have believed it to have some value, after all they had to carry it out of there and you don't carry things you don't have to. The word "significant" here is also vague. How many videos is that? More then one, less then 10? It's not like they carried a porn library out there or if they did it was probably on the harddrives.
This "news" seems more like some people are interested in finding out if they are spank-buddies with Usama (if it was even his, not like he was alone in the household) or not.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jiro on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:46PM
It doesn't say they won't release the titles separately from the porn, it says that they won't release the porn itself. The article tries to vaguely imply that they won't release the titles separately, but all it actually says is "they released the titles of his books separately from his books" and "they wouldn't release his porn". Juxtaposing those two makes it sound like they won't release the list of porn titles either, but it doesn't actually say that. Shoddy journalism often works like this--that way the journalist isn't actually lying, he just depends on the reader misreading in a totally understandable way what the journalist actually said. If the government really refused to list the titles, the article would have said "the government wouldn't release the list of titles either" and would not have tried to imply it.
Furthermore, according to the article, they won't release the porn regardless of whether it is classified or not, because the government isn't permitted to mail out obscene matter. Can you imagine the headlines about the government sending out porn and corrupting our youth (from the right) and helping objectify women (from the left) if the government started mailing out porn in response to FOIA requests? Particularly if it contained nasty and/or illegal material?
Compounded by this is the fact that the FOIA request is written by idiots and is vague in what it asks for. It *could* be interpreted to mean they are asking for titles, but it's clear that this wasn't how the government read it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:38PM
Porn is a terrible stenography medium. There's too many copies. Just fire up a reverse image search like tineye [tineye.com], snag an original copy, run a diff and start analyzing. A good place to begin would be with the relatively few commonly distributed programs. Their techniques are primitive and rely mainly on secrecy storage, not encryption strength.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:22AM
It is possible that this porn doesn't actually exist. In every society and in every war, the use of sex - specifically some form of degenerate sex (within the view of the society or era) - to discredit and create a shameful view of opponents is common.
In recent decades, we've seen political opposition leaders declared to be "gay" and prosecuted to prevent them from running against the incumbents. This happened in Indonesia a while ago. During WWII, the Nazi leaders were portrayed as sexual degenerates and many still believe the propaganda.
So - how do you discredit the leader of a radical Muslim group? You could claim he and his cronies are porn freaks.
Real or not? I have no idea. But the skeptic in me always sees truth and propaganda as two sides of the same political coin.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:44AM
It is possible that this porn doesn't actually exist.
honestly, i wish it were true. one of the things about islam is the claim that men cannot control their minds when it comes to sex which is why women are forced to obscure their appearance with hijab, burka or a variant thereof. the result is that women get blamed for being raped and what soldiers found out in iraq and afghanistan is that most computers are jammed packed with porn.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:27PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:03PM
One doesn't have to discredit him in the eyes of his close followers. You need to discredit him in the eyes of the kid halfway around the world who may be interested in following the crap these monsters spew out in the name of "religion." (I put in quotes, since violence and Islam are at odds in spite of that the extremists practice)
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:17AM
that the killing of bin laden was staged and a fraud:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden [lrb.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:56AM
that the killing of bin laden was staged and a fraud:
In what way was it "staged"? Did he agree to it all beforehand and attend dress rehearsals?
In what way was it "a fraud"? He's dead, isn't he?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:46PM
He is hanging out with Elvis at the fake moon-landing site kicking back and eating peanut sandwiches.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:19PM
How Can Bin Laden's Porn Stash Be Real If Compound Raids Aren't Real? #JustJadenThings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:33PM
Absolutely.
Osama may also have died many years ago, but they had to keep the charade going to continue the war (and start new wars). A former Pakistan Prime minister (Benazir Bhutto, now dead) said in an interview with BBC Television in 2007 that Osama had been murdered some time ago. You can still find the interview video.
As for the helicopters going to a garrison town and hovering for 45 minutes, explosions, and no one noticing is a planted story. No police or military shows up for a long time? Just not possible.
Most people have been conditioned to believe the official story, no matter how absurd.
I personally believe Osama had long been dead.
(Score: 2, Funny) by ThG on Saturday June 13 2015, @08:55AM
This stuff must be *really* good. Like REALLY good! May I have a peek?
(Score: 2) by No Respect on Saturday June 13 2015, @09:01AM
It probably doesn't really exist anyway.
(Score: 3, Touché) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:30AM
Peter North goes at it with Shauna Grant
Alison Angel solo masturbation
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:45AM
MichaelDavidCrawford traveled here through time via the Kuro5hin time machine!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:18PM
modus is my cyberstalker. After taking offense at my diary regarding my desire to stop writing code so I would write symphonies, he placed Google AdWords select ads in hopes of making me unemployable:
while I would far prefer to attend music school, I eventually came to conclude that I can be of more service to humanity by filing a whole bunch of lawsuits against those who violate the rights of the mentally ill.
While well-established in law and in court precedent that we have such rights as to manage our own financial affairs, use the toilet without permission as well as to wear our own clothes, quite commonly psychiatric hospital staff is unaware of that, despite that our rights are posted on the walls of every inpatient unit I've ever been in.
We have these rights even in the case of involuntary holds.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Sunday June 14 2015, @01:11PM
Musing on two thoughts.
Assume you have something that is under copyright; say a movie with Mickey Mouse. That movie is on a hard disk, legally, in use by someone who becomes the subject of a FOIA request. What happens to the Mickey Mouse movie? If the results of the FOIA request are in the public domain, but there is copyrighted material in that, what do we do? Watch the FOIA bundle with our eyes closed?
On a tangentially-related note, I'm not sure if it would be good or bad to a porn star appearing in Mr Bin Laden's naughty stash. Maybe no-one would care. Perhaps there would be some cachet in being Osama's favourite starlet (or camel, or whatever). On the other hand, it might be very uncomfortable - very unAmerican indeed - to be known as Osama's extra bit of visual candy. An angry mob is a fickle beast at the best of times - add a little dash of rumpy-pumpy and a small sprinkling of World's Most Wanted Terrorist and it could become interesting.