US Central Command (twitter) hacked by IS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armchair paranoid person here, scared or no scared? what's the worse outcome from this?

Unless our enemies can't use google there nothing here that was compromised besides the account itself

It worrysome that it makes it easier and promotes public info that wasn't shared readily to people that might wish to do harm to military personel. People that wouldn't have gone looking now probably have access to information that makes lone wolfs jobs easier. The pentagon had/has been warning active duty families and soliders not to advertise themselves as members of the miltary on social media as much.
 
So it turns out this is basically the same as when one of my facebook friends starts posting about losing weight and working from home every 5 minutes, but with "i love you isis."
 
When IS say they will release US nuclear codes soon, that's BS isn't it.

Shit, they found the folder labeled "US Nuclear Launch Codes" in their Twitter account? I'm gonna start digging my bunker ASAP.

Edit: Aw bummer he's banned. Should've let him respond to a couple more posts.
 
All who eat Snackbar.

v2RgNqF.gif
 
This administration is hilarious. Schedule a cyber security speech after weeks/months of preparation, get hacked on the day of. Brilliant.
 
Fuck ISIS. But lol this is kinda ironic when it happened.

Also was liger's ban justified, there's plenty of stupid, blatantly disgusting opinions on GAF that no one agrees with but it even says in the TOS just sit through it as long as it doesn't turn into a shit talking war.

Terms of Service said:
Negative commentary and minority opinions are not frowned upon, but members are expected to be able to substantiate their positions
 
So was it JUST the Twitter account that got compromised?

Or a PC/laptop of a high-ranking press official who has Twitter access?

Either way, it's just Twitter. I doubt whoever runs the Twitter account has access to Top Secret information. They probably post whatever they are TOLD to post by higher-ranking peeps.
 
Fuck ISIS. But lol this is kinda ironic when it happened.

Also was liger's ban justified, there's plenty of stupid, blatantly disgusting opinions on GAF that no one agrees with but it even says in the TOS just sit through it as long as it doesn't turn into a shit talking war.


There is no justification needed on a private forum like this one.

The moderators can ban whoever they want, whenever they want for any reason, even if they DON'T violate the ToS they themselves drafted.
 
Fuck ISIS. But lol this is kinda ironic when it happened.

Also was liger's ban justified, there's plenty of stupid, blatantly disgusting opinions on GAF that no one agrees with but it even says in the TOS just sit through it as long as it doesn't turn into a shit talking war.

Personally I was getting tired of the carefully worded gloating coming from him. If he had the balls to post his real opinion he'd have probably been banned long ago. Anyway it'll free him up to go and join the caliphate.
 
Fuck ISIS. But lol this is kinda ironic when it happened.

Also was liger's ban justified, there's plenty of stupid, blatantly disgusting opinions on GAF that no one agrees with but it even says in the TOS just sit through it as long as it doesn't turn into a shit talking war.

I am assuming that supporting ISIS was a bridge too far. Thankfully it seems.
 
There is no justification needed on a private forum like this one.

The moderators can ban whoever they want, whenever they want for any reason, even if they DON'T violate the ToS they themselves drafted.

Eh.

That's not fair at all. Mainly because GAF is private and prides itself in having a community that fosters fair discussion to all of its members and only when one goes out of line they could or should get banned.

Personally I was getting tired of the carefully worded gloating coming from him. If he had the balls to post his real opinion he'd have probably been banned long ago. Anyway it'll free him up to go and join the caliphate.

This makes more sense, since he would avoid going into detail about his comments and would slyly work around what he said. So if he got a temp ban from that it's understandable.

Also I'm assuming no sensitive info was actually obtained right? Just a scare tactic that ended up being more comedic than frightening.
 
Last time I checked twitter and facebook aren't owned/operated by the government, so tell us again how you hacked CENTCOM ISIS.


Also, what the fuck are you doing with a twitter or facebook account CENTCOM? Seriously? Keeping in touch with old classmates? sharing photos with the fam? Need to keep all your fan club up to date? That is about the dumbest shit. You are a DoD government agency, not a high school girl.
 
Eh.

That's not fair at all. Mainly because GAF is private and prides itself in having a community that fosters fair discussion to all of its members and only when one goes out of line they could or should get banned.
May I quote you from the TOS?
III. Moderation Policy

A. Moderation of NeoGAF is not by democracy. All decisions with regards to thread closure and movement, permanent and temporary bans, membership, and any other relevant issues are made by the NeoGAF administration alone and are final. That being said, constructive criticisms and suggestions are welcome, provided they are directed to NeoGAF Administration via e-mail, here. Do not dispute administrative policy or action within the forum itself.
It's not always "fair", but you should know that by reading the TOS.
 
you were excited that a terrorist organization had stolen national secrets and were providing information on innocent civilians and became disappointed when that wasn't the case?

I was interested in the national secrets but that was about it. Not like I haven't said fuck ISIS excluding this incident before.
 
May I quote you from the TOS?It's not always "fair", but you should know that by reading the TOS.

Not being a democracy =/= it cannot be fair. I meant having a ban that isn't stated by the TOS or implied by it and just based off of a subjective opinion of one moderator would be unfair.

Anyways discussing the TOS would just end in circles of nonsensical discussion, you hold your opinion on what's right and I hold mine. Neither of us are mods so we don't know how banning works. I guess I just interpreted the TOS differently from you that's all.
 
...why are we assuming it was actually IS and not just some bored script kiddie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom