Everyone is talking security these days. Does this include Facebook?
I ask because a group called "Kill Obama" was on the social-networking site for more than a month before Facebook's attention was drawn to it by CNET late Monday evening.
The group, which appears to have been created in Alberta, Canada, had 122 members and five administrators. Its existence originally caught the eye of Brian Cuban, brother of tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban.
Brian Cuban, who has long criticized Facebook for its attitude toward Holocaust denial groups, used his blog, the Cuban Revolution, to point out the apparent criminality of the "Kill Obama" group: those found guilty of a threat to kill the president could face up to five years in jail.
The "Kill Obama" group, which was active since November, was entirely open and set out its goals like this: "We are going to kill Obama. Ten of us will surround the capital, armed with sniper rifles. Mr. Hope And Change just made his last speech."
(Credit:
CC Jay Cameron/Flickr)
Facebook's response might strike some as peculiarly confident. Andrew Noyes of Facebook's public-policy group in Washington, D.C., told me via e-mail:
The group in question, which was created by an individual user, was brought to our attention on Monday and was removed promptly. As for the broader issue of controversial content that may appear on Facebook, I wonder how a phone company would answer a question about preventing threatening phone calls or how the postal service would respond about preventing threatening letters? And Web mail providers about threatening e-mails?
Some might feel that the difference is that Facebook can better see and hear what is on its site than phone providers or the U.S. Postal Service. This communication was entirely public and had been on the site for a while. The impression Facebook gives, however, is that it is doing more than most communication platforms to fight misuse.
Noyes continued:
Just as none of those communications platforms can guarantee their tools won't be misused, neither can we. However, different from those platforms, Facebook is committed to enhancing our already-robust reporting and review infrastructure, and reducing our response times in removing content that violates our policies. When we find egregious violations, we'll kick people off for good and prevent them from committing further offenses. Again, this is something that the other communication platforms can't do nearly as effectively as we can or at all.
The robust reporting and review infrastructure seems to have not been terribly robust in this instance. Facebook can give the impression that it is more attuned to removing images of breastfeeding than policing hate and threat.
Given that the company is so able and keen to collate information in order to help advertisers, some might wonder whether one member of its "porn police" might be reassigned so that Facebook might exercise a little more vigilance in the area of threatening and possibly criminal activity.
Indeed, one might have thought that Facebook would have security in place that would immediately monitor groups using such obvious keywords in their names as "Kill" and "Obama." However, Facebook's view is, according to Noyes, that there could be "millions" of possible permutations of these two words.
I know that there are many mathematically skilled readers here, so perhaps they might offer a view on these millions of permutations. My nonmathematical methods just revealed to me that by searching "Kill Obama," there were only 571 results. These results didn't appear to offer anything as overtly threatening as "Kill Obama." Indeed, the top group, with 143 members, was "Don't Kill Barack Obama."
In September, Facebook removed a "Should Obama be Killed?" poll, again after it had been noticed by the media. Indeed, Facebook's view seems to be that the policing of the site is largely down to, well, you.
Noyes told me:
No system is perfect, but we believe this is the best system, and we're always working to improve it. With extremely few exceptions, our user base has proved to be vigilant in flagging content that should be taken offline.
Perhaps there are more users concerned with naughty pictures than threats to kill the president. However, when asked if Facebook had given the personal details of the "Kill Obama" group to the authorities, Noyes said, "We don't comment on investigations, but we're in regular contact with the Secret Service."
All's well that ends well is one philosophy of life, of course. But not the only one.
One of the spam messages using Obama's election to entice people to download malware.
(Credit: Sophos)Within hours of settling the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday, spam seen worldwide began incorporating the name and image of Barack Obama, according to various security vendors. The U.K.'s Sophos reported 60 percent of all spam seen by the lab on Wednesday was in some way Obama related.
One piece of spam alleges to contain a link to video of Obama's acceptance speech. If you follow the video link within the e-mail message you will be taken to a Web page where you'll be asked to update your Adobe Flash Player with a file, adobe_flash9.exe, first. This is not an official Adobe update file and downloading this file may in turn infect your computer with a Trojan.
Sophos named the Trojan Mal/Behav-027. F-Secure named it W32/Papras.CL. Sunbelt Software also has a blog about this particular piece of spam.
Meanwhile, Websense is reporting a separate threat. An e-mail appears to be an interview with the new president elect. The e-mail features embedded links to a video site that attempts to install a file, BarackObama.exe. Downloading this file may infect your computer with a Trojan.
Last summer, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential-campaign computers came under cyberattack from an "unknown entity." His machines weren't alone; John McCain's computers were also attacked, according to a report appearing Wednesday on the site of Newsweek magazine.
The Obama attack was initially thought to be a piece of malware downloaded from a phishing site. Newsweek reports that "the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: 'You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,' an agent told them. 'You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.'"
The McCain campaign's computer system was also compromised over the summer. Newsweek confirmed with a top McCain official that the FBI had become involved. A federal investigation into both attacks is under way.
According to Newsweek Editor at Large Evan Thomas, the FBI and White House officials told the Obama campaign that a foreign entity or organization was likely responsible, not political opponents. Independently, Obama technical experts have speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese. The files accessed appear to be policy-related and thus potentially useful in future negotiations with a new presidential administration.
Earlier this year, during the primaries, an online prank had the Obama campaign site redirected to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign site.
The Newsweek report is part of a special edition that will be on newsstands November 6 through 16, and online November 5 through 7.
- prev
- 1
- next
