this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
566 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2706 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

South Korea's military has been forced to remove over 1,300 surveillance cameras from its bases after learning that they could be used to transmit signals to China, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported.

The cameras, which were supplied by a South Korean company, "were found to be designed to be able to transmit recorded footage externally by connecting to a specific Chinese server," the outlet reported an unnamed military official as saying.

Korean intelligence agencies discovered the cameras' Chinese origins in July during an examination of military equipment, the outlet said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Neon@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago (4 children)

How the fuck did that happen?

Dear south korean government

please hire me instead. I promise I'm so paranoid, this will never happen.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Like every military operation, the job always goes to the lowest bidder, that is still overpriced, because it's just tax money. That's what always cracks me up about stuff that is marketed as military grade.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's still expensive because everything has to go through OPSEC.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

It's expensive because it has to go through a dozen layers of private contractors.

The US military was remarkably good at rapidly churning out cheap, effective armorments during the WW and early Cold War era. But the LBJ/Nixon pivot to private industry eroded all the efficiency. Then Reagan kicked military spending into overdrive in the 80s, and it's been a snowball of waste, fraud, and embezzlement ever since.

Now the model for military procurement is just a jobs program for Congressional districts. The epitome of the Do Nothing profession.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Capitalism. They just bought the cheapest reliable enough option they could find and didn't give two craps about infosec, because that's too expensive to actually properly do. Minimize the financial losses of an upfront purchase. (I worked more than enough jobs in hardware design to know what management cares about and what it doesn't)

Also, big yikes for the Israel flag in your username.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I think this is more of an OPSEC issue than an Infosec one, but both terms work.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Suppliers lie.

I know a guy who is the sole reason that software written by <adversary> isnt being currently used in <host countries most top secret defense environment>. His boss told him to lie if asked, and he refused to and informed <end user>.

[–] Cyberjin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago