Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh.

Military on Alert for Killer Coke Cans 338

Posted by CmdrTaco from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.
DigitalLogic writes "There's a new security threat at some of the nation's military bases -- and it looks uncannily like a can of Coke. All I can think of is that a furby with a coke can must be the military's worse nightmare."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Military on Alert for Killer Coke Cans More

Military on Alert for Killer Coke Cans

Comments Filter:

  • Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jrj102 ( 87650 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:16PM (#9615516) Homepage
    As usual, the post kind of misrepresents what the article is about... but that's just standard /.

    I think they are being reasonable, if a bit silly. The contest-winning Coke cans (which are clearly visually distinct from a standard Coke can) have an integrated cell phone and GPS device. About this, the spokesperson was quoted as saying "In the remote possibility a can were found in one of these [secured] areas, we'd make sure the can wasn't activated, try to return it to its original owner and ask that they activate it at home..."

    Why is this unreasonable? It's funny, sure... but not the example of misguided paranoia that it's made out to be.
    • Are you sure? the article is from CNN, and you can't get worse journalism/misrepresentation than that. On CNN everything is *high alert*.
      • "You can't get worse journalism/misrepresentation than [CNN]"
        Really? Every read WorldNetDaily [worldnetdaily.com]?
      • If it was fox news, the story would have been interupted no less than 3 times with a Fox News Alert about a car chase or the peterson trial.

      • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ZBM-2 ( 185783 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:23PM (#9616004)
        We received this 'alert'. Actually,it was only an advisory to inspect cases of Coke to see if they contained a winning can. The can contains both a cell phone and a GPS beacon,neither of which can be brought into secure areas. The Furby scare was based on FUD,this is based on security regs. When you enter a secure area,you leave your cell,pager,PDA,laptop,etc,at the door.

        CNN pumped this up. There's zero panic about this.

        • "When you enter a secure area,you leave your cell,pager,PDA,laptop,etc,at the door."

          It'll be watches before too long. Today you can buy a watch with a camera built in, another that has memory so you can drop computer data into it. Before long there'll be watches with 2-way radio bulit into them. (I'm talking about USA here, I'm aware that there are wrist-watch cell phones elsehwere.)

          Eventually the gov't is going to have to find a way to keep data secure with the assumption that people have all these d

          • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:4, Informative)

            by xtheunknown ( 174416 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @07:12AM (#9620139)
            Actually, this is all a moot point. Any truly sensitive information is stored in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). A SCIF is protected such that no radio signals can enter or leave the facility. You are searched both when you enter and leave the facility and if you were wearing a camera watch or carrying a camera cell phone, they would be taken and stored until you left. If you walked out of a SCIF and they found one of these devices that they missed on the way in, it would be taken from you and inspected and you would be investigated for bringing it inside in the first place.

            That said, the Coke can poses no threat to sensitive information, even if it could transmit sound, which it can't.

    • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:29PM (#9615635)
      This goes right next to the cases of people who get fired for bringing their new cell phone to work because their office is a security-tight "no camera zone" and their new phone just happens to be a cameraphone model.

      Yes, it's an overparanoid reaction, but it's one that was promised for people who bring in a threat to the security even if they didn't do it on purpose.

      • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So "I didn't do it on purpose" should be a valid excuse now for breaking rules about security, which involves signing a contract? Hmm.. Think first, simple enough.

      • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rufus88 ( 748752 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:31PM (#9616047)
        This is not at all paranoia. A camera-phone is a camera. There are secure buildings, or buildings with secure rooms (like where I work), where you have to have a secret or top-secret clearance to get in. Bringing a camera in there is forbidden and a security violation. Anybody who works in such an environment, who is too stupid to realize what a no-no this would be, does not belong working there.

        • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NecroPuppy ( 222648 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:43PM (#9616123) Homepage
          Exactly.

          When I went shopping for a new phone recently, it took 2 worker bees and a manager to figure out that when I said I didn't want a camera phone, that I really meant I didn't want a camera phone.

          One of those damn things would get me fired. And, if I were lucky, I wouldn't have federal charges filed against me.
      • is there a similar restriction on bringing cell phones to military bases or "sensitive" areas? It seems a regular cell phone would be more dangerous in this light than the killer coke cans, since, as Coke says in the article, the cans only call Coke and that's it. A cell phone could be programmed to call anywhere and function as a monitoring device, and spies could find your location based on a cell phone even without GPS. Hell, someone could install one of these in a can of 7-Up to really throw them off

    • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:30PM (#9615645) Homepage Journal
      and then again, you took just the most sensible part of the article.

      "We've taken measures to make sure everyone's aware of this contest and to make sure devices are cleared before they're taken in" to restricted areas, she said."

      so they're telling to people that should know not to bring a phone into the areas that don't bring coke cans before you have made sure that it's just a coke can.

      it's a potential eavesdropping device, in the sense that it's a phone, but a quite much less than anything intentional could be. basically they're creating a big fuss over something that didn't need the pr(because now it's easier to intentionally smuggle something in, just put a can of coke next to it..).

      and further:
      **
      "But Bruce Don, a senior analyst at the Rand Corp. said the military's concern is rational and appropriate.

      "There's a lot of reason to worry about how that technology could be taken advantage of by a third party without Coke's knowledge," he said.""**

      so what it boils down to is some security firm pumping once again money from the gov(and paving the way for future pumping)...
    • They also want personell to open the cans and make sure there isn't a GPS in them. That doesn't sound like they're thinking entirely straight.

    • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Grant29 ( 701796 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:58PM (#9615851) Homepage
      Maybe they are looking for that new secret Coke, you know the C4 Coke... I hear it's more potent than the new C2 Coke.

      --
      Only 3 Gmail invitations left [retailretreat.com]
    • I read this a few days ago and when I saw it here it was obvious the submitter worked very hard to avoid letting a few facts spoil his fun.

    • Re:Is this really that bad? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bl1st3r ( 464353 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:39PM (#9616098) Homepage Journal
      I'm in the military and have received the warning about the coke can's. It's not that the military itself thinks the can's are dangerous, its just the fact that the area's that ARE on alert for them are area's in which cell phones and electronic equipment are restricted items.

      The premise of the coke contest is that you open the can, and Coca Cola fly's in with helicopters to bring you your prize. That is fine and dandy for civilians, but on a military base, you can't have Coke flying in helicopters and things.

      Not to mention the fact that the cell phone in the can could be used for the inadvertant disclosure of secret data. That is the threat, not terrorism or anything like that.

  • Furby has been dealt with (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sartak ( 589317 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:17PM (#9615534) Homepage
    When was the last time anyone saw Furby, really? I thought the military already neutralized that threat.

  • Their complaints are justified. . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:17PM (#9615536) Journal
    *tinfoilhat*
    What's to keep some other spy agency/group from disguising a coke can that looks just like the innocent 'outgoing call only + gps' with a 'bi-directional + gps + other nasty goodies' can?
    */tinfoilhat*
    • Of course they're justified. I'm glad that the US military (as an ally of Canada) is taking appropriate measures to protect against bugs in their security meetings. It's nothing against Coke.

    • Re:Their complaints are justified. . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:33PM (#9615664) Homepage
      disguising a coke can that looks just like the innocent 'outgoing call only + gps' with a 'bi-directional + gps + other nasty goodies' can

      "Uh, sir. Your coke can is ringing."

      "Hello? Oh, hi Osama. No, I'm sorry, I can't tell you any of our secret plans. Thanks for calling, though." ... I think you meant a phone that can connect to numbers other than Coke's prize center, not bi-directional.
    • thank god for tinfoil hats, but make sure yours is not actually ALUMINUM foil, since it offers no real protection. (that was part of another Al Queda plot, to distribute aluminum foil hats to people to make them think they were protected, when in reality it had no effect, allowing them to spy on our brain waves. Another story for another day..)

      First the qualifier, I'm not a soldier, but I was an airman: It would not be that hard for a soldier gone bad to smuggle something in a base if they wanted to. T

  • Not *that* funny (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:17PM (#9615537)
    I don't really find this funny. I mean it's funny, but in the back of my mind
    I just know that this is the tip of a big scary iceberg.

    In the future I bet almost all devices, maybe even ALL soda cans, will contain
    miniature computers with wireless capabilities. And troublemakers (evildoers?)
    will be able to hack into them.

    You chuckle now but did you think 10 years ago that there would be such a
    thing as a smartphone? Bluejacking? Nokia phone viruses? MP3s, PDFs, or PNGs
    that could exploit your computer?

    So yeah, like TFA says, it's just common sense, nothing to get excited about,
    but definitely something to think about.

    Do you believe Coke when they say "it can only call us" and "there's no way to hijack it"? I sure don't.

    • Re:Not *that* funny (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrtroy ( 640746 )
      Do you believe Coke when they say "it can only call us" and "there's no way to hijack it"? I sure don't.

      Yes.

      Oh...an explanation you ask?
      Well coke could put a little switch between the battery and the electronics in the can so that only turns on once you open it. So this magical can gets discovered, and they have to activate it before anything happens. I dont think you can hijack electronics with no power.

      As for "it can only call us"...that could be easily setup.

      The only legitimate concern would

      • RTFA (Score:2)

        by dacarr ( 562277 )
        They're not banning coke, they're requesting people make sure that there's no GPS in the coke can. Which, figuring Martin's statement is likely correct (effectively, a roughly coke can shaped wireless phone with a GPS), is pretty easy to do.

    • Re:Not *that* funny (Score:5, Interesting)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:28PM (#9615628) Journal
      There was a promotion a few years ago involving an Ontario dairy. A few personal-sized cartons of milk were wired with a speaker and electronics, that were supposed to make a "moo" sound when opened (thereby indicating that you had won a prize).

      Somebody apparently got one of these at a food court in downtown Toronto, and left it behind (I guess the prize wasn't that impressive). Somebody else saw this carton of milk with wires and electronics and called the bomb squad. The building was evacuated, much to the amusement of the local news media (once they found out what happened).

    • Re:Not *that* funny (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SoSueMe ( 263478 )
      Do you believe Coke when they say "it can only call us" and "there's no way to hijack it"? I sure don't.

      As soon as somebody says "You can't do x with y technology.", the countdown timer in the back of my mind starts going "10-9-8-7-6...".

      When I read this on Friday, I thought "I've got to get a closer look at these."
      I haven't seen any in the stores here yet.

    • Re:Not *that* funny (Score:4, Funny)

      by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:31PM (#9615653)
      I don't really find this funny. I mean it's funny, but in the back of my mind
      I just know that this is the tip of a big scary iceberg

      Yeah, but on a semi-holiday slow-news day at Slashdot, it's a frickin' bonanza, no?

      Ya got yer US military, Orwellian eavesdrop issues, Big Silly American Corporate Marketing Angle, and -- wait for it -- the grand prize for the promotion is an SUV! I mean, what's not to belittle/complain about/be otherwise snarky regarding? If this story didn't come over the wires, we'd have to write it ourselves...

    • eh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dangerz ( 540904 )
      Come on, seriously think about it.

      When you open a can of Coke (I don't drink Coke, so it's all you), you throw that can away as soon as you are done. What use is there to put any electronics into every soda can?

      It'd be a huge waste of money. I doubt Coke cares to know where every single can of theirs is going.

  • Big Soda is watching (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnCivil Liberty ( 786163 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:18PM (#9615540)
    "You can win, but you can't hide" as their promo stand ups in grocery stores read. Items tracking you, just a hint of waht is to come with RFID. Be afraid.
    • Only with rfid you cann't be identified from the next house down, let alone from space.
    • Duran Duran
      -Too Much Information

      It's pumpin down the cable
      Like never seen before
      A cola manufacturer is sponsoring the war
    • "You can win, but you can't hide" as their promo stand ups in grocery stores read. Items tracking you, just a hint of waht is to come with RFID. Be afraid.

      So, Ashcroft is going to make it law that everyone must drink Coke then? Speaking of tinfoil hats....

  • Market competition! (Score:3, Funny)

    by JohnFromCanada ( 789692 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:18PM (#9615542)
    This is the new marketing strategy for Pepsi.

  • Pepsi (Score:2, Funny)

    by ffejie ( 779512 )
    This is clearly a ploy by Pepsi. What's next? Sprite cans having AK-47s stashed in them?

    /sarcasm off

    • Re:Pepsi (Score:5, Funny)

      by UnCivil Liberty ( 786163 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:31PM (#9615651)
      I believe Dave Barry has prior art on this, Year in Review [usyd.edu.au].

      JUNE:
      17 -- True Item: A consumer in Seattle reports finding a hypodermic syringe in a can of Diet Pepsi.

      JULY:
      1 -- A consumer in Detroit reports finding a switchblade knife in a can of Diet Pepsi.

      AUGUST
      3 -- A consumer in Baton Rouge reports finding a machete in a can of Diet Pepsi.

      SEPTEMBER
      1 -- A consumer in Boston reports finding an AK-47 assault rifle in a can of Diet Pepsi.
      5 -- In a move strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association, the California State Legislature passes a law requiring a five-day "cooling-off" period on purchases of Diet Pepsi.

      OCTOBER
      1 -- A consumer in Phoenix reports finding a nuclear submarine in a can of Diet Pepsi.

      NOVEMBER
      1 -- A consumer in Detroit reports finding a full combat division of the Iraqi army in a can of Diet Pepsi.

      DECEMBER
      1 -- A consumer in Orlando reports finding the Ark of the Covenant in a can of Diet Pepsi.

  • There really is a problem here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:22PM (#9615580)
    Sometimes, the military doesn't like the location of troops being revealed to anybody. They ban all cell phones and GPS devices that they don't control from being with such groups.

    So, should a "winning" can be brought on such a mission, you've got a security hole... sure, the message is encrypted so that only Coca-Cola Prize Patrol knows where you are and hears what you say to them, but Coca-Cola Prize Patrol doesn't have security clearance now, do they?

  • What's so different (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Bard ( 627623 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:23PM (#9615589)
    GPS systems are intergrated into new celphones. Are those banned on military bases as well? The military is going to have to deal with a brave new world in electronics. What about car GPS systems? Are they banned from bases? It's a knee jerk reaction on the GPS front. As to it having a celphone for spying, are celphones banned from all meetings? My guess is most Generals are armed with a celphone. Celphone jammers are realitively cheap and availible. It might be a smarter and more pratical thing to simply use them in conference rooms and not sweat the Majors new lapel phone let alone coke can.

    • Re:What's so different (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:32PM (#9615657)
      In a "restricted area", usually the military doesn't want any electronics device that they don't control going in. Cans of Coke are tolerated, but cell phone links to the civilian world aren't...

      Besides, even if you had a winning can on a military base, it's not like Coca-Cola's Prize Patrol is going to be able to deliver your SUV to you on the base... they most likely won't be allowed in.

    • Re:What's so different (Score:5, Informative)

      by john82 ( 68332 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:49PM (#9615787)
      As to it having a celphone for spying, are celphones banned from all meetings? My guess is most Generals are armed with a celphone.

      Yes cellphones are banned from secured areas. That's all cellphones. So if one were to show-up on a military installation carrying a new generation phone with camera, where there are big freakin' "NO cameras, or recording devices allowed" signs, then you are a dumbf*ck idiot who needs to spend some time in the brig.

      Note that few such places allow a PDA these days either. Unless of course you want them to significantly disable it for you.

      Celphone jammers are realitively cheap and availible. It might be a smarter and more pratical thing to simply use them in conference rooms and not sweat the Majors new lapel phone let alone coke can.

      Then again, you're in the military. Might be a hell of a lot smarter to follow some simple orders and save the taxpayers on several fronts.
      • Then again, you're in the military. Might be a hell of a lot smarter to follow some simple orders and save the taxpayers on several fronts.

        Adding to your comment, you can tell the guys who have never been in the military, cant you? They can be quite persuasive. First time you bring a phone into a secure area, and you spend the next seven days in CC (Correctional Custody, a type of jail for the civilians here) and spend all day, every day, picking up cigarette butts all over the base, you won't accidentl

    • Re:What's so different (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:58PM (#9616195) Homepage
      GPS plus a cellphone is no big deal - we already know where all the bases are anyway. However, I work at a military facility that strictly bans camera-phones from the flight line (where the planes are parked) - because there's quite a bit of sensitive material there - designs we don't want our enemies to see, or even our allies.

      Cell phones are NOT banned from all meetings. Far from it. See, quite a bit of the stuff that gets discussed is completely banal - "Okay, have your secretary call mine and set up a meeting to discuss this issue further" - but you can bet they're strictly banned from any conversation that is at all sensitive.

      Now, about the Coke cans. The real issue is NOT the GPS receiver, or the cell phone technology - I'm pretty sure it's got something to do with not wanting some Coke reps in a big white van full of interesting gadgets to try crashing the gates at a sensitive military facility. You want to get visited at home, no problem - leave the can there. Just don't invite them HERE, thank you very much. Again, it's common sense.

      And yeah, I suspect there are some latent concerns about nefarious uses. But I doubt that's any more of a concern than for any other cell phone, or Blackberry two-way pager, or whatever.

      It's common sense, people. Contrary to Hollywood's view, the US military is neither incompetent nor full of powermongers. It's mostly a lot of very dedicated, very intelligent people trying their best to defend and strengthen the good 'ol USofA, and that includes defense against reasonably possible intelligence-gathering hardware. Because face it, it's a lot cheaper to steal a good design than create it from scratch.

  • Not a big problem (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:26PM (#9615616)
    Considering the number of times I've seen someone's cell phone go off in a classified meeting, I don't think this is that serious a problem. Hell, I've seen the deputy CIO's phone go off.

  • Overreacting is SOP (Score:5, Funny)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:29PM (#9615636)
    There are certain military facilities I visit where I have to surrender my calculator "because it has memory and you might use it to remove classified communications." Meanwhile, the local support staff is wheeling entire desks and filing cabinets in and out without the guards looking at them twice.

    Don't think about it, it'll just make you crazy.
    • There are certain military facilities I visit where I have to surrender my calculator "because it has memory and you might use it to remove classified communications."

      I wonder if you'd lose your security clearance if you told us the classified information in question was "BOOBLESS"

  • Problem is complex... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:30PM (#9615646) Journal
    The real problem is that guards don't have any way of knowing what a device does, when it's in disguise. Forget these cans, and think about someone intentionally trying to sneak a device in... It might look real, but have electronics sealed inside.

    The answer is pretty obvious though... Everything should be x-rayed, or MRI-scanned to verify that it is what it's supposed to be. Or, perhaps microwaving everything that is not supposed to be an electronic device would be adequate.

    These prize cans are just a symptom of the problem.
  • The military is really protective about their own privacy, but when it comes to snooping in on the regular communications of you and me, why, what is this privacy you speak of?!

    Maybe they just don't want people to listen in on how many screw ups they keep making or how many trillions they've blown on torturing iraqis [whereisthemoney.org]

    • Re:It's funny (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) *
      Basic infromation warfare...

      - You want to know what the enemy knows.
      - You want to make sure the enemy doesn't know what you know.

      It's all about intercepting the enemy's communications, and making sure that can't intercept yours.
    • For someone who uses a tag of "may the maths be with you", you seem to have a little numeracy problem: $1.1 trillion is in the close neighborhood of the entire federal budget.

      UNless you're trying to claim that the entire federal government shut down to fund a few prison guards pointing at peepees and laughing?

  • yes, this is a security concern (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:33PM (#9615665) Homepage Journal
    There are many government agencies that have a zero tolerance for wireless devices, devices with data ports, microphones, cameras, or whatever being taken into secure areas that deal with classified material. When you're talking about something regarding national security, you can never be to safe about what is allowed in a secure area.

    And how would one automatically know that an unopened 12 pack case of soda had one of these devices in it? They wouldn't which is why the Military simply wants people to be aware of this. And who is to trust coke anyway?

    Here's a scenerio: let's say some people were having a top secret conference and they had a 12 pack of sodas sitting in the back somewhere for refreshments aftwards. What if the device is accidently activated during this time and it starts recording the conference? What then happens if some unscrupulous employeee at Coke thinks it's an interesting conversation and releases it on the internet? Sure, all this could be very, very, rare, but given the nature of some information it's absolutely not worth the risk.

  • Silly story but.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by sirdude ( 578412 )
    I hate anything linking to CNN.. so here's the Wired article : Paranoia Goes Better With Coke [wired.com]
  • I can imagine being majorly ticked if I spent my last 75 cents on a Coke only to get a cell phone + GPS receiver in a can.

  • Questioning (Score:2, Funny)

    by thedogcow ( 694111 )
    In related news, Cokes' Hommies -
    a one Pepsi,
    a one Barqs,
    and a one Mr Pepper Ph.D.
    have been bought in for questioning.
    • Great, now "Doing it for Allah" now comprises of shaking up a Coke can and handing it to a buddy.

      FIZZZZZZZZ!....."Haha, you just got jihaded!"
  • Sounds like the usual post 9/11 stuff on TV news:

    "What you don't know about Coke cans could KILL you! Coming up next...on FOX News!"

  • It's true. (Score:3, Funny)

    by sekzscripting ( 687192 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:40PM (#9615712) Homepage
    SLASHDOT IN TWO WEEKS:

    "Hacking the coke can. Part 1."
  • "The can is dramatically different looking," he said. The cans have a recessed panel on the outside and a big red button. "It's very clear that there's a cell phone device."

    Coca Cola is speaking here for civilians, but probably the army knows best about the capabilities of their military people... ;-)

  • Yes, it seems ridiculous to outlaw Furbys and Coke cans on base--but it's less ridiculous than having to say, "Well, no sir, General, we hadn't considered that possibility. Yes, sir, I agree that I am grossly incompetent. Sir, I will get that regulation promulgated right away, sir." Even worse is the outside chance that there could be a breach and having to answer to the press.
  • Military Intelligence in action. Seems it has only gotten worse since I left the service 6 years ago.
  • I smashed it and threw it away. I wanted soda, not some darn cell phone!

    Just like that bag or all purple M&M's I got, or the chipless Chip O' Ohoys bag I got. Quality control for these companies must really stink?

  • Really.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spacecadetglow ( 790516 ) <spacecadetglow&gmail,com> on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:47PM (#9615772)
    I really don't see if this could be a problem. If someone is in a sensitive area and they are aware of what the can contained, then they should have the common sense to wait until later to open the can.
  • /. really needs to add a "tinfoil hat" topic to it's topic list. Complete with awesome graphic of course!

  • We're Paranoid By Profession. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @03:53PM (#9615815)
    OK, sorry to have to post this as an AC, but kinda forced to...

    The job of a security manager is to be paranoid. Pure and simple.

    I'm not allowed to have a cellphone at work... or a pager ( not just a 2-way pager, ANY pager). No writable media permitted, under any circumstance.

    ( Yeah, that's right-- I can get arrested for forgetting to leave my USB keydrive in my car in the morning. )

    Is it paranoia? No. It's 'heightened operational security'. Clearances only go so far-- look at the $%$%tards like Ames and Hanssen.

    Obviously, they've missed a significant chunk of people with any ad campaign for this contest-- I go thru 2 cases of Coke a week, and I only heard about the contest last week.

    Without knowing what the GPScans looked like, how would you keep them out of a 'secure' facility???

    • Re:We're Paranoid By Profession. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @05:06PM (#9616259) Homepage Journal
      "Without knowing what the GPScans looked like, how would you keep them out of a 'secure' facility???"

      the same way you would be supposed to keep NORMAL CANS FITTED WITH A GSM PHONE INSIDE out of the secured facility - if you can't do that then what kind of security you have in the first place?

      you know, it's not that hard to jam a phone in a can.

      what next, black plastic bag warning: it could have anything inside! also clothes are banned, and body cavities.
  • "There's things generals should stay up late at night worrying about," he said. "A talking Coke can isn't one of them."

    It's a good thing I'm not a military general. I ALWAYS worry whenever something that shouldn't be talking to me suddenly starts to do so.
  • ...is to the purity of our precious bodily fluids! [niu.edu]

    Also, that stuff will rot your teeth. Everybody with a mother knows that.

  • Dolts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:02PM (#9615882)
    Get a grip, folks. The sort of environment they're talking about is extremely sensitive: like, the definition is "revelaing this information could lead to critical danger to the US and its citizens."

    This isn't a joke. A few years ago, some member of Congress (Orrin Hatch is what I recall) proved how much an Insider he was, and what Good Stuff He Knew, by telling a reporter that we were intercepting Usama bin Laden's satphone calls. The reporter, also being a moron, reported this. Soon enough, UbL stopped making open satphone calls.

    Some time later, 9/11/2001.

    Quibble if you like about the absurdities to which this leads -- like the books I wrote twenty years ago which I can no longer legally read -- but if you look into the history of bugs, subversions, and general espionage, you'll find that worrying about someone bringing an unexamined cellphone into a classified facility is pretty reasonable.

  • The Military is Just Afraid... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:08PM (#9615915) Journal
    That someone at Area 51 will open the damn thing, and Coke's prize patrol will have to report there with the giant check!

  • How Al-Queda has Fallen (Score:4, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:08PM (#9615916) Homepage Journal
    If the biggest thing our military is worried about over the 4th of July weekend is a freaking Coke can.

    Speaking of transmitting Coke cans, how hard would it be to develop a GPS-coordinate-transmitting device that could be issued to anyone who could be potentially kidnapped and beheaded in the middle east? Of course it'd have to be held in their "compartment" since the terrorist assholes kidnapping them would probably be on the lookout for such a thing. But really, if it came down to sticking a coke-can-sized transmitter up your ass most of the day versus potentially getting kidnapped and beheaded, I think most people would go for the coke can, no?

    Anyone patenting an ass-transciever based on this post damn well better give me credit for the idea...

  • Thank God I switched to Pepsi (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've been a Coke fanboys for all these years. But they recently switched their 12-packs to "Fridge-Paks" or something like that were you have six cans in two rows. Guess what? Doesn't fit in my smaller sized fridge! Fuck me running.

    Pepsi is always a few cents cheaper. I never buy Coke above $3/12-pack and this 4th of July, they were at $3.29 (with the yellow "Save!" price label to boot). If I have to have soda pop and Coke prices itself out, I usually fall back on Dr. Pepper or 7-Up.

    At $2.79 for a real fr
  • This is a typical sarcastic reaction from non-military people. In the military a policy is a policy and must be followed strictly. Classified information is no joke. If a policy states that you will not have any device that transmits or receives information within x meters of where classified information is being processed or discussed then that must be strictly followed whether its a cell phone, blackberry, pager, walkie talkie, or in this case a promotional coke can. There are no exceptions, not even for
  • This whole controversy sounds like something drummed up by one of Coca Cola's PR flacks to promote their summer promotional campaign.

    I feel icky.

  • VALID REACTION! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:46PM (#9616139) Homepage
    I think this is a valid reaction. Think about it: its internal cell phone could be hacked to call some other phone and possibly even send all audio from the user - in whatever sensitive area - to wherever it is programmed to call. Of course, this could be integrated into normal Coke cans, but this is a good disguise for such an act, as ridiculous as it sounds.

  • A new low in Pepsi propaganda (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rai ( 524476 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @05:10PM (#9616285) Homepage
    I thought that rigged "Pepsi challenge" was bad, but this type of hysteria is a new low. Shame on you, Pepsi, for trying to share our brave troops from drinking Coke!

  • obligatory Dr.Strangelove quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by dario_moreno ( 263767 ) * on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @02:36AM (#9619299) Journal
    sorry if this is redundant, but I have to mention it :
    (US Army Ranger sergeant being ordered by Peter Sellers to use his gun to blow a Coke dispenser apart to get some coins in order to avoid total nuclear war)

    "if you do not get the President of the United States on that phone, you will be responsible to the Coca-Cola Company".

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Close