Booking is nooit eerder op spionage gestuit. Het bedrijf is er ook niet echt naar op zoek. Zolang die geen hinder oplevert, kost het geen geld. De onuitgesproken consensus onder specialisten binnen het bedrijf is: we vermoeden dat inlichtingendiensten meekijken, maar zolang we ze niet zien, maken we ons niet druk.
Which roughly translates to We are not looking for espionage and if it doesn't hinder us we don't care.
> Booking has never encountered espionage before. The company isn't really looking for it either. As long as it doesn't cause any hindrance, it won't cost you any money. The unspoken consensus among specialists within the company is: we suspect that intelligence services are watching, but as long as we don't see them, we don't worry.
What should make me believe that they don't have the same approach towards black hat hackers which are silently farming their data?
How are foreign intelligence services not black hats? They are stealing data in order to use it for any number of non-nice things. Not selling the data on the dark web doesn't bleach their hats.
That they are doing it for a 'good cause' (often debatable) is somewhat irrelevant, that is a risk/reward calculation that the country/agency/spy needs to make themselves.
If a a friendly country of the Dutch government wants to access records of a Dutch company (Booking.com), there are numerous legal methods to access this data. What's instead happening is that the CIA hacks NL companies and the Dutch RIVM hacks American ones and they share information/metadata with each other so that they can make and end-run around the legal constraints of both nations.
The AIVD is the Dutch intelligence service, the RIVM is the public health institute. I don't think even the most out-there of Dutch conspiracy theorists have accused the RIVM of hacking American companies on behalf of the CIA...
I would not count their fascist agenda a good cause. Inciting wars, performing illegal wars, putsching socialistic leaders neither, ...
Both intelligence agencies and cyber-criminals can be considered threats, but they are quite different. Intel agencies would present a serious threat to confidentiality, but are very unlikely to threaten the integrity & availability of business systems.
> They are definitely black hats.
There's a fair argument to be made that they're grey hat. On the whole though I agree with you and you shouldn't give blanket trust to people performing these kinds of activities. I would just assign a bit different value to a black hat activity (illegal and/or harmful and only beneficial by accident if at all) vs grey hat activity (illegal and potentially harmful but attempting to be beneficial)
Keys are a pain in the ass to replace, and there is literally a set of 3 windows within reach in the porch that could be opened trivially.
The biggest feature of any lock is breaking into a locked house is a felony for the perp.
I'm not sure what the moral is. Your comment reminded me of this story.
Leaves guests bewildered when they come to stay.
So the Hulk just knocked a hole in his stone castle wall next to the door, and walked into the lab.
Long time ago I had to upgrade my whole bloody alarm system of my old house because I wanted to insure a watch.
If we don't know they exist... do they really exist?
Don't you think this would cost you future customers?
I mean, this is probably a subset of "I don't have anything to hide, so why do I care about privacy?" But I just went to California on vacation, and, sure, I'll tell the CIA all about it if they want to know.
And I'm one of the people who understands why privacy is important. (Or maybe, based on my previous paragraph, you'll conclude that I'm not, I just think I am.)
I don't know. It just... doesn't feel that intrusive, for some reason. Maybe because for international travel, I already have to use my passport, so they already know. (Yes, maybe it's a different "they"...) Maybe because there's already a "do not fly" list, so somebody's hitting that database every time I try to book a flight, and it wouldn't be that hard for them to log the queries against it. I don't know. But as I said, at least to me, this one doesn't feel that intrusive... and I can't really rationally explain why.
Maybe it's arrogance to assume that most people are no more paranoid than I am. But I think that means that most people probably aren't going to avoid booking.com because of this.
I agree most people aren't going to avoid booking.com, but that doesn't justify leaving your system vulnerable to advanced hackers
As for losing the customer base of drug kingpins and wanted terrorists, they're probably OK with losing them
Or more realistically, would you be happy for such state actors to identify PEPs (politically exposed person) who are potentially cheating on their partners and use this as leverage to drive through certain political decisions?
There is no such thing as a vulnerability that can only be abused by the good "guys"
But that's not this.
Booking.com is a Dutch company. The spy was American. And not even authorized by the US nor the Netherlands either.
This is just the "nothing to hide" argument in reverse.
Better legislation to restrain their abusive tendencies, and an endless global push for human rights, liberty, and human well-being is a solid long view, I think.
Here's a link: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle...
Note that it uncritically accepts report from 2009 which according to company was meant to be risk modeling exercise. Authors outright dismiss everything either KPL or CapGemini has to say themselves and does not even try presenting mitigations that presumably have been put in place, changes in infrastructure since 2009 and other more contemporary reports.
The problem is muuuuch larger.
I think we in western europe are kind of embarrased by US surveillance and the fact that we cannot do anything about it.
That is why we try to ignore it and not talk about it.
If not, wouldn't that show deference to US Gov's interests (even indirectly)?
If you're responsible for their cyber security, I guess you have a stake in projecting the idea that everything is fine.
Either way you can't prove anything with a one line comment like this. The only winning move is not to play...
(Or ask for sources. Of course the assertion by smooc is equally devoid of proof; I'm commenting because this chain amuses me)
You mention sources, but if you discredit the first-party source out of the gate, what sources are even left?
Documents from the bank created by the people you discredit?
(I take no position either way, I'm just commenting because your comment amuses me.)
Its kind of like how Japan stayed on flip phones for forever and even bolted on smartphone features to their flip phones.
Companies routinely wipe hacks and data leaks under the carpet in the hope that nobody will notice, with the GDPR active they really should stop doing this but it still happens with great regularity.
Another side of the coin, I always felt shy to ask for access to tools in big corporations that I worked at, unless I am offered access directly by a manager or co-worker directly.
This can backfire, if you act too strictly around tools, some employees will never even try to get a hold of the tool you potentially pay 100K$+ a year.
That's why the DPO is mandatory to have and is personally responsible. From my experience ( MSP/MHP/consultancy with lots of clients), post-GDPR data leaks are taken much more seriously.
This is sheer speculation, but I do think the hotel business is really convenient to get into if you have a questionable side-business and need to launder money. Who is to say if a room was occupied or not that night, if that foreigner who paid in cash really existed. Can pretty much just trickle money into the books. I imagine you could also run contraband out of them fairly easily. Lots of people coming and going with all sorts of luggage. Who is to say if they are as full when they leave as they were when they arrived? Great for prostitution too, trafficking. The girls can tidy up the rooms during the day.
When I joined the first meeting my first day had people talking about how they got up at 2am and then 4am to make sure internal processes were still working. They had people who were barred from the office and were massive screaming matches if they came in which was mostly management yelling at people for talking to them.
On the money laundering aspect, I doubt this since most gangsters are busy with other businesses such as running taxis and bus services that are mainly cash businesses while hotels are mainly internet and card payments and largerly coming from business accounts unless it's a tourist spot.
When you check-in to a hotel you aren't "handing over a cheque", you are checking-in with the reception. Ie., you are speaking to reception and checking your reservation/room.
To "check in with someone" is to have a chat or talk to a person to "check" how they are.
Unless you're talking total dumps, which relies on cash business only (and does'nt have a turnover to make money laundering worthwhile) I think you're flat out wrong.
My guess is that reputable hotels take in very little cash (it's actually frowned upon and they will ask for a security deposit). The lion share will be credit card transactions and the rest will be invoices for corporate customers and large travel agents.
Not much scope for money laundering here.
Any business where people in charge have no affinity with the end product automatically becomes shady. The only source of pride for these people is to rake in more money, so it's even difficult to blame them.
That's why in some countries ID is required when checking-in. Makes it a bit harder to use for money laundering.
Hiring a real cleaning lady seems like a good price for not ending up with filthy rooms.
Here in th EU, they usually have a look at your passport. I think it's enforced by law in some places. Government overreach
This since a few years, 2013 I believe, until then you had to send (via snail mail) the "records" or bring them daily to the nearest Police (or Carabinieri) station.
The provision is since 1978, it was a Law approved in a short time due to the "emergency of fighting terrorism".
My thoughts, exactly.
I started off in the 1980s, just as tech was starting to become mainstream.
In the early days, we were not the most "socially well-adjusted" crew, but were fairly enthusiastic about the tech, with most of us working for the love of the craft.
Then, the money started to pour in. It was inevitable.
That brought the sharks and the rapacious bastards.
They became heroes and role models.
And here we are...
Once you get past the scam/hype bullshit anyway.
But psychics didn't burn anywhere near as much coal and cause as much cancer and lung disease as crypto does.
>Once you get past the scam/hype bullshit anyway.
"Well, aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?"
Otherwise dunk away lol
They're desperate to hire lots of willing Perl programmers, so they have to set the bar low.
And inexperienced programmers cause lots of security problems.
Edit: My point is about the moral flexibility of BooKing.com, which is well established and widely known, not good Perl programmers, who are rare, hard to hire, and extremely expensive (especially by Netherlands programmer salary rates).
And to jacquesm's point about plants: All any intelligence service has to do to place a plant at BooKing.com is fake them up a good looking resume full of Perl experience, and Bob's your U.N.C.L.E.!
Edit2: yes xxs, downvoting's probably from royalists offended at the thought of one of the Netherland's biggest tech companies has been mocking their King. Good Perl programmers can take a joke. ;)
And the moral flexibility of that company (not the programmers) also expresses itself through those "dark UX patterns" that BooKing.com is so famous for.
(Although they should probably talk to somebody about their domain name: I always assumed BooKing.com was an anti-royalist web site. ;) )
I don't know about booking.com's hiring platform, but in my subjective experience, Perl people tend to be more professional and more careful than JS folks.
(And I also bet BooKing.com isn't upgrading from Perl 5 to Raku any time soon.)
PS: BooKing.com could easily be confused with the evil "King Boo", Luigi's antagonistic arch-nemesis, and scheming ally of Bowser! Why doesn't Nintendo send them a cease and desist for acting so villainous, and seise their rightful domain in the name of King Boo? ;)
>King Boo is the leader of the Boos and ghosts, ruler of the Paranormal Dimension, the main antagonist of the Luigi's Mansion series, and the arch-nemesis of Luigi. He is also an ally of Bowser, who has aided him in his various schemes. He is more than capable of devising and enacting villainous plans by himself, including his capture and imprisonment of Mario. Although not the biggest Boo, King Boo has abilities that far surpass that of the average ghost; he wields a number of impressive magical abilities, including the ability to materialize objects. King Boo's magical power is directly proportional to the number of Boos in his vicinity.
Most popular technologies:
Perl: 3.1% for all devs, 3.3% with pro devs: Third from last place, only a wee bit more popular than Haskel and Julia!
And you can take a guess at how many jobs for Haskel and Julia programmers there are.
And it's not like good Perl 5 programmers are dropping dead, or being hit by busses: They're simply moving on to better, more popular, well supported, widely taught, more modern, higher paying, more pleasurable languages!
Any programmer who permanently sticks to only one language and has "no interest in learning yet another programming language" simply isn't a good programmer, no matter what their only language is.
Any decent professional programmer (ESPECIALLY web developers) should have no trouble picking up and applying new languages, and regularly using multiple languages together at the same time every day. The world is not partitions into mono-linguistic silos, and no one language is good for everything.
If those monolinguistic Perl 5 developers b20000 speaks of who refuse to use any other languages are the only ones left for BooKing.com to hire, then it's no wonder they have enormous security holes and terrible buggy hard-to-maintain code.
While generally speaking, most remaining Perl 5 programmers are old, remote, self taught, highly experienced, very busy, hard to find, and extremely expensive.
finally, it is perfectly valid to choose to become BETTER in a tool set instead of learning a new one every year. i’m pretty sure there are many developers out there who have no interest in learning other languages and are content in spending their valuable time learning other skills that are more valuable.
You can get better in one language by learning and using several other different languages (the more languages and the more different, the better), which expands the scope of what you know how to do in ANY language.
And if you refuse to learn more than one language, that limits yourself to tasks that don't involve multiple languages, which is a large proportion of the typical tasks a professional programmer encounters. Many common tasks are impossible to do in only one language, since all libraries and apps aren't written in the same language.
Again, my point that you haven't countered is:
Have you ever actually met any of those hypothetical monolinguistic Perl 5 developers in person who you're "pretty sure" exist, and actually discussed with them why they refuse to learn or use any other language, and asked them who they work for, and what they work on, and how they enjoy it?
Or will you actually admit to being a monolinguistic Perl 5 programmer yourself, and answer those questions about yourself, please? Or are the people you speak of entirely theoretical and unknown to you?
If you are saying that Perl 5 makes people give up learning other languages, that sounds like a horrible thing about Perl 5, because it's so discouraging, but unfortunately it's probably partly correct for some people.
But not all programming languages are as hard to learn, and program in, and read, and debug, and maintain, and find good jobs for, and hire good programmers for, as Perl 5!
Please don't give up just because you picked the wrong first language to learn.
You have not given any reasonable proof for this. If this were true, just to give you one example, linux kernel programmers would be bad programmers.
I used to use Perl for web development, but quit web development years ago. I use primarily one or two programming languages and have zero interest in learning other languages. And that's OK. I've brought multiple succesful products to market. I have chosen what I want to do and have no time or energy to follow fads.
My comments have nothing to do with anti-intellectualism.
So name some linux kernel programmers you actually know for a fact that they only know and program in one programming language?
I bet I can name a lot more Linux kernel programmers who know and use multiple programming languages.
Have you considered the possibility that most Linux kernel programmers might have also worked on other programs than the Linux kernel (and didn't just jump into the deep end of Linux kernel hacking as their first job) and actually know and use some other languages other than C? Like maybe Bash, or Assembly, or Python, or Lua, or TCL, or Lisp, or C++, or FORTH, or Pascal, or Fortran, or Java, or C#, or Lord forbid even Perl?
Because Linux kernel hackers tend to be experienced, professional programmers, who know and use multiple languages, not monolinguistic amateurs who gave up learning new languages after only learning C, then started hacking the Linux kernel as their first and only project.
i know perfectly well what point i am making and you do not have to spin this differently and try to make me look like a fool. you stated that anyone who is not interested in learning a new language is a bad programmer, and you are wrong. people make choices for different reasons.
Well Booking.com pays about double of that.
A list of a 200 hotels of $50-100 is simply not enough information when searching in an unknown city. I need to narrow down that list, for example with features like a kitchenette (60 hotels left), but also a location near the city center, and not 20-30 minutes away in some suburb (20 hotels left). With booking.com I can now see on a map 20 pins of hotels with their pricing.
Ok, some hotels are hostels with a Shared-6 room, which is one filter you cannot actually apply unfortunately (hey booking.com, if you are reading this, this is a hint!).
..then I know the hotel names, and search on the hotel's own site or other travel sites if there are any deals (genius dicounts sometimes help). Sometimes, Booking.com is cheapest, sometimes it is not.
I'm not completely sure how biased they are in their ranking. But I've been using this site for the last few years and never had any problems. I recommended this site to a few of my friends who shared my positive experience.
Trivago does the same and maybe others, too.
I have seen their presentation on a ML-related conference and what goes into which pictures they show for you for a given room is quite advanced. E.g. whether you will prefer a photo of a pool vs a nice room, etc.
Imagine Facebook if the like counts and comments were all false, and there were things flying across your screen saying "20 people are reading this comment, you should also do it". Then you got Booking.com.
Bad UX: How Booking.com deceives clients
How Booking.com manipulates users (ro-che.info)
[dupe] Dark Patterns (darkpatterns.org)
Successful machine learning models: lessons learned at Booking.com
Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites (2019)
Generally I think you're right, but I guess it depends.
A "traditional" hotel will (should) have a proper "bookings/reservation" procedure a "modern" one may well rely entirely on booking.com or similar.
Moreover it depends on the "incentives" (or lack thereof) of the actual people at the reception, in large hotels (or chains of hotels) why employee/clerk - say - #215 (possibly a low paid intern) would want to actually work to make your reservation (as you can do it yourself online, less work and responsibilities for him/her).
If you think a bit about it, when you book on one of these sites, you take all responsibilities about dates (arrival departure) people (number of people in each room) types of rooms (like two/three bed, queen size or king size bed, etc.) type of accomodation (with/without breakfast).
It is not entirely uncommon that people arrives on the "wrong" date or has miscalculated the days of stay (rare but happens from time to time), or - this happens quite often - having booked a single use room for two people or similar, simply because of a slip on the finger or not having read the whole page of info on the accomodation.
If you write or (when possible better) talk with the reception, usually they can verify your request and offer you more options (like - say - a "family room" for 4 people instead of two doubles, or a room with a large balcony if you are traveling with a pet).
In this case, you can contact the hotel and ask for a better offer. Works sometimes.
Them being nice for a while, it just a coincidence of aligned interests.
Court mandated fines are taken into the account - if profit increase is higher than the fine, what's stopping them from going forward with such idea?
the current system that makes is the most rational action to take?
Not disagreeing with you, but why is it a surprise to anyone? Any company that seems to be “nice” is only doing that as a good PR increases their profits, which depending on domain may be very important.
There are real firms in highly competitive markets that have been doing well for decades or even more than a hundred years without putting the profit motive above everything else, but have favored long term stability, cooperation, servicing customers, respecting workers and so on.
"X spy hacked Y, company stayed silent"
where X is any (quasi)state actor that feels agrieved or entitled, and Y is any giant data collector
The net as it has come to be used is a fractal of bad design in practically all conceivable ways: economic, social, geo(political)
This is a great factoid. Eighteen different IC agencies and countless contractors.
Our unsupervised services might have suspected that it would all go to shit, but they expected that to take several months rather than several days. It's stupid to argue about, however, because the war should have ended after a month, when ObL left Afghanistan!
I think that we need to create a hashtag to associate with all these cases of "obviously not true".
You don't mess with the US, even when you're the victim.
It is also hard to take moral guidance from the guy who oversaw Japanese internment camps in the US and decided to change the city we dropped the atomic bomb on because the original target was where he went on his honeymoon.
All 5 potential targets were shortlisted because they were civilian centers and not targets of military value. At that point in the war everything of military value had already been heavily bombed, so they were left with non-strategic targets to show the maximum "before and after" contrast for the test.
If anything, Kyoto was the more militarized option. It was a major rail hub between Osaka and Tokyo, as well as hosting the second largest engine factory in Japan.
As far as being "one of the most important moments in war diplomacy," it is hard to grant such a title to what amounted to an arbitrary decision to kill the entire population of San Francisco instead of Seattle or Houston. Had we not been the victors, it surely would be called a genocide.
Anyone can point me the tech info?
Booking.com is required to follow Dutch law and originates from the Netherlands, which at that time required informing customers if the hack could have negative consequences for them. They ignored it and did nothing.
"The management claims it was not legally required to do so at the time, based on advice it received from the law firm Hogan Lovells."
Although a company the size of booking.com should have its own qualified legal department, so that may not shield them from being liable...
How does retaining outside counsel as opposed to employing internal counsel have any bearing on liability?
Asking genuinely. I'm not an attorney.
"But your honor, Joe McLawyer told me it's perfectly legal for me to shoot my neighbor. I can't be held responsible!"
> A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person
Pure ignorance of the law doesn't provide you such a belief (IIRC), but seeking legal advice may do so. I'm can't think of any other examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist (for example, if your conduct must be reasonable, following legal advice may lend weight to the argument that it was).
It would also be relevant to explaining the conduct, even if it does not provide a legal defence.
Depending on how much of a grey area you’re operating in the law firm may or may not issue an opinion letter. So if you’re really pushing the boundary of what is reasonable to the point outside counsel won’t put it in writing you know you’re taking a pretty aggressive legal position. Some of the big law firms/practice groups have a reputation for being willing to be more aggressive in their written opinions than others. Large multinational companies often have several big law firms on retainer and their in house legal team will know who to go to for more conservative legal advice and who to go to for cover on a risky legal position. So I’ve heard, at least, I definitely would never participate in such ethically dubious behavior.
The same goes for using consultants. It's not just about deferring blame for a backlash but lending an air of objectivity and professionalism to the decision(s) made by management.
As the article noted the company operates on a “if we don’t see it and it doesn’t hurt us we don’t care” principle. Even with the GDPR, the company can still chose to not give a fuck. It just becomes a more risky gamble assuming anyone ever finds out.
I hope Booking pays a fine.
IIRC, the intelligence utility of hotel booking data is for counterintelligence, so it's more like "use against other spies." They're looking for situations where spies/sources are traveling to the same place to meet.
If the motto of a country was "we'll keep you safe inside but we'll be treating everyone outside terribly", then you'd definitely rather live inside that country, but it doesn't mean they're less of a risk to the world.
alt: Would you rather be mistreated by a relative or a stranger?
As an American I'd rather my gov be held accountable for it's unethical IC behavior - especially by it's allies.
The reason is that other nations are proving grounds; the methods developed there will eventually be leveraged by US government(s) against US citizens.
I would much rather not live in China, for the same reason I'd much rather not live in Montana, i.e. the living standards are a LOT lower in China than where I am, and it will be a lot harder to meet someone on places like Tinder I can feel attracted to.
Before any Dutch members get worked up, I'm Dutch.
I certainly couldn't have named them all, so I dug up a list:
• Air Force Intelligence
• Army Intelligence
• Central Intelligence Agency
• Coast Guard Intelligence
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• Department of Energy
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of State
• Department of the Treasury
• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Marine Corps Intelligence
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
• National Reconnaissance Office
• National Security Agency
• Navy Intelligence
• Space Force Intelligence
(Sorry for the Twitter-grade comment - but I do sometimes wonder what these people really spend their time doing, that they couldn't catch that one.)
I think what I am saying is that it was allowed to happen, for one reason or another.
Edit: The only other logical conclusion I can draw is that it was identified, passed up the chain, and then either covered up by someone (in the realm of politics) who did have that intention, or else bumbled (e.g. left on someone's desk and they were simply overloaded / missed it, a bit like the advance warnings relating to 9/11).
In that connexion it's interesting to read about the research done into pilot error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error), and how surprisingly common it is for human beings to simply miss alerts like that. Multiply that by the probable number of people in the chain, and it's not wildly unlikely.
If more malicious interpretation is followed, your guess is as good mine. I am willing to accept a proposition that political considerations took over at some point.
We might find out come 2024 elections. Who knows given the odd times we live in.
My guess is that, like with most of these complex human system failures, it was a combination of inattention and mildly-ideologically-motivated disinterest (e.g. someone didn't really think white nationalists were as great a threat as Islamic terrorists &c, and so it didn't make its way from their desk to their superior's desk).
Also I agree: we'll probably find out eventually, long after it's ceased to be of any interest. Like with MKULTRA, Tuskegee, the weirdness around the fact that UFOs were/are actually taken semi-seriously at least by parts of the govt, etc.
 Always worth emphasising that 'UFOs' != 'aliens', to be fair.
If it's foreigners hammer down. Mostly white Americans on American soil? So called "patriots"?
Well now let's slow down. Don't want to violate any rights.
I mean even think about it for second, the Jan 6 conspirators have it in their mind they're doing what it takes for their country, formalities be damned.
Sound like any other organizations you know?
Poverty precipitates violent crime across skin colors:
The FBI definitely knew these were people liable to make good on their threats lol.
What your disturbingly often quoted factoid is mostly reflecting is that white people have a higher median income than blacks, which is no surprise in the country that destroyed black neighborhoods for basic infrastructure, denied them access to the economy during the greatest periods of growth it ever saw, denied them loans until that was made illegal... well in the 70s.
The FBI knows better than that.
It has a good overview on a few different failures, including multiple ones by the US, not least because of the huge number of different agencies, each wanting to protect its territory and reputation more than to actually do their job. The incompetence is frankly pretty staggering. And those are the people who can just drone strike, extradite or kidnap you and torture you, anywhere in the world. Fun !
Found it - its those 17 and the ODNI ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intellige...
>I certainly couldn't have named all of the secret United States Intelligence Agencies, so I dug up a list:
>But that list is not complete. So here is a complete alphabetized list of all the secret United States Intelligence Agencies known to OpenAI:
Then it regurgitated your exact same list, plus one more: "OpenAI Intelligence"! So your list must be complete, except for the super-secret "OpenAI Intelligence" that OpenAI just told me about! ;)
But then it denied knowing anything, introspected, claimed to think and have a sense of humor, then admitted it was only pretending (which was at least honest on its part):
>I don't even know what the OpenAI Intelligence is. I just think it's funny to imagine that there is a secret intelligence agency known as OpenAI Intelligence. But I suppose it's real, so I guess I have to pretend it's real.
>And that's the complete list of all the secret United States Intelligence Agencies known to OpenAI.
Yeah, "That's my story, and I'm sticking with it!" Its gaslighting is such uncannily human behavior that it makes me wonder if the OpenAI Intelligence Agency doesn't just have a plant who sits there monitoring all the requests in real time, appending sneaky disclaimers at the end, and walking back accidentally revealed secrets. ;)
But that's not all! I kept pressing the Generate button, and it went on:
>The Non-Secret Intelligence Agencies
>Though it is a shock to learn of all the secret intelligence agencies, it's not a shock to learn of the non-secret United States Intelligence Agencies. This is a list of all the non-secret United States Intelligence Agencies known to OpenAI:
>[The exact same list as last time, including "OpenAI Intelligence".]
>And that's the complete list of all the non-secret United States Intelligence Agencies known to OpenAI.
But I was wrong to say those agencies were secret in the prompt. So I turned up the “heat” (literally: there's a "Temperature" slider!) and rephrased the prompt:
>I certainly couldn't have named all of the non-secret United States Intelligence Agencies, so I dug up a list:
>But that list is not a complete list of United States Intelligence Agencies, because there are many others that are secret. So here is a complete alphabetized list of all of the secret United States Intelligence Agencies known to OpenAI:
And it earnestly replied (with one on each line, edited for formatting):
>Alien Swirling Saucers. Bureau for Paranormal Research and Development. Cooper Industries. Department of Energy HUMINT. Federal Bureau of Investigation Force. Nintendo. Nostradamus. People's Republic of China Intel. The Patriots. The Phonecian Empire. United States Army HUMINT. United States Army Raw Signals Intelligence. United States Department of Defense (NRO, DIA and NSA). US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). Folding@Home AI Lab. Monster Dog Intelligence Agency. Ultranationalist Russia Unwitting Agents. Olive Garden Restaurant. Secret Service Intelligence. Breast Expansion Library. W Secret Office of Men in Black. FBI Avian Menace. FCIC Mavolio. ASEAN. Department of Peacebuilding. PlayStation. Morphometric Analysis Laboratory. Department of Luck. Department of Freedom. Stock Photo Library. Back Door Artists. Bloomberg Gold. Mamutoi Clan.
I'm pretty sure "Department of Luck" is legit.
So who wants to start a Pen Testing company called "Back Door Artists"?