Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists 183
HughPickens.com writes The Intercept reports that contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA surveillance that examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups has found no correlation in either measure to Snowden's leaks about the NSA's surveillance techniques. According to the report "well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them (PDF)." In fact, concerns about terrorists' use of sophisticated encryption technology predates even 9/11.
Earlier this month former NSA head Michael Hayden stated, "The changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups following the Snowden revelations have impacted our ability to track and monitor these groups", while Matthew Olsen of the National Counterterrorism Center would add "Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance." Snowden's critics have previously accused his actions of contributing from everything from the rise of ISIS to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. "This most recent study is the most comprehensive repudiation of these charges to date," says Murtaza Hussain. "Contrary to lurid claims to the contrary, the facts demonstrate that terrorist organizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."
Earlier this month former NSA head Michael Hayden stated, "The changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups following the Snowden revelations have impacted our ability to track and monitor these groups", while Matthew Olsen of the National Counterterrorism Center would add "Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance." Snowden's critics have previously accused his actions of contributing from everything from the rise of ISIS to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. "This most recent study is the most comprehensive repudiation of these charges to date," says Murtaza Hussain. "Contrary to lurid claims to the contrary, the facts demonstrate that terrorist organizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."
Biggest joke a hundred years later (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone risked everything to reveal to the public what an asshole your government is, yet you wouldn't believe him and you call him traitor, and you make up thousands of reason explaining why your government has to be an asshole, despite that you really don't really believe it is.
American people are insane. Perhaps they deserve it.
Re:Biggest joke a hundred years later (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of what else you think he is, he is clearly also a Patriot.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that is some sort of meme, but misunderstanding isn't "fixing," and neither is offering a different view.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ok, he is a Traitor capital T because he does not stay. Now let us talk about the ones whom were exposed by him. How do you call them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if necessary. However, the correct branches of Government still hold their respective powers, and elections continue to be free and fair. We have the system chose, the secret rules we continue to choose. It is election season, look around. Most voters are OK with it.
Re: (Score:2)
http://cryptome.org/2013-info/... [cryptome.org] Lots of people tried to stay in the US court system with lawyers and still got no traction with the US press.
Re: (Score:2)
If he had stayed in the US he would have been locked away and never seen again. The trial would have been in secret because the information was secret, and he wouldn't have been allowed to communicate.
The justice system is broken and trying to fix it from the outside is a legitimate course of action.
It it never had much effect on terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow what a surprise, who would have thought that terrorists where carefull with their communications?
So its clear then that the NSA was doing this for economical reasons, getting better trade agreements, giving US companies a competitive advantage and such.
Countries should investigate their trade agreements and find how much they lost due to NSA spying and demand trade agreements where the difference is calculated in favor of those other countries. So yes then Snowden did harm US interest, but unless you thing the US are gods and everyone else puny slaves, that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I actually really like the quote, "well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them."
Really? Terrorists were aware that law enforcement were attempting to track and monitor them? Next thing you know, we'll find out that the mob is aware of law enforcement attempting to locate evidence and identify potential witnesses. What a shocker.
At some point us intelligence changed (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.
That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.
Re:At some point us intelligence changed (Score:5, Interesting)
If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.
That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.
The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century [harvard.edu] in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.
The Soviet Story - trailer [youtube.com]
Well, you will notice I said they did things other than protect American business interests. That is not their only function, of course. They have a broad range of activities, I'm sure. I am aware of the Cold War, as well.
However, it is not in any way silly to suggest that the CIA does in fact try to make the world safe for American industry. If that were not the case, why did they assist a coup in Iran after President Mosaddegh moved to nationalize the oil industry, taking business away from Western oi
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, but the whole, "Snowden, Snowden, Snowden," crap is a distraction.
The United States government is guilty of negligence in allowing the likes of Snowden to gain access to Super Secret Guy Stuff (SSGS).
They didn't learn much at all from the previous SSGS breach by Manning.
The best way for the government to avoid the real issue -- incompetence on their part -- is to repeat, "Snowden, Snowden, Snowden,"
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.
The problem is you believing that. The driving factor is money. The information is important to the ruling corporations to keep their profits up. Also, organizations need to find excuses to increase their budgets to hire more cronies onto the payroll, not to mention massively overpriced contractors. The opposite of an organization growing is shrinking, and those that are losing money, NSF, NASA, haven't found a way (or have too much integrity to go this route) to utilize fear and hatred. This has absol
Bin Laden Playbook (Score:2)
Mission Accomplished
Re: (Score:2)
Liars are liars. (Score:3, Insightful)
Based on past behaviour, I won't believe anything NSA and their buddies say. Anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on past behaviour, I won't believe anything NSA and their buddies say. Anything.
Yeah, pretty much. They have shown themselves to be inveterate bullshitters.
The sad part is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but maybe it doesn't help that half of the people defending Snowden are also arguing that Pfc. Manning is just as defensible.
It might go a long way towards defending Snowden if his defenders would demonize Manning a bit more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should we do that?
The video(s) and cables that were leaked contained information that should have been public knowledge.
The video of the US military accidentally killing a reporter, after it denied the event to the news agency that the reporter worked for.
The war logs with exact real numbers of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who we are holding in GITMO, and why they were detained illegally.
Selected State Department cables -- which played a role in bringing about the arab spring... To bad n
Re: (Score:2)
"... right to know?"
You made that right up. There is no such thing as a right to know.
There is such a thing though, as the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. That's difference between Snowden and Manning. A big one.
Re:The sad part is... (Score:4, Insightful)
"... right to know?"
You made that right up. There is no such thing as a right to know.
There is such a thing though, as the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. That's difference between Snowden and Manning. A big one.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the arguments against implementing the "Bill of Rights" at the dawn of our Republic. Many were concerned that if we enumerated specific rights, it would be assumed that those were all there were.
That is not the case. The US constitution limits the power of the Federal government. It does *not* restrict the rights of the citizens. In fact, the Ninth Amendment [wikipedia.org] clearly spells that out:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negot
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.
And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.
Point taken. However, as Americans, we do have a right to audit our government and the actions of its officials. Too much of what is being done in our names (and everything the US Government does is done in the name of US citizens) is hidden from us. Especially the power grabs by the government (including warrantless surveillance, secret courts and widespread curtailment of individual liberties), the gross incompetence of various public servants, and the lies and obfuscation used to cover them up.
As you
Re: (Score:3)
A Snowden demonizer recently said on these boards, that the act of leaking secrets like these two did, is the ultimate act of arrogance. I do agree with that statement.
In Snowden's case, each and every secret he leaked (with one possible exception that may have been better kept secret) is an obvious violation of the Constitution. So while his initial act could be called arrogant, in the end; he's right, and the entire US government is actually in the wrong. That makes the arrogant label less accurate than t
Re: (Score:2)
A war crime happened.
There is a right for someone to know about it - preferably someone with the willingness to act.
Re:The sad part is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The report is a lie.
Terrorist groups have absolutely changed their behaviors and communications patterns to increase obfuscation and move attention away from their important operations. The United States National Security Agency, the US Military, and other terrorist operations have added increased layers of misdirection to better cover and draw attention away from their most critical activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. (Score:2)
They tried to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing [wikipedia.org]
Snowden released the files he had in 2013.
That's TWENTY YEARS where they would be using their old communication methods while we were hunting them. There should not be a terrorist left alive.
The PROBLEM is that we collect too much data. It is impossible to process into useful information. It is a mass of "dots" for 300,000,000 people that increases every single day.
And terrorists are so rare that
Re: (Score:3)
You don't acknowledge damage when you're in a state of combat. That's just giving away intelligence to the enemy for free. It's like when CBS reported the exact location of Iraq's first scud missile strike against Israel. Why would you freely give the enemy information verifying their attack worked and thus help them improve future attacks? That's just stupid.
The people claiming Snowden's disclosures have compromised intelligence gathering methods are either committing
Re: (Score:3)
That's stupid.
If the terrorists changed their tactics, and you state that they've changed their tactics, you're revealing that the terrorists took action in response to finding out you've been monitoring them. If their new tactics made them vanish, made them hard to read (encryption), or did nothing, you would still notice: you'd notice them disappear if they completely beat you, or you'd notice their tactics change if their new tactics were just as ineffective as the old ones. As you say, giving terr
Re: (Score:3)
The report just says they didn't release or adopt any new encryption tools in a short timeframe associated with the leaks.
To meet the standard in the report, they would have had to have had more secure communication tools at the ready, but not deployed. They would have had to have known their security sucked, but have been communicating that way anyways, waiting for somebody to tell them that the NSA was listening so they would know to push the "super secret" button before talking, or something.
The report i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... This report is not intended to answer the larger question of whether terrorist organizations have truly adapted their behavior in the wake of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks. ... It should also be noted that more jihadi social networking forums were online in February 2013 than August 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
The changes they made were in response to the Bin Laden assassination and the failure of their cell based organisation to make headway.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
3. [Whoosh]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that nobody from the US National Security Agency is going to come and detonate a suicide vest while you are in a shopping mall or buying groceries whereas Isis will do that if they can.
No of course not. They'll just send a cruise missile into a populated coffee shop.
Two groups saying two different things ... (Score:3)
No matter how conclusively this is proven, these idiot officials will continue to use Snowden as their scapegoat.
Is there a conclusion? The two groups seem to be saying two very different things.
..."
..."
".. a new independent analysis of Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA surveillance that examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups has found no correlation in either measure to Snowden's leaks about the NSA's surveillance techniques
"... changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups
Communications practices and patterns seems much broader than enc
Re:The sad part is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they're idiots. I think that they think we are idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They know for a fact most of "us" are complete idiots and/or too busy to give a shit about reality. Both are accurate. Go just try and talk to people about the corrupt government, the banks, crops, terrorism, the war on drugs, Afghanistan, or literally any single thing about which there are hundreds of books, articles, websites, reports, documentaries, and investigations these days. Most of them are completely ignorant or even if they actually did research, don't know shit, and vehemently defend their stupi
Re: (Score:3)
Then please stop snooping on us (Score:5, Interesting)
"Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance."
Then please stop the surveillance. It doesn't work with the terrorists since they have changed how they communicate and you only get communications from innocent citizens.
Re:Then please stop snooping on us (Score:5, Insightful)
"Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance."
Then please stop the surveillance. It doesn't work with the terrorists since they have changed how they communicate and you only get communications from innocent citizens.
You still don't get it. The terrorists who are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance are us. There is no such thing as "innocent citizens".
Re: (Score:2)
You still didn't get it, there is a bunch of derp on your chin. Try wiping in bigger motions.
Re: (Score:2)
When they change communication methods is exactly when we discover new people to track. That works out even if we're slow to track their new methods, because we at least are tracking a small percent of the new method.
Mostly though this isn't used for "terrorism" or international law enforcement. It is used against governments where we're involved in military conflict, or might be. That is the main use case, hostile governments.
You can reasonably infer all of this by closely watching the military leaks durin
The real study (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially their methodology was to look at two open source encryption tools (pics in the study). Releases of the encryption tools didn't become more frequent after the Snowden document release.
This is obviously a narrow view, it doesn't mean Snowden had little effect, just that in one small area, Snowden had little effect. Terrorists could have stopped using Skype after the document release, and this study wouldn't have detected it. Furthermore, if Snowden did cause Russia to invade Ukraine, then this study wouldn't have detected it: it's not related to, and doesn't even pretend to look at Russia. That's where the poor summary comes in.
Now, I don't think Snowden had anything to do with Ukraine, but let's at least keep our minds straight.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first impression, as well.
So there wasn't an extra release... so what? There's no examination of the regularly-scheduled releases to see if the content has changed.
Download and usage, not release schedule ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I appreciate your summary, as it accurately summarizes my impression of the material as well. I want to piggyback off your conclusion to make a small point.
Now, I don't think Snowden had anything to do with Ukraine, but let's at least keep our minds straight.
As the Snowden leaks named several US technologies, techniques, and even specific targets, it seems highly likely that Russia (and other nations) found actionable information in those leaks which, when acted upon, degraded the US's ability to extract information and bolstered their security posture. Awareness of what an opponent knows about you and can d
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point, but I disagree in part because Russia (and other governments) surely already knew all that stuff.
There is certainly a golden opportunity to leverage the publicity, and, indeed, even allies of the US have bitched and complained about snooping methods as applied to them.
The Snowden documents, like the Manning documents, are no surprise to anyone but the general population.
As for correlating Snowden's revelations and terrorist activities, good luck with that.
How in Sam Hill can anyone apply s
Re: (Score:2)
Only the people that /.'ers don't seem to trust anymore would be able to even get close to accurately measuring such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Snowden's information release impacted far more than the use of a few specific cryptography tools. It pointed out a vast information gathering system that people can now take pains to avoid. I sincerely doubt we can measure that avoidance, but even this attempt is a ridiculously small proxy to the overall question of whether the leak "helped" terrorists.
Complete mischaracterizaion of original report (Score:4, Informative)
Actual report [fpjintel.com].
Key Findings
While we note several caveats to our results in the conclusion section of this report, our primary findings are as follows:
The underlying public encryption methods employed by online jihadists do not appear to have significantly changed since the emergence of Edward Snowden. Major recent technological advancements have focused primarily on expanding the use of encryption to instant messenger and mobile communications mediums.
Aside from warning of tampered copies of “Asrar al-Mujahideen” that were deliberately infected with spyware, none of the prominent jihadi logistical units have expressed any public doubt as to the continued effectiveness of encryption methods employed in their software packages that were released prior to the Snowden leaks.
The actual release of new jihadi-themed encryption software packages, like “Asrar al-Dardashah,” seems to have had a far more noticeable impact in terms of driving waves of interest in the subject of encryption among users of jihadi web forums than the publication of the Snowden NSA revelations in June 2013.
Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them. As a result, the Snowden revelations likely merely confirmed the suspicions of many of these actors, the more advanced of which were already making use of – and developing –secure communications software.
That's a far cry from saying "Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists".
Note that I'm not saying "Snowden's leaks DID help terrorists" - I'm specifically saying the report does NOT support the over-the-top headline on the article and on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well as I understood it, the argument that Snowden's leaks had helped terrorists centered around the idea that, prior to the leaks, terrorists wouldn't have known that they were being monitored, or at least wouldn't have known the manner in which they were being monitored. Now that they knew that they were being monitored, and they had additional information about how they were being monitored, they would be able to change their behavior to avoid detection.
So if we can say that these terrorist organizatio
Scapegoat much? (Score:5, Funny)
Snowden's critics have previously accused his actions of contributing from everything from the rise of ISIS to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine.
While we're at it, let's blame him for Mondays, New Coke and the Star Wars prequels and call it a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Mondays and New Coke predate Snowden.
On the Star Wars Prequels... Hmm... I think your theory merits further investigation.
My fellow Americans (Score:5, Funny)
I write to you today to appeal to your sense of reason.
Our country is under attack from all fronts. Russia wants to disrupt our authority, fanatical terror groups want to blow up our buildings, atheists want to corrupt our souls.
Make no mistake, we are at war. Having no other alternative to protect our great nation we have taken to attacking the enemy in preventative measures. We have struck at their core; their finances and funding, their territories, their freedoms, their countries, their friends, their families and their family's families.
You may look at Edward Snowden and consider him to be a harmless; sexually confused transgendered computer professional. This of course would be what Snowden would like you to see.
In truth he is a vicious, calculating pathological liar that will stop at nothing to destroy America (USA) as we know it.
Not only did he endanger good men in the field he endangered law-abiding US citizens everywhere.
To say that Edward Snowden does not have Weapons of Mass Destruction is to entertain a cataclysm that may indeed claim your lives and your children's chastity.
Now, let's forget about this person and his fake and silly documents. We want to get back into the real business at hand, protecting the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave (although we have the braves on reservation now).
Thank you and god bless.
Re: (Score:2)
This "transgender," thing is confusing. That was Manning.
Re:My fellow Americans (Score:5, Funny)
REALLY? - I say WMDs and you are bothered by "transgender"?
Don't talk back at me son, I'll smack you upside the head.
Re: (Score:2)
With what, Apple Talk?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
new fox news commercial (Score:5, Funny)
2) repeat this ad every 15 minutes all day long
3) Run the segment for 10 seconds at the end of the broadcast, say.. 'apparently not much if at all.' assume most people miss it.
4) profit!
It didn't because... (Score:2)
This is crap ... (Score:2)
How about "equal time" where studies show how the NSA has changed its operating procedures because it got caught with its pants down?
If you want someone who *did* compromise security. (Score:2)
How 'bout Dick Cheney? There *were* news stories (rapidly not followed up) when he leaked to the reporter that Valerie Plame was CIA, that a number of covert intellegence agents she personally was running disappeared, presumed dead.
Oh, that's right, no one was ever convicted of leakiing that, just one for "obstruction of justice".
mark
Yet another terrible story (Score:2)
The story in question, reviewed how specific encryption programs have changed or failed to change in light of snowden. That is all it can speak to. We know nothing of the relative rates of use of these tools before and after snowden. Their use may have spiked dramatically post snowden, and we would never know.
Snowden also revealed information on phone tapping and spying at the service provider level, and many, many other forms of communication. The article did not speak to the effect those had. Its
Old NSA jokes (Score:3)
I remember shortly after 911 jokes about saying "bomb", "osama" and whatever on the phone and then be tracked/recorded. The general media was often mentioning the Echelon network back then, with photographs of a masked antenna farm and some info about who runs them (US, UK, Canada, Aus, NZ).
Since then 8 core pentiums have replaced one core sparcs, 1TB SATA hard disks replaced 10GB SCSI disks, GbaseT replaced 10baseT etc. and the mass media devolved into more of a "social media" echo chamber (that replaced the "blogosphere" in stupid journalists's minds)
So what has changed really?
Even the war lies issues (known before the actual 2003 invasion, not discovered after Snowden leaks) has not changed much in the conduct of US and European powers. No, those countries who opposed invasion are now on-board and they wage "humanitarian" wars to clean up after other failed "humanitarian" wars in the same areas.
Re: (Score:2)
The view from Recorded Future (Score:2, Interesting)
How Al-Qaeda Uses Encryption Post-Snowden (Part 1) [recordedfuture.com]
Analysis Summary
Since 2007, Al-Qaeda’s use of encryption technology has been based on the Mujahideen Secrets platform which has developed to include support for mobile, instant messaging, and Macs.
Following the June 2013 Edward Snowden leaks we observe an increased pace of innovation, specifically new competing jihadist platforms and three (3) major new encryption tools from three (3) different organizations – GIMF, Al-Fajr Technical Committee, and ISIS – within a three to five-month time frame of the leaks.
Washington Post: The Volokh Conspiracy - As evidence mounts, it’s getting harder to defend Edward Snowden [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or they know you're a reflexive propagandist for all things corrupt, authoritarian, or neocon. It's what you do.
Depends on your definition of "terrorist" (Score:2)
Before "terrorism", there was communism. Before communism, there were anarchists who assassinated an American president [wikipedia.org].
The FBI once called Martin Luther King Jr. "the most dangerous man in America [google.com]" (and given death threats). Sartre wrote about suicide bombing as terrorism in the 40's [vanderbilt.edu] (and thought it was going out of style! page 80).
Tyrants in the US government have always used name calling in the name of "national security" to justify whatever inhumanities they wish to commit. "Terrorism" is not new; it
Russia has not invaded Ukraine (Score:2)
http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.u... [blogspot.co.uk]
The terrorists learned (Score:2)
I'm guessing the NSA did learn something from the experience.
Re:Duh Snowden was a stalking horse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Irrelevant to the real — rather than potential — abuses of power by the government. For all the talk about NSA, none of the information they collected has been abused — not yet. The worst we've seen so far was the other law-enforcement agencies prosecuting people based on NSA-provided tips (and using "parallel reconstruction" to hide the tips), but none of those thus prosecuted has actually been in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever "had to" run off to Russia.
Justice is not so awful that escaping it is an absolute requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone ever wondered why justice wasn't brought to Mark Klein [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but I feel like there's been some cognitive dissonance in response to the Snowden leaks.
I've had conversations with people who, on the one hand, claim that what Snowden revealed couldn't possibly be helpful or meaningful, because he leaked things that "everyone already knew anyway". Meanwhile, on the other hand, they also claim that Snowden is a horrible traitor for releasing vital national secrets that threaten our safety. I feel like you can't hav
Re: (Score:2)
If he had only released the information related to domestic programs he would not be exiled in Russia and under threat of arrest the minute he leaves Russia. He could have used the foreign surveillance information as a bargaining chip to severely limit or even eliminate any legal consequences in the US. He could have returned all the information on foreign intelligence programs for a get out of jail free card. The government would have excepted that deal in a minute. The information on the domestic programs
Re: (Score:2)
knew in 2006 (Score:5, Insightful)
He does not get credit for "starting a national conversation"
According to who, you? Im my view, he most certainly does get credit for that because it's pretty obvious that the amount of dialog has increased substantially since his revelations.
defined by mainstream media coverage (Score:2)
we didn't need him **at all** to have a national conversation
in 2006 we knew this was happening...but it wasn't reported
why?
what *is* a "national conversation"...for better or worse, practically speaking "national converstation" is defined by mainstream media
mainstream media is made of people in roles that make decisions about what you see
producers **choose** what to cover, how to cover it, how in-depth to go, who to interview, how long the segment lasts, where it is placed on the web page and print paper..
Re: (Score:2)
yes (Score:2)
1000% this ^^^
i can't stress enough that if you work in IT, signal processing, and t-com in general none of Snowden's revelations were surpising in the least...the only **actually surprising** info is that we were seeing it discussed on the nightly news
there has been a continual conversation about the issue since /. first began
defined by coverage (Score:2)
"national conversation" in practice means mainstream media...nightly news...CNN...all making a *big honking deal* about something
you know how it works, it's happening right now with the NFL
media producers choose these stories...it's ***their choice***
Stallman, the EFF, most people on /. and many others (including Sen Wyden from Oregon) were **trying** to get mainstream discussion of these issues but no chance
it never needed to be this way...it's about idiot news people and an industry (ours) that doesn't kn
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But we didn't in 2006, did we? Oh a few did, dismissed by the mainstream as gun loving preppers (mostly) or left wing Bush haters (a bit) and such.
Dupe, blackmailed, or delusional. Those are the only 3 choices? Act of conscience not possible? Or do you just know him well enough to know that?
Free man in Russia - we know he's not though, don't we? Oh he's probably free enough to walk down the street to the store or theater; assigned security in tow. But no, not free at all.
He gave up pretty much everything, d
information was there (Score:2)
it was reported in the link i posted, from government sources
and if you work in IT or t-com you already knew it was all technically possible
Re: (Score:2)
But we didn't in 2006, did we?
No, clearly you didn't, so "we" didn't. I did. All my technical friends did. Every single sysadmin I knew, knew about this. Everybody talked about the "government tap closets" in all the data centers.
It also turned out that the first year of leaks was mostly lies(!) taken from poorly written, inaccurate training PDFs, even though the leaks contained real information. What we know now lines up a lot better with what "everybody" in the sysadmin community was saying before Snowden than it does with the first y
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden is American.
Americans are westerners.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. My post was still more relevant, true and accurate than the NSA's declarations.
Re: (Score:3)
The first poem is clearly referring to someone else.
East of the Apennine would refer to the Arabian desert, so it's about a man who left his desert home, flew to a wet area for training, then spent time in a snowy area. He would be a great warrior, mostly using a stick-like weapon, rather than projectiles.
Nostradamus was telling the tale from "a long time ago"; that of Luke Skywalker.
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe that we have repeated history (in this case, history being the McCartney era nonsense with communists) and I think that lines were crossed using the new 'communist' (aka terrorist) threat as an excuse in exactly the same way that it happened during the McCartney era.
Thanks! Now Band On The Run [youtube.com] makes much more sense to me!
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that. It may be that the more effort foreign governments put into technology security, the more complex their use of technology will become, and the more information the NSA will be able to collect on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Some commas might make it a little better...
"The Interecept reports that contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA surveillance that examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups, has found no correlation, in either measure, to Snowden's leaks about the NSA's surveillance techniques."
It is one hell of a long sentence though, definitely longer than the modern reader is used to.