3 ms·

It's an assumption, but I'm asking why it's a big assumption. We know that the NSA spied on Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, and those are our own (US) companies.

by rnovak 11y ago

It's an assumption, but I'm asking why it's a big assumption. We know that the NSA spied on Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, and those are our own (US) companies. Hacking Team produced weaponized exploits/crypto/stuffs and sold it to US enemies and allies. Having read through the documents, I assert that it's a small/likely/reasonable assumption. It's literally the NSAs mission statement to defend the US against foreign intelligence.....how is Hacking Team not a perfect example of an appropriate target for them?

tedunangst 11y ago
Did the NSA spy on google or did they spy on information passing through googles network? How much "interesting" intelligence would likely be found on HT's network? As for defense, they obviously didnt pass along what they found. If securing US networks was the reason for hacking, they completely failed to accomplish their goal.
- rnovak 11y ago
  I really think that's a distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, they spied on google. If you consider the fact that Google considers consumers to be more product than client, the distinction matters even less. But to your other point: This is the NSA's mission statement: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. And again, considering that HT sold weaponized crypto to non-allied countries, it's by definition "interesting" intelligence (in relation to the NSA). Also, I'm quite sure that the language in that statement indicates more of an offensive role than defensive, since that's usually what "advantage" signifies. Even if their purpose was defense, the way our Government is set up, it's defense of the government, not the governed, so you can't say with any confidence that they didn't patch internal systems that mattered to them.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    That's an interesting point that the NSA may also be secretly bin patching government systems, but not a theory I've seen expounded much.

by rnovak 11y ago

tedunangst 11y ago

Did the NSA spy on google or did they spy on information passing through googles network? How much "interesting" intelligence would likely be found on HT's network? As for defense, they obviously didnt pass along what they found. If securing US networks was the reason for hacking, they completely failed to accomplish their goal.

rnovak 11y ago
I really think that's a distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, they spied on google. If you consider the fact that Google considers consumers to be more product than client, the distinction matters even less. But to your other point: This is the NSA's mission statement: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. And again, considering that HT sold weaponized crypto to non-allied countries, it's by definition "interesting" intelligence (in relation to the NSA). Also, I'm quite sure that the language in that statement indicates more of an offensive role than defensive, since that's usually what "advantage" signifies. Even if their purpose was defense, the way our Government is set up, it's defense of the government, not the governed, so you can't say with any confidence that they didn't patch internal systems that mattered to them.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  That's an interesting point that the NSA may also be secretly bin patching government systems, but not a theory I've seen expounded much.