4 ms·

We found around 50 victims located in Russia, Iran and Egypt, typically infecting Windows 2003/2008 Server. Targets were related to nuclear energy, telecommunic

We found around 50 victims located in Russia, Iran and Egypt, typically infecting Windows 2003/2008 Server. Targets were related to nuclear energy, telecommunications, IT, aerospace and R&D. Great. So because the NSA has crappy security (contractors!) the democratic West has just weakened itself against autocratic regimes that seek to control their people. People that care about self-government and individual freedom have to start to recognize that the NSA - with its democratic controls and checks and balances - is far superior to an autocratic or dictatorial spy agency. And we only get to choose one.

nearlyepic 8y ago
It's pretty dishonest to play up the democracy aspect of an agency that gets its warrants from a secret court.
- altcognito 8y ago
  It's not unusual to have secrets in government. Oversight and having a process is key, and that's a much, much deeper rabbit hole as to whether that system is working or not.
  - nearlyepic 8y ago
    That's absolutely true. I guess what I was trying to imply is that process isn't working as far as the NSA is concerned.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    The secretive United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approved 99% of all applications. There's no oversight there.
    - rocqua 8y ago
      Obviously the 99% approval rate is the result of extreme due diligence and strict submission criteria practiced by the covert agencies. On a more serious note, the above could be true, though I believe there is plenty of evidence of approved warrants that should not have been. That would rather undermine the thesis.
    - mhneu 8y ago
      How the FISA Court Really Works (Lawfare) https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works Stanford law review https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... The win rate is misleading for a simple reason: The requests the FISC receives are not a random or representative sample of all cases in which the executive branch believes it would benefit from a warrant. The number and type of government requests are responsive to the level of oversight the court exercises—just as a plaintiff’s decision to litigate is responsive to changes in the law. Because it is costly to make an ex parte application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests. And while the rarity of ex parte proceedings might make this outcome seem unprecedented or extraordinary, other ex parte proceedings—like those for Title III wiretaps and delayed-notice warrants—display equally lopsided results: the government “wins” almost 100% of the time.
- auntienomen 8y ago
  Surveillance warrants of any kind -- FISA or otherwise -- are granted in secret, with no argument from the target. It'd be pretty stupid to do it any other way.
StavrosK 8y ago
> the democratic West has just weakened itself against autocratic regimes that seek to control their people How is that? > with its democratic controls and checks and balances Its what?
- hood_syntax 8y ago
  > checks and balances I tried not to smile at that, and I failed. Pretty sure nothing is 'checking' them from collecting data on every U.S. citizen.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    At least they're "balancing" that collection with data on every non-US citizen.
- pnash 8y ago
  > checks and balances Richard Clarke talks about his belief that stuxnet had numerous checks in place to limit collateral damage: "it very much had the feel to it of having been written by or governed by a team of Washington lawyers." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/richard-clarke-on-who-was-behind-the-stuxnet-attack-160630516/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/richard-clarke-on-who... I think that purposefully built malware will have those checks hard coded into them in order to limit exposure. Will there be programatic flaws that cause it to spread farther? Yeah, that can happen. Q&A always is the first thing that gets cut. I would suspect that the usage of more open ended tools/implants will have scope applied/enforced at the human layer. You don't want an employee going wild and knocking over everything just because they have a new 0day.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    > numerous checks in place to limit collateral damage Thus avoiding detection as much as possible. It's why the flu strain that kills everyone within an hour doesn't spread very far.
swarnie_ 8y ago
People in glass houses should get round to closing Guantanamo bay at some point.
rtkwe 8y ago
Except they don't act like a democratically controlled spy agency. They routinely hide their internal memos stating their perceived legal authority from Congress who is in charge of oversight and the source of that legal authority.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The CIA literally hacked into congress[0]. Seems like the US intelligence agencies oversight is a little lacking at times. [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-improperly-hacking-senate-computers-sea/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-...
- evenkeel024 8y ago
  Compare to China and Russia who imprison and kill journalists and Interpol leaders, and have no democratic oversight. If you don’t like the way NSA is governed, change it. That’s the power of a democratic system. But when the choice is between autocratic and democratic intelligence agencies, the choice is clear.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    Better than the worst isn't a favorable comparison. And there's been attempts but they lie and dissemble at every opportunity to the oversight committees. Remember when they tried to redefine the word 'collect' to mean when they actually looked at the information so they could say they don't 'collect' information on american citizens? Or that gathering information on every call you make isn't surveillance because they don't collect the contents of the call as well? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/nsa-lexicon-how-james-clapper-and-other-u-s-officials-mislead-the-american-public-without-lying.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/nsa-lexicon-how-...
- mhneu 8y ago
  NSA disciplines employees who violate their rules on who gets to access data. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/nsa-spies-who-couldnt-resist-snooping-their-loved-ones/310567/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/nsa-spi... And senior congressional officials, including people like Feinstein, Grassley, Burr, Schiff, and Warner, are effectively briefed on all intelligence matters. Not every member of congress is. America did a decent job after Watergate implementing supervision of intel. NSA is probably not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. You know the old quote "Democracy isn't a great way to govern but it's better than the alternatives" -- probably fair to say "Western intelligence agencies aren't perfect but they are the best way we know to navigate today's surveillance economy and secure democracies."
jim-jim-jim 8y ago
> created: 27 minutes ago American bot.

nearlyepic 8y ago

It's pretty dishonest to play up the democracy aspect of an agency that gets its warrants from a secret court.

altcognito 8y ago
It's not unusual to have secrets in government. Oversight and having a process is key, and that's a much, much deeper rabbit hole as to whether that system is working or not.
- nearlyepic 8y ago
  That's absolutely true. I guess what I was trying to imply is that process isn't working as far as the NSA is concerned.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The secretive United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approved 99% of all applications. There's no oversight there.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    Obviously the 99% approval rate is the result of extreme due diligence and strict submission criteria practiced by the covert agencies. On a more serious note, the above could be true, though I believe there is plenty of evidence of approved warrants that should not have been. That would rather undermine the thesis.
  - mhneu 8y ago
    How the FISA Court Really Works (Lawfare) https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works Stanford law review https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... The win rate is misleading for a simple reason: The requests the FISC receives are not a random or representative sample of all cases in which the executive branch believes it would benefit from a warrant. The number and type of government requests are responsive to the level of oversight the court exercises—just as a plaintiff’s decision to litigate is responsive to changes in the law. Because it is costly to make an ex parte application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests. And while the rarity of ex parte proceedings might make this outcome seem unprecedented or extraordinary, other ex parte proceedings—like those for Title III wiretaps and delayed-notice warrants—display equally lopsided results: the government “wins” almost 100% of the time.
auntienomen 8y ago
Surveillance warrants of any kind -- FISA or otherwise -- are granted in secret, with no argument from the target. It'd be pretty stupid to do it any other way.

StavrosK 8y ago

> the democratic West has just weakened itself against autocratic regimes that seek to control their people How is that? > with its democratic controls and checks and balances Its what?

hood_syntax 8y ago
> checks and balances I tried not to smile at that, and I failed. Pretty sure nothing is 'checking' them from collecting data on every U.S. citizen.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  At least they're "balancing" that collection with data on every non-US citizen.
pnash 8y ago
> checks and balances Richard Clarke talks about his belief that stuxnet had numerous checks in place to limit collateral damage: "it very much had the feel to it of having been written by or governed by a team of Washington lawyers." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/richard-clarke-on-who-was-behind-the-stuxnet-attack-160630516/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/richard-clarke-on-who... I think that purposefully built malware will have those checks hard coded into them in order to limit exposure. Will there be programatic flaws that cause it to spread farther? Yeah, that can happen. Q&A always is the first thing that gets cut. I would suspect that the usage of more open ended tools/implants will have scope applied/enforced at the human layer. You don't want an employee going wild and knocking over everything just because they have a new 0day.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > numerous checks in place to limit collateral damage Thus avoiding detection as much as possible. It's why the flu strain that kills everyone within an hour doesn't spread very far.

swarnie_ 8y ago

People in glass houses should get round to closing Guantanamo bay at some point.

rtkwe 8y ago

Except they don't act like a democratically controlled spy agency. They routinely hide their internal memos stating their perceived legal authority from Congress who is in charge of oversight and the source of that legal authority.

Someone1234 8y ago
The CIA literally hacked into congress[0]. Seems like the US intelligence agencies oversight is a little lacking at times. [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-improperly-hacking-senate-computers-sea/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-...
evenkeel024 8y ago
Compare to China and Russia who imprison and kill journalists and Interpol leaders, and have no democratic oversight. If you don’t like the way NSA is governed, change it. That’s the power of a democratic system. But when the choice is between autocratic and democratic intelligence agencies, the choice is clear.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Better than the worst isn't a favorable comparison. And there's been attempts but they lie and dissemble at every opportunity to the oversight committees. Remember when they tried to redefine the word 'collect' to mean when they actually looked at the information so they could say they don't 'collect' information on american citizens? Or that gathering information on every call you make isn't surveillance because they don't collect the contents of the call as well? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/nsa-lexicon-how-james-clapper-and-other-u-s-officials-mislead-the-american-public-without-lying.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/nsa-lexicon-how-...
mhneu 8y ago
NSA disciplines employees who violate their rules on who gets to access data. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/nsa-spies-who-couldnt-resist-snooping-their-loved-ones/310567/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/nsa-spi... And senior congressional officials, including people like Feinstein, Grassley, Burr, Schiff, and Warner, are effectively briefed on all intelligence matters. Not every member of congress is. America did a decent job after Watergate implementing supervision of intel. NSA is probably not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. You know the old quote "Democracy isn't a great way to govern but it's better than the alternatives" -- probably fair to say "Western intelligence agencies aren't perfect but they are the best way we know to navigate today's surveillance economy and secure democracies."

jim-jim-jim 8y ago

> created: 27 minutes ago American bot.