7 ms·

Seem like more like a platform for self aggrandizing quips than anything substantial. I guess it isn't surprising that Snowden and the Guardian are remaining va

Seem like more like a platform for self aggrandizing quips than anything substantial. I guess it isn't surprising that Snowden and the Guardian are remaining vague, but we are pretty much no closer to the truth than day one.

warmblood 13y ago
I don't think anyone reading your comment is sure of what you mean by vague and substantial. He has explicitly addressed every one of his harshest criticisms thus far in much clearer language than most of us are used to seeing in the media.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  He answered harsh criticisms about his personality and motives, but added very little regarding NSA spying. It is all well and good that he is willing to die for America, thinks the media has focused on the wrong elements of the story and made fun of Cheney. But in regards to the subject of NSA spying, he spoke in vague terms that didn't add to the public's awareness. And that is pretty much all I care about hearing from him, not media criticism, his suggestions for Obama or how he thinks he exposed the largest suspicionless surveillance program ever.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - warmblood 13y ago
    I see. Despite already blowing the whistle and turning unconstitutional domestic surveillance into a public discussion for the first time in, well, ever, to truly be useful to society he must accept your amorphous terms of disclosure for information that is likely forthcoming anyway. Thank you for explaining yourself.
    - Kylekramer 13y ago
      My demands are quite morphous. As a person who is only of public interest due to leaking information about the NSA, I would perfer he clarify what exactly the NSA does. Good intentions about "public discussion" don't help if the public discussion he provoked is uninformed.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    but added very little regarding NSA spying. Well, he did clarify that Google, Facebook et al don't provide "direct access."
  - temp9251 13y ago
    I disagree, some key points were clarified. To wit - 1. Encryption works, but "endpoint security" is easily defeated. 2. "US Persons do enjoy ... one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time." An "ingest point" appears to be the term for a preprocessor that parses raw data before sticking a normalized copy in a database. I believe this is talked about more in Boundless Informant papers. 3. American data is regularly collected "incidentally", and when between an American and a foreigner. "Americans' communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant." 4. Intelligence agencies (including GCHQ) have raw access to query NSA databases, and GHCQ is cited to have 5% of queries audited. I made an effort earlier to try to write up a fully cited description of what we know about NSA activities. If you would find that useful, you can find it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5892755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5892755
slg 13y ago
I agree, he said a whole lot of beautiful nothing. He didn't really add any new information to the discussion. The question I most wanted to see asked was a request to expand on the notion that he had the ability to wiretap anyone up to the president. When this came up he simply went on a philosophical rant about the nature of bureaucratic creep and how our constitutional rights should extend past our borders.
- Spearchucker 13y ago
  My guess is that he doesn't want to upstage himself. I'm going to wait for what's coming before I form an opinion.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  The first part of Snowden's response to that question: >Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. So, he stands by what he said and expanded on the scope of his capabilities by addressing the claims that there are "systems" in place to prevent someone (such as himself) from grabbing domestic data. He details that there are "policy" protections --that he asserts are effectively no protection at all-- and "one very weak technical protection" that acts as a filter of some sort on incoming data. He goes on to describe the filter as "constantly out of date" and specifically configured to be as ineffective at its stated purpose as possible by letting us know that the configuration is "euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture.'" Really, I'm just retyping what Snowden has already said. It looks to me like he most certainly did expand on his claim.
  - slg 13y ago
    Ok, I will be happy to break down that particular question if you want. His initial quote was as follows, emphasis added by me: >"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email." He doesn't say he has the capability, he says he has the authority. That is an important distinction. >"Yes, I stand by it." He doesn't waiver in his initial statement. >"US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections" While it might not be clear in the initial interview, I think most people would assume that this type of power isn't given to everyone so some type of policy protection was obvious. Snowden doesn't add anything new here because he doesn't give any details and his statement just raises more questions. The question that relates directly to his first statement is whether he really did have the authority to wiretap the president like he initially claimed? But I would also like to here more explanation of these policies. Was this an honor system? Was there any oversight? Did these things require a warrant or any approval? >"(and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens)" Part of the philosophical musings that I mentioned in my initial post. >"and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time." This is another vague and almost worthless statement. At this point and with this level of detail, we can only speculate on these "technical protections". It would seem to imply that there is a technical filter in place that prevents information about US citizens from ever entering the system. But the way Snowden dismisses it as soon as he brings it up makes it seem like it is useless. Some followups would have been helpful here. What does he mean that the filter is constantly out of date? What does "widest allowable aperture" mean? Who has the authority to "strip it out at any time"? I don't think he provided anything new here outside of simply confirming that there were policy and technical limitations in place, something that would likely be assumed by most people.
glurgh 13y ago
I think every time he opens his mouth some shadowy characters in some windowless bunker stateside are ordering another round of illegally imported Cuban cigars and a particularly peaty single malt Scotch. Given the creativity of conspiracy theories, I'm a little surprised nobody's yet suggested he's actually part of a US false flag operation.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  Naomi Wolf of all people said so three days ago.
- marshray 13y ago
  What has he said that's particularly creative? The substance of his claims is extremely plausible and consistent with facts that have been long known.
  - glurgh 13y ago
    The creativity bit was about the conspiracy theories of others, not things that he's said. I do think that things he's said and things he's done actually undermine his stated cause. He started out by portraying himself as a conscience-driven individual who wants to expose what he believes are gross violations of civil liberties without becoming a focal point of the story. He's now made himself the center of the story, has expanded his motivation to moral outrage at all forms of spying, etc. Add to this the various inaccuracies, melodramatic over-statements, tangents into matters entirely unrelated to civil liberties, and really, just the act of flight to begin with. It seems to me that much of the time he does or says something he's moving perception away from somewhere on the the 'mildly ambivalent moral actor' end of the spectrum where he started and towards 'clueless opportunist'. That's a terrible thing because, and I agree with you, a number of the things he says are not just extremely plausible but important matters of civic discourse.
    - marshray 13y ago
      I think he's doing a ridiculously good job for an individual taking on the largest military intelligence organization in the world without lawyers or paid political consultants. I'm not sure how you would expect him to conduct this disclosure without the "act of flight" or "becoming a focal point of the story".
samstave 13y ago
But do we really need more info? What will taht accomplish? As far as I am concerned, this is the 100% solid concrete evidence that Eschelon exists - where for the last 30 years it was a "conspiracy theory" -- yet here it is, verified, in your face and glaring. Now, what is the next step? What needs to happen is ACTION taken. There is only one peaceful tool the citizenry has against the government at this point: civil disobedience via a tax holiday. Nothing will happen unless people do the only thing they can do: refuse to provide funding to the government. If the government can't even go after the criminal banks -- its laughable to think that anything is going to happen to the intelligence agencies: especially when the government is staffed by both THE BANKS and THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!
- irishcoffee 13y ago
  Actually, the only evidence we have are a few shitty power-point slides, a video, and a Q&A, all provided by ONE person. I don't think that is really anything to hang a hat on.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Are you ignoring all the "meta-evidence": The smear campaign from people as crazy as Cheney? All the MSM focus to discredit? The actual lying under oath from Clapper against EXACTLY what was revealed by actual NSA documents? Given that the source is "ONE" person is irrelevant. Looking at your comment history, I find your judgment to be suspect.
    - irishcoffee 13y ago
      I am not ignoring it at all. Smear campaigns exist for a lot of people, in a variety of fields, for a variety of reasons. Individuals running for government office seem to always have smear campaigns run against them. I don't really read much into that, I'm curious why that is "strong meta evidence" to you. As many people focus to lend credence to his story as try to discredit him. Again, run-of-the-mill behavior for something like this. As you can see on sites like this, he has a lot of support. Someone lied under oath about things that are at best tangential to this story, if they relate at all. We don't have any real, actual evidence at all, other than the artifacts generated by one guy.
richardw 13y ago
Amongst other things, I took the fact that the NSA can't break encryption from the Q&A - that they'll usually attack the endpoints rather than trying to brute-force it (or use secret NSA math orders of magnitude better than us peasants have). To me that's pretty significant.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Amongst other things, I took the fact that the NSA can't break encryption from the Q&A - that they'll usually attack the endpoints rather than trying to brute-force it That doesn't imply that they can't break encryption, it just means that usually they have faster/easier options.
  - burke 13y ago
    True, but it does essentially mean that what the public considers to be "strong" crypto is not secretly broken by the NSA in such a way that they can decrypt communications in realtime or en masse.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > True, but it does essentially mean that what the public considers to be "strong" crypto is not secretly broken by the NSA in such a way that they can decrypt communications in realtime or en masse. Or, at least, that they are monitoring enough data that if they had to decrypt all of it in realtime, it would overtax their computing resources, so that they minimize the burden by going after the cleartext at the source when they have the capacity to get at it that way.
  - richardw 13y ago
    He said that strong encryption was one of the few things we can rely on. That's new information.

warmblood 13y ago

I don't think anyone reading your comment is sure of what you mean by vague and substantial. He has explicitly addressed every one of his harshest criticisms thus far in much clearer language than most of us are used to seeing in the media.

Kylekramer 13y ago
He answered harsh criticisms about his personality and motives, but added very little regarding NSA spying. It is all well and good that he is willing to die for America, thinks the media has focused on the wrong elements of the story and made fun of Cheney. But in regards to the subject of NSA spying, he spoke in vague terms that didn't add to the public's awareness. And that is pretty much all I care about hearing from him, not media criticism, his suggestions for Obama or how he thinks he exposed the largest suspicionless surveillance program ever.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- warmblood 13y ago
  I see. Despite already blowing the whistle and turning unconstitutional domestic surveillance into a public discussion for the first time in, well, ever, to truly be useful to society he must accept your amorphous terms of disclosure for information that is likely forthcoming anyway. Thank you for explaining yourself.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    My demands are quite morphous. As a person who is only of public interest due to leaking information about the NSA, I would perfer he clarify what exactly the NSA does. Good intentions about "public discussion" don't help if the public discussion he provoked is uninformed.
- rdouble 13y ago
  but added very little regarding NSA spying. Well, he did clarify that Google, Facebook et al don't provide "direct access."
- temp9251 13y ago
  I disagree, some key points were clarified. To wit - 1. Encryption works, but "endpoint security" is easily defeated. 2. "US Persons do enjoy ... one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time." An "ingest point" appears to be the term for a preprocessor that parses raw data before sticking a normalized copy in a database. I believe this is talked about more in Boundless Informant papers. 3. American data is regularly collected "incidentally", and when between an American and a foreigner. "Americans' communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant." 4. Intelligence agencies (including GCHQ) have raw access to query NSA databases, and GHCQ is cited to have 5% of queries audited. I made an effort earlier to try to write up a fully cited description of what we know about NSA activities. If you would find that useful, you can find it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5892755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5892755

slg 13y ago

I agree, he said a whole lot of beautiful nothing. He didn't really add any new information to the discussion. The question I most wanted to see asked was a request to expand on the notion that he had the ability to wiretap anyone up to the president. When this came up he simply went on a philosophical rant about the nature of bureaucratic creep and how our constitutional rights should extend past our borders.

Spearchucker 13y ago
My guess is that he doesn't want to upstage himself. I'm going to wait for what's coming before I form an opinion.
aspensmonster 13y ago
The first part of Snowden's response to that question: >Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. So, he stands by what he said and expanded on the scope of his capabilities by addressing the claims that there are "systems" in place to prevent someone (such as himself) from grabbing domestic data. He details that there are "policy" protections --that he asserts are effectively no protection at all-- and "one very weak technical protection" that acts as a filter of some sort on incoming data. He goes on to describe the filter as "constantly out of date" and specifically configured to be as ineffective at its stated purpose as possible by letting us know that the configuration is "euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture.'" Really, I'm just retyping what Snowden has already said. It looks to me like he most certainly did expand on his claim.
- slg 13y ago
  Ok, I will be happy to break down that particular question if you want. His initial quote was as follows, emphasis added by me: >"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email." He doesn't say he has the capability, he says he has the authority. That is an important distinction. >"Yes, I stand by it." He doesn't waiver in his initial statement. >"US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections" While it might not be clear in the initial interview, I think most people would assume that this type of power isn't given to everyone so some type of policy protection was obvious. Snowden doesn't add anything new here because he doesn't give any details and his statement just raises more questions. The question that relates directly to his first statement is whether he really did have the authority to wiretap the president like he initially claimed? But I would also like to here more explanation of these policies. Was this an honor system? Was there any oversight? Did these things require a warrant or any approval? >"(and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens)" Part of the philosophical musings that I mentioned in my initial post. >"and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time." This is another vague and almost worthless statement. At this point and with this level of detail, we can only speculate on these "technical protections". It would seem to imply that there is a technical filter in place that prevents information about US citizens from ever entering the system. But the way Snowden dismisses it as soon as he brings it up makes it seem like it is useless. Some followups would have been helpful here. What does he mean that the filter is constantly out of date? What does "widest allowable aperture" mean? Who has the authority to "strip it out at any time"? I don't think he provided anything new here outside of simply confirming that there were policy and technical limitations in place, something that would likely be assumed by most people.

glurgh 13y ago

I think every time he opens his mouth some shadowy characters in some windowless bunker stateside are ordering another round of illegally imported Cuban cigars and a particularly peaty single malt Scotch. Given the creativity of conspiracy theories, I'm a little surprised nobody's yet suggested he's actually part of a US false flag operation.

michaelwww 13y ago
Naomi Wolf of all people said so three days ago.
marshray 13y ago
What has he said that's particularly creative? The substance of his claims is extremely plausible and consistent with facts that have been long known.
- glurgh 13y ago
  The creativity bit was about the conspiracy theories of others, not things that he's said. I do think that things he's said and things he's done actually undermine his stated cause. He started out by portraying himself as a conscience-driven individual who wants to expose what he believes are gross violations of civil liberties without becoming a focal point of the story. He's now made himself the center of the story, has expanded his motivation to moral outrage at all forms of spying, etc. Add to this the various inaccuracies, melodramatic over-statements, tangents into matters entirely unrelated to civil liberties, and really, just the act of flight to begin with. It seems to me that much of the time he does or says something he's moving perception away from somewhere on the the 'mildly ambivalent moral actor' end of the spectrum where he started and towards 'clueless opportunist'. That's a terrible thing because, and I agree with you, a number of the things he says are not just extremely plausible but important matters of civic discourse.
  - marshray 13y ago
    I think he's doing a ridiculously good job for an individual taking on the largest military intelligence organization in the world without lawyers or paid political consultants. I'm not sure how you would expect him to conduct this disclosure without the "act of flight" or "becoming a focal point of the story".

samstave 13y ago

But do we really need more info? What will taht accomplish? As far as I am concerned, this is the 100% solid concrete evidence that Eschelon exists - where for the last 30 years it was a "conspiracy theory" -- yet here it is, verified, in your face and glaring. Now, what is the next step? What needs to happen is ACTION taken. There is only one peaceful tool the citizenry has against the government at this point: civil disobedience via a tax holiday. Nothing will happen unless people do the only thing they can do: refuse to provide funding to the government. If the government can't even go after the criminal banks -- its laughable to think that anything is going to happen to the intelligence agencies: especially when the government is staffed by both THE BANKS and THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!

irishcoffee 13y ago
Actually, the only evidence we have are a few shitty power-point slides, a video, and a Q&A, all provided by ONE person. I don't think that is really anything to hang a hat on.
- samstave 13y ago
  Are you ignoring all the "meta-evidence": The smear campaign from people as crazy as Cheney? All the MSM focus to discredit? The actual lying under oath from Clapper against EXACTLY what was revealed by actual NSA documents? Given that the source is "ONE" person is irrelevant. Looking at your comment history, I find your judgment to be suspect.
  - irishcoffee 13y ago
    I am not ignoring it at all. Smear campaigns exist for a lot of people, in a variety of fields, for a variety of reasons. Individuals running for government office seem to always have smear campaigns run against them. I don't really read much into that, I'm curious why that is "strong meta evidence" to you. As many people focus to lend credence to his story as try to discredit him. Again, run-of-the-mill behavior for something like this. As you can see on sites like this, he has a lot of support. Someone lied under oath about things that are at best tangential to this story, if they relate at all. We don't have any real, actual evidence at all, other than the artifacts generated by one guy.

richardw 13y ago

Amongst other things, I took the fact that the NSA can't break encryption from the Q&A - that they'll usually attack the endpoints rather than trying to brute-force it (or use secret NSA math orders of magnitude better than us peasants have). To me that's pretty significant.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Amongst other things, I took the fact that the NSA can't break encryption from the Q&A - that they'll usually attack the endpoints rather than trying to brute-force it That doesn't imply that they can't break encryption, it just means that usually they have faster/easier options.
- burke 13y ago
  True, but it does essentially mean that what the public considers to be "strong" crypto is not secretly broken by the NSA in such a way that they can decrypt communications in realtime or en masse.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > True, but it does essentially mean that what the public considers to be "strong" crypto is not secretly broken by the NSA in such a way that they can decrypt communications in realtime or en masse. Or, at least, that they are monitoring enough data that if they had to decrypt all of it in realtime, it would overtax their computing resources, so that they minimize the burden by going after the cleartext at the source when they have the capacity to get at it that way.
- richardw 13y ago
  He said that strong encryption was one of the few things we can rely on. That's new information.