4 ms·

being smart doesn't preclude you from having someone stupid in your ranks. This applies to anyone trying to hide their activities. And im glad you're so sure ab

being smart doesn't preclude you from having someone stupid in your ranks. This applies to anyone trying to hide their activities. And im glad you're so sure about the comsec of all terrorist/spies/criminals.. totally separate, stand-alone communications networks, end-to-end encrypted, one-time pads, etc. why do anything at all? why? because its a ludicrous assertion and you know it. This goes to the point of the top comment.

talmand 13y ago
Sure, there are stupid people in their ranks. That's why you have need-to-know rules for those people. If they get caught then only the things they know can be compromised. Such people are easily replaced. Why do you think such things go on forever? It's because the authorities are in a never-ending battle of dealing with underlings that know very little. It's the same principle with police dealing with organized crime or drug cartels. Most of the time the reason they can break up such a group is by getting someone on the inside that can get the info they need. I don't believe I said that terrorist organizations were building their own "totally separate, stand-alone communications networks, end-to-end encrypted, one-time pads". I said they are most likely not using an unsecured third party service. I fail to understand why people cannot comprehend the idea that a small group of people need not use fancy technology to communicate to each other. They can simply meet. I don't agree that it's a ludicrous assertion simply because I was arguing against the point of the top comment; that all the world's terrorists have suddenly dropped off easily compromised communications specifically because of Snowden. My assertion is that the top of the chain in the organizations have not used such communications for years and I fail to see how that is ludicrous.
- yeezusnice 13y ago
  Everything you say is valid. And I'm glad that you specify "top of the chain" as it is less likely than some mope at the bottom. But that's my point. it is these lower level people, maybe even up to mid level which are the weak links. Analysis and targeting, it's what led folks to UBL in the end. There is nothing more damaging, in my opinion, than confirming your abilities, or lack thereof, to an adversary. That's why things are classified, there is strength in secrecy.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I guess I should have specified that I meant the smart ones were at the top, I assumed an understanding of this in there somewhere. My bad. I agree, the weak links are almost always at bottom of the chain. Sometimes you can get a middle guy that's working his way up but that's luck. In the end, these things are done by getting someone to give someone else up in terms of turning or gathering info. So far from what I've read, I see no indication that the programs in discussion would actually have helped in the matters they cover. I'm sure it helps identify some of the lower links of the chain but all that does is point the way to people to use the traditional methods on. The way I look at it is that the police could put a tap on every phone in the city but I seriously doubt that would help them arrest the local crime boss. It would point the way to find people to lean on to get the information you need to pursue him, but I doubt you'd get real evidence that way. You'd probably have to end up planting bugs to overhear conversations in private homes and businesses. In that case tapping everybody's phone is probably not needed as you could simply ask the cop that's been on the beat for twenty years who they should be looking at as the low-level flunkies and he could probably name ten of them of the top of his head. I also agree that the leak of such programs most likely harmed national security in some way. As you say, there's a reason to keep things secret. The thing is, for programs like this there is supposed to be oversight and so far it appears that oversight has failed. To me, the biggest issue isn't that the existence of such programs were confirmed, it was that they existed to the extent that they do without apparently any real oversight. If we've lost a bit of security then I'm fine with that if it means our liberties are intact, or in some cases we're now finding about, if it means our liberties are restored.

talmand 13y ago

Sure, there are stupid people in their ranks. That's why you have need-to-know rules for those people. If they get caught then only the things they know can be compromised. Such people are easily replaced. Why do you think such things go on forever? It's because the authorities are in a never-ending battle of dealing with underlings that know very little. It's the same principle with police dealing with organized crime or drug cartels. Most of the time the reason they can break up such a group is by getting someone on the inside that can get the info they need. I don't believe I said that terrorist organizations were building their own "totally separate, stand-alone communications networks, end-to-end encrypted, one-time pads". I said they are most likely not using an unsecured third party service. I fail to understand why people cannot comprehend the idea that a small group of people need not use fancy technology to communicate to each other. They can simply meet. I don't agree that it's a ludicrous assertion simply because I was arguing against the point of the top comment; that all the world's terrorists have suddenly dropped off easily compromised communications specifically because of Snowden. My assertion is that the top of the chain in the organizations have not used such communications for years and I fail to see how that is ludicrous.

yeezusnice 13y ago
Everything you say is valid. And I'm glad that you specify "top of the chain" as it is less likely than some mope at the bottom. But that's my point. it is these lower level people, maybe even up to mid level which are the weak links. Analysis and targeting, it's what led folks to UBL in the end. There is nothing more damaging, in my opinion, than confirming your abilities, or lack thereof, to an adversary. That's why things are classified, there is strength in secrecy.
- talmand 13y ago
  I guess I should have specified that I meant the smart ones were at the top, I assumed an understanding of this in there somewhere. My bad. I agree, the weak links are almost always at bottom of the chain. Sometimes you can get a middle guy that's working his way up but that's luck. In the end, these things are done by getting someone to give someone else up in terms of turning or gathering info. So far from what I've read, I see no indication that the programs in discussion would actually have helped in the matters they cover. I'm sure it helps identify some of the lower links of the chain but all that does is point the way to people to use the traditional methods on. The way I look at it is that the police could put a tap on every phone in the city but I seriously doubt that would help them arrest the local crime boss. It would point the way to find people to lean on to get the information you need to pursue him, but I doubt you'd get real evidence that way. You'd probably have to end up planting bugs to overhear conversations in private homes and businesses. In that case tapping everybody's phone is probably not needed as you could simply ask the cop that's been on the beat for twenty years who they should be looking at as the low-level flunkies and he could probably name ten of them of the top of his head. I also agree that the leak of such programs most likely harmed national security in some way. As you say, there's a reason to keep things secret. The thing is, for programs like this there is supposed to be oversight and so far it appears that oversight has failed. To me, the biggest issue isn't that the existence of such programs were confirmed, it was that they existed to the extent that they do without apparently any real oversight. If we've lost a bit of security then I'm fine with that if it means our liberties are intact, or in some cases we're now finding about, if it means our liberties are restored.