5 ms·

Qaeda Plot Leak Has Undermined U.S. Intelligence

25 points by aet 13y ago

jstalin 13y ago
Does anyone know which particular platform these guys were using that was intercepted?
forgotAgain 13y ago
At the time this story was in the news in August I thought it was most likely leaked on purpose by the government in an attempt to shine the image of the NSA. Now My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.
bediger4000 13y ago
I don't buy this. Why wouldn't people who know that the entire US "Intelligence Community" is focused on them do things like: (A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis. (B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes? (C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it. (D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  Security is hard and (to most people) boring. Do you really doubt that Snowden's leaks prompted internal discussions about securing communications channels? After all, they prompted the exact same discussions right here on HN.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  (A, B, C) Who's to say they don't already do those things, but the US intelligence operatives got the jump on them and compromised the channel ahead of schedule? It's a game of cat-and-mouse, and that happens sometimes. Which, if the claims are true, makes that channel all the more valuable to the US because you don't get a leg up like that all the time. (D) I'm still entirely unconvinced they give a rat's %$# about liberties. Seems much more likely they want us out of their territory more than anything else.
adolph 13y ago
Since then, each issue of Inspire has offered a how-to section on encrypting communications, recommending MS2 as the main encryption tool. Awesome, Inspire has a 2600 how-to section.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
"In recent months, senior administration officials — including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr. — have drawn attention to the damage that Mr. Snowden’s revelations have done, though most have been addressing the impact on national security more broadly, not just the effect on counterterrorism. " Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.
- quanticle 13y ago
  I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "danger to national security." When the leaker is someone near the top of the org. chart, it's "politics as usual", or "public relations".
- GHFigs 13y ago
  Can nobody see the cause and effect here? Danger! Danger! Narrative fallacy ahead! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative... None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, aren't the ones leaking.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    I realize he wasn't an analyst. But his motivation for leaking the information that he did, was (granted according to his own testimony) because the agency was violating the civil rights of people it was supposed to be protecting. I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.
ds9 13y ago
Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars? I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots? Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    Grassroots sounds plausible, given how Occupy occurred with hardly any planning or organization.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Occupy was simple. Go sit in a park and paint signs. That's easy to do grassroots.
  - ds9 13y ago
    How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?
    - krapp 13y ago
      So basically they're as real or unreal as Anonymous.
      - 13y ago
syncerr 13y ago
> the damage that Mr. Snowden’s revelations have done This is of course all Snowden's fault.
mturmon 13y ago
I hurt my head trying to figure out the subtext for why this story was told by "senior intelligence officials" to the NYT at this moment. Is it trying to change the story line from Snowden to something else?
- naterator 13y ago
  My reading of it was that "Senior intelligence officials" could mean anyone that actually agreed with Snowden but didn't have the balls or opportunity to go through with what he did. Now they're taking the opportunity to twist the knife so maybe real change will come about. In other words, it's possible that not everyone in the NSA/government thinks what the NSA is doing is good, and will take the opportunity to point out its ineptness. I doubt Snowden was the only person in the NSA who didn't like what he was seeing.
jhales 13y ago
it's interesting they use there own custom encryption. Can't help but wonder how they compare to gpg, otr etc.

25 points by aet 13y ago

Does anyone know which particular platform these guys were using that was intercepted?

At the time this story was in the news in August I thought it was most likely leaked on purpose by the government in an attempt to shine the image of the NSA. Now My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.

bediger4000 13y ago

I don't buy this. Why wouldn't people who know that the entire US "Intelligence Community" is focused on them do things like: (A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis. (B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes? (C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it. (D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.

grimtrigger 13y ago
Security is hard and (to most people) boring. Do you really doubt that Snowden's leaks prompted internal discussions about securing communications channels? After all, they prompted the exact same discussions right here on HN.
sliverstorm 13y ago
(A, B, C) Who's to say they don't already do those things, but the US intelligence operatives got the jump on them and compromised the channel ahead of schedule? It's a game of cat-and-mouse, and that happens sometimes. Which, if the claims are true, makes that channel all the more valuable to the US because you don't get a leg up like that all the time. (D) I'm still entirely unconvinced they give a rat's %$# about liberties. Seems much more likely they want us out of their territory more than anything else.

adolph 13y ago

Since then, each issue of Inspire has offered a how-to section on encrypting communications, recommending MS2 as the main encryption tool. Awesome, Inspire has a 2600 how-to section.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

"In recent months, senior administration officials — including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr. — have drawn attention to the damage that Mr. Snowden’s revelations have done, though most have been addressing the impact on national security more broadly, not just the effect on counterterrorism. " Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.

quanticle 13y ago
I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "danger to national security." When the leaker is someone near the top of the org. chart, it's "politics as usual", or "public relations".
GHFigs 13y ago
Can nobody see the cause and effect here? Danger! Danger! Narrative fallacy ahead! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative... None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, aren't the ones leaking.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  I realize he wasn't an analyst. But his motivation for leaking the information that he did, was (granted according to his own testimony) because the agency was violating the civil rights of people it was supposed to be protecting. I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.

ds9 13y ago

Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars? I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?

sliverstorm 13y ago
What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots? Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  Grassroots sounds plausible, given how Occupy occurred with hardly any planning or organization.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Occupy was simple. Go sit in a park and paint signs. That's easy to do grassroots.
- ds9 13y ago
  How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?
  - krapp 13y ago
    So basically they're as real or unreal as Anonymous.
    - 13y ago

syncerr 13y ago

> the damage that Mr. Snowden’s revelations have done This is of course all Snowden's fault.

mturmon 13y ago

I hurt my head trying to figure out the subtext for why this story was told by "senior intelligence officials" to the NYT at this moment. Is it trying to change the story line from Snowden to something else?

naterator 13y ago
My reading of it was that "Senior intelligence officials" could mean anyone that actually agreed with Snowden but didn't have the balls or opportunity to go through with what he did. Now they're taking the opportunity to twist the knife so maybe real change will come about. In other words, it's possible that not everyone in the NSA/government thinks what the NSA is doing is good, and will take the opportunity to point out its ineptness. I doubt Snowden was the only person in the NSA who didn't like what he was seeing.

jhales 13y ago

it's interesting they use there own custom encryption. Can't help but wonder how they compare to gpg, otr etc.