8 ms·
Footage released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives
- loceng 13y agoEven though there are digital copies, this felt similar to the extremes of book burning.
- DanBC 13y agoThis feels worse than book burning. I've generally given GCHQ an easy ride but this is pretty fuckin dodgy. When someone burns a book or a flag they're just saying "I really hate this book and the ideas in it" - and it's great that people do this so visibly because it means I know how to talk to them. But government agents watching while journalists destroy journalistic materials to protect other journalists? That's something that must not happen in Britain again.
- anigbrowl 13y agoWouldn't it be a lot worse if the government agents had seized the drives, arrested the journalists, and gone on a witchhunt to root out everyone else who was involved? As it was the Guardian journalists stood on principle and said 'we really don't want to hand this over' so the GCHQ chaps helpfully sat around and let them destroy the evidence. This is really quite a reasonable compromise.
- DanBC 13y agoI would audit the living heck out of everything after letting GCHQ have access to my building. I doubt the grauniad have even checked for clumsy kludges like keyghost USB keyboard sniffers.
- anigbrowl 13y agoOK, but what does that have to do with what I posted above? Also, if you think spooks only come in the front door you don't have any security anyway. More so in the UK, with the extremely stringent Official Secrets Act.
- ecdavis 13y agoA reasonable compromise? Any compromise is reasonable when your starting point is extreme enough. Saying "well it could have been a lot worse" is a cop out. It shouldn't have happened at all.
- kabdib 13y agoThe only thing worse than a clueless thug is a thug who has a clue. The only thing worse than a thug with a clue is a thug who knows that he's right, and is on some kind of holy mission. In the US they'd just whip an NSL on the paper. I wonder how many times this has happened?
- eli 13y agoHuh? NSL? US papers obviously did cover this story and, as far as I know, no US hard drives were required to be destroyed.
- ivanplenty 13y agoFair point, we haven't heard of a similar thing happening in the US. However, I'm not convinced we would have heard about it happening. Consider, this is a _US invention_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
- sliverstorm 13y agoHow do you mean? To me, this looks like the paper trying to protect itself, by keeping what exactly they read in those files secret. They weren't cooperating, but they also weren't willing to take the government to court.
- gcb0 13y agoMy guess is this was mostly a move by the editors. Gov illegally orders them to hand over drivers that contain data that can be used to further compromise snowden. They argue the reason for the order. Gov says it is to prevent it from being published. Editors wisely say, ok, we will destroy it in front of you then. while also winning some page views by recording it. I don't think the gov was even wanting to 'burn books'. i think it got shafted by it.
- loceng 13y agoI don't fully buy it. The government would likely find a huge amount of value in knowing exactly what was leaked.
- gcb0 13y agothat was exactly what i said. the editors called them on the bluff that it was to prevent extra leaks, when everyone knows the gov wants the data to further prosecute leakers.
- henryaj 13y agoWell, this is completely insane. The material exists elsewhere - what did the security services expect to achieve here?
- ds9 13y agoThe usual interpretation has been that UKgov was clueless about technology, refusing to recognize that there were other copies elsewhere. But maybe they knew that it was only "security theatre" and the intent was to only make threatening gestures without really affecting the situation. It's still a threat of something worse in future, but in comparison with the way things have been going in western/northern countries recently, it was a pulled punch, a kind of ritual or "CYA" move.
- DanBC 13y agoI'd see it more like UK gov not caring if people think they're clueless - or even encoraging that opinion - so that people become sloppy with operating procedures or become less paranoid. GCHQ / CESG probably are not clueless.
- Ihmahr 13y agoI think we are all aware of what they wanted to achieve, but some are afraid to say it.
- doubt_me 13y agoMy guess is that they did it to make their bosses happy
- lostcolony 13y agoIntimidate. Scare. Show their higher ups they were doing something. You know; the usual totalitarian M.O.
- dijit 13y agoScare Tactics: "House this data and we'll fuck with you"
- theDustRoom 13y agoSeems stupid to me; why are they wasting PCBs - can you recover any data from anywhere other than the platters? Surely one very powerful magnet would render it useless anyway?
- the_fox_says 13y agoThey didn't just destroy the hard drives, they went the extra mile and grinded away every single chip in the computers. Their reasoning must be that some chips have a little Flash memory for firmware, which might have been used to store a little data; even RAM chips can retain some data after they've been powered off. Of course that's a precaution that doesn't make much sense in the grand scheme of things: storing data in these areas is technically difficult, inconvenient, and low-capacity (for Flash) or unreliable (for RAM). A person smart enough to pull this off would have been much better off keeping a backup off-site. They ended up destroying every single part of the computer -- perhaps they spared the keyboard or the display, but that's not likely since they could argue that a storage device could be hidden in there.
- ToastyMallows 13y agoDefinitely overkill
- junto 13y agoIt is also a bit of a "fuck you" statement as well though. UK Ministry of Defence as well as the Security Services have a policy of drilling hard drives if a machine is leaving their control. I heard a story, which I think came from Dell, who had a machine sent to them from the MOD because it had intermittent trouble booting. Standard practice was that the drives were drilled before the server was sent to Dell in Ireland. When the engineers tried to boot the server it of course wouldn't boot. When they pulled out the drives they were drilled. Report was inconclusive. Thus the Guardian's were quasi-mimicking the MOD. I.e. taking the piss.
- PeterWhittaker 13y agotl;dr: No, not for Top Secret information - one must assume that one's attacker is more capable than one's self, but ruled by the same physics. Therefore, one destroys media utterly (heating to the Curie Point, grinding to dust, etc.) rather than assume that the adversary cannot recover from a degaussed disk. For other levels of information, guidelines vary. Guidelines for media destruction vary based on sensitivity of the information and the risks associated with its disclosure. There are two basic categories of information, private interest and national interest, and various levels within the categories. Private interest refers to individuals, businesses, etc., that is, anything that isn't "in the national interest". National interest refers to anything that could seriously impact the country and its interests, its overall security, etc. The classic examples are intelligence and military operations. Others include government plans that have yet to be made public, e.g., cabinet confidences in the UK and Canada, etc. There is a debate as to whether certain types of economic information, even if private, should be considered national interest, because the impact of disclosure could be recession, depression, or complete collapse, which would seriously impact national interest. Many jurisdictions use the term "Classified" to refer to information related to the national interest; Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and Cosmic are some common western/NATO terms for various levels of classified information. Labels for private interests vary; for example, Canada uses "Protected A" for information about an individual that could lead to minor, recoverable harm (think a slap upside the head - it hurts, you might need ice, but it doesn't really impact you), "Protected B" for moderate harm that is difficult to recover from (think a broken arm - you will need medical attention, your life is impacted, possibly seriously, but you will recover), and "Protected C" for serious or grave harm (think being shot - you're done). Degaussing is often considered sufficient for "Protected A" and "Protected B" type information - but there are debates as to quantity: While aggregating doesn't change the label (10,000 Protected B records are still Protected B), it can increase the harm (compromise of 100,000,000 Protected B records might seriously harm the nation, e.g.). Degaussing is not considered enough for "Protected C" information and for Classified information: The degaussing may be imperfect, there may "edge effects", etc. We just don't know - and we assume our adversary isn't as ignorant as we. So we destroy the media, utterly, so that it cannot be recovered. That's what was happening here. Use of grinders is pretty standard practice. Yes, this information had all been revealed. As far as we know. Seems pretty pointless, doesn't it?
- blutack 13y agoHe said he was unimpressed by east London's multiracial neighbourhoods, telling one British user of the forum: "It's where all of your Muslims live. I didn't want to get out of the car." Is this quote verifiable? If so, it's certainly changed my perception of the guy.
- maxerickson 13y agoThere is more context here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009...
- ttctciyf 13y agoAnd here: http://issuu.com/lisarost/docs/lisarost_dotview_singlepages/26 http://issuu.com/lisarost/docs/lisarost_dotview_singlepages/... (pp 16-31 have chat records) Judging by the famous "shot in the balls" quote, Snowden has probably changed his outlook a little since then. Or, of course, he could have been leaving this type of trail of online activity precisely because he knew it could be observed, and wanted to put himself in a particular light for anyone doing so, if he was already intending his exfiltration of data or some such act at that stage. That's probably just wishful thinking on my part, though :) More likely scenario, quoting from the author of the material linked: "So Snowden was young once, and said anything that occurred to him? Imagine my shock!"
- bradleyland 13y agoI think it's important to maintain perspective about who Edward Snowden is as a person, and what he did in an effort to expose injustice. He might be a raging bigot and a racist. I don't know, but I know that I'm glad he did what he did. That doesn't excuse any alleged racism or bigotry -- not in any way -- but I always try to remember that even the people we choose as heroes are flawed. My feelings on matters like this were heavily influenced by the graphic novel Watchmen. It's characters are a great mix of comic book hero archetype and real world people with real world problems and hang-ups. I try to look at my heroes through the same lens as Alan Moore.
- 13y ago
- doubt_me 13y agoI am getting sort of sick of this propaganda scheme that seems to be developing. I honestly think this entire Snowden fiasco is a lie. Not some conspiracy stuff either. Its just to perfect + out of the 1% of the documents that have been released so far most of it was already public knowledge since the 90s. Now I obviously cannot prove that its all a lie and I sound stupid crazy right now so I am just going to leave this alone and see what happens once Snowden takes the Noble for doing his job.
- epipsychidion 13y ago>most of it was already public knowledge since the 90s There is a difference between innuendo and leaked powerpoint slides. >Now I obviously cannot prove that its all a lie and I sound stupid crazy right now Very astute.
- doubt_me 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L... The fact the he even got involved in the leaks makes me think that its all a lie. He could have done it like the FBI leak of the 70s but I don't know why he didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investi...
- DanBC 13y agoIt wasn't innuendo! There were EU parliament reports; the industrial espionage was known; spying on friendly nations was well known. The slides give more detail, they include names or programmes, and they are about modern abuses. But it is wrong to say that we didn't know that governments surveilled their citizens. Some people might have ignored it.
- epipsychidion 13y agoAs the saying goes, the devil was in the details. It's not the existence of spying but the extent that made everyone take notice. "surveilled their citizens" is too general a term;it can include anything from monitoring international communication for a handful of citizens to collecting metadata for every single phone call ever made (as was the case). I never said or implied that there was no proof that governments spied on their citizens so don't represent that as my belief.
- lectrick 13y agoHe should have released it as a torrent. The whole damn thing. There are too many motherfucking secrets.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThat'd make it much easier to portray them as irresponsible risks to national security. They're trying, but the caution and deliberation being used in these releases counts heavily in the favor of the news orgs.
- aburan28 13y agoI wouldn't be surprised if these files contain an encrypted copy of Snowden's files http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/08/20/whats-wikileaks-hiding-in-its-400gb-of-insurance-files/ http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/08/20/whats-wikileaks-h...
- hahainternet 13y agoBecause your life is on the line, you don't care. Way to put yourself above Governments by caring less about life than them.
- dalke 13y agoThere are a few advantages to releasing a stream rather than a torrent. First, it keeps the story going. Had it been a single torrent, there would have been a lot of stories, and then on to the next thing. That this may also be more commercially successful does not escape me. Second, it give the government a chance to really put their foot in their mouths. With Wikileaks, the US mostly said nothing about the details. With the Snowden documents, government officials respond to one thing, then further documents reveal where they are lying or weaseling. Third, once the torrent is done, the government can do a whitewash investigation, and then say "all that is behind us. We've fixed the problems and now we're focusing on the future." It's not possible to have a whitewash investigation unless you know all that needs to be covered. Fourth, this is a complex issue, and the process of reporting lets the reporters have time to get feedback from the analysis of other people, and integrate new information into their reporting. Of these, I think #3 is the most important advantage to a stream over a torrent.
- logfromblammo 13y agoAmerica's security clearance program demands that people authorized to handle its most sensitive secrets be held to a certain standard. They cannot be addicts. They must refrain from imprudent sexual relationships. They must pay their taxes. They must obey the laws. They cannot lie to the government, or keep their embarrassing, blackmailworthy secrets from it. And one of these people has the unmitigated gall to take evidence of unethical government activities which had been clearly classified as SECRET and TOP SECRET and just release it to the American public, along with the rest of the world. Clearly, if the clearance process worked as intended, every single person authorized to see this stuff should feel a tiny bit queasy after reading it. The problem is that people who try to escalate within the system are denied promotion, are not awarded the contract when it is up for re-compete, or they are simply fired outright and blacklisted from further work. And then nothing else changes. Clearly, if your choice is between losing your livelihood and making no impact whatsoever and losing your livelihood and maybe also your freedom, and possibly changing things for the better, you might take that additional risk. America, if you don't want your specialist personnel, specifically chosen for high ethical standards, to spill secrets, maybe, just maybe, you should arrange your affairs such that speaking truth to power isn't the stupidest thing someone could possibly do. And it would also be nice if you would stop acting like the sleaziest boss/customer on Earth in front of the people most likely to actually be bothered by that.
- cryoshon 13y agoThey're not chosen for high ethical standards. The things you mentioned are attributes of painfully normal/boring people, not people of high moral standing. They're chosen for being the best at being square and following orders without dissent. These kinds of people are the least likely to speak out by definition.
- logfromblammo 13y agoThe best at being square OR best at following orders. OR, not AND. I think they only tolerate the squares because we^Wthey can actually get the work done.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoWhy did they have to smash up the fax machine too? That was just gratuitous.
- gus_massa 13y agoI don’t know about the fax machines, but some photocopiers are misconfigured and remember all the copies the took: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1282513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1282513
- logfromblammo 13y agoThat fax machine knew what it did. Don't think for a second it didn't deserve everything that it got.
- atmosx 13y agoI wonder how many newspaper would go as far as the Guardian, battling their government, to protect information. On the other hand, there are not many western democracies would do something so stupid as to force a newspaper to destroy the hard-drives. We are ruled by idiots at all levels. All management authors I've read so far, were pointing from 2009 that EU is out of real political leaders with any management skill. Watching what is happening to France (SK got ousted by the CIA and France became irrelevant...), the UK (it's hard to even remember Cameron's name without Googling it and it's 4 years since he took office!), Germany has Angela Merkel which is famous for doing nothing, never (Something German voters appreciate apparently, I'm eager to see what will happen in the years to come with German exports decreasing), Italy is non-existent, Spain doesn't matter and Russia is not a democracy anyway... And that's Europe in 2014.
- dobbsbob 13y agoNYT sat on a story for a year because it would anger the state, thus meaning they would be denied access to any gov officials or military so they waited for somebody else to do it. US press is largely neutered. As for Italy their MPs were brawling each other yesterday like drunken yabbos
- limsup 13y agoThat's an unfair characterization of NYTimes behavior. They sit on stories when the editors agree that releasing the information would do more harm than good. For example in the Levinson case, NYTimes withheld information for 6 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/world/middleeast/a-disappearing-american-spy-and-the-cia.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/world/middleeast/a-disappe... > The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails. The Times withheld that information to avoid jeopardizing his safety or the efforts to free him. On Thursday, The Associated Press disclosed Mr. Levinson’s role with the intelligence agency. In a statement, the White House said it had urged the wire service not to publish its article “out of concern for Mr. Levinson’s life.” After Thursday’s disclosure, the Levinson family said it had no objection to The Times’s publishing this article.
- izzydata 13y agoI laughed at the "Rubish" sticker.