9 ms·

‘No Place to Hide,’ by Glenn Greenwald

119 points by duck 12y ago

eyeareque 12y ago
How can we protect ourselves from this type of interception? It seems impossible. Why would any non-american customers buy US made devices? Any protections that are added can/will be bypassed if the US gov gets physical access (or even remote). It seems like our US vendors are going to take a hit from this.
- throw_90u1d20j9 12y ago
  Yes, but not immediately, since the NSA thing came as a surprise, so: a. nobody had a plan to switch at that time. b. foreign companies did not know they might be able to compete simply for privacy reasons. I think this will change over the next decade. People move slowly, but now that the trust is lost, it will be difficult to restore, even if the US government would act. (They won't.)
  - liotier 12y ago
    > b. foreign companies did not know they might be able > to compete simply for privacy reasons. Tell that to employees of companies such as Airbus... They have always assumed that they were under constant attack from government-level entities, with good reason.
    - john_b 12y ago
      An exception or two to the rule does not invalidate the rule. Most ordinary commercial businesses using US-made devices or online services don't deal with technology their government considers a national asset, and as a result don't have to be as paranoid as Airbus, BAE, Petrobras, etc.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  If some product (router, cell phone, heck, even a cable or power supply) where designed to be amenable to physical inspection, a lot of the weirder anti-air-gap NSA spying would be possible to verify against. I mean, a USB cable with a clear silicone strain guard would show you that some of the taps don't exist. Verifiable builds, and open-source software would take away the potential of a lot of the rootkit-like taps. The big issue is the BIOS-level, DMA-level and hidden-disk-storage (host protected area). Perhaps using Linux BIOS, with verifiable builds, would protect against some of that. Naturally, hardware like the Broadcom network adapters that have their own Mips CPU is right out: peripherals would have to be demonstrably "dumb" to fit in this sort of system. Perhaps shipping components and requiring some self-assembly would help. Certainly, you'd have to have enough documentation to ensure that no weird extra chips are soldered on, and design so that chips can be verified by the users. All of these things mitigate against, but don't eliminate the spying.
revelation 12y ago
In this review, the author of a paper that brought you the Iraq war is unhappy with Greenwalds impression of his and similar media properties.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. On the other hand, this kind of "perfectly normal and always palatable fare for the sake of always being popular" stuff is certainly very weak journalism. They're so low-brow that they can't even write a story that refutes their readership's expectations because they're afraid of losing business. When it comes to the government, the criticism of the NYT will always be pedestrian and surface-level rather than deep. This ends up serving the government because it implies that solutions will also be merely surface-level rather than far-reaching.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    >On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. Let's make an important distinction here: the NYT does not merely seek to turn a profit. That is, they do not try to cover their operating costs plus some extra percentage. Even at their size, they could engage in responsible journalism and still achieve this goal. Rather, the NYT seeks to maximize profit, above all else. And, if responsible journalism does not contribute to that goal, then responsible journalism will not get done.
- eli 12y ago
  I'm not sure the NYT's book reviewer had much to do with the Iraq war. Why even read the review if you automatically reject any opinion anyone in the Times might have about the book?
- csandreasen 12y ago
  I'm not sure that's a fair comparison when Glenn Greenwald himself was in support of the Iraq war... http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462 http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462
cryoshon 12y ago
NYT shows its bias with passages such as "In one passage, Mr. Greenwald makes the demonstrably false assertion that one “unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop,” that “they would report on an archive like Snowden’s so as to limit its impact — publish a handful of stories, revel in the accolades of a ‘big scoop,’ collect prizes, and then walk away, ensuring that nothing had really changed.” Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story." It's trivial to point to CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo etc and show that really they haven't kept up with the Snowden papers in depth and certainly haven't emphasized any of the relevant points in their stories-- for instance, a Google search of "JTRIG CNN" or "JTRIG NBC" or "JTRIG New York Times" comes up with nothing, because they didn't even write stories on that revelation-- perhaps intentionally as a result of collusion with the government to protect the terms of their access to officials. JTRIG was a super-important reveal which was not covered whatsoever by the MSM, and is described as "The scope of the JTRIG's mission includes using "dirty tricks" to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications." by Wikipedia. In summary: NYT is wrong when they attempt to defend themselves against Greenwald's claim that they're pro-establishment because they refused to write stories on the most damaging Snowden files. EDIT: Out of curiosity, I additionally decided to investigate whether the NYT and MSM covered Operation Earnest Voice, the NSA's program to sway public opinion via shilling and sockpuppeting. They did not cover the story whatsoever. Operation Earnest Voice detailed extensive false-person based propaganda efforts against the US and international public. The NYT is a joke.
- mrfusion 12y ago
  It always seems strange to me that individual journalists never seem to be aware of these issues. Why do you think that is?
  - cryoshon 12y ago
    Unless you were actually following the propagation of Snowden stories through the MSM in realtime as I was (at the time), it'd be tough to realize a story isn't getting covered. People also tend to have intentionally blind spots when it comes to their own institution.
pessimizer 12y ago
It tells all you need to know about the establishment nature of the NYT that Kakutani, in her defense of establishment media against Greenwald's critique, writes: >"Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story." Correction - it's not the Snowden story, it's the NSA surveillance story. The story isn't supposed to be about the whistleblower.
- thinkpad20 12y ago
  *her defense
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Thanks - I had a vague feeling that I had typed something lately that had assumed masculinity:) Edited.
    - cpr 12y ago
      Why apologize? You thought it was a he. (Does anyone else find these kinds of reflexive auto-da-fe statements painful?)
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        Because it's not something that I'm in the habit of doing, and not something I think is acceptable. If you think my statement was reflexive rather than an expression of my honest belief, it's because you're projecting.
      - JetSpiegel 12y ago
        * auto-de-fé
        cpr 12y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9
grey-area 12y ago
It's interesting to contrast this article with Greenwald talking about the content of the book: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/13/collect_it_all_glenn_greenwald_on http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/13/collect_it_all_glenn_g... The review fails to tackle allegations of economic espionage for the department of commerce, interception of hardware to install backdoors, targeting allies, targeting dissidents not terrorists, and an ambition to collect all the information on the planet. Given the lack of engagement with the central allegations of the book, and the sniping about his character in this review, I think it demonstrates very well that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop. The NYT has just occasionally been brilliant in covering this story (mostly when involving Laura Poitras), but mostly has avoided the central issues and has completely avoided challenging the talking points and framing of this story by the administration as about terrorism and a naif who has put the country in danger, encouraged by the 'activist' Greenwald.
kelmop 12y ago
it is asking for username and password? ok, found a working copy: http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Uncompressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl...
Istof 12y ago
The "uncompressed" pdf link gives me a 500 error, but not this one: http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compre...

119 points by duck 12y ago

How can we protect ourselves from this type of interception? It seems impossible. Why would any non-american customers buy US made devices? Any protections that are added can/will be bypassed if the US gov gets physical access (or even remote). It seems like our US vendors are going to take a hit from this.

throw_90u1d20j9 12y ago
Yes, but not immediately, since the NSA thing came as a surprise, so: a. nobody had a plan to switch at that time. b. foreign companies did not know they might be able to compete simply for privacy reasons. I think this will change over the next decade. People move slowly, but now that the trust is lost, it will be difficult to restore, even if the US government would act. (They won't.)
- liotier 12y ago
  > b. foreign companies did not know they might be able > to compete simply for privacy reasons. Tell that to employees of companies such as Airbus... They have always assumed that they were under constant attack from government-level entities, with good reason.
  - john_b 12y ago
    An exception or two to the rule does not invalidate the rule. Most ordinary commercial businesses using US-made devices or online services don't deal with technology their government considers a national asset, and as a result don't have to be as paranoid as Airbus, BAE, Petrobras, etc.
bediger4000 12y ago
If some product (router, cell phone, heck, even a cable or power supply) where designed to be amenable to physical inspection, a lot of the weirder anti-air-gap NSA spying would be possible to verify against. I mean, a USB cable with a clear silicone strain guard would show you that some of the taps don't exist. Verifiable builds, and open-source software would take away the potential of a lot of the rootkit-like taps. The big issue is the BIOS-level, DMA-level and hidden-disk-storage (host protected area). Perhaps using Linux BIOS, with verifiable builds, would protect against some of that. Naturally, hardware like the Broadcom network adapters that have their own Mips CPU is right out: peripherals would have to be demonstrably "dumb" to fit in this sort of system. Perhaps shipping components and requiring some self-assembly would help. Certainly, you'd have to have enough documentation to ensure that no weird extra chips are soldered on, and design so that chips can be verified by the users. All of these things mitigate against, but don't eliminate the spying.

revelation 12y ago

In this review, the author of a paper that brought you the Iraq war is unhappy with Greenwalds impression of his and similar media properties.

cryoshon 12y ago
On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. On the other hand, this kind of "perfectly normal and always palatable fare for the sake of always being popular" stuff is certainly very weak journalism. They're so low-brow that they can't even write a story that refutes their readership's expectations because they're afraid of losing business. When it comes to the government, the criticism of the NYT will always be pedestrian and surface-level rather than deep. This ends up serving the government because it implies that solutions will also be merely surface-level rather than far-reaching.
- deciplex 12y ago
  >On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. Let's make an important distinction here: the NYT does not merely seek to turn a profit. That is, they do not try to cover their operating costs plus some extra percentage. Even at their size, they could engage in responsible journalism and still achieve this goal. Rather, the NYT seeks to maximize profit, above all else. And, if responsible journalism does not contribute to that goal, then responsible journalism will not get done.
eli 12y ago
I'm not sure the NYT's book reviewer had much to do with the Iraq war. Why even read the review if you automatically reject any opinion anyone in the Times might have about the book?
csandreasen 12y ago
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison when Glenn Greenwald himself was in support of the Iraq war... http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462 http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

cryoshon 12y ago

NYT shows its bias with passages such as "In one passage, Mr. Greenwald makes the demonstrably false assertion that one “unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop,” that “they would report on an archive like Snowden’s so as to limit its impact — publish a handful of stories, revel in the accolades of a ‘big scoop,’ collect prizes, and then walk away, ensuring that nothing had really changed.” Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story." It's trivial to point to CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo etc and show that really they haven't kept up with the Snowden papers in depth and certainly haven't emphasized any of the relevant points in their stories-- for instance, a Google search of "JTRIG CNN" or "JTRIG NBC" or "JTRIG New York Times" comes up with nothing, because they didn't even write stories on that revelation-- perhaps intentionally as a result of collusion with the government to protect the terms of their access to officials. JTRIG was a super-important reveal which was not covered whatsoever by the MSM, and is described as "The scope of the JTRIG's mission includes using "dirty tricks" to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications." by Wikipedia. In summary: NYT is wrong when they attempt to defend themselves against Greenwald's claim that they're pro-establishment because they refused to write stories on the most damaging Snowden files. EDIT: Out of curiosity, I additionally decided to investigate whether the NYT and MSM covered Operation Earnest Voice, the NSA's program to sway public opinion via shilling and sockpuppeting. They did not cover the story whatsoever. Operation Earnest Voice detailed extensive false-person based propaganda efforts against the US and international public. The NYT is a joke.

mrfusion 12y ago
It always seems strange to me that individual journalists never seem to be aware of these issues. Why do you think that is?
- cryoshon 12y ago
  Unless you were actually following the propagation of Snowden stories through the MSM in realtime as I was (at the time), it'd be tough to realize a story isn't getting covered. People also tend to have intentionally blind spots when it comes to their own institution.

pessimizer 12y ago

It tells all you need to know about the establishment nature of the NYT that Kakutani, in her defense of establishment media against Greenwald's critique, writes: >"Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story." Correction - it's not the Snowden story, it's the NSA surveillance story. The story isn't supposed to be about the whistleblower.

thinkpad20 12y ago
*her defense
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Thanks - I had a vague feeling that I had typed something lately that had assumed masculinity:) Edited.
  - cpr 12y ago
    Why apologize? You thought it was a he. (Does anyone else find these kinds of reflexive auto-da-fe statements painful?)
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Because it's not something that I'm in the habit of doing, and not something I think is acceptable. If you think my statement was reflexive rather than an expression of my honest belief, it's because you're projecting.
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      * auto-de-fé
      - cpr 12y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9

grey-area 12y ago

It's interesting to contrast this article with Greenwald talking about the content of the book: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/13/collect_it_all_glenn_greenwald_on http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/13/collect_it_all_glenn_g... The review fails to tackle allegations of economic espionage for the department of commerce, interception of hardware to install backdoors, targeting allies, targeting dissidents not terrorists, and an ambition to collect all the information on the planet. Given the lack of engagement with the central allegations of the book, and the sniping about his character in this review, I think it demonstrates very well that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop. The NYT has just occasionally been brilliant in covering this story (mostly when involving Laura Poitras), but mostly has avoided the central issues and has completely avoided challenging the talking points and framing of this story by the administration as about terrorism and a naif who has put the country in danger, encouraged by the 'activist' Greenwald.

kelmop 12y ago

it is asking for username and password? ok, found a working copy: http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Uncompressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl...

Istof 12y ago

The "uncompressed" pdf link gives me a 500 error, but not this one: http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compre...