6 ms·

The US Intelligence Community has a Third Leaker

204 points by ademarre 12y ago

arjn 12y ago
When an organization gets too big, it is statistically likely there will be leaks. I think the US has forgotten or willfully ignored the lessons learned from the past 100 years of espionage.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  When more than 95 percent of the "classified" information doesn't deserve to be classified in the first place, leaks will happen, too.
  - homulilly 12y ago
    Yeah, ironically, the US's approach to state secrets (as in fucking everything is a state secret) makes it harder for them to keep things under control.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    But in that case, a leak only has a 5% chance of being something that anyone actually cares about. ("Anyone" here does not mean the overly paranoid bureaucrat that classified it, it means pretty much anyone else.)
    - perrylaj 12y ago
      Not necessarily. The other 95% (as evidenced by Manning's leaks) often contain information of importance to commercial enterprise -- information that should likely be of public record anyway if it's being communicated through publicly funded channels.
junto 12y ago
Good. Step up number 4. You number has been called. I realise this is flippant, but in all honesty I believe we are at an impasse, something between 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined and a balance between security and the freedom to think without prejudice. Our problem is that there comes a point where so much resources have been committed to invading the privacy of the public that there is no turning back. So, number 4. Step forward and take your place in history.
- yutah 12y ago
  sounds like a plan... wish I could help.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Actually no. The US and most of Europe is NOT in a situation 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined. Freedom of speech is at an unprecedented high. The government still doesn't care what you think or say individually, with very minor exceptions. Invasion of privacy has to be fought. But let's not kid ourselves into believing we're not incredibly privileged with the free society we live in.
  - junto 12y ago
    The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. It may not happen today, or next week, but if you think today's politicians are bad then wait till you see what is coming round the corner. FYI you don't know who or what is coming next. That's why I can say 1000 times worse. It could also be a million times worse. The data is sitting there, waiting for the biggest bunch of assholes to cone along and abuse it. P.s. I can't reply to rev_bird below, but Amen to that. Spot on analysis.
    - rev_bird 12y ago
      > The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. The pervasive surveillance state presents a monstrous potential for the suppression of people who aim to challenge the status quo, which seems like as fundamental a threat to free speech as there can be. I love that we have so many First Amendment protections today, but if there are billions of dollars going to programs that continuously flout the Fourth Amendment, it's not a huge stretch to say the other ones aren't up for grabs.
    - candu 12y ago
      You can both be right. It is true that this apparatus presents an unparalleled opportunity for the suppression of free speech. It is also true that, compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Crusades-era Europe, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. we are nowhere near the historical maximum of such suppression... ...which makes it all the more important that we quash said opportunity now.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
One of these days one of these "leakers" will actually be US or foreign spy agency achieving a strategic advantage by "leaking" information.
- iwwr 12y ago
  This happens all the time. Secret information that's flattering to the state has a habit of coming to light more often than not.
- revelation 12y ago
  This happens daily, it is what the NYT calls a "government official speaking on the condition of anonymity". Try Google, you get multiple matching articles every single day. It is gotten so ridiculous that the "public editor" of the NYT felt the need to whitewash the practice in one of her columns: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-... Of course, it highlights the virtues of the "investigative journalist", having to disguise the identity of his vital sources. That, by and large, remains a fantasy. The most important tool for a journalist is his phone, and he uses it daily to call all the same "sources". These sources then relay some juicy factoids (fully adherent to the party line), which is repeated without being questioned and with anonymity granted, to a government official speaking on a government telephone line. The whole setup is so bizarre; of course no one gives out actual leaks on a freaking telephone line. It is no longer 1950.
DigitalSea 12y ago
Quite frankly, this is karma. When you are treating your own civilians and allies as criminals and storing that information in a database for your own perusal and you employ thousands of direct and indirect (contractors) staff, you're bound to end up with leaks. I think the whole PRISM thing Snowden exposed is only one thing, I don't doubt there are other programs just as secretive shocking and sickening lurking around at the NSA waiting to be leaked. Time for some more leakers to step up and raise the curtain hiding the machine.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Hopefully more will be inspired by Daniel Ellsberg recent talk at HOPE X and and his call for action for more "real patriots" to do their duty and blow the whistle on abuses and law breaking.
- wcummings 12y ago
  His talk was deliciously rant-y.
  - gred 12y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY
ck2 12y ago
President Obama today: "If you blow the whistle on an unethical practice or bring a problem to the attention of higher-ups, you should be thanked. You should be protected for doing the right thing"
- fleitz 12y ago
  What wasn't said is that Obama considers all the programs Snowden brought to light to be ethical.
- homulilly 12y ago
  Too bad every single thing the US government does under his administration is ethical as far as he's concerned.
  - mattm 12y ago
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon
- pzxc 12y ago
  If President Obama really believes that, where is Snowden's pardon?
  - ck2 12y ago
    I'll settle for Manning being pardoned, Snowden is in relative paradise in comparison.
    - phaus 12y ago
      In case you didn't notice, Manning was acquitted for revealing documents that proved government wrongdoing. She was also acquitted of the ridiculous charge of aiding the enemy. She was, however, convicted of leaking 700000 unrelated documents without a reason. Had she not been tortured, I'd say the sentence was fair (so long as she actually gets paroled in 8 years). However, her torture was substantiated by a judge and so she should have walked a long time ago as a result.
sandstrom 12y ago
A third whistleblower / hero. How come none in the government is charged for the multitude of illegal things that has been revealed? But there is still the insistency of labeling these people as 'leakers' instead of something more appropriate like 'hero' or 'whistleblower'.
- nostromo 12y ago
  "Hero" is incredibly biased language. No journalist should use that term for Snowden outside of the opinion page. (For what it's worth, I personally view Snowden a hero.) "Leaker" is a factual statement that is focused on a person's activities, not his or her motivations. And it doesn't pass judgement.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    "leaker" has mild negative connotations. "Whistle blower" has more positive connotations.
    - delecti 12y ago
      "Whistle blower" also fairly strongly implies that what the government was doing is negative and should be called out, which the media tends to be hesitant to cal out.
    - Aqueous 12y ago
      I don't think leaker has mild negative connotations, and if it once did, it doesn't anymore because of the popularity of organizations like WikiLeaks. Leaking is in the name, after all.
      - freehunter 12y ago
        You really don't think WikiLeaks has a negative connotation in the media and the public in and of itself? The media spent a very long time running WikiLeaks through the mud.
Cieplak 12y ago
If the government were to figure out who this is, perhaps through the process of elimination and internal spying, my bet is that we would never hear about it and that the person would disappear silently to a CIA operated Polish prison.
fleitz 12y ago
I think Schneier is seriously discounting the magic document theory as it pertains to the 2nd and possibly 3rd leakers.
george88b 12y ago
Did we all read the same article...Where is the evidence of a third leaker?

204 points by ademarre 12y ago

arjn 12y ago

When an organization gets too big, it is statistically likely there will be leaks. I think the US has forgotten or willfully ignored the lessons learned from the past 100 years of espionage.

higherpurpose 12y ago
When more than 95 percent of the "classified" information doesn't deserve to be classified in the first place, leaks will happen, too.
- homulilly 12y ago
  Yeah, ironically, the US's approach to state secrets (as in fucking everything is a state secret) makes it harder for them to keep things under control.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  But in that case, a leak only has a 5% chance of being something that anyone actually cares about. ("Anyone" here does not mean the overly paranoid bureaucrat that classified it, it means pretty much anyone else.)
  - perrylaj 12y ago
    Not necessarily. The other 95% (as evidenced by Manning's leaks) often contain information of importance to commercial enterprise -- information that should likely be of public record anyway if it's being communicated through publicly funded channels.

junto 12y ago

Good. Step up number 4. You number has been called. I realise this is flippant, but in all honesty I believe we are at an impasse, something between 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined and a balance between security and the freedom to think without prejudice. Our problem is that there comes a point where so much resources have been committed to invading the privacy of the public that there is no turning back. So, number 4. Step forward and take your place in history.

yutah 12y ago
sounds like a plan... wish I could help.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Actually no. The US and most of Europe is NOT in a situation 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined. Freedom of speech is at an unprecedented high. The government still doesn't care what you think or say individually, with very minor exceptions. Invasion of privacy has to be fought. But let's not kid ourselves into believing we're not incredibly privileged with the free society we live in.
- junto 12y ago
  The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. It may not happen today, or next week, but if you think today's politicians are bad then wait till you see what is coming round the corner. FYI you don't know who or what is coming next. That's why I can say 1000 times worse. It could also be a million times worse. The data is sitting there, waiting for the biggest bunch of assholes to cone along and abuse it. P.s. I can't reply to rev_bird below, but Amen to that. Spot on analysis.
  - rev_bird 12y ago
    > The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. The pervasive surveillance state presents a monstrous potential for the suppression of people who aim to challenge the status quo, which seems like as fundamental a threat to free speech as there can be. I love that we have so many First Amendment protections today, but if there are billions of dollars going to programs that continuously flout the Fourth Amendment, it's not a huge stretch to say the other ones aren't up for grabs.
  - candu 12y ago
    You can both be right. It is true that this apparatus presents an unparalleled opportunity for the suppression of free speech. It is also true that, compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Crusades-era Europe, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. we are nowhere near the historical maximum of such suppression... ...which makes it all the more important that we quash said opportunity now.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

One of these days one of these "leakers" will actually be US or foreign spy agency achieving a strategic advantage by "leaking" information.

iwwr 12y ago
This happens all the time. Secret information that's flattering to the state has a habit of coming to light more often than not.
revelation 12y ago
This happens daily, it is what the NYT calls a "government official speaking on the condition of anonymity". Try Google, you get multiple matching articles every single day. It is gotten so ridiculous that the "public editor" of the NYT felt the need to whitewash the practice in one of her columns: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-... Of course, it highlights the virtues of the "investigative journalist", having to disguise the identity of his vital sources. That, by and large, remains a fantasy. The most important tool for a journalist is his phone, and he uses it daily to call all the same "sources". These sources then relay some juicy factoids (fully adherent to the party line), which is repeated without being questioned and with anonymity granted, to a government official speaking on a government telephone line. The whole setup is so bizarre; of course no one gives out actual leaks on a freaking telephone line. It is no longer 1950.

DigitalSea 12y ago

Quite frankly, this is karma. When you are treating your own civilians and allies as criminals and storing that information in a database for your own perusal and you employ thousands of direct and indirect (contractors) staff, you're bound to end up with leaks. I think the whole PRISM thing Snowden exposed is only one thing, I don't doubt there are other programs just as secretive shocking and sickening lurking around at the NSA waiting to be leaked. Time for some more leakers to step up and raise the curtain hiding the machine.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Hopefully more will be inspired by Daniel Ellsberg recent talk at HOPE X and and his call for action for more "real patriots" to do their duty and blow the whistle on abuses and law breaking.

wcummings 12y ago
His talk was deliciously rant-y.
- gred 12y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY

ck2 12y ago

President Obama today: "If you blow the whistle on an unethical practice or bring a problem to the attention of higher-ups, you should be thanked. You should be protected for doing the right thing"

fleitz 12y ago
What wasn't said is that Obama considers all the programs Snowden brought to light to be ethical.
homulilly 12y ago
Too bad every single thing the US government does under his administration is ethical as far as he's concerned.
- mattm 12y ago
  "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon
pzxc 12y ago
If President Obama really believes that, where is Snowden's pardon?
- ck2 12y ago
  I'll settle for Manning being pardoned, Snowden is in relative paradise in comparison.
  - phaus 12y ago
    In case you didn't notice, Manning was acquitted for revealing documents that proved government wrongdoing. She was also acquitted of the ridiculous charge of aiding the enemy. She was, however, convicted of leaking 700000 unrelated documents without a reason. Had she not been tortured, I'd say the sentence was fair (so long as she actually gets paroled in 8 years). However, her torture was substantiated by a judge and so she should have walked a long time ago as a result.

sandstrom 12y ago

A third whistleblower / hero. How come none in the government is charged for the multitude of illegal things that has been revealed? But there is still the insistency of labeling these people as 'leakers' instead of something more appropriate like 'hero' or 'whistleblower'.

nostromo 12y ago
"Hero" is incredibly biased language. No journalist should use that term for Snowden outside of the opinion page. (For what it's worth, I personally view Snowden a hero.) "Leaker" is a factual statement that is focused on a person's activities, not his or her motivations. And it doesn't pass judgement.
- DanBC 12y ago
  "leaker" has mild negative connotations. "Whistle blower" has more positive connotations.
  - delecti 12y ago
    "Whistle blower" also fairly strongly implies that what the government was doing is negative and should be called out, which the media tends to be hesitant to cal out.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    I don't think leaker has mild negative connotations, and if it once did, it doesn't anymore because of the popularity of organizations like WikiLeaks. Leaking is in the name, after all.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      You really don't think WikiLeaks has a negative connotation in the media and the public in and of itself? The media spent a very long time running WikiLeaks through the mud.

Cieplak 12y ago

If the government were to figure out who this is, perhaps through the process of elimination and internal spying, my bet is that we would never hear about it and that the person would disappear silently to a CIA operated Polish prison.

fleitz 12y ago

I think Schneier is seriously discounting the magic document theory as it pertains to the 2nd and possibly 3rd leakers.

george88b 12y ago

Did we all read the same article...Where is the evidence of a third leaker?