3 ms·

To clarify I mean that I don't believe it adds much to the corpus of information about domestic and civil rights infractions. On the other hand it deals a pret

To clarify I mean that I don't believe it adds much to the corpus of information about domestic and civil rights infractions. On the other hand it deals a pretty big blow geopolitically/internationally. The big deal about this article is that it reveals the major tactical capabilities and efforts the NSA has invested in the intelligence war. Edit: Right now HN is limiting the number of replies I can initiate. Will reply as I can.

acqq 12y ago
> The big deal about this article is that it reveals the major tactical capabilities and efforts the NSA has invested in the intelligence war. It does? What is actually new and specific I fail to see. But it's a really, really nice summary.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  SENTRY EAGLE and the 13 page draft (summarized in the article) is new. SENTRY EAGLE is the protection program outlined jointly by the NSA and the U.S. Strategic Command. The first line reads: "SENTRY EAGLE... compartmented program protecting the highest and most sensitive level [by] NSA/JFCC to support the U.S. government's efforts to protect America's cyberspace." https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/10/10/national-initiative-protection-program-sentry-eagle/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/10/10/natio... The document goes on to specify the broad U.S. cyber protection strategy broken down into Sentry Hawk, Sentry Falcon, Sentry Osprey, Sentry Raven, Sentry Condor, and Sentry Owl - all of which are new. Add on top data about infiltration into (allied) South Korea and Germany. Not a good day for the NSA.
  - acqq 12y ago
    The names are certainly new, but AFAIK the names themselves aren't classified. What's behind the names is classified, but more details about such actions were already published. We just learn more names, that is, how they call these actions internally. And we get a nice summary of the previous disclosures. Written by the authorities who otherwise denied the parts of it even as the specific documents were published. It's that everything is written together that's new. The new potential to embarrasment of the officials is in having it all in one document, which makes the denials much harder.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      It's like seeing certain plays from a sport team before, and then after a game seeing their notebook with their general game strategy. Yeah everything we saw before 'fits in' to what was released today - for example we already knew from examples that the NSA works to break encryption - but now we also know that it is considered one of six key investments and that it probably has its own leadership separate from the others. This is useful because you know what programs have more overhead talking to each other/partnering. For example to speculate that corporations probably aren't helping very much with the crypto breaking effort. (The names are most definitely classified.)
      - acqq 12y ago
        Wrong, the names aren't classified, contrary to your claim "the names are most definitely classified." Look in the document, the title "Sentry Eagle Data Sheet" is clearly marked "U" which according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U... Means "Unclassified."
        xnull2guest 12y ago
        Well what do you know. U//FOUO Unclassified. For official use only. Yup the names are not classified.
        acqq 12y ago
        One line before the one where you've probably found that combination is just "(U) Sentry Eagle Data Sheet" clearly without the FOUO (which, if existed, would mean "for official use only"). The markings specify the following not the previous content. So the title I quoted as containing the name is just and only "U" unclassified.
        xnull2guest 12y ago
        So an addendum. As the terms are not classified there are minimal standards regarding using the names in less secured conversation. If another country has intercepted communications or documents with some mention of SENTRY EAGLE, now that this has been released they know some of the conversation/document context.
Tomte 12y ago
> To clarify I mean that I don't believe it adds much to the corpus of information about domestic and civil rights infractions. As a foreigner, I'm actually more interested in non-domestic stuff.
- hueving 12y ago
  Of course, but to be honest, that was the previous expectation of the NSA. It's not that apparent that there is anything useful to gain by leaking their attempts to spy on foreign counties like every other country does.
  - belorn 12y ago
    Since when is sabotage an act of spying, or for that matter acceptable behavior in peace time? Lets say Swedish spies was sent to the US in order to infiltrate and weaken the 911 system, the power grid, or other key infrastructures of the US. Would you shrug at that also, since after all, what should people expect from spies? Sabotage and spying is two different activities. Sabotage is a tactic employed during war. Spying is a tactic employed during peace. Confusing the two simply states that peace is war, and war is peace, and anything goes so long its against foreigners.
coldtea 12y ago
>On the other hand it deals a pretty big blow geopolitically/internationally. So? For me (Godwin's law be damned) it's like leaked documents about Nazi germany practices. If you were not a German you'd cheer, and if you were a non-Nazi German you'd also cheer.

acqq 12y ago

> The big deal about this article is that it reveals the major tactical capabilities and efforts the NSA has invested in the intelligence war. It does? What is actually new and specific I fail to see. But it's a really, really nice summary.

xnull2guest 12y ago
SENTRY EAGLE and the 13 page draft (summarized in the article) is new. SENTRY EAGLE is the protection program outlined jointly by the NSA and the U.S. Strategic Command. The first line reads: "SENTRY EAGLE... compartmented program protecting the highest and most sensitive level [by] NSA/JFCC to support the U.S. government's efforts to protect America's cyberspace." https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/10/10/national-initiative-protection-program-sentry-eagle/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/10/10/natio... The document goes on to specify the broad U.S. cyber protection strategy broken down into Sentry Hawk, Sentry Falcon, Sentry Osprey, Sentry Raven, Sentry Condor, and Sentry Owl - all of which are new. Add on top data about infiltration into (allied) South Korea and Germany. Not a good day for the NSA.
- acqq 12y ago
  The names are certainly new, but AFAIK the names themselves aren't classified. What's behind the names is classified, but more details about such actions were already published. We just learn more names, that is, how they call these actions internally. And we get a nice summary of the previous disclosures. Written by the authorities who otherwise denied the parts of it even as the specific documents were published. It's that everything is written together that's new. The new potential to embarrasment of the officials is in having it all in one document, which makes the denials much harder.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    It's like seeing certain plays from a sport team before, and then after a game seeing their notebook with their general game strategy. Yeah everything we saw before 'fits in' to what was released today - for example we already knew from examples that the NSA works to break encryption - but now we also know that it is considered one of six key investments and that it probably has its own leadership separate from the others. This is useful because you know what programs have more overhead talking to each other/partnering. For example to speculate that corporations probably aren't helping very much with the crypto breaking effort. (The names are most definitely classified.)
    - acqq 12y ago
      Wrong, the names aren't classified, contrary to your claim "the names are most definitely classified." Look in the document, the title "Sentry Eagle Data Sheet" is clearly marked "U" which according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U... Means "Unclassified."
      - xnull2guest 12y ago
        Well what do you know. U//FOUO Unclassified. For official use only. Yup the names are not classified.
        acqq 12y ago
        One line before the one where you've probably found that combination is just "(U) Sentry Eagle Data Sheet" clearly without the FOUO (which, if existed, would mean "for official use only"). The markings specify the following not the previous content. So the title I quoted as containing the name is just and only "U" unclassified.
        xnull2guest 12y ago
        So an addendum. As the terms are not classified there are minimal standards regarding using the names in less secured conversation. If another country has intercepted communications or documents with some mention of SENTRY EAGLE, now that this has been released they know some of the conversation/document context.

Tomte 12y ago

> To clarify I mean that I don't believe it adds much to the corpus of information about domestic and civil rights infractions. As a foreigner, I'm actually more interested in non-domestic stuff.

hueving 12y ago
Of course, but to be honest, that was the previous expectation of the NSA. It's not that apparent that there is anything useful to gain by leaking their attempts to spy on foreign counties like every other country does.
- belorn 12y ago
  Since when is sabotage an act of spying, or for that matter acceptable behavior in peace time? Lets say Swedish spies was sent to the US in order to infiltrate and weaken the 911 system, the power grid, or other key infrastructures of the US. Would you shrug at that also, since after all, what should people expect from spies? Sabotage and spying is two different activities. Sabotage is a tactic employed during war. Spying is a tactic employed during peace. Confusing the two simply states that peace is war, and war is peace, and anything goes so long its against foreigners.

coldtea 12y ago

>On the other hand it deals a pretty big blow geopolitically/internationally. So? For me (Godwin's law be damned) it's like leaked documents about Nazi germany practices. If you were not a German you'd cheer, and if you were a non-Nazi German you'd also cheer.