8 ms·

Questions about the Sunday Times Snowden Story

251 points by alfiedotwtf 11y ago

aw3c2 11y ago
> (...) I've reviewed the Snowden documents and I've never seen anything in there naming active MI6 agents. Which documents does he mean? The ones that have been published so far? Or has he access to all of them and looked through them all (if so, why weren't they all released by now?)?
- agd 11y ago
  He works at the Intercept so presumably as seen the real set of documents held by Greenwald. The aren't all released for obvious reasons, not least because the source said they shouldn't all be released.
  - aw3c2 11y ago
    Ah, I had no idea, thought it was a random "blogger". Thanks!
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    What "obvious reasons"? Nothing Snowden has released has or ever could harm anyone who did not deserve it.
rwmj 11y ago
If there's any truth at all to the allegations, a much more likely scenario is the Russians and Chinese have either turned other NSA contractors, or have entered NSA computers via contractors' computer networks (see RSA SecurID breach). Anyway, which idiot put the names of field agents on a computer which is accessible to contractors?
- jakobdabo 11y ago
  Or maybe the Chinese/Russians got the information from the latest data breach [1] but it's more convenient pointing fingers at Snowden. [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_data_breach/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_dat...
  - remarkEon 11y ago
    If I were a betting man, this is what I would go with. I imagine the Chinese/Russians are rigorously reviewing all the foreign contacts listed on the SF86 and checking that with whatever database their governments maintain for suspicious persons. I'd think they would be building a web of who's who that has contacts with clearance-holding Americans.
- us0r 11y ago
  "computer which is accessible to contractors" Most of this stuff is built and/or ran by contractors.
- spydum 11y ago
  if i were playing the black hat, i would have targeted the reporters who have the document dump. they are least likely to have the technical know how to keep it secure. i think i recall that snowden gave them some instructions around how to access/keep safe, but i suspect when you have government agencies specifically targeting you, it becomes quite difficult even under the best conditions
  - rwmj 11y ago
    But that dump is now 2 years out of date. Turning a current NSA contractor, or (even safer) just attacking an insecure network from afar gives them the up to date information.
    - beagle3 11y ago
      While I absolutely agree with you, I'd like to point out that in the real world of armies and politics, 2 years is not fresh but definitely not out-of-date. Military and diplomatic careers last 20 years (especially among people that matter). And things reportedly in the OPM breaches, such as medical and psychological issues usually stay relevant for even longer than that.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Why is it "much more likely"? There are plenty of very plausible scenarios in which Snowden docs could be the source. He could have done a worse job encrypting them than he thought he did. He could have purposely handed it over: for revenge because the US is trying to hunt him down; because Russia threatened to hand him back to the US; because Russia tortured him for the keys; etc.
  - woah 11y ago
    Occam's razor. We know that someone recently stole the exact information they are complaining about being exposed. This is probably how the agents were compromised. A lying anonymous government source (from one of the governments that has anonymously lied to us so many times in the past) is far more plausible than some bizarre 2 year delay and subsequent cryptographic breakthrough by the "Chinese and Russians" (who are now allied?).
    - rhino369 11y ago
      Occam's razor isn't an excuse to just presume your biases.
      - CyberDildonics 11y ago
        Presuming bias isn't an excuse to not mention logical flaws.
- skidoo 11y ago
  If I remember correctly, Snowden himself said in Citizen Four that intelligence agencies use aliases for assets and not targets. Which would mean that if any agents had actually been named in the docs, their masters saw them not as assets but as potential targets, which is damning unto itself.
jfaucett 11y ago
My thoughts exactly, I can't find the link now but last night someone published this story that linked to a photo image of the printed page and I thought it was a joke. Made me wonder if some groups in gov't were either A) getting a little uncomfortable with all the heat on the survelliance programs or B) needed public pressure to pass more restrictive laws and decided to make up some claims to get public opinion back on their side. Any way you look at, articles like this one are why I stay away from mainstream news sources.
- yagami_san 11y ago
  Here's the other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714072
- x5n1 11y ago
  Mainstream media sources about most topics are propaganda, plain and simple. You can call it marketing, you can call it public relations, or you can call it propaganda. Same god damn'd thing. The news is simply a good way to know what the opinion leaders want us to think about various things.
justinsingh 11y ago
Would there be any significant repercussion if the Russians and Chinese even had classified information?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Given what they were accusing wikileaks, Manning and Snowden of there should be. But I don't see anybody standing up yet and taking responsibility publicly for being so terribly sloppy with all this information. Much easier to blame the people we already know about and who the government has a score to settle with. Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come the United States is still in the dark about what exactly was taken (which they've admitted they do not know) and that they implicitly claim to have a full copy of the archive in readable form as well (otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making here). So much inconsistency.
  - jackgavigan 11y ago
    > ..otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making here.. Don't forget the UK government got hold of 58,000 documents from Snowden's archive when they detained David Miranda at Heathrow: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-... Even if the NSA/GCHQ got hold of the "entire archive", they have no way of knowing for certain that what they have is indeed the entire archive.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      So what, they got those documents a long time ago, that's not the same as suddenly claiming access to a 1M+ documents archive unless something has dramatically changed and there isn't a shred of proof for any of that.
      - jackgavigan 11y ago
tomjen3 11y ago
It is either a smear campaign or a clumsy cover up for the recent total breach of all the security clearance files.
- estefan 11y ago
  People have been praising him a bit much recently after various governments have been reigning in the surveillance communities. I suspect this is a part of a campaign to keep public opinion against him. I expect as a security contractor, Snowdon knew how to encrypt things securely. The NSA were for ages saying they didn't know what was in the files, and I expect if the Russians and Chinese can crack no doubt heavy grade encryption, the Yanks can too.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  It is transparently made-up BS on every level, down to "encryption is magical so you should give us more security powers to protect you from evil wizards."
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
Despite that he brought no files with him from Hong Kong, I can readily accept that the Chinese or Russians obtained the files from someone else. The term "black bag job" commonly means stealing a codebook. Spy movies depict Peter Gunn breaking into an embassy then cracking a safe. Real black bag jobs are such social engineering as when the Pentagon ordered the commanding officer of Midway Island to request a replacement for the base's broken water desalination plant: "$THE_ISLAND_WERE_ABOUT_TO_ATTACK needs a new desalinator" reported a japanese spy.
- desdiv 11y ago
  It wasn't from a spy. It was the coded Japanese radio messages. The "Midway needs water" message was intentionally broadcasted in clear text. [0] http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1.htm http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1....
  - MichaelCrawford 11y ago
    Sorry I should have been more clear. The request for a desalinator was encrypted but in with the most insecure crypto used by the navy at the time. The japanese intercepted it then reported it back to japan using crypto that we had already cracked. My use of the term "spy" was intended purely for rhetorical effect.
Zigurd 11y ago
Tl;dr: blame Snowden for the mess OPM made, based on no actual evidence.
7952 11y ago
It is so difficult to parse this kind of article. We don't know if the sources are actually from the intelligence community, or politicians who are being fed a narrative by actual intelligence sources. My hunch is that these agencies are compromised by hackers and most of this is a response to that in one way or another. Just this week we found out how security-clearance information has been extracted by attackers. This include records of “foreign contacts”—lists of non-U.S. officials that a person might know or have relationships with [1]. But maybe just blame everything on Snowden! [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-information-likely-stolen-during-breach-of-government-agency-1434143820 http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-information-l...
- us0r 11y ago
  "Just this week we found out how security-clearance information has been extracted by attackers." And the week before the FBI is going around all the media complaining about encryption.
  - DennisP 11y ago
    Well apparently it's easy to break encryption so I don't see what they're complaining about.
    - imron 11y ago
      It sure it, just type 'override' when the 'access denied' prompt is shown. sigh I hate what tv/movies have made people believe about tech.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Well if the UK government gets their way this is pretty much what they want to have in place.
- logn 11y ago
  We haven't seen any proof in the OPM case. And I don't think any journalists reporting it have been made privy to any proof that's gone unpublished. Maybe I'm wrong, but every story I've seen just regurgitates what officials are saying. Meanwhile they're pushing for stronger "cyber security" legislation and trying to stoke cyber fears as the country slowly recovers from the collective 9/11 PTSD.
davidgerard 11y ago
The Sunday Times, and the weekday Times, cast about for relevance these days since their content is not available online. Hence big splash stories with little substance like this, to keep their name current.
jackgavigan 11y ago
Let's set aside the question of whether what Snowden did was right or wrong for a moment, and look at the situation objectively and logically, and taking into account the NSA's perspective. I think we can safely assume that, when the Snowden story broke, the NSA had no idea what documents he had taken. Even today, they may not know for certain[1] (except for the 58,000 documents David Miranda was carrying when he was detained in Heathrow). From a damage assessment perspective, all they could do is look at what he had access to, and assume that he took it all. The first few stories that emerged were about Verizon and Prism. At that point, it looked like Snowden was whistleblowing about NSA surveillance of Americans. However, he then revealed details of NSA operations targeting Hong Kong and mainland China[2], including IP addresses[3]. At that point, it became clear that Snowden was not going to limit himself to revelations about domestic survillance, and that he had downloaded and was prepared to release details of foreign operations. If he had the IP addresses of targets, it seems plausible that he would also have information that could potentially be used to identify intelligence officers. It is probably somewhat less plausible (but still not beyond the realms of possibility) that he would have information that could be used to identify HUMINT sources (i.e. "agents"). Greenwald later said that “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[4]. Snowden was later allowed to leave Hong Kong, despite an extradition request from the US[5]. Some suspect that China was able to copy the contents of the four laptops he took to Hong Kong[6]. So, from the NSA's perspective, they're dealing with a guy who stole operational details about operations against a foreign (and, from their perspective, hostile) power, and released that information "to ingratiate himself" with that foreign power. So when, after having been stuck in Sheremetyevo Airport for more than five weeks, Snowden is granted asylum by Russia, it would not be unreasonable for the NSA to suspect the possibility of some kind of quid pro quo deal. While Putin would probably have been happy to grant Snowden asylum anyway, just to embarrass the United States, I think it's safe to assume that Putin would have sought to obtain as much advantage as possible from the situation and I, for one, can easily imagine him threatening to return Snowden to the US if he didn't cooperate. We only have Snowden's word that he didn't share anything with the Russians (or the Chinese, for that matter) and, from the NSA's perspective, Snowden's word means nothing - as far as they're concerned, he already lied, stole and revealed sensitive information to a hostile power, so they have no reason to trust anything he says. However, let's set Snowden's trustworthiness aside for a moment and look at how else his archive may have ended up in the hands of the Russians or Chinese. We know that large portions (if not all) of the archive were handed over to Greenwald, Poitras and various newspapers, who wrote stories based on the information contained therein, redacting information as they saw fit. For example, the location of the GCHQ monitoring station in the Middle East was initially kept secret by the media[7] but was subsequently revealed by Duncan Campbell[8]. We also saw Guardian staff redacting slides for publication in Citizen Four. Would foreign intelligence services (FIS) have sought to obtain a copy of the archive that was held by those reporters and newspapers? Almost certainly. Given their capabilities and resources, would a FIS have been successful in that endeavour? I would say "Probably". It also emerged that Snowden had distributed copies of his archive (by which I mean the entire archive, not just the subset that was handed over to the journalists and newspapers) to various people so that they could be released if anything happened to him[4]. Allusions were made to it having been encrypted but, at the end of the day, the key is out there somewhere. We know that at least one of the people involved was not particularly good at operational security (c.f. David Miranda carrying the password for an encrypted file on a piece of paper[9]) and was susceptible to being pressured into giving up information under interrogation (c.f. David Miranda's disclosure of his passwords[10]). What are the chances that other people involved, whether couriers like Miranda, or the individuals to whom Snowden distributed copies of his archive, have been identified and targeted by FIS? Given the value of the information in the archive, it seems likely that they would be prepared to devote a fair amount of resources to such an effort. Knowing what we do now (thanks to Snowden!) about the capabilities of the US and UK intelligence services, and working on the assumption that the Russian and Chinese intelligence services must possess similar capabilities, it doesn't seem to be beyond the realms of possibility that such an effort could have been successful. So, there we have three potential "attack vectors" by which FIS could have obtained a copy of the archive: from Snowden himself, from his media partners, and from the people he gave copies to. If you're a decision-maker at the NSA or GCHQ and you know that Snowden had access to information that could be used to identify an intelligence officer or agent, you have a choice to make: Do you assume that (a) Snowden stole that information and it has ended up in the hands of a FIS (in which case your guy is at risk), or do you hope that (b) either he didn't steal it, or that, if he did, it hasn't been acquired by a FIS? The story in the Sunday Times suggests that they went with (a). 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-ne... 2: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-sn... 3: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-sn... 4: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s... 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10138282/US-disappointed-that-Hong-Kong-refused-to-arrest-Edward-Snowden.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... 6: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-have-made-call-to-let-leaker-depart.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-h... 7: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-... 8: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_... 9: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-... 10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243
irishcoffee 11y ago
Nobody (especially in the HN echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what snowden did endangered hundreds of people directly, and the entire US indirectly, by leaking what he did. It is truly amazing to read the rationales on here avoiding this idea.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Hello Ernest Voice. Nice to meet you. (For those that don't know Ernest Voice is an NSA bot that posts stuff like this on forums.) EDIT I doubt that this particular poster is actually such a bot. I am suggesting that his post is based upon not actually reading any of the facts and merely taking an opinion.
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    Lol, does he reply and say thing like, you're wrong?
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Probably.
  - dang 11y ago
    It's not ok to make swipes like this in HN comments. The implication of shilling is out of line, and even if someone hasn't read any facts, posting a comment that is itself factless doesn't help.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      His post was either a shill or tragically ill informed. I merely highlighted this fact.
      - dang 11y ago
        Everyone has an "I merely" defense in response to breaking the guidelines, but we all have to follow them.
classicsnoot 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766
- r721 11y ago
  and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062
chippy 11y ago
Not only could it be a cover up campaign to divert attention from recent unrelated leaks, it is more likely to be preparing the British public to accept new laws to increase surveillance - the so called Snoopers Charter.
teh_klev 11y ago
The Sunday Times story is the same kind of bullshit journalism unleashed on Scots during the Independence Referendum and on the run up to the 2015 general election - "Independence Bad" "Too wee, too poor, too stupid", "SNP BAD" "Subsidy Junkies!" etc. Over the past two years, I think rather fortunately, the Scottish electorate learned how to read newspapers with a great deal of scepticism. The indyref, despite resulting in a "No" vote (by just 6%) did however have the benefit of making our electorate more informed and more likely to question what they see printed by the metro-London press machine, and the shoddy journalism and reporting by the BBC in Pacific Quay (BBC's Scottish branch office).
- qrmn 11y ago
  And that's no coincidence: the prospect of Scottish independence was seen as a grave threat to the United Kingdom by HMG; so, yes, they conducted information operations against it. I am quite sure that seeing the results that the SNP got in the General Election, however, may give them pause for thought about how such things may backfire.
  - teh_klev 11y ago
    And yet, they still aren't learning their lesson - from either the indyref or GE2015. Early polling suggests that the SNP will probably take all or most the constituency seats in next year's Scottish Parliamentary elections, and probably a good chunk of the list seats, resulting in an even larger majority for the SNP (in a system designed to prevent this happening). Meanwhile in the face of this the unionist press continue unabated with the same shreaking and yelling about how shit Scotland is and that "you've had your wee moment of fame" and we should "just shut up and dae whit yer telt". The debate over Full Fiscal Autonomy being the current example [0]. [0]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/ http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/

251 points by alfiedotwtf 11y ago

aw3c2 11y ago

> (...) I've reviewed the Snowden documents and I've never seen anything in there naming active MI6 agents. Which documents does he mean? The ones that have been published so far? Or has he access to all of them and looked through them all (if so, why weren't they all released by now?)?

agd 11y ago
He works at the Intercept so presumably as seen the real set of documents held by Greenwald. The aren't all released for obvious reasons, not least because the source said they shouldn't all be released.
- aw3c2 11y ago
  Ah, I had no idea, thought it was a random "blogger". Thanks!
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  What "obvious reasons"? Nothing Snowden has released has or ever could harm anyone who did not deserve it.

rwmj 11y ago

If there's any truth at all to the allegations, a much more likely scenario is the Russians and Chinese have either turned other NSA contractors, or have entered NSA computers via contractors' computer networks (see RSA SecurID breach). Anyway, which idiot put the names of field agents on a computer which is accessible to contractors?

jakobdabo 11y ago
Or maybe the Chinese/Russians got the information from the latest data breach [1] but it's more convenient pointing fingers at Snowden. [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_data_breach/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_dat...
- remarkEon 11y ago
  If I were a betting man, this is what I would go with. I imagine the Chinese/Russians are rigorously reviewing all the foreign contacts listed on the SF86 and checking that with whatever database their governments maintain for suspicious persons. I'd think they would be building a web of who's who that has contacts with clearance-holding Americans.
us0r 11y ago
"computer which is accessible to contractors" Most of this stuff is built and/or ran by contractors.
spydum 11y ago
if i were playing the black hat, i would have targeted the reporters who have the document dump. they are least likely to have the technical know how to keep it secure. i think i recall that snowden gave them some instructions around how to access/keep safe, but i suspect when you have government agencies specifically targeting you, it becomes quite difficult even under the best conditions
- rwmj 11y ago
  But that dump is now 2 years out of date. Turning a current NSA contractor, or (even safer) just attacking an insecure network from afar gives them the up to date information.
  - beagle3 11y ago
    While I absolutely agree with you, I'd like to point out that in the real world of armies and politics, 2 years is not fresh but definitely not out-of-date. Military and diplomatic careers last 20 years (especially among people that matter). And things reportedly in the OPM breaches, such as medical and psychological issues usually stay relevant for even longer than that.
rhino369 11y ago
Why is it "much more likely"? There are plenty of very plausible scenarios in which Snowden docs could be the source. He could have done a worse job encrypting them than he thought he did. He could have purposely handed it over: for revenge because the US is trying to hunt him down; because Russia threatened to hand him back to the US; because Russia tortured him for the keys; etc.
- woah 11y ago
  Occam's razor. We know that someone recently stole the exact information they are complaining about being exposed. This is probably how the agents were compromised. A lying anonymous government source (from one of the governments that has anonymously lied to us so many times in the past) is far more plausible than some bizarre 2 year delay and subsequent cryptographic breakthrough by the "Chinese and Russians" (who are now allied?).
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Occam's razor isn't an excuse to just presume your biases.
    - CyberDildonics 11y ago
      Presuming bias isn't an excuse to not mention logical flaws.
skidoo 11y ago
If I remember correctly, Snowden himself said in Citizen Four that intelligence agencies use aliases for assets and not targets. Which would mean that if any agents had actually been named in the docs, their masters saw them not as assets but as potential targets, which is damning unto itself.

jfaucett 11y ago

My thoughts exactly, I can't find the link now but last night someone published this story that linked to a photo image of the printed page and I thought it was a joke. Made me wonder if some groups in gov't were either A) getting a little uncomfortable with all the heat on the survelliance programs or B) needed public pressure to pass more restrictive laws and decided to make up some claims to get public opinion back on their side. Any way you look at, articles like this one are why I stay away from mainstream news sources.

yagami_san 11y ago
Here's the other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714072
x5n1 11y ago
Mainstream media sources about most topics are propaganda, plain and simple. You can call it marketing, you can call it public relations, or you can call it propaganda. Same god damn'd thing. The news is simply a good way to know what the opinion leaders want us to think about various things.

justinsingh 11y ago

Would there be any significant repercussion if the Russians and Chinese even had classified information?

jacquesm 11y ago
Given what they were accusing wikileaks, Manning and Snowden of there should be. But I don't see anybody standing up yet and taking responsibility publicly for being so terribly sloppy with all this information. Much easier to blame the people we already know about and who the government has a score to settle with. Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come the United States is still in the dark about what exactly was taken (which they've admitted they do not know) and that they implicitly claim to have a full copy of the archive in readable form as well (otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making here). So much inconsistency.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  > ..otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making here.. Don't forget the UK government got hold of 58,000 documents from Snowden's archive when they detained David Miranda at Heathrow: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-... Even if the NSA/GCHQ got hold of the "entire archive", they have no way of knowing for certain that what they have is indeed the entire archive.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    So what, they got those documents a long time ago, that's not the same as suddenly claiming access to a 1M+ documents archive unless something has dramatically changed and there isn't a shred of proof for any of that.
    - jackgavigan 11y ago

tomjen3 11y ago

It is either a smear campaign or a clumsy cover up for the recent total breach of all the security clearance files.

estefan 11y ago
People have been praising him a bit much recently after various governments have been reigning in the surveillance communities. I suspect this is a part of a campaign to keep public opinion against him. I expect as a security contractor, Snowdon knew how to encrypt things securely. The NSA were for ages saying they didn't know what was in the files, and I expect if the Russians and Chinese can crack no doubt heavy grade encryption, the Yanks can too.
davidgerard 11y ago
It is transparently made-up BS on every level, down to "encryption is magical so you should give us more security powers to protect you from evil wizards."

MichaelCrawford 11y ago

Despite that he brought no files with him from Hong Kong, I can readily accept that the Chinese or Russians obtained the files from someone else. The term "black bag job" commonly means stealing a codebook. Spy movies depict Peter Gunn breaking into an embassy then cracking a safe. Real black bag jobs are such social engineering as when the Pentagon ordered the commanding officer of Midway Island to request a replacement for the base's broken water desalination plant: "$THE_ISLAND_WERE_ABOUT_TO_ATTACK needs a new desalinator" reported a japanese spy.

desdiv 11y ago
It wasn't from a spy. It was the coded Japanese radio messages. The "Midway needs water" message was intentionally broadcasted in clear text. [0] http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1.htm http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1....
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  Sorry I should have been more clear. The request for a desalinator was encrypted but in with the most insecure crypto used by the navy at the time. The japanese intercepted it then reported it back to japan using crypto that we had already cracked. My use of the term "spy" was intended purely for rhetorical effect.

Zigurd 11y ago

Tl;dr: blame Snowden for the mess OPM made, based on no actual evidence.

7952 11y ago

It is so difficult to parse this kind of article. We don't know if the sources are actually from the intelligence community, or politicians who are being fed a narrative by actual intelligence sources. My hunch is that these agencies are compromised by hackers and most of this is a response to that in one way or another. Just this week we found out how security-clearance information has been extracted by attackers. This include records of “foreign contacts”—lists of non-U.S. officials that a person might know or have relationships with [1]. But maybe just blame everything on Snowden! [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-information-likely-stolen-during-breach-of-government-agency-1434143820 http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-information-l...

us0r 11y ago
"Just this week we found out how security-clearance information has been extracted by attackers." And the week before the FBI is going around all the media complaining about encryption.
- DennisP 11y ago
  Well apparently it's easy to break encryption so I don't see what they're complaining about.
  - imron 11y ago
    It sure it, just type 'override' when the 'access denied' prompt is shown. sigh I hate what tv/movies have made people believe about tech.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Well if the UK government gets their way this is pretty much what they want to have in place.
logn 11y ago
We haven't seen any proof in the OPM case. And I don't think any journalists reporting it have been made privy to any proof that's gone unpublished. Maybe I'm wrong, but every story I've seen just regurgitates what officials are saying. Meanwhile they're pushing for stronger "cyber security" legislation and trying to stoke cyber fears as the country slowly recovers from the collective 9/11 PTSD.

davidgerard 11y ago

The Sunday Times, and the weekday Times, cast about for relevance these days since their content is not available online. Hence big splash stories with little substance like this, to keep their name current.

jackgavigan 11y ago

Let's set aside the question of whether what Snowden did was right or wrong for a moment, and look at the situation objectively and logically, and taking into account the NSA's perspective. I think we can safely assume that, when the Snowden story broke, the NSA had no idea what documents he had taken. Even today, they may not know for certain[1] (except for the 58,000 documents David Miranda was carrying when he was detained in Heathrow). From a damage assessment perspective, all they could do is look at what he had access to, and assume that he took it all. The first few stories that emerged were about Verizon and Prism. At that point, it looked like Snowden was whistleblowing about NSA surveillance of Americans. However, he then revealed details of NSA operations targeting Hong Kong and mainland China[2], including IP addresses[3]. At that point, it became clear that Snowden was not going to limit himself to revelations about domestic survillance, and that he had downloaded and was prepared to release details of foreign operations. If he had the IP addresses of targets, it seems plausible that he would also have information that could potentially be used to identify intelligence officers. It is probably somewhat less plausible (but still not beyond the realms of possibility) that he would have information that could be used to identify HUMINT sources (i.e. "agents"). Greenwald later said that “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[4]. Snowden was later allowed to leave Hong Kong, despite an extradition request from the US[5]. Some suspect that China was able to copy the contents of the four laptops he took to Hong Kong[6]. So, from the NSA's perspective, they're dealing with a guy who stole operational details about operations against a foreign (and, from their perspective, hostile) power, and released that information "to ingratiate himself" with that foreign power. So when, after having been stuck in Sheremetyevo Airport for more than five weeks, Snowden is granted asylum by Russia, it would not be unreasonable for the NSA to suspect the possibility of some kind of quid pro quo deal. While Putin would probably have been happy to grant Snowden asylum anyway, just to embarrass the United States, I think it's safe to assume that Putin would have sought to obtain as much advantage as possible from the situation and I, for one, can easily imagine him threatening to return Snowden to the US if he didn't cooperate. We only have Snowden's word that he didn't share anything with the Russians (or the Chinese, for that matter) and, from the NSA's perspective, Snowden's word means nothing - as far as they're concerned, he already lied, stole and revealed sensitive information to a hostile power, so they have no reason to trust anything he says. However, let's set Snowden's trustworthiness aside for a moment and look at how else his archive may have ended up in the hands of the Russians or Chinese. We know that large portions (if not all) of the archive were handed over to Greenwald, Poitras and various newspapers, who wrote stories based on the information contained therein, redacting information as they saw fit. For example, the location of the GCHQ monitoring station in the Middle East was initially kept secret by the media[7] but was subsequently revealed by Duncan Campbell[8]. We also saw Guardian staff redacting slides for publication in Citizen Four. Would foreign intelligence services (FIS) have sought to obtain a copy of the archive that was held by those reporters and newspapers? Almost certainly. Given their capabilities and resources, would a FIS have been successful in that endeavour? I would say "Probably". It also emerged that Snowden had distributed copies of his archive (by which I mean the entire archive, not just the subset that was handed over to the journalists and newspapers) to various people so that they could be released if anything happened to him[4]. Allusions were made to it having been encrypted but, at the end of the day, the key is out there somewhere. We know that at least one of the people involved was not particularly good at operational security (c.f. David Miranda carrying the password for an encrypted file on a piece of paper[9]) and was susceptible to being pressured into giving up information under interrogation (c.f. David Miranda's disclosure of his passwords[10]). What are the chances that other people involved, whether couriers like Miranda, or the individuals to whom Snowden distributed copies of his archive, have been identified and targeted by FIS? Given the value of the information in the archive, it seems likely that they would be prepared to devote a fair amount of resources to such an effort. Knowing what we do now (thanks to Snowden!) about the capabilities of the US and UK intelligence services, and working on the assumption that the Russian and Chinese intelligence services must possess similar capabilities, it doesn't seem to be beyond the realms of possibility that such an effort could have been successful. So, there we have three potential "attack vectors" by which FIS could have obtained a copy of the archive: from Snowden himself, from his media partners, and from the people he gave copies to. If you're a decision-maker at the NSA or GCHQ and you know that Snowden had access to information that could be used to identify an intelligence officer or agent, you have a choice to make: Do you assume that (a) Snowden stole that information and it has ended up in the hands of a FIS (in which case your guy is at risk), or do you hope that (b) either he didn't steal it, or that, if he did, it hasn't been acquired by a FIS? The story in the Sunday Times suggests that they went with (a). 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-ne... 2: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-sn... 3: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-sn... 4: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s... 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10138282/US-disappointed-that-Hong-Kong-refused-to-arrest-Edward-Snowden.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... 6: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-have-made-call-to-let-leaker-depart.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-h... 7: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-... 8: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_... 9: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-... 10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243

irishcoffee 11y ago

Nobody (especially in the HN echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that what snowden did endangered hundreds of people directly, and the entire US indirectly, by leaking what he did. It is truly amazing to read the rationales on here avoiding this idea.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Hello Ernest Voice. Nice to meet you. (For those that don't know Ernest Voice is an NSA bot that posts stuff like this on forums.) EDIT I doubt that this particular poster is actually such a bot. I am suggesting that his post is based upon not actually reading any of the facts and merely taking an opinion.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  Lol, does he reply and say thing like, you're wrong?
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Probably.
- dang 11y ago
  It's not ok to make swipes like this in HN comments. The implication of shilling is out of line, and even if someone hasn't read any facts, posting a comment that is itself factless doesn't help.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    His post was either a shill or tragically ill informed. I merely highlighted this fact.
    - dang 11y ago
      Everyone has an "I merely" defense in response to breaking the guidelines, but we all have to follow them.

classicsnoot 11y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766

r721 11y ago
and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062

chippy 11y ago

Not only could it be a cover up campaign to divert attention from recent unrelated leaks, it is more likely to be preparing the British public to accept new laws to increase surveillance - the so called Snoopers Charter.

teh_klev 11y ago

The Sunday Times story is the same kind of bullshit journalism unleashed on Scots during the Independence Referendum and on the run up to the 2015 general election - "Independence Bad" "Too wee, too poor, too stupid", "SNP BAD" "Subsidy Junkies!" etc. Over the past two years, I think rather fortunately, the Scottish electorate learned how to read newspapers with a great deal of scepticism. The indyref, despite resulting in a "No" vote (by just 6%) did however have the benefit of making our electorate more informed and more likely to question what they see printed by the metro-London press machine, and the shoddy journalism and reporting by the BBC in Pacific Quay (BBC's Scottish branch office).

qrmn 11y ago
And that's no coincidence: the prospect of Scottish independence was seen as a grave threat to the United Kingdom by HMG; so, yes, they conducted information operations against it. I am quite sure that seeing the results that the SNP got in the General Election, however, may give them pause for thought about how such things may backfire.
- teh_klev 11y ago
  And yet, they still aren't learning their lesson - from either the indyref or GE2015. Early polling suggests that the SNP will probably take all or most the constituency seats in next year's Scottish Parliamentary elections, and probably a good chunk of the list seats, resulting in an even larger majority for the SNP (in a system designed to prevent this happening). Meanwhile in the face of this the unionist press continue unabated with the same shreaking and yelling about how shit Scotland is and that "you've had your wee moment of fame" and we should "just shut up and dae whit yer telt". The debate over Full Fiscal Autonomy being the current example [0]. [0]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/ http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/