3 ms·

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
      You wrote: 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). I'm merely pointing out that the UK retrieved a subset of the archive when they detained Miranda. Therefore, the US/UK don't necessarily need "a full copy of the archive in readable form" to be able to come to the conclusion that the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations. If the 58,000 documents they got from Miranda contain any such information, it inevitably follows that the full archive must too.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. But who needs proof when anonymous quotes are all that's needed anyway. For all you know the 'journalist' (for want of a better word) could have sucked this whole story out of his left thumb and you still wouldn't know the difference.
        jackgavigan 11y ago
        > And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. That what is the case? That the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations? We already know that the archive includes operational details. For example, the IP addresses of NSA targets in Hong Kong and China that Snowden released[1] in order to (as Greenwald put it) "ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[2]. Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? I seem to recall that the stated reason for releasing it through newspapers was so that they could redact any such information before publishing it. 1: 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... 2: 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...

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
    You wrote: 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). I'm merely pointing out that the UK retrieved a subset of the archive when they detained Miranda. Therefore, the US/UK don't necessarily need "a full copy of the archive in readable form" to be able to come to the conclusion that the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations. If the 58,000 documents they got from Miranda contain any such information, it inevitably follows that the full archive must too.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. But who needs proof when anonymous quotes are all that's needed anyway. For all you know the 'journalist' (for want of a better word) could have sucked this whole story out of his left thumb and you still wouldn't know the difference.
      - jackgavigan 11y ago
        > And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. That what is the case? That the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing operations? We already know that the archive includes operational details. For example, the IP addresses of NSA targets in Hong Kong and China that Snowden released[1] in order to (as Greenwald put it) "ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[2]. Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? I seem to recall that the stated reason for releasing it through newspapers was so that they could redact any such information before publishing it. 1: 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... 2: 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...