10 ms·

All his points are speculative. He basically said "I think they probably have it - either directly or from the journalists". Why do most people believe the jour

by beagle3 11y ago

All his points are speculative. He basically said "I think they probably have it - either directly or from the journalists". Why do most people believe the journalists are the easier target? They have certainly, at any point in time when stuff was in their possession, been more paranoid and careful than the NSA was before Snowden's reveal.

walshemj 11y ago
Because 99.99% of journalists are not cyber security professionals and are a much easier target than an ex CIA and NSA employee. ps you do know who Bruce is?
- beagle3 11y ago
  Yet, the relevant three actually (who cares about the 99.99%?) do have an idea, if you've been following the case. 99.9999% of journalists do not, and never had, a copy of the data. Poitras and Greenwald actually know what they are doing. Yes, I do know who Bruce is. Do you? Did you actually read the piece[0] we are talking about? Schneier himself seems to believe that the journalists are likely hacked, but that state actors have had this info long before Snowden: """ Which brings me to the second potential source of these documents to foreign intelligence agencies: the US and UK governments themselves. I believe that both China and Russia had access to all the files that Snowden took well before Snowden took them because they've penetrated the NSA networks where those files reside. After all, the NSA has been a prime target for decades. """ and """ The point I make in the article is that those nations didn't have to wait for Snowden. More specifically, GCHQ claims that "we have now seen our agents and assets being targeted." One, agents and assets are not discussed in the Snowden documents. Two, it's two years after Snowden handed those documents to reporters. Whatever is happening, it's unlikely to be related to Snowden. """. Oh, and when you mention [ex]CIA employees, are you including the head of the CIA[1] or not? Cause, you know, that guy failed miserably at information security. [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/the_secrecy_of_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/the_secrecy_o... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
  - jobjh797878 11y ago
    Please reconsider your tone.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    And by now is it only those 3 that have had access to the data or physical access to the machines - hacking another GMG journalist or machine would be one route. And Petraeus shows that parachuting outsiders to the DCI's job isn't a good idea and also if your bonking a spook you don't behave like some 15 year old high school student.

by beagle3 11y ago

walshemj 11y ago

Because 99.99% of journalists are not cyber security professionals and are a much easier target than an ex CIA and NSA employee. ps you do know who Bruce is?

beagle3 11y ago
Yet, the relevant three actually (who cares about the 99.99%?) do have an idea, if you've been following the case. 99.9999% of journalists do not, and never had, a copy of the data. Poitras and Greenwald actually know what they are doing. Yes, I do know who Bruce is. Do you? Did you actually read the piece[0] we are talking about? Schneier himself seems to believe that the journalists are likely hacked, but that state actors have had this info long before Snowden: """ Which brings me to the second potential source of these documents to foreign intelligence agencies: the US and UK governments themselves. I believe that both China and Russia had access to all the files that Snowden took well before Snowden took them because they've penetrated the NSA networks where those files reside. After all, the NSA has been a prime target for decades. """ and """ The point I make in the article is that those nations didn't have to wait for Snowden. More specifically, GCHQ claims that "we have now seen our agents and assets being targeted." One, agents and assets are not discussed in the Snowden documents. Two, it's two years after Snowden handed those documents to reporters. Whatever is happening, it's unlikely to be related to Snowden. """. Oh, and when you mention [ex]CIA employees, are you including the head of the CIA[1] or not? Cause, you know, that guy failed miserably at information security. [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/the_secrecy_of_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/the_secrecy_o... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
- jobjh797878 11y ago
  Please reconsider your tone.
- walshemj 11y ago
  And by now is it only those 3 that have had access to the data or physical access to the machines - hacking another GMG journalist or machine would be one route. And Petraeus shows that parachuting outsiders to the DCI's job isn't a good idea and also if your bonking a spook you don't behave like some 15 year old high school student.