User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:07:02 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not surprisingly your attitude differs quite radically from the founding fathers... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If most Americans had supported it, Snowden would not have had a reason to leak... "Most Americans" lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision on the topic. "Most Americans" also support a lot of really dumb ideas while refusing to support some really good ones. "Most Americans" is typically a crappy barometer for decision making. Not surprisingly your attitude differs quite radically from the founding fathers... Is that why we live in a Democracy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:07:05 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have a deep and abiding passion for erroneously equating a capability to act, with having acted. I had hoped that a Socratic approach could have gently educated you on such folly, but alas... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you claiming that the government ACTUALLY decrypted and searched the content of every Lavabit email? Why else insist on getting the ability to do so? To decrypt the emails of the individual specified on the warrant. DID the government look at emails that were not in the warrant? If so, please provide a source. If not, your point is moot. You have a deep and abiding passion for asking questions you know are unanswerable. You have a deep and abiding passion for erroneously equating a capability to act, with having acted. I had hoped that a Socratic approach could have gently educated you on such folly, but alas... Well, lets talk about that. The FBI comes to my office and says: "We have this warrant for the data on Joe Blow's computer." I say, "Fine, looks to be in order, here's the key to his office, and his Windows Login which will get you on his machine and to every network share his credential can access. The server has full disk encryption, but his credential gets you onto everything he can see and everything he could have written." And then, what if they say "Oh, no... that won't work. We need a clone of the server drives array containing the data of your entire organization and all its users, customers, etc., as well as the decryption keys to the whole thing. Also, the master key to all the offices in your facility. After all, we have this warrant. " Do you seriously mean to suggest that the substance of the interaction would not give rise to a perception in any reasonable minded administrator that the government intended to exceed the bounds of the warrant? Put differently, if the police show up at my house with a warrant for a large screen television, are they entitled to conduct a search in areas (not in plain sight) that could not possibly contain a wide screen TV? If they search those areas anyway, its illegal. If they demand access to those areas via the warrant, they exceed its scope.. no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:10:00 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that why we live in a Democracy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If most Americans had supported it, Snowden would not have had a reason to leak... "Most Americans" lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision on the topic. "Most Americans" also support a lot of really dumb ideas while refusing to support some really good ones. "Most Americans" is typically a crappy barometer for decision making. Not surprisingly your attitude differs quite radically from the founding fathers... Is that why we live in a Democracy? No it's a Republic, still when it comes to government the FF's were clear about where the people stand. In charge of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:12:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it's a Republic, still when it comes to government the FF's were clear about where the people stand. In charge of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If most Americans had supported it, Snowden would not have had a reason to leak... "Most Americans" lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision on the topic. "Most Americans" also support a lot of really dumb ideas while refusing to support some really good ones. "Most Americans" is typically a crappy barometer for decision making. Not surprisingly your attitude differs quite radically from the founding fathers... Is that why we live in a Democracy? No it's a Republic, still when it comes to government the FF's were clear about where the people stand. In charge of it. No, they were clear that white males who owned a certain amount of property were in charge of it. To claim that they were were in favor of "most Americans" making decisions is laughable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:13:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they were clear that white males who owned a certain amount of property were in charge of it. To claim that they were were in favor of "most Americans" making decisions is laughable. In that case I'm 100% in the category of in charge of it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:14:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In that case I'm 100% in the category of in charge of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, they were clear that white males who owned a certain amount of property were in charge of it. To claim that they were were in favor of "most Americans" making decisions is laughable. In that case I'm 100% in the category of in charge of it. So you're admitting that your statement was incorrect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:16:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it's a Republic, still when it comes to government the FF's were clear about where the people stand. In charge of it. thatsthejoke.jpg They were also quite clear as to the need for the electorate to be capable of making informed decisions. What you're pointing at is closer to mob rule than representative governance. Cue: "They don't represent me!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 7:20:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're admitting that your statement was incorrect? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, they were clear that white males who owned a certain amount of property were in charge of it. To claim that they were were in favor of "most Americans" making decisions is laughable. In that case I'm 100% in the category of in charge of it. So you're admitting that your statement was incorrect? Nope, the Constitution clearly mentions "The People" many times and makes clear in the DoI that they are the ultimate deciders of right and wrong WRT government. The People, is more inclusive today. Were I not right, then the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 3:59:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're embarrassing yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At a minimum, you must concede that China and Russia make up a portion of the public who have access to the documents we know he has released. I agree with that. At a minimum you must concede that the NSA has shared the content of all the Lavabit emails with spy agencies we share data with. I don't, because there is no evidence to support it. Do I need to post the XKeyscore slides again? You're embarrassing yourself. Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 4:07:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 4:19:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? To let us all know that you're an ass? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 4:36:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Looks like Snowden didn't mind harming his coworkers in his successful attempt to gain access. He evidently had some success in covering his tracks, which might suggest something.
Snowden had Passwords Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator, a second source said....The sources did not know if the NSA employees who were removed from their assignments were given other duties or fired. Looks like Snowden was interested in the rights of Australians, too. I must have missed where he mentioned that. Australian-Indonesian relations are a real threat to the rights of Aussies. Australia mad, bro “Certain material that has been released by Mr. Snowden that is now in the public realm is of very great concern. That material is Australian material. It is obviously of very great concern to the Australian government, ASIO director David Irvine told the Senate. Payback for NSA spying. Telling China how the NSA does business couldn't harm anyone but evil government, right? China Doing Well U.S. companies operating in China have been more affected by revelations about the extent of NSA spying programs, he said, since the disclosures by former government contractor Edward Snowden, who’s now in Russia on temporary asylum. Cisco Systems Inc. last week became one of the first companies to warn publicly that the disclosures have reduced its business in China. The Russians clearly don't have any tangible means of spying in the U.S. It's not a nebulous thing, especially on the technical side of the house, because that's what NSA does and the technology and TTPs are not transferable...at all. I know, I know. You can't trust what the CIA says. It's the government, after all. Russian GPS Spying The CIA, other American spy agencies and the Pentagon take issue with the State Department’s decision to allow the Russians to host the stations on American soil. The stations would not only allow the Russians to continue to develop greater accuracy of Moscow’s satellite-steered weapons but also give the Russians the ability to spy on the United States within its borders, they say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:22:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like Snowden didn't mind harming his coworkers in his successful attempt to gain access. He evidently had some success in covering his tracks, which might suggest something... Snowden had Passwords Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like Snowden didn't mind harming his coworkers in his successful attempt to gain access. He evidently had some success in covering his tracks, which might suggest something... Snowden had Passwords Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator, a second source said....The sources did not know if the NSA employees who were removed from their assignments were given other duties or fired. That he could get 20-25 people to give up their credentials tells me the Russians and Chinese already got what they wanted out of that clusterfuck of an operation. If someone at my company ever actually asked for any persons privileged credentials, they'd get canned ASAP. Along with the person who gave up their credentials, if they did give their password. It is mind boggling that one person would actually give up their password. That 20-25 would do it means there was no security at the NSA. Place was the IT equivalent of an open safe. Not shocking, as the best and brightest don't tend to go to the public sector. This just reinforces that notion, as the public sector has nothing to lose by fucking up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:25:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:29:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... Right, because quoting and explaining, even providing a link, is unprecedented. Yes, the only way to cite any reference is to post the whole think as in image right in a thread! And yet, he still hasn't bothered to explain what it is he is saying that document says! It's like you get so wrapped up in your righteous bringing down of evil Mr. Government, your brain just stops working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:45:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... Ok, you get crayola style since apparently it's needed. Back when this Snowden stuff started people were posting links to TS/SCI data I asked the mods to scrub some posts for the same concerns that have been voiced here. I let that go when it became apparent that it was going to be unmanageable. With a link, the reader has the option as to whether they pursue the link or not. Not so with an embedded image. Whether you like it, understand, or even care, there are people that read this site from .gov and .mil computers. They are often behind proxies which provide alerts when wikileaks or guardian sites are visited and there are consequences for the end user. Post the links to the stuff you feel supports your opinion with enough detail that someone can figure out what you're on about and give the rest of us the option to view it or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 5:50:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... But what he posted is not on any way "proof." Not at all. It's random and irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2014 6:19:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But what he posted is not on any way "proof." Not at all. It's random and irrelevant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. How incredibly disingenuous: POST PROOF! CITE? CITE? DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THAT CLAIM!? Whoa buddy, don't actually go posting the proof! WTF were you thinking? Yes, we understand some of the restrictions foolishly imposed on some people, but it turns the thread into a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back sort of thing... But what he posted is not on any way "proof." Not at all. It's random and irrelevant. That too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 1:11:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you see those letters at the bottom of the slide? Do Yu knw why they are in this slide? 1: You've been asked nicely to quit posting TS/SCI slides. 2: WTF does FVEY have to do with Lavabit? 3: You really need to stop digging. Just slap him on ignore... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 1:14:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
China Doing Well The Russians clearly don't have any tangible means of spying in the U.S. It's not a nebulous thing, especially on the technical side of the house, because that's what NSA does and the technology and TTPs are not transferable...at all. I know, I know. You can't trust what the CIA says. It's the government, after all. Russian GPS Spying Quote HistoryQuoted:
China Doing Well U.S. companies operating in China have been more affected by revelations about the extent of NSA spying programs, he said, since the disclosures by former government contractor Edward Snowden, who’s now in Russia on temporary asylum. Cisco Systems Inc. last week became one of the first companies to warn publicly that the disclosures have reduced its business in China. The Russians clearly don't have any tangible means of spying in the U.S. It's not a nebulous thing, especially on the technical side of the house, because that's what NSA does and the technology and TTPs are not transferable...at all. I know, I know. You can't trust what the CIA says. It's the government, after all. Russian GPS Spying The CIA, other American spy agencies and the Pentagon take issue with the State Department’s decision to allow the Russians to host the stations on American soil. The stations would not only allow the Russians to continue to develop greater accuracy of Moscow’s satellite-steered weapons but also give the Russians the ability to spy on the United States within its borders, they say. The Russians are next to our founding fathers in protecting our liberty and prosperity. Don't cha know 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 4:53:34 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just slap him on ignore... "BLAAARRRGHH!!1! XKEYSCOREZ!!11!1" 
"WTF does that have to do with anything?" "Don't knowz." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 5:10:52 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"BLAAARRRGHH!!1! XKEYSCOREZ!!11!1" http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/invasion/Sutherland_scream_Invasion_Of_The_Body_Snatchers_Kaufman_1978.jpg "WTF does that have to do with anything?" "Don't knowz." https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRBFKtgFM5rRQ_cvxrH4lNZIxb0IylWCK7bO3lP82KM_xY0xFl Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just slap him on ignore... "BLAAARRRGHH!!1! XKEYSCOREZ!!11!1" http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/invasion/Sutherland_scream_Invasion_Of_The_Body_Snatchers_Kaufman_1978.jpg "WTF does that have to do with anything?" "Don't knowz." https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRBFKtgFM5rRQ_cvxrH4lNZIxb0IylWCK7bO3lP82KM_xY0xFl 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 5:11:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"BLAAARRRGHH!!1! XKEYSCOREZ!!11!1" http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/invasion/Sutherland_scream_Invasion_Of_The_Body_Snatchers_Kaufman_1978.jpg "WTF does that have to do with anything?" "Don't knowz." https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRBFKtgFM5rRQ_cvxrH4lNZIxb0IylWCK7bO3lP82KM_xY0xFl Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just slap him on ignore... "BLAAARRRGHH!!1! XKEYSCOREZ!!11!1" http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/invasion/Sutherland_scream_Invasion_Of_The_Body_Snatchers_Kaufman_1978.jpg "WTF does that have to do with anything?" "Don't knowz." https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRBFKtgFM5rRQ_cvxrH4lNZIxb0IylWCK7bO3lP82KM_xY0xFl In. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 5:56:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That he could get 20-25 people to give up their credentials tells me the Russians and Chinese already got what they wanted out of that clusterfuck of an operation. If someone at my company ever actually asked for any persons privileged credentials, they'd get canned ASAP. Along with the person who gave up their credentials, if they did give their password. It is mind boggling that one person would actually give up their password. That 20-25 would do it means there was no security at the NSA. Place was the IT equivalent of an open safe. Not shocking, as the best and brightest don't tend to go to the public sector. This just reinforces that notion, as the public sector has nothing to lose by fucking up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Snowden didn't mind harming his coworkers in his successful attempt to gain access. He evidently had some success in covering his tracks, which might suggest something... Snowden had Passwords Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator, a second source said....The sources did not know if the NSA employees who were removed from their assignments were given other duties or fired. That he could get 20-25 people to give up their credentials tells me the Russians and Chinese already got what they wanted out of that clusterfuck of an operation. If someone at my company ever actually asked for any persons privileged credentials, they'd get canned ASAP. Along with the person who gave up their credentials, if they did give their password. It is mind boggling that one person would actually give up their password. That 20-25 would do it means there was no security at the NSA. Place was the IT equivalent of an open safe. Not shocking, as the best and brightest don't tend to go to the public sector. This just reinforces that notion, as the public sector has nothing to lose by fucking up. I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 7:15:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:14:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. I have to put the password issue at the feet of the employees who disclosed their passwords. I have more than a suspicion that the DOD policies about such disclosures which apply to the Army and are not only briefed, but are also covered in mandatory security awareness training, are standard throughout DOD and probably all affiliates and other government agencies. As such, not only was disclosure of passwords a violation for employees, but asking for passwords was a violation by Snowden. Therefore, this is still an indictment of Snowden which can be added to the pile, though the NSA its self really has nothing to do with it. What actually strikes me about the article is that it provides insight into the level of access Snowden was able to achieve beyond what one would think he had been granted through his official position. One can easily entertain the idea that if Snowden used one nefarious technique to gain additional access, then he likely used other as of yet undisclosed or undiscovered methods, as well. Bear in mind that he has admitted to taking the NSA position for the purpose of stealing information. To my mind, this is the meat of the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:16:02 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. Yeah, but somewhere there's a hell of an architectural flaw there too. At my office, I'm just the tech geek lawyer, but I get an email from the server if any of the lawyer's credentials are used to log into the system from a box other than their own workstation. We have two IP guys, and anything either one of them does gets logged to / flagged to the logs of the other one, and they can't reach, alter or fuck with their counterpart. That's in a law firm with fewer than 20 people in the building. This is why I have been saying that its silly to rage on Snowden when it is just crystal clear that security was so lax that the entire kitchen sink has to be considered compromised anyway. If anything, if it weren't for Snowden going public, I have to assume the systems would have continued to be just as abysmally secured as usual. In a way, he did you spooks a favor and revealed a massive problem that can now be fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:27:22 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but somewhere there's a hell of an architectural flaw there too. At my office, I'm just the tech geek lawyer, but I get an email from the server if any of the lawyer's credentials are used to log into the system from a box other than their own workstation. We have two IP guys, and anything either one of them does gets logged to / flagged to the logs of the other one, and they can't reach, alter or fuck with their counterpart. That's in a law firm with fewer than 20 people in the building. This is why I have been saying that its silly to rage on Snowden when it is just crystal clear that security was so lax that the entire kitchen sink has to be considered compromised anyway. If anything, if it weren't for Snowden going public, I have to assume the systems would have continued to be just as abysmally secured as usual. In a way, he did you spooks a favor and revealed a massive problem that can now be fixed. This is what makes me disbelieve that Snowden is a spy. Had he just left, no releases, I could believe he took information for foreign entities. Had he been caught red handed accessing information he should not have, I could believe he was working for foreign entities (this is how it is SUPPOSED to go down). Instead he got what he was after, and publicly released information that the public really needed to know. The accusations don't make much sense to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:42:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what makes me disbelieve that Snowden is a spy. Had he just left, no releases, I could believe he took information for foreign entities. Had he been caught red handed accessing information he should not have, I could believe he was working for foreign entities (this is how it is SUPPOSED to go down). Instead he got what he was after, and publicly released information that the public really needed to know. The accusations don't make much sense to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but somewhere there's a hell of an architectural flaw there too. At my office, I'm just the tech geek lawyer, but I get an email from the server if any of the lawyer's credentials are used to log into the system from a box other than their own workstation. We have two IP guys, and anything either one of them does gets logged to / flagged to the logs of the other one, and they can't reach, alter or fuck with their counterpart. That's in a law firm with fewer than 20 people in the building. This is why I have been saying that its silly to rage on Snowden when it is just crystal clear that security was so lax that the entire kitchen sink has to be considered compromised anyway. If anything, if it weren't for Snowden going public, I have to assume the systems would have continued to be just as abysmally secured as usual. In a way, he did you spooks a favor and revealed a massive problem that can now be fixed. This is what makes me disbelieve that Snowden is a spy. Had he just left, no releases, I could believe he took information for foreign entities. Had he been caught red handed accessing information he should not have, I could believe he was working for foreign entities (this is how it is SUPPOSED to go down). Instead he got what he was after, and publicly released information that the public really needed to know. The accusations don't make much sense to me. I can't go that far. I'm not convinced Snowden was a foreign entity's stooge, but I think one has to acknowledge that the release of the (truly troubling) domestic surveillance docs actually could be a cover tactic for a broader breach. I do appreciate your point. Why go public at all? In poker, if you spot another player's "tell" you don't tell him about it, you just keep sheering the sheep as long as possible. In a lot of ways this is an impossible debate. Those that are outraged at what the NSA has been doing domestically will have trouble appreciating the broader risks to the security apparatus as it applies internationally, and those who (claim) to be part of the apparatus will not convince anyone with their "I know more than you, I know secret things, I know the truth, but I can't tell you" nonsense. They are invested in the current system and a part of the apparatus and cannot appreciate the rage that having the government troll through private communications engenders in the unwashed masses. History will judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 9:45:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but somewhere there's a hell of an architectural flaw there too. At my office, I'm just the tech geek lawyer, but I get an email from the server if any of the lawyer's credentials are used to log into the system from a box other than their own workstation. We have two IP guys, and anything either one of them does gets logged to / flagged to the logs of the other one, and they can't reach, alter or fuck with their counterpart. That's in a law firm with fewer than 20 people in the building. This is why I have been saying that its silly to rage on Snowden when it is just crystal clear that security was so lax that the entire kitchen sink has to be considered compromised anyway. If anything, if it weren't for Snowden going public, I have to assume the systems would have continued to be just as abysmally secured as usual. In a way, he did you spooks a favor and revealed a massive problem that can now be fixed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. Yeah, but somewhere there's a hell of an architectural flaw there too. At my office, I'm just the tech geek lawyer, but I get an email from the server if any of the lawyer's credentials are used to log into the system from a box other than their own workstation. We have two IP guys, and anything either one of them does gets logged to / flagged to the logs of the other one, and they can't reach, alter or fuck with their counterpart. That's in a law firm with fewer than 20 people in the building. This is why I have been saying that its silly to rage on Snowden when it is just crystal clear that security was so lax that the entire kitchen sink has to be considered compromised anyway. If anything, if it weren't for Snowden going public, I have to assume the systems would have continued to be just as abysmally secured as usual. In a way, he did you spooks a favor and revealed a massive problem that can now be fixed. It's a separate issue which needs (and I'm certain is getting) attention. The access model you describe is relatively easy to manage in a small office but scalability becomes an issue very quickly. If your IP guys share their credentials in the way it has been reported with Snowden then your security model is busted anyway. I wouldn't necessarily view the internal security posture as a reflection of the external security. The scope of damage in this case is due to his role as the administrator of their collaboration tool (SharePoint). When you own the keys to the document library it's easier to do a mass grab. The issue is that the level of control internally doesn't sound like it was commensurate with the level of data classification. Notwithstanding the above, the ultimate failure was in physical security allowing devices containing TS/SCI to exit the building. I have personally been in buildings which processed information at lower classification levels with much tighter controls on devices going in and out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2014 10:07:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't go that far. I'm not convinced Snowden was a foreign entity's stooge, but I think one has to acknowledge that the release of the (truly troubling) domestic surveillance docs actually could be a cover tactic for a broader breach. I do appreciate your point. Why go public at all? In poker, if you spot another player's "tell" you don't tell him about it, you just keep sheering the sheep as long as possible. In a lot of ways this is an impossible debate. Those that are outraged at what the NSA has been doing domestically will have trouble appreciating the broader risks to the security apparatus as it applies internationally, and those who (claim) to be part of the apparatus will not convince anyone with their "I know more than you, I know secret things, I know the truth, but I can't tell you" nonsense. They are invested in the current system and a part of the apparatus and cannot appreciate the rage that having the government troll through private communications engenders in the unwashed masses. History will judge. That, and the preceding statement, form a fallacious argument. The (perceived) lack of rage stems from having enough perspective into dealing with classified information systems and data handling to recognize where the claims being made don't jive with the evidence presented in support. Knowing the requirements and knowing how those requirements are typically implemented gives me (us) a better perspective than the so-called "layman". It's not a binary proposition, us/them. I know it's antithetical to the groupthink, but "us" is made up of "them". The flaw in taking PowerPoint presentations at face value is that the slides themselves lack the supporting context that would be provided by the presenter. When dealing with complex information systems, particularly those dealing with touchy areas like privacy, details and context are extremely important. I have expressed my doubts that the information coming from Guardian is being presented in a straightforward manner. Things like slides purportedly taken from the same slide deck with differing formats (header/footer) and classification labels force me to question the story as presented. The slides themselves may be completely legit, but if they're cherry-picked and reassembled to create a narrative then that needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2014 2:29:33 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.......................... I have expressed my doubts that the information coming from Guardian is being presented in a straightforward manner. Things like slides purportedly taken from the same slide deck with differing formats (header/footer) and classification labels force me to question the story as presented. The slides themselves may be completely legit, but if they're cherry-picked and reassembled to create a narrative then that needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye. Good point because they do appear to be cherry picked and reassembled to my layman's eye. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2014 2:38:44 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to put the password issue at the feet of the employees who disclosed their passwords. I have more than a suspicion that the DOD policies about such disclosures which apply to the Army and are not only briefed, but are also covered in mandatory security awareness training, are standard throughout DOD and probably all affiliates and other government agencies. As such, not only was disclosure of passwords a violation for employees, but asking for passwords was a violation by Snowden. Therefore, this is still an indictment of Snowden which can be added to the pile, though the NSA its self really has nothing to do with it. What actually strikes me about the article is that it provides insight into the level of access Snowden was able to achieve beyond what one would think he had been granted through his official position. One can easily entertain the idea that if Snowden used one nefarious technique to gain additional access, then he likely used other as of yet undisclosed or undiscovered methods, as well. Bear in mind that he has admitted to taking the NSA position for the purpose of stealing information. To my mind, this is the meat of the article. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe that there's many people with that kind of access stupid enough to give anyone their password, let alone 25 of them in one place. Seriously Rictus, that's far worse of a mark on the NSA than it is on Snowden. Agree on all points. That said, engineering and analysis types are not generally known for their understanding of computer concepts or interest in INFOSEC. I have to put the password issue at the feet of the employees who disclosed their passwords. I have more than a suspicion that the DOD policies about such disclosures which apply to the Army and are not only briefed, but are also covered in mandatory security awareness training, are standard throughout DOD and probably all affiliates and other government agencies. As such, not only was disclosure of passwords a violation for employees, but asking for passwords was a violation by Snowden. Therefore, this is still an indictment of Snowden which can be added to the pile, though the NSA its self really has nothing to do with it. What actually strikes me about the article is that it provides insight into the level of access Snowden was able to achieve beyond what one would think he had been granted through his official position. One can easily entertain the idea that if Snowden used one nefarious technique to gain additional access, then he likely used other as of yet undisclosed or undiscovered methods, as well. Bear in mind that he has admitted to taking the NSA position for the purpose of stealing information. To my mind, this is the meat of the article. That description makes the term, "turnkey tyranny" seem all that more plausible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2014 2:45:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That, and the preceding statement, form a fallacious argument. The (perceived) lack of rage stems from having enough perspective into dealing with classified information systems and data handling to recognize where the claims being made don't jive with the evidence presented in support. Knowing the requirements and knowing how those requirements are typically implemented gives me (us) a better perspective than the so-called "layman". It's not a binary proposition, us/them. I know it's antithetical to the groupthink, but "us" is made up of "them". The flaw in taking PowerPoint presentations at face value is that the slides themselves lack the supporting context that would be provided by the presenter. When dealing with complex information systems, particularly those dealing with touchy areas like privacy, details and context are extremely important. I have expressed my doubts that the information coming from Guardian is being presented in a straightforward manner. Things like slides purportedly taken from the same slide deck with differing formats (header/footer) and classification labels force me to question the story as presented. The slides themselves may be completely legit, but if they're cherry-picked and reassembled to create a narrative then that needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can't go that far. I'm not convinced Snowden was a foreign entity's stooge, but I think one has to acknowledge that the release of the (truly troubling) domestic surveillance docs actually could be a cover tactic for a broader breach. I do appreciate your point. Why go public at all? In poker, if you spot another player's "tell" you don't tell him about it, you just keep sheering the sheep as long as possible. In a lot of ways this is an impossible debate. Those that are outraged at what the NSA has been doing domestically will have trouble appreciating the broader risks to the security apparatus as it applies internationally, and those who (claim) to be part of the apparatus will not convince anyone with their "I know more than you, I know secret things, I know the truth, but I can't tell you" nonsense. They are invested in the current system and a part of the apparatus and cannot appreciate the rage that having the government troll through private communications engenders in the unwashed masses. History will judge. That, and the preceding statement, form a fallacious argument. The (perceived) lack of rage stems from having enough perspective into dealing with classified information systems and data handling to recognize where the claims being made don't jive with the evidence presented in support. Knowing the requirements and knowing how those requirements are typically implemented gives me (us) a better perspective than the so-called "layman". It's not a binary proposition, us/them. I know it's antithetical to the groupthink, but "us" is made up of "them". The flaw in taking PowerPoint presentations at face value is that the slides themselves lack the supporting context that would be provided by the presenter. When dealing with complex information systems, particularly those dealing with touchy areas like privacy, details and context are extremely important. I have expressed my doubts that the information coming from Guardian is being presented in a straightforward manner. Things like slides purportedly taken from the same slide deck with differing formats (header/footer) and classification labels force me to question the story as presented. The slides themselves may be completely legit, but if they're cherry-picked and reassembled to create a narrative then that needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye. What I can't seem to get past is this seemingly disconnected logic of "It's secured by layers of protections and protocols etc...nobody can just query anyone at will", yet the guy took possibly upward of a million of the most secret and damaging document and nobody was the wiser. Seriously? We are to sit here assured that although the .mil can't even secure their own dirty laundry they are most assuredly securing our own from nefarious prying eyes? That seems to be the core of what's being sold here but it stinks like shit and not many are buying. Are you telling me that although he could take the plans and schematics to the machine he absolutely had no way to take the product it generates? If he could, well then that in and of itself illustrates the threat generated by the existence of such a system and is the very thing our foundation of government was supposed to prevent from ever existing the first place. This, gets us back to the whole concept of general warrants and why they were a leading cause of riling up a bunch of pissed off guys with black powder rifles back in the day. To say some FISA court or executive action suddenly renders all this legal is using the ends justifies the means logic. If you buy that then you have to buy any other "legal" restriction or action that comes down the pike, you know like banning all weapons with the scary shoulder thing that goes op, well because "what if". It seems the gov has rapidly burned off any remaining confidence the public might have had. It seems their only saving grace is they can always float on that thick layer of stupidity and indifference that comprises the greater majority of the electorate so they really have no incentive to stay within any lines on the overall larger scale. It's just mission creep to infinity because, well, who is the wiser and who really has any authority to judge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2014 9:34:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what makes me disbelieve that Snowden is a spy. Had he just left, no releases, I could believe he took information for foreign entities. Had he been caught red handed accessing information he should not have, I could believe he was working for foreign entities (this is how it is SUPPOSED to go down). Instead he got what he was after, and publicly released information that the public really needed to know. The accusations don't make much sense to me. But what if his Russian handlers had felt that fostering American outrage among an already alienated fringe various different and growing segments of society served their purposes better than just spying? And wouldn't it be easier to recruit an American to do it if you sold it to him as "whistleblowing" rather than spying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2014 9:43:32 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I can't seem to get past is this seemingly disconnected logic of "It's secured by layers of protections and protocols etc...nobody can just query anyone at will", yet the guy took possibly upward of a million of the most secret and damaging document and nobody was the wiser. Seriously? We are to sit here assured that although the .mil can't even secure their own dirty laundry they are most assuredly securing our own from nefarious prying eyes? That seems to be the core of what's being sold here but it stinks like shit and not many are buying. Are you telling me that although he could take the plans and schematics to the machine he absolutely had no way to take the product it generates? If he could, well then that in and of itself illustrates the threat generated by the existence of such a system and is the very thing our foundation of government was supposed to prevent from ever existing the first place. This, gets us back to the whole concept of general warrants and why they were a leading cause of riling up a bunch of pissed off guys with black powder rifles back in the day. To say some FISA court or executive action suddenly renders all this legal is using the ends justifies the means logic. If you buy that then you have to buy any other "legal" restriction or action that comes down the pike, you know like banning all weapons with the scary shoulder thing that goes op, well because "what if". It seems the gov has rapidly burned off any remaining confidence the public might have had. It seems their only saving grace is they can always float on that thick layer of stupidity and indifference that comprises the greater majority of the electorate so they really have no incentive to stay within any lines on the overall larger scale. It's just mission creep to infinity because, well, who is the wiser and who really has any authority to judge? What evidence, other than spoken claims, have you seen to indicate Snowden had a way to access such things on Americans. He pulled up a bunch of power point slides used to brief VIPs and trainees. That is hardly the same thing as having access to sensitive information on US persons, even if such things were stored by the NSA (and we have yet to see any evidence that anything is stored other than by incidental collection, or the same metadata that you see on your phone bill. Yet, many are just convinced every phone call and e-mail they make is archived at the NSA. Seems that if even half of the derp is true that it would have - should have - been easy for Snowden to pull up a lot of dirt on a random American politician, and use that to demonstrate the dangers of the system. Heck, use a politician who has championed the system. Can you imagine how effective the civli libertarian point he could have made by releasing Dianne Feinstein's private e-mails and phone records? The fact he did not, when such is the obvious way to demonstrate the claims being made, is a pretty good hint that such a thing was not so easy to do. Of course, maybe the kind of stuff he did get, wasn't of Americans and wasn't for public consumption under a "whistleblower" cover, but is very useful to certain other governments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2014 10:19:40 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I can't seem to get past is this seemingly disconnected logic of "It's secured by layers of protections and protocols etc...nobody can just query anyone at will", yet the guy took possibly upward of a million of the most secret and damaging document and nobody was the wiser. Seriously? We are to sit here assured that although the .mil can't even secure their own dirty laundry they are most assuredly securing our own from nefarious prying eyes? That seems to be the core of what's being sold here but it stinks like shit and not many are buying. Are you telling me that although he could take the plans and schematics to the machine he absolutely had no way to take the product it generates? If he could, well then that in and of itself illustrates the threat generated by the existence of such a system and is the very thing our foundation of government was supposed to prevent from ever existing the first place. This, gets us back to the whole concept of general warrants and why they were a leading cause of riling up a bunch of pissed off guys with black powder rifles back in the day. To say some FISA court or executive action suddenly renders all this legal is using the ends justifies the means logic. If you buy that then you have to buy any other "legal" restriction or action that comes down the pike, you know like banning all weapons with the scary shoulder thing that goes op, well because "what if". It seems the gov has rapidly burned off any remaining confidence the public might have had. It seems their only saving grace is they can always float on that thick layer of stupidity and indifference that comprises the greater majority of the electorate so they really have no incentive to stay within any lines on the overall larger scale. It's just mission creep to infinity because, well, who is the wiser and who really has any authority to judge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't go that far. I'm not convinced Snowden was a foreign entity's stooge, but I think one has to acknowledge that the release of the (truly troubling) domestic surveillance docs actually could be a cover tactic for a broader breach. I do appreciate your point. Why go public at all? In poker, if you spot another player's "tell" you don't tell him about it, you just keep sheering the sheep as long as possible. In a lot of ways this is an impossible debate. Those that are outraged at what the NSA has been doing domestically will have trouble appreciating the broader risks to the security apparatus as it applies internationally, and those who (claim) to be part of the apparatus will not convince anyone with their "I know more than you, I know secret things, I know the truth, but I can't tell you" nonsense. They are invested in the current system and a part of the apparatus and cannot appreciate the rage that having the government troll through private communications engenders in the unwashed masses. History will judge. That, and the preceding statement, form a fallacious argument. The (perceived) lack of rage stems from having enough perspective into dealing with classified information systems and data handling to recognize where the claims being made don't jive with the evidence presented in support. Knowing the requirements and knowing how those requirements are typically implemented gives me (us) a better perspective than the so-called "layman". It's not a binary proposition, us/them. I know it's antithetical to the groupthink, but "us" is made up of "them". The flaw in taking PowerPoint presentations at face value is that the slides themselves lack the supporting context that would be provided by the presenter. When dealing with complex information systems, particularly those dealing with touchy areas like privacy, details and context are extremely important. I have expressed my doubts that the information coming from Guardian is being presented in a straightforward manner. Things like slides purportedly taken from the same slide deck with differing formats (header/footer) and classification labels force me to question the story as presented. The slides themselves may be completely legit, but if they're cherry-picked and reassembled to create a narrative then that needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye. What I can't seem to get past is this seemingly disconnected logic of "It's secured by layers of protections and protocols etc...nobody can just query anyone at will", yet the guy took possibly upward of a million of the most secret and damaging document and nobody was the wiser. Seriously? We are to sit here assured that although the .mil can't even secure their own dirty laundry they are most assuredly securing our own from nefarious prying eyes? That seems to be the core of what's being sold here but it stinks like shit and not many are buying. Are you telling me that although he could take the plans and schematics to the machine he absolutely had no way to take the product it generates? If he could, well then that in and of itself illustrates the threat generated by the existence of such a system and is the very thing our foundation of government was supposed to prevent from ever existing the first place. This, gets us back to the whole concept of general warrants and why they were a leading cause of riling up a bunch of pissed off guys with black powder rifles back in the day. To say some FISA court or executive action suddenly renders all this legal is using the ends justifies the means logic. If you buy that then you have to buy any other "legal" restriction or action that comes down the pike, you know like banning all weapons with the scary shoulder thing that goes op, well because "what if". It seems the gov has rapidly burned off any remaining confidence the public might have had. It seems their only saving grace is they can always float on that thick layer of stupidity and indifference that comprises the greater majority of the electorate so they really have no incentive to stay within any lines on the overall larger scale. It's just mission creep to infinity because, well, who is the wiser and who really has any authority to judge? The "seeming disconnect" is because you appear to be viewing any/all NSA computer assets as part of the same "system". SharePoint (for which Snowden was an admin) is a Microsoft collaboration tool typically used for shared document storage and workspace. The things Snowden has made public are purpose built applications with unique design requirements. He was able to steal information on them because the human security element failed rather than the technical one. I believe that if he were able to get at the collected data we would have seen it presented as evidence of his claims. One should be clear that it was not an executive or judicial action that made this legal, it was a legislative action. One which, to date, has not been found unconstitutional. I think the program, as was implemented, stretched the bounds in a way that they'll get smacked for but, ultimately, the program itself will be found legitimate. We have, near enough, 250 years of history that back the notion that "absolutes" aren't, and never have been. If the freedom of speech were absolute there could be no charges of sedition. If the 2nd were absolute we would have no NFA. If the 4th were absolute DUI checkpoints would be unfathomable. No one is making the argument that .gov hasn't earned a skeptical eye. It's apparent that every program exposed has a legitimate use. When one takes an honest look at the evidence available it's simply dishonest to state that privacy concerns were not part of the system's design and architecture. It's evident in the functional design, it's evident in the policies and procedures in place, and it's evident in the nature of the reporting and oversight. Despite all of that, they missed the mark and some adjustments need to be made, particularly in the oversight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:45:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But what if his Russian handlers had felt that fostering American outrage among an already alienated fringe various different and growing segments of society served their purposes better than just spying? And wouldn't it be easier to recruit an American to do it if you sold it to him as "whistleblowing" rather than spying? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is what makes me disbelieve that Snowden is a spy. Had he just left, no releases, I could believe he took information for foreign entities. Had he been caught red handed accessing information he should not have, I could believe he was working for foreign entities (this is how it is SUPPOSED to go down). Instead he got what he was after, and publicly released information that the public really needed to know. The accusations don't make much sense to me. But what if his Russian handlers had felt that fostering American outrage among an already alienated fringe various different and growing segments of society served their purposes better than just spying? And wouldn't it be easier to recruit an American to do it if you sold it to him as "whistleblowing" rather than spying? It would be better for a handler to keep his asset in place and quietly exfiltrating information. For a handler to take an asset that apparently had unfettered and undetected access to government TS information and have him suddenly leave allowing the US government to realize they've been had but to also leak information internationally tipping them off 100% for certain is idiotic. Spying is about maintaining the assets in place for as long as possible. This doesn't fit the bill very well if at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:50:22 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. It would be better for a handler to keep his asset in place and quietly exfiltrating information. For a handler to take an asset that apparently had unfettered and undetected access to government TS information and have him suddenly leave allowing the US government to realize they've been had but to also leak information internationally tipping them off 100% for certain is idiotic. Spying is about maintaining the assets in place for as long as possible. This doesn't fit the bill very well if at all. Maybe Snowden isn't the only one? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:53:52 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe Snowden isn't the only one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............. It would be better for a handler to keep his asset in place and quietly exfiltrating information. For a handler to take an asset that apparently had unfettered and undetected access to government TS information and have him suddenly leave allowing the US government to realize they've been had but to also leak information internationally tipping them off 100% for certain is idiotic. Spying is about maintaining the assets in place for as long as possible. This doesn't fit the bill very well if at all. Maybe Snowden isn't the only one? If so "Russian Handlers" boned that up as well, remember how the NSA right after Snowden clamped down hard on everyone with similar access? They cleaned house, thus endangering/removing other assets. Nope, most likely Snowden was motivated by exactly what he says he was motivated by, not by Russian Handlers as has been alleged here. It makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:54:48 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ If so "Russian Handlers" boned that up as well, remember how the NSA right after Snowden clamped down hard on everyone with similar access? They cleaned house, thus endangering/removing other assets. Nope, most likely Snowden was motivated by exactly what he says he was motivated by, not by Russian Handlers as has been alleged here. It makes no sense. Well it was just a thought!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:58:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well it was just a thought!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ If so "Russian Handlers" boned that up as well, remember how the NSA right after Snowden clamped down hard on everyone with similar access? They cleaned house, thus endangering/removing other assets. Nope, most likely Snowden was motivated by exactly what he says he was motivated by, not by Russian Handlers as has been alleged here. It makes no sense. Well it was just a thought!! Who's more dangerous? A spy working under the control of a foreign handler or a zealot operating on his own authority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:04:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who's more dangerous? A spy working under the control of a foreign handler or a zealot operating on his own authority? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............ If so "Russian Handlers" boned that up as well, remember how the NSA right after Snowden clamped down hard on everyone with similar access? They cleaned house, thus endangering/removing other assets. Nope, most likely Snowden was motivated by exactly what he says he was motivated by, not by Russian Handlers as has been alleged here. It makes no sense. Well it was just a thought!! Who's more dangerous? A spy working under the control of a foreign handler or a zealot operating on his own authority? Dangerous to whom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:05:45 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... Who's more dangerous? A spy working under the control of a foreign handler or a zealot operating on his own authority? At first blush, I'd say the "broken arrow" zealot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:25:00 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dangerous to whom? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
............ If so "Russian Handlers" boned that up as well, remember how the NSA right after Snowden clamped down hard on everyone with similar access? They cleaned house, thus endangering/removing other assets. Nope, most likely Snowden was motivated by exactly what he says he was motivated by, not by Russian Handlers as has been alleged here. It makes no sense. Well it was just a thought!! Who's more dangerous? A spy working under the control of a foreign handler or a zealot operating on his own authority? Dangerous to whom? Honestly, I was expecting a ".gov is more dangerouser" response. Let me make the point another way. Nation-states which engage in espionage generally take some care in making secrets known in the interest of maintaining stability in international relations. Painting a potentially hostile nation into a corner is a dangerous game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:35:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, I was expecting a ".gov is more dangerouser" response. Let me make the point another way. Nation-states which engage in espionage generally take some care in making secrets known in the interest of maintaining stability in international relations. Painting a potentially hostile nation into a corner is a dangerous game. I agree. Now if we could get Cin and Ric to see that he wasn't operating under the guidance of a Russian handler maybe this discussion could move forward. As to the danger Snowden posed to the US government, I don't doubt it at all. They are/were instituting an overly broad dragnet of American Citizen's data in order to facilitate catching no one ever. Their ship is listing, IMO it is far more the government's fault than it is Snowden's. Alas, I have serious doubts he took with him all that has been alleged. They must "consider" it compromised, but frankly that's their fault too for not compartmenting information as that level classification is required and allowing too broad of access. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:37:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be better for a handler to keep his asset in place and quietly exfiltrating information. For a handler to take an asset that apparently had unfettered and undetected access to government TS information and have him suddenly leave allowing the US government to realize they've been had but to also leak information internationally tipping them off 100% for certain is idiotic. Spying is about maintaining the assets in place for as long as possible. This doesn't fit the bill very well if at all. You are very much mistaken. Spying is not about the method of spying. Spying is merely a means to acquire information, or to achieve access to enable an action; all in support of a desired end state. On this case, Snowden's massive theft answered that mail, and the IO campaign has been very successful. Had he slowly stolen info, and passed it bit by bit, he could have been discovered. Instead, he has managed to create an army of useful idiots who hail him as a heroic whistleblower, and are demanding that the NSA be eliminated/neutered. The idea that he could not be seen as a "spy", because he did not remain on the shadows, passing info to trench coated handlers via x marked dead drops and brush passes is just ridiculous and naive. It is a fact that he was working very closely with Wikileaks, AND Wikileaks is very close with Russia. There is far more weight to the idea that he was acting on behalf of a foreign government, than that he was not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:38:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................. You are very much mistaken. Spying is not about the method of spying. Spying is merely a means to acquire information, or to achieve access to enable an action; all in support of a desired end state. On this case, Snowden's massive theft answered that mail, and the IO campaign has been very successful. Had he slowly stolen info, and passed it bit by bit, he could have been discovered. Instead, he has managed to create an army of useful idiots who hail him as a heroic whistleblower, and are demanding that the NSA be eliminated/neutered. The idea that he could not be seen as a "spy", because he did not remain on the shadows, passing info to trench coated handlers via x marked dead drops and brush passes is just ridiculous and naive. Yeah, that's a good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:40:30 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are very much mistaken. Spying is not about the method of spying. Spying is merely a means to acquire information, or to achieve access to enable an action; all in support of a desired end state. On this case, Snowden's massive theft answered that mail, and the IO campaign has been very successful. Had he slowly stolen info, and passed it bit by bit, he could have been discovered. Instead, he has managed to create an army of useful idiots who hail him as a heroic whistleblower, and are demanding that the NSA be eliminated/neutered. The idea that he could not be seen as a "spy", because he did not remain on the shadows, passing info to trench coated handlers via x marked dead drops and brush passes is just ridiculous and naive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would be better for a handler to keep his asset in place and quietly exfiltrating information. For a handler to take an asset that apparently had unfettered and undetected access to government TS information and have him suddenly leave allowing the US government to realize they've been had but to also leak information internationally tipping them off 100% for certain is idiotic. Spying is about maintaining the assets in place for as long as possible. This doesn't fit the bill very well if at all. You are very much mistaken. Spying is not about the method of spying. Spying is merely a means to acquire information, or to achieve access to enable an action; all in support of a desired end state. On this case, Snowden's massive theft answered that mail, and the IO campaign has been very successful. Had he slowly stolen info, and passed it bit by bit, he could have been discovered. Instead, he has managed to create an army of useful idiots who hail him as a heroic whistleblower, and are demanding that the NSA be eliminated/neutered. The idea that he could not be seen as a "spy", because he did not remain on the shadows, passing info to trench coated handlers via x marked dead drops and brush passes is just ridiculous and naive. Russian handlers do what Russian handlers do, and they don't do it this way. But you're going to believe what you want. Doesn't matter because you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:42:09 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, that's a good point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.................. You are very much mistaken. Spying is not about the method of spying. Spying is merely a means to acquire information, or to achieve access to enable an action; all in support of a desired end state. On this case, Snowden's massive theft answered that mail, and the IO campaign has been very successful. Had he slowly stolen info, and passed it bit by bit, he could have been discovered. Instead, he has managed to create an army of useful idiots who hail him as a heroic whistleblower, and are demanding that the NSA be eliminated/neutered. The idea that he could not be seen as a "spy", because he did not remain on the shadows, passing info to trench coated handlers via x marked dead drops and brush passes is just ridiculous and naive. Yeah, that's a good point. Alleged massive theft. They are "considering compromised" anything he may have had access to, but there's ZERO evidence to back up that consideration. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
