NSA Has No Clue As To Scope of Snowden's Data Trove 383
krakman writes "According to a NY Times article, a 6-month internal investigation has not been able to define the actual files that Edward Snowden had copied. There is a suspicion that not all the documents have been leaked to newspapers, and a senior NSA official (Rick Ledgett), who is heading the security agency's task force examining Mr. Snowden's leak, has said on the record that he would consider recommending amnesty for Mr. Snowden in exchange for those unleaked documents. 'They've spent hundreds and hundreds of man-hours trying to reconstruct everything he has gotten, and they still don't know all of what he took,' a senior administration official said. 'I know that seems crazy, but everything with this is crazy.' That Mr. Snowden was so expertly able to exploit blind spots in the systems of America's most secretive spy agency illustrates how far computer security still lagged years after President Obama ordered standards tightened after the WikiLeaks revelations of 2010."
Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a suspicion that not all the documents have been leaked to newspapers, and a senior NSA official (Rick Ledgett), who is heading the security agency's task force examining Mr. Snowden's leak, has said on the record that he would consider recommending amnesty for Mr. Snowden in exchange for those unleaked documents.
What Snowden has leaked is stuff that many people suspected but could not prove. A lot of it are things we know that the technology existed for, and an unscrupulous Spy Agency (like the NSA) might be likely to attempt.
But what this new disclosure says to me is that there might be things that go WAY beyond what we have learned or more accurately, confirmed, so far. Things that really do stretch way into the clearly unacceptable in ways that the disclosures thus far pale in comparison.
Why else go public and suggest "amnesty"? Which, I don't think Snowdon would consider at this point, he would certainly risk ending up in a "accident" in a few years, something he is quite at risk from now.
If as "they" say they think he has't given up everything he had to the News Media, we will never see it because it's in Russian hands. Snowden isn't that stupid.
And by the way, I'll bet Julian Assage is feeling pretty jealous right now, what with the spot-light off of Him... Assage is a lime light whore, an ego the size of a blimp, he's got to be pacing back and forth in that small room of his, plotting a "come-back".
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet Julian Assange feels pretty damned justified right now. To hell with his limelight stealing and ego thumping, he got the ball rolling and got to see Snowden take things even further.
If it wasn't for Julian Assange, Snowden probably would have taken his concerns up internally with his boss and then had an "accident".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet Julian Assange feels pretty damned justified right now.
That's nice, but what has Wikileaks released recently? We were told the Manning Papers where far and wide, yet apparently either they are not, or Assange is holding back for some reason? What could that reason be?
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
what has Wikileaks released recently?
The GI files just finished being published. They, for example, tell us that around 2011 there was "not much of a free Syria army", but that they were financing, arming and training people to "commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within". Even worst, it also tells us that "They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi".
So basically, while it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons against his people, it shows that since 2011 the USA consider this a necessity for their attacks. Here is the full leaked email [wikileaks.org]
There were many other revelations from the Global Intelligence files, but I think this is the most important one since over 100,000 people already died from the "civil war" the USA is creating in Syria.
The other recent leak was the TPP IP, this is Forbes report on it: US Fails To Close TPP Deal As Wikileaks Exposes Discord [forbes.com]
And FYI, many of the "Manning Papers" (Cablegate) were published around the world and of course not on the land of the free, not just because American journalists are being persecuted, but also because they matter more for those countries.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, FFS - you sound like a jealous little boy who wanted to be diddled by Assange. To bad for you, he likes women.
While you're throwing around baseless accusations, I'd like to remind you that the bimbos in questions seduced Assange, not the other way around. When women are throwing themselves at men, the men can't be accused of fucking their way through women.
Can't you see? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also even if all the wild claims are true he doesn't come close to being compared with Polanski. Polanski does not need to hide in an Embassy toilet even though he's been wanted for decades for the violent rape of a child.
It's all about "might makes right" and going after some guy that publicly embarrassed Hillary Clinton. It's been dragging on for so long that people forget that it's such a petty revenge thing resulting in making unreasonable demands on two other countries to inconvenience an embarrassment.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Informative)
" this new disclosure says to me is that there might be things that go WAY beyond what we have learned"
I thought that was a given. It is well known that Snowden claims to have reserved some mind blowing information, deposited in various places, with a dead man's switch. If he dies or goes missing, the stuff is released.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought this was a very bad idea.
Sure, it may protect him from those who do not want the information released.
But for those wo do want it released, they might feel motivated to force it...
Heck of a job (Score:5, Interesting)
You are getting them mixed up with the military. They are toy soldiers and a network of Horse Judges that got the job because of who they knew, and a lot of it seems to be pointless busywork designed to justify a flow of money.
Re: (Score:3)
We may need to patch ourselves... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We may need to patch ourselves... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently this statement is from one of Mandelas trials - it's an interesting read. Mandela says although he engaged in violence he was never a terrorist. Yes, the man was defending himself in court, but I had difficulty even parsing the argment. After it sunk in I was ashamed, and shocked/afraid at my own malleability - of course terrorism isn't the catchall defined in the media. The statement follows :
"I do not deny that I planned sabotage. We believed violence by the African people had become inevitable. [T]here would be outbreaks of terrorism. Without violence there would be no way open to the African people to suceed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.
[Umkhonto] volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledge to fight a Civil War against the whites.
50 years of nonviolence had brought the African people nothing our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.
As violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and nonviolence
[In mid-1961] the ANC was prepared to depart from its 50 year old policy of nonviolence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence.
I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC.
Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision. Sabotage Offered the best hope for future race relations."
South Africa's government were terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
The Apartheid governments of South Africa had no business calling anybody else terrorists; Mandela was 30 when they took over, and they were far worse than the British colonial government he'd been working against before then.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden never took anything to China or Russia. He'd unloaded everything on his lawyer by then. I suspect this is why he was greeted so lukewarmly by both countries.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
They were ecstatic to get a chance to show up Obama. (Hell, I would have been too if I were them.)
The chance to play the "justified political asylum" card on the U.S. Government? They loved every minute of it!
practically in jail (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok look, I'm with you on the fact that Snowden didn't release any new info, at best it confirmed and gave operational details to stuff that was known publicly since 2006... [usatoday.com]
Snowden isn't a free man. Whoever has been pulling his strings has got him on a tight leash.
Why doesn't he have a blog? Why haven't we seen or heard of him around town in Russia? Why is he always wearing the same light grey shirt?
He's in trouble...he got himself in it, either by doing something to get blackmailed (downloading kiddie pr0n from a scammer) or deluded himself into thinking he was some kind of 'Deep Throat' figure.
Other questions:
Why didn't Snowden use Wikileaks?
Why didn't Glenn Greenwald release Snowden's name?
Re:practically in jail (Score:4, Insightful)
After some sabotage removed the entire Bank of America leak he may have assumed that someone else could be turned to do the same thing. Or maybe most of the ways in to Wikileaks are being carefully watched by the NSA or he just assumed they would be? We could do this for hours. Eventually someone from the press may get to ask him a few questions and we'll find out.
Re: (Score:3)
Well thanks for engaging my question.
I agree those are all possibilities.
Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence? he has only made very tightly controlled appearances...
And let's just remember to compare his treatment with others like Assange in Russia. Assange leaked info during the Bush administration and was on TV in Russia.
I know you can always just say "Snowden was afraid of getting sent to a black site" to any question but I'm hoping to hear more than th
Re: (Score:3)
Re:practically in jail (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to compare him to someone, he's more a PFC Manning than a second Julian Assange. And he learned from Chelsea Manning that trying to hide your identity after the leaks works only for so long, so he decided to flee forward, make his identity open and in the same time got out of the direct reach of the U.S. authorities. There are not much places in the world where you are out of the reach of the U.S. authorities. He never openly decided for Russia, it was the place he got stuck.
by whom? (Score:2)
what part of my comment is a half-truth?
is it the article from **2006** that says "NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" & makes public much of what Snowden released (minus the operational details like the name 'Prism')
I posed questions...are you saying those questions are half-truths somehow?
I think YOUR comment is the fucking 'Gish Gallop'...all you did was link to some wiki...you didn't **engage with the topic** and point out why...because you can't, because you're 'Gish Galloping' this
Assange had his own TV show (Score:2)
for the record, Julian Assange was able to have **his own television show** in Russia
Snowden can't even change his fucking shirt...
Re: (Score:3)
He won't get an accident as long as... (Score:2)
He won't get an accident as long as they want him alive and well more than they want him gone. As far as we know, there's a group of three unknown people that together can "set free" all the data he has stolen. As long as the USA doesn't want him to reveal all that data, he's safe from them killing him. They may want to abduct him back to the USA, but they know they can't kill him because then all hell will break loose.
The Soviet Union probably gets something in return for his visa, but he won't be giving
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why else go public and suggest "amnesty"?
It is far simpler than all of that. They did it to try to retain the moral high ground in the PR war.
Unlike people here, the broader population is much less convinced of the narrative that the NSA bad and Snowden good. Offering Snowden amnesty (no matter how bogus of an offer) makes it seem like the NSA are the good guys because in the simplified world of the average unaware citizen bad guys don't offer amnesty, they just execute their enemies like North Korea just did.
To read this single off-handed comment about amnesty as anything more than political posturing is silly. Posturing is all the government has done since Snowden made the leak, they keep throwing random ideas at the wall hoping something will stick. This amnesty thing was just one more random idea they floated to see what the public reaction would be, nothing more.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this was fiction but I disagree with the sentiments of the Lyta and Garibaldi characters here:
Sometimes you use the big weapons when you believe, rightly or wrongly, that using the big weapon now is better than using the not-so-bit weapons now.
Take Truman's decision to drop the two nukes on Japan in 1945: Assuming what was reported to the public is somewhere near accurate, the United States and its allies could have defeated Japan without nukes, but it would have costs far more in American lives, possibly far more Japanese lives, and because the Russians would've become more involved it would've decreased American's say-so in post-war Japan and raised Russia's influence.
So Truman went with the big weapons rather than continuing a non-nuclear war.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:4, Informative)
US officials discussed doing three things: 1) demonstrate the nuclear bomb before an international team of scientists 2) warn the Japanese before using it and 3) use it only on a military target. But Truman ultimately chose to go for the maximum psychological impact.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read about the role of general Groves, Oppie's boss, his personal need to be more than a bureaucrat .
Googled quotes:
While Groves credited President Truman with the decision to use the atomic bomb, he qualified this by saying, "As far as I was concerned, his decision was one of noninterference - basically, a decision not to upset the existing plans".
Groves was a prime mover in getting the atomic bomb built, on where it would be used, and on when it would be used.
Bert
Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were me, I'd have divided copies up among multiple recipients, with multiple recipients for each document but without all documents to anyone. Of course this assumes that there are people he thinks he can trust, which may not be the case. Or maybe he doesn't have much more that is interesting? Either way, I would not be quick to trust his word enough to offer amnesty, nor should he be trusting enough to accept a deal from a government he clearly does not (and probably should not) trust.
Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. (Score:5, Insightful)
May be he's a patriot to the America it claims to be rather than the America it has been shown to be.
Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one powerful add-on (Score:4, Funny)
A phone call from BHO to Mr. Putin
I've heard of browser helper objects phoning home, but never phoning heads of state.
I wonder if this BHO can make my experience at healthcare.gov any more pleasant?
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden revealed the activities of the US in countries like France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain.
Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States? Gimme a fucking break here.
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.
And from the viewpoint of seven billion poeple on this planet, the United States government appears to be the enemy of the American public. The American people is the BOSS of the NSA; it's in the Constitution. The NSA has been lying to the boss, and they rightly have got their balls in a meat grinder. Edward Snowden is MY MAN! He can sleep on my floor any time.
We are not discussing PIN numbers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are foreign adversaries a justification for domestic policy? We outspend the world's militaries, what exactly should we be afraid of?
The American people are not and should not be the legitimate target for the State intelligence apparatus. If you have done something against the interests of the State, it would be a matter for our police. If you have not done something against the interests of the State, if you are merely thinking about doing that, or even taking steps towards doing so, you have not yet in actual fact committed that crime. The choice is fundamentally whether to permit people to commit crime, or to treat everyone as if they were a criminal. We can't guarantee that we can catch criminals after the fact, and it's hardly possible to keep people from committing criminal acts in jail, let alone in the greater society. This suggests that a police state is not a good value proposition: trying to stop people before they commit crimes is flawed, in principle and in practice.
But we are not speaking of common crimes, we are speaking of crimes against the State, and correspondingly the bodies we have endowed with the right to pursue those who have committed such malefactions. The NSA has become not only the foremost intelligence body of the US Military, but as such it is undeniably the most effective intelligence body that the world has ever seen. It is wrong for the police to pursue men who have not committed criminal acts, but it is far more wrong to be treated as an enemy of the State, and investigated as such, without an inarguably just cause, or existential necessity. Not only does this rule out mass surveillence entirely, but it is difficult to describe how few external existential threats these United States face. So far the internal police appear to be adequate to the task of containing whatever terrorist uprising we may be in danger of.
The parent poster is not being facetious. The American People, and our Allies, are being targetted by the Signals Intelligence branch of the United States Government. There are quite excellent reasons this is forbidden, which have nothing in particular to do with our laws, and a plenitude of historical examples which bear this point out. Mass surveillance of the American public is nothing less than enormitous treason.
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are.
Interesting spin. So how does monitoring 35 world leaders fall into that [theguardian.com] "the bad guys are amougst us" line.
There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy
In other words, the NSA Surveillance Destroys Diplomacy and Democracy: [huffingtonpost.com]
How do democratically elected officials (the president, congressmen or senators) get control of a stand-alone secret government bureaucracy that was operating long before they arrived and will survive them after they've gone? A bureaucracy that knows everything there is to know about them, too? They don't. They can't. So the surreptitious, illicit actions of a US spy agency can undermine the diplomatic work of months and years. And the president - the elected official chosen to lead the country - is so hamstrung by the NSA that he cannot stop the interceptions and order an immediate investigation.
Re:Amnesty? *snarf* (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite.
he crossed the line when he leaked information about their overseas intelligence operations
Lol, I love this argument so much.
NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions
I love the way these people focus entirely on the legal issues - there's nothing in the constitution preventing the NSA from running pervasive global surveillance, therefore it's ok - it's only when they're spying on americans that there's any kind of issue. Let's just completely ignore any moral issues or questions of whether it's a good thing or not to live in a world where orwell's wildest nightmares are everyday occurrences and where all communications are monitored by blanket surveilance.
So, as an american who is unconcerned with the activities of the NSA overseas, let me ask you this: how do you feel about the "enemy" intelligence agencies monitoring everything you do and say? Ever cheat on your significant other? Maybe you're into BDSM? Or maybe you just have erectile dysfunction? How do you feel about a pakistani intelligence officer laughing at you about it? Oh, that's right - you're the one person on this planet who has nothing at all to be embarrassed about, ever.
They aren't engaged in any actions that other nation-states (including those hostile to the United States) aren't doing
Which makes it OK! Duh!
So, what you're saying is that the only reason why it's not OK to use chemical and/or biological weapons or build a doomsday device is because there are laws against it? Anything that anybody else does is OK just as long as there's no law against it - the concept of us being better than them and not using "evil" tactics doesn't exist - there's nothing inherently wrong about ethnic cleansing or human experimentation, it's just illiegal.
His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States
Which enemies? What specific group? Terrorists? Snowden still hasn't revealed anything that a half-way competent terrorist wouldn't have assumed was in place already.
Your activities are arguably aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states: here's my case: every time I read this ridiculous argument I become a little more convinced that your government needs to fall.
They have *worse* to hide? (Score:3, Insightful)
So we're to understand the NSA still more secrets that they don't want anyone to know, so much so they would consider forgiving someone they consider has committed treason?
That was about the only thing that could have made me feel even more concerned than the last year of news stories about how the NSA is basically Santa Claus.
Re:They have *worse* to hide? (Score:5, Interesting)
it's only treason if it doesn't expose treason ;)
aanyhow... maybe they don't know what he took because they wanted to keep the system in such a way that there wouldn't be accountability about who did what and looked at what on the executive level in nsa...(he used some higher ups credentials).
Re:They have *worse* to hide? (Score:5, Informative)
...(he used some higher ups credentials)
It has never been disclosed that he used "higher-ups" logins, only that he (supposedly) user "other people's" logins.
Re: (Score:2)
well, supposedly almost everyone was higher up anyways than him so?
they had more access than his creds anyways and the creds he used lacked notification systems too. it's likely the credentials lacked access histories since he doesn't know what he took too.
now why would you run a db like that worse than criminal records database? in my country at least there's access records from that AND it has been used to penalize some officers.
Re: (Score:3)
Asked and answered.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They have *worse* to hide? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure its Excel, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is his data may also info about legitimate foreign spying operations and info on the people involved. While there probably is still more evidence of wrongdoing in what he has, it's also likely he has his hands on something that could very well put a good deal of people's lives in danger. That data was stolen once, right out from under the NSA's noses. If the NSA couldn't stop it from being stolen, how can a single man ensure it won't be stolen from him as well? Remember, this data is very import
Re: (Score:2)
Put spies lives in danger? Isn't that what they agreed to when they became spies?
Re:They have *worse* to hide? (Score:5, Informative)
From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee [wikipedia.org] to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair [wikipedia.org] to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse [wikipedia.org] to rendition and the junk global telco encryption -
So much is now in history books and can be found by any academic or person -
Think of how the Soviet Union got into any country - the press, academics, students, peace groups, trade unions, banking, trade, mil.... politics
i.e. internal 'news' about trusted names/brands within the USA that where turned by the Soviet Union/Russia or "worked" for the US gov in the private sector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird [wikipedia.org] gives a hint.
Generations of bulk insider trading within very trusted sectors of the private sector via privileged files and tips/front groups.
That's how it feels (Score:4, Insightful)
I know its hopeful thinking, but if the NSA was a person, they would know how it feels when you don't know what someone knows about you.
As immigrant in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I immigrated to US in 1998 and to honest, and until recently, I was under impression that US was the best county on the entire globe. Period.
Guns, jobs, "Freedom", country had real drive. That is how I saw it for last 30 years.
It me a while to sink in that it shit is going down a drain.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't make me change my opinion.
Economic Meltdown in 2008, and the fact that no one went to jail and CEO's got big ass bonuses, didn't make me change my opinion.
Fucked-up Health Insurance didn't......
Guess what changed my opinion ? NSA.
Re:As immigrant in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Well your priorities see a little strange to me. Consider the dead, the wounded and the traumatized, the economical and structural damage of each of these actions:
Iraq and Afghanistan wars
Economic Meltdown/Fraud
Health Insurance problems
The NSA snooping
The NSA snooping out of these strikes you as the most damaging to yourself, the USA and the world in general?
Why?
All of the documents (Score:2)
Last month, [reuters.com] the NSA said maybe 50,000 to 200,000 documents.
Last night, [twitter.com] 60 Minutes said it was 1.7 million documents
Today it's "we may never know"
Re: (Score:3)
I like your title. Let's just assume that Snowden has everything. He only left behind some inconsequential bullshit. He downloaded everything, just as most of us would.
Re: (Score:2)
bzip2 is a hell of a compression tool.
Databases (Score:5, Insightful)
The CIA, FBI and MI5,6 all knew what a motivated cleared individual could do with a "photocopier", "camera" and more trusted clearance level to a paper file system.
Would digital files be that just left to be that easy?
East Germany showed what a levels where needed to protect aspects of running spies or handling covert materials - a split of data making any one "walk out" very limited in what was lost.
We are now to believe 'the' US agency at the centre of US data integrity, protection and world wide data penetration could not rewind its own networks logs?
Snowden was CIA, was passed onto a contractor with his CIA work 'cleaned' at some point by someone and then onto the NSA.
Snowden would have had direct id/code/physical location contact with how many people who could have been allowed to look into files from "that" "site" in the USA?
What are the options? The NSA structure is now (~past 10 years) so 'sharing', 'out sourced', 'cloud based' and privatised that any staff "member" can look down over many projects without 'question' or any useful 'logging'?
That an admin can be so 'skilled' to cover/find/alter all digital tracking logs, using digital methods that none in the NSA, FBI, CIA, MI6/5, GCHQ ever thought about?
With all the Soviet/Russia spy hunts wrt staff, past whistleblowers over ~30 years, the digital file structures where 'outsourced' to such an extent that all security protections are now lost?
Re:Databases (Score:5, Interesting)
The outsourcing model was also a big part of the failed Iraqi invasion. (Blackwater [wikipedia.org] ring a bell?) That also wasted vast resources and had a terrible political outcome. I guess that both started right after 9/11, but we are only seeing the incompetence and bad results from the NSA types now.
The next logical question is why outsource core mission operations?. I think there are two reasons. First is ideological. Outsourcing is supposed to be more efficient. It also is a big part of right wing political theory, where efficient private companies replace wasteful government bureaucracies. Remember the expansion of intelligence and the creation of Homeland Security happened under Bush, so that's when outsourcing happened big time.
The second big reason is plausible deniability. Have contractors to do dirty work makes it much easier to avoid oversight and implement policies that are illegal/immoral/stupid/wasteful.
A very current example is the rogue operation in Iraq of CIA contractor Robert Levinson [go.com]. The White House is quoted in the article as saying "was not a U.S. government employee", which they can do because he was a contractor as opposed to an employee.
This operation was screwed up that those directly responsible were forced to leave the CIA, and procedures were changed to keep this kind of event from happening again.
Re: (Score:2)
A very current example is the rogue operation in Iraq of CIA contractor Robert Levinson. The White House is quoted in the article as saying "was not a U.S. government employee", which they can do because he was a contractor as opposed to an employee.
You may want to re-read the original AP article [ap.org] about Levinson.
He was "not a U.S. government employee" because at the time of his disappearance, his contract had finished and he was working on spec.
Problem was, Levinson's contract was out of money and, though the CIA was working to authorize more, it had yet to do so.
"I would like to know if I do, in fact, expend my own funds to conduct this meeting, there will be reimbursement sometime in the near future, or, if I should discontinue this, as well as any and all similar projects until renewal time in May," Levinson wrote.
It's a very nuanced position to make and the government should be ashamed for making it, but they're not factually incorrect.
Not professional (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All that would have been logged too. How many cleared gov staff could one admin have 'seen'/'used' from his site/location with his clearance as a new contractor?
All staff are watched, all staff have geographic locations, hours, levels of files and projects they can work on/with....
Unless the system is flat and anyone can look at anything, at anytime for any reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA really pushed down onto the UK on that aspect - never again would any top/cleared staff just get to wonder a 'safe'.
Digital tracking would very easy and the FBI/MI6/NSA/CIA/GCHQ knew what no digital tracking would allow again.
say what? (Score:2)
I find it very difficult to believe that they don't have audit logs that show exactly when and where he logged on, and what data he accessed. On the other hand, I find it easy to believe that while they HAVE the audit logs, the mandated Microsoft tools make it impractical to search for the pertinent data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They used to have audit logs but then someone pointed out Keith's LOVEINT logs and there were grumblings about Rick's kickbacks from businesses. Best just to leave accesses to data unlogged so everyone can go around their business without interference. Who could have expected someone like Snowden actually taking a moral high ground? With all that unmonitored and unsupervised access to everything about everyone he should have had some fun with the dirt, like everyone else.
Management involvement (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem the NSA's having is likely the same one most large businesses have when it comes to IT: the management involved has absolutely no clue about what's going on with their computer systems, and they won't believe what the technical people who do know what's going on are telling them because it disagrees with what that management thinks should be going on. End result, the steps that are taken don't fix any of the security problems and the steps that would fix the problems are vetoed. And it'll be "lather, rinse, repeat" until management starts being fired (not allowed to resign, fired for incompetence) and losing their cushy termination benefits packages because they failed to listen.
Re: (Score:3)
Single Point of Failure.
Diminishing Returns.
Planning Fallacy.
Cybernetic Death -- Too much noise (entropy), not enough progress (signal) in the system.
I can think of a million reasons why the NSA has always been doomed to fail. Greed is the general answer.
We have an amazing array of spy satellites launched via the biggest rockets in the world. [youtube.com] No terrorist or enemy could mobilize any real threat to the USA that we would not know about instantly. The big nations are no threat sine we have mutually assured
"NSA Has No Clue" (Score:2)
Could have left the headline at that.
So we as good little citizens are supposed to help the NSA "find a better way" to "connect all the dots," but they have no idea what to do even when all the "dots" are in their physical possession?
Maybe if they spent more time monitoring and logging their own systems everyone would be better off.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think I've discovered how to defeat PRISM. All you have to do to remain off their radar is work for the NSA!
Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden would be an idiot to accept "amnesty". (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy. The best he could hope for would be to have his lawyers arguing the validity of his amnesty in front of secret courts while he's tortured in a black site somewhere.
Hmm... (Score:3)
If only the NSA had the resources and some sort of process by which they could have kept track of Snowden, like his phone, email, computer and internet usage. Oh wait...
Amnesty won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
The article says: Mr. Snowden has said he would return to the United States if he was offered amnesty, but it is unclear whether Mr. Obama â" who would most likely have to make such a decision â" would make such an offer.
Even if the offer is ever made, Snowden would have to be a complete fool to accept it. He may never be prosecuted for the data leak; however the government will be free to legally fry him for any other crime that he may be framed for. Or, if that is not desirable, he may become another victim of criminals, who would never be found.
Don't worry NSA (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
We have no idea what a random person working for a contractor with access to our top-secret systems managed to steal before he went on the run...
but we have to know your shoe-size, what toilet-paper you use, and what kind of porn turns you on.
A well-prioritised spying agency, there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the scaremongering. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ignore the scaremongering of how much Snowden "took" (it was still there after he "took" it, he didn't "take" anything -- a copy was made) -- If you dismiss the spin about Snowden, you'll realize that the NSA is admitting that they're letting the Chinese, Russian, Turkish, etc. spies get access to all of the information they've collected on the world and American citizens. If you can't even trace what was accessed, then you certainly can't prevent access. Snowden was a contractor, he's not amazing, any average fearless security researcher would have a field day with the NSA. They use MS Windows, FFS, ever since they ported Omnivore from UNIX to MS platforms to create Carnivore (away from Unix? Huh, yay MS license fee pork!) It's not amazing that Snowden got access. Hell, even if they use Linux there's zero day exploits for every known OS on the black market. Any state sponsored spy has even more access than Snowden dreamed of.
Congratulation should be awarded the National Security Agency for becoming the biggest threat to National Security the world has ever known. In becoming the greatest single point of failure, and failing, it is now their duty to extinguish themselves. In programming we call a system capable of completely internally representing and emitting copy of itself a Quine. In cybernetics I call this being alive. In government we call this SNAFU. Indeed the very nation's existence is owed to the cyclic redundancy error called revolution. Fortunately the founding fathers foresaw such eventuality and gave their people the ability to break the cycle of deadly rebirth without violence: To call an emergency session of congress and hold a vote of no confidence therein.
The whitehouse could have been a relief valve, but have come out in favor of letting the NSA run amok -- Hard choices indeed. Would you come out against the NSA who refuses to stand down, and thus prove the government is illegitimate, or would you align yourself with them and maintain the despotic peace a little while longer -- give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety? The longer the pressure builds, the bigger the collateral damage will become. The tech giants are injured yet oddly not nearly as reactive as you'd expect, by the time they decide to really push back it'll be too late, they'll have less power than the military industrial complex. If they realize the table is turning the big guys will all begin buying up defense related tech to try and ensure their future. It's almost as if the government wants the economy to be destroyed so that the people face bankruptcy, repossessions, and foreclosures and the corporations lose the money they use to maintain firm grips on the lobbyists. Afterwards they could simply blame those who spake out against them for holding different "destructive" economic ideals and put them in concentration camps until the scared public is cowed and accepts things the way it's going to be whether we the people like it or not. You could just avoid the internment altogether and just let the homeless remain effectively neutered. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say everything was going according to plan. [youtube.com]
Re:And so, it begins (Score:5, Funny)
It's worse than that.
They're afraid that the world will soon learn some inconvenient truths: (a) that Oswald in fact acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, (b) that the crashed object at Roswell was in fact a high-altitude weather balloon, (c) that the Rosenberg's were in fact Soviet spies, (d) that the moon landings in fact happened and were not staged in a Houston hangar, and (e) that every ounce of the gold in Ft. Knox is in fact sitting exactly where it should be.
And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.
The horror...
Re: (Score:2)
Got a cite on that?
Re:And so, it begins (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html [bbc.co.uk]
See also: https://archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 [archive.org]
The BBC erroneously reported the collapse at 4:53 p.m., as acknowledged in the above-linked article. The actual collapse occurred at 5:20 p.m., as confirmed by FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf [fema.gov]
At the time of the BBC's report, however, WTC 7 had been on fire for some time, and was already in danger of imminent collapse, so I don't find it too hard to believe that they simply made an honest mistake in the midst of all the confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a conspirator prime the BBC to release information about the damage they were going to do?
Re:And so, it begins (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it was all accomplished by Seal Team Seven, the deep deep super secret dudes.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Snowden is a disinformation agent? Right, got it.
Very simple answer (Score:2)
Now you can stop worrying about that and focus on the real conspiracies that are being uncovered. There's plenty so no need to be greedy and make them up.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia would have been tempted if the plan was to stay in US gov for years and all docs could be considered over time.
Any of the bulk actionable documents could be a set trap, internal US intel junk for US political budget consumption, or lost internal bait for KGB/FSB spies...
Russia is not the Soviet Union and won't fall for such an 'easy' document trick again and again....
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree that Russia/China wouldn't take the documents if they could, whether they believed them or not, I would say that the most important information Snowden can provide is how weak the e-security is at the NSA. How he got access, rather than what he got access to.
We only know of Snowden because he chose to go public. Any competent US contractor would be using their access, legal or not, to spy on its rivals, on Congressional vote intentions, on bids, etc. And it seems unlikely, given how much Sn
Re: (Score:2)
Russia mostly seems to like US gov workers in place and moving up in their respective areas with 'problems' that Russia understands. A contractor might be all over interesting projects and then in the private sector again with little in the way of really useful product and way too much info on Russian 'methods' in the USA.
Cleared Australian staff would have b
Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with (Score:5, Insightful)
He acts only against the US
Strange how revealing the government's criminal activities to the very people it's supposed to be working for is acting against the US. The US is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and was founded on a distrust of government. How is revealing the fact that the government violated the constitution and the principles the US was founded on acting against the US? I feel that I, as a citizen of the US, have a right to know.
Re: (Score:2)
If "Well, we're not as bad as the other guys!" is all you have, I'd say something is very, very wrong. Being punched in the face may not be as bad as having your arm chopped off, but that doesn't mean being punched in the face is a good thing. More generally, X being better than Y does not mean X is good.
Your comment didn't even address anything I said.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, the average citizen enjoys more freedom than could ever be had by citizens of countries run by Snowden's new (and fair-weather) friends.
You mean countries where journalists who are embarrassing to the government are arrested or "disappeared"? Where defectors and whistle-blowers are poisoned? Where the family of any perceived opponent of government risks being harassed by loyal government men (with and without authorisation)? Countries that do what you want the US to do over the Snowden affair.
You're remarking on the difference between freedom in the US and that in Russia/China, while arguing without a shred of irony for the US to invoke pre
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well, at least there is an upper bound to it :) (Score:5, Interesting)
However due to the way that information is compartmentalized within the NSA, it is entirely possible that Snowden has more information than a senior NSA official may be aware that the NSA has. There is a wel known security policy that states that information should only be provided to eople on a need to know basis, and it is entirely possible that up to now the senior NSA official may not have had a need to know just how much data the NSA collects. For that matter, it is possible that the official may still not have a need to know, or never have it.