NSA Hack of N. Korea Convinced Obama NK Was Behind Sony Hack 181
Mike Lape links to a NYTimes piece which says "The evidence gathered by the 'early warning radar' of software painstakingly hidden to monitor North Korea's activities proved critical in persuading President Obama to accuse the government of Kim Jong-un of ordering the Sony attack, according to the officials and experts, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the classified N.S.A. operation." From the linked article:
For about a decade, the United States has implanted “beacons,” which can map a computer network, along with surveillance software and occasionally even destructive malware in the computer systems of foreign adversaries. The government spends billions of dollars on the technology, which was crucial to the American and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, and documents previously disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, the former security agency contractor, demonstrated how widely they have been deployed against China. ... The extensive American penetration of the North Korean system also raises questions about why the United States was not able to alert Sony as the attacks took shape last fall, even though the North had warned, as early as June, that the release of the movie “The Interview,” a crude comedy about a C.I.A. plot to assassinate the North’s leader, would be “an act of war.”
Stands to reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I find McAfee more credible than the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
McAfee says North Korea didn't do it? That's all the proof I need that they did!
The NSA says North Korea did do it? That's all the proof I need that they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can guarantee they are wrong. It has to do with a group of hackers - I will not name them - who are civil libertarians and who hate the confinement the restrictions the music industry and the movie industry has placed on art and so they are behind it."
Oh so it was a noble cause all along. Pull the other one.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-virus pioneer John McAfee...guarantees they are not from North Korea.
I take it he's posted a surety bond to back up his guarantee...
Well if John McAfee said it, it must be true! (Score:3)
According to John McAfee, N. Korea had nothing to do with the Sony hack.
John McAfee says a lot of things and does a lot of things that seem pretty 'remarkable'. Either he is having one hell of a interesting life, or he is a pathological liar. It seems pretty convenient that he cannot even give this mystery group a name.
North Korea has a well established history of aggressive, belligerent behavior, and this sort of thing sounds right up their alley. John is going have to cough up a lot more evidence than his good word that an agency with thousands of people and billions of d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but are we treating John McAfee is a credible source for anything these days?
As far as I can tell he's a somewhat crazy fugitive drug user with some paranoid sounding theories.
I rank him about as credible as Charlie Sheen on a meth fueled rant.
He's a bit unhinged and likes to tell stories, but I'm not sure that means any of it is real.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's less motivated to lie, however. Things McAfee says may be wrong, but things the FBI says (particularly with regards to the activities of foreign enemies) are likely to be deliberately wrong.
I'm not saying he's right, but...and this is going to sound bizarre to say...John McAfee is more credible than the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an anonymous poster, we can't believe a thing you say..
Re:Stands to reason (Score:5, Insightful)
"You're an anonymous poster, we can't believe a thing you say.."
Slashdot doesn't verify users nor restrict signups. Why do you think an account is any more trustworthy? It's not like people make puppet accounts all the time, nor long time users with low UIDs sell their account when they get bored.
At least with an AC, the only thing you have to judge them by, is their words.
When you see a +5 comment by an AC, it's normally of very high quality. It had to stand on its own merits with the small number of users that bother to read at 0 or less, and it had to make it to the top without the benefit of the +2.
I'm seeing this a lot on Slashdot nowadays, and it really shows the difference between the current culture, and the culture when the site was new.
Older members grew up with the X-Files, Sneakers and "Trust no one". It was a badge of pride to remain anonymous and be judged solely on the quality of your discourse. Now it's more common to see users looking down on anonymous comments, as if a few seconds long account creation process was difficult to game or some weird badge of pride. It's like these users completely miss the point of the hacker culture and have no imagination in how it can be used for social hacking.
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is the most "Interesting" or "Insightful" comment I've seen yet in this (otherwise predictable) thread, yet it has gotten modded down to -1. By doing that, I think you're only proving his point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is the most "Interesting" or "Insightful" comment I've seen yet in this (otherwise predictable) thread, yet it has gotten modded down to -1. By doing that, I think you're only proving his point.
I'm burning my bad mod point, accidentally modded GP down (after it was already -1). That being said, his point about anonymity is kinda off base. We often were of the anonymity mindset, but thought we'd have some degree of credibility by have a pseudonym that we could go by ("Marginal Coward", "3.5 stripes", etc or 3557951, 578410, etc) and people would be able to go, I remember this guy's comments have always been insightful, I'm going to give him more credit, but could clearly have the freedom of anony
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is the most "Interesting" or "Insightful" comment I've seen yet in this (otherwise predictable) thread, yet it has gotten modded down to -1. By doing that, I think you're only proving his point.
It had been less than an hour since he posted it. Never ever complain about moderation until at least half a day has gone by. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I'll do that.
Re: (Score:2)
nor long time users with low UIDs sell their account when they get bored.
Wait, are there actually buyers for old accounts? What's today's rate for a late five-digit account? Few bucks won't be worth the trouble to arrange the sale.
Re: Stands to reason (Score:2)
I missed that boat
Re: (Score:2)
First off, my point was that ad hominem is not a particularly good way of discrediting what a person says. Being anonymous does not make the poster I replied to more or less trustworthy, and the fact that McAfee has been accused of murder does not mean he cannot be trusted on this sort of matter.
Second, I think you're correct, trust is not established by your name, but by whether what you say has value and is verifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
I ain't mad, any contribution to improved discourse is a positive :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much could I get for my UID?
Re: (Score:2)
Second, it introduces correlation. Someone who posts crap about this North Korea story is going to have more trouble in any other conversations they have.
Third, it creates a bit of psychological attachment to the pseudonym. Why do things like karma or achievements
Re: (Score:2)
Why turn ACs into a group of social outcasts?
Because I can't tell any of you apart from the trolls, shills, and other vermin that skitter through these halls. If you have a pseudonym, I can with some pain, search through your previous posts and decide if you're on the level or not. I figure a person who cranks out more than half a dozen similar posts probably isn't faking it, that takes too much work for the usual troll.
But a one-time AC post? There's far less effort involved.
I notice in your link that most of the posts that were highly rated, w
Re: (Score:2)
So again I ask: why?
I see only one reason to elaborate further. We have almost sixteen more years of experience demonstrating the problems with AC posting. I don't consider AC posting terrible enough to ban, but you are ignoring some really obvious problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed out that not everyone prejudges all ACs. They can't all be ignoring those really obvious problems.
Sure, they can. It's not a big stretch to say that the people who can better ignore the obvious problems are the same ones who better tolerate AC posting.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because these days more people log in as AC to troll without being tracked. Exploitation of the AC system is far more common than using it in the "trust no one" X-Files sense. It's a tool that's abused enough that you have to wade through a lot of shit to get to good comments.
That's why people look down at AC comments by default -- most ACs are completely full of shit. Seeing a good AC comment like yours is genuinely surprising when we find it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been here for 15 years. I do not remember a time when ACs were regarded as wise sages on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and anyone who thinks that clicking the "Post Anonymously" box is magic internet armor against the men in suits is too stupid to post on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad you have a handle. I can have faith in you.
Re: (Score:2)
Does being random mean I have to go around saying things like monkey cheese? I'll cop to the asshole bit though,
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The Sony hack was an inside job.
I blame Fox Film Studios
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now do you have a proper source? one that's preferably not a paranoid schizophrenic with a repeated tendency to lie and who through all semblance of sanity out the window years ago?
Can't tell whether you're talking about John McAfee or James Clapper.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but we are the good guys remember, so it okay. Also remember we are supposed to judge people by their actions, not their nationality or ethnicity unless they are Americans than obviously they are good.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Stands to non-reason (Score:2)
Spying on another country does not constitute an attack; bringing down its systems would be an attack. Like bringing down a company's computer systems would be an attack. (Spying on US companies by network infiltration has been going on for decades, including defense contractors; to my knowledge, while that spying was frowned on, it hasn't been labeled an attack.)
It's also the case that North Korea is technically still at war with South Korea, which is an ally of ours. And it has attacked boats in intern
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. The US hacked a hostile nation's government, one we're technically at war with, that has repeatedly declared it will attack the US and has fired weapons at our allies, and that kidnaps our allies' citizens.
North Korea hacked a private corporation's network to disclose random people's private information and to engage in artistic censorship.
Totally equivalent, yup.
Re: (Score:2)
So by their own standards, the US had used an act of war against a foreign nation. Will they be attacking themselves, seeing as they're the world's police?
Who cares. They can't convict them for those A-bomb tests thanks to Putin, with Guantanamo they can't complain about Camp 14 or 18, and the link to Saddam Hussein is a dead end. Now they can bring in the corporate lawyers - much more effective!
Freedom fighting made easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god people know now that the threat is North Korea hacking a movie company. This way, they can be freedom fighters just by watching a mildly funny movie with Mr. Rogen and Mr. Franco, which is both fun and easy.
Otherwise, they would have to assume that the threat to their freedom is more like a court approving a single warrant on the telecomm data of more than a million people. Or the CIA spying on the institution that is supposed to supervise them. Fighting these would be much less fun and easy, maybe even dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social justice is easy as fuck now, too. Did you know clicking "Like" on a FaceBook post about hunger feeds 12 billion starving African children every day?
Also, funding to #StopCancer can be massively increased with a retweet.
And since it's all social, and you're sharing, everyone will know how much you #care, and you'll inspire them to care just as much as you do!
“he had no doubt” (Score:1)
I wonder what Powell thinks of the evidence?
Doesn't Matter (Score:1, Insightful)
Cue the "false flags" bullshit comments or talk about how one of the DPRK's 1024 IP addresses was hacked by someone else to use as an attack vector from the United States. This whole readership should really just cough up its computer networks card right about now
Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
> There's nothing they could do or say that would convince the Slashdot crowd [...]
Not talking for "the Slashdot crowd" (whatever that might be [1]), but look: the NSA isn't an impartial party here -- and they're whoring for sympathy at the moment. Given its track record, *I* prefer to not trust anything it says.
--- ---
[1] To me it looks like a big honkin' strawman, but hey.
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein offered theories that could be checked by others. And were.
Re: Doesn't Matter (Score:1)
nothing the us government could say.
very true.
that's what happens when everyone realises you are a compulsive liar.
it's perhaps the key reason governments are being made obsolete. they just don't know the difference between the truth and lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it's completely ridiculous and massively unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it? And that pretty much everything the FBI and NSA say are massive lies?
You're right, we should absolutely believe the ridiculous and unlikely things compulsive liars tell us.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Kim regime actually gains a lot by provoking the US. They pretend to be clowns so that when westerners think "North Korea" they think BEST KOREA memes, unicorn caves, Fearless Leader who can win any olympic sport, bowls perfect 300 games on his first try, and makes hilarious claims that his tiny backwards country will conquer America. They think of these things, rather than think about the complete, horrifying brutality of their regime, with the concentration camps, mass murders, slave labor, chil
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This is another "45 minute" claim of the sort that provided pretext for the Iraq war, isn't it? It might be true, or it might be misleading but have an element of truth, or it might be utter fiction. An intelligence agency is an agency of state security, and "state security" means working on behalf of state interests, and state interests tend not to coincide with the people's interests.
2. It might then be in the interests of the state to let the attack happen, so it can be used as an excuse to further state interests.
3. I don't know why people are getting their panties twisted about NK's typically sabre-rattling reaction, which we all know is 1 part "I'm a maniacal dictator" and 1 part "goad the Americans into reacting so we can use their reaction as internal propaganda proving them to be an on-going threat that necessitates our regime". How would the West feel about the release of a popular film in which the assassination of a living head of state is planned? How would your government behave toward you if YOU wrote a book / published a film / performed a play about this?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the blurb was not exactly honest about the way the cyberattack on the iranian nuke program went down?
sounds fishy - and this is what, the third explanation for how nsa/feds knew that north korea was behind it? one of the others was that "there was direct ip connection from north korea" or something like that..
and I mean - if this explanation is actually correct then they knew BEFORE THE ATTACK but didn't do anything. and still haven't. yet the anon fucks on this article claim they could just shut
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember the name but there was a film released a couple of years ago that was about the assassination of Bush.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
How would the West feel about the release of a popular film in which the assassination of a living head of state is planned?
You mean like if a villain plotted to kill the queen at a baseball game with hypnotised assassins with all kinds of hilarious pratfalls along the way?
I suspect the reason it doesn't happen more often is due to legal issues, audience reception (and therefore box office) and the fear of repercussions of pissing off the people whose good graces they want to be in. It doesn't stop one book, movie and TV show after another putting fictional heads of state in perilous situations and occasionally bumping them off.
And if North Korea did some movie about whacking Obama, it's likely it might generate some media noise but I doubt it would do much else.
Re: (Score:2)
Try something else - how about a film which glorified the 9/11 attacks, and painted the victims as justified targets? One can't simply compare the topics without also comparing the importance and reverence people/governments place on the subject matter.
I'm not saying I agree with NK's alleged actions, but your comparison is not particularly accurate...
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the queen survives.
OTOH, she doesn't in King Ralph. (Although that one is accidental, not intentional.)
Re: Well... (Score:1)
sounds like a great idea.
someone should wrote a book where all the g 20 leaders get assassinated and how much better the world is afterwards.
just make sure the puppet masters are in the room with them.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
How would the West feel about the release of a popular film in which the assassination of a living head of state is planned? How would your government behave toward you if YOU wrote a book / published a film / performed a play about this?
In 2006, Death of a President [imdb.com] portrayed the assasination of George W. Bush. I don't remember hearing about it at the time, and even searching the website of Fox News doesn't turn up much controversy.
In 2008, AFR [imdb.com] came out, in which Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the then-Prime Minister of Denmark (and later Secretary-General of NATO) was murdered (and also, incidentally, portrayed as a closeted homosexual, in line with long-standing rumours). It genereted minor controversy, was well-received by critics, and a failure at the box office. I found it forgettable (I literally don't remember any of it).
Of course, both films were small, independent films, and both can legitimately claim to use the controversial plot for a higher purpose. The Interview... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
How would the West feel about the release of a popular film in which the assassination of a living head of state is planned?
I know it isn't quite the same, but it seemed like there was a run for a while where at least once a year there was a movie about the president of the United States getting trapped in a bunker.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the US didn't hack England when a subsidiary of a quasi-UK government entity released this film less than a decade ago: Death of a President [wikipedia.org] (about the fictional assassination of George W. Bush).
is the question correctly posed? (Score:1)
Ask yourself first whether it has ANY importance whatsoever whether it was or was not NK which hacked Sony site, when your own government, together with the help of your "don't be evil" company, watches every move of yours and every site you wish to see, and feeds you with lies and propaganda via the 6 media megacorporations which own 90% of US media, and hacks and spies ALL its satellite states in Europe (I live in one of these states).
And why are you telling us? (Score:5, Interesting)
In WWII, when the Brits cracked German encryption, the went to incredible lengths to create believable stories how they found secret German operations that they discovered through decrypted Enigma messages.
Re:And why are you telling us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And why are you telling us? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, this wouldn't fool the NK government, if they're not actually responsible for the hack, because they're totalitarian enough to KNOW they weren't responsible. In which case, who is this 'leak' intended to fool? Rhetorical question, it's the American public.
Alternate option: NK was responsible but the confidential sources are proud enough of their jobs to want to toot the NSA's horn, and don't think NK can actually do anything to stop the hacking, even if they broadly know how they were hacked. Evidence of the Sony hack was found in a counter-hacking performed after the Sony hack, probably using already-existing implants, or was only examined after the Sony hack. The unusual degree of interest that Obama had in the Sony hack suggests that the NSA might've been given an unusual degree of interest in the matter as well, so it's plausible they would've found something beyond what the legal authorities would've.
Re:And why are you telling us? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is all BS. Think for 15 seconds and its plain as day it has to be BS. If the NSA had a persistent backdoor into the DPRK's systems why would they admit it now? If I had access to my enemies networks, why in heavens name would I reveal that to them AFTER they demonstrated capability and willingness to conduct attacks of their own? Nope does not hold water now more than ever I would be concerned about protecting my secret access so I could be continue to monitor for future attacks, and have a path to s
Re: (Score:3)
from personal experiance(US Army), the US goverment's technical capabilities generally lag far behind their ability to bullshit, which of course is their greatest asset.
The US Government most likely has third rate hackers, and it can catch in sting operations or pressure to work for it. Few if any of the real talent gives a damn, as many of them are in one of the social groups the government has more or less made enemies of state and society for the last 4 decades. The ones that aren't get caught up in the
Re: (Score:3)
from personal experiance(US Army), the US goverment's technical capabilities generally lag far behind their ability to bullshit, which of course is their greatest asset.
The US Government most likely has third rate hackers,
Whats left are political lackies, the government can dress these people up as "the best experts in the world", and we'll all believe it, but their actual skills lack.
If you believe that the US government, in the form of the NSA, is composed of 3rd-rate hackers, you haven't been paying attention at all to the Snowden revelations.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did have any talent pre-snowden, I can guaruntee the pushback against hacker types in general would have either got them all fired, or drove them to quit. The government is a bunch of scared idiots who talk a better game than they have, and t
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Six-figure incomes working for a super-secret government agency with its near-unlimited (and classified) budget, that employs more mathematicians than any other organization, with access to the most advanced and largest computing resources on the planet, with the authority and blessing to crack and exploit every system in the world would only appeal to third-rate hackers, and never to the high-functioning sociopaths who seem to make some of the best programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were correct the US would have never lost viet-nam, ISIS would have never taken over eastern Iraq, and we never would have been hit on 9/11.
The real thing that we can't comprehend is that "paying a bazillion dollars" doesn't automagically make things happen.
high-functioning sociopaths who seem to make some of the best programmers.
haw haw, pure slander. I think you mean
Re: (Score:2)
haw haw, pure slander. I think you mean best lawyers, politicians, media-corespondants
And yet not programmers? I didn't say sociopaths are only best at being programmers. I agree with your list, but my mention of programmers was not meant to be an exhaustive list.
I just don't see any justification for your assertion that NSA hackers are third-rate. On what planet? They have the best toys, they have high pay, and the thing crackers love to do best, break into shit they're not supposed to be in, they get hugs and kisses from the government for doing instead of being arrested. All you need is a
Re: (Score:2)
So they have a secret capability to spy on North Korea, and they tell us because Sony got hacked? So now North Korea knows about it and probably will do something about it? That sounds an incredibly stupid action to me.
Or perhaps they got the info through other means but thought they'd troll North Korea - make them disrupt their own network looking for the compromise which wasn't there to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Bureaucrats, technocrats, contractors and pundits understand that every aspect of the internet is trackable, all encryption use can be traced and decoded.
Political leaders have often talked about material in public to sell a story. Quoting from decrypted embassy material over the decades to the the new policy statements about trackin
Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Double Plus Good
Not this again. Iraq has WMDs, but it's a secret. (Score:1)
We can't show you the evidence, 'cause we gots to keep it secret how we got it. Fuck off, you liars.
Snowden leaks from yesterday (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely the most obvious answer is that this is an NSA hack, and they threw the blame at North Korea, because a) Snowden leak yesterday reveals NSA does these false flag ops. b) NSA is defending its mass surveillance charges so it needs a scapegoat right now. c) Sony is a TV company and thus good for marketing to have them on your side.
http://boingboing.net/2015/01/18/ecstatic-nsa-spooks-delight-in.html
"... they routinely seek to cover their tracks or to lay fake ones instead. In technical terms, the ROC lay
This is stupid (Score:1, Informative)
even by American standards. Let N.K know that you're in their systems, just so you can convince us N.K were behind Sony attacks? Wow. Everyone understands N.K did NOT hack Sony, and in fact, the U.S is more likely to have done it themselves, just like they fuels conflict everywhere else they can. The U.S has become a divider, and the world needs to wake up, and stand up to them.
Not Able vs Not Willing. (Score:1)
See Subject.
Show me the Evidence please. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will never believe anything a US government ever says, because they showed in the past that they can not be trusted and that this does not change with whatever party is in charge right now. It is just lies that come out of every official PR persons mouth. Without hard facts to back it up everything they say must be considered not true.
Re:Show me the Evidence please. (Score:5, Insightful)
So all they have to do is say the opposite of what they want you to feel, and you'll go along with it?
Do you understand why aggreeing to the above is just another way of saying "I believe whatever I want to believe, especially if it suits my taste"? Not exactly the objective outlook on existence you seem to want.
Re: (Score:1)
Demanding evidence instead of trusting blindly is the opposite of "I believe whatever I want to believe". You know the saying: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you can't get fooled again."
Re: (Score:3)
Why should i believe the opposite, if i say i don't believe them? Is there only 0 and 1 in your world/world view? This also makes the rest of your claim sound out off place because what you like to think i would do is not the case so your speculations that go further that point went to waste, sorry about that your tried so hard. When i say i do not believe the US-Government that means just that i don't trust them, it does not implicate anywhere that i would just believe the opposite i think you just project
Irresponsible (Score:2)
USG teaches (how not to do) public relations (Score:1)
Sony: Help! We've been hacked! .....
USG: Those DPRK rascals must be held responsible!
Public: It could have been someone else....
USG: No way! We saw their IPs sending e-mail to Sony!
Public: But anyone could have relayed e-mail through an insecure server....
Sony: Help, somebody........
USG: No, definitely them! We've been hacking them for years! We know!
Public: So why didn't you warn Sony before they were hacked?
USG:
The lesson here is that sometimes it's better to say nothing than to open the floodgates of pub
Double standard all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare with: Unnamed NSA official, no doubt with the blessing of his bosses, anonymously reveals the same kind of information about NSA spying - but this time because it is convenient for the administration and it fits into their political agenda, there won't be any legal consequences, prosecutions etc., absolutely nothing will happen, we all know it - and even worse - we all passively accept it.
Laws are being selectively enforced by the government; there are no actually classified documents. There are "things the government wants you to know", those can be leaked and released on demand by "unnamed officials" - screw the legality of it - and there are "things the government doesn't want you to know", and anyone revealing those things will be spied on, harassed and prosecuted (James Risen? Laura Poitras?), it doesn’t matter that the people writing about those are journalists who have no duty of any kind towards the US government, they’re just doing their job.
If the administration has proof of North Korean involvement, they can present it to try to convince the American public... but wait, no they can’t. They can't do that because the evidence they have comes from the NSA exploiting and hacking systems all over the internet. "Yes, your honor, I saw it all, it was the North Koreans who painted that graffiti. How do I know? I was there that night, burying a few bodies in the empty lot next door".
The NSA giving actual proof of NK involvement is equivalent to them coming forward and admitting what they are: a threat far more dangerous for the security of the Internet than anything North Korea will ever be capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey genius, it is illegal, not even merely illegal but against the founding principles of the United States, for the NSA to spy on American Citizens within the USA (or even outside of it but that is another discussion); however, it is NOT illegal or against the founding principles of America to spy on foreign countries.
I am unsure how you even equate the two as evidence for enforcing laws sporadically. Whoever modded you to +4 either has an agenda or is a moron.
So the US (Score:3)
admits to hacking NK first which they say can be considered an act of war just to let the world know NK commited a possible act of war? WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
We're supposed to be the good guys (Score:1)
We need to limit our actions to those which:
- increase security
- improve communications and transparency
- improve access
Monitoring communications has to come after that --- the whole point to a society is to maintain and increase human dignity --- any action by a government which doesn't do this is an absolute travesty and should be prosecuted as a criminal act.
NSA reputation preceeds... (Score:1)
Also worth noting... (Score:1)
It takes a hack to know a hack... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What are you smoking?
Re: (Score:3)
A.) He didn't bring anything down, just told us what we already knew. The only result is that the IT community looks a lot less like tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
B.) So, our allies' communications and infrastructure are now considered "behind enemy lines"?
C.) I really do feel slightly safer now, you criminal organization apologist/sympathizer.