Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations (cryptographyengineering.com) 105
Matthew Green, a cryptographer and professor at Johns Hopkins University, writes: So what did Snowden's leaks really tell us? The brilliant thing about the Snowden leaks was that he didn't tell us much of anything. He showed us. Most of the revelations came in the form of a Powerpoint slide deck, the misery of which somehow made it all more real. And despite all the revelation fatigue, the things he showed us were remarkable. I'm going to hit a few of the highlights from my perspective. Many are cryptography-related, just because that's what this blog is about. Others tell a more basic story about how vulnerable our networks are.
"Collect it all"
Prior to Snowden, even surveillance-skeptics would probably concede that, yes, the NSA collects data on specific targets. But even the most paranoid observers were shocked by the sheer scale of what the NSA was actually doing out there. The Snowden revelations detailed several programs that were so astonishing in the breadth and scale of the data being collected, the only real limits on them were caused by technical limitations in the NSA's hardware. Most of us are familiar with the famous examples, like nationwide phone metadata collection. But it's the bizarre, obscure leaks that really drive this home. "Optic Nerve": From 2008-2010 the NSA and GCHQ collected millions of still images from every Yahoo! Messenger webchat stream, and used them to build a massive database for facial recognition. The collection of data had no particular rhyme or reason -- i.e., it didn't target specific users who might be a national security threat. It was just... everything.
"Collect it all"
Prior to Snowden, even surveillance-skeptics would probably concede that, yes, the NSA collects data on specific targets. But even the most paranoid observers were shocked by the sheer scale of what the NSA was actually doing out there. The Snowden revelations detailed several programs that were so astonishing in the breadth and scale of the data being collected, the only real limits on them were caused by technical limitations in the NSA's hardware. Most of us are familiar with the famous examples, like nationwide phone metadata collection. But it's the bizarre, obscure leaks that really drive this home. "Optic Nerve": From 2008-2010 the NSA and GCHQ collected millions of still images from every Yahoo! Messenger webchat stream, and used them to build a massive database for facial recognition. The collection of data had no particular rhyme or reason -- i.e., it didn't target specific users who might be a national security threat. It was just... everything.
Still pertinent (Score:4, Interesting)
"Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are."
--Machiavelli
Re: (Score:2)
Not wisdom, intelligence.
A type of intelligence particularly adept at identifying the psychopaths, while at times providing a temporary counter-strategy to them.
The -solution-, as you suggest, won't be found in politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Even though that is common in western society, if you look at the rest of the world, people are not only capable of empathy; it is a pillar of their community."
Really? Explain China.
Re:The psychopath viewpoint ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Even though that is common in western society, if you look at the rest of the world, people are not only capable of empathy; it is a pillar of their community."
Really? Explain China.
And most of African, and India, and South America. I'm sorry but human nature is what it is, it's not part of a culture or continent. Considering the barbarism in most countries the idea that empathy is the pillar of any society anywhere is comical.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand, Westerner. Those people, they are not part of my tribe! They are not people, like me and my family. And besides, they are planning on attack my family and friends, looting our belongings, killing the men and raping the women before selling them as slaves... unless we do it to them first!
Re: (Score:2)
There are some distinct differences in the culture of China, shaped by their own history. They do not lack empathy, but they value some things differently. Chinese culture puts great value upon social stability, to the point that they are a little more willing to accept a controlling government. Within limits - that government still sees need enough to justify an extensive police and propaganda system to maintain both that precious stability and their own grip on power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it true that, as a percentage, rich people give out less than less rich people,
Go for a hike (Score:1)
Even though that is common in western society, if you look at the rest of the world, people are not only capable of empathy; it is a pillar of their community.
Western-hating leftists brainwash gullible people into believing this nonsense. Then we read in the news in disbelief of couples going on bicycle tours through Daesh infested territory, because they believe in the egalitarianism of all cultures.
Try reading some hard news that comes out of continents like Africa, and grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Try reading some hard news that comes out of continents like Africa, and grow up."
Yeah, and also, when you oppress people, militarily, economically, culturally etc extremism will rise.
Re: (Score:2)
[...]if you look at the rest of the world, people are not only capable of empathy; it is a pillar of their community. They are humans. While we act more like lizards.
You haven't been around much, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are vehemently against all multinational corporations, or any large corporation that does business in many cities, like Amazon, or Sears, or... - right?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not trolling, just because it triggered yo (Score:2)
What Wall Street equivalent of a SJW got mod points again?
Trolling is when somebody deliberately posts something, just for the sake of derailing the discusion!
Not a synonym for "would like to censor"!
Grow up, and deal with reality! Even if it is unamerican!
Re:Still pertinent (Score:5, Insightful)
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Some day there is going to be a man sitting in my present chair who has not been raised in the military services and who will have little understanding of where slashes in their estimates can be made with little or no damage. If that should happen while we still have the state of tension that now exists in the world, I shudder to think of what could happen in this country ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
You know how impossible it is, in short, to have a free nation if it is a military nation and under military orders ~ Woodrow Wilson
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. ~ John F. Kennedy
Power corrupts, and there is nothing more corrupting than power exercised in secret. ~ Daniel Schorr
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~ Patrick Henry
Re: (Score:1)
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." ~ Woodrow Wilson
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no alle
Great post, why not put your name to it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alex Jones IS full of shit though. He might have been 1% right about the NSA by pure luck, but the other 99% of what he says is complete bollocks.
We knew that GCHQ and the NSA were up to no good, but Snowden showed us the kinds of no good they were capable of. His revelations spurred improvements by proving that threats were not just theoretical.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the whole gay frog thing was something Jones was basing on actual research. But that wasn't his claim—his claim had something to do with the government putting stuff in the water to try to make us gay, and the frogs are somehow proof of that (and, of course, you need to purchase his water purification device to save yourself from the gay government chemicals). Some frogs are able to change their sex when there is an imbalance in the sexes of a population, so it's not surprising that th
Re: (Score:2)
Distantly based upon actual research, yes - circa 2010, looking back at some articles about it, showing that some industrial chemicals entering natural waterways - notably the pesticide atrazine - could disrupt frog hormones, causing male frogs to develop intersex characteristics. Like all the best conspiracy theories it started out with something true, which was then twisted, amplified and distorted beyond recognition until it became something truly ridiculous. By the time Alex Jones started repeating it,
Re: (Score:2)
"Steve Jobs may not have died of cancer, BTW. He likely died from HIV."
Both are immune system diseases. HIV causes depression of immune system response, and cancer exists because the immune system fails to respond to rather ordinary run-of-the-mill cellular defects. Some relation is highly probable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And get laughed out of court. (Score:2)
And if that's the case, then all of Epstein's family can sue the gov't for Epstein's "wrongful death" while in gov't custody...
And get laughed out of court.
Look up "Sovereign Immunity".
Re: (Score:2)
"And dragging in Epstein?"
What is an Epstein? You mean as in Horseshack?
Saddam had nerve agents and used them (Score:3)
Against the Iranians and the Kurds, but I guess both of those wildly divergent sources are both lying. The Iranians actually got live samples off of the battlefield, which is somewhat difficult to do.
His nuclear program was shite so you got that going for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in 1991 when the UN forces took over and started investigating, they discovered that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was far more advanced than anyone had thought [fas.org].
This successful deception was part of why so many in different nations were willing to accept the claims presented in 2003.
Re:It showed a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between "conspiracy theories" which are baseless speculation and "conspiracy theories" that are rational and based upon evidence. We had every reason to suspect that the NSA was up to these types of nefarious deeds because legislation passed by Congress explicitly gave them the tools and protections from accountability to enable this type of data collection. More troublesome is the fact that Congress has never explicitly forbade these actions (and hence our legal arguments against them depends on the Constitution, which wasn't designed to deal with computers).
If you "firmly believe that Epstein was 'suicided'" then you have not arrived at your conclusion logically. It would be one thing if you suspect that he was murdered or wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true or if you withheld judgement, but to "firmly believe" in something without any evidence or even good reasons to believe that thing is just stupid. That's in no way comparable to Saddam's lack of WMDs or the government lies about the Gulf of Tonkin confrontation. If you "firmly believed" that the government was lying about the Gulf of Tonkin before the release of the Pentagon papers your strong belief would be irrational. Skepticism and suspicions wouldn't be irrational, but that's not what it means to believe in conspiracy theories.
Alex Jones makes baseless claims that are often absurd. Even if one of those claims turns out to be true, there's still no reason to have any faith that his assertions are true because he doesn't present any evidence for those claims.
Re: (Score:2)
We had every reason to suspect that the NSA was up to these types of nefarious deeds because legislation passed by Congress explicitly gave them the tools and protections from accountability to enable this type of data collection.
Not really. If that were the case, the NSA wouldn't have had to creatively redefine "collect" to be "examine". Remember that the NSA decided that they could hoover up everything and as long as they didn't actually look at it (too much), that didn't count as "collecting" it. Instead "collecting" was what happened when they analyzed the stored data.
My favorite conspiracy theory. (Score:2)
There's a difference between "conspiracy theories" which are baseless speculation and "conspiracy theories" that are rational and based upon evidence.
My favorite consipracy theory is that the "conspiracy theories are always and automatically nuts, as are those who hold them" meme is, if not actually the product of the spooks, certainly heavily promoted by them.
It's so convenient at silencing their critics that they'd be nuts to NOT promote it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the theorists got lucky on this one. My boss used to say, every once in a while the blind squirrel finds a nut. We were surprised by the truth because we lacked evidence, and so did the theorists. Conspiracy theories by definition aren't based on verifiable facts. It's easy to speculate a 1,000 things; hitting the target once is chance and doesn't prove the 999 of chemtrails etc. Also, the existence of a surveillance program was not a big stretch of the imagination based on what the gov't did in the
Classic big data principle. (Score:2)
Keep *everything*.
You can always sort it out later.
Adding exceptions also takes work.
While just spying on everyone is easier, if you got the budget.
None of that isn't a crime in any civilized state, of course.
Re:Classic big data principle. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good argument to be made that the CIA and the NSA carry the main responsibility for 9/11 (without actually organizing it or deliberately letting it happen)
The CIA by protecting Atta's team from the FBI because the CIA had their own plans to infiltrate Al Qaeda and they weren't interested in domestic security. Let the FBI fix their own problems, we're not helping them.
The NSA by going all out on the big budget 'collect it all' approach which would allow them to sort things out later but blinded them to what was going on at the moment.
The solution after 911 was 'we need to give these institutions more power to do whatever they like' . That lacks all good sense and contributed significantly to the current permanent war state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how relevant was this matter?
Conclusion page 35: The information sharing failures in the summer of 2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared."
And the report is being too nice there.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a good argument to be made that the CIA and the NSA carry the main responsibility for 9/11 (without actually organizing it or deliberately letting it happen)"
9/11 was a CIA operation. The mission goals were achieved with resounding success.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that theory lacks imagination. But 'helping Al Qaeda while they are preparing 9/11' does come pretty close.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good argument to be made that the CIA and the NSA carry the main responsibility for 9/11 (without actually organizing it or deliberately letting it happen)
And yet none of their failures would have mattered if Congress had not deliberately stripped the militia of its power. And even doing that was not enough to allow one of the planes to make it to its target which is a shame given that the target was likely Congress.
Since Congress had the authority, it was their responsibility. That includes the entirety of both parties.
American shit stinks too (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to Snowden the American Intelligence and Security communities had an attitude "Our shit doesnt stink" or in more polite language "Trust US. We are from the govt and we are here to help you".
Snowden leaks showed people working at NSA were just lazy and would rather embed backdoors into commercial American software and hardware than try and get the intelligence in other ways.
This reduced the brand value of American software and hardware and probably a big reason that the world is shifting to Huawei away from Cisco.
The reasoning goes - "if we are going to be spied on anyway than lets get the Chinese stuff which is cheaper and faster then the overpriced American stuff"
Once again big govt has kicked American private industry in the nuts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We KNOW American shit stinks. We've known since the 60's. Conspiracies have a funny way of proving true, just look at the JFK assassination. JFK literally made comments before his death that the CIA should be disbanded. Then poof, his head's blown off by someone who just so happened to have been trained by the CIA.
Everyone knows, most are afraid to say.
Re: (Score:1)
[JFK]
"head's blown off by someone who just so happened to have been trained by the CIA"
There is no credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever trained by the CIA. Your conspiracy theory is obviously baseless.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever trained by the CIA. Your conspiracy theory is obviously baseless."
Why do you assume that Lee Harvey Oswald blowed off JFK's head? Were you a witness to the event?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that Lee Harvey Oswald blowed off JFK's head? Were you a witness to the event?
Damn straight.
Hillary Clinton shot him.
Re: (Score:2)
Whistle blower process (Score:3)
On the legal path, we had someone go through the process who the president is still accusing of treason and is basically living in hiding, but also the hearings last week revealed the House intelligence committee regularly receives these complaints - so much so that they said the most recent one was out of the norm. Maybe congress has been quietly fixing the issues of all these complaints, but I really doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden tried the legal approach:
Snowden says he gradually became disillusioned with the programs with which he was involved and that he tried to raise his ethical concerns through internal channels but was ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The longer, detailed version from the Wiki:
Snowden has said that he had told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns, but the NSA disputes his claim.[71] Snowden elaborated in January 2014, saying "[I] made tremendous efforts to report these prog
even the most paranoid observers were shocked (Score:1)
:-) Heh, not at all, sir. It always was plain as day. He only confirmed what we already knew, just by observing, and a bit of paranoia to keep us alert.
Obviously the revelations still have no affect. Reelections rates remain at 95%...
What has been done? NOTHING (Score:1)
No one was hauled before Congress.
The only person in trouble from this is the whistleblower !!
This makes it very hard for me to trust the government.
Re:What has been done? NOTHING (Score:5, Insightful)
The only person in trouble from this is the whistleblower !! This makes it very hard for me to trust the government.
Aye, and here we are several years later; another government whistleblower and the president is essentially saying that this whistleblowing is treason and whistleblowers should be killed. "we used to handle treason differently" (we all know what that is code for- death penalty is only penalty for treason).
How are we doing as a democracy when one whistleblower (Snowden) gets chased into Russia by one administration; and another whistleblower gets threatened with murder by the President of the next administration? These whistleblowers are the heroes who risk everything to reduce corruption and the country treats them like shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
another whistleblower gets threatened with murder by the President of the next administration?
Because this "whistleblower" isn't blowing the whistle on anything illegal? It's just the "intelligence community" leaking for partisan political reasons.
These whistleblowers are the heroes who risk everything to reduce corruption and the country treats them like shit.
Trump was trying to investigate the corrupt actions Joe Biden took in Ukraine and I think the Democrats' response is, yeah, "treating him like shit."
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I don't think there is enough evidence in the whistleblowers report, or the transcripts to impeach Trump. I do think Pelosi's decision to act is mainly political.
So what? That does not give Trump the right to try and threaten the lives of heroes who report what they perceive as injustices and flaws in the democratic system. We have a constitution and precedent of how things should proceed. We should follow them. Trump's reaction, trying to suggest the whistle blower should be killed goes agai
Re: (Score:2)
That does not give Trump the right to try and threaten the lives of heroes who report what they perceive as injustices and flaws in the democratic system.
Except that's not what happened. This "hero" you speak of didn't hear anything first-hand. Someone else *told* this "hero" they heard something. This "hero" was given very explicit instructions by someone (or various someones) with a great deal of legal expertise on exactly what to say, how to say it, and who to say it to. Whoever instructed your "hero" is using them to accomplish something they themselves are unwilling to take responsibility for, likely because the Ukrainian "story" would be revealed f
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's not what happened. This "hero" you speak of didn't hear anything first-hand.
Does that make it acceptable to threaten a whistleblower, if they don't witness something first-hand and only know about the incident from a secondary source?
The issue at hand here is not about whether or not Trump is guilty of pressuring Ukraine- that's a topic that will be no doubt discussed in a thousand other forums (and I really don't care if he is guilty or not for the purpose of this thread).
Staying on topic here for this thread, the issue is; should whistleblowers be protected?
The answer is Yes, the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, whistleblowers who blow the whistle on illegal activity should be protected. Leakers who spill secrets about activities that are not illegal for political reasons should be nailed to the wall. If you're going to leak the contents of a conversation between the President and another world leader, the conduct better be Capital B Bad. Otherwise, great, you've just ruined the ability for world leaders to talk to the President candidly. Now they have to assume whatever they say to the President is going to w
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to draw the line between them. Surely nearly everything pertaining to a president can be painted in a partisan light if you choose to.
I'm also pretty inclined to believe that there is something here. Trump has pretty much threatened to kill this whistleblower. I can't say I've been in any remotely comparable situation, but I can't see why I'd seek out vengeance on someone who obviously didn't have anything of value on me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, whistleblowers who blow the whistle on illegal activity should be protected. Leakers who spill secrets about activities that are not illegal for political reasons should be nailed to the wall.
Can you point to the trial that decided that this whistleblower has done anything illegal? "Pointing out potential abuses made by a candidate you personally like" is not "illegal"- it certainly doesn't warrant death-threats from the President.
If there is nothing to this case it should blow over; it's never acceptable to threaten whistleblowers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pointing out potential abuses made by a candidate you personally like" is not "illegal"
It is when the "potential abuses" are classified. Conversations between the President and other world leaders are classified Secret. If you're going to leak classified information to the press, it better be more than "potential abuses." It was not. Trump did nothing illegal or abusive in the conversation with Zelensky. You do not get the whistleblower protection when you're not blowing the whistle on anything illegal.
it certainly doesn't warrant death-threats from the President.
Then it's a good thing he didn't get a death threat from the President.
Re: (Score:2)
It is when the "potential abuses" are classified. Conversations between the President and other world leaders are classified Secret. If you're going to leak classified information to the press,.
He didn't leak anything to the press; he followed the correct and legitimate procedures for whistle blowers.
Then it's a good thing he didn't get a death threat from the President.
Don't be obtuse. "treason" and "we used to handle treason differently" - everyone knows what he is implying. He also hasn't done anything to try and stop the people trying to raise funds so they can "track down the whistleblower". He's deliberately stirring the pot and trying to make it a threatening environment for the whistleblower or any future whistleblower.
Look, the problem here is that you're
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't leak anything to the press; he followed the correct and legitimate procedures for whistle blowers.
This is woefully naive. The entire point was to get this to Schiff so he could leak it.
Say Warren, or Bernie, or Biden were to win the election and had their own skeletons to hide, you would want them prosecuted wouldn't you?
If they did something illegal, yes. However, if they just started leaking secret information about Warren, Bernie or Biden doing something legal but embarrassing or politically damaging I would be very mad at them, because they're wrecking the whole system for everybody for their short-term political gain.
Do you understand the difference? Trump did not do anything illegal or even unseemly [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Trump saying that spies and traitors used to be executed is not a threat - unless you also think that all these people saying that Trump should be thrown in jail are also making threats.
Both are referring to end outcomes of a legal process. And referring to that legal process and its outcomes is a constant refrain of every prosecutor, politician, police officer, lawyer, or even judge. When someone says that a contract breaker should lose money, are they advocating robbery? When a lawyer tells a witness t
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming you've read the transcript (which you should; it's not long, it's important for context, and it could potentially be a large part of our historical record going forward; plus, Trump has personally asked you to read it), you will know that directly following the Ukrainian President's request to start receiving missiles again (Trump cut them off earlier in the year), Trump asks
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first, there's no reason to ask for "favors." Bill Clinton signed the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters [congress.gov] in 1998. This obligates the government of Ukraine to assist the US in investigations into criminal matters and matters of government corruption. So I think Trump was using "favor" colloquially. They're required to do it, favor or no.
For the first ask, the server used in the spearphishing attack on John Podesta was located in Ukraine [cbsnews.com]. As part of the ongoing investigat
Re: (Score:2)
Because this "whistleblower" isn't blowing the whistle on anything illegal?
If Trump was attempting to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign national, that's a violation of campaign finance laws, a felony. If he was offering compensation for it, that probably also makes it bribery. Or maybe extortion.
We'll see what the truth of the allegations is, probably, but what the whistleblower has alleged is definitely illegal. Unless you're taking the position that the president can't be indicted so nothing he does can be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump was attempting to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign national, that's a violation of campaign finance laws, a felony. If he was offering compensation for it, that probably also makes it bribery. Or maybe extortion.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired a lawyer to pay a foreign national (Steele) who paid Russian intelligence officers for dirt on a political opponent. This is not a violation of campaign finance laws because she paid for it. This might be unseemly, but there is nothing illegal about it. It's only illegal to get stuff from foreigners if you don't pay for it, then it's an illegal campaign contribution (on their part). I have no idea where you get "bribery" from, that's just paying for goods purchased. When yo
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired a lawyer to pay a foreign national (Steele) who paid Russian intelligence officers for dirt on a political opponent. This is not a violation of campaign finance laws because she paid for it.
I'm not sure this is entirely true as stated, but I'll assume it is for argument. Yes, buying political research with legitimately (domestically) contributed campaign funds, properly accounting for both the origin and the destination of the expense is entirely legal. It's ugly, and perhaps it ought not to be legal, but it is. It's also not remotely related to what Trump did.
I have no idea where you get "bribery" from, that's just paying for goods purchased.
From (possibly) tying the delivery of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid and military equipment to the digging up of sai
Oswald McBrockbot changes truth for narrative (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You just mentioned the current President, while we are talking about Snowden, who was hired in 2013 (Obama Admin), leaked in 2013 (Obama Admin), charged in 2013 (Obama Admin). If that isn't deflection, I don't know what is. Why not mention that Snowden criticized Obama for continuing the surveillance state Dubya had.
Your comprehension skills are pretty bad. I specifically mentioned that we had a failure to protect whistleblowers in two separate institutions; both the current and the previous. I couldn't give a fuck about Republicans or Democrats or your partisanship, stop protecting bad behavior just because it is from your party. Both have been negligent in protecting whistleblowers unless it has been politically convenient for them to do so. What you allow one side to do, the other will try to do next.
The Trump e
Re: (Score:1)
Reforms were made at the CIA and NSA (and probably other government agencies) in regards to how classified material is accessed and how their cyber security is setup. It still isn't perfect, and it does slow things down compared to how it was in the past, but it is better.
Slashdot (Score:2)
I remember seeing a lot of the things he revealed mentioned on Slashdot by people before Snowden went live with it. The difference is, the people saying about how big the spying were on here had no evidence and "could have been tin-foil hat types"; Snowden gave evidence. Snowden made what a lot of people on here suspected seem real to everyone and showed us, the tin-foil hat people were right in how bad the government was abusing it's power.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember seeing a lot of the things he revealed mentioned on Slashdot by people before Snowden went live with it. The difference is, the people saying about how big the spying were on here had no evidence and "could have been tin-foil hat types"; Snowden gave evidence. Snowden made what a lot of people on here suspected seem real to everyone and showed us, the tin-foil hat people were right in how bad the government was abusing it's power.
There was evidence outside of Snowden including the NSA controlling the committee responsible for IPSEC, Dual_EC_DRBG, and everything leading up to Congress passing telecom immunity. And nothing has changed for the better in Government since these things or Snowden's revelations.
More BS clickbait from /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Coulda Seen It Coming? (Score:1)
Cautionary Tale. (Score:2)
It still hasn't impacted my life at all (Score:1)
The government spying on me has had no impact because I am not a terrorist or planning anything bad. If Snowden had proof that it was being used to target political opponents or to create a database of political party loyalty, that would have been something. Or wait, that is what Facebook did and sold it to the current administration (they would have sold it to Clinton too, but they didn't know what they were doing on-line and thought they had it won). And SAP and IT organizations spying on workers is go
Old man's lament (Score:1)