Ex-CIA Engineer Set To Go On Trial For Vault 7 Leak (wsj.com) 61
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Manhattan federal prosecutors are poised to open their case Tuesday in the trial of a former software engineer for the Central Intelligence Agency who is charged with handing over a trove of classified information on the spy agency's hacking operations to WikiLeaks (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source). In 2017, WikiLeaks released more than 8,000 pages of secret materials -- which the antisecrecy organization called "Vault 7" -- detailing the CIA's cyberespionage arsenal, including the agency's playbook for hacking smartphones, computer operating systems, messaging applications and internet-connected televisions. It was one of the largest breaches in the agency's history. Federal prosecutors say the defendant, Joshua Schulte, stole the documents when he worked in a CIA unit that designed the hacking tools.
Mr. Schulte, 31 years old, faces 11 criminal counts, including illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information -- charges that derive from the Espionage Act, a statute that has been applied in other WikiLeaks cases. Some of the charges relate to Mr. Schulte's alleged misconduct and obstruction following his 2017 arrest -- prosecutors say he lied to law enforcement and disobeyed court orders. Mr. Schulte and his lawyers have called the espionage charges vague and overreaching, saying they infringed on constitutional free-speech rights. They have alleged fatal errors in the government's case, objected to the secrecy shrouding the investigation and protested Mr. Schulte's isolated confinement in a Manhattan jail. Opening arguments in the trial are expected as soon as Tuesday, once jury selection is completed.
Mr. Schulte, 31 years old, faces 11 criminal counts, including illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information -- charges that derive from the Espionage Act, a statute that has been applied in other WikiLeaks cases. Some of the charges relate to Mr. Schulte's alleged misconduct and obstruction following his 2017 arrest -- prosecutors say he lied to law enforcement and disobeyed court orders. Mr. Schulte and his lawyers have called the espionage charges vague and overreaching, saying they infringed on constitutional free-speech rights. They have alleged fatal errors in the government's case, objected to the secrecy shrouding the investigation and protested Mr. Schulte's isolated confinement in a Manhattan jail. Opening arguments in the trial are expected as soon as Tuesday, once jury selection is completed.
Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:2)
Sometimes we gotta fight bad people. What does something like this do - even the playing field? I don't want an even playing field against ISIS, for example.
What is the rationale for this kind of treachery?
Re: (Score:1)
"if US didn't start all those wars in the Middle East, then ISIS wouldn't even be created"
We've been fighting wars in the Middle East for hundreds of years, the most famous historical event was the Crusades of the 1100's when it was considered a knight's sworn duty to the king to go on crusade to the Holy Land to "fight the good fight". The seeds for such groups as ISIS were sown many hundreds of years before America was even a glint in Coumbus' eye.
Re:Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, there was no ISIS when the U.S. started it's wars in the Middle East. If we had implemented a sort of prime directive, they'd still be busy bashing each other and we wouldn't have a TSA, Homeland Security, or a trillion dollar bill for war expenses.
Or perhaps they'd be too busy messing with the remains of the British Empire.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevertheless, there was no ISIS when the U.S. started it's wars in the Middle East. If we had implemented a sort of prime directive, they'd still be busy bashing each other and we wouldn't have a TSA, Homeland Security, or a trillion dollar bill for war expenses.
You're right to point out that Islamic groups have a long history of "bashing each other", but it's insanely ignorant to suggest that they do so to the exclusion of attacking outside groups. You may recall that there was a little-known group called Al Qaeda which pulled off some rather successful attacks on the USA prior to the rise of ISIS. As difficult as it may be for you to believe it, that group also had a hand in precipitating our current involvement in the Middle East.
Dealing with Islamic fanatics is a bit of a no-win scenario. You can ignore them ... in which case they fight amongst each other until one group wins, builds up a furniture-themed empire, and invades half of Europe. Or you can regularly intervene ... in which case you engage in a game of whack-a-mole during which a new group pops up to fight you every time you hammer down an existing one.
Which approach is best ... well, that's a matter of opinion. Our current approach is the latter, and while it isn't exactly a flawless strategy it does seem to be somewhat less detrimental than the former.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:5, Informative)
And to think, all we had to do to bring about Al-Queda was depose a monarch and impose our own brutal puppet (not saying the monarch was puppies and sunshine, but he was their own problem), and sack a country or two. So touchy! OH, and Saddam was our bestest buddy until he wasn't. A dangerous game, that.
It didn't help that we sold them all those modern weapons of war...
You have to rewind to just after WWII to get to the roots of U.S. interference in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, after 9/11, only one non-military plane was allowed to fly in U.S. airspace. It was carrying Bin Laden's relatives.
I certainly do not support ISIS, al Queda, or any other fanatics, but I do understand that the U.S. had a hand in helping them to flourish. It's just not rational to kick an anthill and not expect the ants to bite.
Using the other approach starting in the 1940's, they MIGHT have been just about at the point where they could start causing problems in Europe just about now. MAYBE. But it probably would have been Libyan style trouble which we could have put a stop to fairly easily (consider how much less trouble and expense we have had dealing with Libya)
The sad truth is the protesters were right, the U.S. wanted the oil. Even sadder, the U.S. is currently a net producer of oil. We don't need the Middle East. If we had focused on that, we could have become a net producer a lot sooner.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:4, Insightful)
I am always surprised by Americans who discuss things that are common knowledge in rest of the world. You never sell your limited resources until it is the last option. USA made money selling the all that oil that didn't belong to them by right by putting friendly regimes and murdering the unfriendly ones or ones who had a vision or the ones who were not 100% subservient - because it was cheaper. All those wars and depositions were funded by the government. Now it has become cheaper to sell the Alaskan oil. Or wait - it is still cheaper to lobby to legalize fracking.
In fact, there is a deeper lesson here on why the USA is successful and why middle eastern remote lands aren't - a system that values money over raw power and a system that gives freedom to chose who to bribe will survive longer than a system of untrustworthy despots.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not working out to be so cheap given how much we spent on the Gulf Wars.
It looks even worse when you look at how much the reaction to terrorism has damaged our own society. It actually reminds me of Spanish flu. The infection didn't kill the victims, their own out of control immune response is what killed them.
Icing on the cake: The profits accrue to a few but the costs are born by many.
Simplistic rules of thumb rarely capture the full picture.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not working out to be so cheap given how much we spent on the Gulf Wars.
It is cheap to the people who made money on the Gulf Wars. To them it does not matter if the US was made poorer in total as long as they gained.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:2)
That's a cute bunch of self-flagellation you're engaging in, and I'm sure it plays well to the ignorant crowd who truly believe that Islamic fanaticism began some time in the 20th century. On the other hand, to anyone who's actually studied history, you sound like a self-obsessed teenager still trying to figure out his place in the world.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you need to read more carefully!
What I am saying is that had we stayed away, they would be fanatically beating each other over the head rather than being a problem for us.
The fanaticism has been going on for a lot longer. It became directed at US because of actions starting in the mid 20th century.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:2)
The fanaticism has been going on for a lot longer. It became directed at US because of actions starting in the mid 20th century.
Nonsense. Islamic aggression against US interests, and US involvement in Islamic states, both predate your "actions starting in the 20th century". The Barbary states had been a problem on and off since the 16th century ffs - before the US was even a distinct nation. They didn't cut the shit UNTILL the US showed up and beat them senseless, in the early 19th century.
ISIS and similar groups aren't a response to US actions. They're a fundamental part of Islam. They are fanatical men pining for the glory of
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. was mostly unexplored land as far as western civilization was concerned in the 16th century. Middle Eastern civilization might or might not have heard of it. I don't think any of the Native American nations had much trouble with the Middle East (or even awareness of it's existence). To hear you tell the story, one might imagine suicide bombers blowing up wigwams.
The Middle East was a problem for the British Empire prior to the mid 20th century (of course, the Britons had historically been a problem
Re: (Score:3)
a few points:
A) as humans, we have learned that resources taking is ok. , We are now learning the aspect of resource sharing.
B) you are right, there was no ISIS before, but because our involvement, the power vacuum was filled. if it was not ISIS it would have been someone else.
C) Wars are expensive, We had a legally elected president, it's a risk one takes when you vote, you never know how they will react to a violent act.
D) Spy and Spying is an absolute need. Many USA born people believe that the system of
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I didn't comment on spying at all, just on the Middle East.
As for the spying, if the CIA and NSA would stick to their mission statements and do their spying outside of the U.S. I would be more supportive. Particularly if the NSA would quit weakening the encryption used by Americans in America. That said, FOREIGN spying is a necessary evil.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be an optimist. Please don't let it obscure abuses or other realities. For example:
> USA has an amazing amount fairness not found anywhere else in the world, as long as you know how to use the rules correctly
Then do try being native american, or black, or growing up very poor. Some other nations do it better, including our neighbor Canada. The USA has shown some real leadership in civil rights, but the imprisoned Japanese-Americans from World War II and all of the prisoners hed with no trial
Re: (Score:3)
When was the US leading on civil rights? Seems like it was mostly behind Europe in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
> When was the US leading on civil rights?
When we wrote the US Constitituion and the Bill of Rights are perhaps the best example. I'd count as leadership when and where we've sent aid to war-torn nations, and pressured their leaders to provide civil rights, especially education to women. We're not the _best_ at doing this, we're too inconsistent and self-interested in our practices.
Re: (Score:2)
I am of one of those categories, I know plenty of the others.
fairness is a new concept to american's when it comes to each other in minority settings. overall if you are white it's rather fair, and I accept that it was bad, so it's rather slow. But to the point.
NA or BA are and do have opportunities, more than there was and it's progressing. you want change now, it won't happen, the cycles of change take generations of change.
japanese internment while wrong proved what happens when you let the masses dictat
Re: (Score:2)
USA has an amazing amount fairness not found anywhere else in the world, as long as you know how to use the rules correctly
No. See Racial Taxation by Walsh. The system of funding education based on property tax was set up after the Civil War in places all over the country on a racial basis - and in many states it still works that way.
It is a completely UNFAIR system that basically comes down to giving rich people a tax break and screwing over the poor, disproportionately affecting minorities.
Some states are working to improve matters. The most recent study (in 2016) showed that the 26 states that have increased the education
Re: (Score:2)
Life is not fair,
don't like the playing field, change it. I don't like Bernie Sanders presidential standing
( as a community leader and a state leader I do like ) , but he's went out over time, and
changed the field over time and he's proven it and whats most interesting to me, it's a
documented success story on how he did it. repeatable that's for sure.
want housing, vote for a the person that will let buildings be built, increase the density
factor. I love what oregon did and in 10 years, they will lead in rea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot see a cause to effect relationship between blowing up someone's home and them not liking you, you may need to see a neurosurgeon.
Re: (Score:3)
We've been fighting wars in the Middle East for hundreds of years, the most famous historical event was the Crusades of the 1100's when it was considered a knight's sworn duty to the king
The USA wasn't involved with the crusades. We left Europe to get away from kings.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the good guys/bad guys dichotomy is that when you think you're a good guy you think you can do no wrong.
Wikileaks buys into the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, only with it as the good guy and the US as the bad guy. The thing is, they haven't really managed to dig up anything we've done all that's all that damning. The embassy cable leaks surprised me by how *little* the way of unknown evil plots they revealed. They were embarrassing because of frank discussions of foreign leaders. The infamous "Collateral Damage" video is shocking, but Assange's characterization of events in the video makes it sound like a thrill killing. If you actually watch the video in its entirety it's clear that it was a horrible error.
It's not that the US never does anything evil, but because we're convinced we're the good guys, the evil we do tends to be right out there in the open, done in the full conviction that it serves the greater good.
ISIS is a case in point. We didn't set out to destabilize the region. We waltzed into a place that was the meeting point for two sets of dangerous fault lines, religious (Sunni/Shia) and ethnic (Arab/Kurd/Persian), then we ripped the lid off the whole thing in perfect confidence that everything would turn out right *because our intentions were good*.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:3)
While I support the sentiment of your post, I have to question whether the intentions were good for invading Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and the whole thing was just a pretense to remove Saddam and secure the petrol-dollar regime in the region.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Where was the outrage when the US supported him during the Iran-Iraq war?
Removing Saddam didn't fix any problems in the region. To keep the peace with the tensions inside the country, you need another authoritarian leader like him. The alternative is to reshape the geopolitical and social makeup of the entire region so that it is made up of stable democracies.
Re: (Score:3)
In D&D, most characters of neutral alignment generally act in a good manner, leading to the karmic question: "What good have you done for the greater evil?"
Yep, Saddam was a murderous POS. Of course, when you look at his body count, and compare it to the death toll since Shrub et al invaded, he actually comes of as the better alternative. Not to mention Iraq was a buffer to Iran. Destroying the Iraqi infrastructure led - inevitably - to Iran growing.
Re: (Score:2)
The American people absolutely thought Sadaam had WMD and polls even showed a majority were sufficiently confused to think Sadaam was involved in 9/11. How the leadership justified manufacturing these impressions, or whether they thought they even needed justification only history will tell. Clearly things didn't go as planned.
Re: (Score:3)
"The American people absolutely thought Sadaam had WMD"
The American people don't declare war (etc.) The people who did knew that we did not have solid evidence that Saddam had WMDs. They lied us into that war.
"How the leadership justified manufacturing these impressions, or whether they thought they even needed justification only history will tell."
No, it told us already, and you're ignoring being told.
Re: (Score:2)
"We didn't set out to destabilize the region."
Even T.E. Lawrence told everyone what would happen, and we deliberately ignored him. We set out to destabilize the region.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with spying on our enemies, we should do that (although the CIA is known for their incompetence, so they're probably doing it wrong). The problem is creating enemies to begin with.
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:3)
although the CIA is known for their incompetence, so they're probably doing it wrong
That's just the pop-culture interpretation of things most people know nothing about. It's akin to that old gem about NASA spending millions to develop a space pen while Russians just used a pencil. Both are examples of total bullshit which the average person believes for no reason other than that others believe it.
In the real world, the CIA is almost certainly the best intelligence agency on the planet. There are one or two others which can stand toe-to-toe with them in some aspects, but they have a much
Re: Sometimes we gotta fight bad people (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the rationale for this kind of treachery?
Treachery. Some people support it.
Even here, read the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people believe it's unethical for engineers to knowingly design compromised, insecure, or otherwise faulty systems. They regard a secret back-doored system as being in that category. Why is it regarded as unethical? One answer is based on the notion that the government is obligated to ensure that all citizens are secure. By intentionally allowing insecure systems to be in circulation, the government is doing the opposite. Note, a key escrow, as unpopular as it is, wouldn't violate that. It would
Re: totally not a show trial (Score:1)
Real whistleblowers go to jail (Score:1)
Here's how it go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Guy goes on his show trial, press makes a fuss, he spends 15 years in jail, writes his memoirs of "being a spy" and makes a fricking mint from book sales. He's released, collects his sales money from his publisher and disappears off to Canada or the Carribean to retire. Just like Peter Wright and the Spycatcher press circus in the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:2)
Nothing exposed was really secret other than the actual software. Did somebody think the CIA wouldn't utilized software exploits on anything and everything? It doesn't strike me as smart to hoard exploits (because anyone can use an exploit) but exposing the actual software they wrote is just stupid. Nothing exposed was being used on millions US citizens (e.g. PRISM) but rather this was the CIA just doing their job. To top it all off, it's not like he didn't know this because he helped them make the damn
Re: I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing exposed was really secret other than the actual software.
Yeah, other than the software and the strategy, nothing of value was exposed. Just like leaking the D-Day invasion plans to the Nazis was really no big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, other than the software and the strategy, nothing of value was exposed. Just like leaking the D-Day invasion plans to the Nazis was really no big deal.
What absolute tripe. I never wrote it wasn't of value, I wrote that it wasn't surprising. The only thing this guy did is hurt the CIA. What did he accomplish besides damaging US national security?
Re: (Score:2)
leaking the D-Day invasion plans to the Nazis
But in this case, the American public is the Nazis.
Why was he even employed??? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you sign on for work of this type, you agree to park your ethics at the door.
Not really. At least not in the past. The DoD and various TLAs have prided themselves on hiring 'patriots'. Which is just an ideologue with a certain set of beliefs and a susceptibility to hold them without question once adopted. And it has come to bite them in the ass numerous times when targeted individuals were persuaded by either foreign psyops or just plain old peer pressure to betray their employer.
Unstable employee? Maybe. But that's what a lot of true believers appear as to their co-workers. Unless