Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Claims That NSA Collaborated With Israel To Write Stuxnet Virus
andrewa writes "In an interview with Der Spiegel Snowden claims that the NSA, amongst other things, collaborated with Israel to write the Stuxnet virus. Not that this is news, as it has been suspected that it was a collaborative effort for some time. When asked about active major programs and how international partners help, Snowden says: 'The partners in the "Five Eyes" (behind which are hidden the secret services of the Americans, the British, the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians -- ed.) sometimes go even further than the NSA people themselves. Take the Tempora program of the British intelligence GCHQ for instance. Tempora is the first "I save everything" approach ("Full take") in the intelligence world. It sucks in all data, no matter what it is, and which rights are violated by it. This buffered storage allows for subsequent monitoring; not a single bit escapes. Right now, the system is capable of saving three days’ worth of traffic, but that will be optimized. Three days may perhaps not sound like a lot, but it's not just about connection metadata. "Full take" means that the system saves everything. If you send a data packet and if makes its way through the UK, we will get it. If you download anything, and the server is in the UK, then we get it. And if the data about your sick daughter is processed through a London call center, then ... Oh, I think you have understood.'"
not at all surprised. some of us have been saying this kind of thing has been going on forever while all the while getting laughed at for being paranoid. But what I am really interested in is what now happens to Snowden. Russia said they would help him as long as he stopped leaking information. Will Russia do anything about this? or do you think it was just lip service??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Or maybe it's not as compartmentalized as you theorise.
Or maybe Snowden was working at a higher level than the US government has admitted.
Or maybe Snowden simply used the skills he was taught to use against the Chinese against his own government.
Either way, what he says has enough validity that world leaders are listening and issuing formal statements over it, and the US isn't denying it, so it's obviously got a reasonable degree of validity to it and isn't just about parroting speculation like you claim.
Same with if an author sends a draft of a book to a publisher.
Seems to me those programs could be charged with piracy, no?
I knew that pretty much from the get-go. Only the truly deluded didn't immediately realize that Mossad and/or the CIA were behind that. Of course, there are always those idiots out there who reflexively deny that the U.S. government is behind ANYTHING--who seem to think that the tens of thousands of employees of the CIA and NSA just sit and stare at walls all day, I guess.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
They can't because the world one learns about in law school, where courts are impartial arbiters of justice and where any tort deserves compensation, doesn't exist. We live in a world where Bush/Cheney's lawyers wrote the flimsiest of legal justifications for torturing prisoners and got away with it not because of their justifications but because of who they are.
Mossad is the sort of organization that will drive up next to you on a motorcycle in traffic and throw a magnetic grenade on your car. What are you going to do, sue them for wrongful death?
You would be surprised how many would go to great lengths to deny U.S. and/or Mossad involvement, even on /. Some even went as far as claiming that Iran had done it to *themselves* to elicit sympathy. When you're truly deluded, you can convince yourself of anything, no matter how illogical.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Yeah it's BS and he made it up, that's why they're hunting him.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
He is so desperate to stay in the news that I think he is resorted to parroting what was speculated in the news almost a year ago.
According to the article, the interview was conducted anonymously through a third party before Snowden publicly revealed himself.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
... if someone emails someone else a compressed (.zip etc.) file, do the computers automatically decompress it to examine it, or do they store only the compressed version?
I recall people using specially designed .zip archives which decompress to many times their original size (a 10KB file turning into a 100GB file, for instance) as a form of DoS attack. If the spooks have been lazy the same thing might catch their computers out...
An amazingly well written worm designed to target a particular brand of hardware PLCs that most hackers have never even heard of (and certainly couldn't afford), and not only target them, but target them in a way specifically designed to destroy the attached equipment under a VERY specific set of curcumstances.
That has "nation state" written all over it.
Not only that but it has "very high tech nation state" written all over it.
Basically about the only people with the will, the resources, and the ability are US + Israel. There's basically no one else that was likely to have done it.
But honestly, it was one of the most amazingly awesome high tech attacks ever perpetrated. I mean seriously they managed to successfully target machines that weren't connected to the public internet and physically destroy them.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just before Edward Snowden became a world famous whistleblower he answered an extensive catalog of questions.
That includes the question about stuxnet. Doesn't address how he knows it, but " lying in a desperate attempt to stay in the news" doesn't fit since this came out before he was in the news.
I've always said, since the NSA is reading all of my e-mail anyway, the least they could do is filter out all the spam for me ... If I could subscribe, via RSS from an NSA site, a .procmailrc; that'd be bitchin'...
Which limits his access how?
Why? Because it stopped 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing...oh wait....
At this point, I'd say he's proven himself to be a credible source. Confirming something that was already believed to be true doesn't change that, or make it any less true.
My government has been doing what the UK does for many years already, we learnt this weekend. I'm Dutch, BTW.
-- Cheers!
Its important to clarify what this system is intended to do, as im certain the government will furiously refute this new round of allegations...presuming mainstream media feels like covering this one
This is not, nor has it ever been about terrorism. Its about the maintenance of power, wherein terrorism is a convenient excuse as it directly challenges and undermines a governments authority. All legitimate challenges, be they from disenfranchised middle eastern nationals or occupy protestors, are now taken very seriously. The middle east questions everything from the well established narrative of american freedom in the context of guantanamo bay to the carter doctrine of foreign imperialism and Israeli occupation each time a bombing or attack is successfully affected. People begin to ask why we are being attacked, and the excuse that terrorists "hate our freedom" becomes less effective with each blast that rocks a city as more of its citizens learn about the home state of the bomber, her motives and objectives and most dangerously, the full context under which america became a part of it.
the occupy protests question the narrative of the american dream in the context of class stratification that is so rife with inequality it guarantees forty percent of a worlds wealth is concentrated amongst one percent of its wealthiest inhabitants. Bank foreclosures and unemployment can only be explained by "economic downturn" and "irresponsible homeowners" so many times before the answers do not work anymore, and with each march or sit-in a protest gains momentum to change this class stratification. protests like occupy work to force a ruling class to remain under scrutiny or crush dissent. Crushing dissent is a force multiplier however, like water on a grease fire, and merely galvanizes your opponents. Ruling plutocracies cannot tolerate sustained scrutiny.
the middle of the road is simply surveillance. Find the organizers, topple them first, and the dissent never has an opportunity to interrupt the american "dream." pre-emptive detention of G8 protesters, flypapering articles about how much americans think Snowden is a traitor, and manufacturing crimes against peaceful demonstrators is much more efficient and effective. you contol the outcome of the detentions, and without a rally point protestors are supplanted by media reports of valiantly thwarted attacks by the TSA or FBI. Snowdens security state, as its been exposed, also serves also to galvanize more severe convictions against protestors by providing nearly infinite evidence of any crime the prosecution so wishes. its a slightly larger padlock by which political and social unrest is quelled. it is our form of political prisoner.
to fix it not only requires expunging elected leaders but cutting the feed bag from a society that largely reviles the poor and champions the rich, and consents to warrantless search so long as they have enough room on the DVR to still make it home in time to catch up on Big Bang Theory. We must begin to ask uncomfortable questions: Why are people rich, what is the longstanding history of our foreign policy and its potential future ramifications, why should corporations be given say in politics, and why do we need a deep-rooted surveillance system to combat something that kills orders-of-magnitude fewer people each year than heart disease?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Yeah it's BS and he made it up, that's why they're hunting him.
Maybe they are hunting him down for divulging information about the email surveillance program that he was under contract to interpret the information. This one fact that he revealed doesn't make the other facts any more credible. It is more likely that his 15 minutes of press exposure is almost up and he'll claim to know more than he actually knows to either remain in the spotlight or make himself appear more valuable to potential host countries.
No one is questioning the information he leaked that was directly handled by him. We are questioning all this new insight that he claims to have on old subjects that were already speculated heavily in the news.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Stop fucking focusing on the person and look at the facts instead. If what he has leaked harms the US government or any other government, so be it - you reap what you sow. Snowden would not have any means to harm the US if the US had not conducted itself in a way that left it open to harm. Shut the fuck up with this person pro/con agenda.
... whatever
You realise that some of the people carrying out extraordinary rendition to black sites, something that's established fact, not spy fiction were also contract employees right?
The US has been using ever greater numbers of contractors since 9/11 for a combination of the fact that many politicians have shares in said companies so it profits them directly and also because it provides a layer of deniability should it come back to bite them - "Oh we had no idea the contractors were doing that!". The third and final reason was simply that private sector could scale faster than existing public sector organisations after the massive influx of security spending post 9/11. None of which means that they have any less access to secretive material, in fact, given the sort of risky operations they're using contractors for it's often the contractors that are engaged in the really dirty stuff the government doesn't want to get directly implicated in.
That and the fact that Snowden wasn't always just an external contractor of course, he did actually work at the NSA for some time.
It's not about me reading spy novels (I've never read a single one, don't interest me), it's about your naivety and lack of understanding of the structure of modern military and security operations by government. Or to cut a long story short, you've obviously just not been paying attention this last 10 years.
I find it comical that people are still arguing over the validity of Snowden's claims, as he continues to be hunted down by the very government who is attempting to dismiss him as a mere nothing.
Perhaps the governments stance to dismiss this as nothing (at least on the surface) has merit, for the government knows that no matter how alarming, no matter how bad the breaches of privacy are or has been, citizens simply don't give a shit enough to care.
And the government knows this. So do many major companies, which is why they continue to operate the way they do (yes, AT&T I'm speaking to you and your recent surcharges that generated hundreds of millions...yes, I'm speaking to you Facebook, and your gall to start charging to put an email where it belongs).
Why do governments and corporations act in this arrogant way? Because they know that no one gives a shit anymore.
Apathy will be the demise of all privacy and Rights as we know them today. I promise you that.
And regardless of Snowden's claims, proof, facts, or evidence, not a damn thing will change for the better. Not a damn thing.
Now, go ahead. I dare you to prove me wrong.
The paper must not have thought much about the credibility of their informant since they chose not to run the story until after Snowden made himself known to the public in Hong Kong.
Wow, its like your only objectively reality is that Snowden sucks.
First it was Snowden doing whatever he could to keep publicity on himself and when that theory went over like a lead balloon you trot out the exact opposite. Now it isn't Snowden's decision to hold off because he sucks, it's the newspaper's decision to hold off because he sucks.
The important part of coming up with an explanation is that it must include the fact that Snowden sucks, everything else is mutable...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Mossad is the sort of organization that will drive up next to you on a motorcycle in traffic and throw a magnetic grenade on your car. What are you going to do, sue them for wrongful death?
If ever there was a time to reverse the polarity on the deflector shield, that would be it.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Maybe they are hunting him down for divulging information about the email surveillance program that he was under contract to interpret the information.
You don't call in the military to deal with a 5 year old shoplifter.
The measures taken so far pretty much confirms that everything Snowden has said is true.
The messenger always has as much to do with the facts as the facts themselves, as well as how they project the facts. Get a report that global warming has been overstated? Might want to check to the back of the report to see if the words "Koch Brothers" are somewhere in there.
Got a poll saying that Americans think unions cost jobs and can't be trusted, might want to see if the Chamber of Commerce wrote it, got a sensationalistic headline that 1 in 4 Women have been raped, might want to find out how those facts were come up it and who came up with them (NOW, and included things like having sex after having 2 Aspirin or Tylenol).
You can't separate the message from the messenger or the facts from the source. That's why scientific data is considered worthless if it can't be repeated completely independently. You need to know the methodology, you need to know the circumstances, the motive, the chain of custody, you need to see if there is corroboration or not.
Now I realize none of this applies if your trying cause political damage where evidence doesn't mean a damn thing and your simply trying to slander someone. After all when your trying to do political damage the facts don't matter and if they come out later well it's too late. Now, if you actually give a damn about the truth, than you'll care about everything I said.
Also keep in mind that when working in government or other institutions in various support roles, there are jobs where you can have access to all kinds of things. Serving in the military I had a job like this, with nearly full access and permission to enter whatever spaces. (Some still required attendance by a person of higher or different clearances though, it wasn't all open-door. But I could pull papers, state reasons, and be backed up by superiors in my department.) However despite all the things I had physical access to, doing stuff like equipment validation while using fairly complete manuals, I wasn't too terribly nosy about things. (Of course being purposely not-nosy helps to stay out of trouble along with not having the greatest long-term memory when it comes to various details. Agreeing to confidentiality works in more than one level that way.)
I'm sure the same would also apply to IT, communications specialists (like Manning), or people like yeomen or secretarial staff. Very easy to have access to more than what your own clearance calls for, but most people stay out of trouble by keeping to one task and tuning out all the other stuff. (Keep in mind how bureaucratic systems work. Like recent news that has gone public in relation to leaks military people aren't allowed to see it for classification reasons. It's typically better to avoid the hassle.)
Of course then you have people like Snowden who take advantage of the situation. There's only so much manpower, and by trusting people to stay on task, they don't really watch everybody and what they may pick up on the side. Whether that's for better or worse, who knows? (But some of the CYA stuff really is in violation of the public trust for those in authority to do the right thing. Doing stupid shit and covering it up only serves to eliminate any moral or ethical higher ground you may have been considered to have stood upon. How about staying clean and not doing it in the first place? That really would have been the easiest way to prevent leaks that harm reputation. But nope, people still get caught doing shady crap, and the first response is to go and shoot the messenger.)
He means he's full of shit, that's what he means.
Having got security clearance and worked on defence projects for a third party contractor in the past myself I can say with absolute certainty that compartmentalisation in the security services isn't as good as his computer games, movies and spy thrillers would have him believe.
When Chinese hackers stole a load of information about the F-35 it wasn't because they pulled off some righteous hack that required skill, perseverance and a high degree of technical knowledge, but precisely because protection of such sensitive data is sloppier than the good practice guidelines claim it should be.
It isn't magic, but it *is* supposed to be compartmentalized. That's the whole "need to know" situation. There shouldn't be a bunch of files for various classified programs sitting together in the same place or even on the same segment of the network for him to just grab.
Perhaps, as an admin, he did have access to multiple systems, or perhaps the compartmentalization was lax or failed, but even a TS/SCI clearance and admin access to hosts for one program isn't supposed to grant you access to all NSA programs. Government security, even government contractor security, is supposed to be very careful about specific requirements about networks, data access, and even facility security.
That's why some people are incredulous that Snowden is suddenly able to spout off about all sorts of programs as if he had all that data. Even with his elevated access, he should not have been able to comment authoritatively on anything but what he was working on directly.
I am not going to be incredulous by default. It may be possible he does know these things, but the assumption that just because he have "privileges" with some NSA programs does not make him an expert by default on all of them. He should have only been able to see what he was working on. So, if there is one thing that I do want to know from all of this, it might be whether their security was lax where Snowden was working.
incidents stopped: 0
incidents not stopped: 2
Bradley Manning is another good example, he was working at a field base in Iraq yet not only did he have access to military cables for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Apache video, he also had access to diplomatic cables from embassies across the globe. All this despite being a low ranking bottom of the pile private on a pretty basic wage.
This alone shows what an utter farce the GP's claim is, there's been plenty of evidence that compartmentalisation in the US security services is far better in theory than it actually is in practice.
So, how did bugging the EU office in DC ward of terrorists? Do you flip open the "good citizen manual" and invoke the next boogeyman on the list to explain that one away?
... whatever
Maybe they are hunting him down for divulging information about the email surveillance program that he was under contract to interpret the information. This one fact that he revealed doesn't make the other facts any more credible.
Of course it does, that is the basis of all human trust relationships. If you tell me true things, and I've never caught you in a lie, then that makes you more believable. It doesn't make me automatically accept everything you say as fact, but it means that I trust you more than I otherwise would. So in fact that one fact does make the other facts more credible. However, it wasn't just one fact. He got the EU to search all their offices for bugs. If they had found nothing, I'm sure there would be a lot of European countries who would be happy to score a mountain heap of brownie points with the US by saying so and thereby discrediting Snowden. They haven't said so. He so far has a perfect record. He is now the single most believable source on secret government spying that you have ever had access to. That could change, but for now it hasn't.
You don't ask allies to close their airspace just because somebody broke an NDA.
Re 'citations please' by the AC:
Costas Tsalikidis, the Greek telco whistleblower was found hanged in his apartment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kostas_Tsalikidis
Exposed tapping mobile phones of members of the cabinet, the Prime Minister, and hundreds of others via foreign “interception” software.
Adamo Bove head of security at Telecom Italia who exposed the CIA renditions via cell phone log in court ‘fell’ to his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SISMI-Telecom_scandal
Illegal domestic surveillance program on politicians, magistrates.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the D.C. Madam was found hanged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey
David Kelly and the prewar intelligence Britain had on Iraq.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
True, any information you get must be run through the bullshit filter, and that includes evaluating the source(s), this is taught in high schools - at least where I come from, although it may have changed, it's been a while.
Science isn't produced by people, it is discovered by people. It doesn't matter who reports the facts, because the funny thing about facts, and the reason the scientific method works, is that they don't care what you think about them, they just are. You can reproduce someone's experiment, or you can't.
This situation is unique though, since Snowden hasn't produced the information, only handed it over. We can eliminate everything he says and still have a treasure trove of information available. That is my point, and one I get modded down for on a regular basis, that's ok though, karma is not important for anything other than mental masturbation.
The debate needs to shift from Snowden this, Snowden that, or any other figurehead, because it detracts from the actual substance of the case. If what he leaked is damaging, it is because people in power did things that were damaging, not because someone exposed it. You also need to get over yourself and realise this is not about the rights of the American people, but the rights of everyone, everywhere. Frequently, only the American side of these leaks are discussed, but that is only part of the story, and only the tip of the iceberg.
... whatever
At this point, I'd say he's proven himself to be a credible source. Confirming something that was already believed to be true doesn't change that, or make it any less true.
Actually no. Confirming something **believed** to be true is a tactic of deception, a tactic of creating the **perception** of credibility. Perception may not match reality.
In truth, extraordinary claims without an explanation of how such information was obtained is a warning sign. How would a low level employee dealing with email surveillance know anything about stuxnet? Frankly claiming such knowledge without any real proof or credible explanation reduces his credibility.
You forgot nigh-immunity to FOIA quests.
The measures taken so far pretty much confirms that everything Snowden has said is true.
Like forcing a presidential plane to land in search of the person, and thereby ignoring all diplomatic conventions...
Latin American Presidents would have just "had an accident" during the Cold War for a stunt like this.
I believe at least one African head of state met his demise this way, so yeah.
Because he WILLINGLY SIGNED UP WITH A SPY AGENCY ...
He signed up with Booz Allen to work at the NSA. When I signed up as a contractor to work at ExxonMobil, it was to fix broken tech., not to accept responsibility for the Exxon Valdes, et al. Snowden is a civilian, not a spook. This why he couldn't use whistleblower laws for protection (as if they're any protection).
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
No, given the fact that travelling from point A to point B through country C means that you are in country C's airspace, then country C can deny you use of their airspace unless you comply with their conditions.
That said, there are agreements that countries have signed regarding use of airspace, so this is indeed highly irregular, even if it is not actually an act of war.
What would be an act of war is attempting to apprehend that world leader or probably to remove materials belonging to them which were property of the diplomatic delegation. It is not clear to me if Snowden himself would have been so protected. My guess is that he could have been removed from the plane, or a standoff might have ensued to get the Bolivians to hand him over. I can't see that having a happy ending for anyone, so I am not sure what they would have done even if he was on the plane.
And to be sure, while we don't feel threatened by Bolivia, there is a lot more at stake in removing their president from his plane than simply the threat of war with Bolivia. Such an action could open up harassment of US diplomats all over the world. Presumably, these consequences must have been understood and deemed acceptable, but I would love to hear their reasoning.
He was a sysadmin at the NSA ...
You are expecting that all servers at the NSA have the same admin passwords? That one admin has access to everything, all departments, all projects?
My personal experience is that people take security clearances very seriously. My father was a civilian engineer for a contractor that built the Trident submarines, which carry Polaris nuclear missiles. He designed some of the systems.
I just told you everything I ever learned about what my father did for a living.
The problem here is that there aren't any appropriate channels. Secret agencies, acting under secret laws, overseen by secret courts, where does one blow the whistle? His only course of action was to report potential (likely) constitutional violations to the same people who put them into place or to go public. Several NSA whistleblowers have already gone the former route and they got nowhere.
When Chinese hackers stole a load of information about the F-35 it wasn't because they pulled off some righteous hack that required skill, perseverance and a high degree of technical knowledge, but precisely because protection of such sensitive data is sloppier than the good practice guidelines claim it should be.
I worked for the US military many years ago as a civilian programmer and I'd agree with this based on what I saw. I don't want to embarrass the particular branch of the service by naming them, but I used to say that their motto ought to be "Using yesterday's technology today" based on how many antiquated computer systems we had to work on and support. We actually had a system that still used punch cards and when I was in college the course books were already beginning to mock punch cards as being ancient technology. I can say that the government really doesn't want to be incompetent and have bad security, but the powers that be have too much blind faith in civilian contractors and Snowden burned them very badly as a result. The lesson that should be learned from this is exactly what Congress has been saying for years - "We need fewer non-government employees with access to these sensitive programs and their data" - but you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if there's a decrease in contractors as much as 10% as a result of this.