Slashdot Mirror


Info Leak Wars To Get Messier

jfruh writes "As we discussed this weekend, David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, was detained while transporting encrypted data on the Snowden affair from Berlin; all his electronics were seized. Over at the Guardian offices, British police destroyed more of the newspaper's hard drives. Privacy blogger Dan Tynan sees where this one is going: reporters like Greenwald are going to stop even bothering to be circumspect with their revelations. Sorting through the contents of such infocaches to redact sensitive information just gives the government time to track you down. Eventually, the information will just be dumped online, warts and all, as soon as someone who wants the information public gets ahold of it."

94 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Idiots by scarboni888 · · Score: 3, Informative

    'Nuff said.

    1. Re:Idiots by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, why? They're desperate to know what's out there, so it's best to provoke a dump.. You know, adding a little laxative to the mix.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Idiots by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They must have thought Christmas had come early - he was foreign, gay *and* a being labelled as a potential terrorist.

      That's not going to help the feds/governments in the long term though. The more they rough up the journalists, treat them like enemies and make their lives generally more difficult - the more they are likely to be treated in the same manner. Why go to all the trouble of being polite, redacting sensetive bits and playing by the book when you know that the next time you go through an airport, your pants are coming down and you better hope you got some lube in...

      When one team starts playing hardball, the other team often starts doing the same - and the journalists will probably see these sorts of infractions nothing short of a badge of honour - but on the flipside, the potential trouble/egg-on-face for the governments just went up and up.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Idiots by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't understand why they don't take legal action.

      Because unfortunately there's no law to say you can't behave like an asswipe. The detention was legal enough within the letter of the law (the less said about the spirit of it, the better), and he was released after the stipulated maximum amount of time. As for destruction of equipment, I'm sure there is some precedent making that legal.

      There's only one way to get around a government's thuggery and intimidation, and that is to blow them wide open.

    4. Re:Idiots by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Regardless of which side you fall on, I just can't imagine the scene where the decision was made for the Met to detain David Miranda was made without "send in the clowns" playing as the backing track.

      Don't you mean Yakety Sax?

    5. Re:Idiots by uniquename72 · · Score: 2

      Because unfortunately there's no law to say you can't behave like an asswipe.

      As you noted, just the opposite is true. The law explicitly *encourages* cops to act like asswipes -- as long as TERRORISM!

    6. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If push comes to shove, the victors will eventually be Western governments closing the door on journalists. For example, China, and the mention of how many/few prisoners they have for execution is a state secret (as per a previous /. article on them stopping organ harvesting). However, if the US had prisoners slated for execution for organs and hid the numbers as a state secret, the world would be stating it was a Holocast in the making.

      Journalists have been allowed free reign, but if governments start actually losing balances of power because of leaks, the journalist is not going to win the battle against a government enforcer (police officer, army soldier, Taliban morals officer) with a high powered firearm. A journalist might win if they get their data to the world, but a government has a lot of opportunity to put a bullet through that person's brainpan from the time they witnessed an event until they get the event uploaded. To boot, a potential "journalist" can be isolated and potentially imprisoned just by the trail they leave on the Internet.

      Don't forget the biggest reason why the press is even permitted -- the press lobby is very strong, so as of now, any government official going against it will be voted out of office. However, the military lobby is a lot stronger, and when it comes to a conflict between the two, it will be the guys with guns who win politically.

      [1]: It wouldn't take much to pass a law or an ACTA-like treaty to demand that any Internet connected computer to have a DRM stack and pass a healthcheck before it is allowed to connect upstream. Couple to that transparent SSL proxies, and a firewall smart enough to detect attempts at tunneling and stop them. This is common on LANs, and having the tech move to WANs is trivial. ISPs may complain, but ultimately, they would have to comply or else be shut down. This will go a lot to identify would-be leakers, and have them (and their families) arrested for "terrorism".

    7. Re:Idiots by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, We're British -- No Miranda Rights!

    8. Re:Idiots by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Informative

      But they have taken legal action.

      Letter from Miranda's attorneys

      Even if you don't agree with Miranda's position, the letter is still worth reading, as it lays out the facts in meticulous detail.

    9. Re:Idiots by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They detained him for exactly the reason you kidnap the action hero's wife/girlfriend/mother: people are a lot more likely to break if you threaten someone they care about than if you threaten them directly. Added bonus: not technically a journalist, not technically protected by whatever media shields are available in the UK.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Idiots by jodido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Stolen data"? Did the cops have any evidence to support this claim? If they did, they had recourse under "normal" laws. If they didn't, the only crime that was committed was by the cops.

    11. Re:Idiots by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please. The whole reason they are slowly ratcheting this stuff up is that they are on the outlook for any 'heroes.' They go ahead, perform some obvious vile acts, on the public, to see who comes running to save the sheep. Then they mark or dispatch whoever shows up.

      You're dealing with predators, something akin to hyenas...they hunt in large packs, and believe that they have strength in numbers. What more, they're intelligent. They're looking for lions...they've found that if they trap a lion away from the pride, they can taunt and kill a lion at their pleasure. But they also know that if a pride is in the area, and they stumble onto one, they'll get shredded.

      So, that is the current state of affairs -> the sheep have chosen hyenas as their shepherds, and the hyenas are wisely looking to destroy anyone else before showing their true colors to the sheep. And the hyena, for all the jocularity surrounding it, is a very dangerous predator...arguably more so than a lion. Let's put it this way: their females are so androgenized, that their clits resemble the male's penis. They're kind of the wolves of the Africa, from my understanding, except wolves are less viscous.

      The sad part is, this whole scenario has happened before. Every few decades, the world, if the history books are anything to go by, tries this crap; and it always fails. A government decides "Now is an excellent time to censor our people's freedom of speech / go into a national security lock-down mode" -> the home economy, which was suffering at the beginning of the lockdown, gets worse during the lockdown; corruption multiplies, as external observation / safeties / checks and balances are viewed with suspicion, resulting in needed reports being thrown out, or delivered too late; and the people become increasingly unhappy, which impacts both productivity, as well as security / etc. On the whole, it's bad: a temporary market correction is turned into a decades-long depression.

      The government forgets that it is here to serve the people -> that is its reason for existence. It can make mistakes, fess up to them, and survive; it's better if it does that, and shows that it is indeed working to go in the right direction now as well. But nowadays, it's just people desperate to hold onto power that long since fled them; a game of bluff, played with themselves, because there might still be one person out there who does not know that they've been lied to.

           

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    12. Re:Idiots by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      not exactly. Miranda (Greenwald's partner) was the one who actually carried snowden's memory card and gave it to Greenwald. so the government wasn't just warning Greenwald that they'd go after his loved ones, they actually were harassing a guy who passed state secrets on to the press.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    13. Re:Idiots by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets see ... because they made it public they had the data? thats we fucking stupid on their part.

      Next we're going to hear something even stupider, like they ONLY had a copy on the laptop that was seized or some bullshit.

      You have to be a moron to talk about having the data BEFORE its in the hands of the public. That means the first time its mentioned is when its front page news fully published in a large paper. Front page could be the front page of a website too for that matter.

      You do not say 'we've got this data the government wants and we're going to tell you about it after we travel through a few countries and airports full of security who searches your shit!'

      They were fucking stupid, thats why its a problem for them. They deserved to be caught for their stupidity. Might as well have carried a pound of crack cocaine along with it in their knapsack. That would have been far smarter.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:Idiots by JayAEU · · Score: 2

      The problem here is that there is no written constitution in the UK. Whatever the parliament passes as laws (along with interpretations by the courts et al) in fact is the constitution.

    15. Re:Idiots by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one was "abducted"

      Under the legal definition, he absolutely was abducted. Kidnapping is a subset of abduction, and because police used the threat of force their actions would also qualify under that clause.

      The key difference is that it was done under color of law.

      When the police abduct people, it gets names like "detaining" and "questioning". If a citizen does it, it become "abducting" and "kidnapping", even if they are released after a few hours. The actions are identical.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    16. Re:Idiots by tolkienfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they had evidence they would have arrested him.
      As it was they held him for nearly the full allowed time without charges (which basically never happens).
      And they took all his stuff.
      And, according to Glenn Greenwald, they didn't ask any questions about terrorism.
      This was intimidation, pure and simple.

    17. Re: Idiots by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It all depends on your perspective. I firmly believe that while this was legal, it was an illegitimate use of power. Abduction is just as accurate detaining, depending on what you consider legitimate authority.

      --
      Good-bye
    18. Re:Idiots by AntiSol · · Score: 3, Funny

      except wolves are less viscous.

      Has any real research been done into their comparative viscosity? I'd dearly love to see a wolf/hyena drop experiment.

    19. Re:Idiots by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "If push comes to shove, the victors will eventually be Western governments closing the door on journalists. F"

      Absolute bullshit. It's been done before, and it's never worked.

      I have NO reason to believe it will work now any better than it has any other time in history.

    20. Re:Idiots by amck · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was detained, not arrested, under section 7 of the Terrorism Act.

      Part of the point of this is that not having been arrested, he did not have the rights of a suspect who has been arrested.
      However he was _required_ to answer all questions, no matter how irrelevant to a case, asked by the police.

      Also remember he wasn't entering the UK. He was transiting from Germany to Brazil. So, relevance to a crime?
      this was about intimidation, pure and simple.

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    21. Re:Idiots by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And why should the UK police care about US state secrets?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    22. Re:Idiots by jobsagoodun · · Score: 2

      Most journalists, I'd agree. In the case of the Guardian though it isn't owned by a fat cat (or thin australian) media mogul. It's owned by the Scott Trust which has a fairly liberal outlook.

    23. Re:Idiots by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      There is however the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms enshrined in UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. It's not as good as the US Constitution but a lot better than what we had before it, despite the current view of it here as a terrorists' charter (oh the irony).

    24. Re:Idiots by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, this is a good question.

      So far the UK government is claiming that GCHQ wouldn't dream of doing anything as evil as the NSA and that everything they do is all above board and legal like.

      Were evidence to materialise to the contrary it would be very embarrassing for the government, especially people like William Hague who's been assuring us that he knows exactly what goes on and we have nothing to worry about.

      I'd say there's a possibility that the government, or organs of the government, are worried this evidence may exist and would like to know what it could show were it to be released.

    25. Re:Idiots by xenobyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      All the Snowden data is stored in a safe place outside the UK (and the US of course) according to the people at The Guardian. This is standard procedure for all sensitive information and this was also the case with the exclusive parts of the Wikileaks material. They told the intelligence agents this but they didn't care and proceeded to destroy only the local storage media. So stupid!

      The data is out there. It cannot be removed or contained in any way. This is how it is in this day and age, and this is a good thing. Information still wants to be free.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    26. Re:Idiots by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 2

      you know, we have this thing called the internet in spain, what it lets you do, is make copies of data online, so you don't have to physically transport data through checkpoints

      who would actually do this any other way? I mean, it's so easy to dump stuff online encrypted and pick it up at the other side and there is nothing to physically catch middle.....that and copy it to a dozen other physical locations, just in case.

    27. Re:Idiots by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, he was detained and had less rights than people who were arrested, doesn't that strike you as odd, how can rights be taken away from you, isn't that the whole point of them being rights, that the exist regardless of any particular situation.

      So now the cops can detail you and remove rights that you have but not arrest you and therefore have no burden of proof required in order for that person to have as much protection.

      That's fucked up right there.....It's just a tool of intimidation, not of justice and it seems to be getting used in ACTUAL intimidation instead of the pursuit of justice too.....awesome!!

    28. Re: Idiots by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope you understand that laws generally except police in their official capacity.

      No they don't.

      Does the 1st amendment say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. But the cops can shoot you for being atheists, or if they don't like what you write, because some bootlicking twatass on the internet says they have blanket immunity"?

      The police acted within the confines of the law

      No they didn't. Miranda committed none of the actions mentioned here.

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Idiots by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That might actually the goal here for governments and their secret services: provoke Greenwald et al to leak everything unredacted, then make a huge stink about how irresponsible these activists are for spilling state secrets, and hope that the whole thing blows over quickly. The activists on the other hand are best served by leaking the information piecemeal in a responsible matter, so that they keep the issue on the agenda, keep their cards under the table in case they can catch the government on a lie, and retain their credibility as activists rather than hacky thrill-seekers.

      Some /. poster suggested that detaining Miranda might even have been done in hopes of grabbing the encryption key to the Snowden files, so that the state can orchestrate an "irresponsible leak" themselves in case they can't provoke Greenwald or Snowden to do so. I'm ot sure what to believe here, but if this turns out to be true, it would not surprise me. Not one little bit.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    30. Re: Idiots by jalopezp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Detained without charges, yes, and questioned without an attorney, his property seized without a court order. We've already spent almost a whole millennium trying to get rid of that bullshit, and we thought we had succeeded. We had due process, we had habeas corpus. Now we have laws that allow some people to ignore those things, and those laws do not make the abduction legitimate.

    31. Re:Idiots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was some speculation that by destroying the HDDs they were forcing the Guardian to communicate over the internet, which of course they have a full wiretap on. Bugging a newspaper's offices could cause an even bigger shitstorm, but this way they just carry on doing what they have been doing for years.

      One would hope that the Guardian journalists know how to use VPNs to communicate securely, but I suppose GHCQ figured it was worth a try.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Idiots by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 3, Informative

      one word: bittorrent

    33. Re: Idiots by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      First amendment of which document? I don't know of any British Congress. USA, which does have a congress and bill of rights, threw out the brits, making a separate legal system.

    34. Re:Idiots by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      You can still trace a VPN. They may be more worried about what servers copies are on. Each time they access a server, it's an opportunity to try to track down a copy and destroy it. If they are smart though, they'll use random Internet access locations and will make it difficult to actually track anything down.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    35. Re:Idiots by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Absolute bullshit. It's been done before, and it's never worked.

      Lincoln was pretty successful with locking up hundreds of editors of newspapers who published against his war of domination against the Confederate States of America. Heck, so much so that schools still teach that he was a hero for causing the murders of nearly a million Americans. Even FDR couldn't wreak that much mayhem.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's hilarious that you have +4 insightful when your post is just angry rambling over a complete misunderstanding of the basic facts.

      Miranda's harassment has nothing at all to do with the Guardian's destroyed hard drive. Miranda had no Snowden data at all, he was just a way of pressuring Greenwald.

      The Guardian's hard drive was not "seized". The government made it clear to them that they wouldn't tolerate the Guardian having that data in the country, and the Guardian decided to destroy the hard drive under GCHQ direction rather than enter into a legal battle and possibly be forced to hand it over. They have copies of the data, outside the country. It's just bureaucracy.

    37. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, not quite. They're claiming that GCHQ haven't circumvented or broken the law. That's probably true, because we in the UK have basically no absolute protections against people like GCHQ at all. There's feel-good privacy laws and the like but they all have vague, loose exceptions about "unless properly authorised" or "except in cases of national interest". The loopholes are so big it would be trivial for GCHQ to route the internet through them.

    38. Re: Idiots by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
      To amplify ... damn, this stupid "mobile" site doesn't quote the comment you're replying to, for citation. Stupid design ; first and last time I'll use it ...

      To amplify the reasons for the Grauniad destroying the computer (in sight of, but not in contact with "GCHQ officers") rather than facing the risk of it being seized after a court battle, they (the Grauniad, corporately) were concerned that forensic analysis of the computer if seized, might lead to exposure of communications with other "sources". It wasn't clear if they were concerned about things to do with the present investigation, or previous work done on that machine. Deleted drafts of documents, correspondence, etc were considered vulnerable.

      The Guardian were explicit that the machine in question was never connected to the Internet. By implication, data went on and off the machine by USB or disc. The pictures showed components of a fairly standard PCI (or PCI-Express?) desktop machine, and made reference to using drills and angle grinders, so I suspect that the bits (of oxide) really are spread all over the place.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Do it now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do it and do it now. The news doesn't need censorship.

    1. Re:Do it now! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2

      Thinking this through, I wonder if the NRA knows which side
      they should be on...

      I've been highly non-sympathetic to the NRA for years, but
      lately I'm beginning to wonder if one of it reasons-to-be might
      not present itself a fortiori, what with Total Surveillance and
      the Totalitarian State oligarchian style being upon us.

  3. A Hard Rain's by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    A-Gonna Fall...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. If you have nothing to hide... by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eventually, the information will just be dumped online, warts and all, as soon as someone who wants the information public gets ahold of it.

    And? If the government has nothing to hide, as they've repeatedly claimed, then what's the problem?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by Ziest · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the government says they have nothing to hide BUT their actions scream "We have metric shit loads of things to hide". Things are going to get "interesting" in the next few years. It would be best if people started being more paranoid and start learning how to drop off the grid. We here in the west spent 40 years in a cold war with the Soviet Union. Some of the lessons that were learned on how to conduct activities while dealing with those guys, eg. Moscow Rules, would be instructive to those peoples and groups the government is and will be going after. Google the phrase, "Green in the new Red"

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    2. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by icebike · · Score: 2

      Eventually, the information will just be dumped online, warts and all, as soon as someone who wants the information public gets ahold of it.

      And? If the government has nothing to hide, as they've repeatedly claimed, then what's the problem?

      Ah, well played sir!

      For some frikin reason, I haven't had mod points in over two years.
      My Kingdom for a mod point!!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      At least they don't have imperial shit loads of things to hide.

    4. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      All the fuss about the data monitoring programs have revolved around what the government COULD or MAY do with the information. There has been corroborated evidence of the government actually misusing this information to inflict harm on someone. In a perfect world the government should have no secrets but we don't live in a perfect world. Not even close. But governments do have secrets that when exposed can cause a lot of unexpected problems. Leaking some PRISM documents may be OK but releasing details of foreign intelligence operations is another matter. The information released by Manning and Snowden have caused some serious problems in international diplomacy. Snowden will probably go down as the person responsible for starting up the cold war again. Of course he is certainly not solely responsible but he has definitely contributed another issue into international relations that eventually will harm someone down the line. The real kicker in this entire mess is that the people pushing out the information will get the opposite of what they are seeking. Instead of introducing transparency to government affairs the government will double down and put policies and procedures in place to get rid of any existing transparency.

    5. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by Goaway · · Score: 2

      The point was that such a family could be known of by a friendly government, who then has their information leaked. The effort to redact information from leaks before publishing them is to prevent that kind of thing from happening, because nobody wants that.

    6. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by Error27 · · Score: 2

      Some secrets are not yours to release.

      The NSA doesn't do stuff, it just sits there listening and writing down the information. It knows you have contacted an STD from your nieghbor's wife. It knows the password to your facebook account.

      It knows the secret things because it sent men in dark suits around to collect the SSL keys. Those men in dark suits answer to a secret court which meets in a dark place. And how are you going to say no to them?

      And now Snowden has the keys and the passwords and the secret information about your STD.

    7. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by aliquis · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least finally some part of the US is going metric.

    8. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Funny

      Google the phrase, "Green in the new Red"

      All I get is pictures of a Canadian hick wearing plaid and putting duct tape on everything.

    9. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      some PRISM documents may be OK but releasing details of foreign intelligence operations is another matter.

      Remind me to shed a tear. NSA/CIA are controlled by politicians who are controlled by corporations. Most spying twoard "western" countries seems to be of the selfish self-serving variety.

      Snowden will probably go down as the person responsible for starting up the cold war again.

      In the same way a gun manufacturer is responsible for the misuse of the weapons they produce.

      Of course he is certainly not solely responsible but he has definitely contributed another issue into international relations that eventually will harm someone down the line.

      Secret capabilities once used naturally erode over time. They've had a heck of a run, certainly much longer than stealth Helos used in Bin Laden raid...They knew from day one eventually it would come out. If not Snowden it would be someone or thing else...this is how the game works. Its why the NSA does not waste their stash of 0-days on petty LEA crap.

      The real kicker in this entire mess is that the people pushing out the information will get the opposite of what they are seeking.

      The more people are aware of TLA willingness (to use) capabilities the more people can take technical measures to counter capabilities used against their interests. It also serves to increase legislative pressures to fix overreach which unecessarily harms trust in US government and US corporations.

      Instead of introducing transparency to government affairs the government will double down and put policies and procedures in place to get rid of any existing transparency.

      While they are expected to take measures to mitigate leaks it is also possible to see "legitimate" channels strengthened for example legislative action to provide more public data/oversight of covert activities.

    10. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      If the government has nothing to hide, as they've repeatedly claimed

      Have they? All I keep seeing is them repeating that they do have to hide things because otherwise the terrorists will win. Or something.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by jxander · · Score: 2

      That's why the releases come in small chunks, or with warnings first.

      As much as they are demonized, people like Snowden aren't out to cause damage. He's not doing it for the lulz, or trying to troll the government just because he can. He genuinely believes that the people need to know what their government is doing. So he gives us a tiny hint of the information. Just a little taste. Enough for the government to know he's not bluffing, and hopefully with enough time for the government to come clean.

      Only when they don't fess up and start to fix the wrong doings ... only then does the real dirt come out. Hopefully, the government will take efforts to save, move or otherwise help any innocent parties who might be harmed by the release. If not, the failing will be on the government, as they were given ample time.

      --
      This signature is false.
  5. Re:That by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

    Not necessarily. A new group of reporters/bloggers would probably pop up to mull through the raw data and produce easily-digestible material from it. Think something like Groklaw but for general news rather than legal cases.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  6. Morons in government don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They must not understand the concept of a digital backup copy. You can take digital files of even gigantic sizes and copy them within minutes. They'd need to destroy every single copy at the same time before someone made another copy. No intimidation tactic is going to work at this point. There are copies around the world of what Snowden took with him.

    You take all of the files and dump them on ThePirateBay, Wikileaks, or wherever, and the government can't stop it. No amount of threats or harassment can prevent people from getting the information once it is out in the open. It would be like trying to return used paint to the bucket or gluing together a smashed window pane. A useless exercise.

    The government lost the information war. They are going to need to refocus on something else to win. Martial law. Election stealing. Murdering people. Extortion. At that point you're no longer looking at democracy and civilization but totalitarianism and military rule. We already lock up every marijuana user. Why not start locking up "terror violators" or some other nonsense 'crime'?

    This is the breaking point. Will people vote in politicians who will stop the wars (terror, drugs, guns, privacy)? Or are we going to get another Bush/Obama clone?

    1. Re:Morons in government don't get it by Roogna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... Or are we going to get another Bush/Obama clone?

      This, this right here, is a huge part of the problem. The office of President is NOT the only office that matters here. I've watched election after election where people fuss and fume over the president, but literally seem to pick at random for every Senator and Congressman. People have GOT to start paying attention to the people who are supposed to represent them, not just the President.

    2. Re:Morons in government don't get it by anarkhos · · Score: 2

      You're the moron!

      You think this is about digital copies? This is about intimidation.

      > Will people vote in politicians who will stop the wars (terror, drugs, guns, privacy)? Or are we going to get another Bush/Obama clone?

      The latter. Duh

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
  7. Re:Small Correction by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The British police did not destroy the newspaper's hard drives. They just watched and took notes and photos while the paper's people destroyed the hard drives. This in no way justifies the actions of the British government, which are completely reprehensible.

    I agree with Dan Tynan. Future leaks will be dumped without regard for how much they might hurt individuals or groups only peripherally involved. In a surveillance culture, that may be the only way whistleblowers can continue to do what is right.

    What is the point of that distinction? Does it matter at *all* whether the government agents destroyed the drives themselves, or coerced the owners of the drives to do it?

  8. Please read the original article by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Geebus, the factual errors on these summaries are becoming eye-watering!

    The Guardian destroyed the laptop and the hard drive rather than turn them over. Shit, the title of the article has that in it:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london

    I consider it a brave act of defiance on the part of the Guardian, good for them. It won't affect the fact that there's probably stashed copies of this stuff everywhere but the British Authorities wanted the actual hardware, so rather than give it to them they used an angle grinder themselves.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Please read the original article by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      Geebus, the factual errors on these summaries are becoming eye-watering!

      The Guardian destroyed the laptop and the hard drive rather than turn them over. Shit, the title of the article has that in it:

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london

      I consider it a brave act of defiance on the part of the Guardian, good for them. It won't affect the fact that there's probably stashed copies of this stuff everywhere but the British Authorities wanted the actual hardware, so rather than give it to them they used an angle grinder themselves.

      Does it matter who held the hammer over the drives? So the police held the hammer over the head of the guy who took the hammer to the drives. How's that really any different than if the government smashed the drives themselves? The error is more that of semantics than facts.

      The act of defiance would have been to make the data available to the public as soon as the police tried to strong arm them. Smashing the drives was an act of compliance, not defiance.

  9. Re:SOMEBODY BETTER TELL THIS GUY MESSIER !! by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2

    On the bright side, the Info Leak Wars might actually beat the Leafs.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  10. Re:That by cpghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That will make the "reporting" less effective.

    Au contraire, my dear Watson. Providing raw material is exactly the service news providers should be doing in the first place. Let other reporters and bloggers sift through this publicly available raw data to point out interesting stuff. There's no reason reporters should be entitled to exclusive access to raw material, and the rest of the world would have to accept what reporters say without a way of controlling that.

    That was exactly the problem with Wikileak's initial redacted release of Cablegate. It was only after they've released the whole data unredacted that real reporting could begin (and can still take place).

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  11. They should dump the data by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Put it out there, let some people get outed and killed, they are collaborator scum anyway. Sure it sounds harsh and it is, but until the security apparatus suffers some major political damage and loses some people they think of as friends they will never appreciate the harm all there secrets are doing. They have proven this over and over again.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:They should dump the data by cpghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "security apparatus" isn't the real problem here. They're just the symptom, the manifestation of a deep fear that permeates societies... and may I add, irrational fears at that. Why irrational? Because the number of casualties from traffic accidents is of many orders of magnitude higher than those of terror attacks. But nobody seriously intends to forbid cars and people from driving. Yet when it comes to "terrism", regular people just kind of shut off their rational thinking and go into total obedience mode (to the almighty State). This tells more about human nature than we ever wanted to know, doesn't it?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:They should dump the data by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Traffic fatalities also vastly outnumber murders. Better just let murderers off with a fine and some community service.

      Hang on, I don't think anyone said give terrorists a free pass; rather, we still go after them, but we don't compromise the rights of the entire population in the process.

      So to continue the simile, you still prosecute murderers to the fullest extent of the law, but you don't make everyone take off their front doors in case the police needs to go in to their houses looking for a murderer.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:They should dump the data by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 2

      What you write is precisely how I too have experienced it. Americans are filled with fear and paranoia.

      Consider the odds of being killed by a "terrist" vs dying in a car accident, or dying of natural airborne anthrax, or winning the lottery. Then consider the size of the supposed security screen the NSA has built. Some beliefs are clearly out of sync with reality.

      As hard as it is to believe or understand, there are many places around the world where one does not live in fear, where people are not paranoid (to the degree Americans are), and where liberties and freedoms are more than just words.

      The "security apparatus" isn't the real problem here. They're just the symptom, the manifestation of a deep fear that permeates societies... and may I add, irrational fears at that. Why irrational? Because the number of casualties from traffic accidents is of many orders of magnitude higher than those of terror attacks. But nobody seriously intends to forbid cars and people from driving. Yet when it comes to "terrism", regular people just kind of shut off their rational thinking and go into total obedience mode (to the almighty State). This tells more about human nature than we ever wanted to know, doesn't it?

  12. Funny you should mention Groklaw by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Considering this news...

    1. Re:Funny you should mention Groklaw by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is incredibly poor taste for you to speak out against PJ like this. She has done more then her fair share, leave her be.

      --
      Good-bye
  13. Siezed not destroyed by accessbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Miranda's property was seized not destroyed. And he wants it back.

    1. Re:Siezed not destroyed by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seized or destroyed makes little difference when your livelihood depends on it. You need replacement equipment now. Not in a week. Not in a month. Today. Or you can't make money. And with so many professions needing a computer... whether it's seized or destroyed you're still at the computer shop the next day buying a new one. And when you get your old one back... it's useless.

      The difference between the two is pretty minor. This is also why you, like me and many others, should keep multiple off-site backups, not in banks, not at a friend's house, but buried under a tree in a public park or something... so you can always quickly recover.

      Because whether it's the government that steals your shit, or a burglar... you're just as fucked.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  14. Re:That by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But even Groklaw has shut down due to the mere fact it is impossible to communicate in private, and Groklaw never did a single illegal thing as far as I can tell.

    We think that making multiple copies cached around the world will keep the information public, but that is probably not correct. Look at the "practice run" the authorities are carrying out with Child Porn and a training exercise of how to combat access to any information, even when you don't control where that information is stored.

    Having Snowden's windfall on a million drives all decrypted and open for all to see wouldn't help, because anyone accessing it at any time from any computer on the net could and would be instantly tracked, and forced to have a computer bashing party in their own basement.

    We are on the tipping point of losing ALL freedoms. Anyone who sees this as anything but the beginning of end of freedom is an utter fool. The frog in the water and the heat is on.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  15. The Inevitable Escalation by twmcneil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could be that's what they really want. Escalation, more power, more budget, more relevance at least in their own eyes. Why else would they target reporters and their partners?

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  16. Re:no more secrets by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever read David Brin's "Earth?"

    That happens, but getting there is ugly.

    Imagine the vault of secrets burst open. Every dirty deal, every evil plot, every political murder and wicked deed done in the name of power and wealth.

    Now imagine the lengths to which the perpetrators of those deeds would go to hold on to the kind of wealth and power that rests atop the United States.

    If your blood didn't just freeze, you have no imagination.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  17. mods! rate parent funny! by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2
  18. Re:All the info online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    NSA employee here. Seriously, he's into some fucked up shit. And I say that as a fan of scat, piss, incest, and fisting.

  19. Re:FUCK THEM by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The above, of course, is the kind of rabid response that the over-reaching actions of the government and it's agents are causing.

    These morons are creating the next generation of terrorists with their stupidity.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  20. Re:That by lightknight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The solution here will not be solved with technology. The parlor tricks were fun when the law was unclear; but now that the law is clearly compromised, real action, in the real world, must be taken.

    The people have been patient with the courts, with the law in general, as it has sorted through the general maze that is technology, and its effects on society. They need not be patient in areas where the law has already been clearly stated, for over two hundred years, in plain text, and in a copy that many people, even outside this country, own, and can easily reference. "Congress shall make no law..." and here we are, with secret courts, unable to face our accusers, dealing with gerrymandered accusations, and proof positive that the highest laws themselves have been violated. What more, one of our Founding Fathers did say, supposedly, "I prefer a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be imprisoned."

    So, what happened to that America? I signed up for that America, not this one. Did someone mislead me? Was I lied to? Was there a bait and switch in the womb of my mother? Having been born in this country, with full citizenship, rights and privileges, why have I been denied, since my birth, these plainly written guarantees? I've been taxed, I know this much...who represents me? What are their names? How have they voted in the last six months, so that I know they are truly representing me, and my closely-held values, as well as this country's written values, in our national capital?

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  21. I have two words for you: by runeghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spider Jerusalem

    1. Re:I have two words for you: by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      I can't believe someone modded you offtopic. If I had any mod points left, you'd be getting an Insightful.

      For anyone who hasn't read it, Transmetropolitan is where it's at.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  22. Re:Small Correction by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems to be the same method used in Australia over a book called Axis of Deceit.
    Destroy the drive in front of the gov 'now' or the gov will take the drive.
    http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FN16J6%22
    ".... office to cleanse the offending material from our computers. They transferred the data to a hard disk then gave us the option of having it taken away or destroyed in front of us. We chose the second option, then watched them do it with a special little disk-breaking hammer. They graciously followed up this service with a customer satisfaction form.12"
    ..."also had their hard drives cleansed around early September 2004, several months after the amended book had gone on sale."

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Re:Small Correction by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The British police did not destroy the newspaper's hard drives. They just watched and took notes and photos while the paper's people destroyed the hard drives.

    What is the point of that distinction? Does it matter at *all* whether the government agents destroyed the drives themselves, or coerced the owners of the drives to do it?

    It reminds me of a bully using a weaker child's hand to hit that child: "You're hitting yourself. Why do you keep hitting yourself?"

    The bully could punch the child directly (and likely cause more physical pain), but chooses to get the child to hit itself, because it isn't just about control, it is about humiliation and control, in order to try to stamp out any chance of resistance.

    The paper's people were forced to destroy their own equipment for the same reasons, and it distresses me no end that UK government officials are using schoolyard bullying tactics in this situation.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  24. unsubstantiated claims in summary by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, was detained while transporting encrypted data on the Snowden affair from Berlin;

    That's quite an allegation. Do we have any reason to believe that Miranda was transporting anything of the kind?

  25. Re:no more secrets by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What scares me more is that even if all that came out into the open, there's a better than good chance that the American public will ignore it and just keep on keeping on. The actions of some of our leaders and (corporate and political) have become so brazen, that in any other country or maybe even any other era of American history, heads would be rolling (and in France, literally). Instead, the public has been giving the "meh" heard round the world. :(

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  26. Intimidation by Camael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or to put it another way, if he wasn't a journalist then wtf did they detain him for 9 hours for?
    There would be no point unless he was acting in the capacity as a journalist.

    Lets see, his partner Mr. Greenwald (the one actually reporting on Snowden) thinks :-

    Mr Greenwald said the British authorities' actions in holding Mr Miranda amounted to "bullying" and linked it to his writing about Mr Snowden's revelations concerning the US National Security Agency (NSA).

    He said it was "clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and [UK intelligence agency] GCHQ".

    He told the BBC police did not ask Mr Miranda "a single question" about terrorism but instead asked about what "Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories".

    Intimidating the 'enemy' seems to be the point.

  27. Whitewash by Camael · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yea, but once it all comes out, and we read it ... we realize there isn't anything amazing or unknown in it, and the whole big deal was actually nothing new.

    Interesting whitewash.

    The details in the released cables was one of the triggers that sparked the Tunisian revolution. Maybe not new or important to you, but I imagine the Tunisians would beg to differ.

  28. Re:no more secrets by dcollins · · Score: 2

    You know, in 2008 the American public did vote in an executive who promised "the most transparent administration in history", among other things (with pretty high participation and voting rates). Granted that person immediately stabbed us in the back, expanding and fiercely defending the surveillance apparatus, it's difficult to see how the public would expect any light of hope, any feasible strategy for improvement, from the political system at this point.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  29. Re:no more secrets by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    Well, what should we do exactly? Rise up in armed insurrection? The moment that happens the mainstream media will be all over it with negative stories and scaremongering. Because NRA.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  30. Re:SOMEBODY BETTER TELL THIS GUY MESSIER !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But what if Messier objects?

  31. Re:SOMEBODY BETTER TELL THIS GUY MESSIER !! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Mod parent up. That's just beautiful.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  32. Viscosity by Major+Ralph · · Score: 2

    wolves are less viscous

    Oh my! If wolves are less viscous, I think that makes them much more terrifying than hyenas. I don't like the idea of fluid(ish) animals sneaking up on me.

    --
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
  33. Re:we need people like PJ spreading encryption by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pj got dragged through the mud and personally attacked just covering a minor intellectual property skirmish. Reporting the mundane briefs and filings of copyright proceedings.

    Sure it was big news here, but in mainstream msm media it was a mousefart.

    After that, in a real showdown with the actual government on one side, would you stick around? I wouldn't.

  34. Re:They had evidence by UpnAtom · · Score: 2

    I like the way it's called stealing when Snowden does it but not stealing when the NSA does it.

  35. Re:Great way to put yourself on a watch list... by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 2

    I see that actually as a solution, a watch list is only as good as the data it contains, we need to pollute the watch lists so they are no longer useful anymore, so everybody should do it, if everybody does it, a watch list of 100% of the people is useless, you can't search for specific matches since it's full of everybody and anybody

    so actually, pushing this past critical mass and towards overload seems to be the best solution, if you can pollute the list with bogus data, then you get bonus points ;)

    additionally, a free information and open bittorrent system which would copy and duplicate everything added to the system, with nobody interested in any particular part of the data, but just data mule-ing it around the internet infinitely with bandwidth caps to protect those with limited capacity would create enough bogus data to make any investigation pointless and enough copies to stop people from preventing the informations dissemination, I think this is the direction we're heading...