Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence Officials Fear Snowden's 'Doomsday' Cache
Dega704 writes with news that Edward Snowden is believed to have a collection of highly sensitive classified documents that will be released in the event he is detained, hurt, or killed. According to Reuters, "The data is protected with sophisticated encryption, and multiple passwords are needed to open it, said two of the sources, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. The passwords are in the possession of at least three different people and are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said. The identities of persons who might have the passwords are unknown." These details have caused several security experts to express skepticism, but multiple sources, including Glenn Greenwald, believe Snowden has not released all of the documents he appropriated. "U.S. officials and other sources said only a small proportion of the classified material Snowden downloaded during stints as a contract systems administrator for NSA has been made public. Some Obama Administration officials have said privately that Snowden downloaded enough material to fuel two more years of news stories." Whether or not it's true, U.S. and U.K. officials clearly believe it, which can only serve to protect Snowden.
There is years' worth of material that makes intelligence analysts nervous. Just how much dirt could the US possibly have that they don't want people to know?
Bruce Schneier commented on this a while back:
I'm not sure what Snowden's alternative is, but a doomsday switch isn't exactly foolproof.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Because there is some stuff in there that legitimately should be kept secret. Snowden's goal is to protect his safety and liberty by hanging this cache of really damaging data over their heads as a way of discouraging any attempts to capture or kill him.
Why would the US government intentionally indicate that they believe such a thing? What this accomplishes is to encourage anyone who wants to hurt the US to kill Snowden (forcing the release of the supposed super-damaging materials). If that's the message the US propaganda spooks want everyone to hear, then you should be looking for ulterior motives. I'd guess there isn't anything so terribly damaging (that can't be whitewashed away as well as the rest of the stuff has been) that would really be "doomsday" for the US.
Rather than having everything eventually trickle out over several years, well-times to keep the media pressure against the US surveillance state, I suspect it would be preferable to the NSA and friends if Snowden were forced to dump everything all at once (perhaps by being killed). Everything's going to come out eventually --- by having it all in one heap, the total impact on public perceptions (what really matters here) is reduced: one quick spike in media attention and outrage, then it's all "old news" and there's no time for serious public analysis of the implications of each individual revelation.
Snowden and friends of democracy and freedom have an advantage by controlling the gradual release of information --- otherwise, they'd have dumped it all already. Forcing everything out at once (by encouraging every dumber enemy of the US to try assassinating Snowden) would help the PR effort to quickly wash this whole mess away from public attention. It would sure make it easier for the US officials to keep their lies straight, if everything they were lying to refute was already available.
if they are fearing what he hasn't released yet.
They know what they did was wrong, and apparently have done even worse stuff.
Time for a change in Government.
Be seeing you...
Snowden's slow release has been keeping this story in the news. He's helping to build controversy around the programs. Releasing everything at once would just overwhelm the media and the pubic's ability to address all the issues raised.
As a geek, a software developer and a security guy with a library of Schneier books on his bookshelf, I personally think that a list of "Technologies now considered "safe" for foreign spies, terrorists, and criminals to use - but have actually been hacked" is EXACTLY the sort of thing someone like Snowden should be leaking.
Deliberately making widely-used things less secure in order to catch bad guys (including withholding exploit information that could be used to make things more secure) is NOT something the good guys should be engaging in. (and yes I still consider the US, UK and Australia as "good guys")
They should fear the Constitution and not do this shit in the first place.
Didn't they say you only need privacy if you've got something to hide?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Not that they've been doing a particularly good job lately; but the US's strongest international PR move (and, incidentally, weapon in encouraging foreign defectors) is being 'the guys who don't have any creepy secrets (aside from things like the specifics of how atomic bombs work, which the Rosenbergs went down for). Unfortunately, we've squandered that of late. Being 'the good guys' isn't just some bleeding-heart bullshit to appease liberal pinkos. It's a powerful tool in any soft-power contest of ideas. Having nothing but weapons-related details to hide was an extreme moral-high-ground position. We'll be damn lucky to see something nearly so good again in my lifetime. Will we ever see something truly golden, as we did in WWII, with Axis units bumbling around looking for Americans to surrender to? That is what 'soft power' really looks like. It doesn't deliver the goods every day; but on a good day it isn't some theoretical, it's one hell of an advantage. Can we regain that sort of reputation?
If the NSA can break AES, then anyone else might figure it out too.
One of the NSA's mandates is to secure American communications. They have certified AES as being sufficient for Federal agencies to use to secure classified information, and even Top Secret classified information with large enough (192 or 256 bit) keys. This suggests one of two things:
Common sense says it's #2. Could the best American cryptographers have it completely wrong, and we'll find out when the next Pearl Harbor happens? Certainly. Is it a conspiracy where they know it's weak and are keeping it so in order to read your e-mail? Not bloody likely.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In other words, Snowden is neither stupid nor suicidal.
The NSA subverted American communications deliberately, and have introduced vulnerabilities into encryption via NIST. AES may or may not have been broken or subverted, but yes they are that stupid:
https://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=15531
Given that one of their other mandates is not to lie to congress, to abide by the rulings of the FISA court, and not to spy on Americans (all of which they have breached), I think you can assume that they don't care what their legal restrictions are and do not respect them.
It was a damn good shot, I'll admit that. But I've seen plenty of people make tougher shots at faster moving targets from more restrictive positions while hunting wild game.
He wouldn't have needed a spotter because he would have had plenty of audible cues for the approaching limo. Watching people in the crowd react would have served as all the warning he needed, as they pointed, stood up, jumped waved, shouted, cheered, and generally became exited as JFK came into their view.
As for the angle, it's entirely possible that he shot the rifle left-handed which would have made it a lot easier to get that angle without leaning so far out. I myself am a right-handed person but I'm what is often called "left-eyed".. it's easier for me to shoot a rifle left-handed than right.
As for knowing which head to shoot at, that's also pretty easy. It's the one right next to his wife. If I were in his shoes, I would've just looked for the woman with the fashion sense who stuck out like a sore thumb in a group of men in suits. She was always well-dressed and easy to spot in a crowd.
I'm not saying I necessarily think Oswald did it alone, but all the things you've brought up I can quickly find reasonable explanations as to why they don't prove anything. And they were all already addressed many times in both official and unofficial examinations of the shooting. Keep in mind that Oswald was highly experienced and military trained, he wasn't just some random guy who picked up a rifle for the first time that day.
But thats the point isn't? everything they have touched is now suspect.
Everything single thing they have changed has to be viewed as an attempt to insert a trojan. Everything single thing they have recommended has to be viewed as an attempt to limit the effectiveness of security systems to something which the NSA knows they can break one way or another.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.