Intelligence Officials Fear Snowden's 'Doomsday' Cache

The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:The real news by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-11-26 13:17 · Score: 3, Funny

Kennedy killed by Sturgis and Hunt in Poppy-managed operation.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:The real news by bob_super · 2013-11-26 13:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

"If you don't have anything to hide, why would you worry?"
Re:The real news by gmuslera · 2013-11-26 14:37 · Score: 1

Probably could be read as "If you think all that was disclosed so far was bad, it was nothing compared withl the rest". To put it into the doomsday umbrella seem to give the hint that what remains is orders worse, something that could imply people finally doing something against the government in US, breaking of commercial treaties, penalties in international courts, attacks/closing embassies or even war. And if anything of this happens won't be Snowden fault, but US one.
Re:The real news by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-11-26 15:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Kennedy killed
Kennedy shot himself.
And Snowden has the documents to prove it!
But Jackie immediately jumped out of the car with Kennedy's DNA on her dress, so she could be quickly transported to Area 51, where Wernher von Braun (Eva's brother) was filming the trips to the moon with Stanley Kubrick, and other Operation Paperclip scientists, who combined JFK's DNA with Martin Luther King's DNA to create Barack Obama, so he really is American, even though he doesn't have a birth certificate, because both his fathers were American (Chew on that, Fox News!), and Stanley Kubrick was so impressed with what was going on in the German test tubes, that he filmed Obama's birth and used it in 2001 for that last scene in the film that nobody understands, but the CIA wanted to cover up his suicide, because they were afraid of looking weak to the Russians, so they pumped Hunter S. Thompson full of LSD, mushrooms, and gave him a case of Jack Daniel's to take the edge of a bit, and then he ranted and raged out loud, while the NSA wrote all the crazy conspiracy theories down, so they could leak them to the public over the years, so the public would be distracted from the NSA and CIA's really evil long term plans for subverting control of the government of the USA . . .
. . . and it all would have worked, if it wasn't for that meddling Snowden!
. . . Snowden, and the three secret holders of the secret decoder ring, who will reveal the secrets if Putin gets bored of Snowden, which he won't, because he likes sticking a weed up the US governments ass, and he is also afraid that Snowden's Secret Stash contains information about what (and who!) he was doing in East Berlin, while supposedly working for the KGB, but was really a tool of OPEC and de Beer's controlling the USSR's diamond and oil reserves, oh, and nickel, Russia has that, too, just like Canada, where aliens landed a spacecraft built of it in Sudbury, Ontario, just like the spaceship that crashed in Siberia, but was never found, because the Russians hid it to keep the nickel for themselves, and are currently testing the alien space technology on the International Space Station, where secret scientists are also working on . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:The real news by murdocj · 2013-11-26 16:31 · Score: 1

It all makes sense now...
But what about the abduction of Michael Jackson by space aliens and his replacement by a dead clone? How does that fit in?
Re:The real news by lightknight · 2013-11-26 18:58 · Score: 1

Actually, I prefer to phrase it likes this: "If they'd done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide, or be ashamed of, if and when the truth comes to light."

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:The real news by Third+Position · 2013-11-26 19:00 · Score: 1

Half of the country believes Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. The other half of us know it for sure, because we were in on it.

--
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Re:The real news by dlt074 · 2013-11-27 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

if the things that have already been revealed haven't caused any issues for this administration, what at this point possibly could?
nothing sticks to these guys. they are above the law.
Re:The real news by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-11-27 04:52 · Score: 1

Kennedy killed by Sturgis and Hunt in Poppy-managed operation.
Come on, we all know who killed Kennedy.
But anyway, a white knight blackmailing the black male in the White House. I mean, I'm pretty sure that a geek like Snowden would have done it just for the pun of it.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:The real news by toddestan · 2013-11-27 17:19 · Score: 1

A good sex scandal could bring down the house. Maybe.
Re: The real news by lsatenstein · 2013-11-28 06:04 · Score: 1

I would say that he has stuff going back to Nixon days, and can name names.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Lovely by lesincompetent · 2013-11-26 13:07 · Score: 3, Funny

Make them squirm.

Re:Lovely by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 14:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Snowden..... his disclosures of NSA's domestic activities may have been legitimate, but I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations. I know a lot of people are expressing shock about NSA's overseas SIGINT activities, but they aren't doing anything that every other country isn't trying to do to the United States, and none of their actions came as a surprise to any serious student of geopolitics. Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has inflicted serious blow-back to US foreign policy, and I don't recall him being one of the choices on 6 Nov 2012, when I had my say regarding the selection of the person that was to set American foreign policy for the next four years.
I don't expect many non-Americans to understand this, and even many of my fellow countryman will rush to shout me down, but NSA's overseas activities are legitimate activities that every other nation-state on the blue marble engages in. Some may be poorly targeted (seriously, Germany?), some may be politically obtuse, but the bottom line is Edward Snowden was not in a position to make these sorts of far reaching decisions. Nobody voted for him, nobody sought him out, and nobody entrusted him with this sort of power.
As for what should happen to him now, that's beyond my pay grade. I do think he will come to regret some of his decisions, particularly as he matures, and regardless of what his ultimate fate turns out to be. I wouldn't salute the flag to the point of loading the boxcars, but it would take a lot more than my country spying on other countries to convince me that the only remaining recourse was to betray confidences and seek refuge from quasi-hostile foreign powers.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 14:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Make them squirm.
Does a possible BS or shear stupidity problem exists? The NSA has a dilemma: It doesn't want the important information known, but killing him activates this knowledge. However, now people against the NSA have an incentive to kill him, to find out what is so important. So, is the NSA's job now to stop these people to keep him alive?
Re:Lovely by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-11-26 14:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has inflicted serious blow-back to US foreign policy, and I don't recall him being one of the choices on 6 Nov 2012, when I had my say regarding the selection of the person that was to set American foreign policy for the next four years. "
This is a disingenuous argument if I ever saw one. These were the policies of George H.W. Bush, and they have been made even more the policies of Barack Obama. You have absolutely no evidence that Romney would have changed these policies.

I might buy this argument if you'd voted for a Libertarian candidate, but Paul was taken off the table, and though it's possible, it's not likely you voted for Johnson.
Re:Lovely by Uberbah · 2013-11-26 14:41 · Score: 5, Informative

but I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations
Do you have a justification for trying to spy on every person on the planet? Do you have a justification for a system that's more about corporate espionage than stopping terrorism? Do you have a justification for tut-tutting Snowden's revelations when the USG flippantly stated that it was listening in on Al Queda conference calls - about the most valuable counter-intelligence secret you could name?

but they aren't doing anything that every other country isn't trying to do to the United States
But this is a bullshit talking point, always has been always will be. It ignores the depth and pervasiveness of the NSA programs, the disparity in capability, and the geographical isolation of the U.S. from the rest of the world. You wouldn't say that Angola has a military, so it's equal in capability to the U.S. military, would you? Then why are you guys doing this with the NSA programs?
Re:Lovely by memnock · 2013-11-26 15:02 · Score: 1

What are they scared of? The few public officials who think what the NSA and other agencies do is illegal are mostly powerless to stop the offending agencies. There sure isn't a huge popular outcry against the offenders.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of politicians who are more than happy to let the NSA run rampant. Take that idiot Mike Rogers (minute 4:20) for example. Or that guy that wanted all that "transparency" and "change". Where is he now? Oh, yeah, he's pushing them on.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
Re:Lovely by weilawei · 2013-11-26 15:34 · Score: 1

The idea that nobody entrusted him with the power to set American foreign policy is BS. We gave him physical access to the necessary files and that is physically equivalent to the power. The idea of a Byzantine failure (see the Byzantine Generals' Problem) is not a new one. The real takeaway here is that if you don't want to entrust someone with that sort of power, you need much much stronger safeguards than were in place. Anything else is simply denying the reality of it.

If I hand you an encrypted file, but it's encrypted with ROT13, and I tell you that it's encrypted with some ROT cipher, and then I say that I didn't give you the power to decrypt it, that's just a bit disingenuous. Denying physics is not a productive game.
Re:Lovely by weilawei · 2013-11-26 15:39 · Score: 1

It's a lovely ideal, but human nature being what it is (the enumeration of all possibilities, given enough time), I seriously doubt it's in the near future.
Re:Lovely by gl4ss · 2013-11-26 15:41 · Score: 2

well, fsb mostly doesn't go around breaking laws of other countries as their main mandate.
otherwise they're all the same gestapo shit.
somehow I missed the speeches where obama promised to shit on international contracts, obligations and goodwill, so how did you know you were voting for that?
he wasn't setting the american foreign policy.. he was merely showing you what the american foreign policy is. but hey, us non-americans aren't even people so we can be double tapped without a trial or without a war, as long as it's "good for 'murica", right? go fuck yourself.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Lovely by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 15:44 · Score: 1

The idea that nobody entrusted him with the power to set American foreign policy is BS. We gave him physical access to the necessary files and that is physically equivalent to the power.
That's an interesting argument. Care to take it to one possible conclusion, with technology far more mundane than WANs, and consequences much more severe than anything we've seen (yet) from Snowden's actions?

The real takeaway here is that if you don't want to entrust someone with that sort of power, you need much much stronger safeguards than were in place.
Can't argue with you there....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Lovely by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 15:46 · Score: 2

I know a lot of people are expressing shock about NSA's overseas SIGINT activities
I'd only be shocked (and upset) if they weren't spying on foreign governments, etc. Germany? Why not. Spying on the average Joe (Fritz, whatever) is another story, though I'm less concerned about it than spying on US citizens, since the US government has much less ability to harm German citizens than US citizens.

Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has inflicted serious blow-back to US foreign policy
Every disclosure that he has made on this subject has resulted in serious kabuki. As you point out, you'd have to be naive to think this wasn't happening, so how much will it actually affect foreign relations?

I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations
Notice how the NSA, and the elected officials of the US government that are supposed to control them, have been rushing to end the domestic abuses? Until they do, keep leaking the embarrassing (but as you point out, hardly surprising) foreign stuff. I don't know whether that's the motivation, but it would be a good justification.
Meanwhile, don't shoot the messenger. The NSA and the elected officials that are supposed to control it have been grossly incompetent, or just plain stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. If it wasn't for that, Snowden likely would still be in Hawaii. If you go too far, expect it to bite you in the ass.
Re:Lovely by Chris+Mattern · 2013-11-26 15:53 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, like all eminently rational disarmament plans, it ushers in utopia if everybody does it, but if only some people do it, it doesn't end well for them. Welcome to Prisoner's Dilemma land, where the operative phrase is, "You first."
Re:Lovely by blueg3 · 2013-11-26 16:28 · Score: 1

Do you have a justification for trying to spy on every person on the planet?
Sure. It's their job and it's effective. For everyone who's not a US citizen, you're transmitting data right through our networks willingly and there's no law that says we can't. For US citizens, "we're not intentionally targeting you, we're using your data as a tool to target foreigners". It's an asshole justification, but it's pretty clear-cut.

Do you have a justification for a system that's more about corporate espionage than stopping terrorism?
Say what you will about the NSA, corporate espionage isn't their thing. That's other countries. Show some evidence to the contrary if you have it.
Re:Lovely by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 17:37 · Score: 2

or just plain stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American
I'll regret wading into these waters, but they aren't monitoring every American per-say. They aren't even doing anything that's all that new, at least with regards to the legal precedent, they're just doing it on a large scale in near real time. Metadata has had very limited legal protections for decades now, the argument being that you have no expectation of privacy when you share information (i.e., phone numbers) with a third party (i.e., the phone company). If someone managed to get metadata collection before SCOTUS with a 4th Amendment argument they'd likely be shot down with a 9-0 ruling. Stare decisis can be a bitch sometimes. Start your research with pen registers if you wish to explore this issue in further detail.
Does this mean I'm happy about what they're doing? Not really. I can see how it could be effective, the would be Times Square bomber was allegedly caught because he was stupid enough to call a number connected to himself from the same prepaid burner phone he used to communicate with terrorists overseas. Of course, one could just as easily argue that law enforcement would have figured that out by subpoenaing Verizon rather than issuing a SELECT query to NSA's database, and that may have been what happened for all we know.
No matter how you slice it, it's a complicated issue, and I don't think it can be boiled down to a simple 4th Amendment argument. The legal precedent doesn't support that argument, nor does the majority of public opinion. Frankly, there are things our Government does that concern me far more than the collection of telephone and internet metadata. To pick one off the top of my head, Google "civil asset forfeiture". That doesn't get talked about around here, because it's not a techie issue, but it's a real issue that is far more likely to do you harm than anything the NSA is doing.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Lovely by CRCulver · 2013-11-27 03:01 · Score: 1

Say what you will about the NSA, corporate espionage isn't their thing. That's other countries. Show some evidence to the contrary if you have it.

One of the revelation in the ECHELON scandal back in 2001 was that Bill Clinton give the OK to the NSA to engage in economic espionage in order to "level the playing field" against those other countries you mention. Perhaps before that corporate espionage wasn't the NSA's thing, but things changed.
Re:Lovely by gstoddart · 2013-11-27 03:19 · Score: 1

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Snowden..... his disclosures of NSA's domestic activities may have been legitimate, but I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations.
Because maybe he wanted the whole world to know that the NSA are spying on everyone and not just tell Americans?

I don't expect many non-Americans to understand this, and even many of my fellow countryman will rush to shout me down, but NSA's overseas activities are legitimate activities that every other nation-state on the blue marble engages in.
To a point, but really, the rest of us aren't prepared to give up our rights and privacy for you guys.
Essentially you're saying "if he'd only leaked about what they're doing in the US, I wouldn't care because it doesn't affect me". The rest of the world doesn't see it that way.
If you think your country should act like self-entitled people whose security fears trump the rights of everyone else in the world, then you're kinda part of the problem of why Snowden leaked this in the first place.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Lovely by spire3661 · 2013-11-27 03:26 · Score: 1

I dont think the NSA should be spying so extensively on foreign countries. You thinking its a-ok is pretty fucking barbaric. Its one thing to spy on another government, its quite another to spy on entire nation's citizens. The NSA has exceeded its mandate and any moral bound and needs to be stopped now.

--
Good-bye
Re:Lovely by spire3661 · 2013-11-27 03:31 · Score: 1

Because we are supposed to be a nation of morals above money. We send our young men into harm's way for ideals. Have we forgotten those ideals? How much pragmatism can the American Spirit endure......

--
Good-bye
Re:Lovely by cusco · 2013-11-27 05:27 · Score: 1

Bit of a contradiction there, "more openness and less secrecy" and "absolute right to privacy". I think it was Scott McNealy who said, "Privacy is dead, get over it." Much as I may dislike the guy, I think he's right.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Lovely by Stuarticus · 2013-11-28 22:42 · Score: 1

On the contrary, acquiring a very large haystack in which to put your needles is not in any way effective.

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.

Security is a tricky thing by mariox19 · 2013-11-26 13:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bruce Schneier commented on this a while back:

I'm not sure he's thought this through, though. I would be more worried that someone would kill me in order to get the documents released than I would be that someone would kill me to prevent the documents from being released. Any real-world situation involves multiple adversaries, and it's important to keep all of them in mind when designing a security system.

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.

Re:Security is a tricky thing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Re:Security is a tricky thing by CohibaVancouver · 2013-11-26 13:29 · Score: 2

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, Snowden loves surprises.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by sg_oneill · 2013-11-26 13:36 · Score: 1

Indeed, and personally I'd rather take my chances with the CIA than russia's CIS. Those polonium umbrellas ought give anyone pause.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by Spy+Handler · 2013-11-26 13:43 · Score: 1

Very interesting... so now U.S. is afraid to kill him, but Russia/China/Iran have something to gain by killing him.
His only choice now is to put himself completely at Putin's mercy, give the Russians everything he's got that he hasn't released yet, seek KGB protection, and find a nice Russian gal to settle down with for the rest of his life. Oh and deactivate the doomsday switch so the Chinese don't have an incentive to kill him anymore.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 13:48 · Score: 1

That might actually be a good point.
By having the secrets he's playing a very dangerous game, the safest course of action is to simply stop playing, release or destroy everything you have, tell everyone it's all gone, and now you're safely irrelevant.
Of course this still leaves you vulnerable to an Litvinenko style reprisal assassination.
The other play might be to hint you have a Doomsday Machine, but not actually confirm it. Claim it exists, but then make weird statements like saying the passwords "are valid for only a brief time window each day".
The people who don't want it to go off leave you alive in case you're not bluffing.
And the people who do want it to go off, well you might be bluffing, and no one wants to get caught having assassinated someone over a bluff.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mysidia · 2013-11-26 14:14 · Score: 1

And the people who do want it to go off, well you might be bluffing, and no one wants to get caught having assassinated someone over a bluff.
There is another approach.... start detaining or "making disappear"; everyone Snowden had contact with; all his potential friends or accomplices / other people he is known to have dealt with --- and interrogate them all deeply, until someone reveals information about this doomesday system.
If indeed the password is only valid during limited times each day ---- that suggests some online computer systems to be taken down in a mysterious outage.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 14:22 · Score: 1

If the USA was smart, they would silently negotiate a deal with Snowden where he is absolved of all charges and is allowed to live freely, perhaps in some undisclosed country, under the protection of US authorities.
1. That would be sensible, and hence contrary to government policy.
2. If I were Snowden, I wouldn't trust a proposed deal like that as far as I could throw a potato chip.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 14:23 · Score: 2

And the people who do want it to go off, well you might be bluffing, and no one wants to get caught having assassinated someone over a bluff.
There is another approach.... start detaining or "making disappear"; everyone Snowden had contact with;
all his potential friends or accomplices / other people he is known to have dealt with --- and interrogate them all deeply, until someone reveals information about this doomesday system.
If indeed the password is only valid during limited times each day ---- that suggests some online computer systems to be taken down in a mysterious outage.
If it was Soviet Russia sure, but the whole point of this is that governments were being embarrassed by having their dirty secrets exposed. Look at all the uproar over Glenn Greenwald's husband being detained at Heathrow. Can you imagine if Snowden's friends and associates started receiving threatening visits with government agents? If anyone is going to go after Snowden they're either going to be very very quiet, or very very anonymous.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mysidia · 2013-11-26 14:37 · Score: 1

Can you imagine if Snowden's friends and associates started receiving threatening visits with government agents? If anyone is going to go after Snowden they're either going to be very very quiet, or very very anonymous.
"Threatening visits" would indeed cause problems. By detain; I meant detain, as in "make quietly disappear", at least for a while.
After some polygraphs, and a few interrogation sessions cleared them, they should be free to go, after swearing an oath, and signing a document, agreeing to cooperate, promising not to discuss their interrogation with anyone, etc.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by gmuslera · 2013-11-26 14:44 · Score: 1

If the NSA head directly lied to the congress with no consequences, why you think they will tell the truth to Snownden? Or anyone else in the world? "Yes, we will fix this", with no more real whisteblowers won't be a way to know, they could release from time to time fake whisteblowers to give the illusion of progress in that topic, while keep doing the same.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by TheGratefulNet · 2013-11-26 14:47 · Score: 1

polygraph?
you ARE kidding, right?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 14:49 · Score: 1

And if they don't swear and sign the doc what then? Disappear to Guantanamo? How long would it take for people to notice Snowden's friends vanishing?
And say they do sign, they walk out of the cell and into a TV station and say "the government arrested and interrogated me because I'm a friend of Snowden's, and they said they would imprison me indefinitely or charge me with trumped up charges unless I signed a doc agreeing to keep quiet about the experience". Hell, I wish the government would arrest me just so I could play those trump cards.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by wxjones · 2013-11-26 14:52 · Score: 1

I think you are conflating polonium tea with ricin umbrellas

--
My SIG is a P226
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mysidia · 2013-11-26 15:02 · Score: 1

And if they don't swear and sign the doc what then? Disappear to Guantanamo?
I believe the standard line, is to persuade the person under interrogation, at the threat of being charged with obstruction of justice, or as an accomplice: if they aren't fully cooperative.
they walk out of the cell and into a TV station and say "the government arrested and interrogated me because I'm a friend of Snowden's
That would be lousy surveillance. Agents would be tailing them. If they even approached a TV station, they would be cuffed on the street, and taken back, for further questioning.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 15:12 · Score: 1

And if they don't swear and sign the doc what then? Disappear to Guantanamo?
I believe the standard line, is to persuade the person under interrogation, at the threat of being charged with obstruction of justice, or as an accomplice: if they aren't fully cooperative.
That's to extract information. There's a big difference between extracting information and coercing a signature.

they walk out of the cell and into a TV station and say "the government arrested and interrogated me because I'm a friend of Snowden's
That would be lousy surveillance. Agents would be tailing them.
If they even approached a TV station, they would be cuffed on the street, and taken back, for further questioning.
So they wait a couple days. Or spill it in a chat session. Or call a reporter. You think they'll have a surveillance detail on Snowden's entire social network?
I'm not denying the government can do some pretty underhanded stuff. But they can't shut people up the way you're suggesting and they can't just make people disappear without other people noticing.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by weilawei · 2013-11-26 15:44 · Score: 2

No. It's not a riduculous idea. The fact is, the polygraph is, by itself, unscientific (lack of proper control). However, if we ignore its stated purpose, and look at what it's actually used for (a stick, to induce fear), then it makes much more sense. Persons outside of intelligence services are unlikely to be aware of this and they will believe that the machine has magical divinatory powers, when it fact it's an ages old interrogation tactic. "We know something about you! Now spill."
Re:Security is a tricky thing by davidhoude · 2013-11-26 16:21 · Score: 1

They offered him a deal already, no criminal charges, annual pay with benefits, and some lovely living in Hawaii.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mysidia · 2013-11-26 16:30 · Score: 1

I'm not denying the government can do some pretty underhanded stuff. But they can't shut people up the way you're suggesting and they can't just make people disappear without other people noticing.
Well... reporter Judith Miller went to jail, for refusing to reveal her source.
I think, perhaps, you underestimate the government's capabilities.
They can spy on people --- they can also potentially react in real-time, to squelch, what people have to say.
And social networks aren't really an end-run around it, either.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by AHuxley · 2013-11-26 16:59 · Score: 1

Hunting people down once they safe in your country under your protection makes your part of the world seem unsafe in the future.
Most defectors and people who got out where given pensions, new identities around the world and where sort of safe.
You can then enjoy the win of the press reports and the PR bonus of keeping the person safe.
It also interesting to see what other countries try to activate in getting to the person of interest.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 17:10 · Score: 1

I'm not denying the government can do some pretty underhanded stuff. But they can't shut people up the way you're suggesting and they can't just make people disappear without other people noticing.

Well... reporter Judith Miller went to jail, for refusing to reveal her source.
I think, perhaps, you underestimate the government's capabilities.
I don't think so, my definition of "disappear" doesn't involve articles about your incarceration in the Washington Post and New York Times.

They can spy on people --- they can also potentially react in real-time, to squelch, what people have to say.
And social networks aren't really an end-run around it, either.
Ok, lets assume they have an army of agents watching me around the clock, they've intercepted my phone and internet and are ready at a moments notice to cut off the connection if I'm about to spill.
Then I disappear again and the story gets out anyways.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 17:17 · Score: 1

NSLs only work because they're generally only used on companies or Lawyers who are obedient to government wishes, and against Muslim Arabs who are easy to stigmatize and be scared of.
Let them try it against a Caucasian geek who might not even be in the US, it will be a massive media scandal.
I'm not arguing that the US government isn't immensely powerful and willing to use that power, I'm arguing that the way the world is arranged wouldn't allow them to simply sort through the massive list of Snowden's potential insurance holders with heavy handed interrogations and threats.
They could figure it out through quiet and discrete investigative work, but they could also miss someone.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by myowntrueself · 2013-11-26 17:55 · Score: 1

no one wants to get caught having assassinated someone over a bluff.
I think a lot of people learned an important lesson from the little metal ball with traces of ricin that was left in some dissidents leg.
Next time the ball will be made from something that dissolves in the human body.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by quantaman · 2013-11-26 18:08 · Score: 1

no one wants to get caught having assassinated someone over a bluff.
I think a lot of people learned an important lesson from the little metal ball with traces of ricin that was left in some dissidents leg.
Next time the ball will be made from something that dissolves in the human body.
It doesn't matter. To perform the assassination someone important has to authorize it. And if Snowden has taught them anything it's that no secret is completely safe.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mysidia · 2013-11-26 19:19 · Score: 1

You'd do really well in the Stasi or a similar police state.
What makes you think that's not what we have behind the scenes?
Perhaps you'd also like the people you disagree with tortured as well? If you're going to start disappearing people, why don't you just advocate killing them instead.
Please stop assuming that I would approve of the probable actions of intelligence agencies.
Just because I have indicated what I believe they will probably do, does not mean that I would be in favor of it.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by steelfood · 2013-11-26 19:29 · Score: 1

The CIA would more than likely be working to protect Snowden. Not that they could tell you that. All those guys helping him in Russia, they're probably CIA agents or somehow linked to the CIA.
Remember that the CIA and KGB worked together when they deemed it in both their best interests. I would not be surprised if the Russians were not so keen on a truly free USA. After all, a free country where all the citizens are involved in government is hard to handle. The fewer people other countries have to deal with (dictatorship is the most extreme, that number being exactly 1), the easier it is to deal with that country.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Security is a tricky thing by Yvanhoe · 2013-11-26 19:52 · Score: 1

I just wish people used the correct expression. It is not "doomsday switch" but "dead man's switch".

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Security is a tricky thing by fatphil · 2013-11-26 23:04 · Score: 1

With Whitman, et al.? Basking under the Maui sun?

Did you know that the book version (1982) ends with a plane crashing into the tower?

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:Security is a tricky thing by mpe · 2013-11-27 07:13 · Score: 1

There is another approach.... start detaining or "making disappear"; everyone Snowden had contact with; all his potential friends or accomplices / other people he is known to have dealt with --- and interrogate them all deeply, until someone reveals information about this doomesday system.

Or until doing this triggers the release of the data. How can you know that a "dead man's switch" isn't "booby trapped" in some way beforehand?
Re:Security is a tricky thing by weilawei · 2013-11-27 09:28 · Score: 1

Clearly, you're talking out of your ass. Those are not proper scientific controls, and they do not control for the interaction between two arbitrary people. Perhaps you should read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.

Torn by Oysterville · 2013-11-26 13:09 · Score: 2

I don't want Snowden captured, but I do want to see this cache very, very badly.

Re:Torn by bigfoottoo · 2013-11-26 14:01 · Score: 5, Informative

This was covered earlier in http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/18/1641241/wikileaks-releases-a-massive-insurance-file-that-no-one-can-open
A: 3.6Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
B: 49Gb http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
C: 349GB http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent [wlstorage.net]
I think we all can agree that 3.6GB was within Snowden's opportunity and ability to gather. But, 49GB and 349GB ?!! That is a LOT of data to quietly move to USB sticks. If the last two truely are Snowden files, then it looks to me like he may have had an accomplice. Wouldn't it be so cool if there is a freedom-loving mole in a high position of the NSA?
Re:Torn by msauve · 2013-11-26 14:11 · Score: 1

dd if=/dev/null of=./wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256 bs=1M count=349000

Decrypt that, NSA!

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Torn by msauve · 2013-11-26 14:12 · Score: 3, Funny

s/null/random/ Doh.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Torn by dcollins117 · 2013-11-27 02:38 · Score: 1

I guess we can infer that AES-256 is safe. Otherwise, the NSA would already know what these archives contain. Certainly Snowden wouldn't have chosen it if he knew it was cracked.
Re:Torn by Shatrat · 2013-11-27 06:54 · Score: 1

49gb would fit on a phone with a large MicroSD card. 349 would fit on an external hard drive not much larger than a phone. Those could easily be the entire contents of a couple of shared network drives, or Exchange email backups.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

valid for only a brief time window each day by Arancaytar · 2013-11-26 13:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

How would that even work? Is there a central server that keeps the data and decides what time it is? That sure sounds safe.

Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:39 · Score: 2, Informative

There is likely a key on a tor server that can only be retrieved at certain times.
More importantly, WTF is the insurance files I'm seeding? FFS.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by TechyImmigrant · 2013-11-26 13:45 · Score: 2

Or a hash of the quantised TOD of the hosting system is factored into the key derivation function.
Why would anyone possibly think of doing it any other way? Sheesh!

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by weilawei · 2013-11-26 15:01 · Score: 1

I came to the same conclusion as you, based on Schneier's clueless agent.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by blueg3 · 2013-11-26 16:30 · Score: 1

It's probably one of the details that makes security experts doubt its veracity. Because that's an improbable and kind of stupid system.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by Arancaytar · 2013-11-26 19:39 · Score: 1

Huh... that'd be technically possible, but if I understand you right then the time would only be another numerical password. Someone who knows the correct time could easily spoof it.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day by TechyImmigrant · 2013-11-27 06:03 · Score: 1

Not if the hashing and mixing in of the TOD was done locally to the server and the remote input was a separate field in the hash. To manipulate the user field to make the hash match when the TOD field is different would require second preimage attack on the hash function, which is a hard problem if your hash algorithm is good.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:15 · Score: 1

Because doing it all at once is like giving a kid a lifetime's worth of toys all at once. It will not be appreciated nor fully understood.

What could be juicy? by hcs_$reboot · 2013-11-26 13:17 · Score: 1

JFK? Gorbachev and Berlin wall? 9/11? Irak & MDW? ...

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Re:What could be juicy? by BringsApples · 2013-11-26 14:15 · Score: 1

Let's say, for an extreme example, that it is indeed facts about cover-ups like 9/11 or JFK. If Snowden knows it, and keeps it a secret, isn't he doing the same thing that the NSA is doing? It seems like it's possible that the public is being used here, by both sides.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re:What could be juicy? by AHuxley · 2013-11-26 17:27 · Score: 1

The front companies (telco, computer, legal, press....NGO) setup, funded and supported by the US gov, the big celebrities shaping pro 'military' scripts, respected US academics ensuring junk crypto over generations via covert payments, CIA and MI6 running "freedom fighters" around the world that would not be common knowledge, drug funding for weapons sales to support freedom fighters. Passports and networks that allow for freedom fighters and their logistics to move globally.
Long term unexpected allies, funding thought to be politically or for faith reasons to be totally unworkable - US docs could show diverse groups be getting on just fine at an intelligence service level and complex funding.
The totally subversion of many friendly and neutral telco/crypto/intelligence/gov staff working against their own govs/mil over generations.
Telling their own countries mil and top political leaders at a personal level that their crypto was 'safe' - i.e. knowing/sharing/helping spread totally useless crypto.
Think of the work to ensure no version drift in tracking, installing, upgrades or efforts to fix broken crypto - a lot of skilled local staff have to be kept very tame for that.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:What could be juicy? by meta-monkey · 2013-11-27 03:16 · Score: 1

Nuclear launch codes. (Hint: the launch password is "p4ssword" DON'T TELL ANYONE!)

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:What could be juicy? by spire3661 · 2013-11-27 03:42 · Score: 1

As much as I want the world to be full of telepaths with perfect knowledge exchange among rational minds, it cannot be. Information that affects people comes with responsibilities. Context is incredibly important to ensure physical harm can be minimized by the release of info.

--
Good-bye
Re:What could be juicy? by BringsApples · 2013-11-27 03:58 · Score: 1

You pull band-aides off really slow, don't you ;)

I'm not trying to say that there won't be problems, but the problems won't be because of the information being leaked, rather from the information itself. Unless the information is all bullshit and the whole Snowden story is another tool used by the powers that be to control FUD.

10 years into the future something called "The Snowden Grail" or some shit, still slowly "leaking" information.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.

Brief time window? by Adrian+Lopez · 2013-11-26 13:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

"The passwords ... are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said."

How does that work?

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Re:Brief time window? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:24 · Score: 2, Funny

#!/bin/bash
nc -lp 31337 | while read key
do
if [ `date` 9am -or 9pm `date` ]
then
echo "skipping key read because the world is sleeping and no one would notice a massive release of information at this time..."
else
if [ "$key" == "zomgztheygotme!" ]
then
cat /tmp/massive.info | openssl aes256cbc -k "$key" -iv ~/iv.data -d | pastebin -t "Snowden's Docs"
fi
fi
done
- stoops!
Re:Brief time window? by johnsnails · 2013-11-26 13:40 · Score: 1

without being certain... Whoosh
Re:Brief time window? by dnavid · 2013-11-26 13:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

"The passwords ... are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said."
How does that work?
There's no literal way for that to work, but there are ways to protect sensitive data in a way that could be described in that way.
One way I can think of is to get someone I know to buy something like an Amazon instance in a way that isn't traceable to me. Then I upload my data in an encrypted fashion into the instance. Then I give a set of people different passwords to log into the virtual machine running in that instance. Then I set the instance to power on in a scheduled manner so that the instance is only accessible at certain moments in time known to the people I give the passwords to. At all other times the instance is powered off and the people with the passwords to it do not have any knowledge of how to manage the instance itself directly. Thus, the people I designate as trustees for the data only have access at certain times. On top of that, they could have different segments of a key-split so that to actually access the data requires at least two different people logging into the instance and providing their keys, or alternatively one person logging in and providing two different key segments.
Why you might do something like this is to try to minimize the availability of the data from being discovered or cracked. Most of the time, the data isn't on a system that is in any real way accessible from the internet. Furthermore, it also makes it less expensive to create multiple data caches in the cloud because the cost of running the systems would be very low, since they would not be running most of the time.
Re:Brief time window? by c0lo · 2013-11-26 14:04 · Score: 1

"The passwords ... are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said."
How does that work?
The archer casts his arrow at dawn (or something on this line)
(grin)

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Brief time window? by BringsApples · 2013-11-26 14:16 · Score: 1

Everyone's daily schedules only align for a little while each day, in a reliable way?

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re:Brief time window? by weilawei · 2013-11-26 14:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

An alternative construction is possible. You construct a clueless agent. It reads the current time, fills the MSBs and LSBs with 0s to select for time range, possibly with logical shift right, then performs: hash(hash(truncated_time)) XOR hash(hash(given_password)), checks against its internal value (same construct), and uses hash(truncated_time) XOR hash(given_password) as the actual decryption password. This sort of thing is trivial to implement (and has been implemented).

From an attacker's point of view. Suppose you now slice the time of day up into a short list of fragments you can hash. Now you have a list of hash(hash(truncated_time)) and potentially hash(hash(truncated_time)) XOR hash(hash(given_password)). You XOR each of your truncated time constructions to yield a list of hash(hash(given_password)), and you're back at the original clueless agent problem.
Re:Brief time window? by AHuxley · 2013-11-26 17:35 · Score: 1

It also slows the news cycle down. A person could be fed a fake news only to be retracted 12-48h later.
i.e. people been watched "rush" to strange computer networks to enter codes after a well placed fake story.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Brief time window? by VortexCortex · 2013-11-26 23:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's no literal way for that to work,
So, theres a server you input the password into. The login page or client connection port is only available at certain times. Once all the right passwords have been input by everyone it decrypts and displays the password to decrypt some torrent that's floating around the net -- Maybe posts it to facebook and twitter, pastebin, 4chan, et al.
I can think of about 20 other ways to time limit a password, but this seems feasible. There's no way to know which server or wordpress blog has the additional capabilities added to it -- This would be important because you would want it to be an action the individuals usually make (login to their blog, etc) but this time using the special password. Break the 4096 bit key into multiple parts and give it to folks so the decryption key's not on the server.
Why even time limit it though? A lot of people are wrongheadedly forgetting part of the equation that a good security researcher would not: The people part. The time limit isn't for security in the cryptographic sense. It's to synchronize the human input to the equation and reduce the window of time between when the first suspected keyholder performs their part in the unlock procedure and when the payload is deployed.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because two years of constant media coverage and new information beats the hell out of a 1-week load-blow that the public immediately forgets about

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 13:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

valid for only a brief time window each day ??? by csumpi · 2013-11-26 13:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

What does that even mean? He re-encrypts it every 4 hours and emails out the passwords and the file? This is either super spy sheit, or just plain bull sheit.

Re:valid for only a brief time window each day ??? by dmbasso · 2013-11-26 13:30 · Score: 1

Perhaps the data are only accessible online, and the server expects a key formed by their secret hashed together with the period of the day... nothing too difficult to code, but doesn't sound very fault tolerant. Hopefully he made several servers available.

--
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day ??? by weilawei · 2013-11-26 14:58 · Score: 1

This was exactly my idea based on Schneier's clueless agent.
Re:valid for only a brief time window each day ??? by lundqvist · 2013-11-26 15:03 · Score: 2

Its just absolute bullshit ...

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by bob_super · 2013-11-26 13:22 · Score: 2

Because in many cases the journalists have abided by the administrations' requests to censor some of the details.

If you do a bulk release, you're probably putting someone's life/livelihood in danger. Not everyone who is involved is evil.

Let's see by StevenMaurer · 2013-11-26 13:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The names of informants in foreign governments - especially dictatorships like North Korea.
Specific individuals that we know are terrorists, and who the U.S. is tracking right now (hoping to catch bigger fish).
Technologies now considered "safe" for foreign spies, terrorists, and criminals to use - but have actually been hacked.
Profound vulnerabilities in our embassy/military-base defenses that penetration testing found but are too expensive to fix.
Anything that would otherwise cause people to die.

There are a lot of things, actually. None of them have to do with anyone's personal porn stash, or the fever-dreams of people who hate the U.S.

Re:Let's see by hurwak-feg · 2013-11-26 13:33 · Score: 1

Mod this up. The Snowden leaks have revealed some morally and legally questionable behavior by the US government, but there are some things that would be best to keep secret that actually are in the best interest of everyone in the world. For example, if the NSA knows how to cryptoanalyze AES or PGP, the methods used getting into the hands of criminals would be bad for everyone.
Re:Let's see by jonwil · 2013-11-26 13:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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")
Re:Let's see by vux984 · 2013-11-26 13:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

For example, if the NSA knows how to cryptoanalyze AES or PGP, the methods used getting into the hands of criminals would be bad for everyone.
Unless someone within the NSA realized there was a billion dollar payday if he sold those methods to certain criminals or countries.
In which case the public isn't safe and doesn't know it.
That's even worse.
Some things should be secret from the public, nuclear launch codes, names of spies, etc... but interent security affects all of us, and its not making anybody safer to try and hide a vulnerability there.
The NSA isn't magic. If the NSA can break AES, then anyone else might figure it out too.
Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 14:03 · Score: 1

I agree. And further, I believe that the NSA should be obligated to share that they discovered a vulnerability in any standard and work to fix the vulnerabilities. Instead, they exploit and hide their known vulnerabilities. It's truly shameful.
Re:Let's see by z0idberg · 2013-11-26 14:06 · Score: 2

They are good examples of material that the NSA would legitimately not want getting out into the wild. The release of that type of information would indeed be detrimental to the safety and security of the USA as a whole.
But it is not the type of information that Snowden has released so far though. The releases so far have revealed the NSA to be up to some pretty nasty shit so I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that he only has information that would hurt the USA left. It will almost certainly hurt the NSA, but that is not necessarily a bad thing from what we have seen so far.
Re:Let's see by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 14:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
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:
1. They're smart enough to break AES, but stupid enough to think nobody else can.
2. The best cryptographers in the United States of America believe AES to be secure.
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.
Re:Let's see by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 14:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are a lot of things, actually. None of them have to do with anyone's personal porn stash, or the fever-dreams of people who hate the U.S.
In which case the NSA is grossly incompetent, or to use plainer language, stupid, for pissing on the 4th Amendment and monitoring every American. Maybe they should stick to the important stuff. If they hadn't been unconstitutionally monitoring every American, would Snowden have done what he did? Personally it doesn't bother me if the NSA looks up Merkel's ass every time she takes a dump. If they don't do that with Kim Jong-un, I'd like to know why. But monitoring every American? That's a whole 'nother story, and a good reason for what Snowden did. If they'd stuck to what's important, useful and Constitutional, they wouldn't have this problem. Snowden is a patriot, not a traitor.
Re:Let's see by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 15:11 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, that type of useful info probably wouldn't be on the wider "track your ex-wife" computer network for casual mass privacy invasion that Snowden had access to. If the NSA has some serious "break GPG" level cracks, those are probably deeply buried in some vault for which Snowden would not be able to find the name of the person who knows the person who knows the person with the access code.
The NSA was certainly sloppy with security on the info available on Snowden's network; however, remember this was the network for random military-industrial contractors, likely designed by random military-industrial contractors, who are rarely competent at anything besides hoovering cash from taxpayers. The parts of the NSA with enough brains to infiltrate "seriously secure" systems are probably also a bit smarter than your average random contractor about keeping the really important stuff safe.
Re:Let's see by real+gumby · 2013-11-26 15:34 · Score: 2

That's an interesting list, and it's my understanding that nothing he's released so far has included the names of double agents or others who could be killed, and little to none of the oner stuff on your list either.
Which just further supports the argument that he's a good guy, as if anyone on /. didn't already believe that.
Re:Let's see by Miamicanes · 2013-11-26 15:55 · Score: 2

> That's even worse
Yes... and no.
If you're a government espionage agency or military and use AES believing it's ironclad & bulletproof... but it isn't... and your enemies know it... it's unfathomably bad.
If you're a bank using AES to encrypt and sign financial transactions, it doesn't really MATTER whether or not AES has some horrible vulnerability that the CIA, NSA, and their counterparts in China and Russia have all completely pwn3d, as long as it remains effective against organized crime syndicates (ie, requires the resources of a government espionage agency to meaningfully defeat), script kiddies, and mid-level fraudsters. If only because those same governments can get anything they want out of you ANYWAY by throwing secret court orders at you. At least being intercepted by them (as opposed to active cooperation) is free, and entitles you to claim victimhood if the press gets wind of it.
Re:Let's see by compro01 · 2013-11-26 16:09 · Score: 2

it doesn't really MATTER whether or not AES has some horrible vulnerability that the CIA, NSA, and their counterparts in China and Russia have all completely pwn3d, as long as it remains effective against organized crime syndicates
Right. Because it's utterly unheard of for former intelligence agency personnel to go work for organized crime.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:Let's see by JeffOwl · 2013-11-26 16:14 · Score: 1

The standard can be implemented in a secure way. Not all implementations are equal. Not all sources of key materials are equal.
Re:Let's see by blueg3 · 2013-11-26 16:21 · Score: 1

A lot of S and TS information is protected by Suite A cryptography instead, rather than Suite B (like AES). Still, there's a lot of classified material protected by AES and, yes, knowing about serious vulnerabilities in AES would be directly counter to one of NSAs major goals, since they've certified AES as being appropriate for use in securing lots of sensitive material.
Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 16:48 · Score: 1

The NSA isn't magic.
What if Snowden's papers show that the NSA is hiding the existence of wizards? You didn't think of that, did you, tough guy?
Re:Let's see by jafac · 2013-11-26 17:04 · Score: 2

y'all know he means: 'Tor'.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Let's see by Heshler · 2013-11-26 17:12 · Score: 2

This sentiment is such crap. The US constitution is not a sacred document that defines what is morally right and wrong. It is morally wrong to spy on Merkel's poops, or any human being in the world for that matter, without reasonable cause. Excessive spying on anyone should bother you.
Re:Let's see by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 17:13 · Score: 1

That's true, particularly the first point. The second is also valid, though good sources of entropy aren't exactly a state secret.
I've always found NSA's writings in areas other than cryptography to be most fascinating. Ever read about TEMPEST? If the answer is no, you're missing out on a lot, start with a Google search and go from there. There's a wealth of information that they make publicly available, free for the taking by any person seeking to up their security posture. They've also contributed security enhancements to the Linux kernel, provide free or at-cost security services to major American corporations, and secure the day-to-day communications of Federal and State Governments.
None of this is to suggest that they always wear white hats, or that I'm not deeply concerned with the revelations about their domestic activities, but people should look at the whole picture before they condemn the agency. They might also think about pointing fingers at policy makers, rather than those who carry out policy..... (I'll smack the first person that takes this last point and Godwin's it with some false equivalency.....)

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Let's see by myowntrueself · 2013-11-26 17:20 · Score: 1

Some things should be secret from the public, nuclear launch codes, names of spies, etc...
The spies thing would entirely depend on what country the spies are from and what country the public is in.
If I were Russian then names of US spies should definitely not be public. And vice versa.
So fuck the spies, name them all.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Let's see by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-11-26 17:27 · Score: 1

Possibility #3: the NSA weakened AES in a way they believe is only known to them, in which case they probably wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for top secret use.
Just like they likely did with elliptic curve.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Let's see by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 17:48 · Score: 1

I suppose the US Navy might really have shot down TWA Flight 800, managing not only to silence the entire crew of a SAM equipped warship (numbering in the hundreds), but also the dockside workers that would have noticed missing ordinance, the dozens of FBI and NTSB officials that investigated the disaster, and everybody in the chain-of-command from the guy who pushed the "weapons free" button to President Clinton.....
Do you see how quickly tin-foil hat conspiracies break down when you stop to consider how many disparate people would have to remain silent to keep it all under wraps?
If you don't trust AES there's always one time pads. They don't scale very well at all, key exchange is a bitch, but on the flip side they're completely unbreakable and you can implement one on pen and paper if you so choose....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Let's see by Serious+Callers+Only · 2013-11-26 17:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 18:51 · Score: 1

NSA stands for New Sorcerers Alliance. This is common knowledge. They work together with the Combined Independent Augurs and the Freemasons Battle Initiative to keep the Astral plane safe from the forces of darkness.
Re:Let's see by steelfood · 2013-11-26 19:24 · Score: 1

FYI, Pearl Harbor was not a failure of American intelligence, especially signals intelligence. OTOH, 9/11 was (thus far believed to be anyway), though not specifically signals intelligence.
It doesn't matter. Signals intelligence is useless except against the little people. No self-respecting intelligence agency would be so stupid as to have their top secret computers connected to the internet. And little people can be foreign, or they can be domestic.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Let's see by rtb61 · 2013-11-26 20:20 · Score: 2

It is well the NSA are really deeply into monitoring and decoding signals from unknown sources, now what could be more fun then 'Alien' sigint ;).
As for bad secrets the obvious comes to mind, how closely where US Security Companies involved in enabling and keeping secret security breaches in other countries security networks. This would be really bad, as employees of the companies in other countries, especially senior management would become subject to prosecution and imprisonment for computer crimes, thousands of US executives scattered through out the globe. Hundreds of US companies forced to shutter their services in other countries and what ever assets left seized under proceeds of crimes and bankruptcy procedures, very big companies. Doomsday cache indeed, KABOOM. You know all those companies that completely missed 50,000 network penetrations.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Let's see by sjames · 2013-11-26 22:28 · Score: 1

If the NSA knows, the method is ALREADY in the hands of criminals.
Re:Let's see by VortexCortex · 2013-11-26 22:52 · Score: 1

The parts of the NSA with enough brains to infiltrate "seriously secure" systems are probably also a bit smarter than your average random contractor about keeping the really important stuff safe.
I disagree. They recruit from the general populace, and buy exploits from the black market like your average thugs.
Re:Let's see by myowntrueself · 2013-11-26 23:43 · Score: 1

But theres a special definition of 'secure' that the NSA use when it comes to other peoples secrets; its 'secure' if we can break into it and they don't know we can.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Let's see by Captain+Hook · 2013-11-26 23:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

None of this is to suggest that they always wear white hats, or that I'm not deeply concerned with the revelations about their domestic activities
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.
Re:Let's see by AmiMoJo · 2013-11-27 01:09 · Score: 1

Snowden socially engineered his way to greater access rights, which is how he was able to acquire the material he has. Normally he wouldn't have had access to it. Judging by the way the NSA and GCHQ were boasting about breaking various forms of cryptography in their presentations it seems unlikely they would have kept a serious attack on GPG or AES quiet. Aside from anything else they would have warned their staff away from them.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Let's see by AmiMoJo · 2013-11-27 01:11 · Score: 1

Actually North Korea is looking pretty smart right now. Everyone else allowed the NSA to spy on them by building huge data networks for them to hack into. NK only has to worry about traditional infiltration by spies.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Let's see by yahwotqa · 2013-11-27 02:23 · Score: 1

Wizards are easy to get rid of. You just click Next until they go away.
Re:Let's see by meta-monkey · 2013-11-27 02:59 · Score: 1

But I don't think the NSA is stupid. That would mean breaking/weakening every lock, and that's a poor locksmith, indeed.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Let's see by f3rret · 2013-11-27 02:59 · Score: 1

The names of informants in foreign governments - especially dictatorships like North Korea.
Unlikely, Snowden only has access to NSA documents, and the NSA being a SIGINT and COMINT service probably doesn't have "informers".

Specific individuals that we know are terrorists, and who the U.S. is tracking right now (hoping to catch bigger fish).
Also unlikely, cases where names are specifcally mentioned will under most circumstances be so highly compatmentalized that it's highly unlikely that it would even be possible to get those names easily. Even more unlikely that someone like Snowden could get his hands on them without it being known the moment he tried to access them.

Technologies now considered "safe" for foreign spies, terrorists, and criminals to use - but have actually been hacked.

Profound vulnerabilities in our embassy/military-base defenses that penetration testing found but are too expensive to fix.
Anything that would otherwise cause people to die.
This one I buy, this sounds more like the kinda thing someone like Snowden would be able to get his hands on.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Let's see by meta-monkey · 2013-11-27 03:03 · Score: 1

Still, you have to wonder what Snowden's got. I've always wondered what happens when the incoming president gets "The Briefing." You know, all the stuff that's for the President's eyes only that the new guy has to know. (Alternatively, when the Lizard Men from the Hollow Earth reveal themselves to the new Puppet in Chief as the true Masters of the Surface Dwellers).
However, that's gotta be stuff that they don't put on a networked computer Snowden would have access to, right? ...right?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Let's see by Shakrai · 2013-11-27 03:11 · Score: 1

Signals intelligence is useless except against the little people.
You're kidding, right?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Let's see by f3rret · 2013-11-27 03:13 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter. Signals intelligence is useless except against the little people.
Make that SPECIFIC people and I agree.
SIGINT on a huge scale and for predictive purposes is basically useless.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Let's see by Captain+Hook · 2013-11-27 03:50 · Score: 2

I'm not saying everything they have ever touched or made suggestions on is compromised. Only that they aren't about to tell us which products are and which products aren't as and such we have to assume everything is.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Let's see by cusco · 2013-11-27 04:57 · Score: 1

This fantasy that 'if two people know a secret that one will talk' has always struck me as absurd. How long did literally THOUSANDS of people work at Area 51 before anyone not associated with the Skunk Works even know it existed? How many THOUSANDS of people worked on the Blackbird and stealth aircraft projects without details leaking even to our allies until those aircraft flew? How many SCORES of journalists knew that the supposed attack on the Maine was not Spanish stupidity and wrote stories to that effect anyway, and then kept quiet about it for decades afterwards? How many SCORES of people were involved in the planning, presentation, approval, and ultimate rejection by Kennedy of Project Northwoods? How may HUNDREDS of journalists were members of Project Mockingbird for decades and still to this day deny the (well-documented) project ever existed?
Real conspiracies exist out in the real world, some of them eventually come to light and most of them never do.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Let's see by cusco · 2013-11-27 05:00 · Score: 1

Or current personnel (i.e. Ollie North)

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Let's see by thunderclap · 2013-11-28 13:37 · Score: 1

Snowden has proof that Obama is a Kenyan royal Prince, that the illumanti exists and who is an actual part of it, How (/11 actually happened, where the 12 suitcase nukes are. SMH

Why tell everyone you believe it? by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by Cognizant · 2013-11-26 13:50 · Score: 1

I would think that slowly dealing with the information would make it easier to discredit and the passage of time would out date or make irrelevant the information. Plus it gives them time to watch and find where it might be maybe? Cutting the rest out if found.
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 14:03 · Score: 2

If it's such a disadvantage, then why would Snowden et al. be doing it? They're currently the ones in control of the data; so, if releasing everything at once (or at least most but a smaller "security" file) makes it more credible and relevant, then they could just do so. Since they aren't --- and, I think it's clear how this provides the leakers quite a bit of leverage --- changing to the opposite situation would likely benefit the NSA spooks. Not as much as having Snowden and all his files vanish completely; but there's little chance of that happening (Snowden's had plenty of time to set up the mother of all paranoid multiple-failsafes backup plans).
Being able to selectively leak the files out one at a time means that for the next couple of years gives Snowden a lot of leverage for optimizing impact on public perceptions --- which is all any of this is about. The only threat to the NSA is the American public; nothing in any of these documents will have much if any impact on actual operations aside from PR fiascos. Ability to time information to remind the American public at opportune moments which of their politicians has been lying to their face about surveillance, and how much they should value voting anyone into office who promises to cut back on NSA programs, is a significant advantage.
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 14:39 · Score: 1

I can pretty much guarantee you that, if there were a brand-new piece of information on the JFK assassination not already available in the reams of public documents until now, it would receive a heck of a lot of media attention than yet-another-rehash-of-the-same-old-stuff.
Foreign governments interacting with the US aren't the issue here. They know we're full of shit (just like they know they'd do the same wherever possible). This is all a matter of public perception. Journalists who harp on multi-year-old news are easy to dismiss as quacks with an agenda (even if that "agenda" is manifestly in the public interest) --- there's plenty of decades-old history, fully available in the public record, that the US public would be greatly enlightened by being made more aware of; but it's "old news" now. Any reporter who reminds the viewers about the big lies of years past won't keep their jobs (consider how many folks who blatantly lied to push the Iraq invasion are still treated as respectable foreign policy commentators today, because history past last year has been tossed down the memory hole). But, a "brand new" revelation still has a chance of breaking through, and keeping the American public cognizant of what their "national security" overlords are up to.
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by Livius · 2013-11-26 15:24 · Score: 1

Now they just have to decide whether to kill him just before an election, or after.
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by AHuxley · 2013-11-26 17:40 · Score: 1

To see how a select group of people known to be near such data will react. A location, network or hidden one way communications method or IP or new name might surface in haste.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 18:04 · Score: 1

This mass-media announcement of "unnamed public official says vague thing" seems designed for a broad audience rather than prompting an "insider" to get jumpy. There's nothing in this announcement that would change what Snowden and his insiders know --- Snowden knows what files he's got, and knows the NSA knows approximately what kind of files he might have (though likely not exactly which ones). This is part of the propaganda cycle for people outside the inner circles --- the general public and less-well-connected third-party organizations. Whatever the NSA goons are doing to infiltrate Snowden's closer connections probably won't be making Slashdot's front page.
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by circletimessquare · 2013-11-26 22:42 · Score: 1

all the intelligence snowden has decays in value over time. the longer he waits to release it, the less useful it is
knowing all of the spies of regime {X} doesn't matter if half of them have been replaced/ retired/ killed/ lost
knowing the battle plans of country {Y} doesn't matter if country {Y} did a new analysis in the interim
knowing about leader {Z}'s mistresses doesn't matter if we now have leader {W} in charge
etc.
the usa has every incentive to have delay the release of snowden's cache

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by 3.5+stripes · 2013-11-27 01:45 · Score: 1

Suppose you had an idea for a new political system, or are a popular outsider planing to run for public office, what a pity that you were unfaithful to your wife, how the media found out.. who knows.
Have a good look at what Hoover did with all the files he had on people, then understand why people are not happy about watchers having info on everyone.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:Why tell everyone you believe it? by umghhh · 2013-11-29 04:33 · Score: 1

If a party having something against USoA is to kill Snowden then this sounds like a good motivation.

It appears the USA has been up to some nasty stuff by Nyder · 2013-11-26 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by jbolden · 2013-11-26 13:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

This Holiday Season on RT! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-11-26 13:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Join us in our traditional gathering around the samovar, for a Christmas presentation of what's surely to become an RT classic:

"Snowed In with Snowden". Edward Snowden invites various RT holiday gusts, for the cheer of the season, in the shadow of St. Basil's. The laughs begin, as Max Kaiser drops by with a little flask of "holiday cheer" - and some very special "snow" of his own. Then, we solemnize with George Galloway and Ken Livingston, who join Ed for a haunting rendition (did we just use that word?) of "Rudolph, The Red Nosed Reindeer". But hang tight on the presents! Orthodox Chrismas in't til January, innit?

Well, happy Feast of Epiphany, in any matter. Stay tuned!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

too bad. by larry+bagina · 2013-11-26 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re: It appears the USA has been up to some nasty s by Badblackdog · 2013-11-26 13:55 · Score: 1

Elections are coming and we can swap out the current lot for the other bums. Big deal! How do we position ourselves to make money off of "Snowden's Secret Docs" when they are released?

That room on the 6th floor of the Book Depository by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-11-26 13:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Regarding the Kennedy, has anyone been into to that particular room on the sixth floor of the Book Depository in Dallas, Tx, USA, where they said Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK ?

I have.

In normal time they blocked that room up with plexiglass barrier. Visitors could only see that room from the corridor outside.

But I went inside.

I went there during the time Oliver Stone was filming the movie "JFK". They removed the plexiglass barrier.

I was able to stand in THAT VERY WINDOW, looked out of the window and surveyed the scene below, and I tried to assume the position of having carrying a rifle, and tried to aim that "virtual rifle" at the point at Dealey Plaza where JFK was shot.

I couldn't.

You see, if I were Lee Harvey Oswald, and I was doing the shooting BY MYSELF I have to know WHEN the motorcade which JFK was riding arrive.

I have to have the chance to judge the timing so that I can aim my weapon at JFK's head.

The JFK motorcade came, as I was standing on the 6th floor window, from my LEFT SIDE, and proceeded to the RIGHT SIDE.

If I were the shooter, I need to stand UP and look at the left side, waiting for the motorcade to arrive, and then aim my rifle at the right side as the motorcade goes towards the Dealey Plaza.

I couldn't do it ALONE.

In order to hit JFK's head when the motorcade is at Dealey Plaza ---- which is at the EXTREME RIGHT HAND SIDE from the view from the 6th floor window, I need to extend at least 60% of my torso OUT OF THE WINDOW in order to get my shot.

I do not know how long Lee Harvey Oswald torso happened to be, my own torso is about the average size human grown man's torso.

If I were to shoot JFK ALONE in that 6th floor windows, I couldn't.

I watched the documentaries where they had expert shooters trying out shooting at the motorcade below from the same window, and the shooters' in the documentaries were adopting the "half crouch" position, aiming their rifles at the exact point where JFK was killed.

But if I *WERE THE LONE KILLER IN THAT ROOM* and if I *WERE DOING THAT*, I would not be able to know WHEN JFK's MOTORCADE WOULD ARRIVE, as there is no way I could see the LEFT HAND SIDE of the windows when I crouched and lean against the left side of the window holding my weapon aiming towards Dealey Plaza at my extreme right side.

So all of these essentially boils down to my own conclusion that

1. Lee Harvey Oswald, if he was the killer of JFK, was NOT acting alone. He MUST HAVE an accomplice in that same room, to act as a "watcher" for him and to inform him when JFK's motorcade was to arrive.

2. If Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT half crouching on the left side of the windows when he shot JFK from the 6th floor of the Book Depository building, he must have EXTENDED at least 60% of his body OUT of that windows.

And in order to NOT FALL DOWN, he must have SOMEONE ELSE inside that same room to GRAB HIS LEGS as an anchor.

Conclusion from #1 and #2 is that, if Lee Harvey Oswald was really the killer of JFK and he did made those 3 shots from the 6th floor window, he was NOT acting alone.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:It appears the USA has been up to some nasty st by Neo-Rio-101 · 2013-11-26 13:57 · Score: 1

As long as it exposes who killed JFK, and exposes how to exploit the rigged forex market in order to make millions in a week, I'd be all for it.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Look at that.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-11-26 14:00 · Score: 2

So, either Irresponsible Terrorist Ruskie Collaborator Snowden is (in fact) concealing numerous US secrets that aren't directly related to what he was planning to blow the whistle on, or the feds are freaking out over nothing. Well, what's it going to be? (Perhaps more realistically: If you were some sort of undercover fed, whose continued freedom and/or life depended on the silence of the feds, would you be comfortable now? Mr. Snowden, to his credit, appears to be trying to minimize the casualties associated with his whistle-blowing; but will you be so lucky next time? A single screwdriver-monkey contractor, not even a full NSA agent, punked the shit out of the agency. Do you think that some poor sucker with nothing but patriotism motivating him is the only clandestine operative in the agency? That there isn't a single other leaker in the, apparently porous, organization? Nobody infiltrating with an actual payoff awaiting him? You sure about that?)

Have a nice day.

Re:It appears the USA has been up to some nasty st by YukariHirai · 2013-11-26 14:01 · Score: 1

Time for a change in Government.

If you mean changing what political party is in charge right now, that won't make any difference at all. Probably even changing the system of government wouldn't do it.

The problem is the intelligence agencies. It would take completely disbanding them and seeing to it that none of the people currently involved can ever be part of the new ones or make any other kind of trouble.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by BringsApples · 2013-11-26 14:06 · Score: 1

Shit man, how is the public addressing them now? If you turn the tables, look at it from another "side"... how about if the FEDs did arrest Snowden, not detain him, but arrest him, and told the public that they've got charges on him, and they'll release them at a later date.

When he release the news that the NSA were monitoring everything, do you really think that the public understood it at all? Hell, only 15% of the people that I know, and have talked to about it, have no idea what it's all about. So I don't agree with the theory that the public cannot handle the truth.

This whole "keep the public on a string" strategy is only done when there is a need to control. I'm just sayin.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by safetyinnumbers · 2013-11-26 14:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Don't the trees block a lot more of the road than they did then?

There's a webcam mounted inside the box near the window if anyone want's to check out the view (the pile of boxes placed there to represent the one's he's said to have placed there to rest the rifle on).

Re:Piffle by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-11-26 14:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

A hit order? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 14:11 · Score: 1

This is such BS. The US Government obviously wants Snowden dead. They would really like Russia to do this job for them, by rubber hose or simple murder, so that more "NSA secrets" come to light. Yet another bounty on Snowden's death. Yawn! He is a *really* bad man you know. Next week: Snowden is really an evil Al Queda agent intent on detonating one atomic bomb in one major city per week, unless his demands are met... If you believe that, I would like to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge, at a fair price....

Re:A hit order? by BitZtream · 2013-11-27 00:20 · Score: 1

...
If we wanted Snowden dead, he'd have been dead months ago.
We have no problem killing people we don't like. Publicly. In full view of a video camera.
If you think the US actually wants him dead, let me sell you my bridge ...

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

You got it *almost* correct by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-11-26 14:13 · Score: 2

Specific individuals that we know are terrorists, and who the U.S. is tracking right now...

The real scenario is much more juicier ...

"Specific individuals that are influential in various terrorist organizations that are currently working for the US government and its allies (including Qatar/Saudis/Turkey), and are taking orders from the US government in launching various (minor) Jihadist strikes against the Western / Christian interests in far flung places to keep the FEAR FACTOR alive"

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:You got it *almost* correct by cusco · 2013-11-27 05:08 · Score: 1

I'm wondering about the routing of the business information they're accessing, and how much of that is going to "friendly" executives at CitiCorp, T-Mobile, Cisco, Facebook and the like. Also about the private financial activities of various high-profile individuals, not just within the government but people like the Kochs, Waltons, and Fords.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 14:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other words, Snowden is neither stupid nor suicidal.

Re:It appears the USA has been up to some nasty st by cascadingstylesheet · 2013-11-26 14:25 · Score: 1

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.

What, and give up all this hope and change?

Re:It appears the USA has been up to some nasty st by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 14:26 · Score: 1

As long as it exposes who killed JFK

Terrible idea. There is an entire cottage industry devoted to arguing about that. Many books are sold. Considering how bad the economy still is, why would you want to destroy another part of it?

All Over The Place by AndyCanfield · 2013-11-26 14:35 · Score: 2

I've also heard, don't remember where, that it is one big file and there are copies all over the world transported via Bit Torrent and the like. You know were and anyone can grab a copy of the encrypted archive.

I've also heard that the documents in that archive are originals, not redacted. The original would say something like "CIA Agent John Belushi did such-and-such." The redacted version, when released by Edward Snowden, reads "CIA Agent (name removed) did such and such." If they kill Snowden, the archive opens everywhere. Not only are secrets revealed, but names of agents are revealed, so those spies will be killed, perhaps by terrorists, perhaps by outraged neighbors.

A spy with any brains wants that archive to remain encrypted, so he wants Edward Snowden to live in peace in Moscow.

Re:All Over The Place by TheGratefulNet · 2013-11-26 14:57 · Score: 1

Not only are secrets revealed, but names of agents are revealed, so those spies will be killed, perhaps by terrorists,
well, we have a saying, "live by the sword, die by it, too".
maybe it will give spook wannabe's second thoughts about immoral acts. ie, spying for ANYONE is immoral.
if there is personal danger to doing bad things, well, don't do bad things!
it sounds harsh, but we need harsh ways to put this genie back into its bottle.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:All Over The Place by swilver · 2013-11-27 01:37 · Score: 1

It be better if all those names were revealed.
Perhaps it will make people think twice about accepting questionable jobs. At this point the NSA apparently thinks it is god and can get away with them. Having half their spies brutally murdered is much more likely to actually have some impact -- and they'd fucking deserve it too.

Re:Piffle by Shakrai · 2013-11-26 14:42 · Score: 2

Will we ever see something truly golden, as we did in WWII, with Axis units bumbling around looking for Americans to surrender to?

They weren't doing that because we were that awesome, they were doing it because the alternative was that bad. (*)

Eisenhower declared German POWs to be "disarmed enemy forces" (a term unknown in international law), depriving them of their protections under the Geneva Conventions (love him or hate him, GWB really didn't have any original ideas....) and effectively turning them into slave labor, a condiction that we keep them in for several years after the end of hostilities. I could tell you a bunch of anecdotal stories I've heard from German servicemen (**) but why bother when the raw numbers tell the tale? Survival rate in American and British captivity for a German prisoner: 99% Survival rate in Soviet captivity: 40%

(*) Some say the Japanese finally surrendered for the same reason, specifically that it was the Soviet declaration of war that finally convinced them all was lost, not the atomic bombs. Would you rather be occupied by the United States under Truman or the Soviet Union under Stalin?

(**) I have to tell one anecdotal story. I had the privilege of meeting a Germany artillery officer at the WW2 museum in New Orleans. He talked of his service towards the end of the war, and being instructed to fire on Soviet lines, then receiving orders to fire on Allied lines, then receiving orders to fire on Soviet lines, and so on. This was repeated for a few weeks, and each time the distance they had to travel to reach their designated firing point decreased. Finally they were able to fire on both advancing armies from a static position. Eventually they lost contact with HQ, and he asked his men if they wished to surrender to the Russians, or chance a swim across the Elbe to surrender to the Allies. To a man they all jumped in the river and threw their lot in with the Brits and Americans, even those who hailed from communities behind Soviet lines.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Re:Piffle by ebno-10db · 2013-11-26 14:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact that you conflate Snowden, Manning, Radack, Rowley, et al, with actual traitors, like the conspirators in Lincoln's assassination, the Rosenbergs (or at least Julius), et al (why did you omit the Walkers?) shows that you suffer from from an extreme authoritarian streak and an inability to use judgment. You seem to think that everyone that the US government claims did something to endanger the "national security" is a traitor. Learn to think for yourself.

P.S. For people like the Walkers, I think they should have brought back drawing and quartering. Some of the other people you mention should have monuments erected to them.

Something is wrong by future+assassin · 2013-11-26 14:45 · Score: 1

If they are stating that its the tip of the iceberg then seems they would say this if they want other nations or criminals to try and get their hands on it and hopefully kill Snowden in the attempt. This would clear their hand off Snowden and then it'll be much easier to kill that person/group or buy the files off them.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 14:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic

JFK's motorcade had more than one car in it, right? I assume the first couple black limos passing by would be a good indicator to get that itchy trigger finger ready. No need to lean out and see the cars coming from far away. Also, recall there was a gigantic crowd lining the road? I suspect I could tell when the motorcade was coming while blindfolded, from the approaching wave of shouting and clapping. I can't conclusively say this would have worked; I wasn't in the room when it happened (... or was I? ... No, I was not, on account of not nearly having been born yet ... or was I?).

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by TheGratefulNet · 2013-11-26 15:00 · Score: 1

we want the NSA and its thugs to be disbanded.

I'd say, whatever it takes, do it! if some people who were bad players get exposed, OH WELL! I won't cry any tears for them.

sorry. but I just won't. its an evil organization that has no place in modern society. the sooner we get rid of such orgs, the better.

protect no one who participated in such illegal activities. make the next generation fear for their lives if they consider working for such places.

its the only way to fix this horrible problem we have now.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Fuck Amerikkka by hutsell · 2013-11-26 15:03 · Score: 1

I misread your post as "God Fuck America". The way we are going, we are doing a damn good job of doing it all by ourselves.

Easy mistake. Abraxas: [ (evil + d = devil) + (good - o = god) % do ]

Just a doffing of the hat to Demian.

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why

Re:Piffle by hax4bux · 2013-11-26 15:06 · Score: 2

You think Raymond McGovern and Thomas Drake are traitors? (I am not so familiar w/the others).

AFAIK, Ray McGovern has never been charged with anything. And are you really going to defend Trailblazer?

You are absolutely correct about what happens to most of these people (deserving of punishment or not).

I'm pretty sure Ray McGovern and Thomas Drake are good guys(tm).

Sophisticated encryption? by PPH · 2013-11-26 15:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why?

The NSA already knows what is in these documents. The documents are theirs. Who would Snowden be hiding them from and why the sophistication?

Hide them just out of plain sight, so to speak. And when some accident should befall Snowden, the cron job times out and an e-mail with location and simple decryption instructions goes out to the world. Or the simple key is split between a large group of people in such a way that a small subset of them is all that's needed to open the vault, so to speak.

Snowden isn't hiding anything from the NSA that they don't already know. All he needs to do is to keep one of his aids from 'turning the nuclear key' on his own.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Sophisticated encryption? by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-11-26 15:34 · Score: 1

an e-mail with location and simple decryption instructions goes out to the world.
Where it is immediately added to a bunch of SPAM lists and it ends up in the bit-bucket with all those messages from Nigerian relatives.
DOH!
Re:Sophisticated encryption? by BitZtream · 2013-11-26 23:59 · Score: 1

The whole story turned into a lie for me the instant it said anything about only decrypting it during a small time window each day. Some one who makes that statement, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about. Everything else you must assume is also wrong in every possible way.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by WaffleMonster · 2013-11-26 15:19 · Score: 1

If he's a whistle-blower, then blow the fucking thing already. I understand that he is on the run, sorta, but why not just come out with it all? All the spy-vs-spy bullshit just makes me think that the whole Snowden thing is bullshit itself. I don't get it.

As far as I understand it Snowden is only releasing information to the press. The press is disclosing information as they deem appropriate.

If you take Snowden at his word he does not want his information to cause unnecessary harm hence the adult supervision (e.g. Press)

Re:Piffle by Kaenneth · 2013-11-26 15:30 · Score: 1

My grandfather (aircraft mechanic for the Germans) was forced to work in a coal mine for several years after the war, but later moved to America, and worked for Boeing.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by femtobyte · 2013-11-26 15:33 · Score: 1

If Snowden was remotely smart (and, there are reasonable indications he is), then Greenwald and friends already have a list of checksums for unreleased documents. Whatever Snowden sends them, if it doesn't match a checksum, then they'll know it's been modified after the initial transfer. And the KGB would be told about this little arrangement too, so they wouldn't waste their time trying.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 15:33 · Score: 1

Oswald's rifle could not have been zeroed for the angle of the shot, the FBI determined this, and that the scope was not well zeroed in the first place. When you shoot steeply up or down, the shots will land high relative to the flat level zero. The scope would have required shimming under the rear base to adjust for the cosine angle. Otherwise, one would have to know the approximate change in hold-over, and make the adjustment in sight picture on the fly.

Basically, without training to shoot from the sixth floor to a target 100m away, it ain't gonna happen. Where did he train?

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by blackraven14250 · 2013-11-26 15:38 · Score: 1

Any information attributed to Snowden so far, though, has been in Greenwald's hands for a long time (since Hong Kong, IIRC). He's said that he has a lot more to release, and so it's not unreasonable to think that anything coming from Greenwald has nothing to do with the Russians.

Sure by argStyopa · 2013-11-26 15:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is why I've said from the beginning that, if only for PR purposes, the US is most likely working the hardest to KEEP HIM ALIVE.

Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad HIMSELF could walk up and knife Snowden, and it would be blamed entirely on the US.

--
-Styopa

Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 19:49 · Score: 1

He was probably payed by the CIA to kill Snowden.
You are not paranoid enough, now that we know that all those surveillance state movies on TV were actual documentaries.
Re:Sure by schlachter · 2013-11-27 04:36 · Score: 1

Interesting...so does it follow that while this dead mans switch may protect him from the USA gov, it makes him a huge target for all other countries that want to see this data released?

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Zakabog · 2013-11-26 15:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh, good point, a former Marine Corps sharpshooter would have no idea that shooting down at a steep angle would affect the trajectory of the bullet...

Re:If they're afraid by weilawei · 2013-11-26 15:50 · Score: 1

I think you overestimate the number of people on this planet qualified to develop new cryptographic algorithms and analyze them properly. Implementation is vastly simpler, and a skilled programmer with a basic knowledge of crypto and physics can produce a reasonably secure implementation for most common uses. Dealing with every possible side-channel attack in the design of the algorithm is another ballgame.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-26 16:11 · Score: 2

No matter what you think about who it was who killed Kennedy, one thing for sure is that there was a conspiracy to obfuscate all of the facts about the assassination.

Oswald may well have acted alone, on his own initiative. In that case, the real conspiracy happened over the course of the next twenty years. The question is, why was there such an effort to confuse the whole story? To create confusion and doubt in the minds of Americans?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by hutsell · 2013-11-26 16:36 · Score: 3, Informative

... Where did he train?

The Marine Corps. There are 3 levels: marksman, sharpshooter and expert. He was rated as a sharpshooter in 1956. In a 1959 test, his ability declined to marksman.

By the way, his brother (still alive) feels Lee was a whack job that was doing it on his own. Didn't know he had a brother near his own age — the surprises never end.

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why

Stop pretending Snowden is competent. by tpstigers · 2013-11-26 17:07 · Score: 1

He was a government contractor. Government contracts go to organizations that are good at getting government contracts, NOT organizations that are any good at what they are hired to do. The Affordable Care Act website is a recent example of this. FEMA and the Pentagon have been giving us glowing examples for years (decades in the Pentagon's case). Snowden isn't some kind of security superstar. He's a third-rate hack.

Re:Stop pretending Snowden is competent. by ian_billyboy_morris · 2013-11-26 19:26 · Score: 2

I used to work for a UK government contractor, some of the people I worked with are very very talented people, the problem is the massive layers of useless middle management and procedures designed to stop anything getting done not the coders and techies. That being said, despite being one of those "pinko commie" types, I'm far happier in the private sector where I can actually get stuff done.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-11-26 17:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't the trees block a lot more of the road than they did then?

Sorry, I didn't know anything about the trees back then.

See, I am not a born American. I am a naturalized American and I did not arrived at America until the early 1970's.

Furthermore, I spent most of my stay in America in the Boston area (and later in the Silicon Valley). I only go to Dallas occasionally on business trips.

Back when Oliver Stone was shooting his JFK movie (no pun intended) in Dallas I happened to be there for a conference, and both the Dallas local newspapers (Dallas Morning News as well as Dallas Times Herald) were having a field day on Oliver Stone's project (they were looking for old cars and things like that) and I thought to myself, since I was in Dallas, I might as well check out the scene at Dealey Plaza.

I was very lucky indeed.

When I went up the 6th floor, nobody was there, and seeing that the plexiglass barrier was removed I simply walked into that room (they had some empty boxes there as props) and started to check out that window that were shown so many times on tee vee.

And when I said I had to extend at least 60% of my torso OUTSIDE THE WINDOW in order to aim my "virtual rifle" towards that spot where JFK was shot, I wasn't kidding.

That angle of line the bullets travelled towards that exact spot where JFK was killed (if the killer actually fired from the 6th floor) would only allow a very slim degree of freedom.

If you guys would to check the book depository building, you would know that the very windows Lee Harvey Oswald was said to have used was at the LEFT SIDE of the building (looking from inside the building).

With Dealey Plaza at the RIGHT SIDE of the building, viewing from that 6th floor window, the book depository building itself has blocked much of view.

Someone commented alluding skeet shooting and clay pigeon ... well ... anyone who have tried skeet shooting would know that in order to successfully shoot at the flying clay pigeon there should not be ANY ANGLE RESTRICTION.

Unfortunately, the angle of restriction is massive, if you were to shoot from that 6th floor window.

In fact, that very day I almost fell out of that fucking windows because I was trying so hard to "get my shot".

Someone replied that it's not hard to aim at JFK since it's a motorcade and they're not travelling fast ... well ... let me ask you:

It's a motorcade, which means, it's a convoy of cars.

WITHOUT KNOWING WHICH CAR JFK was travelling, how would I, the shooter, know which head to position my scope's crosshair at ?

You guys need to understand that there were no iPAD or any smartphone back in 1963, as there were also NO INSTANTANEOUS LIVE CAM COVERAGE online.

If you were Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have left your house pretty early in the day, you would have NO IDEA which car JFK was travelling on, or how many cars are there in the motorcade, in the first place.

Which means, you NEED SOMEONE TO TELL YOU, or you NEED TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF, before you train your scope at your target's head.

I am no expert on JFK's assassination. I was not inside the United States of America when that happened.

I was merely curious.

My conclusion COULD BE WRONG, and I welcome anyone to proof me wrong.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by BlueStrat · 2013-11-26 17:49 · Score: 1

I remember being 7 years old and watching TV when Kennedy was shot, and seeing it all unfold, the Secret Service agents running after the limo and the shocked news announcer. I was stunned. That was a lot to take in for a 7-yo, and it was just myself and a friend at his house with no adults present at that moment (his mother ran across the street to borrow something).

The actual shots were only about 80 to 100 yards. I can put rounds into a 6-inch wide circle at 100 yards quite reliably with a decent bolt-action rifle like a 6.5mm 91/38 Carcano using a 4x scope, and I have no military training and don't go to the range every chance I have.

I'm confident that I would stand an excellent chance of hitting that circle if it was moving like the limo did in relation to Oswald's viewpoint, with target-travel mostly directly away, and only a very slow lateral target-picture movement. Especially if I had the chance to put a hundred rounds or more through the rifle at a range prior, so that I knew the weapon.

I'm no marksman, just an occasional hunter. IMHO there's nothing that amazing about Oswald's shots. If he was aiming at Kennedy alone, which I must assume he was, then he missed more than he hit.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

How would Obama fit in ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-11-26 17:56 · Score: 1

Just curious.

If Obama were to attend that party, how would he fit in ?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:How would Obama fit in ? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-11-27 04:21 · Score: 1

If Obama were to attend that party, how would he fit in ?
Bringing the menorah.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Nuke it from orbit by drolli · 2013-11-26 18:29 · Score: 1

it's the only way to be sure.....

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 18:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

There is war, there is cold war and now there is.. by 3seas · 2013-11-26 19:59 · Score: 2

..... the ironic war.

Well... by jolyonr · 2013-11-26 20:16 · Score: 1

The files are stored on the ISS, and can only be unlocked by a direct laser link communication channel.

Isn't that obvious?

--

Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-11-26 21:37 · Score: 2

Motorcycle cops.

Kennedy was in the first limo, preceded by a motorcycle escort. The Secret Service cars followed.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Maritz · 2013-11-26 22:23 · Score: 1

Conclusion: If there was a conspiracy it would be public knowledge by now. Boring.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by kbg · 2013-11-26 22:27 · Score: 1

Are you mentally challenged? You of course just stand in the window normally and watch when the motorcade arrives AND THEN you go into the prone position. And of course the trees have grown a lot since 1963.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Maritz · 2013-11-26 22:27 · Score: 1

My conclusion COULD BE WRONG, and I welcome anyone to proof me wrong.

I find you very unpersuasive and can't imagine anyone would be bothered 'proving' you wrong. It's just mystery mongering anyway.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-11-26 22:47 · Score: 2

there was a conspiracy to obfuscate all of the facts about the assassination.

Every part of the response - during the shooting, the autopsy, the analysis of the shooting, official hearing, etc - was incompetent. People had no idea what happened, no idea what they were doing, so they screwed everything up and tried to fix things up after the official narrative emerged.

In addition, supposedly several members of Kennedy's Administration believed that Oswald was working for Castro. And they believed that if that was revealed, there would be an unstoppable public demand for an invasion of Cuba, which they knew would trigger a war with Russia. So they tried to quash speculation, in the stupid clumsy arrogant way of authorities (particularly at the time), which succeeded only in making things worse.

Put it all together, and it created enough noise onto which conspiracy nuts can project any scenario they want. Shooter on the grassy knoll, the driver shot Kennedy, the following Secret Service (no CIA!) agent accidentally/deliberately shot Kennedy, or that Governor Connally shot Kennedy because he was having an affair with the First Lady and JFK had just found out... CIA, LBJ, the mob, etc...

he question is, why was there such an effort to confuse the whole story? To create confusion and doubt in the minds of Americans?

Conspiracy theories make money. Books, lectures, movies, TV specials. And believing conspiracy theories makes you feel... like you're inside the secret circle. Better than the sheeple around you.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-26 23:14 · Score: 1

Even the official report says the same bullet entered JFK three times.

Except the article you quoted didn't actually say that. Nor do even the dumbest conspiracy advocates believe the Warren Commission ever claimed that.

There was a miss (probably caused by an obstruction), then a pause while Oswald moved from standing to crouching, then two hits. All the witnesses on the corner near the book depository heard all three shots come from the book depository, and all reported the same approximate timing.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by jbolden · 2013-11-26 23:14 · Score: 1

He had shared information with Glen Greenwald, and possibly others by then. Most likely had be been arrested WikiLeaks would have released far more information than what he's been giving to Greenwald.

As far as the public not understanding,or not understanding I think you may have dropped a word. What I do think happened was by keeping it in the news he's given time for people to change their attitude towards domestic surveillance. The original distraction and shock techniques didn't work because they news kept coming.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by jbolden · 2013-11-26 23:17 · Score: 1

Snowden is doing something that Putin agrees with. Why would Putin interfere?

Remember that Snowden is in regular contact with Glen Greenwald. Russia can't just release information attributed to Snowden because other people are talking to Snowden directly. From Russia's perspective they are getting what they want, and good PR already.

Re:Mod parent up! by alex67500 · 2013-11-26 23:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Seeing that I was a young boy in Dallas when this happened and actually got to shake his hand earlier in the day...

Could you please make sure we never shake hands?

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Thruen · 2013-11-27 00:29 · Score: 2

I'm impressed, you've concluded beyond any doubt what experts apparently couldn't put together themselves no matter how much time they were allowed in that very same room. You should call the FBI and let them know they're not needed anymore, we can send you to crime scenes with your uncanny abilities and let you solve murder mysteries.

Is this guy serious?

Re:Piffle by strikethree · 2013-11-27 00:47 · Score: 1

Crap. I wish I had saved a mod point for you. This comment is one of the rare ones that deserves to be +6 informative/insightful. It is a shame it is only +3.

To me, being an American meant you were trustworthy. Seeing the Red White and Blue on a uniform should inspire relief, not fear.

Now... ? I still love my country, but I should not have to say but... and I do. I am sad.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by segedunum · 2013-11-27 01:58 · Score: 1

We all know the lone assassin thing was and is crap. As for who and why, that's another story.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Politburo · 2013-11-27 02:33 · Score: 1

The shooting was not shown live on TV.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by f3rret · 2013-11-27 02:42 · Score: 1

No matter what you think about who it was who killed Kennedy, one thing for sure is that there was a conspiracy to obfuscate all of the facts about the assassination.

Oswald may well have acted alone, on his own initiative. In that case, the real conspiracy happened over the course of the next twenty years. The question is, why was there such an effort to confuse the whole story? To create confusion and doubt in the minds of Americans?

Actually, there's a fair deal of evidece coming out of now open or leaked KGB documents that the KGB (amongst others, probably) were all fairly interested in feeding the conspiracy, they had a whole department whose task it was to create and disemminate false documents; everything from fake intelligence documents to fake news stories like this one.

I have the actual source references at home, but I don'thave access to them at the point of writing, but you should be able to dig them up. Fun fact the KGB were also interested in UFO stories, mainly cus' back in the cold war stories of flying saucers could tie up airforce resources like nothing else. You kinda have to take "there is something in the skies" quite serious when you're living in a world where "surprise nuclear air/missile strike" is a real possible occurance.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by f3rret · 2013-11-27 02:46 · Score: 1

Where did he [Oswald] train?

The military.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-27 02:50 · Score: 1

Every part of the response - during the shooting, the autopsy, the analysis of the shooting, official hearing, etc - was incompetent.

When there is incompetence at certain places along the line, you can chalk it up to incompetence. When there is incompetence at every step in the line, and in regard to the assassination of a President, it really starts to stretch credulity.

And the incompetence also stretched back in time. The CIA and the FBI were tracking Oswald, knew him very well. They had tracked him to Mexico where he met with Castro's guys very shortly before the assassination and they knew about the meeting. They knew he was in Dallas the day of the assassination.

Again, I have no reason to believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President, but law enforcement tend to be pretty competent generally. The notion that all of them along the line would have been incompetent, and then all of the investigators being incompetent, and all of the doctors doing the autopsy being incompetent, all at the same time, suggest either a conspiracy to obfuscate or a coincidence of very unusual scale.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:This is why I don't trust this guy by BringsApples · 2013-11-27 03:00 · Score: 2

Ok, WaffleMonster, don't take this personally, as I'm just going to blert this out for anyone that cares to get this far down into this comment.

With the information being spooled out to the public, it has caused the public to:
1) Become only slightly outraged
2) Want to hear more, but can't
3) Become numb to the news

Now numbers 1 & 2 are a simple setup for the 3rd. I feel that the numbness to "spying" is the only thing that's being achieved.

Regarding the release of information, if you want the most numbers to be affected by the information, you would be smart to release the information in a very generic way. For instance, if you own a business that sells an array of stuff, and you want folks to come shop there, it's a good idea to have a sale. However if you advertise "Bowling balls on sale now!" then you'll attract only people that need bowling balls. If you simply advertise "SALE!" then folks will come brows the store looking for sale items, and hopefully, but something that they didn't know that they needed. Walmart does this with their "Watch out for falling prices!" scheme.

So the question still stands; why isn't the information available to us all? it's supposed to be information that is vital to the construction of our society(s). It's supposed to be information that reveals wrong-doing by the elected officials of our land. It's supposed to be information that could be understood and digested so to allow the citizens a method to undermine further problems like this. But, at this point, to me, it's all smoke and mirrors. It's reasoning, I have no clue. But it's certainly a battle between Snowden (surely others) and the US government, as The People are simply used like a child in a divorce.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-11-27 03:35 · Score: 2

Some incompetence, not total simultaneous incompetence. Not even incompetence by the standards of a routine event at the time. Just incompetence by the standards we retrospectively demand of such an important issue.

It was a novel situation, clearly no one knew how to handle it. The autopsy was handled as they would any autopsy - they didn't foresee the level of suspicion and demand for additional information that would arise almost immediately, and grow exponentially. If they had, they would have documented everything to a fine degree, stored every sample in a specially built centre, brought in the leading experts in every appropriate field, run every test that existed. Instead, they just did a standard limited autopsy on someone whose head had been very publicly blown off. Cause of death: "Well, duh".

Likewise the CIA/FBI monitoring of Oswald. He defected to Russia, then changed his mind and came back, he was written off as an idiot by everyone, US, Russians, Cubans, so of course they kept him only under low level surveillance. They were probably hoping he would defect to Cuba so they'd be rid of him, but the Cubans didn't want him either. (That's what fuels much of the conspiracy nonsense, I think. That such a low-level douche-bag like Oswald could kill an American President! But they always turn out to be low-level douche-bags. Kennedy, Lennon, Reagan, Oklahoma City, Boston Marathon...)

It's the same with the Secret Service. By the standard of the modern Secret Service, the Dallas motorcade was a violation of every possible protocol, and the response to the first shot a massive failure of training. But, of course, those protocols and training were brought in precisely because of the Kennedy assassination.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by njnnja · 2013-11-27 03:49 · Score: 2

I think that people of the day just couldn't handle the simple truth, so they made the story complex so that it could conform to their preconceived opinions. Many people on the left were sympathetic to Marxism/Communism during the cold war, and so it was hard for them to believe that a Communist sympathizer would assassinate their icon. People on the right believed in the superiority of the West, and the successful assassination of a US president by a good old American boy who was converted to the superior ideology of Communism would be a Soviet victory that was equally difficult to accept. And people in the middle were uncomfortable believing that their leader was so vulnerable that a single person couldn't possibly have done it.

Therefore, for most people, anything else - the mob, the CIA, aliens - was preferable to reality.

Re:Schneier != superman of security by mrex · 2013-11-27 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Schneier = another built up by press figure only.

What?! Schneier is the author of Applied Cryptography, the essential text in the field. He's the creator of the Blowfish and Twofish algorithms. His information security firm, Counterpane Systems, was bought out in an eight figure deal by British Telecom. His blog, Schneier On Security, is one of the most closely followed by infosec professionals and digital liberties advocates. In short: Schneier's reputation in the information security industry as an expert par excellence is hard-earned and well-deserved, his credentials singularly impressive, and his ratio of positions staked to positions invalidated unusually high.

No, Schneier's impressive CVs don't validate arguments supported merely on invocation of his name, and certainly no one is superman or is incapable of error or omniscient even within a field of expertise. To label Schneier's reputation as "a built up by press figure only", however, is singularly ridiculous.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by Loki_1929 · 2013-11-27 05:03 · Score: 1

Apparently he also would have no idea that firing as the motorcade was approaching the turn was about 1000x easier a shot. The ground was level, it wasn't too close to the building so as to make it an uncomfortable shot, and he'd have had enough time for 5 or 6 shots easily (though he'd only need 1). Seriously, check out the game "JFK Reloaded" which actually gives a good perspective on the view from the spot where Oswald supposedly took the shot. It's ridiculously easier to take the shot as the motorcade is approaching. Taking the shot when Oswald supposedly did is insane; the angle is terrible, elevation is changing, direction is changing, there are trees in the way; it's just awful. Shoot straight on and you get a clear, level, easy shot that just about anyone with minimal training could make.

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-11-27 06:22 · Score: 1

Apparently also pushed white supremacist groups, believing that the US was on the brink of a race war.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by f3rret · 2013-11-27 07:00 · Score: 1

Apparently also pushed white supremacist groups, believing that the US was on the brink of a race war.

Yup, you can do all sortsa things if you're a little clever about your black (no pun intended) propaganda.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by BlueStrat · 2013-11-27 07:18 · Score: 1

The shooting was not shown live on TV.

Well, I was 7. I was on my way home from a half-day of school and stopped at a classmate's home and, standing in their living room, watched and listened to the reports. Maybe they didn't show the shooting live, but it seems like footage was presented within a very short period of time. Or maybe my ~50-yr-old memory of that day got mixed with news reports later that day showing the footage of the shooting.

It was still pretty shocking to a 7-yo.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-27 08:41 · Score: 1

But why are most of the Kennedy Conspiracy theorists on the Right, if it's true that conspiracies arose because the Left couldn't handle the truth?

You just don't find a lot of the conspiracy theorists on the Left and you never did. Oliver Stone just had a hard-on for the government when he made his movie. There's nothing in the movie that's particularly "Marxist/Communist", and he came very late to the game. When JFK was made, those theories were already very well-developed. He didn't present anything new. Even today, the only place you're going to hear that stuff is on the regional right-wing talk shows.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by dnavid · 2013-11-27 08:41 · Score: 1

And when I said I had to extend at least 60% of my torso OUTSIDE THE WINDOW in order to aim my "virtual rifle" towards that spot where JFK was shot, I wasn't kidding. That angle of line the bullets travelled towards that exact spot where JFK was killed (if the killer actually fired from the 6th floor) would only allow a very slim degree of freedom.

Someone seems to have put together a youtube slideshow using Warren Commission photos of a Secret Service reenactment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc. The photos suggest that Oswald would have both had ample opportunity to observe the motorcade as it first approached the building from the side he was at, and then fire shots at Kennedy as the motorcade turned and began driving away from the building with no serious issue with shooting angles.

WITHOUT KNOWING WHICH CAR JFK was travelling, how would I, the shooter, know which head to position my scope's crosshair at ?

As the reenactment photos reveal, Oswald would have been able to observe the motorcade as it approached and made the turn directly in front of his position. Kennedy would have been easily observable as his car turned almost directly below Oswald. In fact, the reenactment seems to suggest the obvious sequence of events: Oswald observed the motorcade as it approached, and as Kennedy's car got close Oswald got a very good look at Kennedy but the presidential limo entered a defilade position and Oswald had to wait for the limo to complete its turn and then begin driving away from his position in order for Oswald to get a good shot.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by rakslice · 2013-11-27 13:36 · Score: 1

"When you shoot steeply up or down, the shots will land high relative to the flat level zero." Does high mean an error in the same direction whether it's steeply up or steeply down? What causes that?

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by stoatwblr · 2013-11-28 07:15 · Score: 1

The _real_ JFK conspiracy is the one to cover up the catalog of incompetence which allowed the event to happen.

Far easier to alow stories about a second gunman to proliferate than to admit how many things they cocked up in a short period of time.

Think I'm kidding? The stock in trade of any government is "denial, diversion, delay and closing ranks" and we all seen it happen on multiple occasions.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by stoatwblr · 2013-11-28 07:19 · Score: 1

"When there is incompetence at certain places along the line, you can chalk it up to incompetence. When there is incompetence at every step in the line, and in regard to the assassination of a President, it really starts to stretch credulity."

Really? Have you seen how many cockups it takes to cause a nuclear meltdown?

"You need to defend against every assassination threat. The assassins only need to succeed once"

Even if most people are competent, the pressure to cover for the incompetent one when the event is over, is overwhelming.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by stoatwblr · 2013-11-28 07:25 · Score: 1

"scope was not well zeroed in the first place"

How many scopes do you know that stay zeroed after being banged around - and bear in mind Oswald WAS a trained sharpshooter with a pretty good marksmanship record.

The ironic hting was, Kennedy wouldn't have been an overly remarkable president if he'd stayed alive. He's a modern example of the old adage that killing people makes them into martyrs.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by thunderclap · 2013-11-28 13:35 · Score: 1

actually I believe him because he has no agenda otherwise he wouldn't have posted it. You are aware that after 50 yrs the whole assassination is still sealed? Why? because it can still do damage to American interests. My guess is CIA helped him at LBJ request.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by PopeRatzo · 2013-11-28 14:26 · Score: 1

"You need to defend against every assassination threat. The assassins only need to succeed once"

It wasn't the assassination that reeks of conspiracy. It was the unbelievable efforts made to obfuscate the investigation, the handling of the prisoner, the followup investigation, the surveillance on Oswald, etc. All the way to the Warren Commission and beyond, everything seemed to be handled for maximum confusion.

And finally, the fact that so much of the official documentation of all of the above was classified, and much still remains unreleased.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:That room on the 6th floor of the Book Deposito by stoatwblr · 2013-12-01 21:10 · Score: 1

That is exactly the point I was trying to make - the only conspiracy involved is that of covering up the staggerig levels of incompetence beforehand.

Heads should have rolled. They won't because the people involved are "too powerful"

Those documents will remain secret at least until the culpable parties are safely dead and buried.

Lest anyone think this is only of "historical interest", one only has to look at more recent history to see that the process of covering up and making anything which would expose [incompetence OR non/malfeasance in office] "classified" has become even more entrenched in beureaucratic mindsets than it was 50 years ago.

Re:Another jew built up by jew media by mrex · 2013-12-04 06:29 · Score: 1

Look, it's somewhere off in la-la land to imagine that Bruce Schneier is some sort of plutocratic/semitic manchurian candidate or Emmanuel Goldstein, but if you are willing to ignore contradictory evidence in order to maintain that opinion, I can't help you. All I can do is what I did: to point out that Schneier's magnificent reputation is not some kind of manufactured "put-on" by the media, it's hard-earned and entirely legitimate. You might have just begun hearing his name, but for good reason he's been regarded as an authority held in supremely high esteem by the cryptographic, information security, and digital liberties communities for decades.

You a jew too? You sound it, since money and gold = your God.

I stopped paying attention somewhere around there, although I was bored earlier.

Not a racist.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. If you actually believe what you just wrote, you are quite a racist. Your whole world-view is informed primarily by what race people are and how you imagine that it relates to their individual traits, pursuits, goals, and what twisted conspiracies they hold membership in.

Slashdot Mirror

Intelligence Officials Fear Snowden's 'Doomsday' Cache

237 of 381 comments (clear)