Slashdot Mirror


Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists

HughPickens.com writes The Intercept reports that contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA surveillance that examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups has found no correlation in either measure to Snowden's leaks about the NSA's surveillance techniques. According to the report "well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them (PDF)." In fact, concerns about terrorists' use of sophisticated encryption technology predates even 9/11.

Earlier this month former NSA head Michael Hayden stated, "The changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups following the Snowden revelations have impacted our ability to track and monitor these groups", while Matthew Olsen of the National Counterterrorism Center would add "Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance." Snowden's critics have previously accused his actions of contributing from everything from the rise of ISIS to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. "This most recent study is the most comprehensive repudiation of these charges to date," says Murtaza Hussain. "Contrary to lurid claims to the contrary, the facts demonstrate that terrorist organizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."

14 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Biggest joke a hundred years later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone risked everything to reveal to the public what an asshole your government is, yet you wouldn't believe him and you call him traitor, and you make up thousands of reason explaining why your government has to be an asshole, despite that you really don't really believe it is.

    American people are insane. Perhaps they deserve it.

    1. Re:Biggest joke a hundred years later by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless of what else you think he is, he is clearly also a Patriot.

      FTFY

  2. It it never had much effect on terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow what a surprise, who would have thought that terrorists where carefull with their communications?

    So its clear then that the NSA was doing this for economical reasons, getting better trade agreements, giving US companies a competitive advantage and such.

    Countries should investigate their trade agreements and find how much they lost due to NSA spying and demand trade agreements where the difference is calculated in favor of those other countries. So yes then Snowden did harm US interest, but unless you thing the US are gods and everyone else puny slaves, that's a good thing.

  3. At some point us intelligence changed by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.

    That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.

  4. Liars are liars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Based on past behaviour, I won't believe anything NSA and their buddies say. Anything.

  5. The sad part is... by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No matter how conclusively this is proven, these idiot officials will continue to use Snowden as their scapegoat.

    1. Re:The sad part is... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The report is a lie.

      Terrorist groups have absolutely changed their behaviors and communications patterns to increase obfuscation and move attention away from their important operations. The United States National Security Agency, the US Military, and other terrorist operations have added increased layers of misdirection to better cover and draw attention away from their most critical activities.

    2. Re:The sad part is... by Phreakiture · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think they're idiots. I think that they think we are idiots.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    3. Re:The sad part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should we do that?

      The video(s) and cables that were leaked contained information that should have been public knowledge.
      The video of the US military accidentally killing a reporter, after it denied the event to the news agency that the reporter worked for.
      The war logs with exact real numbers of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      Who we are holding in GITMO, and why they were detained illegally.
      Selected State Department cables -- which played a role in bringing about the arab spring... To bad none of the revolutions seemed to have brought about lasting change.

      Which of these do you think we didn't have a right to know?

    4. Re:The sad part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They know for a fact most of "us" are complete idiots and/or too busy to give a shit about reality. Both are accurate. Go just try and talk to people about the corrupt government, the banks, crops, terrorism, the war on drugs, Afghanistan, or literally any single thing about which there are hundreds of books, articles, websites, reports, documentaries, and investigations these days. Most of them are completely ignorant or even if they actually did research, don't know shit, and vehemently defend their stupidity.

    5. Re:The sad part is... by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "... right to know?"

      You made that right up. There is no such thing as a right to know.

      There is such a thing though, as the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. That's difference between Snowden and Manning. A big one.

      Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the arguments against implementing the "Bill of Rights" at the dawn of our Republic. Many were concerned that if we enumerated specific rights, it would be assumed that those were all there were.

      That is not the case. The US constitution limits the power of the Federal government. It does *not* restrict the rights of the citizens. In fact, the Ninth Amendment clearly spells that out:
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  6. Re:Then please stop snooping on us by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance."

    Then please stop the surveillance. It doesn't work with the terrorists since they have changed how they communicate and you only get communications from innocent citizens.

    You still don't get it. The terrorists who are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance are us. There is no such thing as "innocent citizens".

  7. knew in 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He does not get credit for "starting a national conversation"

    According to who, you? Im my view, he most certainly does get credit for that because it's pretty obvious that the amount of dialog has increased substantially since his revelations.

  8. Re:knew in 2006 by towermac · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But we didn't in 2006, did we? Oh a few did, dismissed by the mainstream as gun loving preppers (mostly) or left wing Bush haters (a bit) and such.

    Dupe, blackmailed, or delusional. Those are the only 3 choices? Act of conscience not possible? Or do you just know him well enough to know that?

    Free man in Russia - we know he's not though, don't we? Oh he's probably free enough to walk down the street to the store or theater; assigned security in tow. But no, not free at all.

    He gave up pretty much everything, didn't he?