Slashdot Mirror
Glen Greenwald: Don't Trust Anonymous Anti-Snowden Claims
Glen Greenwald casts a scathing look at the claims (such as by the Sunday Times) that Edward Snowden's leaked information had been cracked by Russian and Chinese spy agencies. Greenwald compares Snowden to some other public figures against whom underhanded tactics were employed by the U.S. government. A slice: There’s an anonymously made claim that Russia and China “cracked the top-secret cache of files” from Snowden’s, but there is literally zero evidence for that claim. These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified. There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that, particularly since other government officials are constantly accusing both countries of successfully hacking sensitive government databases?
Anyone who has been following these Snowden-related news already knew the US government officials lied, lied, and lied repeatedly, lied to the world, lied to their own people, lied to their Congress, all without any consequences.
Anyone who still believed them would need to have zero capability in logical thinking, so what's the point in pointing out flaws in the logic of these statements?
After all, China and Russia are supposed to be the bad dude, and Snowden is supposed to be a traitor
Who are us to argue with the mighty Uncle Sam?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The encryption designed, implemented and deployed by the world's leading experts in the field was broken in a couple of years (and this occurred simultaneously in two other countries).
Yet crooks and criminals are using technology so advanced that GCHQ, NSA, .... cannot break it and governments start proposing ill thought through and half-baked laws about use of encryption and ask for back doors.
EITHER they were all encrypted with the same details and 'rubber hose' cryptanalysis was used [which would be both unlikely and a massive breach of operating procedures]
OR our beloved leaders are being at best misguided and/or disingenuous or at worst dissembling schemers [aka 'cock-up vs conspiracy']
If there was any danger to British Agents why were they not recalled a year ago when that claim was first made?Also, the whole argument is an attempt to justify the " Snoopers Charter ", as an excuse to spy on British Citizens . They want our information unencrypted because they say they can't do it themselves, yet Russia and China can? It is either a lie or an admission of complete irresponsibility and incompetance on behalf of Western Security.They are saying GCHQ and M.I.6. are unfit for purpose.What an admission. We should also remember that China would not give Snowden asylum,-why then would they want to unencrypt his files?Russia, likewise allowed asylum for a limited period with reluctance.
Is anyone buying this BS?
> It's absolutely predictable that those files would be cracked, why is that not more believable?
Cracking one of current strong cyphers is hella bigger news than some spying operations having to be terminated.
"Well, we had to move a few of our agents. Oh, and also, whole Internet needs to be rebuilt, and everything you did over HTTPS in the past and we sucked off the net will be readable in a year, after we plug in more computers".
PS: Not to mention the small detail that russkies weren't even supposed to have the encrypted files.
If Russia and/or China would have decrypted messages, they would most certainly not tell the rest of the world.
Similarly, they wouldn't publish it if they managed to locate enemy spies.
If somehow, this DID happen, the US government would most certainly not publish the fact that they knew.
Information is valuable.
Information the enemy thinks you don't have is invaluable.
The fact that this is published tells me it's most likely not true.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What's the weather like on your planet?
People expect the kind of shit the government is pulling from Russia and China, they just don't want it from countries which are actually *supposed* to be bastions of freedom.
By the way, that report was not picked up by most news agencies. BBC had it on their front page but since removed it. It seems that they smell a rat too.
Exactly. Whenever the issue of "damage from leaks" comes up, somebody will say "Ya know, people died because of Manning." And I'll concede that Manning's leaks were far less discriminate than Snowden's, with a much greater potential to compromise a solider in the field.
But name one. Do you honestly believe that if brave, brave Private Schmuckatelli had died to some nefarious sneak attack by The Enemy, betrayed by Manning, it would not be plastered all over Fox and CNN? We'd have tributes, pictures of his wife and kids and dog, interviews with his parents and everybody who ever knew him, lamenting over the loss of Private Schmuckatelli, press conferences, talking heads discussing whether Manning should get death or merely life in prison for his criminal responsibility in this matter. There is zero chance the government would not have exploited that death for maximum political gain.
But it never happened. Not once. Because nobody, nobody, not one person, died because of Manning's or Snowden's leaks. Won't stop them from claiming people did, though.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.