Slashdot Mirror


Federal Criminal Probe Being Opened Into WikiLeaks' Publication of CIA Documents (cnn.com)

A federal criminal investigation is being opened into WikiLeaks' publication of documents detailing alleged CIA hacking operations, CNN reports citing several U.S. officials. From the report: The officials said the FBI and CIA are coordinating reviews of the matter. The investigation is looking into how the documents came into WikiLeaks' possession and whether they might have been leaked by an employee or contractor. The CIA is also trying to determine if there are other unpublished documents WikiLeaks may have. The documents published so far are largely genuine, officials said, though they are not yet certain if all of them are and whether some of the documents may have been altered. One of the biggest concerns for the federal government is if WikiLeaks publishes critical computer code on how operations are conducted, other hackers could take that code and cause havoc overseas. Security expert Robert Graham, wrote on Tuesday: The CIA didn't remotely hack a TV. The docs are clear that they can update the software running on the TV using a USB drive. There's no evidence of them doing so remotely over the Internet. The CIA didn't defeat Signal/WhatsApp encryption. The CIA has some exploits for Android/iPhone. If they can get on your phone, then, of course they can record audio and screenshots. Technically, this bypasses/defeats encryption -- but such phrases used by Wikileaks are highly misleading, since nothing related to Signal/WhatsApp is happening. [...] This hurts the CIA a lot. Already, one AV researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak. We can develop anti-virus and intrusion-detection signatures based on this information that will defeat much of what we read in these documents. This would put a multi-year delay in the CIA's development efforts. Plus, it'll now go on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, which will erode morale.

142 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where is the Federal Criminal Probe into illegal spying by our own government?

    1. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It gets muddier when it comes to US operations that are not on US soil, and that's also supposed to help firm-up the distinction between the FBI as a mostly-conventional federal law enforcement agency that operates domestically and the CIA as an espionage agency that is supposed to operate outside of the borders of the United States.

      Obviously these distinctions are not as cut and dried as they're supposed to be, and it gets worse when the NSA and other agencies get involved. The compartmentalization that's supposed to prevent federal agencies from treading upon the rights those within the borders of the United States has been eroded in the name of the Wahr on Terrah to where if they want to circumvent, they can circumvent.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by oic0 · · Score: 2

      I see you posted "Anonymously" . Let me know how that works out for you lol.

    3. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where is the Federal criminal probe into State Department "anonymous sources"?

    4. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      NSA has been mining data since the 60's if not earlier. they would listen in on satellite telephone calls and later when the long distance US calls were routed via microwave they would intercept those as well. been legal for a long time

    5. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > The compartmentalization that's supposed to prevent federal agencies from treading upon the rights those within the borders of the United States has been eroded in the name of the Wahr on Terrah to where if they want to circumvent, they can circumvent.

      There's also that rule Obama signed right before Trump came in that lets them share data with everyone now. I'm not sure there's any clear line between the departments any more. Nor why Obama wanted to do something like that right before Trump came in.

      Given the CIA's long history of overthrowing governments, even democratic governments, to further US interests, I'm not sure what to make of things any longer.

    6. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis Trump that simply couldn't be addressed due to the charged political atmosphere, but might be addressable after some time has passed, especially if it's American agencies that decide to levy charges after a congress, tired of the antics, decides that it really has had enough.

      Obviously this is ignorant speculation, so take it with a grain of salt.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis

      Irrelevant and completely subjective. Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?

      I'm sorry, but I have a VERY hard time believing anything coming from the Dark Shadow Government. Remember, it was Clapper who said they didn't collect any data on any US citizen, only to have it come out that they collect a shit ton of data on everyone, not just those they are "watching".

      These people will lie with a straight face, and believe that they are entitled to lie about lying. AND if you trust your government still, you're just not paying attention or are so partisan that Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a conniption fit about it being from a Nazi or some shit.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?

      Interminable congressional investigations and literal yards of MSM reporting on even the fluffiest of details? What, were you asleep or something?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    9. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a very long time, one needed to be of above-average intelligence (including cognitive power and awareness of relevant information) in order to figure out that the government was a huge pack of liars.

      Modern technological advances, however, are giving us the ability to expose government corruption very publicly, so that much more ordinary people can see the plain truth. Their biases will only withstand the onslaught of evidence for so long.

      When "the masses" start accepting the reality of government corruption, and collectively realize that "necessary evil" is the only sane attitude to take when dealing with the government, we might see some real political pressure brought to bear on issues of transparency and public accountability.

      But...those wheels turn slowly.....

    10. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

      This is, by far, the weirdest nerd nitpick I've ever encountered in my 15 years on this site. Congrats to you, good sir.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    11. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      As has been pointed out elsewhere, the distinction between operating domestically and overseas was eroded when we started dealing with bits and bytes that flow around the world. Should the CIA stop an investigation of two foreign terrorists if they use an email server located in a US data center? I am not a fan of our intelligence agencies and tend to think that they've completely ignored civil rights. But I'm also cognizant that separating domestic from foreign activities is no longer a good way to define the various agencies' behavior.

    12. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TWX · · Score: 1

      So you establish officers that act as liaisons between the agencies, and you establish a legal structure to allow for that domestic agency to apply for warrants.

      Oh wait, we did that. Then the Bush administration ignored the laws that were so loose that they allowed for after-the-fact warrants, not even seeking those.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    13. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      This is, by far, the weirdest nerd nitpick I've ever encountered in my 15 years on this site. Congrats to you, good sir.

      Not really, I don't have a clue what MSM means in contexts other than methylsulfonylmethane. It's trotted out in stupid political writings, but never explained.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    14. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      I didn't pick up on it right away, but searching for "MSM reporting" made it clear that they are referring to "MainStream Media".

    15. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by bongey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the Democrats still nominated her for the President.

      Clapper said Obama didn't order a wiretap on Trump , said nothing about whether wiretap actually happened.

    16. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by guises · · Score: 2

      I kinda like it, though I like it more for political reasons than I do for it's nerdy factor. MSM (as it's used on TV) is a buzzword intended to lump everyone who disagrees with you together into an outgroup - "You shouldn't listen to the MSM, they're all the same. Only we, who are not the MSM, only we are trustworthy."

      These kind of buzzwords get used for a lot of stuff. AGW, for example, was originally a denier phrase: global warming was becoming increasingly difficult to deny completely, so the 'A' was tacked on to imply that the human element wasn't certain. Go to Google and search for "climate change" and then search for "anthropogenic global warming" and compare the results - you'll get a lot more fringe sites and conspiracy theorists with the second search.

      Or how about Xbox One? Microsoft's marketing department thought that they could sell some additional Xbones by confusing people into thinking they were buying something else.

      Sure you can laugh at all the smoke and mirrors, but if you start adopting their terms then you're granting them, in some measure at least, exactly what they're after. So I appreciate this resistance to using the stupid buzzwords. It serves a function, even if it is pedantic.

    17. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You need to learn who the Archangel Michael really is. He could kick your butt in a fraction of a second. Not exactly a sheep, but more like the fiercest warrior you ever saw.

      That is, if he had ever actually existed...

    18. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by labnet · · Score: 1

      Haven't you worked out the purpose of the CIA yet?
      The CIA isn't for a peon like you, although you get a surprising side benefit. The CIA is the private spy agency for very big business; mainly oil and drugs. The side benefit for Americans is getting to live a lifestyle beyond your means because the petro/narco dollar allows for great purchasing power around the world.
      That said, I would still much rather the evil of the CIA than the KGB, NKVD, ISIS etal.

      --
      46137
    19. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by aod7br · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you US for current Brazil government

    20. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The reason for open data sharing. It enables pockets of corruption within various organisation to collude together without ringing alarm bells about that network traffic ie 'why is a senior FBI agent talking to the CIA that much, oh because he is a CIA agent operating illegally within the country corrupting investigation of the CIA conducting criminal activities within the country'. Still stupid though, the network can still be configured to ring alarm bells, they just open a quite investigation instead and eventually quietly force a retirement, yeah the FBI has a whole lot of housework to do hardware, software and wetware (that will be more explosive politically and media wise, especially how far the CIA went to corrupt investigations and genuine FBI agents being harmed as a result). The CIS investigating the CIA will not be anywhere near as harsh as the FBI investigating the CIA and the FBI has every reason to be super pissed off. Never forget the current US administration is pretty pissed off with the CIA at this time and you can bet there will be some real shit in there to haul the CIA across the coals, the more they look, the more they will find and revenge is sweet.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      > If Clapper had answered the questions posed to him in a PUBLIC hearing he would have been violating US law.

      But he did answer, and said 'no', instead of saying "I can't answer that." Lying to Congress is also a violation of US law, though it's one that only gets punished on political terms, so...

    22. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      But I'm also cognizant that separating domestic from foreign activities is no longer a good way to define the various agencies' behavior.

      It is when your couch is more likely to murder you than a terrorist. You're falling into the same authoritarian mindset that you have to surrender your Constitutional rights because it means somewhere, sometime, some pedophile might get away with it if law enforcement can't search his computer with a warrant.

      Stop doing that. And that's putting the fact that the worst purveyor of violence and terrorism in recent worldwide history is the United States aside entirely.

    23. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If Clapper had answered the questions posed to him in a PUBLIC hearing he would have been violating US law.

      Not when he was under oath in front of Congress, you authoritarian ankle grabber, you.

    24. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any evidence that her server was unpatched. I'm so sick of hearing about her email server.

      That's neat, I'm tired of hearing nonsensical excuses for her private email server. Which set set up a mere two years after attacking the the Bush Administration for their use of private email servers.

      she could probably find the right people to help her hire the right people to make her email way better than the department one

      See above on nonsensical excuses. When was the last time you heard of an email server getting hacked that serves the director of the CIA? The FBI? The Pentagon? Not some podunk Social Security office, but one for a high-level cabinet post or agency head that deals with highly classified information every minute of every day.

    25. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You need to learn who the Archangel Michael really is. He could kick your butt in a fraction of a second.

      Lulz. AM is a Randian whackjob, which means it is very, very easy to debate him as Randian whackjobs put their ideology before facts or reason.

    26. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis Trump

      I agree with that, but even if I didn't that last time we had a President who avoided security briefings we ended up with 9/11.
      Having a President who listens to shock jocks more than experts suggests some way to route around the damage and allow agencies to directly collaborate would be a good idea. Perhaps some kind of Central Intelligence Agency to allow all of the orgs to collaborate - it's kind of what it was set up for before all the comparmentilization.
      So maybe that's why it was done.

    27. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Seriously? After all the Russian stuff you are still bitching about Hillary, Powell, Rice and many others using private email as if it's anywhere near as important? Even Sarah Palin did the same sort of thing and even got her account hacked.

    28. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not much we can do about it, those Randy types are going to outbreed us.

      Why the fuck they take their "philosophy" from a book that's a thinly veiled "bring back the Tzar" piece of shit from someone who never understood that 1950s America was a shitload better than life under a Tzar I'll never know.

    29. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Although I appreciate most of your comment, I think you are grossly mischaracterizing mine. All nation-states need to do both domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. Those activities aren't going away. We have a framework for ensuring that civil liberties are protected while still allowing our agencies to engage in these necessary functions. Right now, however, there is a dual-threat. As you mention, there are those who are trying to erode civil liberties and using various (poor) justifications to do so. The other is that the current rules of engagement we have aren't very effective in the more globalized world in which we now live. In order to achieve a reasonable outcome, both will need to be addressed.

    30. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Judge Napolitano on the debacle:
      http://jewishworldreview.com/0...
      ===========
      "Here is the back story.

      The president can order the National Security Agency to spy on anyone at any time for any reason, without a warrant. This is profoundly unconstitutional but absolutely lawful because it is expressly authorized by the FISA statute.

      All electronic surveillance today, whether ordered by the president or authorized by a court, is done remotely by accessing the computers of every telephone and computer service provider in the United States. The NSA has 24/7/365 access to all the mainframe computers of all the telephone and computer service providers in America.

      The service providers are required by law to permit this access and are prohibited by law from complaining about it publicly, challenging it in court or revealing any of its details. In passing these prohibitions, Congress violated the First Amendment, which prohibits it from infringing upon the freedom of speech."
      ==============

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    31. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I did indeed look it up.

      The first three hits are to the chemistry definition. The first is this.. "MSM METHYLSULFONYLMETHANE: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions"

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    32. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The compartmentalization that's supposed to prevent federal agencies from treading upon the rights those within the borders of the United States has been eroded in the name of the Wahr on Terrah to where if they want to circumvent, they can circumvent.

      The compartmentalization has been gone for a long time. The NSA and other agencies forward intelligence which was gained in violation of the 4th to domestic law enforcement and parallel construction and other things prevent court review not that the court wouldn't find the practice acceptable somehow anyway.

  2. A government of the people, for the people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...but we can't tell you what we're doing with your money.

  3. Kill The Messenger by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Just like Snowden, let's ignore the purportedly criminal and corrupt activity of the US Government and it's elected thugs - and just kill the messenger. Sweep the body under the run and strong arm anyone with evidence to go away.
    Case Closed, mission accomplished, normality achieved.

    1. Re:Kill The Messenger by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Assassination by car hack (Michael Hastings)

      That's just the ability to do so. The military also has the ability to kill every human on the planet. It's only a problem if they're actually doing it.

      The intentionally putting everyone at risk by actively avoiding closing known security flaws - and allowing them to be exploited by foreign powers - goes directly against their stated reason to exist, but is more morally and professionally reprehensible than illegal.

      I agree, that is a serious problem, though not currently illegal to my knowledge. We have thousands of years of military history from which to create our philosophies of war, rules of engagement, proportional response, and the relationship between citizen and soldier. Not so with the cyber. We need to the ability to hack the enemy, but is it possible to do so while not leaving our own people defenseless?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Kill The Messenger by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikileaks is a highly political organization. They're not an equal opportunity leaker. The timing and subjects of their leaks is definitely geared toward specific political goals.

    3. Re:Kill The Messenger by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats what the Democrats told you.

      But in reality, the Democrats just have a lot lot lot lot lot more to hide.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Kill The Messenger by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That may be unethical conduct, but can you point to where it's actually illegal for any of the US security services to withhold knowledge of vulnerabilities? And really, why would that be their responsibility (okay, I grant you the NSA has played a pro-security role over the years)?

      I think people are missing the point that spying has always relied on vulnerabilities in a foreign actor's communications. In ye olden days that would mean cracking ciphers, finding ways of penetrating foreign powers' communications channels, and it has also mean "domestic" espionage, since sometimes a nation's own citizens can, knowingly or unknowingly, be used as conduits of sensitive information to foreign powers. The Lincoln Administration tapped every telegraph line coming into Union territory to catch any Confederate agents, and most certainly during the First and Second World Wars much the same occurred.

      Not that I want to defend everything spy agencies do, and certainly some of it appears to violate both legal and constitutional restraints, but the fact remains that electronic vulnerabilities are critical to gaining intel, and one can imagine why they wouldn't want to go around telling Apple or Samsung or anyone else "Hey, guess what, your devices have vulnerabilities that allow us to spy!" Of course, the counter-argument to that is that if the US and its allies know about these vulnerabilities, then almost certainly so do the Russians and Chinese.

      At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, national governments, including the government of the United States, have always partaken in espionage, and it is a critical activity of any nation state to guarantee the security of the nation and its citizens. That it can be abused is a given, which is why in general democracies have some sort of legislative and judicial oversight.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Kill The Messenger by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not sure that WikiLeaks is partisan issue at all. The Republicans hated it when it was leaking stuff they wanted hid (and the Democrats loved it), now the shoe is on the other foot, and the roles are reversed. I have said in the past, when people ask me how I view Snowden, I say he is a Traitorous Hero. They have no concept that he can legitimately be both Hero and Traitor. Such is the world painted with only black and whites.

      Which is why I find the whole (R) good/bad (D) bad/good arguments amusing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Kill The Messenger by pastafazou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're missing several key points.
      Michael Hastings was possibly assassinated by these very tools because he was investigating the director of the CIA.
      The CIA may have lost control of all of these tools to the hacking community at large
      The CIA may have been using these tools on US citizens.
      The CIA may have been using these tools as a politicized weapon.

    7. Re:Kill The Messenger by kiviQr · · Score: 1

      How is it criminal??? Based on what you are saying we should deleagalize any type of training that leads to killing someone; starting with police and ending with military. This is a cyberwar. The same way soldiers are tought to shoot and military devises tactics how to defend or attack CIA needs to practice as well and be ready.

    8. Re:Kill The Messenger by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's weird how Wikileaks was "just trying to get the information out there" and "serving the people" when they leaked information critical of a Republican, but now they're leaking information critical of Democrats, they're a "highly political organization" that's carefully timing their leaks. Or did you forget how Wikileaks came into being? When they leaked information about the Bush administration? I swear, it's like people on the Internet have the memory of a goldfish.

      Since people are going to inevitably make the accusations: I'm not a Republican, not a Trump supporter, and also not a Democrat, and not a Clinton supporter. Also not an Assange supporter (he's a jackass who's just claiming the US is going to extradite him to avoid facing the charges and to keep himself in the limelight), though WikiLeaks itself frequently serves a useful and necessary purpose. I just think people are so blinded by partisanship they can't see that both sides of the political aisle in the US are corrupt, self-serving corporate sellouts who need to be replaced.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Kill The Messenger by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I understand. Hastings' death was suspicious as fuck. I would very much like to see evidence if in fact Hastings was assassinated by the CIA. So far I have not.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Kill The Messenger by pastafazou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I don't think you're going to get the smoking gun email where dude says "kill him" and minion replies "ok, I hacked his car, he just accelerated into a tree". We have motive, means, opportunity, and suspicious cause of death. It certainly requires an investigation. But who investigates the CIA?

    11. Re:Kill The Messenger by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So, Just like Snowden, let's ignore the purportedly criminal and corrupt activity of the US Government and it's elected thugs - and just kill the messenger. Sweep the body under the run and strong arm anyone with evidence to go away.
      Case Closed, mission accomplished, normality achieved.

      Note your president. Who during the campaign relished the fact Wikileaks was helping him.

      Now that his presidency is being challenged by leaks, he's cracking down on whistleblowers, examining white house staff's phones (especially looking for apps like Signal), etc.

      Leaks that make him look good, he likes. Leaks that make him look bad, send in the marines.

    12. Re:Kill The Messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Installing malware/spyware is a crime in most countries. Should CIA be above local laws?

      There is also an ethical question. Who is the CIA spying on? Human rights NGOs, as we saw in the Snowden files, or just terrorists like ISIS?

    13. Re:Kill The Messenger by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wikileaks is a highly political organization. They're not an equal opportunity leaker. The timing and subjects of their leaks is definitely geared toward specific political goals.

      Why does that mean we should ignore what they leak?

    14. Re: Kill The Messenger by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      ake a look at what the rest of the world is saying on BBC and Al Jazeera.

      They are saying Europe is making a big mistake letting millions of refugees just roam around.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Kill The Messenger by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      It is really starting to look that way. A little beyond coincidence at this point.

    16. Re:Kill The Messenger by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Right. The difference is, we don't tell soldiers "here's where you might get shot; we could give you body armor, but then everyone would have it, so... good luck." Which is exactly what the CIA is doing.

      here's where you might get hacked; we could give you patches for these vulnerabilities, but then everyone would have them, so... good luck.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:Kill The Messenger by Altus · · Score: 1

      Or the Russians only cared about releasing the dirt they had on them, and not the republicans.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    18. Re:Kill The Messenger by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      "Legal or not" should not be the only deciding factor in government policy. I'd rather we secure the everloving fuck out of all of our devices than leave known security vulnerabilities for spies to pick up. Spies usually do more harm than good anyway, and the world benefits far more from having digital security. I'd rather kneecap other countries spies than bolster our own.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re:Kill The Messenger by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      It's weird how Wikileaks was "just trying to get the information out there" and "serving the people" when they leaked information critical of a Republican, but now they're leaking information critical of Democrats, they're a "highly political organization" that's carefully timing their leaks. Or did you forget how Wikileaks came into being? When they leaked information about the Bush administration?

      How dare you! How dare you make a well-formed argument on the internet, let alone Slashdot! You've become some sort of... civilian! Your civil manner and lack of froth emanating from your mouth is a disgrace to the barbarism we stand for! You're worse than literal slavery, you fascist! Even the Nazis wouldn't be so repugnant! #Internets ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    20. Re:Kill The Messenger by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Hint: Spying on US citizens is illegal....

    21. Re:Kill The Messenger by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Bay of Pigs....or do you need more...

    22. Re:Kill The Messenger by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And yet, as with so many things in human affairs, the baseline is where a lot of people live. I'm sure you don't go into a store, see a gallon of milk cost $3, go up to the teller and offer to pay $5, nor when you're driving down the road on a nicy dry sunny spring day and the maximum speed is posted at 30mph do you instead opt to drive at 20mph. If you want the baseline on anything to be higher (or lower, depending on how you want to place the limit), then that is where, legally, you have to put it. If you want security services to immediately publish vulnerabilities upon discovery, then you need to advocate for the laws to be changed to require it. These are spooks, they're not by the very definition of their jobs in the business of public dissemination of information. And indeed, this has always been recognized as such, which is the Founding Fathers created a government where the Executive branch is constrained and where Congress and the Courts have significant oversight powers.

      As to the claim that spies do more harm than good, what do you base that upon? Considering that much of the conduct of spies isn't known until decades later, if at all, how can you possibly assert that claim? It strikes me that what you're really trying to is conflate what is a value judgment with the effectiveness of spies in general. To be sure, I think some kinds of espionage, like hoovering up every bit that is transmitted on the Internet probably is going to create such a horrible signal-to-noise ratio that it may actually be counterproductive, but you cannot tell me that, for instance, gaining control of some Russian mole's cell phone and intercepting his calls, texts and emails, couldn't be of enormous value. What you would really be trying to claim is that espionage is a waste of time, which would be an absurd claim.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Kill The Messenger by fiver-hoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All the right wing people I know were calling for Manning to be publicly hung or publicly executed by firing squad. Outspoken conservative commentator Sean Hannity has gone on record as recently as last week that he was against Wikileaks and thought they were all traitors 10 years ago and is now a supporter.

    24. Re:Kill The Messenger by starblazer · · Score: 1

      Outspoken conservative commentator Sean Hannity has gone on record as recently as last week that he was against Wikileaks and thought they were all traitors 10 years ago and is now a supporter.

      until its his party under the microscope and under fire then.... OMGTREAAAAAAAASON

    25. Re:Kill The Messenger by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you don't know, you've got to be ignoring it, but

      When you monitor a call between a US citizen at home and one in a foreign country, you are spying on US citizens. When you purchase or suborn some other agency (say British intelligence) to spy on US citizens, you are spying on US citizens.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Kill The Messenger by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Pro tip: wikileaks isnt russian

      The only people saying "Russia Russia Russia!" are the Democrats, who sold 20% of the United States uranium reserves to.... Russia.

      The Democrats even let Russia invade and take over part of the Ukraine, who we were sworn to protect by treaty.

      Meanwhile in the real word, Wikileaks says it wasnt the Russians that hacked the DNC. The only people saying it was the Russians are Democrats.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    27. Re:Kill The Messenger by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I do advocate for such laws, and for the military and intel budgets to be gutted so they be put to something useful.

      As to the claim that spies do more harm than good, what do you base that upon?

      One good source is this article. But there's also bay of pigs, MKULTRA, arming multiple opposing sides in Syria, countless instances of training and arming terrorists and the like so they can look cool catching them, and plenty of other disasters I can think of.

      Considering that much of the conduct of spies isn't known until decades later, if at all, how can you possibly assert that claim?

      Considering most people suck at their jobs, and spy agencies are often decades removed from actual consequences, how can you possibly expect anything BUT a disaster? Throw in the fact that very often, operations are state-corporate joint ventures that allow a near-complete escape of accountability, and there's no real hope of a net benefit.

      You are also ignoring that with all the spy games, we're exposing people's data. The NSA has everything on everyone. China, Russia, and several criminal organization have undoubtedly infiltrated the NSA and will do so again. That means all of those scary groups also have everything on everyone, except maybe a step removed. From a data perspective, it would be more effective to bulldoze the NSA than to continue to fund them.

      Now, is that an ironclad case for immediately axing our spies? No, but it certainly means that we shouldn't be giving them trust or the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    28. Re:Kill The Messenger by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Note your president. Who during the campaign relished the fact Wikileaks was helping him. Leaks that make him look good, he likes. Leaks that make him look bad, send in the marines.

      As opposed to Obama (prosecuted more leaks than all previous presidents times two) and Hillary, who were perfectly happy with Trump's leaked tax returns and 'gram em by the pussy' audio? Let us not pretend that situational reasoning is only used by one party.

    29. Re:Kill The Messenger by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      he's a jackass who's just claiming the US is going to extradite him to avoid facing the charges and to keep himself in the limelight

      You were doing fine with the prebutting of criticism until you got to echoing the ratfucking of Assange. No one is going to choose near-solitary confinement for years on end for shits and giggles and "attention". If the rape allegations weren't a mere pretext for Sweden to hand him over to U.S. custody, why haven't Swedish officials interviewed him remotely or in the embassy, as he has offered to do. Why hasn't the Swedish government promised not to extradite Assange if he voluntarily returns to Sweden - as he has also offered to do.

      Because there is only one possible answer to that - the allegations are a mere pretext to hand him over to U.S. custody, or at least be extensively interrogated by U.S. authorities in Sweden. It's happened before. The country may be known for its socialisticy health care and education system, but it's positively medieval its criminal justice system, allowing suspects to be held and interrogated with no lawyers or outside contact for extended periods of time.

      All of this was known years ago, so what gives?

    30. Re:Kill The Messenger by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The Democrats even let Russia invade and take over part of the Ukraine, who we were sworn to protect by treaty.

      Which is bullshit and horseshit, respectively. If Russia had invaded Ukraine - after a U.S. sponsored coup of the elected government - you'd have more than pictures posted on Facebook and Twitter to back up those assertions. And Ukraine, years after the U.S. sponsored coup, still isn't a part of NATO, so you're 0 for 2.

    31. Re:Kill The Messenger by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I have said in the past, when people ask me how I view Snowden, I say he is a Traitorous Hero. They have no concept that he can legitimately be both Hero and Traitor.

      Uh huh. And how would have Snowden upheld his oath of office - to protect and defend the Constitution - without doing what he did? The "proper channels" are designed to shut down the exposition of government lawbreaking, not expose it.

    32. Re:Kill The Messenger by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but I'll ask again, where in the vault7 stuff does it indicate the CIA is monitoring calls where US citizens are on either end?

      Why so willfully obtuse? We've known for years now that the U.S. "intelligence community" wants to grab every piece of information it can, from every person on the planet that it can. Hell, the NSA even tells you on their own fucking website that they want to "collect all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always". Now, you think for one second that the CIA, which is in the business of lying to Congress and overthrowing Democracies, isn't spying on American citizens???

    33. Re:Kill The Messenger by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Of course, the counter-argument to that is that if the US and its allies know about these vulnerabilities, then almost certainly so do the Russians and Chinese.

      Plus a lot of mundane criminals.
      It's a different agency but it's worth pointing out that the highest profile criminal hack in recent years, the Stratfor hack, was done by a guy who does work from time to time for the FBI. People within the FBI knew that at the same time as the FBI were screaming loudly for more resources so they could catch hackers like that. Due to his connection to the FBI he got away with not much more than a warning, despite all the screaming about CYBERTERRORISTS up to 11.

    34. Re:Kill The Messenger by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Let's start with wiretapping, search and seizure, and US Code - Chapter 119: WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION - and that's just thinking about it for a minute. I'm sure there's a plethora of State violations as well.

    35. Re:Kill The Messenger by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Can you link me to one of the Vault 7 docs where they say they intercepted the electronic communications of Americans? So long as they're using these tools against foreigners...that's their job.

      My problem is the things they're doing that aren't illegal, like holding back the discovery of exploits in commercial products made and used by Americans. But if you can point to a document, and a specific law that document proves they're breaking that would be useful.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    36. Re:Kill The Messenger by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yup, exactly. The part I have a problem with is hiding overseas. THAT is it. I understand why he ran, and in some ways don't blame him for doing so. But doing so diminished what he did.

      Standing boldly is often very hard to do, especially when facing Treason charges for exposing the treason of the Dark Shadow Government.

      And both Liberals/Democrats and Conservative/Republicans are part of that cabal, and Snowden's expose is one of the reasons I argue for a VERY limited government.

      Any government that can give you everything you want, can take everything you have.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  4. FTFY: by fishscene · · Score: 2

    One of the biggest concerns for the people of the United States is if WikiLeaks publishes critical computer code on how operations are conducted, CIA/FBI hackers could take that code and cause havoc overseas AND/OR at home and blame someone else. False-flag ops are standard I hear.

  5. Worried about exploits getting leaked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they should have thought of that before hoarding vulnerabilities instead of disclosing them. Security by obscurity is equivalent to no security at all. The responsible thing for the CIA to do now is a disclosure of all known vulnerabilities to the parties of those products so they have some chance to patch them before exploits are in the wild. What they will do instead is waste taxpayer money on this investigation and continue to go after WikiLeaks while continuing to hoard vulnerabilities and continue illegal domestic spying.

    1. Re:Worried about exploits getting leaked? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. It's not true that "Security by obscurity is equivalent to no security at all.". Security by obscurity can buy you time. Of course, if you just waste the time rather than fixing the problem...

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. Yes, and...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The people who disapprove of the government's abuse of power are an entirely different set of people than those who take action on behalf of these agencies.

    From their perspective, what they are doing is perfectly fine...ordinary people are beneath them and spying on them doesn't actually hurt them anyway (except, of course, in cases were they WANT it to hurt them, which is a positive). It is not like they secretly know they are doing something evil and now feel like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That is ridiculous. They think that their power-abuses are not abuses at all, and are in fact appropriate and responsible uses of power.

    They also think this must all be kept secret, because the masses whine about it and because their tools won't work well if too much is known about them. Just treatment for the masses doesn't enter into these decisions at all.

    So they don't feel caught or guilty. They only feel betrayed, and they are out to punish the betrayers and do what they can to prevent such betrayal in the future.

    You will never change their views on these issues, by any means. Your moral arguments are just babbling nonsense to them.

  7. I like WikiLeaks more every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gotta keep cleaning house until all Democrat moles are gone.

  8. We thought it was the Russians...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    CIA activity that security experts thought were associated with the Russians or Chinese until these documents were released? I wonder if this applies to anything else..... (commence the down voting)

  9. Re:Probe this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Remember when it emerged that the NSA was intercepting Cisco hardware during shipping, installing malware on it and then sending it on to the buyer? I imagine that's how they infect most of the Samsung TVs, not some Mission Impossible dangling from a wire shit.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Here CNN... by pastafazou · · Score: 2

    The documents published so far are largely genuine, officials said, though they are not yet certain if all of them are and whether some of the documents may have been altered. However, WikiLeaks thus far has a 100% accurate record, so it would be absolutely shocking if even a single document is not authentic. One of the biggest concerns for the federal government is if WikiLeaks publishes critical computer code on how operations are conducted, other hackers could take that code and cause havoc overseas. Of course, the federal government is merely deflecting blame on WikiLeaks, when it appears likely the CIA has already lost control of these tools to the hacking communities and agencies of the world.

    ...FTFY

    1. Re:Here CNN... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks has a 100% accurate record? How is that determined? By assuming Wikileaks is 100% accurate?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Here CNN... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      By assuming Wikileaks is 100% accurate?

      By not being willfully obtuse. Remember Dan Rather, CBS and the story they ran on Bush skipping out on his Air Guard commitments? The entire story was dismissed and Rather fired because a handful of memos couldn't be authenticated.

      Do you think for one second that if Wikileaks had published documents that weren't up to snuff that the intelligence "community" and the media wouldn't be braying about that time in 2005 that they published something from Jason Blair, 24/7? It would have been the Dean Scream of leaking, the kiss of death.

      But that hasn't happened. So, willfully obtuse.

    3. Re:Here CNN... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, you're basing your belief in Wikileaks on the observed behavior of intelligence agencies?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Here CNN... by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that nobody has yet claimed "Document X released by WikiLeaks is fake!" is proof enough that WikiLeaks is 100% accurate so far. Until someone finds a document that isn't authentic, they will remain 100%. We don't need to prove that ALL released documents are authentic. We need to prove that a single one isn't.

  11. Amazing what happens when you leave barn door open by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Wow, the CIA and FBI only just noticed they might have a problem, after years of leaks from the intelligence community to the press?

    I don't know what good a search will do when at this point it seems they are fundamentally riddled with leaks.

    The glamorization of Snowden only serves to amplify the situation, I'm sure each of the intelligence agencies has a lot of Snowden's in the making, now that they can see Snowden has not been brutally assassinated as one would have expected before. The agencies have no teeth anymore.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Can't trust the CIA by jediborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 Times today it was repeated on CNN that the CIA "Only spies on foreign citizens, not on US citizens"

    I don't believe that for one second. Knowing how little oversight the CIA gets from congress they could dragnet all of American communications and lie to congress and say they weren't doing it. Actually, wait isn't that exactly what the NSA did? Didn't Former NSA director James Clapper lie under oath to congress when he professed the NSA wasn't spying on americans, just a few months before snowden proved that they where? Why should we expect the CIA to do any different, just because their mission statement say's they don't have jurisdiction to spy within american borders?

    Nobody's watching this watcher, which is why we shouldn't trust them one iota.

    1. Re:Can't trust the CIA by sad_ · · Score: 1

      No, it is probably correct, the CIA does foreign, the NSA does national.
      I'm pretty sure they work well together in sharing their spy-tools...

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    2. Re:Can't trust the CIA by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      10 Times today it was repeated on CNN that the CIA "Only spies on foreign citizens, not on US citizens"

      Which is obviously bullshit. In 2013 the CIA was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIA spies on the people who are supposed to keep them in check. If they are willing to do that spying on average citizens isn't going to give them pause.

  13. Robert Graham is NOT a security expert... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    anyone who claims to be an expert, or the press says is one, is probably not... he said "...software bugs are a small part of the problem..." what rock is he under?

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:Robert Graham is NOT a security expert... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      The reality rock maybe? I couldn't find where he said this, granted I am not infallible at searching. However, disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean he isn't an expert. Perhaps he was looking at all the macros and malicious applications which get installed, which has nothing to do with any software bug. From day to day in my security monitoring/response role, the vast majority of things I respond to are not related to any bugs. It is hard to really judge what he said without any context.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:Robert Graham is NOT a security expert... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      all I'm saying is that if the only tool you have is a hammer all problems look like nails...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    3. Re:Robert Graham is NOT a security expert... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's a legitimate position to take. It sort of depends on what you are looking at. E.g., from one position most of the problem is social engineering.

      That said, I haven't checked his credentials. He could be a scam artist, and thus a part of that major part of the problem.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Robert Graham is NOT a security expert... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      I did not say he's fake, just that a so-called expert does not realize that the configuration options screen(s) were done by a programmer/team...any expert would know that...again the hammer/nails problem.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
  14. Morale by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Plus, it'll now go on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, which will erode morale.

    Seriously, was there any morale left to erode?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Morale by mugurel · · Score: 1

      Plus: Eroding morale is not necessarily a bad thing if you want somebody to stop doing something.

  15. Re:Probe this by lgw · · Score: 2

    This. Heck, the NSA even had a program where they would infect with malware all the PCs/laptops shipped to an area, just in hopes the target would buy one. I'm sure the CIA could do the same with TVs.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. Tricky problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you hire a bunch of honest people who are loyal to their country, and then ask them to do illegal and immoral things, eventually they rat you out (that being the decent thing to do, and all).

    If you hire a bunch of crooks who have no qualms about betraying others for your profit, eventually they will betray you for their profit.

    If you hire people stupid enough to believe that patriotism is the same thing as unquestioning obedience to government officials, they won't be competent enough to do their jobs.

    I realize that government officials absolutely abhor transparency and public accountability...but....the new technological landscape is eliminating some options for secrecy that once allowed corruption to thrive.

    1. Re:Tricky problem. by TWX · · Score: 2

      It's almost like humans act as human nature causes them to act.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Tricky problem. by TWX · · Score: 1

      Of course there's a right way. I would even argue that if you randomly selected a whole lot of Americans and implanted them with electric shockers that would go off if they tried to disclose their actual political party affiliations and locked them in a room together, if they had to compare and contrast actual ideas and not just labels, probably about 80% would be statistically similar to each other and would agree so long as they don't know what the political affiliations of the others are. That leaves a noisy 10% at one end and at the other end to spew forth all of the wharrgarbl that has ruined most political discourse.

      Most people are not in favor of no safety-net at all. Most people are not in favor of no regulation at all. The degree of social safety net and the degree of regulation should be what's argued over, but because these (R) and (D) labels are given such undue importance people end up arguing things that they don't even personally agree with just because it's their team's position, like it were some kind of sport.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Tricky problem. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      1/ Snowden, Manning and the many who tried to go through channels and were punished for it
      2/ The Mafia folks hired at the formation of the CIA, many consequences, and probably still some of that going on today.
      3/ Star Trek Set guy at the NSA comes to mind first. General "will divulge state secrets for fucks" Petreus comes second.

  17. Business as usual... by no-body · · Score: 1

    The spooks do what they want because it's "important to security" and if they are called on it, they kill the messenger instead of cleaning up their act...

    Seems both sides - not the messenger - but the spooks on either side have a similar character makeup and feed on each other to keep this game going.

    The neverending story.....

  18. This leak is good news for security professionals by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Now we have a public database of exploits that can be sealed. Start hiring Americans again, even if it means going so far as recalling developers over forty, and get these vulnerabilities fixed.

  19. Re:Probe this by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Just and FYI, most of the commercial product hacks are known. There is very little security on IoT devices, including "smart" TVs that it is trivial to compromise one. And I've seen active "hacks" of vehicles in videos, not quite as trivial as IoT devices,

    In general, I already suspected much of what was revealed by WikiLeaks, even if I couldn't actually prove it. Most of the IT people I am familiar with, understood the possibility and even the likelihood that the tools existed, and weren't surprised when WikiLeaks said as much.

    Most people don't want to know how deep the surveillance state goes. Very few of us are terrified of it.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  20. Re:plausible by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    So, what you're saying is the the whole "It was the Russians" line given to us by the surveillance state (17 agencies) is ... not true???

    Say it ain't so!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  21. Well is there is no rage against it by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    next they'll come for you and no one will speak out. If its gotten to the point that the GOV is going after people who leak out illegal acts of GOV agencies that broke laws, democracy at that point is just a facade.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  22. Atttribution by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    here's a nice tidbit that, to me, nicely illustrates the problem with attribution: "one AV researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA" Bear this in mind the next time someone says "that guy did it"

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Atttribution by HiThere · · Score: 1

      More to the point, keep that in mind whenever anyone stolidly asserts that some particular activity on the internet came from some particular source. *Maybe* it did. Maybe it's just the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it did. Maybe it's just the obvious evidence indicates that it did. And maybe he just wants to direct your attention. And you don't know which.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. It's not called "The CIA." It's just "CIA." by kriston · · Score: 1

    It's not called "The CIA." It's just "CIA."

    --

    Kriston

  24. Where is the Russian Hacking Probe? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    We stood by an election orchestrated by a foreign government, and we didn't stop, yet continued walking forward into Trump's madness. Trump was exactly what this country needed not!

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  25. Re:It's not called "The CIA." It's just "CIA." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not called "The CIA." It's just "CIA."

    It's not Central Intelligence Agency, it's the Central Intelligence Agency. Abbreviate it and it's the CIA, not CIA.

    Try it and see: "Jimmy was disappeared by CIA" vs "Jimmy was disappeared by the CIA".

  26. This is why Backdoor encryption is bad by ripvlan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It occurs to me that this Leak could be used as the argument for why placing a backdoor into encryption is a bad idea. At some point in time - somebody will figure it out and leak it to the world.

    The idea that the government is going to be trusted with these BIG secrets and they won't get out is preposterous. See see -- don't look over there!! Ignore the man behind the curtain.

  27. Re:It's not called "The CIA." It's just "CIA." by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

    It is "the CIA" when used in a sentence. Usage from the CIA website:

    https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/...

  28. Try this at home: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Go get Wikileaks' "summary" of the first Vault7 release. You'll know you're on the right one because it's a list of bullet points.

    Now get the actual first Vault7 release from Wikileaks. You'll have to do a little searching, but see for yourself if the summary (made to be released to the Western media) actually corresponds to anything in the Vault7 release itself.

    You will be surprised, especially if you think Wikileaks is a force for transparency.

    If you're really lazy, go read some posts by infosec experts and pro-privacy bloggers. They're already doing some of this work for you, and you will still be surprised at what they say. I don't want to spoil it by telling you.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Try this at home: by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You will be surprised, especially if you think Wikileaks is a force for transparency.

      Well, they do have that 100% record for the accuracy of what they've leaked.

      If you're really lazy, go read some posts by infosec experts and pro-privacy bloggers. They're already doing some of this work for you, and you will still be surprised at what they say. I don't want to spoil it by telling you.

      Hmm, sounds more like "go do some work to prove my vague assertions so I don't have to get my lazy butt off the couch". Must not be familiar with Hitchen's razor.

    2. Re:Try this at home: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, they do have that 100% record for the accuracy of what they've leaked.

      The question isn't whether the leaks are accurate. The question is whether the leaks match their press release summary.

      The answer, since you're unwilling to look for yourself, is "no".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. Re:How is looking for the leaker a witch hunt? by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

    A "witch hunt" doesn't mean there isn't a witch to find, it means that the mob is just as happy burning a witch as it is burning the innocent girl that happens to have a wart.

  30. Overseas lmafo by burtosis · · Score: 2

    One of the biggest concerns for the federal government is if WikiLeaks publishes critical computer code on how operations are conducted, other hackers could take that code and cause havoc overseas.

    Criminals that get ahold of this will loot AMERICA. This is exactly what every single security expert has warned against, pretty much since the internet existed.

  31. Perhaps not... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    But we can point to U.S. law that makes searching of one's property without a warrant illegal. And since that is WHAT they are using those vulnerabilities for, perhaps we should charge them under criminal law.

    1. Re:Perhaps not... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Wikileaks allegedly leaked the CIA's toolkit. I see nowhere in the leak where that toolkit is being used in the way you claim it is. Now I wouldn't be surprised if that was happening, unfortunately, but at the moment spying on US citizens still requires FISA approval, and so long as these tools are used in that context when spying on US citizens, then no law has been broken.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  32. I'll laugh my butt off... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    If the Russian hacker group Fancy/Cozy Bear turn out to U.S. operatives.

  33. Very useful resources - bookmarked by ruigominho · · Score: 1

    Setup Password-less Access to Another Machine via SSH (hey, I didn't knew the ssh-copy-id command): https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/... ; C Coding Conventions: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/... ; iptables rule to drop packets randomly: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...

  34. Robert Graham, security expert? by heathenistics · · Score: 1

    Graham is a eyewash/whitewash artist. Every thing he writes/types is in apologia for the duplicative, plausibly deniable, government departments of mercenaries-posing-as-patriots and he presents his fallacious messaging in gatekeeping fashion so as to say "Nothing to see here. Move along." His duplicitous writing has led to a tremendous amount of archive.is activity for a podunk blog because he keeps changing his messaging after people comment to call him out on his bullshit.

    Please don't believe someone or adopt a consensus groupthink belief in someone's expertise just because that someone is proclaimed to be an "expert". More often than not, groupthink-proclaimed experts are compromised puppets who are carrying water for the-powers-that-shouldn't-be. Robert Graham ought to be considered to be a part of the overall problem, not someone clarifies it. Graham's effortless gatekeeping of the Vault 7 situation is an absolute whitewash that favors the "legitimate" spy stuff that the CIA carries out not against foreign adversaries, but against the taxpayers it claims it does things for in the interest of national security, interest of which it can neither confirm nor deny because an alert and avid citizenry is more dangerous than a placid and entranced citizenry.

  35. He really said that? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    This hurts the CIA a lot. Already, one AV researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak. We can develop anti-virus and intrusion-detection signatures based on this information that will defeat much of what we read in these documents. This would put a multi-year delay in the CIA's development efforts.

    What's the big deal? Nobody who's been paying attention is going to be surprised that the CIA and/or NSA developed viruses.

    While I assume the CIA and NSA employ very good malware writers, I don't see any reason to think they're the best out there. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that the Russian ones are better. By putting a virus out there, without even a copyright notice, the CIA is asking for people to reverse-engineer it and understand it. Not all of these people have pure hearts and good intentions, and it's almost certainly possible to repurpose such malware. Improved malware defense means that the Russians and Chinese and Israelis and other people have more trouble hacking into our computers.

    Also, once such a virus is published, it will become less effective. If the CIA/NSA efforts were competent, they'd have more and different malware waiting around to be used, so this wouldn't set CIA operations back for years.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    1. Re:He really said that? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIRC there once was a virus that included a copyright. And if I further recall correctly it even stated a particular open source license (GPL, I think) but it didn't include the text of the license. It wasn't a particularly destructive or successful virus, though.

      P.S.: Don't go around believing news stories that don't have valid evidence. For all we know the code could be an officially ordered leak.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  36. Re: Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it pretty much all CIA assets and Saudis who attacked the country on 9/11? Drug smuggling into LA to support foreign regime changes? The CIA attacks its own country quite a bit.

  37. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by felixrising · · Score: 1

    Time to make it a federal crime for any organisation public or private that knows of vulnerabilities to fail to disclose those vulnerabilities to the vendor. Circumventing computer security and knowingly allowing vulnerabilities to persist is tantamount to sabotage enabling financial and reputational damage to organisations and individuals that use those computer systems/software. Class action?

  38. Re:MSM by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Mainstream (News) Media.

  39. Re:Probe this by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Knowing that it's unavoidable isn't a reason to not be terrified. Refusal to look ahead and evaluate plausible outcomes is the only reason to not be terrified.

    OTOH, being terrified isn't very useful. But knowing these things exist is why I keep hoping for an early singularity. I give us 50% chance of surviving the singularity as a technological species, but if we do thing may turn out very well (though, of course, unpredictably so). My current estimate is still 2030, though that's earlier than most predictions which are around 2050. I consider myself an optimist because if humans stay in charge I put our chances of survival as minimal to negligible. Then again this may be the most significant stage of the "Great Filter". Available evidence is inconclusive. (Another possibility is that virtual reality gets good enough that everyone forsakes meatspace. Another is that sex toys get attractive enough that we have a total population crash. There are also unpleasant possibilities.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  40. Re: Illegalities by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    When making things illegal that shouldn't be and hinderance of participation in government is the norm, 8 illegalities is the general conduct of everyone.

  41. Advocate to change the laws by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    When the government is so corrupt, as well as other prevailing conditions, how do you propose doing that effectively?

  42. Re:We by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Just who do you think 'WE' are? The people whose task it is supposed to be to charge people with crimes is just as corrupt as the rest of the government.

  43. Re:MSM by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Thank you. Now I know.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  44. Re:Errmm thats not right.. by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Some will get patches in a relatively short time, however if history is any indication many will go unpatched and some will never be. Further, if the information is out there, but not made public, things get far worse.

  45. Propaganda: change discussion to messengers by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    WikiLeaks became the news before, on purpose with the intent to DISTRACT and change the conversations to the messengers instead of the messages. On top of that to send a signal to any future leakers or publishers or press.

    WikiLeaks worked with 3 serious news organizations with their big leak before that got all the news and all we heard was attacks on Wikileaks and Manning. Discussing the act of leaking and punishment etc, purposely to take away from discussing the leaks themselves. The information itself when known justifies the leaking of it; so the goal is to avoid it and focus on imagined damages etc and attribution of BLAME to the wrong groups of people.

  46. Not recent, caught out in 1974 etc by dbIII · · Score: 1

    has been eroded in the name of the Wahr on Terrah

    If you read a little bit about the history of the CIA it appears that barrier was eroded away on day one or close to it. Hiring Mafia types (just like the postwar British spooks did with various criminals but without keeping them at arms length) did not appear to be a good idea and they never seems to have recovered from early mistakes like that despite things like Helms and Angleton being fired in the 1970s for the CIA's domestic activities.

  47. Re:MSM by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Apparently those of us who don't know are "Cucks" or something.
    It's a "Alt-right" woman hating angry virgin bit of terminology and those of us who have dared to kiss women are not in the in group to discuss how the mainstream media is at the root of all the evil that is not supplied by women and people who are not pale nordic types. Since they go on about it so often they have shortened it to MSM.
    Don't worry, they'll have more confusing terms next week that we'll have to either work out or ignore.

  48. Re:MSM by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    The MSM abbreviation predates the alt-right by over a decade.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  49. Re:Probe this by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    Do you have a link for that? All the PCs/laptops in an area would be tens/hundreds of thousands. No way.

  50. Re:MSM by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    How can "Cucks" or "Cuck" be a woman hating term?

    Cuckolding is a great example of unmitigated matriarchal control of sexuality and sexual expression. If you are a good liberal you will be happy to be a Cuckold as it demonstrates your support of feminism by allowing women to express their sexuality without patriarchal interference, judgement, or restriction.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  51. Re:MSM by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Of course the insult makes no sense. A bunch of woman hating virgins calling people cuckolds as their insult of choice shows how little sense they have and how utterly pathetic they are.

  52. Rotten to the core by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    The docs are clear that they can update the software running on the TV using a USB drive. There's no evidence of them doing so remotely over the Internet. We can develop anti-virus and intrusion-detection signatures based on this information that will defeat much of what we read in these documents

    The government is using YOUR PROPERTY to eavesdrop on you, your family and the ones you love to be used as testimony against you when required but without legal permission or accountability. And your response is to suggest that it doesn't matter because we can probably defend ourselves against it in the future?

  53. Prosecuting who? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Prosecuting people in the CIA, for failing to disclose known security problems in products to the products' firms, right?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  54. you are dismissed by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The answer, since you're unwilling to look for yourself, is "no".

    That's not how this works. How this does work: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you persist in being a lazy commenter, we'll move to the stage of the conversation where I casually assert that you like to have sex with farm animals in school playgrounds, since it's your now job to disprove the assertion made online. And while we're on the subject of debunking false narratives.....

    Those emails, though

    Yes, Hillary setting up a email server was a disastrous, corrupt, arrogant decision for her to make. Dems think they're making a great point with the "but her emails!" meme, but all you're doing is highlighting the fact that Hillary had no business running for dog catcher of the DNC, much less POTUS.

    Two years after savaging the Bush Administration, "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts" she was doing the same damn thing herself. If that wasn't bad enough, she kept her server after Republicans took the Senate in the 2010 elections, who then had the power to subpoena her.

    Dem's like to whine that the GOP smear machine has had it out for her for a quarter of a century, which is true. But then how dumb of a fuck did she have to be to hand them a real scandal, one that could still send her to prison. Warmed over Vince Foster bullshit no longer needed, now you can prosecute her dumb ass for mishandling classified evidence and obstruction of justice, when she deleted thousands of emails before her server could be inspected. And you can skip all the tired excuses for Hillary's unsecured, unauthorized server when a man is currently serving time for taking selfies on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

    If her name was Hillary Johnson, she'd already be in prison serving 20 years - for obstruction of justice charges alone. Then Dems have the nerve to whine about Comey, when they should be thanking him for not perp walking her into an arraignment.