Slashdot Mirror


5 Years on, US Government Still Counting Snowden Leak Costs (apnews.com)

National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the lid off U.S. government surveillance methods five years ago, but intelligence chiefs complain that revelations from the trove of classified documents he disclosed are still trickling out. From a report: That includes recent reporting on a mass surveillance program run by close U.S. ally Japan and on how the NSA targeted bitcoin users to gather intelligence to combat narcotics and money laundering. The Intercept, an investigative publication with access to Snowden documents, published stories on both subjects. The top U.S. counterintelligence official said journalists have released only about 1 percent taken by the 34-year-old American, now living in exile in Russia, "so we don't see this issue ending anytime soon." "This past year, we had more international, Snowden-related documents and breaches than ever," Bill Evanina, who directs the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, said at a recent conference. "Since 2013, when Snowden left, there have been thousands of articles around the world with really sensitive stuff that's been leaked."

30 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Good by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm happy to hear they're still facing consequences, even if those consequences aren't nearly severe enough to make me content.

    1. Re:Good by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both parties are for snooping on others but not themselves. Politicians are flip-floppers who reflect absent-minded voters.

  2. And 200+ years on by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in the history of the United States and Cop Math is still a thing.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  3. Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The government isn't really doing anything to prevent a Snowden 2.0 either. They're still after prosecuting him, which means the next Snowden will also flee overseas and leak to the media. There isn't really a "legal" way for someone like Snowden to report government abuses; the only alternative is through the media.

    I've not seen the government make any steps to prevent the next Snowden from following the same steps Snowden made.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagine Trump will take a hint from his good friend Putin and Snowden will mysteriously succumb to Polonium or Novichok.

      Doubtful. Trump may be Putin's bitch but it doesn't work the other way round. The longer Snowden stays in Russia, the better the message for anyone who might in future think about trusting Russia. Hell, Putin has gone to war in Syria, admittedly partly for a military port, but mostly because he wants to show that if you stick with Russia then Russia sticks with you. Compare with Ukraine, Georgia, or Germany who have stuck with America. Compare with Japan's treatment over North Korea. Compare with the various muslims who cosied up to the states during the Iraq war and can't now get visas. Compare with the shit we Brits are going to get over post Brexit trade.

      Thinking of a recently started Trade war, which countries and people can you think of that might get the message that Russia keeps its promises? Which countries and people do you think people like Assad and Snowden speak to?

    2. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you find out your government has dozens if not 100s of illegal operations running, and you realize that everyone above you is involved, what exactly are you meant to do?

    3. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > He made no complaints or reports of abuses or improper behavior by his agency.

      Because he already saw what happened to the insiders before him who attempted to do as much.

      > Snowden was not a whistleblower. He was an "information wants to be free!" anti-government attention-whore, and rotting in Russia is better than he deserves for his acts.

      Tell us how you really feel, Mr. Clapper...

    4. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Absolutely incorrect.
      There are multiple chains of authority that someone in the IC can report to if they discovery improper behavior. Local office, agency IG, other agency IGs, the IC IG, even the Congressional Oversight Committees.

      Sure. You could even report the improper behaviour to the guy who's doing it. Or to President Trump himself. The effect will be the same in every case however. You will suffer more than the person you are reporting. Sometimes just a little. Sometimes lots. There have been plenty of cases where people got serious shit for reporting up the chain.

    5. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers

      Quit lying your ass off and learn how to use Google for fuck's sake

    6. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Thomas Drake reported that he thought there were illegal activities going in. The lawyers reviewed his accusations, and determined that he was wrong - the programs in questions were legal.

      It's rather telling that your primary concern is whether something was "legal" rather than being, you know, right.

      (Torture and execution without due process are only two examples of things that are perfectly hunky-dory if all you care about is legality.)

      > Drake was not a whistleblower. He was wrong about his facts, and he paid for committing crimes based on his ignorance.

      Keep looking for that true Scotsman, Mr. Clapper.

    7. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really?
      Cite the people that have been punished for reporting illegal spying through channels, please. Since there are plenty of cases, you will have no trouble coming up with three.

      Here are your three whistle-blowers who have been punished for whistleblowing according to the correct procecures. In fact, just in case you question the criteria, I'll throw in a few bonus ones.

      1. Thomas Drake (one - fired and arrested)
      2. John Crane (two - actually responsible for whistleblowers)
      3. James S. Pars (CIA)
      4. Bill Binney (bonus one)
      5. Diane Roark (bonus two)

      On the other hand, I *have* reported improper behavior, and watched the violator be punished. In one cases, even go to jail.

      You will notice that the above list of whistleblowers are public knowledge. If you are an insider then you should know more than me. I really question how you can seem to think I wouldn't be able to come up with three

      The IC takes the rules seriously... abusing them WILL get you in trouble.

      I think you are confusing "the rules", as in what they have decided they will do, where I would say that for the most part they are taken very seriously, with "the law", as in what they are actually allowed to do, which they will bend endlessly. If you were reporting a place where the rules were breaching the law or you were reporting a person for breaching the law when they were following orders then I think you would have found plenty more difficulty than the situation of reporting an individual for a violation of the rules.

      Also, you seem to have forgotten already, but Snowden was during the Obama administration. Trump has nothing to do with him.

      My point was in the context of a discussion about Snowden 2.0 which will, likely, happen under Trump. In any case Obama was at least as rabid as Trump in pursuing whistleblowers. Probably more so because he actually had the ability to keep a thought in his head for more than five minutes.

    8. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shocking. The government people doing clearly immoral and probably illegal things claim the illegal things they were doing as legal and when pressured on the matter threw the book at the person who brought it up.

      Your face couldn't be more smeared with bootpolish if you tried.

    9. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, not buying that. But I was illegally surveilled as part of Operation Sun Devil, so my thoughts on "legal channels" are informed by the fact that they didn't work in my case. If I thought it wasn't intentional, I'd maybe buy your story, but I know it wasn't. It's just their MO.

    10. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The US gov and mil hired random contractors to watch over each other as the do sensitive tasks.
      Every contractor has a larger file on them covering their education, friends, computer use, politics, movements, new friends, spending.
      The systems to detect personality problems that make a contractor talk to the media are in place.
      Contractors are collected on at work, in other nations while they work for the USA and at back in the USA at home.
      The spending on the buddy system, more contractors and experts will discover any personality with the change in personality that results in the need to talk to the media.
      A lot of work was done to find the how, why and when of media contact.
      Anyone in the media is also watched for new contacts within the US gov, mil.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    11. Re: Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      The USA can spy on its own citizens as much as it likes. If the citizens don't like it, they can vote for another government or take steps to make their legal system less of a joke. However, outside US jurisdiction, the US government has no right to violate people's rights.

      You have that exactly backwards. In the US, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the government from spying on its citizens. I know it happens anyway, but it is illegal. Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I just knew you were going to cite the Drake case.

      Thomas Drake reported that he thought there were illegal activities going in. The lawyers reviewed his accusations, and determined that he was wrong - the programs in questions were legal.

      Drake didn't accept that a bunch of lawyers and judges could know more about the law than he did, and so he stole a bunch of classified documents. And you know what? It turns out that all those lawyers were correct in the first place. His concerns were about legal programs that he just didn't like.

      Drake was not a whistleblower. He was wrong about his facts, and he paid for committing crimes based on his ignorance.

      How about William Binney and Russ Tice? Both were retaliated against for reporting illegal activity.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 by Agripa · · Score: 2

      Absolutely incorrect.
      There are multiple chains of authority that someone in the IC can report to if they discovery improper behavior. Local office, agency IG, other agency IGs, the IC IG, even the Congressional Oversight Committees.

      Snowden contacted journalists about his upcoming leaks before he even got his job. He made no attempt to contact any of the reporting agencies. He made no complaints or reports of abuses or improper behavior by his agency. He also downloaded ALL the data he could trick people into giving him access to, rather than revealing only those items he thought were criminal.

      Snowden was not a whistleblower. He was an "information wants to be free!" anti-government attention-whore, and rotting in Russia is better than he deserves for his acts.

      Snowden was a contractor so most or all of the avenues to report malfeasance available to federal employees were not available to him. And if they had been available, it would not matter because statutory whistle-blower laws are intended to lure whistle-blowers into the open where they can be persecuted. He did the right thing.

  4. Let me play you a song by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Funny

    On my tiny violin.

  5. Yeesh, would it be cheaper... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to, you know, not rely on extraordinary rendition, illegal spying, extra-constitutional structurally biased special courts, intra-agency webs of secrecy, and all that?

    This seems more than a bit like "If it weren't for those darn meddling kids, everything would have been fine, JUST FINE," then complaining how expensive that now-ruined mask on the floor was.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Yeesh, would it be cheaper... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right. It's not even clear who their audience is here. The people in power will spend whatever it costs to cement and maintain their power. The people in power also stay there by transferring money from the middle class to their special interests, for instance the intelligence contractors, so if more money is being spent in intelligence, it's not clear who loses besides the people who are being spied on themselves.

      It's telling that they're especially interested in Bitcoin because its only the value of the currency that they can print on demand to pay for some of this spying power that keeps them in power. If everybody switched to Bitcoin, for instance, their entire power structure will collapse in upon itself. Maybe then people would want a government that only protects their liberties ... wait, we tried that.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. There is no cost greater than.. by AnthonywC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uncovering the truth and doing "The Right Thing".

  7. the biggest crime: embarrassing the NSA by sloth+jr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With all the revelations, the main takeaway I got is the NSA is pissed that they got caught acting poorly. Given their lack of apology, it's clear the NSA isn't at all motivated to, you know - change, and stuff. All the NSA seems to want to do is deliver maximum stitches to maximum snitches.

    I sleep better.

    1. Re:the biggest crime: embarrassing the NSA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are more concerned about the steps being taken to stop their mass surveillance. Ever since the leaks the internet has become a lot more privacy and security focused, with encryption being used more and more to cover what were once considered mundane communications.

      Prior to Snowden was it relatively easy and cheap for them, now the cost is massively increased. Instead of unencrypted chat apps we now have all the major ones supporting strong encryption, often enabled by default and implemented so that the developer can't circumvent it.

      Getting caught it just an inevitable part of playing the spy game. It's the resulting privacy enhancements that really upset them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Greatest Cost by cybersquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The greatest cost is the continuing loss of faith & trust in our government.

    The fact that the U.S. government continue to persecute this whistle-blower is much more damning than the things he revealed.

    IMO Snowden should be pardoned & given a medal.

    1. Re:Greatest Cost by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      My dad told me one thing many years ago, the government is not your friend.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Greatest Cost by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Respect is EARNED, not given.

      Considering that the NSA has done very little to re-earn that trust and respect, and has instead doubled down on the blanket spying, improper handling of classified data, and in general has been in denial about how it is improper of them, even if the congress has made it legal, to conduct such actions against the US's native population.

      So, take a moment to reflect. What possible reason does the US public have to respect this agency, when this agency openly mocks the public's demands for redress of grievance, when this agency repeatedly lies to congress about the necessity for "encryption back doors", when this agency repeatedly lobbies congress to make more and more atrocious data collection legal, etc?

      Simply because they are the government, does not mean they are immediately deserving of respect or trust. Simply because they have made their actions legal, does not make them morally justifiable. (Neither does it being the easiest or most efficent solution make it so.)

      Snowden revealed what people had been suspicious of for decades. While before, the NSA could say that people who were distrustful were just paranoid cranks, now the dirty laundry is out, and they cannot be so dismissive. They are angry that they are being called to task for their undesired actions by the people who (per our constitution) hold the real political power of this country, and instead of altering their behavior and methods, they have doubled down on the lobbying pressure against the legislative and judicial branches of government to MAKE their invasions of privacy legal.

      So, in all seriousness-- what has the NSA done, post Snowden, to warrant even a tiny bit of return of trust and respect, given the clear and present disrespect that the agency shows for the American public?

  9. And Clapper is still not in jail for perjury by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead, he's landed a cushy job at CNN.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  10. Re:Stop attacking the world, then by hondo77 · · Score: 2

    ...and it becomes more and more clear how paranoid they are and how they view the world as an enemy.

    You can't tell that by Donny starting a trade war with our allies?

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  11. Re:Horseshit by butchersong · · Score: 2

    It is claimed that this is largely a myth and debunked. It is though I will admit... strange that the day after Rumsfeld complains about the not properly tracked money...
    """The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Monday September 10th, 2001"""

  12. Re:The Hacker's Crackdown by Savantissimo · · Score: 2

    The documentation of the COSMOS wiring database was the bigger issue in that case, IIRC. Same basic deal, though, got it through dumpster diving, could have been bought officially for a few bucks. That database lets you do the really fun stuff like assign lines to accounts. OTOH using it is pretty much its own punishment (e.g. working out the 3 letter wire-center code from the exchange key = 1st 3 of 7 digit phone #) and in later years the official documentation was basically nonexistent (oral tradition and a few 5th generation photocopies on cubicle walls, basically).
    -ex-BS MMT

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry