That headline has to be one of the starkest attempts on Slashdot to bait potential readers for a story that I've seen for a very long time. Look at that headline! LinuxandBacon!! Why it's enough to.... mmmm... bacon. Excuse me....
If the article timeline is correct, things would have started turning bad about the time when the TSA started the unionization process. Originally they weren't unionized. Hard to believe government unions could be a negative influence.
How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?
The Chinese, Russians, and no doubt other countries are way ahead of you. They love spying on the NSA. They seem to be getting volunteer help these days too. What do you think Linus will bring to the game?
Do you think Linus will be interested in doing anything about people trying to set off car bombs at public ceremonies? Or will we still be stuck with the FBI and NSA? If Linus isn't interested in doing anything, do you think the NSA should be crippled?
I know, you're frustrated. There is plenty to be frustrated about from just about every perspective on this. The sad part is that the only people likely to really benefit are the people that want to set of the bombs to kill innocents.
You can probably take it as a rule of thumb that it will take 5-10 years for a basic scientific development like this, involving the materials, to move from the lab to production quality chips. That is assuming that it ever makes it. Variations in the count of things (going from 2 processors to 4) generally aren't that difficult on the hardware side, but getting full effect from the software may take some time. The more "exotic" the technology is, the greater the risk that it will take longer, or not happen at all. A lot of things can happen between the lab and your desktop. The technology may not be suitable for mass production. They may not be able to get it to work without cryo-cooling which will significantly limit where and how it can be used, as well as the expense. (This technology requires -190C to work.) It may take new design technology or techniques to integrate the devices from the development into a commercial chip. The process of making it may not be compatible with the processes used by the semiconductors used to make things in your PC. Lots of things can go wrong. But sometimes you get lucky and it can drive a chain of improvements. So yes, 5-10 years, if all goes well is I think a reasonable rule of thumb. It can take longer, it might rarely go quicker. Also keep in mind that companies do sometimes keep a key new development secret to try to get ahead of the competition. In those cases it will be available before you would otherwise expect it.
Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
Or a sucker.
I think that General George Washington was wiser than the people that you get your ideas from.
"The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged-All that remains for me to add is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned...." [letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777]
The issue isn't that the national intelligence leadership isn't willing show anybody, and almost certainly isn't that they have no proof. They simply won't show you - CanHasDIY, and people similarly situated. Why? Because you have no security clearance, you have no "need to know" based on the rules of handling classified information, you have no responsibility that requires it, you perform no oversight of them.
Being a citizen and a voter is not a magic pass to personally supervise federal employees, nor does it entitle you to know all of the nation's secrets. You get to vote for your Congressional representatives, and inform them of your views. You can even volunteer for them, or form groups to lobby. But it is up to the representatives in Congress to pass the laws governing government activity, and to perform oversight of the government. That is it, unless you actually have a job that entitles you to greater responsibility in that regard as recognized by law and regulation. If you don't like that, you can always run for office.
Now as to evidence, I might be able to help a little, but no more than is in the news:
Among the disclosures from Snowden that were published in the Washington Post and the Guardian was that Skype, the Internet calling service, was among the systems that provided data to the NSA's secret PRISM database. That disclosure contradicted a widespread belief that calls made via Skype were difficult or impossible to intercept.
Some suspected terrorists the NSA was tracking are no longer using Skype, U.S. officials said. Others have stopped using email, said one U.S. official who has been briefed on the damage.
"The Skype thing was really bad," the official said.
The full damage from Snowden's revelations has yet to be seen. I think that neither General Washington, nor Benjamin Franklin - a spymaster in his own right, would be amused.
Upon his appointment as Commander-in-Chief on June 15, 1775, Washington immediately began efforts to build an intelligence capacity to assist in obtaining information on the British Army. He accomplished this by creating, directing, and managing spy networks, along with deception, and misinformation efforts in order to mitigate and offset the British military advantage. An additional benefit of serving in the British Army was Washington’s appreciation of their military capability. He knew at the outset of the American Revolution that he could not defeat the British Army in Europe
Spies tend to go public with their identities when they defect. Snowden revealed his theft of documents from the territory of communist China, before he fled to Russia. Some spies do go public with at least some of their information. Snowden has made it clear that he has released only a small amount of the information that he has, and has threatened to release far more damaging information than he already has.
Nobody except the Russians and Chinese know what Snowden gave or sold them, if anything. Do you really believe that they would say he did? That fact that Manning, and as far as we know, Snowden, didn't sell information doesn't make it less damaging.
FWIW, I've seen a news report that Snowden is believed to have the identities US agents, and other highly damaging information.
I would also filter anything he says with the knowledge that he massively lied to get the position and security clearance that he used to steal those documents. He has admitted that the only reason he took the job was to steal secrets.
The lack of an extradition treaty doesn't mean extradition is impossible. It only means that the terms of extradition would have to be negotiated.
Snowden isn't in exile, he is a fugitive from justice. It is difficult to say if he will or won't end up in the US in the future. Does that trouble you?
Did the Mac, 25 years ago, allow people to load code from a remote server and execute it locally in a sandbox and in a platform independent manner all in a matter of a couple of seconds? No. No it did not.
Depends on how much leeway you are willing to grant. Around 1990 or so, the Mac could run Soft PC, a virtual machine x86 emulator running DOS or Windows. The Mac could certainly network and had file servers. So you should in fact have been able to download code from a fileserver and run it in the virtual machine, which from a Mac perspective would effectively be a sandbox. Although the PC DOS/Windows platform isn't "platform independent," it was nearly universal ( minus Mac only systems*) at the time.
The concept you are looking for is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction."
You may recall that hackers from around the world attacking the US are potentially subject to prosecution in the US for their crime? Same basic idea, just a different crime.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction simply relates to the authority of a government to criminalize activity that occurs outside its territorial borders, or to investigate or prosecute such activity. The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by one state with respect to criminal activity necessarily encroaches, in some measure, upon the sovereignty of the nation where the offense occurred. Under customary international law, there are five generally recognized principles upon which a country can permissibly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2003). The jurisdictional bases include the following.
- The objective territorial principle—where the offense occurs in one country but has effects in another, for example, killing someone by shooting across an international border. - The nationality principle—the offender is a citizen of the prosecuting state. - The protective principle—the offense offends the vital interests of the prosecuting state, such as counterfeiting that nation's currency. - The passive personality principle—the victim is a citizen of the prosecuting state. - The universality principle—the offense, such as piracy, is universally condemned by the international community, sometimes in a multinational convention or treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
If Assange engaged in an active conspiracy with Manning to obtain classified documents, it might be grounds for a conspiracy charge. There are nuances around this issue. It might be possible, it might not. Only a lawyer that practices in this area is likely to really know.
Many are enthusiastic about extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction when the possibility of prosecuting Dick Cheney is raised, but that enthusiasm tends to wane when the prospect of the US prosecuting Assange comes up.
Is this actually relevant for end-user electronics? Or is it yet another of those wonderful promising potential fast-switching techs that are announced every few months(since 1980 or so) yet never pan out to anything practical.
It it's current form, no, at least not for desktops. It might be useful for supercomputers. Real supercomputers that is, not the supercomputers currently in vogue made of hundreds of pallet loads of commodity type PCs linked by networks. The requirement for cryocooling (-190 C.) pretty much rules it out otherwise.
Hopefully it will serve as a good starting point for further research that could lead to breakthroughs that allow it to work at higher temperatures.
I assume you prefer that terrorist attacks against Australia and Australians fail, rather than succeed? (Hate to ask, but can't really assume on Slashdot, can we? Plenty of people (narcissists?) are actually indifferent.)
It could be that the prosecution just didn't meet the burden of proof for the charge of aiding the enemy.
Manning was also found guilty of "wrongfully and wantonly" causing to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US, "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accesible to the enemy". That guilty ruling could still have widest ramifications for news organisations working on investigations relating to US national security -- The Guardian
I'm curious, do you acknowledge that the US has any external enemies? Or do you think that the only enemy of the US is the federal government?
Manning probably conspired with Assange to get the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks made the information available to anyone that wanted it, including the Taliban and al Qaida. The Taliban and al Qaida are the enemy, not the US public and international press. The Taliban stated that they were using the information to hunt down informants. That is where the charge of "aiding the enemy" came from.
That is a more useful explanation than your troll.
When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data.
The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
--------
Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
The failings of the people managing the network don't excuse Manning's data breach.
The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws.... The same applies to Snowden...
I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied... in separate events.
The penalties are established in law, not by the court. The burden of proof for conviction are essentially the same for a civilian criminal court and a military general court martial: proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to sentencing there is a significant advantage to being tried in a military court - the military apparently still doesn't have sentencing guidelines that establish mandatory minimum sentences for conviction.
I never wrote anything about Snowden being subject to the UCMJ.
Snowden, like Manning, is likely to face charges for espionage, theft, and computer fraud. You do know that civilians can be charged with that, right? No UCMJ required.
A life sentence is probably what Snowden is looking at. That is pretty typical for the sort of massive, damaging espionage conducted against the US as Snowden performed. For a previous example you can see John Walker and others.
Slashdot Mirror
It is hard to stop a plot you don't know about. They find out about them with the intelligence they collect.
That headline has to be one of the starkest attempts on Slashdot to bait potential readers for a story that I've seen for a very long time. Look at that headline! Linux and Bacon!! Why it's enough to .... mmmm ... bacon. Excuse me....
If the article timeline is correct, things would have started turning bad about the time when the TSA started the unionization process. Originally they weren't unionized. Hard to believe government unions could be a negative influence.
How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?
The Chinese, Russians, and no doubt other countries are way ahead of you. They love spying on the NSA. They seem to be getting volunteer help these days too. What do you think Linus will bring to the game?
Do you think Linus will be interested in doing anything about people trying to set off car bombs at public ceremonies? Or will we still be stuck with the FBI and NSA? If Linus isn't interested in doing anything, do you think the NSA should be crippled?
FBI: alleged Christmas tree bomber thought 9/11 'was awesome'
Report: Canadian Terrorists Planned Truck Bomb Attack
Suicide truck bomb kills 14 in Russia
3 sought after 2nd car bomb found in London
I know, you're frustrated. There is plenty to be frustrated about from just about every perspective on this. The sad part is that the only people likely to really benefit are the people that want to set of the bombs to kill innocents.
Wikipedia has an entry on it: X-Keyscore
Good background story: Solving the mystery of PRISM
Spiegel Online covered it: 'Key Partners': Secret Links Between Germany and the NSA
Oddly enough it appears that news about intelligence programs used by America and its allies is reported in Persian. Go figure.
Fabulous, funny, and insightful. If this keeps up it may be time to break out the Soviet jokes Reagan collected.
You can probably take it as a rule of thumb that it will take 5-10 years for a basic scientific development like this, involving the materials, to move from the lab to production quality chips. That is assuming that it ever makes it. Variations in the count of things (going from 2 processors to 4) generally aren't that difficult on the hardware side, but getting full effect from the software may take some time. The more "exotic" the technology is, the greater the risk that it will take longer, or not happen at all. A lot of things can happen between the lab and your desktop. The technology may not be suitable for mass production. They may not be able to get it to work without cryo-cooling which will significantly limit where and how it can be used, as well as the expense. (This technology requires -190C to work.) It may take new design technology or techniques to integrate the devices from the development into a commercial chip. The process of making it may not be compatible with the processes used by the semiconductors used to make things in your PC. Lots of things can go wrong. But sometimes you get lucky and it can drive a chain of improvements. So yes, 5-10 years, if all goes well is I think a reasonable rule of thumb. It can take longer, it might rarely go quicker. Also keep in mind that companies do sometimes keep a key new development secret to try to get ahead of the competition. In those cases it will be available before you would otherwise expect it.
Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
Or a sucker.
I think that General George Washington was wiser than the people that you get your ideas from.
In a letter to one of his officers written in 1777, Washington wrote that secrecy was key to the success of intelligence activities:
"The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged-All that remains for me to add is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned...." [letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777]
The issue isn't that the national intelligence leadership isn't willing show anybody, and almost certainly isn't that they have no proof. They simply won't show you - CanHasDIY, and people similarly situated. Why? Because you have no security clearance, you have no "need to know" based on the rules of handling classified information, you have no responsibility that requires it, you perform no oversight of them.
Being a citizen and a voter is not a magic pass to personally supervise federal employees, nor does it entitle you to know all of the nation's secrets. You get to vote for your Congressional representatives, and inform them of your views. You can even volunteer for them, or form groups to lobby. But it is up to the representatives in Congress to pass the laws governing government activity, and to perform oversight of the government. That is it, unless you actually have a job that entitles you to greater responsibility in that regard as recognized by law and regulation. If you don't like that, you can always run for office.
Now as to evidence, I might be able to help a little, but no more than is in the news:
Snowden leaks give edge to U.S. rivals, officials say
Among the disclosures from Snowden that were published in the Washington Post and the Guardian was that Skype, the Internet calling service, was among the systems that provided data to the NSA's secret PRISM database. That disclosure contradicted a widespread belief that calls made via Skype were difficult or impossible to intercept.
Some suspected terrorists the NSA was tracking are no longer using Skype, U.S. officials said. Others have stopped using email, said one U.S. official who has been briefed on the damage.
"The Skype thing was really bad," the official said.
The full damage from Snowden's revelations has yet to be seen. I think that neither General Washington, nor Benjamin Franklin - a spymaster in his own right, would be amused.
George Washington: Spymaster and General Who Saved the American Revolution
Upon his appointment as Commander-in-Chief on June 15, 1775, Washington immediately began efforts to build an intelligence capacity to assist in obtaining information on the British Army. He accomplished this by creating, directing, and managing spy networks, along with deception, and misinformation efforts in order to mitigate and offset the British military advantage. An additional benefit of serving in the British Army was Washington’s appreciation of their military capability. He knew at the outset of the American Revolution that he could not defeat the British Army in Europe
Spies tend to go public with their identities when they defect. Snowden revealed his theft of documents from the territory of communist China, before he fled to Russia. Some spies do go public with at least some of their information. Snowden has made it clear that he has released only a small amount of the information that he has, and has threatened to release far more damaging information than he already has.
Nobody except the Russians and Chinese know what Snowden gave or sold them, if anything. Do you really believe that they would say he did? That fact that Manning, and as far as we know, Snowden, didn't sell information doesn't make it less damaging.
FWIW, I've seen a news report that Snowden is believed to have the identities US agents, and other highly damaging information.
I would also filter anything he says with the knowledge that he massively lied to get the position and security clearance that he used to steal those documents. He has admitted that the only reason he took the job was to steal secrets.
The lack of an extradition treaty doesn't mean extradition is impossible. It only means that the terms of extradition would have to be negotiated.
Snowden isn't in exile, he is a fugitive from justice. It is difficult to say if he will or won't end up in the US in the future. Does that trouble you?
Did the Mac, 25 years ago, allow people to load code from a remote server and execute it locally in a sandbox and in a platform independent manner all in a matter of a couple of seconds? No. No it did not.
Depends on how much leeway you are willing to grant. Around 1990 or so, the Mac could run Soft PC, a virtual machine x86 emulator running DOS or Windows. The Mac could certainly network and had file servers. So you should in fact have been able to download code from a fileserver and run it in the virtual machine, which from a Mac perspective would effectively be a sandbox. Although the PC DOS/Windows platform isn't "platform independent," it was nearly universal ( minus Mac only systems*) at the time.
* Yes, yes - Amiga, Apple II, Atari, et. al.
The concept you are looking for is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction."
You may recall that hackers from around the world attacking the US are potentially subject to prosecution in the US for their crime? Same basic idea, just a different crime.
Extraterritorial Issues
Extraterritorial jurisdiction simply relates to the authority of a government to criminalize activity that occurs outside its territorial borders, or to investigate or prosecute such activity. The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by one state with respect to criminal activity necessarily encroaches, in some measure, upon the sovereignty of the nation where the offense occurred. Under customary international law, there are five generally recognized principles upon which a country can permissibly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2003). The jurisdictional bases include the following.
- The objective territorial principle—where the offense occurs in one country but has effects in another, for example, killing someone by shooting across an international border.
- The nationality principle—the offender is a citizen of the prosecuting state.
- The protective principle—the offense offends the vital interests of the prosecuting state, such as counterfeiting that nation's currency.
- The passive personality principle—the victim is a citizen of the prosecuting state.
- The universality principle—the offense, such as piracy, is universally condemned by the international community, sometimes in a multinational convention or treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
If Assange engaged in an active conspiracy with Manning to obtain classified documents, it might be grounds for a conspiracy charge. There are nuances around this issue. It might be possible, it might not. Only a lawyer that practices in this area is likely to really know.
Many are enthusiastic about extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction when the possibility of prosecuting Dick Cheney is raised, but that enthusiasm tends to wane when the prospect of the US prosecuting Assange comes up.
Is this actually relevant for end-user electronics? Or is it yet another of those wonderful promising potential fast-switching techs that are announced every few months(since 1980 or so) yet never pan out to anything practical.
It it's current form, no, at least not for desktops. It might be useful for supercomputers. Real supercomputers that is, not the supercomputers currently in vogue made of hundreds of pallet loads of commodity type PCs linked by networks. The requirement for cryocooling (-190 C.) pretty much rules it out otherwise.
Hopefully it will serve as a good starting point for further research that could lead to breakthroughs that allow it to work at higher temperatures.
There is only one part of what I posted that was speculative, and that is the link between Manning and Assange. It isn't much of a leap, is it?
Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers
I assume you prefer that terrorist attacks against Australia and Australians fail, rather than succeed? (Hate to ask, but can't really assume on Slashdot, can we? Plenty of people (narcissists?) are actually indifferent.)
Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia
Google Earth isn't classified military intelligence.
It could be that the prosecution just didn't meet the burden of proof for the charge of aiding the enemy.
Manning was also found guilty of "wrongfully and wantonly" causing to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US, "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accesible to the enemy". That guilty ruling could still have widest ramifications for news organisations working on investigations relating to US national security -- The Guardian
I'm curious, do you acknowledge that the US has any external enemies? Or do you think that the only enemy of the US is the federal government?
Manning probably conspired with Assange to get the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks made the information available to anyone that wanted it, including the Taliban and al Qaida. The Taliban and al Qaida are the enemy, not the US public and international press. The Taliban stated that they were using the information to hunt down informants. That is where the charge of "aiding the enemy" came from.
That is a more useful explanation than your troll.
You mean James "Least Untruthful" Clapper?
Not quite. It is General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency.
I assume you didn't go to the web page where it is specified. I would hate to think you did and still got it wrong.
How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?
The defendants at Nuremberg (they weren't "fine folks") had committed crimes against humanity. Many of them were directly involved with genocide.
That in no way resembles the activity of the NSA.
When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data.
Army disciplined 15 over Bradley Manning and Wikileaks
The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
--------
Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
The failings of the people managing the network don't excuse Manning's data breach.
The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws. ... The same applies to Snowden ...
I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied ... in separate events.
Although I have no idea how it is possible, it seems the director of the NSA disagrees with you.
NSA director: Snowden leaks caused "irreversible and significant damage"
Assange very likely engaged in a conspiracy with Manning to obtain classified documents. That may be punishable.
The penalties are established in law, not by the court. The burden of proof for conviction are essentially the same for a civilian criminal court and a military general court martial: proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to sentencing there is a significant advantage to being tried in a military court - the military apparently still doesn't have sentencing guidelines that establish mandatory minimum sentences for conviction.
I never wrote anything about Snowden being subject to the UCMJ.
Snowden, like Manning, is likely to face charges for espionage, theft, and computer fraud. You do know that civilians can be charged with that, right? No UCMJ required.
A life sentence is probably what Snowden is looking at. That is pretty typical for the sort of massive, damaging espionage conducted against the US as Snowden performed. For a previous example you can see John Walker and others.