5 Years on, US Government Still Counting Snowden Leak Costs (apnews.com) 172
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."
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I've really been missing the obsessions of the birthers.
Glad to see that, with the change in administrations, the other team has unleashed its own obsessives.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
$2.3 trillion? Your mom spent that on condoms last year alone!
Re: (Score:3)
"""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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties are for snooping on others but not themselves. Politicians are flip-floppers who reflect absent-minded voters.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what I call "extreme libertarianism": repeal civilization and go back to "caveman" days, perhaps like Flintstones meet Mad Max. Their convention would be a hoot, that's for sure. I wonder if they piss in the hallway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look! Anonymous Coward is trolling itself!
Re: (Score:1)
And 200+ years on (Score:5, Interesting)
Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (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.
So the cost of doing anything just doubled, one worker to work and a second worker to snoop on the actual worker. That does indeed sound like government. Specifically the paranoid type that fell in the late 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of new contacts for psychiatrists and psychologists.
The tracking of spending habits, holidays, web use, reading material.
Any attempt to complain internally. Any use of the internal legal system to report problems and irregularities.
The study of anyone with a clearance 4 hops from a person with a clearance who feels the need to report a problem.
The main thrust is spending habits, hobbies, changes to online
Re: (Score:1)
> I've not seen the government make any steps to prevent the next Snowden from following the same steps Snowden made.
My understanding is that Administrators' access has been dramatically cut, and checking out an administrative credential now requires two separate people to accomplish the task.
If that's right, and I don't work PubSec so I can't say for sure, then you have to find two Snowdens that happen to work together, trust each other enough to work together on the data exfil, and are willing to give
Re: (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
Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 (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?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
He cannot possibly claim to be "leaking" with a purpose when he didn't even know what he was revealing.
But he did claim that it was not his intent to do so. In his version of the story, he's on his way to meet a journalist in Hong Kong (who would have been tasked with responsible disclosure) when his passport is revoked during at a stopover in a Moscow airport, then they leaked all of it. Something he had even anticipated as a possibility, but was forced to accept as a risk to meet with the one journalist he felt he could trust, in the one location that journalist felt safe, within the time frame they had
Re: (Score:2)
First time I've heard that narrative, and I've been following it here on slashdot since it went down.
Well, you learn something new every day. That has been Snowden's story all along. Not sure how you missed it, since you have been following it since it want down.
Re: (Score:1)
His interview was originally aired on HBO. I'm sure you can find a pirated copy somewhere if it's not on youtube already.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
So are you claiming that foreign governments don't spy on other foreign governments?
Do you honestly believe that Britain doesn't spy on Germany? Germany doesn't spy on Spain? And Spain doesn't spy on Italy? Let alone them all not spying on Russia, China and Israel?
What a fantasy filled world you must live in. Say hello to the unicorns for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.
Outside the US, US law is completely irrelevant. I know of no country where it is legal for a foreign government to spy on people.
Okay, but those domestic laws also do not apply the foreign governments. And around we go. In reality, spying is worked out between governments. It's not so much a matter of law ans policies and agreements.
Re: (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...
Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 (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.
Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 (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
Re:Not preventing Snowdon 2.0 (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if he didn't like them, which is no matter because the programs were just more government intrusion and control and spying over peoples lives... he has, as do all people, the absolute right to copy and publish and speak freely about whatever the fuck he and you want to. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the government and all the fucked up shit it does.
If you do not have FREEDOM OF SPEECH, then you have NOTHING.
Motherfucking baller kudos to ALL leakers.
They're the real patriots.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Patently false; quite a few former FBI/CIA directors over the last few years have said as much. "There is nowhere for whistlblowers to go".
When the US Government starts behaving properly, THEN we can start to have a conversation about ethics...until then, if they're playing dirty pool they must accept others playing dirty pool with them.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Cap Locks: to be avoided whenever possible, because the readability of your prose will suffer due to abuse of the key.
Let me play you a song (Score:5, Funny)
Do you know any other tunes? (Score:1)
Do you know any other tunes? It turns out what you're playing for is only the beginning of the story. Here is something from the middle.
Vicious truck attack kills 84 during France fireworks display [cnbc.com]
Berlin massacre reminiscent of deadly Nice attack [en.rfi.fr] (12 dead, 48 injured)
Barcelona attack as it happened: At least 13 dead and 100 injured after van hits crowd in act of terror [independent.co.uk]
We don't know how it will end yet, but the portents aren't good.
German Intel Report Reveals Extent Of Islamist Infiltration In Germany [legalinsurrection.com]
You c
Yeesh, would it be cheaper... (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
Re: (Score:3, 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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for the US gov is the hiring practices.
Too many random people entering the US gov/mil have to be considered not for their loyalty and skill.
The US gov could just hire on merit. Have top experts fill every sensitive gov job.
The political leaders over decades have filled the US mil with random contractors and workers.
Created mil/gov jobs in random states to win votes.
Jobs that have to be filled from a random pool of local workers.
The UK went for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI would interview and walk the life story of anyone wanting a clearance.
Their faith, politics, citizenship, any crimes, reading material, hobbies, unusual lifestyles, spending habits, debts, education, ability to learn, politics while getting an education, mil service.
That would need interviews. A look at and talk with friends, teachers, educators, mil, coworkers. Did that person exist in the part of the USA they said they did.
That later st
Stop attacking the world, then (Score:1, Interesting)
the world is not your enemy, you paranoid PoS country. I hope we see more leaks so the world wakes up to all the wrong horrible things America is doing, and it becomes more and more clear how paranoid they are and how they view the world as an enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
...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?
Re: (Score:2)
Listening in is addictive to the political leaders and the NSA budgets that grow.
1%? so shit is MUCH WORSE than already known? (Score:1)
5 years has passed - would be nice if 100% of the data was released to us so the IT security professionals among us can actually do our jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
would be nice if 100% of the data was released
A good part of that might expose the identity of agents in the field. And will never be released. Per Snowden's request to the media outlets to screen such data out.
Dick Cheney probably exposed more undercover field agents when he outed Valerie Plame. And foreign intelligence just worked backwards finding links between her, her cover employer and other possible spies. Why isn't Cheney hiding in Russia?
Re: (Score:1)
Why isn't Cheney hiding in Russia?
I know you're trying to be funny, but unlike Snowden, Cheney is considered a war criminal [wikipedia.org] there. Actually, technically he is here too... at least according to the law. It's somewhat profound to realize but, Snowden may actually be safer in more places around the world than Cheney.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonetheless you're brushing away the fact that Cheney didn't reveal Valerie Plame as a US agent. Also, the witch hunters pursuing the 'leaker' knew who it was very very early in the investigation, but kept that a secret so that 'Blame Cheney' could be an effective mantra.
Re: (Score:1)
It cost me nothing (Score:1, Troll)
It cost the guilty nothing either. How many were fired after they were exposed? I haven't heard of a single person going to jail over any of it. It just cost them their reputation. Which is and will always be nothing. It only exposed what we already suspected. Our government will go to any lengths to keep their crimes secret.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no cost greater than.. (Score:4, Insightful)
the biggest crime: embarrassing the NSA (Score:4, Interesting)
I sleep better.
Re:the biggest crime: embarrassing the NSA (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Greatest Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
The greatest cost is the continuing loss of faith & trust in our government.
That's a load of crap! And the vote count confirms it. 95% of congress is still reelected every cycle, and over 98% of you people still vote for republican/democrat. Until that changes, you can choke on your post! In the meantime, take a good look at who you made president!
Re: (Score:1)
That's just not accurate. Obama told us he was going to try to turn the U.S. into a socialist paradise and he spent eight years trying to do that.
Trump told us he was going to lower taxes, kill U.S. participation in the Paris agreement, penalize China for manipulating the Dollar, recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, role back EPA rules imposed by the Obama administration, etc.
Republicans hated Obama because he kept his promises.
Democrats hate Trump because he is keeping his promises.
Sanders terrifi
Re: (Score:2)
As for you: I don't think you need to choke on anything. You might want to calm down a bit, but no choking is necessary at this juncture.
Also: your assumption is false; I am part of the majority of people who voted against Mr. Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
cybersquid never said whose continuing loss of faith. Certainly mine and, I'd assume, his/hers as well. It appears to be an assumption that he/she was speaking for the whole United States, collectively. On topic, for my part, I'm at a loss as to how to change a system that's self-reinforcing.
If you take this office, you'll get free money. Now, your task for this session is to create laws that prevent you from getting free mo
Re: (Score:1)
While I agree that Snowden is the only hero in the situation, given the behavior we've seen so far, if you were in his place, if the US government suddenly pulled an about-face and publicly claimed to issue a pardon, inviting him to return home, would you trust them not to pounce the instant you set foot on US soil?
Re: (Score:3)
My dad told me one thing many years ago, the government is not your friend.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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 de
TLDs upset that people realize spying on US exists (Score:1)
Look, I still don't think Snowden helping Russia is a good thing, especially the many attempts in the US, Australia, Canada, and the UK to interfere (which are still ongoing, regardless of my personal viewpoint that Scotland deserves to be it's own nation, as it has always been, and the Soviet-backed Brexit was atrocious).
But, the agencies (five of which you know about, others which you don't) that are actively spying on US citizens both at home and abroad, did in fact go too far.
That said, using clouds or
Re: (Score:1)
Look, I still don't think Snowden helping Russia is a good thing
The only evidence that he's helped russia is by capitalizing on his position as a public source of embarrassment to the US to garner asylum in russia. A choice he was forced into by the US cancelling his passport while he was en-route through a russian airport.
Contrast that to somebody like Assange who has not only knowingly served as a cut-out for russian disinfo operations, but also participated in them himself, particularly his public embrace of seth rich conspiracy lies to simultaneously puff himself u
Re: (Score:1)
He destroyed the myth that Five Eyes were not spying on their own citizens and/or passing the data to the NSA. He destroyed the myth that the NSA was not spying on American citizens. Basically, he destroyed the myth that our governments did not lie to us.
To quote Oliver Stone,"We are the terrorists, many times. In Syria we are supporting the terrorist group, the Al-Nusra front. We don’t report to the people, what we’re really doing. We report our point of view, our propaganda."
Clapper lying http
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The networks that did not have the skills to detect gov collect it all deep in their most secure big brand networks.
The big US brands that sold and gave away junk crypto as crypto standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Release the junk crypto facts and let the internet sort it out.
And Clapper is still not in jail for perjury (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, he's landed a cushy job at CNN.
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect there's some sticky politics and/or national secrets connected to this story, and that's why more representatives didn't push for prosecution. It's as if those in the know in both parties don't want to open Pandora's box to the public. It's why pundits are loud but representatives relatively quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run he's going to end up strengthening them because his so very public objections are so obviously self-serving that anyone with legitimate criticisms in the future will just be tarred with his corruption and ignored.
And, isn't that surprisingly convenient? We finally get someone in a position of power that hasn't been filtered through the political sieve for years, and he is immediately tarred badly enough to be suspect. The tarring process includes circumstances that would have raised howls in the media if it had been conservatives spying on a democrat, but somehow a little semantic juggling of replacing "spy" with "informant" makes it all fine in this case. Either way, an actual 'citizen', without years of politica
Re: (Score:2)
Brings to mind thrash group Sabbat (Score:2)
A Cautionary Tale:
"Think for just one moment and I'm sure that you will see,
the moral of this story - that what shall be must be.
He who gives his soul to Hell, must dare to pay the price,
he versed in divinity must live a noble life -
OR ELSE HE IS DAMNED!"
The wages of government stupidity is maybe another century of these releases. Governments can't keep secrets, so they're ethical to within practical limits, or else they are damned.
Catch 22 (Score:2)
The problem with trickling out the documents over such a long period of time is that people ultimately get bored or complacent with it all and pay little attention to it. It's human nature.
Think of the nightly news.
It's full of non-stop murder and mayhem every single day and most of us don't even blink an eye at it anymore.
The Catch-22 part of the problem is this:
If you released it all en masse, many will raise hell for a few weeks then promptly forget about it as soon as the next tragedy or engineered dis
Re: (Score:2)
The Hacker's Crackdown (Score:1)
The E911 Document was also proving a weak reed. It had originally been valued at $79,449.
Computer-knowledgeable people found this value -- for a twelve-page bureaucratic document -frankly incredible. In his "Crime and Puzzlement" manifesto for EFF, Barlow commented: "We will probably never know how this figure was reached or by whom, though I like to imagine an appraisal team consisting of Franz Kafka, Joseph Heller, and Thomas Pynchon."
Zenner gave the witness a copy of "BellSouth E911 Service Interfaces,"
Re: (Score:3)
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 an
yup (Score:1)
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA and NSA faced closed gov question is the 1970's. That was it.
The thinking goes that budgets got restricted.
Iran Contra was the thinking around any such US gov funding changes to world wide CIA activities.
The US gov said no more funds? Create your own agency funds using products and services that are in demand and do the mission.