uuaschbaer
Banned
This thread has done incalculable damage. You're all enemies.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Britain pulls out spies as Russia, China crack Snowden files: report
- Thread starter Phantast2k
- Start date
- Status
What a joke. All the sources are unnamed and the PMO says no one was harmed. This report is conveniently timed to support some new invasive legislation and people are eating it up. Without Snowden, we wouldn't know that our governments are feeding our private information to Americans. Even if a few spies were killed (according to the PMO they weren't), I honestly couldn't care less. Countries kill civilians with drone strikes and bombs all the time. Why should I feel sad when someone is killed in a job where people get killed? This is ridiculous.
Because he agrees with his world view, so he is correct
But not their human rights violations?
The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst — and Filled with Falsehoods
I'd suggest everyone read it through.
If the circumstances allowed for it, I'm sure he'd be a lot more vocal about his host. I really don't know what half of you expect from the man. It's quite absurd.
I'd suggest everyone read it through.
If the circumstances allowed for it, I'm sure he'd be a lot more vocal about his host. I really don't know what half of you expect from the man. It's quite absurd.
just the supreme irony of it.
Coriolanus
Banned
Get the feel that quite a lot of people would like to see Snowden subjected to the same treatment that Manning got, even though he was far more careful with his conduct.
Or he could've gone through the proper channels and gotten the same wonderful treatment that Binney got. If he was lucky.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I frankly think this is bullshit. He took 1.7 million docs out and handed them to journalists. That's not taking care. Despite his claims he didn't even know what he was taking.
And no I don't want him getting either of those treatment. I'd say someone like Robert Hassan is a better model.
It would take years to crack one of those encryption keys let alone all of them, did russia and china suddenly jump to quantum super computers when no one was looking and beat all other research by years?
...yeah this article is filled with holes, besides the encryption being brute forced and the fact British spies were able to get information from the Chinese intelligence services to find this kind of information out is completely laughable.
Russia is filled with holes when it comes to security but China? No, even with what I know of their cyber intelligence division they couldn't have done it and they have some of the best hardware and tech minds in the world to do it as well.
Article is the worst kind of dis-information I've seen, just plain lazy.
...yeah this article is filled with holes, besides the encryption being brute forced and the fact British spies were able to get information from the Chinese intelligence services to find this kind of information out is completely laughable.
Russia is filled with holes when it comes to security but China? No, even with what I know of their cyber intelligence division they couldn't have done it and they have some of the best hardware and tech minds in the world to do it as well.
Article is the worst kind of dis-information I've seen, just plain lazy.
BrassDragon
Member
I'm puzzled by the supposed intelligence professionals using the term 'agents' wrong - the article seems to go with the general public's perception of 'agents' being like James Bond, government-employed special operators.
But in the intelligence community, 'agents' are developed sources that perform clandestine actions on a target, they're not employees of any agency, they just report to handlers who are ('collectors', 'runners'.)
You can't just 'lift' them out of a country in the middle of an operation - they have jobs, families, ties and networks that you don't want to leave behind for further scrutiny. And historically, the US and UK have no compunction about leaving their agents out to dry when discovered (especially agents involved in the war on terror.)
The usual response is to isolate everyone else from the agent and deny any contact, not move heaven and earth to protect the compromised asset... in fact, 'lifting' them requires to use of even more assets and agents, increasing the risk exponentially. That stuff happens in movies but is rarely expedient in the real world.
But in the intelligence community, 'agents' are developed sources that perform clandestine actions on a target, they're not employees of any agency, they just report to handlers who are ('collectors', 'runners'.)
You can't just 'lift' them out of a country in the middle of an operation - they have jobs, families, ties and networks that you don't want to leave behind for further scrutiny. And historically, the US and UK have no compunction about leaving their agents out to dry when discovered (especially agents involved in the war on terror.)
The usual response is to isolate everyone else from the agent and deny any contact, not move heaven and earth to protect the compromised asset... in fact, 'lifting' them requires to use of even more assets and agents, increasing the risk exponentially. That stuff happens in movies but is rarely expedient in the real world.
Coriolanus
Banned
And? Has the data leaked? Have they been publishing stuff that legit put people in harms way? No? Oh hey, guess what, guess they were careful then.
Unless you develop that statement further, all you're doing is engaging in fear of big numbers.
gutter_trash
Banned
Moi j'aime manger de la poutine.
Mais toi tu aimes Vladimir Putin
CyclopsRock
Member
Surely the point is that it's unreasonable to expect him to have actually read all 1.7 million documents - therefore demonstrating that he can't have known exactly what was in them.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Greenwald does the same thing and should be treated the same as the CIA and NSA in this story (why is his relationship with snowden not a big red flag on his objectivity). He does the same thing they do point out a factual error (usually small and unimportant to the thesis or point of the statement or report) and claims this brings the whole thing crumbling down. He also then spreads unsubstantiated claims like the giant "smear campaign against snowden" and assigns the worst motives to his opponents.
And its laughable that just a few weeks ago he was pimping put the Hersh story on bin laden which is more unsubstantiated than this. Those anonymous governmental officials from Pakistan can be trusted but anything the US or UK says is obviously a lie.
And to your commentary on the end. That's absurd he has the ability to vocally criticize the US claiming as he did in HK he was ready to face the consequences of his choice but he now can't criticize a violent annexation, dictatorship and repression on a scale dick Cheney couldn't dream of. I expect him to be consistent, but his inconsitencys point to not a principled stance for freedom, privacy and civil liberties but a poltical agenda that should be examed and not unquestioned (just like he asks us to do of our leaders)
Coriolanus
Banned
And that's why they've been curing what they've been releasing, instead of just dumping all the info into the public sphere, wikileaks style.
Y'know apk, times like these i remember that your grudge with greenwald & snowden is borderline irrational.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He did dump the files though! He himself claims he just gave the files to journalists!
And what have I said that is wrong in this thread. I've been much more tempered than in the past
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's what this entire article is claiming!
Futurematic
Member
If they had they would know the 1.7 million doc number was entirely fake and made up. Lol.
RTFA said:
Ryan Gallagher said:
BrassDragon
Member
If Snowden really leaked anything vital, you wouldn't have anonymous sources telling us about rival powers cracking the encryption and the acutal countermoves they took to safeguard their interests... Doing this is a de facto confirmation of the value of the intelligence.
If their information position was genuinely weakened they would be tripping over themselves to downplay the access and reliability of Snowden's cache so foreign powers don't throw all their analysts at the documents.
The only thing Snowden demonstrably weakened was the ability of agencies to spy on their own citizens without meaningful accountability and oversight.
If their information position was genuinely weakened they would be tripping over themselves to downplay the access and reliability of Snowden's cache so foreign powers don't throw all their analysts at the documents.
The only thing Snowden demonstrably weakened was the ability of agencies to spy on their own citizens without meaningful accountability and oversight.
Elfforkusu
Member
Greenwald is biased, but his bias is predictable and easy to adjust for. He's grounded in reality, he just skews in a certain direction. In other words, he's a journalist.
On the other hand we have the spooks and the politicians. It is literally part of their job description to mislead and lie.
I don't see the equivalence.
On the other hand we have the spooks and the politicians. It is literally part of their job description to mislead and lie.
I don't see the equivalence.
Coriolanus
Banned
He gave the files to a single, trusted person, Greenwald. You know the files aren't in the the public domain. Working with someone you trust =/= dumping files. Don't be daft.
And you compared him to a legit russian spy, ffs.
The entire article is bullshit mate. Read the whole thread.
The monster.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't know how Greenwald is different from the "spooks and politicians" in this case. He's literally a part of the story (since he has the docs and has played a part in transporting them and traveling with snowden) he's become snowdens biggest defender. This has gone far beyond just a source and I don't know how anybody can take Greenwald at his word.
Coriolanus
Banned
See, this is what i mean. OF COURSE a journalist will be in touch with his source, and even CARE about his source. You're legit complaining about a journalist acting like a fucking journalist.
Can you point to a decent source that shows that he tampered with or falsified the info he's got? You're veering dangerously close to false equivalency.
I mean, the head of the other side is such a prick that he directly lied to congress and got away scot free, and you're worrying about the journalist's word..
You have posted so much nonsense in this thread that you'd think the article would quietly quote you as a source.
Elfforkusu
Member
Coriolanus is on the money. Greenwald is doing his job. Your complaint is that he is doing his job.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I never claimed they were in the public domain. I've claimed they've leaked to adversaries. He flew them to HK, had them when he went to the Russian embassy (i believe they made their way to england as the guardian was forced to destroy them) but were just suposed to believe greenwalds and snowdens assertion with no proof that they're good enough to keep files away from the Chinese (who've been hacking and in the news quite often) and the Russians from getting their hand on the documents while they crossed into their countries?
And I think willingly fleeing to Russia with these type of docs doesn't make him much different than a 'legit foreign spy' no matter the value of his leaks were to spuring debate.
And I don't see where the article has been disproven, I've seen Greenwald cast aspersions on the times and without evidence claim something (sounds familiar)
Not true, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that he shared them with 2 people (his claim) -- one being his documentarian. Even if you want to argue that he didn't know the guardian would share the documents with other news organizations, like the NYT. He still gave documents to newspapers in Hong Kong to try and buy asylum
Oh, and don't forget Greenwald has claimed that many encrypted copies were distributed worldwide in case Snowden dies
Elfforkusu
Member
The type of hacking the Chinese and Russians do is not equivalent to the crypto-breakthrough level cheat codes that would be needed to (for example) crack PGP.
Also, Snowden had gotten rid of the files by the time he went to (was stranded in) Russia.
Also, Snowden had gotten rid of the files by the time he went to (was stranded in) Russia.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No, a source doesn't always act this way about his source. He might care about him but the full court press Greenwald goes on using the same tactics he bemoans otheres for doing.
I'm not defending clapper or the NSA in the slightest so I don't know why that keeps coming up in this.
And why can't I complain about a journalists actions? that's the very thing Greenwald himself is doing in that article that's being quoted authoritatively!
Coriolanus
Banned
Source on the bolded?
And i've no problem whatsoever with them distributing encrypted files as a dead man's switch.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And if this encryption can be broken? The only claim it can't comes from snowden and greenwald.
BrassDragon
Member
He didn't flee to Russia, he was trying to reach Ecuador and got stuck at Moscow aiport when the US checkmated him with both diplomatic pressure on countries considering asylum and the cancellation of his travel permits. Also, I seem to recall he no longer had the cache on him at this point.
There is no way either Putin or Snowden could have predicted that chain of events.
Coriolanus
Banned
You're engaging in fearmongering now, mate. Why should i believe that it can be broken? It's been two years. It hasn't. Ten years from now, will the info still be good? highly unlikely.
Slackbladder
Member
Government propaganda happily regurgitated by a Tory newspaper.
Now The Guardian can be accused of being a Labour paper if you wish but this article by Shami Chakrabati of Liberty is a good read. www.theguardian.com
Now The Guardian can be accused of being a Labour paper if you wish but this article by Shami Chakrabati of Liberty is a good read. www.theguardian.com
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No my complaint is greenwalds claims and reporting isn't being questioned.
Question and distrust the govts story, that's great. I just don't know why snowden, and first looks claims aren't subject to even half the scrutiny the times is.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Again the article claims it has. Your basing the entirety of your agurment on greenwalds word with no evidence (which is the supposed problem of the times article according to the article). Which circularly leads to back to the chosen conclusion. Greenwald says it can't be hacked thus times is lying because greenwald claimed something so article is bunk.
At best I can understand someone not buying anything but believing first look and snowden so uncritically seems to be intentionally naive.
I know lots of what the government is saying is at best half truths but I put that in to the wider understanding of their motives. Should first look be treated the same way.
And this is true only if you believe the claims of snowden, wikileaks and first look. That's the only people who have "knowledge" of his intentions. And if your not willing to just give them the benefit of the doubt (especially considering wiki leaks russian ties) then that claim isn't authoritative and just speculation.
His passport was canceled before he left Hong Kong; the idea that the US stranded him in Russia is nothing but fantasy. He flew there on the invalid document from Ecuador issued by a friend of Julian Assange at the Londom embassy -- the same Assange that openly admits to trying to get Snowden to Russia as that would be the safest place
In fact, Putin admits that Snowden approached them at their embassy in Hong Kong
Coriolanus
Banned
I read allathat. Sez he provided some data to a newspaper, and then veers into conjecture that he might be coerced into providing the rest. Given that what little info he gave them was readily publicized, i see no reason to believe that he gave them even more info.
Could've misread.
Because in two years, no one could show that they falsified info even once.
Here:
"He's literally a part of the story (since he has the docs and has played a part in transporting them and traveling with snowden) he's become snowdens biggest defender."
Why yes, if a journo receives docs, he'll most likely have to transport them. If the source is globetrotting, he'll have to follow the source if he doesn't want to commit the matters they wanna discuss to the awesome security provided by skype, and if a journo believes his work is good and his source is valid? why yes, he'll sure as fuck defend his work.
How is ANY of that behaviour unexpected? Unjustifiable? Undefensable?
The clapper bit keeps coming up because you keep fearmongering with "But we can't take greenwald's word!" Well, ok, maybe. But why? Because if puts others at risk? And who said that? Those guys? Those guys that have a vested interest in undermining the value of his work? The same fucking guys that openly lied to congress and got the prez to shill for them?
"Because he's too close!"
...well then, see above.
wish i could find a less strawmanny way to exemplify it, but there ya go.
BrassDragon
Member
No, the Ecuadoran offer of asylum, its subsequent retraction and the efforts of the US State Department to prevent him from travelling are sourced outside of those parties.
I appreciate your skeptical mindset - it's good to look at things like this from all angles. But that perspective seems to clash with your strong assertions that the man is a villain. Occam's Razor suggests to me that things went down as widely and internationally reported. Until new information presents itself (genuinely new information, not the waffle from anonymous sources in unrelated government departments), I'll hold to that.
Coriolanus
Banned
This keeps coming up. Assuming he's a rational actor, (well, somewhat rational. truly rational would've never engaged in the whole ordeal. fuck allathat) what should've been his ideal course of action?
So why would you propose that he leaked detailed sensitive information on US espionage in China to the Chinese press while trying to claim asylum in HK? This had nothing to do with the illegal domestic spying he originally released information on, and it was specific down to the individual computers that were compromised by US intelligence.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
First thing. They've had to correct their reporting if I recall lots of the original prisim story were corrected.
And I never claimed they 'falsified data' that was someone else. I've said they haven't been transparent and have been deceptive and should not he trusted.
And to greenwald, he's become a character witness, a friend of snowden but pretending he's objective. I don't have a problem with him claiming that he doesn't think he would do this or that or that didn't happen when greenwald was present but a lot of greenwalds writing has been about snowdens behavior in Russia (has greenwald been there 24/7?) At that point he's not been a reporter and just a friend and someone who isn't an authoritivative voice. This type of behavior I think goes far beyond the journalistic practice. But even divorcing that from criticism of a journalists I think it just beings up questions of if what he's saying is true.
That ans the relationship between the two suits whatever greenwald wants it to be. If snowdens accused of something he can use their closeness to back him up but if anyone asks questions about he's reporting or behavior sorounding snowden (was he at the Russian embassy, what specifically happened to the documents, who has them) then its beyond the pail that someone would question what a journalist is doing and cries of privacy or the intentions of the questioner are allowed to deflect from the issues raised. Its frustrating because one vital part of the story won't let people investigate it. And were left with at best a half picture.
Its important to remember greenwald is an attorney and his whole style and shifting standards clearly remind one of that. The ends and thing that needs to be proved is the goal and important fact. Not how one gets there.
I have a lot of problems with this article. First, it uses anonymous sources to make its assertions which basically means it has no sources. Second, an official at Cameron's office is quoted saying there's no evidence of any harm but Snowden has somehow done damage? Third, the article claims the files were encrypted but "not completely secure". What? We know Snowden didn't have any files on him when he went to Russia so that leaves that journalists gave them to Russia and China which I highly doubt. It also means that Russia and China cracked the encryption code which is very hard to believe especially with no sources. Third, no country would announce to the world that their agents are being compromised in the field so their must be some ulterior motive here, specifically this legislation that's being brought to the parliament in Britain. So I don't trust this article at all. Feels like a plant article to get support this legislation.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
- Status