Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden at IETF 93

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#91

Post by NullCharacter »

pfg wrote: post #84
slg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an awful defense. You can't just dump all the documents on a journalist and then blame the journalist for what is being released. It doesn't matter if it was directly or through an intermediary, everything that Snowden gave to journalists, Snowden leaked to the public.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be held responsible if all of those documents were to leak. He did, however, specifically select journalists who already experienced heavy surveillance from state actors and had at least some knowledge of proper OpSec and encryption to mitigate this risk to some degree. He acknowledged that it could leak, but still thought it's a risk worth taking (I can't remember his exact words, I…

Why should he be the one to decide if the leaking of over a million highly classified documents is a "risk worth taking" to inform Americans of the phone metadata program? Doesn't that seem just odd to you? If I wanted to blow the whistle on a program I thought was illegal, I'd gather supporting documents and evidence of that one program (to include supposed emails I had sent in an attempt to follow the proper "channels" for reporting illegal activity - which in Snowden's case are conspicuously absent from the data he stole) so as to not discredit my work/sacrifice by leaking magnitudes more than I needed to.

Why not just leak documents related to that one issue? If he had, I would not hesitate in the least to call him a whistle blower, and in fact I think he'd be living as a free man right now if that were the case.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#92

Post by nly »

jingo wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #17

When asked about DNSSEC, which is a forklift upgrade of a core Internet protocol that has the deliberate effect of giving NSA and GCHQ control of TLS keys for hosts in .COM, .UK, .NET, .ORG, and .IO, this was Snowden's answer: Edward Snowden: So, I agree with you and I mean this is what's important about the IETF. Just because I say it, doesn't mean it's gospel. I can be wrong about an incredible amount of things. No…

"... armour the requests themselves to make sure that they don't become the new vector, they don't become manipulated." I interpreted this to mean encrypting each DNS packet. Maybe I misread the statement? DNSSEC of course does not protect the contents of the packet. Instead, DNSSEC more or less is just another CA system (or an adjunct to the existing one), running over UDP.

You're confusing vanilla DNSSEC with its proposed uses/abuses. DNSSEC just enforces the trust model that was already in place (the hierarchical nature of DNS) to ensure the authority and integrity of DNS responses. It doesn't provide confidentiality because that simply doesn't work in the shared DNS forwarder+cache model we all currently depend upon, much like HTTPS renders shared HTTP caches useless (which has implications for CDNs for example).

Proposals like DANE, using TLSA records, or deploying SSHFP records on DNSSEC enabled domains, are a different kettle of fish.

Whether or not you believe in DANE really depends on whether you're willing to accept that the DNS infrastructure is already security critical. Truth be told, if I can hijack your DNS, I can get a certificate for your domain using simple domain validation... but that's true of your web server as well. There's no easy answer here.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#93

Post by gonehome »

ikeboy wrote: post #90
gonehome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. It looks like he still strongly supports what Snowden did. I also think Binney's case is a bit different - when you don't leak the actual documents the intelligence agencies can (and do) just lie. If not an outright lie it'll be a carefully stated misle…

>A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. That was a direct result of Snowden's actions. I don't see the argument that his exposing the US spying on other countries is "right", and deserves a pardon. If he had only leaked local surveillance, I'd have a weaker case. >You won't win a trial on pr…

I can understand there's an argument that the scope of the documents leaked is too broad and how someone could think trusting the selective publishing to journalists isn't good enough. I think Binney was arguing that it was the journalists responsibility not to publish materials out of scope.

That said, I suspect it's broad because it's hard to be selective internally without arousing suspicion and part of the leak was the scale of the operation itself - but that's not a great defense.

>If the problem was that he disagreed with the law, in the US, the way to change laws you disagree with is through the political process. Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon.

I think the core problem is actually deeper than this. When you have secret courts and secret interpretations of secret laws you don't have a process to change them. Part of leak was to bring this into the public view - given the incentives, politics and the existing laws surrounding the sharing of classified information I don't see another way this could have been done. Mass surveillance should minimally be a public decision - the secrecy surrounding it is dangerous.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#95

Post by math_and_stuff »

pfg wrote: post #84
slg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an awful defense. You can't just dump all the documents on a journalist and then blame the journalist for what is being released. It doesn't matter if it was directly or through an intermediary, everything that Snowden gave to journalists, Snowden leaked to the public.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be held responsible if all of those documents were to leak. He did, however, specifically select journalists who already experienced heavy surveillance from state actors and had at least some knowledge of proper OpSec and encryption to mitigate this risk to some degree. He acknowledged that it could leak, but still thought it's a risk worth taking (I can't remember his exact words, I…

Greenwald couldn't figure out how to use PGP on his own and then frequently communicated via CryptoCat. His OpSec skills at the time of the leak were questionable at best.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#96

Post by Lawtonfogle »

eli wrote: post #73
travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequ…

>The rule of law should apply to everyone equally

Then start with the little incident that happened around 2008 that did far more damage to the average American. Also, hasn't Obama admitted to smoking pot? He is currently in a far greater position to damage the US and should be thoroughly punished for his crimes. What about Clinton and her emails? And if I started listing the skeletons in the closet of Congress we would be here for weeks.

Rule of law has ALWAYS been selectively applied.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#97

Post by ikeboy »

gonehome wrote: post #93
ikeboy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. That was a direct result of Snowden's actions. I don't see the argument that his exposing the US spying on other countries is "right", and deserves a pardon. If he had only leaked local surveillance, I'd have a weaker case. >You won't win a trial on pr…

I can understand there's an argument that the scope of the documents leaked is too broad and how someone could think trusting the selective publishing to journalists isn't good enough. I think Binney was arguing that it was the journalists responsibility not to publish materials out of scope. That said, I suspect it's broad because it's hard to be selective internally without arousing suspicion and part of the leak w…

>When you have secret courts and secret interpretations of secret laws you don't have a process to change them.

Technically there's internal whistleblowing. Besides, the fact that there are secret courts wasn't secret, so you could campaign against having those courts be secret. If there's anything being done that actually violates the law, you'd have full whistleblower protection (if you go through official channels). If it's just your disagreement with the law, you can act against that (as the EFF had been doing for years before Snowden) without breaking it.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #34
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is very little evidence that Snowden is qualified to advise anyone on cryptographic security I think you're poisoning the well here. I haven't seen anyone suggest we should use Snowden as a technical advisor or anything of the sort.

This is a weird response to a comment that quotes Snowden at length providing technical advice to the IETF.

> This is a weird response to a comment that quotes Snowden at length providing technical advice to the IETF.

Viewed another way, its a perfectly obvious and not at all weird response to a comment that quotes Snowden explicitly disclaiming that he is any particular, before providing a very vague general impression of things "like" a particular technology about which he was specifically questioned, without providing anything that looks like actual specific technical advice.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#99

Post by rhodysurf »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #96
eli wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequ…

>The rule of law should apply to everyone equally Then start with the little incident that happened around 2008 that did far more damage to the average American. Also, hasn't Obama admitted to smoking pot? He is currently in a far greater position to damage the US and should be thoroughly punished for his crimes. What about Clinton and her emails? And if I started listing the skeletons in the closet of Congress we wo…

No one gets arrested for saying they've smoked pot. Its for possession usually. Theres a difference.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#100

Post by fweespeech »

eli wrote: post #73
travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequ…

> The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics.

Its pretty clear the rule of law doesn't apply to our intelligence services. How about you work on that first before going after the little guy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfa9ada4-81e6-11e4-b9d0-00144feabd...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-inf...

Get back to us when all that sees a court room, kay?

Post reply on HN