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

Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 245 posts

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#121

Post by hsod »

throwaway-1209 wrote: post #113
hsod wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your second paragraph, are you referring to the redactions? The document contains quotes like this: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions." which seem to directly tie it to GRU.

That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.

What would constitute evidence in this context?

To me, this statement which was:

* made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption

is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#122

Post by gorhill »

interrupt13 wrote: post #108

I can't help but feel a Zen-like sense of balance and bliss over this. An NSA contractor violated her employment agreement and the law in providing Top Secret info to The Intercept, who then published it. The Intercept got a story published and is enjoying great attention (and ad revenue), and the guilty party was caught. Everyone can be happy. "God’s in His heaven — All’s right with the world!" [R. Browning]

> The Intercept got a story published and is enjoying great attention (and ad revenue)

There is no ad revenue at The Intercept.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#123

Post by riskable »

[deleted] wrote: post #25
CogitoCogito wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that it was The Intercept's actions that caused her to be found. I agree that they should be more careful (they should _always_ be more careful), but there are many ways the source could have been found independent of the newspaper. Regardless, the government has many incentives to claim that it was The Intercept's deficient opsec that caused them to find the leaker. There really isn't much you ca…

[deleted]

For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this?

For NSA documents classified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printed they watermark the text. How?

They can also sprinkle typos:

For NSA documents clasified "top secret" they don't just watermark when printing, they watermark the text. How do they do this?

Another option: They'll include meaningless "extra" information after the text such as a glossary or word definitions or even just something that looks like background info copied from Wikipedia.

Of course, it all depends on how the document was obtained. The systems that modify texts in this way aren't used everywhere.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#124

Post by DGAP »

cproctor wrote: post #96

I wonder whether NSA uses syntactic watermarking[1], imperceptible changes to word order or sentence form, keyed to the user accessing a document. This, or other techniques of embedding a fingerprint in the text itself, would allow a leaker to be identified from just a transcription of the document. What is the right amount of fuzzing for a news organization to perform on leaked documents, to protect a source while p…

That seems entirely possible, although considering the scanned classified report also contained printer watermarking that identified the printer serial number, it also seems unnecessary.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#125

Post by tptacek »

tanderson92 wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so the top comment on this HN thread is more or less a content-free distilled expression of rooting interest. NSA bad, Intercept good, what more do you need to know?

Excuse me? Your characterization is far off the mark, and your snark unappreciated. I was simply remembering that the government can and does lie, and that there we should remember the interests of the parties involved. It's not content free to observe this fact and to stress what we do and do not know. If I had to change anything it would be the fact that they only signed up for an intercept mailing list using work…

There's nothing snarky about my comment; I meant exactly what I said.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#126

Post by tibarun »

tibarun wrote: post #120
tanderson92 wrote: post #5

Have we learned nothing about the NSA's tactics? The Intercept publishes reporting that they would rather not have been printed, and the very day the DOJ unseals charges where they try to say they learned about the leak from a paper crease from what can be reasonably inferred to be The Intercept. Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept (in contradiction with their recomm…

WaPo is a CIA mouthpiece. So it's to be expected if they portray "The Intercept" as an unsafe place to leak to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80ird...

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-...

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#127

Post by logfromblammo »

VLM wrote: post #66
rmxt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says the person linking to "informationliberation dot com". Pot, meet kettle. Sure her twitter profile is highly politically charged and should likely have made her unfit for clearance, but citing that as evidence that she should be institutionalized is ridiculous. She'd likely say the same about you given your proclivity for "informationliberation". Where does that leave us for discourse?

Have either of you been thru clearance? I have. They're really excited to know if you can be bribed with drugs or sex or simple money. If you have the politics of a typical college professor they're not terribly interested. The clearance process was mostly CYA, was this candidate dumb enough to say he'd sell secrets to the soviets for weed or cash to pay loansharks or kinky sex? I've read this woman's weird social me…

I could probably be bribed with a comprehensive family health insurance plan, with no deductibles and low co-pays. Just putting that out there.

A simple cash bribe is a nice gesture, obviously, but really, you'd just be bribing my spouse or my kids. That's why I don't like getting cash or gift cards as birthday gifts. I appreciate the thought, but you know that's just going to get spent on electricity for the house, or a replacement AC compressor, or a tank of gas. A good gift is something that person, specifically, would want, but probably couldn't justify slipping it into the family budget.

So yeah, bribing me with the same kind of health plan that I got a taste of once, and then never saw again, would be so much more effective than a briefcase full of cash. A defined-benefit retirement plan might work, too.

But that works both ways. If my [loyal] employer were to bribe me in that fashion, I'd be nigh-unflippable. ...unless the ethics reporting hotline was useless and career suicide, I guess.

So I wouldn't say the systemic failure is in not recognizing warning signs and raising red flags. It's because so many decent people just don't want to work for certain parts of the government any more. That leads to lowered standards, just to meet staffing requirements. And then everyone has to get "insider threat" briefings all the time. Decent people want decent job conditions, including pay commensurate with the private sector, and benefits sufficient to raise 2.1 kids in a solidly middle-class lifestyle. Sane people don't want to work for paranoid employers. Stable people don't want to worry about going bankrupt from a medical emergency. Reliable people want to be able to plan out career and retirement. And above all, honorable people don't want to turn on their own neighbors.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#128

Post by rory096 »

tibarun wrote: post #120
tanderson92 wrote: post #5

Have we learned nothing about the NSA's tactics? The Intercept publishes reporting that they would rather not have been printed, and the very day the DOJ unseals charges where they try to say they learned about the leak from a paper crease from what can be reasonably inferred to be The Intercept. Meanwhile the alleged leaker allegedly used her work computer to contact The Intercept (in contradiction with their recomm…

WaPo is a CIA mouthpiece. So it's to be expected if they portray "The Intercept" as an unsafe place to leak to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB1b3RMdhA&list=PLTpcK80ird...

This sort of conspiracy mongering is below the HN standard of discourse.

Amazon doesn't own WaPo, Jeff Bezos does. A $600 million 10 year contract for a private cloud is a tiny fraction of AWS revenue (some $15 billion per year), let alone overall Amazon revenue. It is in no way a sweetheart deal that would require Bezos bend over backwards, let alone undermine the integrity of the news organization for which he paid $250 million out of his own pocket.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#129

Post by Quanttek »

cmiles74 wrote: post #58
user982 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has all the appearances of the government trying to smear a news outlet and ensure no one leaks to them again. A scheme that would be less effective if not for The Intercept's demonstrably deficient opsec in protecting its source in this affair.

I don't think The Intercept has much responsibility here at all. In my opinion, in their role as receivers of leaked information, they should verify the information provided to them and decide if it should be released to the public. Sure, they shouldn't reveal their source and The Intercept met that requirement by insuring that they themselves did not know the leaker's identity. Anyone who is thinking about leaking a…

No, Journalists need to ensure the confidentiality of their source by all means. Simply releasing the info would consitute negligence. They have a duty to protect those who risk their life or freedom for the public good

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#130

Post by throwaway-1209 »

hsod wrote: post #121
throwaway-1209 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a statement. Statements are not evidence. I can make it seem like it's GRU (or "the Chinese") from right where I am in the US, with no way for anyone to say it ain't so. And I'm not even a pro.

What would constitute evidence in this context? To me, this statement which was: * made contemporaneously with the investigation * by experts * not intended for public consumption is evidence. It's not a formal proof, but it's evidence.

No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
Post reply on HN