Live data from Hacker News

Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

washingtonpost.com

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

go read her social postings, she wasn't thinking clearly as its pretty obvious she was acting irrational hatred of the current administration. people like this are easy to spot, how in the hell do they get clearance? how do they keep it?

Seriously, go read her twitter. That's what gets my tinfoil hatting. She sounds like a mid-range bot. Her account runs from Oct 2016 to Feb 2017. She only has one mode and its Trump sucks. I have too many theories, but first we need to figure out if there is such a person: That's right, I'm questioning Reality.

There is a plausible narrative that she hates the Administration so much that she specifically found a job with access to top secret documents with the aim of disseminating them.

Although you would think that when applying for a job that requires security clearance (even though she already had clearance), you would at least try to scrub your history, at the very least, you'd remove your retweets of Edward Fucking Snowden and Iranian politicians.

Did anyone do even a cursory check of her social media? I thought that's what most employers did these days before hiring people.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#212
post #168

* Our leaker is a person with a Twitter timeline that makes you wonder how she maintained her Secret clearance. She retweets @Snowden, yet was hired at Pluribus in Feb. of this year, days after doing so. * The story is a huge black eye for the Intercept, makes it look like they are very inept. * The leak is not really substantial, mostly analyst notes about an ongoing thing that's been talked up in the press quite a…

She had top secret clearance prior to being hired by Pluribus in February. She was formerly in the Air Force and apparently specialized in Middle Eastern languages. Apparently, top secret clearance is renewed every 5 years [0], so she may have had carte blanche to do what she wanted for a few years. [0] http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs...

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ANYONE NAMED "REALITY"? I'd sooner hear of a girl named "CRYSTAL BALL."

"Reality Winner" is a subliminal message having the desired effect across the nation: it's the same sort of effect rhymes have, pleasing musical harmonies have, and that sociable people have when they communicate through simile jokes. It's pleasing to the mind, and the light bulb seems to be going off for everyone and they feel a sensation of delight for pinpointing how "ironic" it is that her name is "Reality" "Winner."

It's a subliminal trick that feeds into "conception bias" (i.e. when you're the one who comes up with an idea) by an institution in a 5-sided building that has spent decades studying human psychology.

Also, dont u think it's funny that supposedly the case is finally closed that Russia actually did the DNC hacking the week after Putin's very public denial to Megyn Kelly??????? This is the main indicator for those paying attention. This is all theatrics and damage control. It's all fabricated. This girl doesn't exist, at least not as we're made to think she does. What she leaked (that stupid hacking diagram) is also likely fabricated.

The pyramid of propaganda functions because of one premise: for the average person, it's so impossible to believe (too grand and out in the open and subject to being figured out, too immoral). People don't want to believe it, and naturally don't think it's possible. It's a pyramid--because all it takes is pundits and experts to also buy into it. Then us common folk say to ourselves: "well, these respected experts buy it, it must be true." I'm no follower and follow no man, I hope you aren't either!

Watch this short VIDEO FROM TODAY discussing "Reality Winner". It's by an ex Merrill Lynch finance guy who tracks the conspiracies far more than I do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQygVChyW0 ...(as if supposed credibility of being from Merrill Lynch is what's needed to see the obvious forrest for the trees).

Too much aint adding up. Where else in your life would you tolerate someone telling you something is the way it is without evidence (Russian hacking, Assad gassing, etc)? Your boyfriend/girlfriend? No, u'd correctly assume he/she was lying. See, modern espionage is less about spies peering through windows looking for secrets, and more about disseminating false information to decision-makers to guide their predictable behavior. And there's a 5-sided building in Washington DC that specializes in just that, just like the false reports they fabricated about weapons of mass destruction in 2003 that they gave to our many honest congressmen prior to invading Iraq.

I want you to internalize this: just because YOU can't figure out how they do it, doesn't mean an entity as powerful as the CIA hasn't figured it out. It's simply what Noam Chomsky explains in his famous 1989 book, "Manufacturing Consent": with 90% of the people buying it and discrediting anyone who doesn't, the pump is primed. And that's it. Story over.

We are taught to believe for centuries states outright competed for resources and stole each other's land in wars (Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, House of Tudor, Habsburg Empire, Napoleon), then all of a sudden were given democracy in 1789 and 1776 and such empire building came to an end. Bullshit. With the advent of media, they rule by secrecy.

It's the game of risk or chess. Let's not miss the forrest for the trees by getting caught up on one line-item that can supposedly be disproven and discredited (for, the whole thing won't be true UNTIL IT IS).

They are playing empire building, always have, and never stopped. The individual "trees" will never be enough proof, but when you look at the whole (all the mysterious discrepancies [for example, 3 Kennedy patriarchs were killed??????!!] JFK's killer was killed, Lee Harvey Oswald, his killer's killer, Jack Ruby, was killed/died soon after!?!!?), open your mind, and do the research, it becomes obvious that the pentagon holds shit down like an old-fashioned boss. When things are fishy, it's cuz fucked up shit is going on. Period. That's how it is in your day-to-day life, and the same applies at higher levels. Don't be another lemming buying this shit.

I'm not even saying I don't get where they're coming from. Violence and wars is a serious thing and operates by different rules. In the past, perhaps we had to operate so cut-throat and cunningly. Think: Sun Tzu (The Art of War) and Robert Greene books. I do think, though, as the world has evolved, we have evolved beyond those rules and that played-out game. I could be wrong though, but I think it's worth the true leaders of this world taking a gamble on a more cooperative route, not one where they gotta lie to us so they can do what they deem best. They may be too caught-up in their old ways to get it though. All that matters though is that we shift our perspective. We don't even have to physically do anything. Just don't be duped and become more conscious about everything in your life.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#213
In other news, if you are leaking set up a hidden camera in someone's room, steal their password and do everything from their account.

Or if you are really moral just set up the camera above your desk.

A bit of plausible deniability is much better than life in a supermax I promise...

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody leaked internal FSB analysis docs claiming but offering no raw intelligence that Ukrainian government is full of US spies and Euromaidan was financed by Soros, would any mainstream media outlet take this kind of source as "evidence"?

The difference between these cases is that even considering everything that is wrong with US administration, it is just not comparable to the Russian. People (and institutions) have a track record, and there's no principle in logic that prevents me from using that record to evaluate their trustworthiness: What you call an ad hominem, I call bayesian reasoning. For example: It was, until this administration, extremely…

It was, until this administration, somewhat rare for the press to _knowingly_ publish nothing but lies, and yet here we are. CNN (!) got caught on camera the other day stage managing a "Muslim protest" for the news. That's something that would cause a massive scandal just a year ago. These days everyone is so used to it no one even noticed.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also publicly commented on the matter today. Doesn't make any difference, especially if there's no legal repercussions for lying.

The difference is that a Senator (who is vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) is privy to more information than you are. And lying can have very real consequences for politicians, even when it happens without breaking a law.

That's debatable if there is no information to be privy to. Even Feinstein and Pelosi stated publicly there was no smoking gun.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how that works, but I'd be surprised if there were not a sort-of abbreviated check?

Why would there be? Pluribus doesn't issue security clearances, the customer agency (in this case the NSA) does. It would be up to the NSA to do any additional background checks/vetting/polygraphs regarding security clearance for any contractors. Working for a contractor/switching jobs is hardly suspicious activity, so the NSA would have no reason to investigate her. Likewise Pluribus had no reason to be suspicious,…

No, a contractor like Pluribus wouldn't issue the clearance, but they'd surely verify that the clearance exists and is valid. That seems like a good time to generate a cursory once over of the applicant's clearance. OTOH, since the IC is in the growth hacking phase these days maybe they don't want to do anything to slow down the money train.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#217
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about applying machine learning towards vetting social media wrt people with TS and >TS clearance?

I have great name for this start-up, Minority Report...or maybe just boring old Palentir.

I was about to say, Palantir's been done.

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between these cases is that even considering everything that is wrong with US administration, it is just not comparable to the Russian. People (and institutions) have a track record, and there's no principle in logic that prevents me from using that record to evaluate their trustworthiness: What you call an ad hominem, I call bayesian reasoning. For example: It was, until this administration, extremely…

It was, until this administration, somewhat rare for the press to _knowingly_ publish nothing but lies, and yet here we are. CNN (!) got caught on camera the other day stage managing a "Muslim protest" for the news. That's something that would cause a massive scandal just a year ago. These days everyone is so used to it no one even noticed.

No it didn't[1].

[1] http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#219
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by experts Experts in what? Security research or PR?

This is not a PR document, it is a (leaked) internal classified NSA intelligence report. It was presumably prepared by NSA intelligence analysts, who are experts in analyzing intelligence.

NSA analysts can only be called "experts in analyzing intelligence" if TSA agents can also be called "experts in analyzing terrorist threats".

Because the bar for hiring is pretty much the same lol

Re: Did the Intercept bungle the NSA leak?

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would there be? Pluribus doesn't issue security clearances, the customer agency (in this case the NSA) does. It would be up to the NSA to do any additional background checks/vetting/polygraphs regarding security clearance for any contractors. Working for a contractor/switching jobs is hardly suspicious activity, so the NSA would have no reason to investigate her. Likewise Pluribus had no reason to be suspicious,…

How about applying machine learning towards vetting social media wrt people with TS and >TS clearance?

Lots of people with TS clearances hate Trump, but most aren't going to ruin their lives just because the president is an asshole. You'd end up ruining a lot of careers and chances are you'd never stop a single leak.
Post reply on HN