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

Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 244 posts

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#221

Post by IanSanders »

biggt wrote: post #214
BlueTemplar wrote: post #41

Oh yeah : - Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. - After Snowden, if you dismiss these issues, you are dismissed as hopelessly naive... Oh, also - considering all this - you can bet that Intel's Management Engine has likely been backdoored by the NSA, so using Intel's processors is not recommended, especially if you're a non-US company... (industrial espionage !) https://bl…

Me_cleaner might help with Intel's backdoor management engine

I wonder if all this recent bad intel publicity could be in response to me_cleaner actually making it more secure.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#222

Post by repolfx »

noir_lord wrote: post #184
BlueTemplar wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, the equivalent of IME is not present in all AMD processors, only (maybe) those with integrated graphic chips ? But overall, yeah, Europe should just create their own chip industry, it's too critical to leave it to others...

Ironically enough we (the UK) actually had a massive input in the current chip landscape via ARM until the government allowed it to be sold to a foreign buyer. You have to wonder if the French government would have allowed the sale (as an example). Seems like the conservatives don't give a shit about strategic national companies as long as the cheques clear.

ARM doesn't make CPUs, just designs for them which can of course easily be modified by any licensee. The chips themselves are usually made in Asia. So ARMs ownership is irrelevant to the issue of CPU back doors.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#223

Post by bayesian_horse »

raxxorrax wrote: post #115
bayesian_horse wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSA is subject to oversight from all three branches of government. So, to the point that you don't believe two or three entire administrations are/were actively working for a foreign power, you can reasonably assume that the NSA is not committing treason. A lot is going wrong there, but there are limits imposed by the transparency and rule of law. Compare that situation to a country like the Russian Federation.

But I can falsify the assumption about the effectiveness of oversight with cases from overreach that happened in the past. So oversight probably isn't effective enough for agencies like the NSA and I am reliant on first hand information such as provided by Edward Snowden. Which have shown that it happened again.

I'd say your very examples are proof that oversight does work, in general.

And you are imposing your personal views on those doing the overseeing, namely the branches of government. From their point of view, such "overreaches" may not necessarily be that far. Also, the respective presidents didn't only know about the programs, they ordered them. And the oversight committees mostly new about that, also.

I'm not saying that nothing went wrong, but the level of oversight in the US system of government does provide better "worst case" guarantees than in many other nations. And in the end, pretty much every significant wrong-doing seems to come to light, often through the political process or in case that is too slow, the media.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#224

Post by bayesian_horse »

ncmncm wrote: post #82
bayesian_horse wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSA is subject to oversight from all three branches of government. So, to the point that you don't believe two or three entire administrations are/were actively working for a foreign power, you can reasonably assume that the NSA is not committing treason. A lot is going wrong there, but there are limits imposed by the transparency and rule of law. Compare that situation to a country like the Russian Federation.

Of course that is not to say that any number of people employed by or contracted to the NSA are not committing treason or any of myriad other felonies under cover of NSA-provided secrecy. The only check on that is their higher-ups' jealousy of their income, provided they know of it.

The FBI runs counter-espionage, and a whole host of regulations make sure that it is quite hard to abuse a security clearance. Of course it still happens, but nowhere near as much as if those systems weren't in place.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#225

Post by Fnoord »

hokumguru wrote: post #111
throwaway_law wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… That just about sums up every bad act. Lots of people were aware of all the bank fraud and toxic loans leading to the 2008 real estate bubble, no one cared leading up to it, and no one cares now. The Googles/Facebooks/amazons are collecting and doing unsavory things with your data, whether you ever used their services or not (shadow accounts), no one seem…

Source on this?

National Bird [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bird_(film)

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#226

Post by Fnoord »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #114
PopeDotNinja wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say I don't care. I would say I permanently trust government less, as I do feel mostly powerless to make them less nosey. If I have an opportunity to vote against mass surveillance, I will do that for sure.

Under what circumstances can you imagine being given a vote on mass surveillance?

In The Netherlands, we had a non-binding referendum on this [1] (complete with misinformation, or downright propaganda, on TV). The vote against had a minor but significant win on the for. Result? 1) The law got active a few months later 2) A few minor changes were applied 3) The right for a non-binding referendum got removed from The Netherlands, citing we should either have a binding referendum or none at all.

[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_vei... (article also available in German and Chinese)

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#227

Post by Fnoord »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #186
Hendrikto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care…

Yeah, he's wrong that the most paranoid weren't assuming how bad it was. If anything, Enemy of the State had general public worried with Echelon revelations and technical details of Puzzle Palace making me certain they were doing mass surveillance and hacking. At least within a few years of 9/11 and Patriot Act. They'd do whatever they (a) could and (b) had to do for their mission. Far as weakening, we were noting th…

I remember people in infosec and *NIX communities being paranoid about the NSA back in the early '00s. Americans who were not trusting their own government. I myself only heard about the CIA and FBI. I familiarized myself with the concept of NSA and shrugged it off. "Never hear anything about those. Probably a very small organization..."

In hindsight, I was right, but I didn't get with the program after 9/11 (see the accounts of William Binney [1] and Edward Snowden's recently Permanent Record).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#228

Post by mistermann »

jacquesm wrote: post #36
teekert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many conspiracies were true until 1 person opened his mouth, what's next? When will someone final admit to 9/11 being an inside job? We are just at a pre-Snowden/whistle-blower stage regarding 9/11.

FFS stop spreading this nonsense.

Can you elaborate on the nonsensical aspect of it?

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#229

Post by homonculus1 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #165
lostjohnny wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.

The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict. Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then…

Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke.

Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#230

Post by soulofmischief »

e12e wrote: post #205
soulofmischief wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtualization, privilege management, etc. are still another layer.

Not a different organizational layer, just a different techincal layer though.

Both are important in the context of security.
Post reply on HN