
UK government now leaking documents about itself - MarcScott
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base
======
alan_cx
Well, here is my theory. Could well be missing something, or a hell of a lot,
but here goes....

First thing is that my impression has been that the Independent has so far
been pretty much parroting the Guardian articles. Now, I read this article as
a "good spying" article. Its there for the government and GCHQ to show that
spying is good, or had a good side. From a British security POV, if we believe
the terror threat, this article actually shows spying as useful or worth
while, and to Brits, good. Arabs wont like it, but to those who matter to the
UK and US, I assume they know, and comply. Well, don't want to be bombed back
to the stone age or be invaded, right?

Next, why the Independent, and not the Murdoch Times, Telegraph (Known in the
UK as the Torygraph), or one of the tabloids? Well, the story needs the weight
of a proper newspaper, so that's the tabloids out. That leaves the
broadsheets. Pro conservative papers are too obvious, so that leaves the
Independent.

Looks to me like a divide and rule thing. So far, the Independent and Guardian
have been in step. Now we have the Guardian pushing "bad spying" and the
Independent is the "good spying" advocate. The two step has been split.

I say the Independent has been used and somewhere along the line, we will see
what they got for it.

~~~
dTal
Lots of circumstantial evidence supports this view. Apart from the specific
focus of the story being a "positive" use of spying, the use of distorting
phrases like "the Snowden controversy" and "the arrest of Mr. Miranda" (who
was "illegally" detained, not arrested) are suspicious.

Also, it comes almost immediately after the government became aware of what
was leaked (thanks to David Miranda). Not knowing this put them at a severe
disadvantage before, as they were constantly a step behind and being
continually caught lying was ruining their credibility. As others have noted,
"was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward
Snowden" are weasel words of the highest order, and the linked article by the
Guardian is clearly calling this out.

It's easy to picture a narrative where the government wishes to ham up the
"national security risk" posed by these leaks, which they couldn't do
effectively when they didn't know what was in them. Intercept David Miranda to
find out, cherry pick some information that sounds important but non-
threatening to UK nationals, and leak it to The Independent in exchange for a
sympathetic story. This also explains even the nonsensical "destroyed hard
drives" affair - they weren't trying to delete the data, they wanted to make a
big show of "trying" to.

~~~
scoggs
I think in an interview with David and Glenn, Glenn had said that what they
could have taken from David either couldn't be decrypted or was the type of
information that wouldn't change a thing in terms of Glenn's journalism and
the flow of leaks.

~~~
dTal
That's not inconsistent with what we've seen - they don't neccesarily need to
have decrypted it to deduce some of what it contains. All it would take is a
reference to a deleted folder somewhere in the filesystem named "Middle East
Listing Posts" or some other piece of carelessness to have enough info to leak
somethng like this. As for disturbing the flow of Glenn Greenwald's
journalism, insofar as it has not already done that by provoking the linked
article, it's possible Greenwald wasn't planning to discuss these particular
listening posts at all.

------
nicholassmith
Note very carefully: "contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA
by Edward Snowden".

Now, that doesn't say the documents came from Snowden, only that it was
contained in them. They're both likely telling the truth when Snowden says 'it
wasn't from me!' and the Indy says they've not been duped. We know that the UK
government has just gotten hold of these documents, but we don't know whether
there's anyone sympathetic to the cause mixed in there.

There's a lot of facets to this and care is needed from both sides of the
fence, but there's no love loss between The Guardian and The Independent.
Maybe The Indie has been told one thing off the record that might have a
nugget of truth that's been paired down by Chinese whispers, we just don't
know. The Guardian is probably sanitising what they publish after what
happened with Wikileaks (no one ever took blame, the password was published by
them after assurances it was temporary), and would prefer another firefighting
exercise.

Upshot is, The Indie revealed another piece of the puzzle in the reach of the
surveillance culture that's being built.

~~~
grey-area
_Upshot is, The Indie revealed another piece of the puzzle in the reach of the
surveillance culture that 's being built._

I suspect this is a direct leak from GCHQ, trying to get ahead of future
stories, and also trying to undermine Snowden's stance as a responsible
whistleblower. No-one else is in possession of this information, and the
article reads like a puff piece for GCHQ, particularly the ending.

This is incredibly misleading from the Independent - if it was from government
sources that should have been clearly stated. If not they should name their
source, it's not The Guardian (info destroyed one month ago), Snowden (denied,
seems unlikely), Greenwald (Brazil), or Poitras, so where did it come from if
not the government? It's really embarrassing for them if they have been duped,
and even worse if they are complicit and reproducing press-releases from GCHQ
without attribution, and with the implication that they have seen secret
documents.

If they have seen secret documents and the UK government provided them, this
undermines the argument against whistleblowers like Snowden, if not, who is
the source? Without a source being specified, their story is not credible.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Yes it does read like dirty tricks alright, particularly this which might as
well be a statement from Theresa May who stands over the abuse of the
terrorism law:

>"the Metropolitan Police announced it was launching a terrorism
investigation.. Scotland Yard said material examined so far from the computer
of Mr Miranda was “highly sensitive”, the disclosure of which “could put lives
at risk”. "

I see that as an attempt at discrediting Miranda/Greenwald/The Guardian.

> The Government also demanded that the paper not publish details of how UK
> telecoms firms, including BT and Vodafone, were secretly collaborating with
> GCHQ... But it only published information on the scheme... after the
> allegations appeared in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.

More of the same

> The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s
> request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that
> could _damage_ national security... But there are fears in Government that
> Mr Greenwald – who still has access to the files – could attempt to release
> _damaging_ information.

More of the same

I think the fact there is a base in the middle east is already known from
this: [http://oglobo.globo.com/infograficos/volume-rastreamento-
gov...](http://oglobo.globo.com/infograficos/volume-rastreamento-governo-
americano/)

I think the GCHQ involvement and the BT, Vodafone are the only new
information. So it smells pretty bad, especially combined with the
misdirection about being in Snowden's files.

------
acqq
Independent's article is really strange: It contains the name of the internal
portal from which it claims Snowden downloaded files, it contains the time of
Snowden's download and the apparent number of downloaded files. Then it
describes the foreign probably military-controlled port which GCHQ uses.
Otherwise repeats old information.

Why would anybody want to disclose that new info when the goal of Snowden's
leaks was to point to the cases of unconstitutional US acts or broad attacks
on liberties?

It definitely doesn't fit. The new information only "incriminates" Snowden
more, otherwise doesn't contribute anything. In who's interest is that then?

~~~
chalst
I recall that the NSA admitted that they hadn't any audit trail from which
they could figure out what downloads Snowden had made. But apparently GCHQ has
better information...

~~~
acqq
False argument. It's not "either we know everything or we know nothing." For
example, they can have incomplete logs.

------
belorn
Its called a false flag operation, commonly used to implicate a nation rather
than an individual.

The Snowden camp is rather well defended at this point. He has received asylum
in a country where US forces can't simply collect him from. The leaks are
given out carefully, with lessons learned from the events surrounding
Wikileaks. The news are given out in pace with readers ability to absorb them.

So what can a government do? Stopping airplanes with national leaders in them
only caused more uproar. Trying to strong-arm journalist just created more
news articles. Trying to physical destroy copies only resulted in a somewhat
burned laptop, and maybe made someone to release an "insurance file". I guess
they tried next with a false flag operation, hoping that it could go
unnoticed. I wonder the think tanks will think of next.

~~~
deveac
_> Trying to physical destroy copies only resulted in a somewhat burned
laptop, and maybe made someone to release an "insurance file"._

If you buy the plausible argument that this was a UK govt leak designed to
discredit Snowden while stating that the stolen information and the handling
of it is a national security threat, then the grandiose and very public
destruction of the hard drives actually makes sense. It was the gov't calling
attention to its "attempt to destroy the information to limit harmful
disclosure." The public grandstanding of that act would be a sensical
precursor to a controlled leak of the sort the Independent published.

------
mcphilip
Edit: my reading skills suck today. Feel free to ignore/downvote this.

The independent article [1] referred to has an interesting claim:

>The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s
request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that
could damage national security.

>As well as destroying a computer containing one copy of the Snowden files,
the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, agreed to restrict the newspaper’s
reporting of the documents.

From this submission's guardian article:

Greenwald: "Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware
of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on
the reporting that I am doing on these documents"

It might be helpful if the Guardian explicitly clears this up. What a strange
situation...

[1][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-
uks-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-
mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-
leaks-8781082.html)

~~~
grey-area
The Guardian editors did an interview a while ago with Charlie Rose explaining
the process[1], and I don't think it's so much an agreement as that they run
stories past the government first, for comment, and for the government to give
them specific objections to revealing information - so far they've not heard
anything concrete, just 'don't publish this' \- though this was before the
laptop debacle. The Guardian and WaPo redact the documents before publication
(sometimes heavily). The Independent is restating that in a slightly
misleading way to imply that The Guardian has some sort of firm agreement with
the government on vague terms like 'national security'. So I don't think the
Guardian needs to clear anything up, they've been quite clear, and even if
there were an agreement, I think the Guardian would argue that nothing they
have or will publish does endanger 'national security' \- it would come down
to arguments over the meaning of that term. Does it meant the comfort and ease
of our politicians and security services to keep their activities secret, or
does it mean actual danger to citizens of the UK?

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo)

From the Independent story:

 _The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but
information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained
from the NSA by Edward Snowden._

This looks really bad for the Independent, as the article makes it sound like
this is based on a leak from Snowden, and yet Snowden has specifically denied
this, and if you go back and reread the article in that light, it becomes
clear that they have simply reproduced a leak at the behest of GCHQ, carefully
worded in order to preempt future scoops while giving little away, and yet get
in front of the news with their best possible spin. I love the ending as well
where they give up pretending to be independent:

 _Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all
communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and
organised crime._

We know they already collect it all, and the only limits are technical ones
(for GCHQ at least, and it's starting to look like the NSA are similar). We
already know they target individuals who are nothing to do with terror and
organised crime (Laura Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda etc).

~~~
dtf
I've seen a few suggestions that the SIGINT station is Masirah Island in Oman,
which isn't exactly a secret.

[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq...](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5J10im3ETMC&lpg=PA212&dq=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&pg=PA212#v=onepage&q=Masirah%20island%20GCHQ&f=false)

~~~
grey-area
They imply in the article though that they have seen secret documents, on
which the story is based.

------
jgrahamc
Richard Aldirch's book on GCHQ lists three locations in the Middle East used
by GCHQ/NSA:

1\. Masirah Island near Oman

2\. Muharraq, Bahrain

3\. Mutlah Ridge, Kuwait

Given its location and the layout of cables in that region I'd guess #1.

I'm not quite sure why The Independent published this article though. Surely,
it's not news that GCHQ operates bases around the world? Are they going to
reveal the location of Diego Garcia next?

------
beaker52
An unsavoury attempt at demonising Edward Snowden and those associated with
him (Glenn Greenwald) based on false information, with a view to achieving
public rationalisation of the actions of the government in the destruction of
Guardian data and the detention of David Miranda, hence rationalising the
reduction of civil liberties, increased surveillance and enforcement of "law"
in the name of protecting the public from terrorism.

[Edit: Removed some emotive exaggeration]

~~~
hahainternet
This, is nonsense hyperbole.

~~~
beaker52
Thank you :)

~~~
hahainternet
You are aware that this is a 13 year old law, and that the government did not
destroy The Guardian's data right?

------
devx
You know, when I read that story I immediately thought "oh boy, now they're
going to say Snowden leaks 'hurt them' because they uncovered military
operations", or something along those lines.

So if it's coming straight from the UK government, I could see why they'd want
to blame Snowden for that, and make him lose favor with the public. If this is
why they did it, I could even see US "advising" them on following the same
model to destroy his image, just like they did with Manning and Assange (and
where somewhat successful in that, I'd say).

------
einhverfr
Fascinating. The Independent doesn't seem to say they got the documents from
Snowden. They appear instead to be accepting UK intelligence agencies claiming
that Snowden had certain information.

Maybe these were documents that the NSA has identified as likely compromised?
Or maybe they were found on someone else (Miranda?) but it seems like this is
an interesting development.

I am not even sure the Independent is being dishonest about it. However,
something pretty odd is going on and the UK government is starting to look
pretty incompetent.

~~~
espeed
Yesterday Schneier was trying to make sense out of the British authorities'
play to detain Miranda...

"Schneier: The Real, Terrifying Reason Why British Authorities Detained David
Miranda"
([http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-
real-terrifying-reason-why-british-authorities-detained-david-
miranda/278952/))

~~~
einhverfr
Where I differ from Schneier here is that I think it is quite plausible that
the NSA doesn't know what Snowden actually took. One can more easily audit
what he had access to and what he could have taken than one can audit what he
did and given his long period of service, what he could have taken is likely
to be very large.

You have to remember that even mandatory access control systems aren't really
designed to keep sysadmins out, and logging has its limits both in the sorts
of information you can extrapolate from a log entry and what you can log.

My point is that it is quite possible that the NSA has a list of documents
that Snowden _could have_ taken and has no idea which of those he did.

------
brey
While I'm with the tin-foil hat brigade on this whole debacle, I'm not quite
sure that 'it wasn't from Snowden' necessarily means 'so it must be
misinformation from the Government'.

especially as it would be _so easily_ disproven that Snowden had anything to
do with it.

~~~
7952
Its perfectly possible that they have known about these monitoring stations
for years, but lacked confirmation, or a narrative.

~~~
malandrew
I think it would be awesome if they played along on this one and then followed
up a few days later explaining that the tin-foil hat crowd was right and that
the information was in fact leaked by the government in an attempt to
discredit Snowden and Greenwald.

If I ran a news business and was approached to disinform the public, to me
that is a huge story. I would milk it and play along and gather as much
irrefutable evidence of willful acts to mislead the public and then drop that
story later on.

If you simply say that you won't play along, you lose the opportunity to
discover how deep that rabbit hole goes.

------
epo
This is a propaganda war, take nothing at face value. Is the Government lying
(or ill-informed)? The Independent? The Guardian? Snowden? Is there another
source of leaks?

------
MarcScott
I wonder whether the Independent would reveal their source, or at least
confirm or deny that it came from the UK government.

------
pivnicek
Does anyone know what kind of encryption was used on those drives that were
taken from Miranda at Heathrow? Is it feasible to break that in this little
time? That seems to be the angle here, that that info was on those drives. At
least that's my wild stab in the dark.

~~~
jacquesm
There is some confusion on this front. Apparently Miranda gave them either the
keys to the encrypted devices, the passwords to his online accounts or both.

It should be possible to clear this up but I can't find a direct quote of
either Miranda or Greenwald on the matter.

~~~
grey-area
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/370512998017683457](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/370512998017683457)

~~~
jacquesm
Thanks!

------
jacquesm
One day there will be a movie about all this.

~~~
acqq
"The Return of All the President's Men."

~~~
chiph
"All the President's Men: The Quickening"

------
Fuxy
Let the chess games begin. UK on the attack now desperately trying to find an
angle to sell to the public.

------
haakon
It figures - this "leak" seemed completely uncharacteristic of Snowden's other
leaks.

------
chiph
There could be a second Snowden.

~~~
alan_cx
If only....

That would be one hell of a twist. Just to really push it, what if he has an
unknown identical twin???

~~~
jacquesm
That would make passing through customs interesting.

------
jacquesm
Maybe the independent should drop the 'in' from it's name.

------
hyperventilator
The claim that the UK gov leaked this appears to be complete conjecture. It
_may_ be correct, but there are no facts, even circumstantial, to back this
claim.

~~~
alan_cx
Until the the UK gov confirms political leaking, its is all we have. So,
either we have a bit of a chat and see what we can work out, or we say nothing
because its conjecture and so forth. Are you suggesting that we cant have that
conversation? Or are you suggesting that we all think we are talking god's
fact and are deluding ourselves? Yes, we know it is conjecture.

Remind me, when was the last time a government freely admitted to leaking
information for political reasons?

~~~
hyperventilator
I never said any of that. The title states it as fact, there are no facts.

~~~
alan_cx
I know.

I had to go with the implication of what you said because the bare bones of it
were too obvious to have been worth posting.

~~~
hyperventilator
I know your excited but please don't put words in my mouth.

------
gargoiler00
I remember when hacker news used to be about hacking, programming, startups
etc.

What the hell has this political article got to do with any of the above?

~~~
jacquesm
This is a defining moment in history, one which will shape the digital
environment in which we all operate for decades to come. By the time the last
echoes have fades HTTP and SMTP will likely no longer exist, every last bit of
every communication will be encrypted and the general public will be about as
paranoid as the most tinfoil hat type of 2 years ago.

All it takes for that to be the case is a few more things to happen:

    
    
      - someone leaks a substantial body of cleartext records on citizens
    
      - ditto on some foreign head of state / politician / judge
    
      - ditto on an American politician
    

The term 'plaintext' will be as antiquated as 'morse'. Still occasionally in
use but not for anything that matters. Intelligence agencies will be reduced
to traffic analysis and likely not even that with a vast chunk of the internet
simply going dark, either as a mesh network or in some other decentralized
fashion where there are no more supernodes such as Mae-East, Mae-West and
Front 151.

The other alternative is not so much fun so I won't outline that here. There
is a good reason why 'may you live in interesting times' is considered a
curse.

The fall-out from this will affect every hacker, every start-up and likely
every company operating at the moment with even a peripheral interface with
the digital world, which is probably all of them.

~~~
gargoiler00
It's really not a defining moment, in any sense of the word.

Same old, same old.

In actual fact though, The independent has stated that it wasn't leaked
anything by the government, so the original post is moot. This is no better
than gossip about celebrities.

So governments monitor the internet. Wouldn't it be really bizarre if they
_didn 't_ monitor the internet?

