
Snowden: US hacks Chinese mobile phone companies, steals SMS data - teawithcarl
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266821/us-hacks-chinese-mobile-phone-companies-steals-sms-data-edward-snowden
======
scarmig
I don't understand why everyone thinks it's terrible if a government surveils
its own citizens but it's totally a-ok if it does foreigners. Because if you
think about the reflexivity of it all, that means that it's a-ok if China
surveils all American citizens and America all Chinese citizens. The only way
that makes sense is if you think one government (America or China, depending
on who you are) is privileged to violate the privacy rights of citizens of the
other.

I would hope that Hacker News would be more cosmopolitan. So much of our work,
especially, involves interacting with foreigners. If our government thinks
that their communications with us deserve no protections because they're some
suspicious other, and their government thinks that our communications with
them deserve no protections because we're some suspicious other... then no one
ends up with anything.

ETA: And when you think about it, that principle creates a giant loophole:
country X surveils country Y's populace, country Y surveils country X's
populace, and they have a mutual agreement to share data about each other's
dissidents. Just goes to show that if you undermine a universal right for even
one person, that right disappears.

~~~
untog
The reason people consider it different is that they realise the world is a
complex place with complex actors. In an ideal world, no country would spy on
another. But they do. How could we stop China from doing so? We can't. So we
spy back.

However, what our democratically elected government does to us is very much
within our own power to change, and we have the ability to hold them to
account.

~~~
PavlovsCat
If you can't stop China from spying on you, how is "spying back" any more
justified than ANY OTHER reaction? After all, it does not change anything.

What _could_ change something, if one were to actually think freely, would be
to have no secrets. Then suddenly what was stealing, is now just someone
wasting their own time. BOOM. But of course, you can't have slavery and
sitting fat on doing nothing without secrets, so that's not within the
framework of allowed options.

~~~
philwelch
I'd be very surprised if any government could survive without holding secrets.
Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Surely you'd have to keep
those secret. And surely a foreign power would want to access those secrets as
well, for blackmail if nothing else.

But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an
information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most
people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which
is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government
invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that
governments attempt against rival governments.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_Lets take something innocuous--medical records._

Those are secrets of people, not of nations.

 _But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an
information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most
people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which
is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government
invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that
governments attempt against rival governments._

There is a huge difference between organizations and people, I never proposed
such a thing when it comes to people vs. nations.

~~~
philwelch
> Those are secrets of people, not of nations.

Yes, now please bother to read the next two sentences of my original post and
then think about it, because I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

------
cletus
Snowden's choice of Hong Kong as a hiding spot becomes more and more
interesting. I suspect the timing of this particular revelation is timed
deliberately just after the US files charges against him seeking his arrest by
Hong Kong authorities.

A recent article suggested that China was already inclined to "solve" this
problem (from a diplomatic and political standpoint) by doing what it does
best: simply dragging its feet. This seems incredibly easy to do when the Hong
Kong legal system is inclined to move slowly anyway, any extradition will go
through a number of appeals and the process for applying for asylum is being
revamped putting all such cases on hold (not that Snowden has applied for
asylum yet).

It is an somewhere between widely suspected and an open secret that China
engages in concerted intelligence efforts against the US government and US
corporations. Many cyberattacks originate in China (and there is strong
evidence that at least some are state-sponsored). And China is widely believed
to have stolen nuclear secrets [1].

But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will
take this. I suspect they'll be more disinclined to hand Snowden over (or at
least do it in any kind of timely fashion). To paraphrase Ned Flanders "We've
tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point
of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? Well maybe not that
far but it's really not that far off. The war for intellectual property,
Federal prosecutorial overreach (eg the Y12 "terrorists", Aaron Swartz), the
relentless pursuit of whistleblowers and the end-run around the Fourth
Amendment are simply stunning, particularly from an allegedly Democratic
administration.

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/world/breach-los-alamos-
sp...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/world/breach-los-alamos-special-
report-china-stole-nuclear-secrets-for-bombs-us-aides.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
downandout
_> Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the
point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? _

I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff
about a week before Obama was reelected. At least then voters would have been
able to make an informed decision. Romney may have been equally as evil as
Obama in terms of surveillance ambitions and disregard for the constitution,
but the difference is that part of Obama's election pitch was that he was
going to get rid of these types of programs, while Romney never said anything
of the sort. I don't like the fact that a man who clearly lied about his
fundamental political views just to get elected is sitting in the Oval Office
right now. Bush, and all Presidents before him, may have lied about many
things, but at least you knew where most of them stood politically.

~~~
untog
_I don 't like people that would lie about their fundamental political views
just to get elected sitting in he Oval Office._

A more charitable reading is that Obama didn't lie, he was just an idealist
and changed position when he was confronted with the realities of being
President.

That's not to defend it, but I don't think Obama knowingly and cynically lied
his way into office.

~~~
clicks
I'm fiercely opposed to this newly unveiled surveillance state that US of A
is... and yet I find myself not blaming Obama much for this.

I think people have misinformed notions about how much power the president
really has. Obama's stated core focus was and has been on improving the
situation for the poor/middle class. That's a big task on its own, I don't
think you can expect one president to take on and dominate such variety of
large tasks.

But now that things are in the open, support a candidate who in clear terms
promises challenging these NSA programs for the next election cycle. Yes,
Obama said he would do this in his own campaign trail, but it was unclear
probably to him what he was up against exactly and how difficult it would have
been to resist it alone. My optimistic take is now that we all know to a much
greater degree what's going on, we're in better position to do something about
it.

~~~
LoganCale
And yet he lies to cover it up. If he really wanted to oppose it, he could
simply expose what's happening on his own. He could issue executive orders
shutting it down. The DOJ, FBI and NSA are all part of the Executive Branch,
after all.

~~~
dhimes
At the very least he can explain _why_ he changed his mind. I get it. I just
can't trust him if he doesn't come as clean as he can about his reversal on
Gitmo and surveillance and whatnot. I totally understand getting into office,
seeing the real data, and saying, "I can't be the one that pulls the plug and
causes people to die."

But he owes it to us to at least tell us that.

~~~
czr80
How has he reversed his position on Gitmo?

~~~
datalus
The Associated Press's Elizabeth White reports on a speech by Presidential
hopeful Barack Obama, then a junior Illinois Senator, to a crowd in Texas.
"We're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus,"
Obama says. "We're going to lead by example—not just by word but by deed.
That's our vision for the future." [0]

[0]: [http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/01/obama-closing-
gu...](http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/01/obama-closing-guantanamo-
timeline/61509/)

~~~
czr80
And then there's this, from May 1st _this year_ :
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/30/obama...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/30/obama-
news-conference-100-days/2123391/)

------
mtgx
Not saying China is innocent, but this is why stuff like this needs to be
transparent and the public needs to know about it, and if the government isn't
willing to make it public, then whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden need
to make the public aware of it, no matter what "laws" they have to break to do
it. But then it's the public's _responsibility_ to protect them against the
government, for doing them that service.

Because you have _no idea_ what the government is doing in your name, and what
kind of conflicts they are creating, and then "all of the sudden" you end up
with another war on your hands, and the US government propaganda machine tells
you it's _their_ fault and they are the aggressor against US, when in fact it
could be the opposite, and the attack may simply be retaliation for USA's own
actions.

~~~
CatMtKing
I agree. Even if this sort of thing happens behind the scenes, there are
repercussions that will come back to affect people and businesses, even those
without direct ties to China.

------
contingencies
As someone who, five years ago, tried to get commercial bulk SMS connectivity
out of these same main Chinese mobile carriers (China Mobile and China
Unicom), and watched them largely quash spammy SMS broadcasting with automatic
SMSC service suspension after a certain threshold outbound rate, this is
interesting. The guys I talked to inside of these carriers led me to believe
their SMSCs were just a Linux box.

Also, SMSCs appear to be provincial entities rather than national ones, so
these compromises are likely only in a subset of cities. (Further evidenced
online, eg.
[http://www.smsclist.com/downloads/default.txt](http://www.smsclist.com/downloads/default.txt))

Note also that this article is poorly concluded: _US President Barack Obama
says the NSA is not listening in on phone calls or reading emails unless legal
requirements have been satisfied._ That's apparently only for US citizens
inside the US, IIRC.

~~~
XorNot
And the NSA's explicit mission is the surveillance of foreign powers to the
benefit of the US.

This is where Snowden is sinking his message because literally nothing they do
in this arena is illegal in the US, and confirming it or giving out details
definitely is undermining US interests by the trust placed in him by the NSA
to start with.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Agreed. His first little bit of knowledge about PRISM and what have you was
very noble and a worthwhile cause. This information is just straight up
harmful, and getting more into the "traitor" category of leaking information.

Also, people will complain about what the US is doing, but sure, go ahead and
tell yourself that any other country isn't doing the same. China, N. Korea,
Iran, UK, France, Israel, Australia, Germany, Russia, come on, it's a spy vs.
spy world out there, and information is KING.... This leak of information
slightly undermines the US bargaining power.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Why is it harmful? Are you naive enough to think that the Chinese gov't is
learning anything new? It's only "harmful" from a "US is such a fine
upstanding freedom loving country" public relations standpoint.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
>> public relations standpoint.

^This is exactly what I meant when I said "This leak of information slightly
undermines the US bargaining power." Politics and bargaining are a very
sensitive game, and a very powerful game.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
"This leak of information slightly undermines the US bargaining power."

That's hardly treasonous. Inconvenient, as it should be. If it helps, consider
what our gov't has been using that bargaining power for lately.

~~~
dnautics
exactly, in the US treason carries a very specific definition.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If the US decides to characterize Snowden's actions as treason, that means
they are also CHOOSING to characterize civilians of, say, China, as enemies.

------
teawithcarl
This story was published in HK only 5 minutes before this posting onto HN, by
the only other journalist in direct contact with Snowden himself - Lana Lam.

SCMP is a top HK newspaper, and along with the Guardian, the primary
publishing source for direct news from Snowden himself.

~~~
ryanhuff
The only mention of SCMP being a "top newspaper" that I could find is in
reference to it being the most profitable newspaper (per reader) in the world.

However, according to Wikipedia, its independence from the Chinese government
influence is suspect.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post#Editor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post#Editorial)

~~~
teawithcarl
Quite the opposite - SCMP is renowned for publishing freedom articles against
the CCP party line, which is one of the reason Snowden chose SCMP to publish
to.

~~~
ryanhuff
Interesting. I won't pretend to understand Snowden's motives, but the SCMP
Wikipedia page does bring into question SCMP's independence from China, so I
would appreciate it if you could comment on the issues noted on the wikipedia
page.

------
skwirl
"And the former National Security Agency contractor claims he has the evidence
to prove it."

Well... where is it?

~~~
mortehu
If your evidence is weak, I think it's better to leak a potentially
controversial allegation well in advance of the evidence. Maybe it's
conjecture from a bullet point in a PowerPoint slide?

------
marcamillion
ARGHHH....WHY WOULD HE DO THIS?

All he is doing is muddying the waters.

How can I claim to defend what he has done, if he is giving sensitive
intelligence data to the CHINESE!!!!

He shouldn't muddy the waters. Just keep it focused on how the USGov't is
taking away US civil liberties and privacy.

I mean...I understand why he is doing this - self preservation - but now he is
looking more like a "spy" than a "whistleblower".

------
Aloisius
Oof. We're moving quickly out of whistleblower territory and into actual
espionage.

------
HarryHirsch
This is all a bit reminiscent of Frederick Forsyth's "Fourth Protocol". A few
words about the plot: the book is set in the early years of Margaret
Thatcher's tenure as Prime Minister, in the time of the Reagan Rearmament.
Elements in the Politburo devise a secret plan to explode an atomic bomb near
RAF Bentwaters, blame this on a malfunction of American nuclear ordnance and
cause a leftist government to be elected and Britain to fall into the USSR's
sphere of influence. This plan was to be kept secret even from the KGB.

Both MI5 and KGB get wind of this, and they work in concert to stop it _while
they remain enemies_ , because either side feels that if it succeeded they
would open Pandora's box and have no institutional knowledge to deal with this
new world.

It is my sincere hope that the world's intelligence agencies have the
institutional knowledge to deal with the widespread knowledge on spying on its
own citizens.

------
johnrob
The great firewall of China is seeming less totalitarian and more pragmatic.
The US at least has to hack to get chinese SMS messages; allowing its users
visit Facebook/Gmail/etc is like giving data away.

------
untog
Excuse me if I am a little dubious of the South China Morning Post. According
to the article, he gave them an exclusive interview 10 days ago that they are
finally publishing now. Interesting that Snowden chose to completely ignore
his contacts at the Guardian etc. for this.

Are there any other sources to back this up? Or evidence?

~~~
thenewkid
The SCMP is the main English language newspaper in HK. It's been around for
years and has reporters on the ground.

So what's a more "reliable" source? CNN? HuffingtonPost? Buzzfeed?

The Guardian is focusing on stories related to the UK, while the SCMP is
focusing on stories related to HK and China.

~~~
untog
If Snowden granted them an interview ten days ago they've done a pretty bad
job handling an internationally significant story. The one sole piece of
evidence is this quote attributed to Snowden:

“The NSA does all kinds of things like hack Chinese cell phone companies to
steal all of your SMS data.”

No actual evidence this time. Just a quote from a guy no one can call to
verify.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Which is why we should mostly ignore it. He's using the press to curry favor
with HK residents. Nothing shocking about that.

------
thezach
The USA use electrnoic surveilance on China... China uses electronic
surveilance on the USA... its the nature of things.

Seriously, countries spy on countries and China sure is not innocent in
hacking foreign countries.

------
microb
Because of all this bad press, the US will rally around a fake-libertarian or
Republican in 2016. Rinse, wash and repeat.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I agree. It is always (somewhat) interesting to see who the elites place in
the oval office every four years via near absolute control of the news media
and a corporate owned congress, full of people who can switch talking points
on demand.

------
general_failure
Looks like he is bordering on treason. Be careful snowden.

~~~
dnautics
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Not that the US follows the constitution, but you know, in theory nothing he's
done is remotely close to treason, and even if what he did qualifies, it might
be difficult to get two Witnesses.

------
bayesianhorse
Accusing China of human rights violations and large scale cyber warfare is
going to get more difficult in the future...

~~~
mpyne
Why? Those accusations would be dependent on whether they were doing them or
not. China has been "accusing" the U.S. of cyber warfare activities as well,
and anyone who knew what the NSA was before 2013 knew that China was probably
being truthful about that in general.

------
babesh
Is it legal for a foreign government such as the UK to spy on Americans and
then hand that data to the US and vice versa? I bet they are doing that.

~~~
codygman
They are:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

------
jusben1369
Now he's just becoming a tool.

~~~
trumpcard
Like all those egyptian,iranian,chinese,russian,syrian ones?

------
powertower
What a disgusting circle-jerk of comments.

So far we have -

1\. Only China should be able to hack and spy on other nations.

2\. The USA should just leave everyone alone!

3\. Ohh, and this guy is not committing treason and espionage by releasing
things like this, he's a freedom fighter. No more secrets!

Anyone else stopped reading HN these last couple of weeks?

I stopped right around when people were beginning to suggest that random
government employees should be shot in protest, and as I looked as some of the
posters names, I recognized a bunch of them.

