
William Binney Explains Snowden Docs - foolrush
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wb/binney.html
======
diafygi
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

At root, for any of these filtering/parsing projects to work, it means
splitting and inspecting raw communication streams. The EFF is currently
challenging mass surveillance on this point and arguing that these raw
communications are are protected papers that are being searched without a
warrant[1][2].

[1] - [https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-asks-judge-rule-
nsa-i...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-asks-judge-rule-nsa-internet-
backbone-spying-techniques-unconstitutional)

[2] - [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/deeper-dive-effs-
backb...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/deeper-dive-effs-backbone-
motion)

~~~
tedks
Let's say that the EFF wins. Let's say it exceeds its wildest dreams.

How do you know it had any effect?

Until the next Snowden comes along, you don't. And I'm sure there won't be any
more Snowdens. The NSA is going to redo its systems so that nobody can get
anything out. This isn't a stretch of the imagination. They obviously have
plenty of very technically talented people working there, and they'll get much
stricter with access controls now.

Democratic processes cannot change a fundamentally undemocratic system. Secret
courts, secret laws, secret executive orders, none of it is even a pretense of
democracy. And so, nothing the EFF does can save you. Nothing you can do
within the political system can save you, because it is a rigged game, or more
accurately, an irrelevant game. It does not matter who wins or loses. It is
not the game the NSA plays.

=============================================

I'm sure people will ask what my solution is. I wish that I had one, and I
hope that you realize the fallacy in insisting that until a more _comfortable_
solution is in front of you, the "solution" you have that will obviously not
work should be invested in without any faint expectation of a return.

There is one thing you can do that's simple, though: Don't work for them.
Don't work for SAIC. Don't work for Booz Allen. Don't work for the NSA.
Without people like us, without engineers, they can't do anything.

And more then that: If you have a friend from undergrad, if you meet someone
at a meetup or a hackfest or in a bar that says they work for the NSA,
directly or indirectly, treat them like the Statsi agent they are, spit in
their face and tell them they're not welcome in your life. Make sure they know
that they aren't doing a good thing or the right thing. Make sure they know
how utterly, baselessly evil they are.

That's one solution. It's not as blandly palatable as donating to the EFF, but
it's one that's less of a waste of your time.

~~~
avn2109
>> "treat them like the Statsi agent they are, spit in their face and tell
them they're not welcome in your life."

The HN hivemind is mentioned in a negative context quite often. If the
parent's view were institutionalized as part of the orthodox/mainstream belief
system around here, it might 1) genuinely constrain the NSA's operations and
2) be a socially beneficial application of groupthink.

------
tptacek
I worry a lot that the lionizing of Binney and the too-perfectly-named
THINTHREAD is a kind of retconning, and that very few of us would be
comfortable with the implications of a fully-realized Binney-designed
THINTHREAD either.

From what I've read, THINTHREAD is _also_ a system that involves widespread
and intrusive monitoring of US communications. THINTHREAD purports to use
"encryption" to solve the privacy problems that arise from retaining
information about US citizens. I am not reassured.

~~~
aric
Binney had the guts to step back and speak out. He could've kept playing ball.
THINTHREAD or not, his subsequent actions are worth praise. Credit is given
where credit is due. Very little else is out there to encourage people in high
positions to follow suit. That's true. THINTHREAD's reassurance of privacy is
as laughable now as it was then. Marketing to a naive public like that is so
annoyingly ironic when the leading threat (time and time again) is the lack of
privacy _from_ a surveillance state.

------
rdtsc
Excellent article.

Binney, after all these years, finally has the some evidence to support the
claims he was making all along.

I remember reading about him and thinking how this is a bit too
conspiratorial. Probably a disgruntled[+] employee making stuff up knowing it
will never be confirmed or denied. I knew at the time about Constitutional
protections and all that, and thought well surely someone up there on top
wouldn't allow something this blatant to happen.

It wouldn't be surprising if Snowden studied Binney and learned the lesson of
how "all they had to do is come and tell their superiors and there was no need
for all the public disclosures" is a bunch of bullshit. Binney did that. Also
Binney didn't get any proof or documents with him. Can't help but think
Snowden learned from that too.

Wonder what is the lesson to be learned by next Snowden who is probably
already planning his actions. Try to stay completely anonymous? Fly directly
to Brazil for a warmer weather?

Maybe the ultimate lesson we learned then and now is how little people care.
NSA learned that too and I wouldn't be surprised if instead of dialing down
the level of these programs they will crank it up. Why wouldn't they? They
have clear tested proof that the public doesn't mind that much. No need to
play the Constitutional farce any more.

[+] It would seem Binney was a bit disgruntled since his system was re-
purposed (stolen) and he was pushed to the side. There was an interview where
he talks how after 9/11 NSA was on a lockdown, and he snuck in to work and saw
all this hardware everywhere. And eventually found out it was to be used for
his re-purposed system. But without him on onboard. It was handed over to
contractors.

~~~
scrollaway
> I remember reading about him and thinking how this is a bit too
> conspiratorial.

I see this a lot and I honestly wonder. A lot of us knew-without-proof what
was going on... suspected strongly may be better wording. We didn't talk about
it because either people wouldn't be interested without proof, or we assumed
other people knew just as much.

What is it that in fact makes the subject so far-fetched and a topic treated
the same way as the "the president is a man-reptile from neptune" kind of
conspiracies?

I am really trying to figure out what, in my education (or what little I had
of it seeing as I left high school fairly early), caused me to see things in a
less "that's crazy talk" way and more as a "it's technically possible and they
have endless resources, why wouldn't they do it" subject while other people
dismissed it (and some still do).

~~~
logn
I think it comes down to imagination and confidence. Some people cannot
construct scenarios in their mind and analyze their likeliness. And others
just want to be accepted and part of the mainstream.

There are also people who simply aren't interested in learning about topics
yet feel free to blast their opinions about them. Kind of like how I might say
'country music sucks' when actually there's a lot of good country music but I
haven't tried very hard to find the artists I like.

------
novusordo
To me this may explain another reason law enforcement agencies are upset about
the recent changes Apple and Google made that prevent them from providing
phone data.

If what the article said is true, it's not that they can't see the data, they
just can't use it in court. Part of what the article calls the 'Planned
Program Perjury Policy' would likely be to reverse engineer a probable cause
to get a warrant for the device then serve the warrant to Apple/Google and
then take the evidence to court.

------
sebkomianos
I was thinking about this the other day:

Is there an analysis that can explain, as detailed as possible, what we know
about the surveillance state to the "average Joe"?

------
higherpurpose
It seems most of the spying (on unecrypted data) is done thanks to the
Executive Order 12333. So your rights aren't even being violated because your
Congress representatives said so - they are being violated because a _single
man_ decided that decades ago.

So how do we set things in motion to nullify the EO 12333?

~~~
canvia
ACLU is working on it, support them.

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/new-documents-
sh...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/new-documents-shed-light-
one-nsas-most-powerful-tools)

------
CurtMonash
Yes, Virginia, the government can track your movements.

