
Questions about the Sunday Times Snowden Story - alfiedotwtf
http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-china-russia-questions.html
======
7952
It is so difficult to parse this kind of article. We don't know if the sources
are actually from the intelligence community, or politicians who are being fed
a narrative by actual intelligence sources.

My hunch is that these agencies are compromised by hackers and most of this is
a response to that in one way or another. Just this week we found out how
security-clearance information has been extracted by attackers. This include
records of “foreign contacts”—lists of non-U.S. officials that a person might
know or have relationships with [1]. But maybe just blame everything on
Snowden!

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-
information-l...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/security-clearance-information-
likely-stolen-during-breach-of-government-agency-1434143820)

~~~
us0r
"Just this week we found out how security-clearance information has been
extracted by attackers."

And the week before the FBI is going around all the media complaining about
encryption.

~~~
DennisP
Well apparently it's easy to break encryption so I don't see what they're
complaining about.

~~~
imron
It sure it, just type 'override' when the 'access denied' prompt is shown.

 _sigh_ I hate what tv/movies have made people believe about tech.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Well if the UK government gets their way this is pretty much what they want to
have in place.

------
jfaucett
My thoughts exactly, I can't find the link now but last night someone
published this story that linked to a photo image of the printed page and I
thought it was a joke.

Made me wonder if some groups in gov't were either A) getting a little
uncomfortable with all the heat on the survelliance programs or B) needed
public pressure to pass more restrictive laws and decided to make up some
claims to get public opinion back on their side. Any way you look at, articles
like this one are why I stay away from mainstream news sources.

~~~
x5n1
Mainstream media sources about most topics are propaganda, plain and simple.
You can call it marketing, you can call it public relations, or you can call
it propaganda. Same god damn'd thing. The news is simply a good way to know
what the opinion leaders want us to think about various things.

------
rwmj
If there's any truth at all to the allegations, a much more likely scenario is
the Russians and Chinese have either turned other NSA contractors, or have
entered NSA computers via contractors' computer networks (see RSA SecurID
breach).

Anyway, which idiot put the names of field agents on a computer which is
accessible to contractors?

~~~
jakobdabo
Or maybe the Chinese/Russians got the information from the latest data breach
[1] but it's more convenient pointing fingers at Snowden.

[1]
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_dat...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/13/standard_form_86_data_breach/)

~~~
remarkEon
If I were a betting man, this is what I would go with. I imagine the
Chinese/Russians are rigorously reviewing all the foreign contacts listed on
the SF86 and checking that with whatever database their governments maintain
for suspicious persons. I'd think they would be building a web of who's who
that has contacts with clearance-holding Americans.

------
teh_klev
The Sunday Times story is the same kind of bullshit journalism unleashed on
Scots during the Independence Referendum and on the run up to the 2015 general
election - "Independence Bad" "Too wee, too poor, too stupid", "SNP BAD"
"Subsidy Junkies!" etc.

Over the past two years, I think rather fortunately, the Scottish electorate
learned how to read newspapers with a great deal of scepticism. The indyref,
despite resulting in a "No" vote (by just 6%) did however have the benefit of
making our electorate more informed and more likely to question what they see
printed by the metro-London press machine, and the shoddy journalism and
reporting by the BBC in Pacific Quay (BBC's Scottish branch office).

~~~
qrmn
And that's no coincidence: the prospect of Scottish independence was seen as a
grave threat to the United Kingdom by HMG; so, yes, they conducted information
operations against it.

I am quite sure that seeing the results that the SNP got in the General
Election, however, may give them pause for thought about how such things may
backfire.

~~~
teh_klev
And yet, they still aren't learning their lesson - from either the indyref or
GE2015. Early polling suggests that the SNP will probably take all or most the
constituency seats in next year's Scottish Parliamentary elections, and
probably a good chunk of the list seats, resulting in an even larger majority
for the SNP (in a system designed to prevent this happening).

Meanwhile in the face of this the unionist press continue unabated with the
same shreaking and yelling about how shit Scotland is and that "you've had
your wee moment of fame" and we should "just shut up and dae whit yer telt".
The debate over Full Fiscal Autonomy being the current example [0].

[0]: [http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-
times/](http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/)

------
aw3c2
> (...) I've reviewed the Snowden documents and I've never seen anything in
> there naming active MI6 agents.

Which documents does he mean? The ones that have been published so far? Or has
he access to all of them and looked through them all (if so, why weren't they
all released by now?)?

~~~
agd
He works at the Intercept so presumably as seen the real set of documents held
by Greenwald. The aren't all released for obvious reasons, not least because
the source said they shouldn't all be released.

~~~
aw3c2
Ah, I had no idea, thought it was a random "blogger". Thanks!

------
Zigurd
Tl;dr: blame Snowden for the mess OPM made, based on no actual evidence.

------
chippy
Not only could it be a cover up campaign to divert attention from recent
unrelated leaks, it is more likely to be preparing the British public to
accept new laws to increase surveillance - the so called Snoopers Charter.

------
davidgerard
The Sunday Times, and the weekday Times, cast about for relevance these days
since their content is not available online. Hence big splash stories with
little substance like this, to keep their name current.

------
jackgavigan
Let's set aside the question of whether what Snowden did was right or wrong
for a moment, and look at the situation objectively and logically, and taking
into account the NSA's perspective.

I think we can safely assume that, when the Snowden story broke, the NSA had
no idea what documents he had taken. Even today, they may not know for
certain[1] (except for the 58,000 documents David Miranda was carrying when he
was detained in Heathrow). From a damage assessment perspective, all they
could do is look at what he had access to, and assume that he took it all.

The first few stories that emerged were about Verizon and Prism. At that
point, it looked like Snowden was whistleblowing about NSA surveillance of
Americans. However, he then revealed details of NSA operations targeting Hong
Kong and mainland China[2], including IP addresses[3].

At that point, it became clear that Snowden was not going to limit himself to
revelations about domestic survillance, and that he had downloaded _and was
prepared to release_ details of foreign operations. If he had the IP addresses
of targets, it seems plausible that he would also have information that could
potentially be used to identify intelligence officers. It is probably somewhat
less plausible (but still not beyond the realms of possibility) that he would
have information that could be used to identify HUMINT sources (i.e.
"agents").

Greenwald later said that “What motivated that leak though was a need to
ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China”[4]. Snowden was later
allowed to leave Hong Kong, despite an extradition request from the US[5].
Some suspect that China was able to copy the contents of the four laptops he
took to Hong Kong[6].

So, from the NSA's perspective, they're dealing with a guy who stole
operational details about operations against a foreign (and, from their
perspective, hostile) power, and released that information "to ingratiate
himself" with that foreign power.

So when, after having been stuck in Sheremetyevo Airport for more than five
weeks, Snowden is granted asylum by Russia, it would not be unreasonable for
the NSA to suspect the possibility of some kind of _quid pro quo_ deal. While
Putin would probably have been happy to grant Snowden asylum anyway, just to
embarrass the United States, I think it's safe to assume that Putin would have
sought to obtain as much advantage as possible from the situation and I, for
one, can easily imagine him threatening to return Snowden to the US if he
didn't cooperate.

We only have Snowden's word that he didn't share anything with the Russians
(or the Chinese, for that matter) and, from the NSA's perspective, Snowden's
word means nothing - as far as they're concerned, he already lied, stole and
revealed sensitive information to a hostile power, so they have no reason to
trust anything he says.

However, let's set Snowden's trustworthiness aside for a moment and look at
how else his archive may have ended up in the hands of the Russians or
Chinese.

We know that large portions (if not all) of the archive were handed over to
Greenwald, Poitras and various newspapers, who wrote stories based on the
information contained therein, redacting information as they saw fit. For
example, the location of the GCHQ monitoring station in the Middle East was
initially kept secret by the media[7] but was subsequently revealed by Duncan
Campbell[8]. We also saw Guardian staff redacting slides for publication in
_Citizen Four_.

Would foreign intelligence services (FIS) have sought to obtain a copy of the
archive that was held by those reporters and newspapers? Almost certainly.
Given their capabilities and resources, would a FIS have been successful in
that endeavour? I would say "Probably".

It also emerged that Snowden had distributed copies of his archive (by which I
mean the entire archive, not just the subset that was handed over to the
journalists and newspapers) to various people so that they could be released
if anything happened to him[4]. Allusions were made to it having been
encrypted but, at the end of the day, the key is out there somewhere. We know
that at least one of the people involved was not particularly good at
operational security (c.f. David Miranda carrying the password for an
encrypted file on a piece of paper[9]) and was susceptible to being pressured
into giving up information under interrogation (c.f. David Miranda's
disclosure of his passwords[10]).

What are the chances that other people involved, whether couriers like
Miranda, or the individuals to whom Snowden distributed copies of his archive,
have been identified and targeted by FIS? Given the value of the information
in the archive, it seems likely that they would be prepared to devote a fair
amount of resources to such an effort. Knowing what we do now (thanks to
Snowden!) about the capabilities of the US and UK intelligence services, and
working on the assumption that the Russian and Chinese intelligence services
must possess similar capabilities, it doesn't seem to be beyond the realms of
possibility that such an effort could have been successful.

So, there we have three potential "attack vectors" by which FIS could have
obtained a copy of the archive: from Snowden himself, from his media partners,
and from the people he gave copies to.

If you're a decision-maker at the NSA or GCHQ and you know that Snowden had
access to information that could be used to identify an intelligence officer
or agent, you have a choice to make: Do you assume that (a) Snowden stole that
information and it has ended up in the hands of a FIS (in which case your guy
is at risk), or do you hope that (b) either he didn't steal it, or that, if he
did, it hasn't been acquired by a FIS?

The story in the Sunday Times suggests that they went with (a).

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-
ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-
extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=1)

2: [http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-
sn...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-
government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=all)

3: [http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-
sn...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-
classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all)

4:
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-
snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html)

5:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10138282/US-
disappointed-that-Hong-Kong-refused-to-arrest-Edward-Snowden.html)

6: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-
to-h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-have-made-
call-to-let-leaker-depart.html?_r=0)

7: [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)

8:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base)

9:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-
Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html)

10:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776243)

~~~
ycitm
Regarding [7] and [8], Snowden has explicitly denied that he is the source for
the GCHQ Oman leak - [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-
gove...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-
independent-military-base).

~~~
jackgavigan
No, he denied having "spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic
materials to the Independent."

Duncan Campbell has explicitly said that the information in question was in
"documents revealed by Edward Snowden to journalists including Glenn
Greenwald" and implies that the Guardian opted to not release the information
as part of the deal with the UK government[1].

1:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base/)

------
classicsnoot
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714766)

~~~
r721
and also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9715062)

------
tomjen3
It is either a smear campaign or a clumsy cover up for the recent total breach
of all the security clearance files.

~~~
davidgerard
It is transparently made-up BS on every level, down to "encryption is magical
so you should give us more security powers to protect you from evil wizards."

------
justinsingh
Would there be any significant repercussion if the Russians and Chinese even
had classified information?

~~~
jacquesm
Given what they were accusing wikileaks, Manning and Snowden of there should
be. But I don't see anybody standing up yet and taking responsibility publicly
for being so terribly sloppy with all this information. Much easier to blame
the people we already know about and who the government has a score to settle
with.

Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if
the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come the
United States is still in the dark about what exactly was taken (which they've
admitted they do not know) and that they implicitly claim to have a full copy
of the archive in readable form as well (otherwise the UK government could not
make the claims they're making here).

So much inconsistency.

~~~
jackgavigan
_> ..otherwise the UK government could not make the claims they're making
here.._

Don't forget the UK government got hold of 58,000 documents from Snowden's
archive when they detained David Miranda at Heathrow:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-
Miranda-was-carrying-password-for-secret-files-on-piece-of-paper.html)

Even if the NSA/GCHQ got hold of the "entire archive", they have no way of
knowing for certain that what they have is indeed the entire archive.

~~~
jacquesm
So what, they got those documents a long time ago, that's not the same as
suddenly claiming access to a 1M+ documents archive unless something has
dramatically changed and there isn't a shred of proof for any of that.

~~~
jackgavigan
You wrote:

 _Another question missed to date by those looking at this article is that if
the Chinese and the Russians have cracked this archive of data how come the
United States is still in the dark about what exactly was taken (which they
've admitted they do not know) and that they implicitly claim to have a full
copy of the archive in readable form as well (otherwise the UK government
could not make the claims they're making here)._

I'm merely pointing out that the UK retrieved a subset of the archive when
they detained Miranda. Therefore, the US/UK don't necessarily need "a full
copy of the archive in readable form" to be able to come to the conclusion
that the full archive contains information that would compromise ongoing
operations. If the 58,000 documents they got from Miranda contain any such
information, it inevitably follows that the full archive must too.

~~~
jacquesm
And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case. But who
needs proof when anonymous quotes are all that's needed anyway. For all you
know the 'journalist' (for want of a better word) could have sucked this whole
story out of his left thumb and you still wouldn't know the difference.

~~~
jackgavigan
_> And again, no proof was presented to indicate that this is the case._

That _what_ is the case? That the full archive contains information that would
compromise ongoing operations?

We already know that the archive includes operational details. For example,
the IP addresses of NSA targets in Hong Kong and China that Snowden
released[1] in order to (as Greenwald put it) "ingratiate himself to the
people of Hong Kong and China”[2].

Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he
simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style? I seem to
recall that the stated reason for releasing it through newspapers was so that
they could redact any such information before publishing it.

1: [http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-
sn...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-
classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all)

2:
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-
snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html)

~~~
jacquesm
> Besides, if the archive didn't contain any such information, why didn't he
> simply dump the entire archive onto the Internet, WikiLeaks-style?

Because then all the NSA apologists would be harping on their favourite theme
of irresponsible disclosure, see also: wikileaks, Manning.

------
MichaelCrawford
Despite that he brought no files with him from Hong Kong, I can readily accept
that the Chinese or Russians obtained the files from someone else.

The term "black bag job" commonly means stealing a codebook. Spy movies depict
Peter Gunn breaking into an embassy then cracking a safe.

Real black bag jobs are such social engineering as when the Pentagon ordered
the commanding officer of Midway Island to request a replacement for the
base's broken water desalination plant:

"$THE_ISLAND_WERE_ABOUT_TO_ATTACK needs a new desalinator" reported a japanese
spy.

~~~
desdiv
It wasn't from a spy. It was the coded Japanese radio messages. The "Midway
needs water" message was intentionally broadcasted in clear text.

[0]
[http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1....](http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/90midway/90facts1.htm)

~~~
MichaelCrawford
Sorry I should have been more clear.

The request for a desalinator was encrypted but in with the most insecure
crypto used by the navy at the time.

The japanese intercepted it then reported it back to japan using crypto that
we had already cracked.

My use of the term "spy" was intended purely for rhetorical effect.

------
irishcoffee
Nobody (especially in the HN echo-chamber) wants to entertain the idea that
what snowden did endangered hundreds of people directly, and the entire US
indirectly, by leaking what he did. It is truly amazing to read the rationales
on here avoiding this idea.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Hello Ernest Voice. Nice to meet you. (For those that don't know Ernest Voice
is an NSA bot that posts stuff like this on forums.)

EDIT I doubt that this particular poster is actually such a bot. I am
suggesting that his post is based upon not actually reading any of the facts
and merely taking an opinion.

~~~
dang
It's not ok to make swipes like this in HN comments. The implication of
shilling is out of line, and even if someone hasn't read any facts, posting a
comment that is itself factless doesn't help.

~~~
JupiterMoon
His post was either a shill or tragically ill informed. I merely highlighted
this fact.

~~~
dang
Everyone has an "I merely" defense in response to breaking the guidelines, but
we all have to follow them.

