
The US Intelligence Community has a Third Leaker - ademarre
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/the_us_intellig.html
======
sandstrom
A third whistleblower / hero.

How come none in the government is charged for the multitude of illegal things
that has been revealed? But there is still the insistency of labeling these
people as 'leakers' instead of something more appropriate like 'hero' or
'whistleblower'.

~~~
nostromo
"Hero" is incredibly biased language. No journalist should use that term for
Snowden outside of the opinion page. (For what it's worth, I personally view
Snowden a hero.)

"Leaker" is a factual statement that is focused on a person's activities, not
his or her motivations. And it doesn't pass judgement.

~~~
DanBC
"leaker" has mild negative connotations.

"Whistle blower" has more positive connotations.

~~~
Aqueous
I don't think leaker has mild negative connotations, and if it once did, it
doesn't anymore because of the popularity of organizations like WikiLeaks.
Leaking is in the name, after all.

~~~
freehunter
You really don't think WikiLeaks has a negative connotation in the media and
the public in and of itself? The media spent a very long time running
WikiLeaks through the mud.

~~~
Aqueous
And yet WikiLeaks remains a fairly well-funded organization with a huge
following that continues to get leaks - and a major source of stories for that
very same news media you say dragged it through the mud.

------
ck2
President Obama today:

 _" If you blow the whistle on an unethical practice or bring a problem to the
attention of higher-ups, you should be thanked. You should be protected for
doing the right thing"_

~~~
pzxc
If President Obama really believes that, where is Snowden's pardon?

~~~
jahmed
Obama is a stasist. You have to be to be President. He believes in central
authority and respect for the chain of command. What he is saying is you
should blow the whistle inside the designated structure. When the structure
says everything is fine then everything is fine. If the structure says you're
right good job, only then do you get a pat on the back.

You don't get to be POTUS by being an anarchist or thinking everyone has
equally valid opinions as you. Anyone can be President, but only a few people
actually think they should be President.

~~~
hliyan
> Obama is a stasist.

Did you mean to say "statist"?

~~~
jahmed
Sure did. Can't edit anymore though.

------
DigitalSea
Quite frankly, this is karma. When you are treating your own civilians and
allies as criminals and storing that information in a database for your own
perusal and you employ thousands of direct and indirect (contractors) staff,
you're bound to end up with leaks.

I think the whole PRISM thing Snowden exposed is only one thing, I don't doubt
there are other programs just as secretive shocking and sickening lurking
around at the NSA waiting to be leaked. Time for some more leakers to step up
and raise the curtain hiding the machine.

------
arjn
When an organization gets too big, it is statistically likely there will be
leaks.

I think the US has forgotten or willfully ignored the lessons learned from the
past 100 years of espionage.

~~~
higherpurpose
When more than 95 percent of the "classified" information doesn't deserve to
be classified in the first place, leaks will happen, too.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But in that case, a leak only has a 5% chance of being something that anyone
actually cares about. ("Anyone" here does not mean the overly paranoid
bureaucrat that classified it, it means pretty much anyone else.)

~~~
perrylaj
Not necessarily. The other 95% (as evidenced by Manning's leaks) often contain
information of importance to commercial enterprise -- information that should
likely be of public record anyway if it's being communicated through publicly
funded channels.

------
bayesianhorse
One of these days one of these "leakers" will actually be US or foreign spy
agency achieving a strategic advantage by "leaking" information.

~~~
revelation
This happens daily, it is what the NYT calls a "government official speaking
on the condition of anonymity". Try Google, you get multiple matching articles
every single day.

It is gotten so ridiculous that the "public editor" of the NYT felt the need
to whitewash the practice in one of her columns:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-
public-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-
editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html)

Of course, it highlights the virtues of the "investigative journalist", having
to disguise the identity of his vital sources.

That, by and large, remains a fantasy. The most important tool for a
journalist is his phone, and he uses it daily to call all the same "sources".
These sources then relay some juicy factoids (fully adherent to the party
line), which is repeated without being questioned and with anonymity granted,
to a government official speaking on a government telephone line. The whole
setup is so bizarre; of course no one gives out _actual leaks_ on a freaking
telephone line. It is no longer 1950.

------
higherpurpose
Hopefully more will be inspired by Daniel Ellsberg recent talk at HOPE X and
and his call for action for more "real patriots" to do their duty and blow the
whistle on abuses and law breaking.

~~~
wcummings
His talk was deliciously rant-y.

~~~
gred
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZP26T-jSY)

------
Cieplak
If the government were to figure out who this is, perhaps through the process
of elimination and internal spying, my bet is that we would never hear about
it and that the person would disappear silently to a CIA operated Polish
prison.

------
fleitz
I think Schneier is seriously discounting the magic document theory as it
pertains to the 2nd and possibly 3rd leakers.

------
junto
Good. Step up number 4. You number has been called.

I realise this is flippant, but in all honesty I believe we are at an impasse,
something between 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined and a
balance between security and the freedom to think without prejudice.

Our problem is that there comes a point where so much resources have been
committed to invading the privacy of the public that there is no turning back.

So, number 4. Step forward and take your place in history.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Actually no. The US and most of Europe is NOT in a situation 1000 times worse
than George Orwell ever imagined. Freedom of speech is at an unprecedented
high. The government still doesn't care what you think or say individually,
with very minor exceptions.

Invasion of privacy has to be fought. But let's not kid ourselves into
believing we're not incredibly privileged with the free society we live in.

~~~
junto
The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for
abuse is infinite. It may not happen today, or next week, but if you think
today's politicians are bad then wait till you see what is coming round the
corner.

FYI you don't know who or what is coming next. That's why I can say 1000 times
worse. It could also be a million times worse.

The data is sitting there, waiting for the biggest bunch of assholes to cone
along and abuse it.

P.s. I can't reply to rev_bird below, but Amen to that. Spot on analysis.

~~~
candu
You can both be right. It is true that this apparatus presents an unparalleled
opportunity for the suppression of free speech. It is also true that, compared
to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Crusades-era Europe, Cambodia under the
Khmer Rouge, etc. we are nowhere near the historical maximum of such
suppression...

...which makes it all the more important that we quash said opportunity now.

~~~
sroerick
I think that this is the correct response.

It's also worth noting, though, that the current situation has the potential
to be more global and pervasive than all of those more localized historical
examples.

I seem to recall an intelligence agency official or general saying something
to the effect of "America will be remembered for it's networks the way that
Rome is remembered for its roads." I can't seem to find the quote right now,
but I think it's illustrative of the bounds and limits of our present
apparatus.

------
george88b
Did we all read the same article...Where is the evidence of a third leaker?

