Snowden's XKeyscore revelations challenged Edward Snowden's latest revelations about NSA snooping, the Xkeyscore program, have quickly been called into question. While The Guardian correctly identifies XKeyscore as being a search tool for NSA databases (providing what the outlet's Glenn Greenwald writes is an “ability to query the databases at any time”, which is …
the USA is at it again, while the NSA is saying that everything Snowden says is untrue at the black hat conference, the USA still wants to prosecute him..... but for telling a made up story you cant get prosecuted as a traitor, for telling the truth you can.
So who do we believe? The NSA or the rest of the USA government?
Why would you believe either of them? What incentive does the NSA, the US government or any other entity exerting high-level power in the good ol' US of A have to tell the truth about anything, ever?
Their collective credibility is the square root of negative zero. As is demonstrably the standard they hold us to I believe it is only just that they be held guilty unless proven innocent. After all, I'm somewhat sick of "one ruleset for them and another ruleset for the rest of us."
I don't believe the NSA denied everything that Snowden has claimed. NSA are just claiming that there has been no abuse of data.
It is possible that some of what Snowden has said is true and that he could be prosecuded for that.
It is also possible that some of what Snowden says is a fabrication to bolster his position. For that he can't be prosecuted.
Likely the rest of us will never know the real truth.
Rationality based on material from the NSA, or rationality as in something you just pulled out of your ass?
The Greenwald piece is based on actual documents. The criticism is based on help-wanted ads and self-proclaimed "experts" who keep getting proven wrong as others confirm what has been in each Greenwald story.
Maybe the Reg can put Lewis Page on the case so we can once again be told that there's nothing to be concerned about as long as we trust our masters.
Have you read through the slides the Guardian was reporting on? It describes a database search. Some of the examples, eg "find me all encrypted word documents in Iran" sound interesting, but at no point does it say it's going out and inserting it's spindly electronic tentacles into everyones computer to find them.
In fact data collection isn't mentioned at all, anywhere in the presentation, and I looked carefully. And the collection is what everyone is worried about.
I'm starting to get the impression that Snowden is fond of hyperbole and doesn't know a lot about IT.
This post has been deleted by its author
".....I'm starting to get the impression that Snowden is fond of hyperbole and doesn't know a lot about IT." To be fair to Snowjob, this does seem to be Greenwald and The Guardian trying to spin out the story a bit longer. If anything, Snowjob is probably cringing at the article as its shrieking hysterics don't do Snowy any favours with people that can actual read slides for themselves.
but... in order to the searches they are giving examples off, the data must be in the database(s), so it is being collected somehow, I agree not by XKeyScore, having said that it is not inconceivable that there is a facility within XKeyscore to trigger the data collection features of another system. One can imagine a scenario where an analyst types in the email address of a target, the first thing that happens is a search of the databases by XKeyScore and then triggering of data collection if there isn't any data in the db's. Who knows. Anything is possible. Typing in random valid email address in to XKeyscore probably won't return anything as they can't collect and store every email sent around the world, so it makes sense to trigger a data collection activity from the network and have some control over what data is intercepted from the network.
".....The Greenwald piece is based on actual documents....." Apart from Greenwald's rather limited tech credentials, there is the fact this is The Guardian, a paper not exactly covered in previous IT glory. Apart from their previous history of mindlessly voicing the opinions of the technically challenged (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/18/stephen_frytard/), their reporters seem to be virtually clueless about anything Internet related. Their reporter on the original Dickileaks story had to ask A$$nut how to install PGP and couldn't work out how to unzip a 7z compressed file! A$$nut himself didn't come across as a seasoned PGP user in that episode either, despite his claims to being a 'leet hax0r (https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikileak/2011/09/why-didnt-julian-assange-use-pgp-properly-when-handing-over-cablescsv-file-to-da.html?amp).
"sparse documentation"
I was under the impression it was hefty documentation in this case (more-so than before). But of course if they only publish excerpts from the docs, I can only take their word for that, and can't argue against you.
*sigh* If only it was possible to organise a massive, coordinated/distributed reverse engineering attempt, to try and figure out what the hell is really getting intercepted and stored, and what's not...
Once again, some right wing bozo (Ambinder, a political conservative) quibbles about a few points about the latest leak - indeed, not even the leak, but merely Greenwald's phrases discussing it - and now this piece tries to "hatchet" Greenwald over this nonsense?
Pathetic, Register...
Oh, something out there that doesn't fit my worldview. Better insult the source ('right wing bozo') misrepresent the substance ('quibbles about a few points') and accuse the publication of taking kick-backs ('which three-letter agency paid...') and end with a sad little sneer. That'll learn 'em.
the slides have top secret written on them.
Though as they are coming from inside a security organisation the default setting for everything is probably "Top Secret" until proved otherwise.
Years ago when I left University I remember during induction training at my first job being solemnly told that everytime I saw a blank sheet of paper my first reaction should be to write "Company Confidential" on the bottom! Not that I ever did this ... but now in the days of Office templates its simple to ensure everything has "Top Secret" on it from the start.
"....this doccument is classified secret,it's a recipe book FFS." The popular tale is that a ship's officers are sitting down for dinner when the youngest dares to ask the Captain: "Is it true the chef's recipe book is top secret, sir?"
The Captain considers the youth for amoment before disdainfully informing him: "Yes, because if Johnnie Foreigner knew what we eat he could devise a poison that would match the flavours of our food."
To which some wit quietly whispered: "Well, we could always sentence Johnnie Foreigner to eat an unpoisoned portion a day as punishment."
That is not the reason top secret is put on to slides, it most definitely not a default protective marking. The protective marking that is assigned is dependent on what they consider the impact to be if the information fell into the wrong hands. There is no such thing as a default protective marking level.
>"Greenwald also conveys the impression that XKeyscore trawls all of America's communications in real time"
So, we are to believe that a database front-end is incapable of real-time queries of a database of internet communications that is updated in real-time? You might find that some of your readers have successfully handled problems far more difficult than this one.
The USA enjoyed pursuing and pushing around anyone for hacking or suspected hacking or for looking like they could. Snowden kicked them in the nuts and ran by disclosing a secret program (some claim illegal) used for anti terrorism but potentially abused/abusable. Snowdon exposed a painful truth regardless of your thoughts on PRISM as an anti terrorism weapon or a weapon against its people. This gives snowden a privileged position that he can say almost anything and it will be believable to all but the staunch US system defenders.
I have no idea if it is true/lie or somewhere between. But I hope snowden is telling the truth as is the responsibility of his position. And as long as he is telling the truth I hope he is protected and his rights protected.
His US rights have been removed and publicly flogged. There is no hope of any justice in the US for snowden.
"disclosing a secret program (some claim illegal) used for anti terrorism but potentially abused/abusable. "
And THIS is where the actual lie is!
This is not an "anti-terrorist" program!
This is purely a massive, gigantic, probably the biggest by orders of magnitude SURVEILLANCE program this planet has ever seen.
The US CLAIMS they built it to protect themselves against terrorism, but it is NOT an anti-terrorism tool... it is purely a surveillance tool, and no matter what they claim it's for... it CAN be used for anything.
Explosives can be used to make fireworks AND bombs. Nuclear fission can be used to make electricity AND bombs. Rockets can be used to send a man into space AND to make missiles...
And the NSA surveillance program can watch out for terrorists... AND everyone else on the planet...
Historically, EVERY single time a tool was invented that had the potential to be abused by those in power to retain their power... it HAS been abused. Why would this be any different?
I'd be willing to bet everything I have that this tool has ALREADY been abused multipls ways and multiple times...
No doubt about it.
"......point is TLA's act outside the law with the complicity of the government of the day....." But, as has been shown, the agencies in question are operating well inside the law, under the rolling warrant and the FISC in the case of the NSA. Oh, sorry, did your reality filter just discard that news because it didn't sit well with what you wanted to bleat?
".....Your childish analogy is too tragic for words." What is childish is your determination to avoid recognizing the fact that just because something is possible and you want it to be so does not make it reality. Some people stab others with pencils but not all people do. Some coppers are crooks but the majority are not and will catch and prosecute those they find to be crooked. Likewise, it is safe to assume the majority of NSA/CIA/MI6 analysts with access to the data and search tools are going to be conscientious and stay within their remit, and one that chooses to try using or selling the info for personal gain is going to be found and prosecuted. You are so busy bleating that the sky is falling you simply forgot to show any proof at all because you WANT to think the sky is falling due to your socio-political faith and your paranoid delusions of victimhood.
If XKEYSCORE doesn't collect data and is only a tool for querying the database we obviously have nothing to fear.
Except of course the tool that isn't XKEYSCORE which is populating that DB in real time, of course.
It would seem we're rapidly approaching the point beyond which the NSA actually give a shit about people being aware of certain things for one of the administration's pet journos to trot out a sad 'debunking' of this sort.
It's the "seen" bit you dolt.
Yes the NSA is trawling for data, and some of the revalations about that are fascinating, worth reporting and cause for alarm. But this is not one of those. This is a revelation that they can search what they trawl, which shouldn't really come as much of a surprise.
Yes, it's obvoius that search would be provided, but proof that it exists reminds me of the Frankenstein moment after the lightning strike: "It lives!" .
The USA is famous for its institutional checks and balances - are they still up to the job? Heaven alone knows what the UK oversight and control procedures are and whether they can cope with the monster that has now been constructed.
It used to be that there was another monster - nuclear deterrence; it was scary and potentially lethal to the whole humane race but it worked (and greatly to the West's benefit). The general principles and mechanisms for managing the beast were well publicised, analysed (and sometimes played out) in public. Nobody seriously tried to downplay (or deny) the dangers.
Yeah, it's horrible, we should stop any software that has been developed by any of the alphabet agencies and uninstall any, right? So you'll all be happilly uninstalling all those Oracle instances out there? Oh, you didn't know the whole relational database thing and Oracle's DB in particular came from the CIA?
Before there were computers and Oracle software to do the searching for the CIA, the World's largest index card system was (allegedly) part of the British Secret Service's means of keeping tabs on hundreds of thousands of people, both in the UK and abroad. If legend is to be believed, every time an agent or member of a British consulate met anyone a card was started on that person which linked to a file with more details. But it could take a week to get back a simple answer such as "list all the people living in Belgium called Schmidt". All these data collection tools gulp data, the problem for the spooks is getting intelligent information from the data. The rise of computerised search and analysis tools has been more than matched by the explosion of data. The result is that any search is going to be a time-intensive and very narrowly focused effort, or it merely swamps the analyst with worthless data.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
