Schneier on Security

Skeptical • February 2, 2014 7:30 PM

What struck me in Clapper’s remarks wasn’t the word “accomplice,” (which I think was more emotive than anything, and certainly not applicable to Schneier in any legal sense) but this section:

What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with socalled domestic surveillance programs. As a result, we’ve lost critical foreign intelligence collection sources, including some shared with us by valued partners.

Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources methods and trade craft and the insights that they are gaining are making our job much, much harder.

And this includes putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk, as well as our armed forces, diplomats, and our citizens. We’re beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, which you alluded to, particularly terrorists, a disturbing trend which I anticipate will continue.

I keep trying to fit Snowden’s taking of so many documents having nothing to do with unethical or domestic surveillance and allowing them to be so widely distributed, with his claim to be a patriot. Increasingly, these days, I suspect that they simply don’t fit. I don’t understand why someone who claims to be so well versed in information security and counterintelligence would distribute so much material. I am concerned about what all of this says about Snowden’s motives, and about the extent to which non-state actors such as Wikileaks, and others, may have been involved – as well as any states associated with Wikileaks.

Snowden’s continued silence, his apparent refusal to aid the US in minimizing harm, and other factors are strengthening some unflattering hypotheses about Snowden’s susceptibility to influence by individuals within, and close to, Wikileaks, among others.

These are only hypotheses of course, and always subject to falsification. But, if they are true, then one day Snowden will realize how some who are using him actually think of him; he will realize that, to a certain extent, he’s betrayed himself. Whether that realization comes soon enough… I don’t know.

Hopefully he distinguishes himself by maintaining independence of mind from those currently best positioned to influence and use him, and acts on that independence.

Skeptical • February 4, 2014 1:19 PM

Scott Strawman? As demonstrated by the calls by officials to kill Snowden that sounds like a dangerously naive expectation. Especially from some with your psuedonym don’t you think?

Because of all the other whistleblowers and journalists that the US has targeted for assassination? Come on.

I’m asking what steps Snowden took to determine how to minimize the harm of what he views as an ethically required disclosure of classified information. Consulting with an attorney should be high on the “to do” list, and Snowden had allies with connections to excellent attorneys who specialize in these kinds of issues.

What efforts have you made to “know” that? I haven’t heard any “concerns” voiced by Bruce, and unless there’s something important you’ve neglected to mention, he’s the only person taking part in this discussion in a position to form an informed opinion.

Indications that Snowden did not minimize disclosure to “whistleblower material”:

1 – Most obviously, there is the reporting of information that clearly does not demonstrate illegal or unethical conduct, such as the TAO catalog. This alone suffices to raise concern about Snowden’s minimization of unnecessary disclosures of classified information.

2 – There are Greenwald’s claims to be able to release information that would do more damage to the US military in one second than has ever before been inflicted upon it. Even accounting for Greenwald getting a little carried away, that’s a clear indicator that the material Snowden disclosed isn’t limited to whistleblower material.

3 – The news organizations themselves clearly believe that a great deal of the information Snowden disclosed to them should be withheld for national security reasons, as these news organizations have (sometimes responsibly, sometimes not) redacted or withheld much of the material they have reported on.

4 – There is apparently a DIA report (about which we know little) that Snowden took 1.7 million documents, most having nothing to do with NSA surveillance. I regard this as a minor item of evidence, as very few details of the report have been released, but it’s obviously very concerning.

5 – Various news organizations, and those who have consulted with them, have expressed concern as to the security of the documents, which certainly implies that there is much in them that should not be released.

That’s off the top of my head. That should suffice.

That’s certainly the opinion repeatedly voiced by you, and couched in the same “concerned” (continually rephrasing “concerns” and speculating only negatively) language used by other defenders of the NSA “right” to break the law. And if your sole objective is only to sling mud, then it’s the approach I’d expect. Mud sticks to the thrower too.

I’m seeking to understand, not to sling mud.

Out of curiosity… what process did you use to determine that? Could you show us the logic schema you used to arrive at that belief (emphatically declared opinion) as a result of gathering that “evidence” with which you seek to hang Mr Snowden?

Like most people, in an informal way, I generated different hypotheses concerning Snowden’s intentions and thoughts, and then viewed available information regarding his words and actions to see whether certain hypotheses were more strengthened, or more weakened, than others.

So, for example:

Hypothesis: Snowden acted conscientiously and with best efforts to limit the disclosure of classified information to that which reveals wrongdoing by the American government.

Evidence: A very large amount of information not revealing of any wrongdoing has been disclosed by Snowden.

Evidence: Snowden has, apparently, made no attempt to alert the US as to what information he may have taken, or what legitimate operations, assets, and personnel might now be compromised or at greatly increased risk of compromise.

Both of these items severely weaken the hypothesis.

We can generate additional, more reasonable hypotheses, that allow for Snowden’s understandable self-interest in his welfare and in maintaining leverage. However, even someone with a reasonable amount of such self-interest should be able to do a better job minimizing the disclosure of legitimately classified information, and should be able to do a better job of minimizing the harm from such disclosures.

These are all hypotheses, and all speculative, and all subject to revision in light of additional evidence. And I certainly wouldn’t impose any sanction on anyone, much less hang someone, on the basis of this.

It’s possible that Snowden erred along the way, and certainly the misattribution of strategic intent to every action/inaction is a common mistake we all make in interpreting the behavior of others. But then I would expect to see actions from him to correct those mistakes, and thus far those actions are lacking. And there are innocent explanations for this, such as difficulty perceiving those mistakes in his present circumstances or being constrained from acting by his present circumstances.

So, it’s still a puzzle, but the probabilities begin to tilt.

Skeptical • February 7, 2014 3:17 PM

@Figureitout:

I found Engel’s portrayal somewhat melodramatic as well, although then there is this recently, as reported in The Wall St. Journal:

Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, seemed to reflect the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi’s big debut out of bias against Russia. “We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day,” he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms. “We’re doing a tour of the media center,” the aide said.

As to expectations of privacy in Russia, the US State Dept. is on the mark.