Schneier on Security

John Pepper • April 17, 2015 11:14 AM

@P/K

And over the past two years I noticed that what Snowden e.a. tells, is not supported by all the documents that were published.

Like …. what? If it is just the activist line or something like ‘his frequency of interviews was slow initially but now has picked up’, this is not evidence.

I am not even sure of your reasoning there on why you believe these are ‘tell tale’ clues. Of anything.

I do not think I have watched a single Snowden video, but I have looked at the documents and read a wide variety of the articles on it. (And so some interviews he has made.)

Some of the stories he has told come from personal experience, and not supported by documentation. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact, usually media sources/whistleblowers do not have hard paper evidence but their position and experience is its’ authoritative. It is also very possible that Snowden has made assumptions about what he has seen and connected dots which were not there.

For instance, when he made pains to cover himself up in the Hong Kong hotel room, I do not think that was anything but adrenaline playing with his mind. That, and similar actions and statements, simply tell me he is not experienced as a deep undercover agent of any kind. Which fits his story.

He could make mistakes in interpreting the evidence he disclosed. However, that, too, is normal. Otherwise, there would not be a debate on the value of the material in the US, noting poll data. Everybody can not be right, therefore some must be misinterpreting the evidence.

Snowden is talking like an activist, in a way that apparently is attractive to certain Americans, but which for me, as a European, is weird. We don’t see the government as evil as many Americans do, although we actually had to suffer from one of the most evil regimes in history. Maybe therefore comparing NSA with the Stasi is ridiculous for us to hear, especially because in the US, there’s even more transparancy and oversight regarding intelligence agencies than in most European countries.

There are definitely many in Europe who do not think well of their government and are suspicious of other allied nation’s governments. You can see this in the demonstrations. There have further been many European based demonstrations over the decades and recently against the US Government. There is often frequent opinions given by Europeans even on minute details of the US Political system.

The US does have a very wide reaching surveillance system and enormous amounts of money put into these systems, including domestic surveillance. I think concerns this could lead to ‘full blown’ totalitarianism have some validity. I will point out, however, unlike European countries, the US Constitution is extremely suspicious of this very possibility so it is likely Americans are more concerned then Europeans, more suspicious.

Because of the wording of the constitution and other founding documents, as well as the context of the American revolution this is actually American “patriotism”. Also, this factor is enhanced by the fact America is a nation of immigrants.

What Snowden did was very likely because of activism and political beliefs. In fact, he has not stated otherwise. So this is congruent with his over all story. You can even go back and see some of his online posts at ars technica and see some of his transition. It is a believable one considering issues such as ‘torture’ (which many Europeans have also balked at), and the consistent push for these systems that are illegal.

Considering ‘Watergate’ and the FBI and other policing excesses in American past, it is certainly not unreasonable for Snowden to have strong beliefs about these matters.

It is true, however, none of these excesses were at the Stasi or Nazi Germany level. They were not there, how could they possibly know. You were not there, but probably have a much better view of it as the generation before you was. People tend to not like to study such material, and there are few ways they can really grasp ‘how it was’. There have been a few movies, but mostly Americans would have to go by their ‘dystopian future’ fare.

John Pepper • April 17, 2015 3:40 PM

@Nick P

The deep state claim hasn’t come from Snowden’s side: it’s from conspiracy sites and their readers that show up here on occasion. Let’s not mix the two.

Ah. Yes, I did just take that term from another poster here, whose reliability can be questioned as his nick was “wwiii”.

Snowden’s side claims they’re collecting data they shouldn’t in secret, using it in ways they’d deny, and sharing it with many 3rd parties. And that most of this happened without the voters’ knowledge or approval. They were sold on bulk *metadata* and warranted collection of data for *terrorists*. The bait and switch that happened couldn’t have been known without the leaks.

My concern is if anyone is using these systems for ‘other purposes’ then the stated ones. Which could indicate the presence of some organization(s) which has gone rogue but remains connected to the system. But, I do not take that the only reason they are using these systems is for ‘terrorism’, they are also going to use it for ‘foreign nation sponsored’ threats of a wide spectrum. And I am not surprised to see they used it for ‘political espionage’, eg, in the case of Germany and Brazil.

The other purposes for such systems is not going to be widely trumpeted for obvious reasons.

Snowden’s information, nor any information I have seen from any disclosure, has alerted me that there is much substance there. “Swordfish” type organizations, while ludicrous on the surface, may not be entirely ruled out as a possibility, for me, anyway. However, I do not pleasure entertaining useless conjecture which does not have any hard facts and evidence supporting them.

It could happen, but without evidence that it has happened means that seriously buying into such an idea would be a mistake.

The discoveries are not on the level of a kruschev secret speech revelation, nor on a level of the watergate revelations.

Most of these points I just stated, I think average Americans are aware of, but probably just have not explicitly thought it out.

[Mistake of reasoning that ‘more information means better information’]

Maybe there is yet a kurschev speech level of revelation coming, but in lieu of that, one might as well assume the us is working with aliens or behind the creation of crop circles.

That’s an easy mistake to make.

Agreed. And that is an useful assessment because “easy” can mean “likely”, in terms of assessing actions and statements made. It is the straightest, shortest line from A to B. Not always the case, but often the most probable case.

Human beings love their straight lines.

It has happened before. J Edgar Hoover used limited surveillance capabilities and blackmail to control Congress for a long period of time. These organizations have vastly more surveillance capabilities and power.

I am aware of that. The profile resulting is simple: human beings will get addicted to power for the sake of power. They will tresspass the law for these purposes, according to their personal risk assessment in their capacity to do so. This includes their instinctual assessment of the likelihood of getting caught, and the damage getting caught would cost them.

For instance, had Stalin been exposed before Kruschev, he would have paid a very high cost. However, his control was sufficient that the risk was very low. Hoover was in a much different environment. Probably his most deplorable tresspass was in his actions against Martin Luther King, Jr. His actions showed he was aware he could be caught by at least some people not fully onboard with him. But, he was going with a powerful popular sentiment of the time, regardless of how atrocious this action was. That popular sentiment meant his potential cost of damage if exposed was much lower then if it was entirely against him on the matter — as they would be today.

However, the leaks showed the methods have been used with covert cooperation of police for fraud, money laundering, drugs, and dissident groups. Again, everything but what Americans were told they were doing with the capability.

I am sorry, I am actually not aware of this. Can you please elaborate?

Are you stating that these systems exposed by Snowden were used for “fraud”, “money laundering”, “drugs”, and “dissident groups”? Of these, for “dissident groups” I can understand. Depending on “what they are dissident of”, “where”, and “what their philosophy is”, eg, is it non-violent.

The Oliver intervew clearly illustrates that they don’t understand the issue. I believe the media is doing that intentionally. Yet, if media made it real and personal for them, then they’d understand the risks enough to have an opinion. The best example of this happening is Enemy of the State: a movie the NSA says was one of the most damaging things to ever happen to the agency.

I do not buy into much media conscious conspiracy theories, but definitely buy into unconscious media conspiracy theories. I could be wrong. I buy into some, but would prefer not to discuss that as interesting as such a subject can be.

I have heard the NSA make that statement, but that does not mean that was any manner of accurate damage assessment. Maybe anecdotal. After all, it depicted a very rogue team at work there doing damage, not the entirety of the agency.

And there is some value for intelligence agencies being overplayed in their capacities, as well as underplayed. (Another “meh” area, though, for me. )

And this aspect of the case does interest me:

Look, fact is, the story is really boring. The whole area is very boring. Swordfish, the Matrix, uhm… Sneakers… 13th Floor… maybe some others made it interesting. Even those movies are very, very audience specific.

[Enemy of the State while dealing with NSA did not focus on computers and information technology.]

[The Net was a good one.]

Some popular and niche sci-fi novels would translate into good movies, ones which have some level of focus in these areas. Most would not and are mind numbingly boring to but a very select audience.

Even these movies I listed have people getting killed in them, guns being involved, and really the technical aspect is very much just window dressing.

Most movies that were a success last year included some form of hero or heroine that had some manner of supernatural or sci fi powers. The few which did not, the main characters still had superhuman capacity.

That is considering the top twenty list.

Even kruschev speech level disclosure or watergate make, generally, for poor story performance. Yes, “All the President’s Men” was an incredible movie, but who that was not alive in the 70s has watched that? Maybe that would fly today, but I think… no. Would be critically acclaimed, as it was then, but would not get wide, mainstream coverage.

Someone typing on a computer highly abstract things is not very interesting.

I am highly skeptical Stone can make good substance out of the Snowden story. No one was killed in the story. There was no solid threat to anyone’s life. The ultimate conclusion was that the authorities overstepped their bounds in pursuit of causes, in general, the American people and much of the world agree with. The political espionage aspects are too expected and apologized for. The economic espionage aspect is too small.

We need a similar movie featuring mass collection leading to a target, FBI parallel constructing false chain of evidence on the main character, FBI agents with machine gunes tearing up the house, courts who can’t get evidence of innocence due to State Secrets privilege, the CIA kidnapping him/her at an airport, the torture in a Middle Eastern black site (including rectal feeding), and the heroic effort to escape the shadowy agencies’ grasp. They need to see it all together to see the Dual State we now live in. The theme will be: “One day, this could be you. You won’t be able to do shit about it. So, vote it away while you still can.”

Hah. Good plotline, but it needs some work.

Not dissimilar to Brazil. But also not entirely dissimilar to many of the ‘dystopian future’ fare many so love. Difference between “Brazil” and those is that “Brazil” exposed villainy possible in bureaucracy very well. Normal dystopian future stories dig deep into motives of the villain. The villain is an addict of power, and has a lot of it, and if they fail they stand to pay an enormous cost. Typically, if not always, that payment is transferred at least symbolically to the main character.

There needs to be a reason which the FBI has to attack the main character. That is, a reason the audience can clearly condemn. That “everyone” in the FBI is bad, and adding to that “everyone in the CIA” and “everyone in the police” is a hard sell, and I do not think even a sell people should necessarily be considering trying to make.

It could be possible, but under what context.

The “rogue group” in a master agency angle is plausible, and it is not entirely bleak, so bleak people do not even want to contemplate it.

But, definitely, interesting plotline and general line of thought.

John Pepper • April 17, 2015 11:04 PM

@Nick P

The government said they were just using it for the extraordinary threat of terrorism. That’s something people are unlikely to be accused of.

Hrrm, so zero real value led them to leaking data through improper channels to make the system economical worthwhile.

Yet, they were covertly feeding law enforcement information saying person X was guilty of Y on more common accusations. Then, law enforcement hid the real reasons (aka parallel construction) they came after them. That’s knocking out several Amendments for reasons other than terrorism.

Ah, okay. Yes, that is a fraud.

It is an abuse of power, which harms the entire system like printing fake money harms the economy. Many of these core systems are clearly in violation of the constitution. That is hitting at the very foundation of the house that is the nation, making cracks that probably can not be repaired.

They have screwed up the plumbing of the house. Forget the manual or hiring a plumber. They did it themselves and threw the manual of the constitution out the window. Everything stays solid enough until the water turns on, then all of those pipes start to burst.

In the meantime, there are leaks everywhere causing degradation all across the place. Degradation they do not see yet, and by the time they start to suspect anything it is too late. Water leaks suck, they can be completely invisible until the bathtub falls through the second floor.

It was a good manual while it lasted.

Life did not suck so bad for awhile.

There only needs to be a reason that makes sense to the FBI.

This is true.

The movie Rendition did a nice chunk of my plot with the reason being some phone calls were made (metadata).

Hrrm, maybe I will check it out. Main reasons I have not checked it out, which are maybe somewhat reasons others have not: it looks bleak as hell, and graphic torture scenes are horrible to watch.

I read the news and get ‘bleak as hell’ all over the place already.

A number of people were at Guantanamo or killed by FBI SWAT teams because a name was written down wrong or a source not validated. ….. Accidents happen so much and with such severe consequences that it should be considered for the plot.

Yeah, this is a frequent problem I see.

Just read about some kid getting stuck in Kuwait because he was wrongly put on the ‘no fly list’. And, being the sweeties they are, they arrested him and tortured him.

Kuwait doesn’t care. It isn’t like anyone will call them to account for this. Why not make your cops psychopathic-murdering-sadists-with-a-fetish-for-dismemberment. What could ever go wrong with that.

Chalk one up for the anti-terrorists.

Yet, like you said, America responds better to villains. That’s the greater worry, too. Enemy of the State laid nice groundwork with government types doing anything it took to get more power for themselves. They even believed it was necessary for national security. The new plot could rehash that with new, realistic capabilities targeting the good guys exposing it.

I like that plotline significantly better.

It gives the good guys a fighting chance. And it is plural, instead of singular.

I can stomach movies where the main character gets massively setup for something they did not do. As long as they have a fighting chance, and continued successes along the way. I am not a fan of them eventually getting caught, and ruthlessly tortured. Especially not when they have no chance.

Personal preference, but maybe not so far out of the way of what mainstream audiences also prefer.

Yet, like you said, America responds better to villains. That’s the greater worry, too. Enemy of the State laid nice groundwork with government types doing anything it took to get more power for themselves. They even believed it was necessary for national security. The new plot could rehash that with new, realistic capabilities targeting the good guys exposing it. ….. I’m actually open to ideas. It just has to show the damage that can be done by powermongers on the top with the capabilities and laws that actually exist. It must also illustrate how there is no defense. Then, people might be willing to either reduce the capabilities or modify them for better accountability/defense.

Oh come on, everyone prefers a strong villain. And there is much to say about anti-heroes. I am tending to think the wave of the future is in a really well worked out anti-hero. I suppose, to a degree, it has surely been a long time coming.

This kind of plot material is perfect for that sort of story. Light is dark, dark is light. People made squirming in their seats because they realize they are rooting for someone who they would normally be abhorred at, and they are not exactly sure why.

Like one of those rollercoaster rides that turns the whole thing around and around, not just a dip here and rise and dip there.

Even better when the good ones they are initially rooting for turn out to be bad. And the bad ones they initially were hungering to see ‘get it’ turn out to be good.

Transfer of power on a massive scale.

I am not sure this is possible without a Shadow type of character. The latest Hannibal series started to get at it.

I was analyzing such a story yesterday. The hero sets up the bad guy to power. The bad guy predictably gets addicted and does a lot of bad things which are painfully allowed. A little thing is asked for him, but that little thing means complete devastation forever of his power. Increasing pressure is put on him, and he yields at turns, but keeps coming back. Finally, though he has lost it all, he can not help it, he continues to his destruction.

The Watchmen had this kind of thing to it.

Not to mess with someone else’s art: but put that skeleton on that kind of story.

That thing was a symphony.

It would fit this. The individual characters could remain individual, or be represented as varying organizations. Heck, it even fits the components I was talking about. Anti-hero, good and evil becomes evil and good. Shadowy dual state. People rooting for anti-heroes that make them wince. They initially thought they were good. They come to accept they are bad, but retain a grudging sympathy for them.

The main character initially appears good. Then bad. Then good again.

The hard methods, the superpowers, of the state are exposed. Exposed in a way that people can understand ‘why’ they abused their powers and kind of sympathize with them, but at the same time see that this other way of lawlessness to make law clearly is not working.

Maybe the ending could be expanded on some. It could be re-written in a wide variety of ways.

The book had it be a fourth dimensional monster. The movie had it massive cities taken out.

The cold war standoff is a bit difficult to repeat, but not if the terrorists are state sponsored (and the everyday people do not know). If the “cops” continued on their path it could be shown how inevitably that would lead to a global catastrophe, including dissolution of the state entirely.

Maybe something that scares the hell out of everyone so bad they put down their guns for good.

Fight Club had a good ending.

IDK, really, my favorite story of the past ten years has not yet been made into a movie. Daemon & Freedom, by Daniel Suarez. Has a lot of the same elements. Maybe even fits this to a ‘t’.

Way forward thinking.

Maybe even already happening for real.

Or something not too unlike it.