Re: Meeting Snowden in Princeton
On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because he saw from the other side that it worked."
Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random blog.
I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's a big red flag.
On 05/03/2015 04:58 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because he saw from the other side that it worked."
Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random blog.
He initially reached out to Glenn and Laura via Tor (Tails, as I recall reading). If the NSA has totally pwned Tor, they would arguably have detected that. We know that they focus on encrypted stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and consultants. But then, maybe it's all bullshit. I certainly have no inside info.
I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's a big red flag.
He's clearly an American nationalist. He's said repeatedly that he released stuff through reporters, rather than directly, in order to reduce the risk of hurting US interests. Is that a "red flag"? I would have rather seen it all, but de gustibus non est disputandem ;)
On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:36:12 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 05/03/2015 04:58 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because he saw from the other side that it worked."
Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random blog.
He initially reached out to Glenn and Laura via Tor (Tails, as I recall reading). If the NSA has totally pwned Tor, they would arguably have detected that.
For starters when he contacted Poitras he was still working for the american nazi government. He wasn't in any 'watch list' (rather he was the one making such lists) - His actions were not 'detected' because nobody was interested in 'detecting' them. So, there goes your theory...
We know that they focus on encrypted stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and consultants.
I don't think so. Snowden was 'one of them'.
But then, maybe it's all bullshit. I certainly have no inside info.
Also, Snowden didn't plan to remain anonymous and didn't remain anonymous except for a few days. So, there isn't any evidence of tor working, except for a few days, at best. Although even that is unwarranted. Bottom line, this "trusted his life to Tor" is just cheap rhetoric.
I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's a big red flag.
He's clearly an American nationalist. He's said repeatedly that he released stuff through reporters, rather than directly, in order to reduce the risk of hurting US interests. Is that a "red flag"? I would have rather seen it all, but de gustibus non est disputandem ;)
Yes, I think it's a red flag. I'm guessing you disagree(?) but I don't know exactly how to read your remark about different people and different tastes...
On 05/03/2015 08:09 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:36:12 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 05/03/2015 04:58 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because he saw from the other side that it worked."
Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random blog.
He initially reached out to Glenn and Laura via Tor (Tails, as I recall reading). If the NSA has totally pwned Tor, they would arguably have detected that.
For starters when he contacted Poitras he was still working for the american nazi government. He wasn't in any 'watch list' (rather he was the one making such lists) - His actions were not 'detected' because nobody was interested in 'detecting' them.
So, there goes your theory...
Well, if I were running the fucking NSA, I'd make sure that all staff and consultants were on high-priority watch lists. Snowden wasn't the first, you know. He was one of few idealists, though. Most of the rest were just in it for the money.
We know that they focus on encrypted stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and consultants.
I don't think so. Snowden was 'one of them'.
From what I've read in Bamford's books, it doesn't work like that. Being "one of them" puts you under more scrutiny, not less.
But then, maybe it's all bullshit. I certainly have no inside info.
Also, Snowden didn't plan to remain anonymous and didn't remain anonymous except for a few days. So, there isn't any evidence of tor working, except for a few days, at best. Although even that is unwarranted.
I think that it was more than a few days. It took a while for Glenn to get up to speed with encryption, as I recall.
Bottom line, this "trusted his life to Tor" is just cheap rhetoric.
That's arguable, I admit. Would they have actually killed him? Probably not, at least at first. But I still like it, cheap rhetoric or not :)
I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's a big red flag.
He's clearly an American nationalist. He's said repeatedly that he released stuff through reporters, rather than directly, in order to reduce the risk of hurting US interests. Is that a "red flag"? I would have rather seen it all, but de gustibus non est disputandem ;)
Yes, I think it's a red flag. I'm guessing you disagree(?) but I don't know exactly how to read your remark about different people and different tastes...
Yes, I was disagreeing. But even if it were a "red flag", what would that signify? Don't the documents speak for themselves? Why do we care about his politics, philosophy, etc?
On Sun, 03 May 2015 20:52:17 -0700, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Well, if I were running the fucking NSA, I'd make sure that all staff and consultants were on high-priority watch lists. Snowden wasn't the first, you know. He was one of few idealists, though. Most of the rest were just in it for the money.
We know that they focus on encrypted stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and consultants.
I don't think so. Snowden was 'one of them'.
From what I've read in Bamford's books, it doesn't work like that. Being "one of them" puts you under more scrutiny, not less.
I posted about this exact issue back in December, mostly to the sound of crickets. To recap the timeline: Sometime late 2012 - Snowden emails Runa Sandvik and provides his real name and address in order to obtain some Tor stickers. *** Link between his legal identity and the cincinnatus@lavabit.com email appears to have been established at this point to anyone monitoring his communications *** Discussion leads to the idea to host a Cryptoparty. [1] December 1, 2012: Snowden emails Greenwald for the first time via cincinnatus@lavabit.com address [1] December 11, 2012: Snowden hosts the Cryptoparty in Hawaii while waiting for Greenwald to reply. Party is organized USING THE SAME cincinnatus@lavabit.com address as a point of contact on the public cryptoparty web site. [2] Jan. 2013: Snowden reaches out to Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker. [3] February 2013: Edward Snowden contacts Greenwald himself. (which Greenwald later retracts, as some claim he realized he himself could also face criminal charges for having advance knowledge of Snowden's plans to join Booz Allen Hamilton with the express intent of obtaining more documents to leak) [4] March 2013: Snowden seeks a new contractor job with Booz Allen Hamilton at the same NSA facility in Hawaii. He later tells the South China Morning Post that he did so to get additional access to classified documents he intends to leak. [3] May 20, 2013: Snowden arrives in Hong Kong from Hawaii. [3] June 7, 2013: Greenwald publishes story in The Guardian. [3] So the takeaway is that the NSA had almost six months to investigate or nab Snowden from the time of his first attempt to contact Greenwald on Dec 1st 2012 until he was on a plane to Hong Kong on May 19th 2013. Meanwhile he's running a large Tor exit node and organizing CryptoParties. This is not exactly what you would call keeping a low profile or 'good OPSEC' for a person actively planning to drop the biggest Intel leak in history. I find this unbelievable. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140521/07124327303/snowden-ran-major-tor... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130327000851/https://cryptoparty.org/wiki/Oahu [3] http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edward-snowden-timel... [4] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/344040301972815872
Dnia niedziela, 3 maja 2015 23:00:02 Seth pisze:
So the takeaway is that the NSA had almost six months to investigate or nab Snowden from the time of his first attempt to contact Greenwald on Dec 1st 2012 until he was on a plane to Hong Kong on May 19th 2013.
Meanwhile he's running a large Tor exit node and organizing CryptoParties.
This is not exactly what you would call keeping a low profile or 'good OPSEC' for a person actively planning to drop the biggest Intel leak in history.
I find this unbelievable.
So, what is the more believable hipothesis, then? Could you please share? Because mine is Hanlon's razor: NSA were simply incompetent. With a haystack like this, it's really hard to find any needles[1]. They missed the Boston Bomber, for instance[2]. [1] http://rys.io/en/151 [2] http://www.latinospost.com/articles/21395/20130613/nsa-prism-surveillance-mi... -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:37:34AM +0200, rysiek wrote:
So, what is the more believable hipothesis, then? Could you please share?
deception in military is as important as traditional civilian security tools. interpret this however you want, civilian ;) -- otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt
On Mon, 04 May 2015 00:37:34 -0700, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
So, what is the more believable hipothesis, then? Could you please share?
The fact that I do not yet have a fully fleshed out alternative theory does immediately disqualify me pointing out flaws in the prevailing narrative. By extension, I don't necessarily have to explain exactly how the presents got under the Christmas tree to observe that it would be physically impossible for Santa Klaus to drop down the chimneys of 100+ million households in America in the span of 8 hours.
On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:00:02 -0700 Seth <list@sysfu.com> wrote:
I posted about this exact issue back in December, mostly to the sound of crickets.
To recap the timeline:
Sometime late 2012 - Snowden emails Runa Sandvik and provides his real name and address in order to obtain some Tor stickers. *** Link between his legal identity and the cincinnatus@lavabit.com email appears to have been established at this point to anyone monitoring his communications *** Discussion leads to the idea to host a Cryptoparty. [1]
December 1, 2012: Snowden emails Greenwald for the first time via cincinnatus@lavabit.com address [1]
December 11, 2012: Snowden hosts the Cryptoparty in Hawaii while waiting for Greenwald to reply. Party is organized USING THE SAME cincinnatus@lavabit.com address as a point of contact on the public cryptoparty web site. [2]
Jan. 2013: Snowden reaches out to Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker. [3]
... etc
This is not exactly what you would call keeping a low profile or 'good OPSEC' for a person actively planning to drop the biggest Intel leak in history.
I find this unbelievable.
Are you saying the alleged facts you listed are not true? (that's a possibility) But if you assmue all that is true, then my view fits nicely. He didn't bothered with 'opsec' because he didn't need to.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140521/07124327303/snowden-ran-major-tor...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130327000851/https://cryptoparty.org/wiki/Oahu
[3] http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/edward-snowden-timel...
[4] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/344040301972815872
Dnia poniedziałek, 4 maja 2015 16:25:34 Juan pisze:
This is not exactly what you would call keeping a low profile or 'good OPSEC' for a person actively planning to drop the biggest Intel leak in history.
I find this unbelievable.
Are you saying the alleged facts you listed are not true? (that's a possibility)
But if you assmue all that is true, then my view fits nicely. He didn't bothered with 'opsec' because he didn't need to.
Maybe he didn't. Some will draw conclusions about how extremely competent the NSA thus is (as in: Snowden being a plant, a part of a larger operation to deceive the public or whomever about something); some will rather draw conclusions on how incompetent it is (as in: missed the Boston Bomber, missed Snowden, etc). You're free to chouse your poison. :) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Mon, 04 May 2015 22:02:14 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 4 maja 2015 16:25:34 Juan pisze:
This is not exactly what you would call keeping a low profile or 'good OPSEC' for a person actively planning to drop the biggest Intel leak in history.
I find this unbelievable.
Are you saying the alleged facts you listed are not true? (that's a possibility)
But if you assmue all that is true, then my view fits nicely. He didn't bothered with 'opsec' because he didn't need to.
Maybe he didn't. Some will draw conclusions about how extremely competent the NSA thus is (as in: Snowden being a plant, a part of a larger operation to deceive the public or whomever about something);
My conclusion is that he didn't need sophisticated opsec because he wasn't a suspect. And no, that doesn't mean he is a plant. It simply means he was regarded as a loyal empployee and loyal subject of the state.
some will rather draw conclusions on how incompetent it is (as in: missed the Boston Bomber, missed Snowden, etc).
Yes, they missed Snowden so they are incompetent to some degree. Arguably in this particular case their incompetence wasn't exactly small...
You're free to chouse your poison. :)
I like poison (idiocracy - I like money)
On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:25:34 -0700, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
I find this unbelievable.
Are you saying the alleged facts you listed are not true? (that's a possibility)
They're true to the best extent that I've been able to determine. If some can identify errors please make them known so the timeline can be corrected.
But if you assmue all that is true, then my view fits nicely. He didn't bothered with 'opsec' because he didn't need to.
That's exactly what I'm driving at. It's hard not to consider the conclusion based on the facts presented in the timeline.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because he saw from the other side that it worked."
Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random blog.
I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's a big red flag.
Two things: As someone else has pointed out, yes, he's an admitted American nationalist. So what? The article is hardly from some random blog: http://www.amazon.com/Security-Engineering-Building-Dependable-Distributed/d... Kurt
participants (6)
-
Juan -
Kurt Buff -
Mirimir -
rysiek -
Seth -
stef