Bill Binney: Reddit AMA

[grarpamp]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6fnibv/hi_reddit_bill_binney_here_to_answer_your/

Barrett Brown chimes in as well

Hi Reddit! Bill Binney here to answer your questions – live from Amsterdam.

submitted 7 hours ago * by IamBillBinney

15 years ago the NSA destroyed the best alternative to mass
surveillance. I have some exciting news to reveal with you: Now there
is a 2.0.

About me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)

Some background on ThinThread: In the late 90s I co-created the
program "ThinThread" which was the perfect alternative to mass
surveillance - but it was ditched by NSA for money.

ThinThread was a fully automated system that could monitor signals
then filter and alert on genuine threats in near real time. It did
this all whilst protecting citizens’ rights to privacy. Its efficacy
was down to it being metadata focused.

See more about the film of ThinThread's story and my career here:
http://agoodamerican.org/
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/agoodamericanmovie Available from today
June 6, 2017.

Here's proof of me doing this AMA now:
https://twitter.com/AGAmovie/status/871427920467820545

First AMA (archived):
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/

It was a good conversation last time, I will aim to answer more
questions today. I’m here from2PM to 5PM EST, and will do my best to
answer everything I can!

EDIT: Please know that my friend and long-time associate and fellow
whistle-blower, Kirk Wiebe, is here with me and says, "Hello, REDDIT!"

EDIT: You are invited to see the following. It is the premier of a new
film. "THE MAZE dissects the terror-attacks since Paris Bataclan in
November 2015 and looks for common patterns. Why was intelligence
failing? And why have our governments been pushing for more of the
same? A journey into surveillance reforms, power, money and cover-ups.
A search for a way out of this maze - with a glimpse of hope on the
horizon." You can watch it here: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/themaze

EDIT: 6:30PM EDT 12:30AM CET Nice AMA-ing with all of you. Thank you
for your questions!

143 comments
share

all 143 comments
sorted by:
best

[–]_zorch_ 19 points 7 hours ago

Considering how over the past few decades, surveillance technology has
been 'baked in' to our communications infrastructure - Is it even
possible to turn it off?

Also, what is the likelihood of US domestic surveillance being
co-opted by a foreign government?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 15 points 7 hours ago

A VERY good question. It is possible, but requires a high degree of
tech know-how to do it - both hardware and software. For example, need
to check the luminosity down a fibre optic line in order to detect tap
points and physically remove them. Also check hardware/software
associated with it.

Likelihood of foreign takeover of US intel would be low because of the
difficulty of knowing where to hack into the intel systems.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]kajnbagoat 0 points 3 hours ago

Sir , like what Edward Snowden do you commend or condone it??

Thanks for doing this AMA sir!! I have a few questions about whether
they can actually turn on your laptop Web cam if it's connected to the
Internet like they show it in The Snowden movie ?

Do you think it can get worse like they will literally know everything
about a person's life??

permalink
embed
parent

[–]DubsNC 1 point an hour ago

Not OP, but plenty of malware can take control of your laptop webcam.
A physical filter is pretty standard equipment now days. It's just
good op sec.

Comey admitted that he puts tape over his webcam.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/08/473548674/why-the-fbi-director-puts-tape-over-his-webcam

There are plenty of pretty girls who have been hacked just for access
to that webcam.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]comesfromVT 10 points 7 hours ago

Good Afternoon Bill!
I'm currently reading No Place to Hide by Glenn Greenwald, and I'm
enjoying it. I'm very interested in the whole intelligence process
from start to finish. I'm lucky enough to be learning a brief amount
of it in the Navy currently. What advice do you have for someone who
is about to separate from the Navy with no debt and a G.I. bill? I
would like to work in the intelligence community, however I really
wouldn't enjoy being trapped between an ethical hard place and being
jobless. Thanks, for this and everything else you do!

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 16 points 7 hours ago

I believe in infiltration. Keep your principles once you join the
intel community and maybe you can make a change on the inside.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]rainer_d 2 points 4 hours ago*

They've probably ramped up the psychological screenings a lot since
Edward Snowden left for Hongkong ;-)

They know how to catch somebody who doesn't quite feel the same way he says.

So, with only a cursory knowledge of this whole intelligence-thing
(watching YT documentaries, hollywood movies and being in the military
myself at some point), there are a couple of different outcomes from
this:

they quickly realize what you really want but don't bother and just
assign you to totally boring projects where you can't do much harm

somebody needs a scapegoat or fulfill this month's quota and you get
handed a big bait, catch it - and are caught red-handed. End result is
you getting more familiar with Ft. Leavenworth than you ever wanted

it all works and you get to be the next Ed Snowden, but have to flee
to Hong-Kong, too. Is you middle initial often being mis-spelled?

And thanks Mr Binney for the personal risk and hardship you took on
yourself. A real hero is somebody who knows he'll never be seen as a
hero.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Barrett_Brown 15 points 6 hours ago

Hi, William; Barrett Brown here. First I want to thank you for your
work in protecting those like myself who were investigated for
bringing attention to these issues, such as by your involvement with
the Courage Foundation, which has helped me, Lauri Love, and several
others over the past few years. I'm scheduled to do an IAMA two hours
from now and will be going into all of that then.

My question is, in your opinion, does there come a point at which the
weight of criminal conduct by the state is sufficient to justify
resistance to its activities, regardless of whether or not the state
derives its powers from the consent of the citizenry, informed or
otherwise? And does a republic have greater rights to engage in
oppression of domestic and foreign populations than would a
dictatorship simply by virtue of deriving its powers from the
citizenry?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 15 points 6 hours ago

There is such a point. It is historically true. We aren't there yet,
so peaceful, democratic options are still available. We have been
heading toward a totalitarian state since "Darth" Cheney said we must
"go to the dark side" in 2001. This infection has now spread
throughout the Free World. Corruption, greed, and desire for control
by Elitists rule the day.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]trai_dep 3 points 6 hours ago

Just to add a note to IAMA readers – Barrett Brown is also giving an
IAMA today, at 2:00 PM PST. Scope it out!

It's an IAMA Two-Fer, for whistleblowers/activists. Kudos to /r/IAMA.

Really glad to have you out among us again, Barrett. Really enjoy your writing!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 4 points 5 hours ago

Hey Barrett

Great to see you here. Also: thanks for everything you've done.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]satbirkira 5 points 5 hours ago

Hey dude, I had the pleasure of seeing the movie in Copenhagen 2 years
ago at the cph film festival. I had a santa hat on but the didn't get
a chance to ask you my question :^)

What were the 10 or so the meta-data heuristics that you found were
effective in thinthread? I remember you naming a few of them in the
movie but I wanted to know all of them. Also I was sorry to hear they
raided your house, hearing that made me sad.

permalink
embed

[–]peterkofod 0 points 3 hours ago

I'm pretty sure it wasn't 10 (Bill always talk in primes). I'm also
pretty sure Bill explained in Copenhagen that he couldn't talk about
the exact parameters, because that would enable govts to do even more
massive surveillance :-)

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 3 points 3 hours ago

he couldn't talk about the exact parameters, because that would enable
govts to do even more massive surveillance

This is rich. He bills it at something that does exactly what we want
(identify true threats with no civil liberties downsides), yet can't
talk about it because it will "enable gov'ts"? How? They already know
how to collect massive quantities of shit. He's supposedly selling a
way for them to succeed in their job without collecting massive
quantities of shit... what conceivable way could this 'enable' more
surveillance?

Plus, he claims to have already tried selling NSA on this magic
method, so it's not like they don't already know about it. He never
explains the details of why they said, "Damn! That's a perfect way of
accomplishing our mission. Let's not do that." It's all just too
convenient...

permalink
embed
parent

[–]FluentInTypo 0 points 45 minutes ago

He explains that he built the program and NSA scrapped it for more
invasive methods.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 1 point 14 minutes ago

But why? Is there a single shred of evidence that NSA looked at a
program that was simple and did everything they wanted to do
(completing their mission and immunizing them from outside criticism)
and instead said, "Nah. Let's not do that. Instead, let's give money
to people who have a worse plan, and let's even go further and just
forget that we learned how to do these things perfectly!" In what
world does any of that make sense?!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]satbirkira 0 points 35 minutes ago

Bill says NSA scrapped it so their contractors (who were friends with
NSA higher ups at the time and former NSA employees) could get $$$.
Did the NSA wanted something more invasive like trailblazer? I doubt
they cared how it worked, since they didn't even care if it worked or
not. So no, I don't think the NSA scrapped for the sake of using more
invasive methods, but rather writing fat cheques for their friends.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 1 point 10 minutes ago

If NSA could do it internally... in a way that is awesomely good at
fulfilling the mission and which totally prevents them from eventually
encountering civil liberties criticism... why wouldn't they just do
that? Do they really hate their coworkers so much that they just
decided, "Fuck these guys, we're going to take this money elsewhere"?
I mean, they're all buddy buddy with "former NSA employees"... but
they just hate current NSA employees who are giving them the moon?!
And then they just forgot the really cool ideas that the current NSA
employees told them, and didn't bother to pass on this awesomely good
information to the contractors? h-What?!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Liquid_Reality 6 points 6 hours ago

Hi Bill!

First I want to say I believe the world owes you a debt of gratitude
for doing the right thing in a system that went off the rails. Without
people like you, Thomas, and Edward, we still wouldn't know the true
scope of the NSA's constitutional violations. We need intelligence
services, but unchecked mass suspicionless surveillance is a cancer to
a free society. Public servants with their hearts in the right place
can safeguard the people and the constitution when all else has
failed. Thank you for being one of the good guys.

Question 1: Warrantless mass surveillance typically drops off the
public's radar after a few news cycles, and it's very abstract for
most people to consider. Do you think the USA's national consciousness
will ever care enough to hold the bad actors legally accountable, and
address the core institutional problems?

Question 2: Some of us see commercial profit-based surveillance, such
as from Facebook, Google, etc, as a threat to a free and open
internet. Do you think we can build systems providing the advantages
of those things, while also being robust against totalitarianism as
governments increasingly pressure private industry into censorship and
"sharing" data gathered during for-profit mass surveillance?

Question 3: Are there lessons you see in how Germany handled the
aftermath of the Stasi era for modern day USA and the NSA?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 8 points 6 hours ago

To Number 1 No. Because there are too many people involved in all
upper levels of government.

To Number 2 Yes. It requires a monitoring program to track everything
on the network.

To Number 3 Yes, there is only one reason government collects data
about everyone and it isn't good. It is done to maintain control over
the population.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]trai_dep 3 points 5 hours ago

There is an alleged whistleblower whose arrest was recently announced.

They allegedly were caught after printing a hard copy of documents
while at work. They also allegedly emailed the publication while at
work. Then confessed when questioned rather than waiting until a
lawyer could be there. These don't seem to be ideal whistleblower
practices.

Have workplace whistleblowing exposure techniques gotten more
sophisticated, or was this most likely a one-off case of poor
judgement and practices?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 10 points 4 hours ago*

I would say a one-off, poor judgement. Due to the poor quality of the
report itself, this whole matter could be a ruse. I would strongly
question the authenticity of the report.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]MagicHerb 4 points 5 hours ago

I know many people that buy into the delusion, that surveillance is
the only way to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. Which is
contratrary to the evidence: most of the identified attackers were
already under surveillance.

When and how did it happen, that mass surveillance became a commodity?
Why do people fear a loss of surveillance more than they fear a loss
of freedom?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 7 points 4 hours ago

It began with Darth Cheney and Shrub (Bush) who were motivated to
obtain information about everyone to get a leg up on political
enemies, just like Nixon did. They peddled the concept that data is
intelligence, and therefore, the more you have, the more intelligence
you have. This is absolutely false. Until you understand the data you
have and what it means, you have no intelligence. Obama simply doubled
down on this philosophy, so he is in effect Darth squared.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 6 points 4 hours ago

People fear the loss of surveillance because they are conditioned to
think data is intelligence, therefore more is better. Government is
treating the population as Pavlov's dogs.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]theepzaa 3 points 6 hours ago

Do your instincts (or your sources within intelligence agencies)
believe Russia 1) is responsible for the DNC leak/hack and/or 2)
attempted to hack U.S. election systems in 2016?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 5 points 6 hours ago

No, not Russia, and if it was there would be direct evidence of it.
Also, CIA using Vault 7 tools can make an attack it carries out look
like it comes from another nation/party. The fact NSA does not provide
a track for the packets reflecting fact of no hack attack means it was
an insider job/leak. See Consortium News for related article.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]8238482348 5 points 4 hours ago

No, not Russia, and if it was there would be direct evidence of it.

Do you expect a developed country with at least a modicum of talented
IT professionals to not be cautious of leaving any direct digital
evidence? As you assuredly know, anyone can basically use a daisychain
of IPs to obfuscate their origins.

CIA using Vault 7 tools can make an attack it carries out look like it
comes from another nation/party

Yes, many agencies of many countries can possibly use falseflag
options but it doesn't mean they do.

The fact NSA does not provide a track for the packets reflecting fact
of no hack attack means it was an insider job/leak.

Anyone can fire up a TOR session and possibly hide their origins as
you know. They can command a node, be it a PC or any tech device, then
use it as a regular proxy or another TOR server, therefore obfuscating
themselves even more, many times over. When you have the power of a
nation state, this is very feasible. Also IP addresses within
government domains are sometimes not public information, as you
probably also know. It's a weak "security by obscurity" technique but
if they published IPs of sensitive nodes, it invites any nation state
to come knocking on the door.

I don't see how that's enough information to conclude it was an inside
job. I'm not saying it was a country or any one person but until we
have the information at hand, it's hard to conclude either way, which
you seem to be doing. Maybe you know more about this than I but
considering your answer here and below, I suspect you're not fully
aware of network security as I thought. Could your bias against the
institution that fired you be influencing some bias on your part?

It is difficult to know the true origin - must be able to trace the
packets and look inside of them in order to know. Called Deep Packet
Inspection.

But even packets can be changed en route, source and destination both
as well as obfuscated by a litany of routes by using proxies and
something as TOR. I don't know why you put so much influence on
thinking this would be the proof.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 4 hours ago

REF 1st Quote: That is one of the reasons we believe the CIA carried
out the attack. Because no self-respecting spy agency would leave such
an obvious trail.

REF 2nd Quote: Yes, but it doesn't mean they don't.

REF 3rd Quote: Guess what? NSA can track the TOR packets. That's why
NSA has embedded trace-route programs on hundreds of switches all over
the network to reconstruct the TOR network.

REF 4th Quote: It is true that Service Providers can change the IP's
of originators and recipients of packets, but in doing so, when the
packets reach the border gate to the next Service Provider, they
convert them back to the originals, otherwise the packets get lost.
This means we have to work out the formula for internal changes in
packets and reverse it when moving to the border gate provider.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Poopshakalaka 2 points 3 hours ago

Hahahahahahaha

So, there is no "direct evidence", but somehow also an "obvious trail"?

What a stupid fucking AMA

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_zorch_ -1 points 3 hours ago

It's like when the cop says "I clocked you doing 97 MPH" but refuses
to show you the radar.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod -1 points 2 hours ago

You've got Poop in your handle.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Poopshakalaka 0 points 2 hours ago

Well this is embarrassing

permalink
embed
parent

[–]spin81 1 point 35 minutes ago

Guess what? NSA can track the TOR packets.

Unless I misunderstand the TOR concept, which is quite possible but I
don't think I do, what you're saying can't be true unless the NSA
controls the vast majority of TOR nodes out there. Are you saying that
they do? If so, how are they doing it?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]DubsNC 1 point an hour ago

You understand the concept but don't know the limitations of the
current system. There are theoretical and practical attacks against
the TOR network. For example:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/new-attack-on-tor-can-deanonymize-hidden-services-with-surprising-accuracy/

permalink
embed
parent

[–]spin81 1 point an hour ago

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that!

What I'm seeing when looking at that article though, is that in some,
possibly many, cases they can see when a given user uses a given
hidden service, but that's not what /u/IamBillBinney said. What he
said was that the NSA can track TOR packets.

Also, quoting from the article:

In an e-mail, Tor project leader Roger Dingledine said the
requirements of the attack greatly limited its effectiveness in
real-world settings. [...] attackers would have to operate a large
number of Tor nodes to have a reasonable expectation of seeing traffic
of a given hidden service.

So even though it's certainly a very interesting and educational
article, I'm not convinced it denies my point.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]8238482348 0 points 3 hours ago

1) It's what the nation state wants you to think, perhaps. You can't
rule that out if being impartial.
3) That might be true but it's possibly useless if many of the nodes
the client uses aren't in an accessible country and you have no
practical means to control all the service providers involved.
4) No, I mean by IP masking, I can literally create an internet packet
with a false source address and send that packet to a node on the
internet. Or more practically, take over a machine to mask my
malicious data but if we're talking nation states here, I think you
underestimate the possibility of a powerful nation state influencing
our network infrastructure. I don't think there's enough data to
definitively say it was an inside job just because we weren't provided
the packets themselves or shown IP addresses. This is still all
confidential at this point.

Surely you could just as well say if it was an inside job that the
evidence you're also asking for to disprove nation state influence
should be there, especially considering it was all done in the land of
logging, where every digital device is tracked, as you say. Where's
the evidence there? Yet assumptions are made either way. You also
linked to consortium, which is biased. It doesn't own up to the fact
that the NSA is not omnipotent. Any network links tracing back to
Chinese, Russian or any other countries not in the "five eyes" is
basically a black hole unless the "five eyes" just happened to run
some clandestine operation to control every service provider in the
world. The link also conveniently says that the source is false
because they weren't provided pertinent evidence, assuming that the
evidence won't reveal sensitive sources, which is also false. Also
remember these few sources seem to have more traditional intel
background, not network/computer security/forensics related and
probably don't know as much about this field as they allude to.

It's unfortunate that this is so political that it makes it harder to
find truth. I don't think anyone knows except the guys on the digital
frontlines but I think if anyone makes an argument either way, it's
likely politically fueled instead of any real truth seeking. You have
much influence, Mr. Binney, it's sad when someone with your influence
uses it to shit on the "elite", people looking out for themselves and
their family as you're doing who can also be used to do good for
others just as bad. You shit on information when this same information
can also be used against those against democracy. You shit on American
leaders who were doing what every other political leader does in their
country, look out for its interest. You shit on your ex-associates
who, just like you, were looking out for themselves and family while
realizing this information can be used for both good and bad, not as
one-sided as you. You shit on the people at the top while endorsing
others at the top who shit on people below also.

For someone in such a position of potential influence and considering
your age, I was hoping you'd have more nuanced and neutral opinion on
things. But no, your replies seem like something I would've said when
I was a kid at 20 years old with no knowledge of why leaders,
military, intelligence and otherwise, do what they do other than they
have more money and power than me so I'm mad at them. Thanks for your
response and I still respect you as a person but I was hoping for more
wisdom in this AMA.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 4 points 6 hours ago

Link to the Consortium News article, mentioned in Bill's reply:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Fliepke 4 points 6 hours ago

Hi Bill,

As a private citizen I'm well aware of my "privacy" on the internet,
but I'm not using vpn, pgp, etc because it seems like a hassle. So I
have two simple, practical questions:

What is one thing I should stop doing today, to protect my privacy a
little bit better? And of course, what should I start doing from today
on?

permalink
embed

[–]crawlingfasta 2 points 6 hours ago

VPNs are a lot less of a hassle than they were 5 years ago. Most of
the big ones have nice GUIs and are fast and easy to use and not that
slow. As an added bonus, you can use them to circumvent some paywalls,
download torrents and avoid 'dynamic pricing' on certain websites.
Totally worth the $3-$10/month IMO. (mine has paid for itself!)

PGP is still a hassle :(

Start using Signal or another end-to-end encrypted app for your text
messages and even voice messaging as well. Not just the government,
but also your telco and hackers can read your SMS if you don't use
Signal.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 4 points 6 hours ago

Use Tor if you can, change your passwords frequently, and invent your
own encryption for your community of friends.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]marshal_mellow 3 points 6 hours ago

I've always heard that you should never "roll your own crypto"

Would you say it's more effective than using a known encryption method?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] -3 points 5 hours ago

Yes, it IS more effective, because then there would be millions of
different encryption systems not solvable by mass machine attack. It
would take human interactions to solve, taking months and even years.
Not practical. If you use public encryption, governments can solve one
or two or very few in order to enable a machine attack on millions of
users.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Sostratus 10 points 4 hours ago

For fuck's sake, Bill, this is terrible advice! There's not a
cryptographer on the planet who would agree with you on this. This is
the kind of crank nonsense that calls any claim you've ever made into
question.

Everyone: use time-tested public algorithms. The security comes from
the secrecy of the key, not the secrecy of the algorithm.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]trai_dep 3 points 3 hours ago

This is such a spectacularly bad answer I wonder if this is William Binney.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_zorch_ -1 points 4 hours ago

There's not a cryptographer on the planet who would agree with you on this.

Because they deal in theory. In practice, the tools to decrypt your
batshit crazy crypto technique don't exist. Yes, they may be
theoretically "easy" to build, but they aren't built yet.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 3 hours ago

Please read Friedman and Callihamos for a better understanding of
cryptanalysis. It is a four volume set. Google it and you will find
where you can buy it. Quite expensive, but well worth the investment.
I think it is a great read.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 2 points 5 hours ago

This (roll your own) requires a rather huge skillset/budget - not
something I'd recommend for the average user (although it's a
reasonable point, that even, say, Public crypto, might benefit from a
variety of different protocols).

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_zorch_ 0 points 5 hours ago

This (roll your own) requires a rather huge skillset/budget

Not really. Small but significant tweaks on top of existing tools
throws in an extra level of complexity that will require more human
intervention.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 3 points 5 hours ago

yup - but even "small" tweaks require either A) skills that the
general public don't have - or B) that you pay somebody to do it for
you.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_zorch_ 0 points 4 hours ago

A) skills that the general public don't have

Like setting your key size to 1025 bits, instead of 1024?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 2 points 3 hours ago

Hi Bill!

I've seen your claims in a few different forms over the years, but
they've always been relatively light on the details. Can you explain
exactly how your program differed from other programs? For example, in
this AMA, you claim that the "efficacy was down to it being metadata
focused". The NSA currently runs significant programs which are
metadata focused. How, exactly, did yours differ?

Additionally, you say that it was ditched "for money". What was the
source of money that caused NSA to look at a product that nominally
does exactly what NSA's mission is and respond, "Nah. Let's not do
that"? Where did that come from?

Thanks!

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 3 hours ago

ThinThread has 3 differentiators:

1 - It filtered out all content not associated criminal and terrorist
activities. Other content was ignored. 2 - Any person acquired but not
yet known to be criminal or terror-related was protected by encryption
of their identifying attributes. 3 - The ThinThread network was
constantly monitored by software that tracked what users did when they
connected to it and looked at data, what they did with the data, etc.
So, this means that if Snowden had downloaded data from the ThinThread
network, we would have seen it immediately and known exactly what he
took. No guessing.

The source of the money was Congress who gave the funds Director
Hayden requested (3.8 billion dollars) for the first five years of his
program (TRAILBLAZER), despite the fact that ThinThread had already
solved the essential challenges.

Basically, staff members in Congress were suggesting to NSA management
(Hayden included) that ThinThread already had solved the problems and
should be used accordingly. NSA ignored Congress and awarded big
contracts to big companies who failed utterly to produce results.

TRAILBLAZER was declared a failure by Congress in 2005.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 1 point 3 hours ago

It filtered out all content not associated criminal and terrorist
activities. Other content was ignored.

That's basically the goal of any filtering scheme, isn't it?

Any person acquired but not yet known to be criminal or terror-related
was protected by encryption of their identifying attributes.

The devil is in the details here. I'm confident that literally every
NSA database is encrypted in its entirety (to do otherwise would be
sheer neglect). The question is who has the ability to unencrypt. Just
saying "it's encrypted" doesn't answer any of the relevant questions,
and it doesn't distinguish your proposal from existing minimization
procedures.

The ThinThread network was constantly monitored by software that
tracked what users did when they connected to it and looked at data,
what they did with the data, etc. So, this means that if Snowden had
downloaded data from the ThinThread network, we would have seen it
immediately and known exactly what he took.

User auditing is an extremely attractive feature, so it would be
absolutely mindblowing for them to say, "Here's a way that we can
reduce the insider threat (on top of executing the mission perfectly
with no civil liberties problems)... nah! Let's not do that!"

The source of the money was Congress

And here the game is up. It is not some moneyed evil corporate entity
or something. Congress just gave NSA money to do their job. You're
telling us that they had the money... and they looked at a magic
program that solved literally all their problems... and responded,
"Nah. No thanks. We'll do things the hard way." How is this remotely
plausible?!?! What caused them to ignore the silver bullet that was
right in front of them?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 3 points 6 hours ago

Hey Bill & Kirk

Peter from Denmark, here. Hope all's well with you guys.

Question: considering that in almost every terror-attack, it turns out
that at least one of the perpetrators were known to authorities in
advance, shouldn't we demand some kind of audit of what the
intelligence agencies/govts knew (or should've known), but failed to
act upon?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 8 points 5 hours ago

Yes, Peter - every govt intel agency should be audited to ensure
integrity of operations. Reviewable by another entity. Intel cannot
monitor itself.

Every time there is a terror attack they fail to stop, their budget
should be cut by at least 10%. We should not reward failure with
increased budgets!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 3 points 5 hours ago

Hey; yeah. I don't really know of any other business, in which failure
is rewarded with tons of money.

Who would you suggest (in an ideal world) should do the audits? IC is
quite good at hiding stuff from oversight committees etc.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]janvanoort 3 points 5 hours ago

Perhaps a magistrate or an (elected!) public oversight body would be
best equipped for that task?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 1 point 5 hours ago

sounds reasonable; it would need a pretty high level of tech-skills,
I'd say. (like what Bill says about "hackers" below)

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Poopshakalaka 3 points 3 hours ago

What other "business" (NSA is not a business to begin with) can you
name where all failures are public and all successes are private?

What other business can you name where they lose 10% of their budget
per failure?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 3 points 5 hours ago

I recommended (with others) to Obama (he ignored it) that hackers be
cleared and authorized to inspect/audit any US Intel agency at any
time. It didn't fly. Until auditing is embedded in Intel, nothing will
change.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 1 point 3 hours ago

every govt intel agency should be audited to ensure integrity of operations

What exactly do you think DoD, ODNI, HPSCI, SSCI, the President's
Intelligence Oversight Board, FISC, DoJ, and NSA's OIG, OGC, and OoC
do?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]kosayla 3 points 6 hours ago

Hi Bill. A bit of a technical question. Since the leaks from a few
years ago, more and more companies are switching to SSL/https to
encrypt their web traffic. I understand that the NSA can decrypt some
of this traffic via backdoors installed in certain router hardware.
Besides that, how likely is it that the NSA has the secret keys for
the SSL traffic of companies like Google so they can just decrypt the
traffic from the raw data, without needing to hack any hardware?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 4 points 6 hours ago

>From my neck of the woods, "this don't surprise me none" What you are
suggesting is very likely the case.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]WylieMontis 2 points 7 hours ago*

The UK wants to start Chinese style Internet monitoring. Do you think
this will a) work b) prove to be the only way to keep people safe

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 4 points 7 hours ago

First, the US and UK with others collect virtually everything on
Internet and Public Telephone Networks. Chinese cannot match that. The
question should be, have the Chinese accomplished what we are now
doing. Answer is no - not yet.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 3 points 7 hours ago

We believe the report may be a fake report. If not, it is poorly
written. In any case, it indicates the Russians did not break into the
voting system. They were exploring for information.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 5 points 7 hours ago

When I say "we", that means most of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and some others we know with intel
backgrounds believe this.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]8238482348 1 point 3 hours ago

They were exploring for information.

AkA pentesting, aka attempted hacking. Why is it hard for you to
assume a nation state might try something like this? My servers get
pinged all the time from places like China, Russia, etc. Literally,
sometimes hundreds of "knocks" a day on my servers from those
countries and you can't believe a nation state would attempt something
like that on a high profile and apparently insecure node in a very
"delicious", lots of potential goodies to a hacker, IP range?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]WylieMontis 1 point 6 hours ago

Thank you! To clarify for people who are not Bill. My original
question was about today's leaked report

permalink
embed
parent

[–]lurking_digger 2 points 5 hours ago

Mr Binney, big fan!

Did the knobs who raided your home and yanked(?) you out of the shower
ever apologize?

What news outlets do you recommend?

If internet is disconnected, what options then?

Is shortwave radio still viable option?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 7 points 5 hours ago

They never apologized. So now, I am supporting four separate lawsuits
going after NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ unconstitutional surveillance.

Check out Circa News - true investigative reporting without political bias.

Shortwave radio is still viable, even desirable if it can meet your
needs for distance, line of site, etc. Go analog vice digital if you
can.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]lurking_digger 2 points 5 hours ago

Thank you, sir

Thank you for your pains

permalink
embed
parent

[–]FluentInTypo 2 points 3 hours ago

I have this feeling, that ever since "Snowdon" ( Not to overshadow
your own legacy of course. - I only mention him because of the media
coverage), that everything has gotten worse, not better.

The only real reform we saw was the U.S. Freedom Act, which for all
intents and purposes, legalized domestic surveillence and iirc,
actually increased the amount of data available to NSA from the phone
companies.

Meanwhile, at the local and state levels, we have city after city
legalizing stingray use and other military technology for surveilence.

The 2016 election was the first election we had since Snowden and
surveilence wasn't even mentioned by any candidate except Bernie
(against), Paul (against), Johnson (Against) and Christie (Terrifying
Pro). I had hopes that this would be the election where surveilence
would finally be dealt with..but alas, it was reduced to a bullet
point.

This doesnt even cover the corporate marketing survielence going on.
We passed the privacy laws in 1974 which was honestly the last big
protection ever made on behalf of the American people. The State has
no reason to regulate the big data market as it relies on that same
market to FISA warrant its own interests from it.

All these things, taken together, makes for a terrifying future where
we have the Corporate/State on one side and the little guy on the
other. As a little guy, I see no way to fight this, unless on a mass
scale of unity among the little guys and that just cant happen in a
society as large and addicted to consumerism as we are.

Given your knowledge and involvement in reforms, could you provide any
reassurance that we actually have a chance in fighting this beast?

EDIT: sent too soon.

Lastly, how long were you treated as a "conspiracy theorist" by the
masses? Or are you still treated that way?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 4 points 3 hours ago

You have captured well the beast before all of us. The only thing to
do is to keep fighting, keep demanding truth and accountability from
elected representative. Please pick up the phone and call your
representatives office and voice your anger for subversion of your
constitutional rights. Do not relent!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]SandDuner509 1 point 2 hours ago

Hope i'm not to late here, but what would you differently if you were
to go back and as the DoD IG to investigate the NSA?

Do you believe there are any actions you could have taken to make them
sway towards ThinThread over Trailblazer?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 1 hour ago

We (Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, Diane Roark) tried everything at our
disposal to warn those in positions of authority about ThinThread and
the imminent failure of TRAILBLAZER. This included a member of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), in
particular current Senator Burr, Chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.

We do not know of any other actions that would have swayed minds, as
the focus by those in power was on outsourcing big contracts to big
companies.

President Eisenhower in January 1961 warned the American people about
the emergence of the Military Industrial Complex which could
fundamentally alter the American way of life and governance. If he
could see what now exists in Washington DC, he would most assuredly
turn over in his grave.

FOOTNOTE: Never underestimate the power of large numbers of stupid people.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]curiosity36 1 point 1 hour ago

Mr. Binney, do you have anything to say about the thousands of
Americans who claim they're being remotely tortured by EM weapons?

I've assembled a lot of research on /r/psychotronics, and have spoken
to people who claim to have spoken to you.

permalink
embed

[–]yung2344 0 points 6 hours ago

Hi Bill, how aware are you regarding the Covert. Brain Computer
Interface technology now seemingly be used to hack into living brains
of people?

There has been a huge rise in the number of people claiming to be
"targeted individuals".

All of which share three major symptoms, all of which are Imo
obviously due to BCI tech.

Voices in the head, bo doubt caused by brain to brain communication

The knowledge that those voices can "see through my own eyes", no
doubt due to real time vision reconstruction via BCIs

And "induced dreams"/ nightmares" no doubt caused by noncentual
Neurogaming due to the covert BCIs.

And do you have an email address I might be able to send you more
information via? I have names and license plates of suspected agents
involved in this type of harrassment, along with a much more detailed
explaination of the assumed tech.

DARPAs BioMens seem to be at the heart of it

permalink
embed

[–]_zorch_ 2 points 5 hours ago

Wow, that just hurt my brain.

Are you working for Them?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]RetepWorm 2 points 5 hours ago

Jesus, I feel like I've stepped into a distopian future here. Are you
from the future, my friend? I feel you may have posted this in the
wrong decade.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]lighthouserecipes 1 point 6 hours ago

What are you up to nowadays?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 4 points 5 hours ago

Aside from suing the government, and calling them all idiots in public
TV and radio, my friend Kirk Wiebe is with me here in Europe talking
to the EU Parliament about mandating targeted approaches to Intel
surveillance into law and protecting privacy. We must have privacy and
security at the same time. Further, we are also helping companies here
in Europe make that a reality.

Sooooo, now that NSA, CIA, FBI, GCHQ, BND et all know we are doing
this, we would be happy to help them succeed as well. Right now we do
not clear them for that knowledge. Don't you just love this!!!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]kybarnet 1 point 6 hours ago

Why would the powerful desire to apply justice equally, when currently
there is such extensive inescapable bias that the laws of the common
do not even begin to apply to the laws of the elite? In other words,
why would any system voluntarily surrender power to a weaker opponent,
and can we expect all opponents in the future to act likewise?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 3 points 4 hours ago

At some point, the People stand up for their rights and do what is
necessary. Currently this is true and that is why I call the US Dept
of Justice, the "US Dept of Just Us." Only the Elites like Hillary
Clinton, Gen. Petraeus, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and all others who
have been violating the rights of citizens of the world enjoy
protected status.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]037_Engineering 1 point 6 hours ago

What is the question that should be brought up more so us lay people
can understand our country and world better? And what is the answer to
that question?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 8 points 5 hours ago

We need to demand honest answers from our representatives. For
example, Senator Wyden asked how many Americans are in intel
databases. His answer from NSA in writing said, "We cannot tell you
that, because it would be a violation of privacy rights of US
Citizens. This is NOT an acceptable answer.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_zorch_ 0 points 3 hours ago

They're getting better. When asked a similar question by Congress in
the 80s (shortly after 12333), NSA refused to answer based on
"attorney-client privilege".

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 0 points 3 hours ago

Do you think they know how many blue-eyed individuals are in intel
databases? That's approximately the same problem, even though it
doesn't have the same significance.

The fact of the matter is that you (and Senator Wyden) know that it is
impossible to answer that question. You're just being angry for the
sake of being angry.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 2 hours ago

Not so.

A simple count of the number of people in the telephone database(s)
with US phones can be done by a simple software shell. And you can get
the number of times a unique entry appears in the database(s). Same is
true for unique IP numbers tracing back to computers/devices. My
estimate is that there are about 280 million US citizens in the NSA
database. Each entered several hundreds, if not thousands of times.
The same would be true for each domain (financials, etc) database.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Im_not_JB 1 point 2 hours ago

the number of people in the telephone database(s) with US phones

Because no phone number is used by multiple people and no person has
multiple phone numbers. Also, US citizens abroad may have foreign
phone numbers.

unique IP numbers

We all know the various issues with IP numbers and geolocation (..and
uniqueness), but how do you propose correlating IPs with phone
numbers? If I have three unique phone numbers (home, work, cell) and
at least as many unique IPs (home, work, Starbucks, ComicCon), how are
you going to determine that they're all the same person?

Furthermore, it is public knowledge that NSA is required to perform IP
geolocation filtering during acquisition of Section 702 data - if it
doesn't originate/terminate at a foreign IP, they're required to not
collect it. We all agree that they're still collecting some US data,
but you acknowledge that it must be related to a legitimate foreign
target, right? And these uniqueness problems mean that any number we
generate to try describing the set of Americans with data captured is
surely going to be more of a reflection of our assumptions, right?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Bardfinn 1 point 5 hours ago

Hi Mr. Binney;

What question do you always wish people would ask you?

Thanks!

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 8 points 5 hours ago

It would be, "Do you have to give up privacy to provide security?" The
answer is absolutely not. Intel agencies of the free world should have
adopted a targeted approach to data collection off the networks of the
world. Since they did not take this approach, you can see in the
tragic examples of Manchester and London, their approach is failing.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]-pm-your-boobies- 1 point 5 hours ago

Have you ever seen any proof of extraterrestrial life here on Earth?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 5 hours ago

I have no direct evidence, but as a mathematician, I can - with great
confidence - state that the probability of life existing somewhere
else in the universe is 1, which means it's out there.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]-pm-your-boobies- 1 point 5 hours ago

Thank you for your reply Bill! All the best.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]KhanneaSuntzu 1 point 3 hours ago

Life means nothing. Tool using, technologically creative. intelligent
problem solving life should be very very rare. Fermi's paradox.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]tehn6 1 point 3 hours ago

How do you think the world will look 10 years from now regarding mass
surveillance and internet privacy? What will be the greatest
difference to today? Will our homes remain private? Or will we get
spied on by household robots?

Theresa May wants more mass surveillance in the UK! What would you
recommend her to do instead to fight terrorism?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 2 hours ago

If we do not move away from mass surveillance and bulk data
acquisition, the Ïnternet of Things" will provide the government and
business with unprecedented access to our private lives and everything
we do every minute of every day.

All politicians want more money, more people, and more data so they
can build an even bigger empire, despite continual failure to prevent
attacks from occurring. So let's object to any process that rewards
failure. STOP IT! We need smarter, more efficient ways to stop terror
and criminal behavior. We also need to provide real oversight of the
intel agencies and verification (auditing) to ensure rights are being
protected. No data stored data collection on anyone without a warrant
based on probable cause. By doing this, analysts and authorities are
focused on the data most likely to prevent terrorist or criminal
activity.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]tehn6 1 point 2 hours ago

So do you think data is worth more than gold? Will a country's wealth
be determined by the amount of data stored in the future?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 2 hours ago

True to an extent, but I will always prefer gold because it is real
and hard to fake.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]mrkoot 1 point 2 hours ago*

Although ThinThread (necessarily) relies on access to backbone
communication links/cables, it does not rely on massive intake of
content --- an opportunity to significantly reduce bulk collection, as
A Good American explains. During a pre-screening in March 2016 you
mentioned discussing ThinThread with governments including Germany,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; and
that Canada, Germany, Australia & New Zealand had 'picked it up'.

Q1 (to Bill): did any government, so far, indicate a willingness to
consider replacing existing methods that rely on bulk collection with
ThinThread (or a ThinThread-like model) -- and to then reduce or
eliminate bulk collections? Or is ThinThread rather seen as an
addition, and existing sigint collection upheld?

Q2 (to both Bill & Kirk): did any of the SSEUR countries, so far,
consult Entity Mapping to implement ThinThread?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 2 hours ago

Q1: After leaving NSA in Oct 2001, we had no further communications
with any other country's intelligence agency. We are working with the
EU to improve surveillance techniques and to include privacy by
design.

Q2: No, none of the SSEUR countries have attempted to contact us.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]smokinbluebear 0 points 4 hours ago

Thanks to you and the other Whistle-blowers!!!

Any thoughts on a REAL 9/11 Commission (run by citizens, not politicians)?

9/11 is the original sin--Iraq/Afghan "wars" and CIA Torture, etc.

Until we overcome the lies surrounding what happened that day the USA
will be on a path of war and destruction...and war profiteering, of
course.

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 3 hours ago

Spot-on!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]MRB88 0 points 5 hours ago

Hi Bill! Couple quick questions for you.

1) We all know that communications tools and social media are
routinely monitored by national-level intelligence agencies. Do you
worry about three letter agencies getting involved with private actors
who collect/analyze big data on an official or unofficial level?

2) Can we talk about attribution? When a major hack happens, we hear
reports about it being traced to X or Y actor but we never hear how.
Considering that an attacker can obfuscate traffic or make it appear
to an analyst that it is coming from a specific source, how do we
actually know who is attacking us?

For example, the Sony attack was "linked" to DPRK but I read the
USCERT report and it looks like common American phrases were used as
seeds and the attack vectors were unsophisticated. Things are looking
similar with WannaCry but I haven't looked into that enough. Are we
being lied to by the government to prevent a public freak out when
people realize how easy it is to hit companies creating hundreds of
millions in losses?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 0 points 5 hours ago

Question 1 - Yes I worry - they are already doing this and getting
paid for it by the government(s).

Question 2 - If the govt is telling you that country X is doing the
attack, you have a 80% chance of that being a lie. It is difficult to
know the true origin - must be able to trace the packets and look
inside of them in order to know. Called Deep Packet Inspection.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]MRB88 0 points 6 hours ago

Thanks for the reply, mind if I ask a few followups?

Its more troubling to me that the government is just paying for the
data as opposed to getting it from a covert method. How can we, as
average citizens, protect ourselves from this collection without
becoming straight up luddites? Things like Alexa/Siri and the smart
grid bother me - Is not playing the only way to win?

Do you have any thoughts on Reality Winner who was just arrested for
leaking NSA reports?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/politics/reality-winner-contractor-leaking-russia-nsa.html?_r=0

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 6 hours ago

If the government wants you, they will get you - too many resources to
fight. Whatever you do might protect you from local governments but
not the "big boys."

The main reason we are here in Europe is to urge rewriting of law to
mandate targeted vice bulk collection of data and to help protect
privacy rights.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]MRB88 1 point 5 hours ago

Fair enough. Thanks for the responses.

I'm going to go make a donation to the EFF - Best of luck in your efforts!

permalink
embed
parent

[–]peterkofod 0 points 6 hours ago

Maybe some of this stuff is a bit hard to follow for "normal people"m
especially those who haven't seen the film.

Can you guys perhaps recap:

1) WHAT do the USA/5EYES spying machine collect? 2) What do they do
with all the data they collect?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 4 hours ago

They collect all data making up communications between limited numbers
of people. Here is a representative list:

Videoconferencing Location information about people,
Phone calls Emails Chatter on the net SMS (texting) Financial
transactions, including credit cards, etc Passive transponders (E-Z
Pass etc) Travel manifests Web browsing VOIP/Skype... Social media

They also insert capture devices inside personal computers, routers,
servers, etc.

Former Gen. Alexander, Director NSA said, "COLLECT IT ALL!"

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Tangurena 0 points 6 hours ago*

Did Thin Thread use what we now call "sentiment analysis"? I've been
interested in natural language processing and post-911, probably 1/2
of the NLP research I've read is some version of "sentiment analysis"
(it is also possible I've just been too narrow in my research).

Also: the Bush administration hated all-things-Clinton and ended lots
of anti-terrorism stuff (including NK getting nukes) just because it
had a whiff of Clinton on it. Do you think this might have been the
reason for Thin Thread getting canceled?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 6 hours ago

We did not use sentiment analysis or anything involving natural
language processing, other than having an interest in content directly
attributable to people of interest, like criminals, terrorists et al.

No, Thin Thread was cancelled because of money and big company
interest to feed off the public teat.

permalink
embed
parent

[–][deleted] 5 hours ago

[deleted]

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 5 hours ago

I do not get around much, so I don't have enough information to give
you a good answer.

permalink
embed

[–]janvanoort 2 points 4 hours ago

Dutch citizen here. Coffee shops are heavily regulated, and can only
sell so much to non-Dutch citizens (in at least one other city in the
Netherlands, they can't even sell anything to persons without the
Dutch nationality). Alcohol and escorts (you prolly mean prostitution)
are totally unregulated, apart from you having to pay VAT on alcohol
and the girls having their own trade union. Decor: you can't build or
change building facades in old Amsterdam as you want, buildings must
stay "in atmosphere" with the extant 17th-century decor.

permalink
embed

[–]Ho_Phat 0 points 5 hours ago

Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego!?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 5 hours ago

In Los Angeles.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Ho_Phat 2 points 5 hours ago

Huh, I thought she was in San Diego.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 4 hours ago

:)

permalink
embed
parent

[–]ideapreneur 0 points 5 hours ago

Hi Bill,

Why Amsterdam? Are you enjoying our weather today?

How seriously do you take your own privacy while browsing the internet?

EDIT: Spelling.

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 4 hours ago

Why Amsterdam? Good food, good friends, bad weather today. I do not
worry about privacy myself, because I have evidence of all the
criminal activity by the US Government, and they know that.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]patasaurusrex 0 points 5 hours ago

Bill, What are your thoughts on other whistle blowers such as Edward
Snowden, Chelsea (or Bradley) Manning, and recently Reality Leigh
Winner being arrested over the weekend for leaking information on
alleged Russian Election hacks. Do you think any of these people's
actions were justified? Were they right in ho they went about
distributing the information? Thanks in advance for the answers.

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 4 hours ago

Snowden and Manning were motivated by moral standards, whereas the
Reality Winner may have been motivated by pure politics, because the
report did not show a clear connection to Russia.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]8238482348 2 points 2 hours ago

You can't be moral when being vigilant of external influence in your
election process? That's one thing that I'd like to be pure because
when you mess with a man's vote, you mess with his livelihood and
possibly life. I'm evidently pretty passionate about voting
(democracy) being corrupted as I was when the DNC seemed to place less
weight on Bernie's vote. I don't know if I can condone any of the
leakers but you could just as well call it a moral decision. And in
case you didn't know, morality tends to be political.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_BindersFullOfWomen_ 0 points 5 hours ago

Based on the information available today, do you believe Russia played
a role in Donald Trump being elected?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 2 points 4 hours ago*

Absolutely not. Accusations against Trump are a red herring.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Official-b0wie_ 2 points 5 hours ago

What makes you think that?

permalink
embed
parent

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 4 hours ago

It is so because all we have seen are accusations based on suspicions.
Not one iota of proof has been provided. The Dir. of National
Intelligence - James Clapper - himself has said there is no evidence
of collusion with Russia. So has Senator Feinstein.

See article here:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/

permalink
embed
parent

[–]Official-b0wie_ 1 point 3 hours ago

Interesting article - thanks for your reply.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]_BindersFullOfWomen_ 1 point 5 hours ago

Thank you for the reply.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]lurking_digger 0 points 5 hours ago*

Hello, Kirk!

What are some practical steps you advise everyone to do?

Edit: just read your answer elsewhere

permalink
embed

[–]indirectlysubtle 0 points 5 hours ago

Hi Bill,

Opinion on extraterrestrials? What do you know or have you indirectly
heard? Anything you would consider plausible

permalink
embed

[–]iwas99x 0 points 5 hours ago

Mr. Binney, are you familiar with the radio program coast to coast am?
Have you ever given an interview on the radio program? If yes, would
you do another one in the near future? If not, would you you consider
going on the show?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 0 points 4 hours ago

I have been on this program and discussed all the spy programs the
agencies are using to commit mass surveillance, map locations, etc.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]iwas99x 1 point 4 hours ago

I hope you can go on again in the not too far future it is my favorite
radio show.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]iwas99x 0 points 5 hours ago

Mr. Binney, what are your thoughts about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange?

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 3 hours ago

Julian Assange is a reporter and deserves the protections afforded
reporters of news by the Constitution of the United States. Otherwise,
the government must charge the New York Times, Washington Post and
others with the same charges they would charge Julian.

permalink
embed
parent

[–]David_Voigts 0 points 3 hours ago

Hi Bill,

Thank you for all your efforts in bringing this mass surveillance
program to light. My question is how did you weather the criticism,
threats, and intimidation? And what did you and the ThinThread team
have to do to get the program brought to the public’s attention? How
long did that process take?

I’m in a similar situation. My name is Dave. I’m a former naval
officer and graduate of the United States Naval Academy. While I was
in the service I came across an illegal domestic discrediting
operation. The program uses organized intimidation stalking,
in-community slander, and a class of weapons called “perception
warfare” or “spiritual warfare” to discredit a target. The program is
wholly unconstitutional and illegal, and I’ve been doing public
outreach on behalf of the victims for a couple of years now.

Fortunately, some of the information is coming to light. For example,
actress Leah Remini recently aired a new series that discusses a
brutal form of organized intimidation stalking used on critics of the
Church of Scientology. Episodes 2 (Fair Game) and 9 (Merchants of
Fear) discuss this program. Both perpetrators and victims discuss how
crimes unfolded years earlier.

While this is a step in the right direction, it still does not prove
the existence of these “perception warfare” weapons. I’ve been working
on this for a very long time, and hope that this horror will become
public knowledge so that the victims can be freed.

Thanks,

Dave

permalink
embed

[–]jensfriisnielsen 0 points 3 hours ago

If you could recommend a book or two as mandatory public education,
what would it be?

Thank you sir for your continued fighting!

permalink
embed

[–]IamBillBinney[S] 1 point 3 hours ago

The Shadow Factory, by James Bamford Spies for Hire, by Tim Shorrock

I have also heard from friends that these are good books to read:

Data and Goliath, by Bruce Schneier No Place to Hide, by Glenn
Greenwald American Spies, by Jennifer Granick



https://archive.org/details/41748389078762
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.crypt/-ut-0iIsAMg
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Cryptanalytics-Cryptographic-William-Friedman/dp/0894120735

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizebeth_Friedman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman
http://www.campx.ca/secret.html