Skip to main content

Some of you may remember this

On Tuesday at around 2:45 p.m. EST, Web monitors noticed something strange: Internet traffic in and out of Syria had dropped down to zero. It was as if the entire country had simultaneously unplugged its modems and switched off its smart phones, all at the same moment. And it's still down. How does an entire country go dark?

We can't know what happened for sure, but it's almost certain that this was not an accident and that the Syrian government pulled the plug.

That story, as well as many others on the event go on to insinuate that Al-Assad cut the internet to disrupt activists and the like.

"We're deeply concerned that this blackout is a deliberate attempt to silence Syria's online communications and further draw a curtain over grave events currently unfolding on the ground in Syria," it said in a statement.

"While heavily censored, monitored and compromised, the internet has served as an important window connecting the world at large to Syria, and one way that international observers could connect with individuals on the ground in that country.

It turns out, that like usual, there is more to the story. WIRED MAGAZINE has a great exclusive interview with Edward Snowden which touches on many topics, this being the one I chose to diary for the day:
A division of NSA hackers—had attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria, which was in the midst of a prolonged civil war. This would have given the NSA access to email and other Internet traffic from much of the country. But something went wrong, and the router was bricked instead—rendered totally inoperable. The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet—although the public didn’t know that the US government was responsible. (This is the first time the claim has been revealed.)

Inside the TAO operations center, the panicked government hackers had what Snowden calls an “oh shit” moment. They raced to remotely repair the router, desperate to cover their tracks and prevent the Syrians from discovering the sophisticated infiltration software used to access the network. But because the router was bricked, they were powerless to fix the problem.

Fortunately for the NSA, the Syrians were apparently more focused on restoring the nation’s Internet than on tracking down the cause of the outage. Back at TAO’s operations center, the tension was broken with a joke that contained more than a little truth: “If we get caught, we can always point the finger at Israel.”

That last line is pretty funny, because as Marcy Wheeler notes, the US is quick to blame Israel for the escape of the Stuxnet virus:
An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.

“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

Whats not so funny is

The Wired article, as well as this TIME piece also talk about our Bush-Doctrine, strike first without asking first cyberwar programs:

WIRED‘s Snowden story has another cybersecurity scoop: The former NSA contractor claims for the first time that the U.S. government was (or still is) working on a cybersecurity response program that automatically detects and blocks incoming cyberattacks. However, the program — dubbed “MonsterMind” — isn’t just defensive: Once it blocks an attack, it then automatically carries out a counter-attack against what it thinks was the source, Snowden says.

That could be an issue, says Snowden, as good hackers can — and typically do — make their online attacks look like they’re coming from somewhere else. “You could have someone sitting in China, for example, making it appear that one of these attacks is originating in Russia. And then we end up shooting back at a Russian hospital,” he explains.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Edward Snowden told the truth so far ..... (29+ / 0-)

    in contrast with the lies of elected officials, pundits and the leading democratic candidate for president

    but he might have stepped over the line

    he said that he left clues in the files so that NSA would know that he was acting for the constitution and citizens, not giving away National Security secrets

    well, Mad Magazine has for decades run a spy vs spy series.

    Could it be that he was sending NSA off on a wild goose chase to look for the clues? That is the possible "lie" in the subject line

    more people, especially investigative journalist dealing with the government, know that National Security has been used a a weapon against them and their sources have dried up. Right now we are looking at the jail time for NY Times reporter James Risen, the criminal who told the American people that Bush administration was spying on Americans. Like the journalists in Ferguson who Obama said were doing their job, I think that Risen was doing his job. His work was compromised when the NY Times held the story until after the 2004 election and only released when his book was ready to be released.

    our constitution has been compromised for NATIONAL SECURITY

    Edward Snowden is a democracy hero

    Tomgram: Noam Chomsky, Why National Security Has Nothing to Do With Security

  •  but, but, but, Glen Greenwald is a libertarian or (22+ / 0-)

    something which means Snowden can't be trusted. I'm not sure how that works but it appears to be the logic employed by many.

    •  Greenwald Derangement Syndrome (33+ / 0-)

      It'd be pretty funny if it weren't so tedious.  That "logic" is about as persuasive as the saliva of a dog who's just heard the dinner bell.

      Saw the "Izzy" awards the other night on Free Speech TV.  Both Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill gave magnificent, devastatingly honest speeches about the evils of our government, the dangers to real journalists, and the complete boot-licking complicity of what passes for "journalism" in the US today.  The "Izzy" awards are named for I.F. Stone, famous independent journalist and bane of liars in power for many decades.

      I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Snowden can't be trusted because he's a BS artist (6+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, duhban, 2d, TheLizardKing, FG, KenInCO
      Hidden by:
      lcrp

      Because most of his outrageous claims (like this one) have zero evidence proving what he claims.

      Remember when Snowden claimed he repeatedly emailed his superiors for months about NSA abuses?

      But no one listened to him?  

      So he was forced to flee to Hong Kong with a million stolen docs.  Because, you know, he tried to whistle blow through proper channels, but was ignored?

      Then the NSA goes through their files and finds one email from Snowden that doesn't say much of anything.

      Does Snowden respond by producing his email evidence to back his claims?  Does Snowden produce ANY evidence to back his claims?

      You'd think the guy who stole a million docs might have stolen his own emails proving he tried to do the right thing first.  

      But no.

      Zero evidence.

      Just a lot of self-aggrandizing rewriting from Edward 'hero' Snowden.

      So we now "know" that the NSA cut off Syria's routers... because Edward Snowden says so.

      Welcome to journalism in the Glenn Greenwald era.  

      Outrageous claims with little to no supporting evidence spun into hyperbole and hysteria.

      I'm not saying the NSA didn't screw up Syria's routers.  I'm saying I'm tired of taking this preening clowns' word for things.  How about some evidence?

      •  Yeah.. where are those records... (27+ / 0-)

        http://www.zdnet.com/...

        The United States' Department of State Freedom of Information Act has said that the public disclosure of emails by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, during his time with the agency, "could cause an unwarranted invasion of persdonal private", according to a report on The Desk website.

        A letter dated 1 July by chief FOIA officer, Pamela Phillips, responding to a FOIA request by Matthew Keys of The Desk, said that:

        "Records pertaining to Mr. Snowden are withheld pursuant to the seventh exemption of the FOIA ... which protects from disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.

        "This includes information that, if released, could interfere with enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources, or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures," said Phillips in the letter.

        Some of the withheld information, according to the letter, was also found to be currently classified because it is deemed "top secret", "secret", and "confidential" under Executive Order 13526.

        The FOIA request submitted by Keys for The Desk was for, "all emails sent by Edward Snowden using the email address ejsnowd@nsa.ic.gov to any and all NSA officials, including officials as the Office of General Counsel, for the time period between January 1, 2013 and June 1, 2013".

        If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

        by LieparDestin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:45:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  lol (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sweatyb, duhban, TheLizardKing

          So Snowden doesn't have his own emails?

          •  LOL, that's all you got! (15+ / 0-)

            God, some of you are so desperate. And ineffective. LOL, again!

            "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

            by lunachickie on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  According to him, he doesn't have anything. (6+ / 0-)

            He took a lot of stuff (up to 1.x million docs -- if we say it this way certain supporters of his can't argue), gave some of it to the media, potentially stashed more of it (speculation on my part) and wiped his equipment.  He says he took nothing with him to Russia.

            Reading between the lines:

            1) Given his system admin access (and other people's access), he had ACCESS to 1.x million documents

            2) Given Greenwald's statements, Snowden gave him many thousand documents (culled from the 1.x million potential docs or everything that he actually grabbed?  Dunno)

            3) There wasn't time to actually read 1.x million docs, so one can infer that they're grouped by category and he took certain categories of stuff.  Whether he filtered what he gave to Greenwald is an open question.

            4) I will admit that some of the revelations that Snowden has provided are important -- especially the domestic spying bits

            5) revealing that we spy on other people is pretty irrelevant -- of course we do!  And we should.  It harms the US to bring it up, but this has been the case of World History since the start of WWI when we caught the Germans transmitting secret information from the US.

            6) Greenwald has his own agenda, separate from Snowden.  This is evidenced by what and how material is trickled out.

            7) Snowden has made a mixture of good and bad choices.  (Thinking he could 'hide out' in Hong Kong when it all went down and be safe is one we should discuss.  The Russian adventure may or may not have been planned, but he is a self-admitted spy and is in Russia now.)

            8) If indeed he took nothing with him to Russia (requiring facts not in evidence either way), he's stuck with a mental inventory of what he gave Greenwald and whomever else has his stash.

            9) Every time the ball is advanced downfield (catching the Numnuts at the NSA/CIA in more lies), Snowden does one of these stupid interviews or asks a softball question of Putin and undoes any potentially useful step -- screwing up the debate about domestic spying and turning it back to himself.  WTF?

            •••••••

            If you can tell, I don't like Snowden very much, but portions of what he did are important.  This particular (IMHO bogus) revelation does not do a d*mned thing to help the discussion about domestic spying.  He's just distracted us AGAIN from the important topic at hand: domestic spying.

            /ID 10 T error.

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            —Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:46:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with most but don't you think (5+ / 0-)

              It is extremely hard to judge where/how he went.

              He knows the extent of the capabilities, cover-ups etc (if we take and I think we do for face value).

              He saw how other defenders of the constitution were treated.

              In a perfect world I guess he'd stay here and we'd HOPE that public opinion would engage and protect.

              WE can't know what he thought except now apparently he is avoiding jail time. I don't blame him. I don't think it is a situation we can understand so hard to say how he did it was right/wrong not knowing what his attorneys said, who he could trust. Only seeing that his motive was apparently not inherently selfish.

              I don't think it selfish to expect to get crucified. Idk.

              •  The flight to Russia appears to be a last moment, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LieparDestin, Catte Nappe, FG

                last resort kind of thing... crappy advice from Wikileaks or someone.  If he intended to go there, that'd be another thing entirely.  It still looks pretty bad.

                The flight to Hong Kong was planned.

                I don't think there is any debate on that.

                >> How could one expect to NOT get crucified?  <<

                re: His motive?  Complex.  People are rarely simple.

                ••••••

                How it looks, though: He IS smart enough to have arranged this, with help ... the ending up in Russia part. There are enough inconsistencies in his behavior to allow those of us who are skeptics to really wonder WTF.  And he keeps doing stupid things.  Some (or even most) of that could be as people try to manipulate him (everyone from Wikileaks to Greenwald to Jesselyn to Putin even to Alexander).

                The most generous reading of this would be to assume that the guy is an introvert and not an attention seeker (again, open to debate), then he's being used.

                The least generous reading -- well, you know that.  US Spy in Russia, 1.x Million top secret+ documents, ad nauseam.

                ••••••

                His life isn't going to be simple or easy, and if Greenwald keeps trickling out stuff (which he will), then it be a death of a thousand droplets.

                Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                —Spike Milligan

                by polecat on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:24:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I really find the Spy in Russia angle difficult (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  polecat, Catte Nappe

                  Seemed like desperation/unplanned.

                  Yes you'd have to expect. In a perfect world Manning would not have meant certain life imprisonment for inciting a converstion the President then said in doublespeak "well it's good we are talking about it" (we only are because of Snowden). But yeah he's a bad guy.

                  I can't blame him for not wanting to be in jail.

                  And yeah Greenwald has and I think is manipulating the situation per his "fireworks" display comments that this is a fireworks show (maybe good so we keep discussing but doesn't help Snowden).

                  I've faced say (am) serious "conflicts" at work. I ask advice of attorneys and try to do the right thing. But in my mind I know if something goes arwry I'll get second guessed.

                  I just have trouble saying what he did is "wrong" as I think the net effect more good than bad. And I don't blame him for avoiding jail (which is all Russia is).

                  I just don't know but overall rather than say if he is a hero or whatever, I am sure he is not a Russian implant, maybe he's given what he gave Greenwald to them for staying? Idk. No clue.

                  I just hold judgment and focus on what he says personally, and if it has veracity which it seems to care more about what discussion is caused.

                  I imagine knowing you are going to take such a risk you have to trust others as you don't expect to go to work and think "OMFG what is the government doing then just know what to do". I give him somewhat a pass as it shouldn't have been necessary.

                  Again I could be wrong about his motives. And I am sure Greenwald is controlling a lot and others.

                  The only situation of his wining, it worth it and I assume he knew was discussion would occur. IMHO and it has and he is paying for it.

                  •  He has been used (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Betty Pinson, kharma, FG, jrooth, polecat, blueoasis

                    all around.

                    He was used by Greenwald for a story (and many of them have been good), but at the same time the whole Intercept thing is turning out to be a great disappointment as a whole, outside of some individually good stories. This is probably why Wheeler left them very quickly.

                    He is used by the government as a target for smearing to deflect against the actual wrong doing they commit.

                    If you read the article he comes across as someone who would be writing here at dailykos. he is smart, he had big concerns because, unlike most in the 'security' industry, he had morals.

                    He is used by Putin because well, anything Putin can do to be a pebble in America's sandal, is well worth his time.

                    All in all, he has been treated about as well as Thomas Paine eventually was.

                    If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

                    by LieparDestin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:48:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Even if you don't believe Snowden intended to (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    WinSmith, AoT

                    end up in Russia, you can't possibly believe that the Russians (who have a very sophisticated and pervasive spying network) couldn't have orchestrated things to encourage/manipulate him into getting stuck in Russia.

                    He can't on the one hand be an amateur desk-jockey IT guy who got way over his head and on the other hand be a trained expert spy who knew exactly what he's doing. We hear that he couldn't possibly have been used by Russia or China because he's a master spy, but he just happened to end up in Russia because he's just a bumbling IT guy who didn't know what he was doing.

                    The failure here is that for whatever reason Snowden must be held up as a hero. It's actually making NSA spying discussion harder.

                    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                    by PhillyJeff on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:56:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  From all accounts I've heard (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc

                      Snowden was not the one who decided to go through Russia, it was the wikileaks people who got him the ticket and thought it would be a safe place for him. Which it seems to be.

                      As for him being a hero, eh, he's  as much of one as Ellsberg in my mind. He's no super-spy to be sure.

                      No War but Class War

                      by AoT on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 02:06:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He definitely took a risk, I just don't think he's (0+ / 0-)

                        a particularly good guy and I don't really care about him.

                        If the Arstechnica stuff is accurate he certainly wouldn't fit in on DKos given that he hates social security, thinks whistleblowers should be shot etc.

                        I honestly don't care about that because I really just don't want to hear about Snowden any more.

                        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                        by PhillyJeff on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 04:26:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with some of what you said (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Betty Pinson, kharma, jrooth, Dallasdoc

              but this was really just a paragraph or two in a much, much larger article that talks a lot about domestic spying. This particular piece came up when giving an example of agencies going to far, and potentially causing mass amounts of damage. He was worried about this kind of damage being done to a power grid in China, etc.

              I just chose to write about this one segment because Im interested in how events are shaped in the media by the government and thought this was a good example. As Emptywheel said in her post on this topic, right after this happened 3 'computer security' companies came out blaming it on Assad...

              I assume — but am not certain — this was the outage in question. If so, the response is instructive. At least 3 US-based Internet security firms reported that Syria had brought down the Internet. Were they making stuff up, unable to determine what really happened, or just repeating something US officials told them?

              I’m just as interested that — just 6 months after David Sanger’s reporting on how the Israelis let StuxNet escape…

              An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.

              “We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

              NSA’s hackers joked they might hide a major fuck-up by blaming Israel.

              I’m sure that’s all just a coinkydink, though.

              If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

              by LieparDestin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:38:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Double Plus Good, Citizen! (7+ / 0-)

            You are winning this fight against the traitors to our glorious republic!

            Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

            by The Dead Man on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:25:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Riiiiight (0+ / 0-)

              Because realizing Snowden is a narcissistic clown who talks out of his and is desperate to stay on magazine covers means I'm brainwashed or something.  

              Okay.

              You pick your heroes and I'll pick mine.

              I'll be the guy criticizing the NSA without standing with the guy who stole a bunch of state secrets and ended up in Russia.  It is possible to do both, you know. False binaries are for Cheneys.

              •  When was the last time you actually criticized (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Dead Man, Dallasdoc

                the NSA? I mean, I've seen you say that you do since this thing started, but other than a token criticism in a larger comment about Snowden I haven't seen anything. You certainly don't have any diaries criticizing them.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 02:08:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Yawn (10+ / 0-)

        Yes, where ARE those records?

        Diarist beat me to it ;)

        "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

        by lunachickie on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:52:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, TheLizardKing
          The National Security Agency said Thursday that Edward Snowden sent supervisors only one e-mail when he worked there, and it did not protest the nature of NSA surveillance programs.

          Snowden, the former NSA systems administrator whose leaks have exposed some of the agency's most sensitive spying operations, responded from Moscow that "today's release is incomplete.''

          Responding to questions from The Washington Post, the newspaper reported, Snowden cited "correspondence with the (NSA's) Signals Intelligence Directorate's Office of Compliance'' as well as concerns expressed to colleagues and management at the agency.

          "Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously,'' Snowden said. "...Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions.''

          In the e-mail to the Office of General Counsel released by the agency, Snowden posed a legal question about a training program.

          "There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations," the NSA said in a statement. "We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims."

          Snowden lied.

          He didn't make any attempts to whistle blow through proper channels, and you know it.  If he did, he'd have saved copies of his emails (unless he's an idiot).  And if he had copies of those emails, he'd have released them (as he should, if the NSA is lying).

          But you people worship the guy.  The possibility that he lies to build up his own myth or stay in the headlines is apparently an impossibility to you.

          •  Yawn n/t (10+ / 0-)

            "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

            by lunachickie on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:01:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That one letter (10+ / 0-)

            is not the letters being talked about that are being withheld from FOIA because they are 'classified:

            "Records pertaining to Mr. Snowden are withheld pursuant to the seventh exemption of the FOIA ... which protects from disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.

            "This includes information that, if released, could interfere with enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources, or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures," said Phillips in the letter.

            Some of the withheld information, according to the letter, was also found to be currently classified because it is deemed "top secret", "secret", and "confidential" under Executive Order 13526.

            If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

            by LieparDestin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:06:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  lol (0+ / 0-)

              Again, I ask you, why wouldn't Snowden release his own evidence backing his claims he tried to whistle blow through proper channels before stealing a million classified docs and flying to Hong Kong?

              •  Maybe when you (10+ / 0-)

                stop asking questions with lies in them, you will get responses. Well you do get responses anyways, but just do not care, as your purpose is not to be educate, but instead to obfuscate. But anyways, stop lying

                Keith Alexander has said he does not know what was taken, because the million-dollar a month man presided over an institution with not accountability:

                Well, I don’t think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents. - Keith Alexander
                https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/...
                We’ve fact-checked statements in the media about Edward Snowden and the NSA before, but by far the biggest falsehood being spread by government advocates is the alleged fact that he took 1.7 million documents from the NSA. All the parties involved—Snowden, the journalists, and even the government—either deny it or have said they have no reason to believe it is true, yet it has become the go-to number when discussing Snowden's case. It's time news organizations start issuing corrections.

                So to sum up, Edward Snowden has said the number is made up, the journalists involved deny they have 1.7 million documents, and the government has stated multiple times they do not know how many documents he took. Literally no party in the NSA story believes the 1.7 million number is true, yet most media organizations claim it’s a fact.

                If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

                by LieparDestin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Clapper lied to Congress (18+ / 0-)

        Since he lied to Congress I don't know why we should believe anything NSA says over what Snowden says. It is also clear that there is no effective mechanism of internal control for these programs, and I am inclined to believe that Snowden would have been unable to address the abuses internally.

         Whenever somebody is more upset that the NSA was exposed than by its illegal programs I start to question their priorities.

      •  too much vitriol to rec, but you have a point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        Snowden doesn't have his own emails?

      •  But NSA and the White House can be trusted (17+ / 0-)

        ... because everything that's come out of their mouths since Snowden first surfaced has been bald-faced lies.  

        Doesn't it get tiring being a boot-licker to power?

        I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:03:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Outrageous claims about WMDs that didn't exist. (7+ / 0-)

        That's the journalism that ethnically cleansed, killed, and maimed hundreds of thousands.

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:31:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We can't say there's no evidence, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LieparDestin, TheLizardKing, FG, WinSmith

        but if there is, Snowden doesn't have personal knowledge of it.   He's telling a reporter in 2014 what an unnamed analyst told him in 2013 about an event that happened in 2012, of which the analyst may or of may not have had direct involvement.

        Snowden presents this as an example of the NSA out of control, and it certainly seems to be, but he also has no way of knowing what senior level conversations about the pinging happened, or even if the NSA's efforts were the cause of the router going down.  (Many parties were interested in the router at that time.)  

        Revealing even indirect evidence of a foreign intel operation does bother me - as it's quite removed from the claim to be protecting American's rights, even if what he actually revealed is a program that had buy-in from three branches that reasonable people can nonetheless disagree about.  I think the accounts (like the NY'er story) about Snowden being most concerned with the sanctity of the Internet is a better explanation for his behavior.  

        The idea that the NSA is too big to have effective oversight carries some intuitive weight, but this isn't enough to carry that claim.  What troubles me more is that it's just all a big waste of money, not that we're now Oceana.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:22:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't you think it is more about revealing the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie

          capabilities and implications if they infact have such capabilities?

          That a group of guys in a NGO sitting around crashed a country's internet (allegedly) playing with hacking it?

          That's a bit disturbing. I don't have a problem if true and do think it relates to the US.

          That means the capabilities of what they could do without consent of proviers is it appears beyond even our expectations?

          Maybe if this was a CIA op. Or something but the point if true to me is it is a group that is paid by the NSA saying "oops" then laughing about it with no accountability.

      •  Speaking of BS artists and evidence... (5+ / 0-)

        Who trusts what NSA, James Clapper, PR hacks, say anymore?

        My trust is with gentlemanly and conscientious ES, not with anti-ES BS artists and those who force journalists to destroy hard drive evidence like a bunch of thugs.

        .

        .

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:52:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So is this about Glenn Greenwald or not? (0+ / 0-)

      Is the most important thing GG and Snowden are personally heros or do they not matter and it's not about them? Is the major story the NSA making sure The Intercept gets scooped by the AP or not?

      Are we allowed to criticize Glenn Greenwald for anything that he could possibly say or do or not?

      I would much prefer to talk about NSA surveillance in a way other than "Snowden was right!" There are more important discussions than "OMG The Intercept got scooped by the AP!"

      If you make legitimate criticisms of Greenwald, like if you disagree with his rape jokes about the president or his handwaving and dismissal of Russia's LGBT laws you get attacked as some kind of NSA stooge making everything personal.

      This story is explicitly NOT about domestic surveillance anyway. Are you really shocked that the NSA employs hackers to try to mess with supposedly unfriendly regimes?

      It just drives me nuts. Imagine if you applied the "but, but Obama is a conservative or something which means . . . ." to anything.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:50:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The MonsterMind revelation (14+ / 0-)

    is pretty shocking. Automated defense is one thing and properly done can be good. But automated counter-attack is insanity.

    "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

    by jrooth on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:08:28 AM PDT

  •  What's so bad about this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jdsnebraska

    The US government is absolutely hostile to Assad and it's perfectly legitimate for the NSA to try to break into Syria's internet connection to monitor it.  It didn't work, and the connection went down.  You win some, you lose some.  Is this some kind of huge problem, either the actual plan or how it failed?  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:32:44 AM PDT

  •  One quesion: What does "bricked" mean (5+ / 0-)

    when talking about a router? Overheated and melted solid?

    OK - an online source says "The colloquial term 'brick' describes a piece of electronic hardware that fails in this way, because once the damage is done, the device is as useful as a piece of masonry."

    More tech info not all that helpful for non-tech people here.

  •  Assad has brutalized protesters and opposition (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bananapouch1

    in much more ways than this supposed  action now attributed to the NSA.

  •  Snowden heard it from a guy he knew (6+ / 0-)
    One day an intelligence officer told him that TAO—a division of NSA hackers—had attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria
    Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. It's not corroborated by anything or anyone.

    It's important to understand that by his own admission, Snowden has zero first-hand knowledge of this and no evidence to support this contention.

    The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet
    This doesn't make any sense. There isn't (and wasn't) a single box in a backroom somewhere that connected Syria to the internet. That is not how the internet works.
    Back at TAO’s operations center, the tension was broken with a joke that contained more than a little truth: “If we get caught, we can always point the finger at Israel.”
    Snowden wasn't there. This entire paragraph is a fiction based on what Snodwen says an anonymous other person said "one day" about an event that said person may not have even witnessed. We have to take Snowden's word for it that this is even a second-hand account.
    •  Their own guys are joking about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, cybrestrike, kharma

      what they understood to be a major fuckup.

      How come you don't believe them?

      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

      by lunachickie on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:59:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  BTW (6+ / 0-)

      it's important to note that you've steadfastly provided nothing but your own opinions, backed up by nothing. I should take your anonymous blog post word for it, over the identified guy who succeeded in getting an international dialog started?

      Uh, how about no?

      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

      by lunachickie on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:04:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  an international dialog has started! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheLizardKing, duhban

        huzzah! give that man a medal! thanks to him, we know that our governments go to great lengths to spy on each other and their citizens.

        but honestly, you are setting a standard that no one on this site can achieve. I am not allowed to express skepticism because in your mind Edward Snowden is an untouchable god of the Truth.

        Note that I didn't say that it wasn't true. I just said that there's no evidence, no corroboration, and it's absolutely irresponsible of Wired and the reporter to include verbatim quotes of second or third-hand events.

        But Wired does that kind of crap all the time. Because it's Wired, which is to tech journalism what Politico is to political journalism.

    •  Yes it is "Hearsay" But even in Court (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, kharma

      There are "Hearsay exceptions". That is sometimes we allow what someone said as an exception because of the nature of/timing of when it was said leads us to assume that it is credible to quote.

      This would be an exception against Official X in that it is a statement against "personal interest". A la prison confessions to someone else. That is hearsay but taken as "credible" IIRC.

      (Other examples are something said right when something happens heat of moment, statements against pecuniary interest, there's probably like 20).

      Also statements made when witness is unavailable.

      It's against Snowden's interest to make claim, it'd be against the guy's interest to just say. I take it as likely truthful.

      •  you need to clarify (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheLizardKing, duhban
        It's against Snowden's interest to make claim, it'd be against the guy's interest to just say. I take it as likely truthful.
        That might make sense if it was "the guy" giving the hearsay evidence, but it's not. It's Snowden giving hearsay evidence of "the guy" giving hearsay evidence. And it is definitely in Snowden's interest to lie to make the NSA look bad and himself look good.

        I guess that might be admissible in court (if the judge was drunk or lunachickie), but it would get destroyed on cross examination.

        •  I am saying and will cite the rules (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, kharma

          That a good example is this. View them as cell-mates.

          Cellmate A says to Snowden (hey in 2012 we bricked the internet).

          Snowden recalling that statement is hearsay. There is, however, an exception because the statement by Cell-Mate A is discussing something that is against his own interest to reveal.

          I get it's more complicated. But I am just making the point that in law this is a Hearsay exception.

          •  I am Not Saying Hearsay is good (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, kharma

            Looking at my notes from years ago:

            What is Hearsay

            Hearsay admits an out of court assertion for people that aren’t in court to be cross examined.  (In anatomy of a murder- the OH tourists aren’t there, and the witness can’t be crossed really because he didn’t hear it).  If the witnesses were there and you could cross examine them (the OH tourists) there may turn out to be a reason that they are not credible that cross would flush out.

            The 4 Hearsay risks: (Policy grounds for excluding hearsay)

            1. the declarant’s perception- How good is his eyesight? What were the lighting conditions, how’d he know it was (Kate), etc. we can’t visit these.
            2. the declarant’s memory- we want to probe his memory, does he really remember all the details?
            3. the declarant’s sincerity- Maybe he has an axe to grind (with Kate) that otherwise would be shown on cross
            4. to test for misstatement, faulty  narration, or ambiguity- Maybe the person relaying it,m maybe (Dylan) is not accurately recounting what (x) said, we can’t test that, like a CHILD’S GAME OF TELEPHONE.


            Contrasted with Policy for allowing SOME exceptions:

            1. Policy Grounds for Allowing the hearsay exceptions- Don’t we care enough about hearsay that we don’t want to turn it into swiss Cheese?

            (1)Reliability- Certain statements have a heightened level of reliability so we’ll allow them in
                Ex: Terrifying event makes out of court Declarant blurt something out.

            (2)Necessity- some of these exemplify a strong necessity to let the statement in. Dying delcaraltion, if we don’t let them in we can’t call the person to the witness stand.

            2. Combination- Most hearsay exceptions have some claim to a combination of reliability and necessity.  He’ll tell us for each one what the policy rationale is.

            I WOULD SAY THIS MOST ACCURATE TO THE STATEMENT OF ILLEGALITY TO SNOWDEN. WHY WE'D ALLOW IT.

            AND IF THE COURTS SEE VERACITY FOR THE REASONS BELOW I TEND TO:

            (3)Declarations Against Interest [Rule 804(b)(3)]
            a.  TEXT:
            Statement Against Interest.  A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.  A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

            b. The Rule’s Utility-

            c. Its Underlying Policy-  it’s evident from the text. We’re talking about statements so contrary to the declarant’s interst that a reasonable person wouldn’t make it unless believing it to be true, there is a heightened interest when you’re saying something potentially self-damaging, people generally don’t say things that might prove to be personally damaging

            •  Snowden doesn't say the guy claimed responsibility (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              You're assuming that Snowden's source was part of the team of hackers that screwed up Syria's router. But Snowden doesn't make that claim, he's just relaying a story that someone told him.

              Since we don't know anything about the guy (who may not even exist) we can't possibly understand his motivation and we certainly can't determine if it was or was not in his interest to tell this particular story.

              Perhaps he was bragging. Perhaps he was spinning yarns. Perhaps he was in a Geico commercial...

              Guy:The NSA collects information on Americans?
              Snowden:Everyone knows that!
              Guy:Oh yeah? Well, did you know that the NSA accidentally bricked the only router in Syria?
  •  twitter from Snowden's atty Jesselyn Radack (9+ / 0-)

    she has not posted much here on DK lately

    but she has been busy including a trip to Australia and possibly some other countries with Thomas Drake

    unR̶A̶D̶A̶C̶K̶ted ‏@JesselynRadack  37m
    "Obama Asks Cops to Lay Off Reporters; Press Advocates Ask Same of Him"
    http://t.usnews.com/...
    #Ferguson
    #Risen
    unR̶A̶D̶A̶C̶K̶ted @JesselynRadack  ·  2h
    #FBI sting that "makes terrorists of ppl who otherwise wud not have ability or will to attack" collapses
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
    #Entrapment
    who knew that representing Guantanamo prisoners would be job enhancement for attys representing journalists?

    unR̶A̶D̶A̶C̶K̶ted @JesselynRadack  ·  20h
    .@ghappour on attacks on press: I get calls from reporters who want me to represent them b/c I represented Guantanamo detainees.

    and Jesselyn saved Thomas Drakes' ass when she represented him and he faced 35 years in jail under the espionage act.

    Retweeted by Thomas Drake
     Matthew Green ‏@matthew_d_green  24m
    GCHQ JTRIG: what they lack in technical novelty they make up for with their complete lack of ethics. http://www.heise.de/...
  •  Level of US propaganda has gone up many notches... (12+ / 0-)

    ...over the past couple of years, especially since Snowden appeared on the scene.

    Large numbers of now-documented government lies, mostly perpetuated part by gov't contractors and (bought-off) media consultants who were former gov't employees (whose lies were made even more effective by all-too-willing MSM stenographers), are being called out, right and left, if one has been paying attention of late.

    I linked to WIRED's cover story at the top of my post here, yesterday. And, I noted no less than three (for a total of four) other instances of propaganda in that post, as well (and that's just over the past 72+/- hours):

    1.) The FAA provided cover for shutting down the media over Ferguson this past week. Pretty common knowledge, further supported by commentary from Barbara Morrill here, yesterday.

    ....Of course, as we were also reminded over these past couple of days, another way our government maintains "control" is via taxpayer-funded propaganda. (Many, even at Daily Kos, claim this would never happen in our "democracy.") Here are links to a couple examples of that, and this is just since Tuesday...
    2.)
    Is Former NSA Contractor Snowden a Traitor? Andre de Nesnera, Voice of America, August 13th, 2013
    3.)
    NPR Is Laundering CIA Talking Points to Make You Scared of NSA Reporting, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman, The Intercept, August 12th, 2014

    Whether it's Ferguson, Missouri or halfway around the globe, the truth on this over-arching story just can't be "contained."

    There have been virtually countless instances of gov't censorship and distortion of facts with regard to matters throughout the Mideast of late, as well. (The IDF incursion into Gaza was chock full of bullshit; and that's just one aspect of U.S. propaganda emanating from that region.)

    THE TRUTH is that the overall effort to turn our government's propapaganda up many notches was baked into the current administration's efforts going back to two key milestones in February/March and May of 2012:

    NYT's Orwellian Lead: AG Holder Officially Signs Off On "Total Information Awareness" For All (3/23/12)

    House NDAA Bill Passed w/Amendment Formally Authorizing Gov’t To Lie To U.S. Citizens (5/19/12)

    (Naturally, there was much pushback from a few of the more trollish members in this community at the time, when I published these couple of otherwise-well-received posts.)

    But, it's been all downhill from there. And, it's CLEARLY being turned up even a few more notches over the past couple of months.

    In the face of these ongoing, now (almost) DAILY lies from--and about--our government being spewed by the MSM, it's amazing that these truths are getting out AT ALL!


    #            #            #

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:00:54 AM PDT

    •  Ferguson show hardware for surveillance state (9+ / 0-)

      Snowden showed the software

      last week went to the barbershop and for the first time in maybe a decade there was a Wall Street Journal

      i was blown away

      i could spot lies and lies in the stories

      that explains why my conservative friends who read that paper live in a parallel universe from me

      one of the articles in the opinion section was  "Judges for national security"

      claims by Snowden and his media agitators that the NSA wa listening willy-nilly to American phone calls and emails have been debunked.
      this is like the lies that led the war on Iraq

      and there is the Dan Froomkin piece on The Intercept

      It’s About the Lying

      we are facing a potential world war with Russia

      the climate has collapsed

      and we don't need lies from leaders, we need the truth and wisdom to face up to what is going on

  •  There are some caveats here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, duhban, Simplify

    1. If what the NSA agent said was accurate, they only attacked one router. It seems unlikely that taking out one router would down the internet in the entire country of Syria.

    2. Snowden is only relating what he was told by an NSA agent. I believe Snowden about what the NSA agent told him. What I'm less likely to believe is that the NSA agent was actually telling the truth. Given (1), it seems more likely this was some dickhead NSA agent bragging, trying to take "credit" for something he didn't actually do.

    •  agree with you. There's no way Snowden would (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyJeff, duhban

      have had operational access to this.

      Furthermore, if this really was an NSA op, then the point is to 'leak' it out as a threat to everybody else that we can shut off your internet.

      And Stux is a lot more complicated than the article implies.  And important -- destroying Iranian centrifuges without bombing?  Buying time while sanctions work? Not harming anybody? Priceless.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:26:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I don't get about the computer virus (0+ / 0-)

        stuff is that it seems at least BETTER to be able to knock out the internet than to kill people by bombing them.

        We maintain a massive nuclear arsenal, but somehow the capability to shut down the internet for a while is somehow beyond everything. (and even if this is correct it probably wouldn't work against a larger country with more money and more defense).

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 12:07:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually hearsay but exception (credible) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, CroneWit, kharma

      see what I said briefly upthread where the Court system sees this as Hearsay but makes an exception as it is a statement against personal interest. (Not bragging). At least per hearsay exceptions.

      The same could be said of a prisoner telling his cell mate at night about a crime he did. Bragging? Idk. But that is usually where the exception applies. Prison Cell Confessions have a hearsay exception as we take under the exception statements people make against their own interests as credible.

  •  so is there any other evidence for this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:21:19 AM PDT

  •  1) If this were true, the bricked router would (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, Catte Nappe, TheLizardKing, FG

    still exist and be easily enough examined.

    2) The entire point of the internet is to prevent single point of failure nodes.  There is ONE router that carries the entire traffic of Syria?  SERIOUSLY?  Must be one "heckuva" router.

    3) Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence -- or at least SOME evidence.

    I cry bullsh*t.

    Snowden may THINK that, but I highly doubt it.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:23:00 AM PDT

    •  exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, TheLizardKing

      and that's also why it generally takes physical access to every incoming node to do something like this (see China and Russia for example)

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:24:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  polecat you seem to know considerably more (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma

      about the functionality of the internet.

      In reading comments like this is it not implausible that the NSA is years beyond our understanding to the extent that they have capabilities we cannot imagine.

      Does it matter that it says their "major provider" so I took it as like bricking COX's major router in Cleveland shutting down for Cleveland.

      Is that Plausible? If so how many citizens in Syria have internet, would it be plausible that the major provider could experience enough technical difficulty that it would shut that population out. Could you go into their office and physically set fire to something to black out the country? If so I see it as plausible. especially as I do not doubt that the NSA has a 20 year head start on unethical and understanding of the itnernet no one does.

      Thoughst if they had such advanced software for cyberwar? Could you shut down Cox at one place and leave say cleveland in the dark?

      •  I mean per wikipedia it seems like frequent (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kharma

        occurence:

        Wikipedia has  a page on it:

        In February 2011 Syria stopped filtering YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.[14][15]

        Early in the Syrian civil war on 3 June 2011 the government shut down the country’s Internet network. Although fully restored the following day, the country’s 3G, DSL and dial-up were disconnected the same day massive protests and marches were being organized throughout the country to call for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad and for “Children’s Friday”, to honor children who had died during the uprisings.[16]

        On 26 July 2011 the website the-syrian.com, a site dedicated to "granting freedom of speech to everyone, whether against or with the regime",[17] was blocked from within Syria.[18] The site is mostly in Arabic and targeted to Syrian audiences, although it has an English section.[19][better source needed] A graph that appeared in the Wall Street Journal shows the number of blocked access attempts to the-syrian.com and other sites between August 1 and 5 2011.[20]

        In October 2011 US based Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, California acknowledged that Syria is using its devices to censor Web activity, a possible violation of US trade embargoes. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal information about Blue Coat in Syria began to trickle out in August, after a "hacktivist" group called Telecomix managed to gain access to unsecured servers on Syria's Internet systems and found evidence of Blue Coat filtering. The group found computer records, or logs, detailing which Web pages the Blue Coat devices were censoring in Syria.[21]

        In June 2012 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported that pro-Syrian-government malware campaigns have increased in frequency and sophistication and that a new Trojan distributed as a .pif file via Skype targets Syrian activists. The malware gives an attacker the ability to execute arbitrary code on the infected computer. Evidence suggests that this campaign is being carried out by the same pro-Syrian-government hackers responsible for previous attacks. The new Trojan is one in a series used to attack Syrian opposition activists that includes several Trojans, one disguised as a Skype encryption tool, which covertly install spying software onto the infected computer, as well as a multitude of phishing attacks which steal YouTube and Facebook login credentials.[22][23][24]

        On July 19, 2012, Internet access from Syria traveling via the state carrier Syrian Telecommunications Establishment was cut off for a period of 40 minutes.[25]

        On 29 November 2012, almost all Internet connectivity between Syria and the outside world was cut off[2][26] at around 12:00 to 13:00 UTC+02:00 (local time).[27] This coincided with intense rebel activity inside Syria.[2] In 2014, Edward Snowden alleged that the NSA was responsible.[28]

        The Syrian Internet blackout was a break in Syria's Internet connectivity that happened for nineteen hours between 7 and 8 May 2013. Mobile phone and telephone services were also cut. No-one yet has admitted responsibility for the event or can figure out how it happened. The Syrians blamed Cyberterrorists for the incident. It has caused worry that there is about to be a fight somewhere.[29][30]

        Syria's Internet was cut off more than ten times in 2013, and again in March 2014.[4][5]

        •  You don't do filtering from a single box/router. (3+ / 0-)

          Filtering is easy from the DNS server(s), but much harder on packet-level addressing.  Still, that requires more than one box.  

          Even an ASIC device isn't going to be able to handle that much traffic in one device.  The story does not add up.

          I'm trying to say it takes distributed hardware to do this.  And you don't 'brick' all of the distributed routers or all of the distributed load balancers.  It doesn't happen that way.

          To cut off Syria, you have to TURN THEM ALL OFF, not just one.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If this happened 2 years ago (5+ / 0-)

      the bricked router may have very well been scrapped and wouldn't still be around to be examined.

    •  Why would it still exist? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TakeSake

      What reason would they have for keeping a broken router?

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:03:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Spare parts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, duhban

        - Power supply
        - Circuit boards
        - Cable assemblies

        If they have more than one it makes sense to keep it around. It's unlikely that Syria has 24/7 on-site service for that kind of equipment from the manufacturer.

        The United States for All Americans

        by TakeSake on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 10:08:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  never heard of port scanning an entire country (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo, CroneWit, cybrestrike, kharma

    NSA/GCHQ: The HACIENDA Program for Internet Colonization

    the authors include Jacob Appelbaum and Laura Poitras who made the initial contact with Snowden

  •  Good to know that our computer spooks are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice, kharma

    apparently as inept as our regular spooks.

    Really great to see how well our "covert" attempts to get rid of Assad worked out. We really are geniuses in all realms.

    The Russians, Chinese, Jihadists, et al must be laughing their asses off at our ineptitude and hubris.

    And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

    by shigeru on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:01:59 AM PDT

  •  But I thought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, duhban

    he didn't have any more revelations for us.

    I mean, I was told that he'd revealed everything, despite the fact that GG indicates there is so much more.

    I was told I was full of it when I said stuff should come out all at once instead of dragging it out, releasing new stuff periodically.

    Yet here it is.  If this is one of the "terrible" items that GG indicated Snowden gave to the media and that they didn't report, well I'm pretty let down.  I figured those items were really incendiary.  

    I reiterate here that having given "everything" to the media, even if they decided not to report it, did not and does not preclude Snowden from revealing any or all of it himself.

    "Giving" it to the media did not mean he didn't "have" it to leak to us himself.

    In dribs and drabs.  

    •  Snowden gave all the files he had to media (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClevelandAttorney, cybrestrike

      people. So he has no more files to reveal. I'm sure he knows a few things personally.

      And when the information Manning gave wikileaks was released all at once it drew brief attention and then was forgotten, that's why the press is dragging it out this time. What purpose would releasing it all at once serve?

      Yet here it is.  If this is one of the "terrible" items that GG indicated Snowden gave to the media and that they didn't report, well I'm pretty let down.  I figured those items were really incendiary.  
      This doesn't seem particularly incendiary, but the surveillance of masses of Americans would fall under that category for me. That and hacking into civilian infrastructure, which the US considers an act of war. Snowden revealed that we've been committing acts of war against China, among other countries, for years now. If we weren't such a war like country that would be a big deal.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:07:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

        hair splitting.

        The revelations are not the 'files'.  They are the words, the ideas, the facts or accusations.

        The press didn't release this - he did, in an interview.

        I can't even believe anyone actually buys this bullshit "well he handed over the 'files' so he doesn't have it anymore"

        "I'm sure he knows a few things personally".  

        What does that even mean?  Are you saying that he handed over a bunch of stuff blindly, didn't keep a copy to look at for himself, didn't know what was in it, and the stuff he's disclosing now is just "stuff he knows personally" (as opposed to the stuff he gave to the media, which he doesn't know?)

        I thought he gave ALL of it to the media, according to folks here.  And that he didn't have any more revelations.  Not that he didn't have any more revelations that he didn't already give to the media.  That he didn't have ANY more revelations.

        Because after all, if you hand over some digital stuff, it's impossible to make a copy for yourself so you can take your time to go through it all, right?

        And if you hand it over and don't have a copy (c'mon, really?) then you don't "have" it anymore and therefore can't leak anything else.

        /snark.

        The guy just leaked something new.  Admit it.  He waited about 6 months and then casually leaked something new.

        He personally knew it, yes.  Usually that's how people know stuff, you know, personally, inside their brains.  It doesn't go away because they don't have the "files" they got it from.

        Admit it.  He probably has more stuff to disclose.  I'm guessing that about 4-6 months from now we will hear another new thing that he supposedly didn't have.

        There is no "he gave it all to the press so he doesn't have it anymore".   It's not likely he just handed over his only copy without looking at it.  And if he looked at it, he knows it.  And if he knows it, he can 'give' it to the media all he wants but he'll still 'have' it.  And he can still leak it, slowly.  You can't erase your brain by giving a copy of what you know to the media.

        And therefore he has more to reveal.

        How can anyone say different with a straight face?  

  •  Unreal - denial of what NSA is doing here on DK (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, kharma

    this sounds to me like the 9-11 truthers

    protecting those who violate the constitution

    here is an honest question: do you think that Daniel Ellsberg provided evidence with the Pentagon Papers?

    do you think that Daniel Ellsberg is a traitor that should have been prosecuted with charges like those against Snowden?

    •  Ellsberg (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nancat357, kharma

      1. Yes he probably helped end the war.

      2. He should not have. He did get prosecuted IIRC. The suit got thrown out because of government misconduct. He faced something like 115 years? (Govt broke into his doctor's office to try to find something to make him look crazy and other things).

  •  Wonderful. (4+ / 0-)

    Why don't you just keep fucking around with stuff in pursuit of your sordid little geopolitical games, guys. What could go wrong? I mean, really, what could go wrong?

    Of course, the real villain there is Snowden. If he hadn't told the truth about all the grimy crap you do on a daily basis that fucks with the proper functioning of civilization, nobody could blame you--or the US tech industry--for it. Just keep lying, and Mission Accomplished!

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles.

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:12:33 AM PDT

  •  That interview and story is great. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LieparDestin

    Unfortunately buried in all the other things.

    Is it better to lose than be lost?

    by Publius2008 on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 10:15:49 AM PDT

  •  A whole country has one router? (0+ / 0-)

    Is that normal? Does the US have exactly one router, too?

    Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

    by pucklady on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:34:33 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site