At the time this story was in the news in August I thought it was most likely leaked on purpose by the government in an attempt to shine the image of the NSA.
Now My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.
I don't buy this. Why wouldn't people who know that the entire US "Intelligence Community" is focused on them do things like:
(A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis.
(B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes?
(C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it.
(D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.
Security is hard and (to most people) boring. Do you really doubt that Snowden's leaks prompted internal discussions about securing communications channels? After all, they prompted the exact same discussions right here on HN.
(A, B, C) Who's to say they don't already do those things, but the US intelligence operatives got the jump on them and compromised the channel ahead of schedule? It's a game of cat-and-mouse, and that happens sometimes. Which, if the claims are true, makes that channel all the more valuable to the US because you don't get a leg up like that all the time.
(D) I'm still entirely unconvinced they give a rat's %$# about liberties. Seems much more likely they want us out of their territory more than anything else.
"In recent months, senior administration officials — including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr. — have drawn attention to the damage that Mr. Snowden’s revelations have done, though most have been addressing the impact on national security more broadly, not just the effect on counterterrorism. "
Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.
I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "danger to national security." When the leaker is someone near the top of the org. chart, it's "politics as usual", or "public relations".
None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path?
Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, aren't the ones leaking.
I realize he wasn't an analyst. But his motivation for leaking the information that he did, was (granted according to his own testimony) because the agency was violating the civil rights of people it was supposed to be protecting.
I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.
Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars?
I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?
What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots?
Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?
Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous".
Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.
Sure, people from North Dakota tend to carry ID cards identifying themselves as "members" of North Dakota, and tend to decorate their vehicles to signal their membership as well.
You can search somebody and generally reasonably determine if they are a North Dakotan. Can you say the same of Al Queada? Are there literally "card carrying members" of Al Queada?
So is your contention that no one identifies as a member of Al Qaida or that no groups of people identify themselves as belonging to an Al Qaida affiliated cell?
If that is your contention then I may assume that you dismiss the plethora of government and media reports which state that this is the case on the basis that such reports are untrustworthy.
Ok.
But then why do you trust the government issued ID that indicates that someone is from North Dakota? And how do you know that these people that claim to be from North Dakota are not in fact government stooges that are meant to deceive you?
My point, in this case, is that your analogy is shit.
My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.
I don't see how you've proven the illegitimacy of my analogy.
It's really the same argument you're making. Perhaps there are Al Qaida affiliated cells that are only Al Qaida affiliated in name and ideology but do not receive funding or orders from anyone else.
In any case there are people that identify as being members of Al Qaida (Al Qaida proper or affiliated groups).
I don't see what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organizations and a heterogeneous group of organization that have a shared ideology.
I think this is what you're saying that Al Qaida is but I don't see how this distinction is significant for any intent or purpose.
> "I don't see how you've proven the illegitimacy of my analogy."
Simply put: there are established and agreed upon ways of determining whether somebody is a member of North Dakota; it isn't an association that can be created retroactively or without proof.
Furthermore, I can claim that I am North Dakotan, but I simply am not. I can claim it as much as I want, but it doesn't make it true. With Anonymous or Al Qaeda? Claiming membership seems to be all that is required.
Fair enough. I see your point. North Dakota is a geographical region. Either you reside or have resided in that area or you haven't. It's not an ideological movement or organization.
I'm interested to hear your response to the other part of my argument. That is, what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organization and a heterogenous group of organizations with a shared ideology?
It concerns me because there is typically little to no evidence that there is are shared ideology, or a shared anything besides "(probably) being Muslim, and shooting at us".
If you choose to ignore the "various parties" calling themselves Al-Qaeda and doing things in the name of Al-Qaeda then what possible proof could convince you? Everything could just as well be ever more intricate layers of American fabrication.
Group "A" snipes a soldier in Iraq. Group "B" fires a rocket in Afghanistan. Group "C" spreads anti-US propaganda in ME. Some of these claim to be "al quaeda", others are labeled as such by generals or news reporters.
The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports.
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda.
The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose
No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance.
First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?)
Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.)
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda.
I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'.
I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.
Having the common modern hobby of wasting my time watching random videos on the internet, I've naturally come across dozens of helmet cam videos taken and uploaded by American and British solders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They are usually pretty intense and I can't help but feel some respect for people that can keep their composure in those sort of situations, but one thing I always keep on noticing is that in the descriptions of the videos and in the dialog recorded in them, the opposing force is almost always described as "Al Quaeda". Now, ignoring the fact that "Al Quaeda" is hardly known for wearing uniforms, in many of the videos the opposing force cannot even be seen by the soldiers in the video.
I certainly don't blame them for shooting back, there is nothing else you could or should do in that sort of situation, but what makes them so sure it is Al Quaeda? Couldn't it be "angry goat farmer who owns a rifle"? Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Does "Al Quaeda" mean anything more than "people who shoot at us"?
Maybe they really do exist, but it seems clear to me that at the very least many of the actions attributed to it by the 'boots on the ground' are associated loosely at best.
There are probably some people with a legitimate claim to the brand, but I suspect that at this point most of them are dead and that "Al Quaeda" is more like "Aspirin" than "Kleenex".
Yeah, anything called "aspirin" is still going to be acetylsalicylic acid, and anything called "Al Quaeda" is still shooting at us and needs to be shot, but do these names really signal any deeper sort of affiliation anymore?
I rather thought Al Quaeda was the Bayer of aspirin. There are a lot of incompetent and not-really-a-credible-threat terrorist groups with ideologies similar to that of Al Quaeda, including them. A sort of brand recognition for something that really doesn't so much matter any more.
My fear and suspicion however is that "Al Quaeda" has become a term that is applied whenever there are "people, who happen to be Muslim, who shoot at 'us'."
That may not seem like something that is worth worrying about, but I think it is. When we apply the term loosely like that we aren't just applying a term carelessly. When we do that, we are attributing all the past crimes that we associate with that name to the people that we are calling "Al Quaeda", whether they had any involvement in those past crimes or not. We are further creating a situation where "Al Quaeda" can appear from nothingness, with no connection to previous "Al Quaeda".
Hypothetical example of why I think this is dangerous: If we (for whatever reason) invade Malaysia, and Malaysian Muslims start shooting at us because we have invaded their country. The moment we apply the "Muslim who shoots at us? that is Al Quaeda" logic, those Malaysian Muslims then, in the eyes of the general public, inherit the crimes of Al Quaeda (say, 9/11). All of a sudden we aren't in Malaysia for "whatever reason", but because those darned Al Quaeda (you know, those "9/11 guys") are there, and they must pay for their crimes.
> My fear and suspicion however is that "Al Quaeda" has become a term that is applied whenever there are "people, who happen to be Muslim, who shoot at 'us'."
That's possibly true, but that isn't necessarily a problem.
I think an uncomfortable reality that westerners will have to eventually come to grips with is that militant Islam is a problem. Now, I don't believe it poses an existential threat to western liberal democracies, but it's an incredibly powerful unifying banner for culturally regressive movements all over the world. I do believe that these movements are a threat to progress in the countries in which they operate. If calling it all "Al Qaeda" gives us the wherewithal to combat it, that's not a bad thing, especially when those groups take up the banner.
As a university student in Bangladesh during the independence war in the 1970's, my dad had high hopes for the country. Over time, he has become bitterly disappointed by the country's cultural regression. Instead of seeing secular democracy flourish, as intended by the original constitution, the country is seeing Islamization. Women are putting on head scarves and extremist Wahhabi madrassas are sprouting up and terrorists are starting to operate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh. When my family lived in Bangladesh in the late 1980's, it was poor and full of crime, but the most you worried about was violent protestors at labor strikes, not organized, armed terrorists.
There is something happening in the world and you can't wish it away.
>There's something happening in the world and you can't wish it away.
But sometimes, it's not your responsibility to fix. I mean, at some point, you have to let the Bangladeshis fix Bangladesh, the Somalis fix Somalia, the Afghans fix Afghanistan and the Iraqis fix Iraq. I don't think it's up to America to go in and intervene where-ever we see Western values being violated. Not only do we not have the resources to do that, but, in many cases, we don't even have the moral authority to intervene. A lot of the time the reason the country is as screwed up as it is, is because we, the West, screwed it up. I mean, all these countries are the way they are because of Western interventions. It was the West that drew the borders of Pakistan and East Pakistan. It was the West that drew the borders of Afghanistan and tried to impose its vision of civilization on a locale that simply does not want such a thing. It was the West that drew the borders of Iraq, and it was the West who kept Saddam Hussein in power, as a balance against the revolutionaries in Iran (which itself was another creation of the West). And now you're saying that the West has an obligation to go in and fix these places? Please. The world would be grateful if Europe and America intervened less, not more.
Why would you assume most of them are dead? Would you make the same assumption about, e.g., the Mafia? Or MS-13? Do you think Al Shabab is a fiction?
Why is it something that's so hard to believe? The precedent for a highly organized, inter-national underground group exists (Mafia, Triads, etc). The precedent for states funding such groups exists (just look at the U.S.'s history of funding militant political groups around the world!) What's so hard to believe about the combination of the two?
Maybe what makes it unbelievable is that the existence of Al Qaeda is incompatible with a particular world view, one that rejects the need for anti-terrorist military action and the international surveillance networks that support such action. It would sure be convenient if Al Qaeda were just a fiction.
I hurt my head trying to figure out the subtext for why this story was told by "senior intelligence officials" to the NYT at this moment. Is it trying to change the story line from Snowden to something else?
My reading of it was that "Senior intelligence officials" could mean anyone that actually agreed with Snowden but didn't have the balls or opportunity to go through with what he did. Now they're taking the opportunity to twist the knife so maybe real change will come about. In other words, it's possible that not everyone in the NSA/government thinks what the NSA is doing is good, and will take the opportunity to point out its ineptness. I doubt Snowden was the only person in the NSA who didn't like what he was seeing.
41 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadNow My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.
(A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis.
(B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes?
(C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it.
(D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.
(D) I'm still entirely unconvinced they give a rat's %$# about liberties. Seems much more likely they want us out of their territory more than anything else.
Awesome, Inspire has a 2600 how-to section.
Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.
Danger! Danger! Narrative fallacy ahead!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative...
None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path?
Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, aren't the ones leaking.
I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.
I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?
Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous".
Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.
You can search somebody and generally reasonably determine if they are a North Dakotan. Can you say the same of Al Queada? Are there literally "card carrying members" of Al Queada?
If that is your contention then I may assume that you dismiss the plethora of government and media reports which state that this is the case on the basis that such reports are untrustworthy.
Ok.
But then why do you trust the government issued ID that indicates that someone is from North Dakota? And how do you know that these people that claim to be from North Dakota are not in fact government stooges that are meant to deceive you?
My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.
It's really the same argument you're making. Perhaps there are Al Qaida affiliated cells that are only Al Qaida affiliated in name and ideology but do not receive funding or orders from anyone else.
In any case there are people that identify as being members of Al Qaida (Al Qaida proper or affiliated groups).
I don't see what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organizations and a heterogeneous group of organization that have a shared ideology.
I think this is what you're saying that Al Qaida is but I don't see how this distinction is significant for any intent or purpose.
Simply put: there are established and agreed upon ways of determining whether somebody is a member of North Dakota; it isn't an association that can be created retroactively or without proof.
Furthermore, I can claim that I am North Dakotan, but I simply am not. I can claim it as much as I want, but it doesn't make it true. With Anonymous or Al Qaeda? Claiming membership seems to be all that is required.
I'm interested to hear your response to the other part of my argument. That is, what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organization and a heterogenous group of organizations with a shared ideology?
Specifically why this concerns me I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6471710
The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports.
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance.
First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?)
Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.)
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda.
I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.
They are usually pretty intense and I can't help but feel some respect for people that can keep their composure in those sort of situations, but one thing I always keep on noticing is that in the descriptions of the videos and in the dialog recorded in them, the opposing force is almost always described as "Al Quaeda". Now, ignoring the fact that "Al Quaeda" is hardly known for wearing uniforms, in many of the videos the opposing force cannot even be seen by the soldiers in the video.
I certainly don't blame them for shooting back, there is nothing else you could or should do in that sort of situation, but what makes them so sure it is Al Quaeda? Couldn't it be "angry goat farmer who owns a rifle"? Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Does "Al Quaeda" mean anything more than "people who shoot at us"?
Maybe they really do exist, but it seems clear to me that at the very least many of the actions attributed to it by the 'boots on the ground' are associated loosely at best.
Yes. It's like "Kleenex" for tissues. As with Kleenex, the fact that it's overused doesn't mean there isn't a genuine brand.
Yeah, anything called "aspirin" is still going to be acetylsalicylic acid, and anything called "Al Quaeda" is still shooting at us and needs to be shot, but do these names really signal any deeper sort of affiliation anymore?
My fear and suspicion however is that "Al Quaeda" has become a term that is applied whenever there are "people, who happen to be Muslim, who shoot at 'us'."
That may not seem like something that is worth worrying about, but I think it is. When we apply the term loosely like that we aren't just applying a term carelessly. When we do that, we are attributing all the past crimes that we associate with that name to the people that we are calling "Al Quaeda", whether they had any involvement in those past crimes or not. We are further creating a situation where "Al Quaeda" can appear from nothingness, with no connection to previous "Al Quaeda".
Hypothetical example of why I think this is dangerous: If we (for whatever reason) invade Malaysia, and Malaysian Muslims start shooting at us because we have invaded their country. The moment we apply the "Muslim who shoots at us? that is Al Quaeda" logic, those Malaysian Muslims then, in the eyes of the general public, inherit the crimes of Al Quaeda (say, 9/11). All of a sudden we aren't in Malaysia for "whatever reason", but because those darned Al Quaeda (you know, those "9/11 guys") are there, and they must pay for their crimes.
That's possibly true, but that isn't necessarily a problem.
I think an uncomfortable reality that westerners will have to eventually come to grips with is that militant Islam is a problem. Now, I don't believe it poses an existential threat to western liberal democracies, but it's an incredibly powerful unifying banner for culturally regressive movements all over the world. I do believe that these movements are a threat to progress in the countries in which they operate. If calling it all "Al Qaeda" gives us the wherewithal to combat it, that's not a bad thing, especially when those groups take up the banner.
As a university student in Bangladesh during the independence war in the 1970's, my dad had high hopes for the country. Over time, he has become bitterly disappointed by the country's cultural regression. Instead of seeing secular democracy flourish, as intended by the original constitution, the country is seeing Islamization. Women are putting on head scarves and extremist Wahhabi madrassas are sprouting up and terrorists are starting to operate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh. When my family lived in Bangladesh in the late 1980's, it was poor and full of crime, but the most you worried about was violent protestors at labor strikes, not organized, armed terrorists.
There is something happening in the world and you can't wish it away.
But sometimes, it's not your responsibility to fix. I mean, at some point, you have to let the Bangladeshis fix Bangladesh, the Somalis fix Somalia, the Afghans fix Afghanistan and the Iraqis fix Iraq. I don't think it's up to America to go in and intervene where-ever we see Western values being violated. Not only do we not have the resources to do that, but, in many cases, we don't even have the moral authority to intervene. A lot of the time the reason the country is as screwed up as it is, is because we, the West, screwed it up. I mean, all these countries are the way they are because of Western interventions. It was the West that drew the borders of Pakistan and East Pakistan. It was the West that drew the borders of Afghanistan and tried to impose its vision of civilization on a locale that simply does not want such a thing. It was the West that drew the borders of Iraq, and it was the West who kept Saddam Hussein in power, as a balance against the revolutionaries in Iran (which itself was another creation of the West). And now you're saying that the West has an obligation to go in and fix these places? Please. The world would be grateful if Europe and America intervened less, not more.
Why is it something that's so hard to believe? The precedent for a highly organized, inter-national underground group exists (Mafia, Triads, etc). The precedent for states funding such groups exists (just look at the U.S.'s history of funding militant political groups around the world!) What's so hard to believe about the combination of the two?
Maybe what makes it unbelievable is that the existence of Al Qaeda is incompatible with a particular world view, one that rejects the need for anti-terrorist military action and the international surveillance networks that support such action. It would sure be convenient if Al Qaeda were just a fiction.
This is of course all Snowden's fault.