Hacker News Reader

Comment by yuvadam | Hacker News Reader

There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story -

This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years.

Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels to enable technically apt whistle-blowers to approach them with confidence.

Props to The Intercept for some fine journalist work.

View on HN

Oh, so that's what that scene was about! I re-watched it now and it really is incredible. Screenshots of some of Greenwald's notes (they don't say much):

1- http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg

2- http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg

3- http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg

"There are 1.2 m people on various stages of their watch list" :-O

That's absolutely terrifying. I wonder how many of those are American citizens.

My gut says a majority, I believe that the war is truly inward. A flagging system wouldn't be too difficult. You could even flag people who aren't dead and yet haven't raised a flag in some time-frame (Unibomber). Statistical analysis, the data's all there. Set up keys that resemble the analyses's output. Find what you're looking for. Unfortunately, those keys are controllable. You'll always find people who fit a certain profile, you will always find who you're looking for. Unfortunately, you'll require some vagueness to ensure that the net you've cast doesn't have holes too large.

Those are some amazing revelations, ones that have nothing to do with spying and everything to do with defeating a war effort.

>This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS

You mean in "Citizen Four", right?

Yes.

I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that other foreign governments are helping out with making this information available because it suits their own interests. The notion that Snowden and Greenwald are plucky little protagonists doing everything on their own against the malign might of the US government is a peculiarly American narrative in that it doesn't consider the possibility that any non-Americans could be involved in shaping public perceptions in the US.

This is insane. By your logic: "I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that the Russians are polluting American's precious bodily fluids because it suits their own interests..."

Leaking supposedly confidential information to the press is hardly a novel technique in espionage, or in any social context for that matter, eg feeding a juicy tale to the village gossip to embarrass a rival. Machiavelli made a systematic study of such techniques centuries ago. What do you find so insane about it?

What is insane to me, is the reasoning behind suggesting "X is beneficial to Russia. Therefore Russia is doing X" without producing a shred of evidence.

I am inclined to at least consider the possibility that you are a NSA/GCHQ agent[1] attempting to discredit and diminish the reputation of Snowden and Greenwald.

See what I did there?

1. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

What I see is you putting words into anigbrowl's mouth (letters onto his keyboard?)

I don't think my statement added what he said: I only special-cased his generalized statement by substituting "foreign government" with the first one that came to my mind (the runner-up was China). See my other reply to sibling comment

So you're criticizing me for a suggestion I never made, about a country I never mentioned, and then you suggest my reasoning is insane? I think you need to work harder at this. If you can't countenance the possibility that your political hero figures could themselves be subject to manipulation then you're essentially adopting a religious attitude towards them.

Unfortunately I am too marginal a person to be hired as a disinformation agent; I'm just your friendly neighborhood sociopath reminding you that it's helpful to look both ways before crossing the street.

I apologize unreservedly if I read more into what you said than you meant. However, your original comment was I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that other foreign governments are helping out with making this information available because it suits their own interests

In my mind, Russia is congruent with 'foreign government' and is the first that came to my mind. Perhaps you could specify which foreign governments you were thinking of? I will rephrase my take on your allegation to "X is beneficial to country A. Therefore country A is doing X", which is a crazy thing to say without evidence.

> Unfortunately I am too marginal a person to be hired as a disinformation agent

I hope this shows the point I was making: I made an unfounded allegation that put you on the defensive just by raising the specter of it being a possibility (in your words "I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility".) It is this Bill O'Reilly-style insinuation that I objected to.

> If you can't countenance the possibility that your political hero figures could themselves be subject to manipulation

I countenance this possibility in the same manner that I countenance the possibility of Obama secretly being a muslim: the probability for both is non-zero, but I'm not going to waste cycles worrying about it. My attitude to both is "support your allegation with some proof or GTFO."

edit: added last quote & paragraph

Are you sure these are the same documents/from the same source? (As far as I recall, those were from a drone pilot, that's done a few tv appearances already?). Or that was my impression, anyway.

[Bad form to comment before I've read the story, but just wanted a clarification - if this was an assumption or something that's been stated clearly by one of the people involved?]

In Citizenfour (the scene I was referencing but neglected to mention) GG explicitly mentions this slide, as well as the existence of another whistleblower. Of course the situation might be more complicated than that, but it's clear the story was in the making for quite some time.

I also recall Laura Poitras mentioning the work that Jeremy Scahill was doing on this topic at one of the Q&A's she did.

Right. I thought (when I saw the film) that he was reffering to the leaks by Brandon Bryant:

http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/Brandon-Bryant-Ramst... (etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com