Many many classified information didn't see the light decades after they happened. I don't see why this isn't such a case.
Many many classified information didn't see the light decades after they happened. I don't see why this isn't such a case.
This is nothing like a pre-Snowden talk about NSA where someone theorised what was happening. This would be like if Snowden was quoted anonymously in an article and proof that was clearly fake was shown as actual leaks. Sure hardware modifications like this is happening (we know NSA does so) but this particular article (well, two now) is pure fluff and FUD pretending to have real proof. There's an interesting discussion to be had about this topic but those articles would make anyone a laughingstock if used as facts in the discussion.
There was something visceral about seeing a picture[1] of the NSA giving an intercepted Cisco router a hardware "upgrade" (beacon) in the Snowden files. Bloomberg tried to something similar for their story, but with fake pictures - that was a terrible idea.
1. Probably don't open this link if you have a security clearance - I haven't been following the status of the Snowden files, but it probably is still considered to be classified info https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...