U.S. Army Soldier Arrested in AT&T, Verizon Extortions
krebsonsecurity.com
krebsonsecurity.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251799 ("Hacker in Snowflake extortions may be a U.S. soldier (krebsonsecurity.com)"; 34 days ago, 195 comments)
I don't think they were trying to capture the "general tone" but a pervasive idea that kept coming up in the comments. When I saw the headline, the first thing I thought about was this thread and "all the comments" talking about 3D chess false flag moves. Not the majority, not the overall sentiment, but just a significant number of eye rolling comments.
That is exactly the point the linked comment makes. It is in agreement with you on that. Fatigues like the one on the image he shared are easy to come by. This is what the comment says and this is what you say.
> People's conspiracy theory gotchas
There is no conspiracy theory in the linked comment. It just says that they believe the perpatrator is not really in the military just pretending to be. That is hardly a conspiracy theory.
The CFAA[1][2] is an arcane and ancient piece of legislation that could use an overhaul, especially with some of the vague language it contains. A person would definitely want to make sure they are authorized prior to touching a computer or even data that may not have authorization for.
Unauthorized use of a computer is the easiest felony to commit accidentally it would seem. Although in this case I don’t think that’s a legitimate argument to be made. This person or persons knew they were committing crimes.
I’m not defending the hacker either, the quote at the end of the article rings true.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
I imagine that this is the reason why the charge is "unlawful transfer of confidential phone records", which is something much more specific.
From PACER, it's also stated that he filled out the CJA23 financial affidavit to demonstrate his inability to afford a lawyer (it's quite something to get caught like this and not even manage to earn enough to pay for a lawyer).
Additionally, "the defendant waives the rights provided by Rule 5 and/or Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure" means that he is choosing to streamline the initial procedures and is waiving supervised release or probation, suggesting that the prosecution's case is strong and that he is opting for an expedited process.
He's also a low level enlisted so its not surprising he was unable to afford a lawyer.
(720 ILCS 5/17-51) (was 720 ILCS 5/16D-3) Sec. 17-51. Computer tampering.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
(it starts as a misdemeanor, but rises to a felony if you do it multiple times)
In contrast a more nervous / unknowing person might think "oh man I better not talk about this anywhere, I don't know who could be listening".
The other thing I'd say to any aspiring criminals out there is it's usually much less stressful and still profitable to get gainful employment if you are actually a talented hacker. Most of these guys seem like script kiddies, that do not understand the ramifications of what they are doing. Some of these breaches will be felt and cleaned up for decades, all so they could get a laugh and a few shekels and their e-peens stroked by other criminals.
I'm not really convinced this is a distinction that matters.
I guess I was saying that I don't see "especially" the west as far as privacy goes.
"He who would keep a secret must keep secret that he has a secret to keep" - Sir Humphrey Appleby but I think he was paraphrasing Goethe
That said, opsec is (to all practical intents and purposes) impossible in the long run in the face of a very determined adversary. If they want to find you, you will have done something to give someone a lead and there will be enough pieces to put the picture together.
"He that would keep a secret must keep it secret,
that he hath the secret to keep."
Who said that?
It was Sir Humphrey.
- Who said it originally?
- Francis Bacon, wasn't it?
Next: obviously avoid biographical details. People can compile a lot of information about you online.
I wouldn’t be surprised if anybody you wanted to do opsec against had a much better version of that tool…
I do sort of wonder where that sort of stuff will go. In one hand, we’re all mostly just shitposting anyway so we don’t really need privacy. On the other, I dunno, we all enjoy being able to explore ideas pseudonymously, right? I wonder if we’ll all end up having to pass our arguments into LLMs to get any sort of pseudonymity in the future.
Every time we see someone caught it is one very solid and clear link that triggers the rest of pieces to fall into place. It almost never seems like it's a bunch of minor bits making up the whole.
Those two people are the same person.
How does that work?
It doesn't
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carl-stewart-drug-dealer-identi...
It takes little effort to reproduce the key by disassembling the lock to get access to the plug.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001v9ds
Possibly/probably only available to UK IP addresses.
The CCC made a point a couple years ago by publishing finger prints of high ranking German government officials extracted from photos
As an aside, this is a paradox that has fascinated me for a while. Potentially any step that we take to be more private or anonymous makes us stand out more, thus easier to track and re-identify, because we end up in a smaller crowd (i.e. anonymity set).
What did him in was boasting from a non-clean slate identity among other things. He needed strict separation between big time jobs which require an absolute clean slate because all the attention will be there, small time jobs that are likely numerous and sloppier but no one will bother to investigate, and pleasure. He didn't have that.
It seemed like parallel construction [1] to me. Considering that the NSA is known to give the DEA "tips" [2], and has a division specifically to start parallel construction investigations [3], and this was a high profile drug case, it would be odd that they didn't use parallel construction techniques.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/us-drug-agency-g...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-u-s-directs-...
The IRS guy figured it out and nobody would act on it because they all figured the FBI would know better and they should wait for the FBI to do it right. ... but actually he nailed it.
It shows how small bits of information from several sources are used to tie this guy's aliases together.
Also, the reuse of email or any form of contact information on a service/ web hosting or DNS registration is another common opsec oopsie
[1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/11/hacker-in-snowflake-exto...
Don’t post anything on the internet if you wish to remain anonymous. Don’t express opinions about anything.
We’ve had a few different posts on HN demonstrating that it is trivial to link aliases based on writing style. To avoid this you’d have to pipe everything you write through an LLM. And then you have another potential data point.
See e.g. https://idiomreplacex.de/ (German language)
It used to be a fun lab prank to set text filters on browsers of unattended laptops, like swapping all gendered words. A colleague spent a week in an alternate universe before he realized something was amiss when he read a movie review for "The Lady of the Rings".
It wouldn't imply deleting the content too, the username could just be `[deleted]` or `ghost` or something.
Not that will help much, because all 1013 of your comments[1] are likely archived in at multiple indexes: search engines, hn.algolia.com, the internet archive and half a dozen AI project by HNers
1. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I think allowing for account deletion line reddit does (with all comments attributed to "[deleted]") is bad for following a conversation after the fact. I'm fine with HN's policy here and think they've struck a decent balance. I think this should be a case of "if you're not ok with this, don't post on HN".
Do you have a link? I wasn't able to find it...
This site lets you put in a username and get the users with the most similar writing style to that user. It confirmed several users who I suspected were alts and after informally asking around has identified abandoned accounts of people I know from many years ago. I made this site mostly to show how easy this is and how it can erode online privacy. If some guy with a little bit of Python, and $8 to rent a decent dedicated server for a day can make this, imagine what a company with millions of dollars and a couple dozen PhD linguists could do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016
It's also possible to eyeball similar writing styles, although not at scale. That's how "Fake Steve Jobs" was uncovered in 2007:
Last year, his agent showed the manuscript to several book publishers and told them the anonymous author was a published novelist and writer for a major business magazine. The New York Times found Mr. Lyons by looking for writers who fit those two criteria, and then by comparing the writing of “Fake Steve” to a blog Mr. Lyons writes in his own name, called Floating Point
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/technology/06steve.html#:....
It's astonishing how people are supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom from being spied on, since they live in the West and not in a Stasi controlled state, but they are given an advice not to talk too much, or the Big Brother is going to get them.
So I think the point is not to get into the bullseye of the state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oeaBb85Xc
DEF CON 30 - Sam Bent - Tor - Darknet Opsec By a Veteran Darknet Vendor
From the article:
"Anonymously extorting the President and VP as a member of the military is a bad idea, but it’s an even worse idea to harass people who specialize in de-anonymizing cybercriminals"
Read the article, There is a link in that sentence.
Government using this to send a loud message to future skiddies - “don’t fuck with us”
I think law enforcement types are just built differently. Fearless even when threats are being made against them.
i think i could have guessed 2 and 3 at a glace. if Allison speaks like this all the time she needs her own tv show
If the crimes were committed entirely off base against non military victims, then probably civilian court, followed by additional UCMJ punishments and discharge.
I had a roommate who got drunk and assaulted a cop (it went very badly for him). He remained in the military for his surgery and court time while confined to quarters, reduction to e-1, and forfeiture of pay. He had a civilian trial and was convicted and served 90 days. Then came back to be discharged. Oddly, I don't even know what discharge he received -- he was my roommate when he went out that night, and wasn't after that.
> leaking sensitive customer call records stolen earlier this year from AT&T and Verizon
It says he was arrested for "two criminal counts of unlawful transfer of confidential phone records". This would seem to refer to "selling and leaking sensitive customer call records stolen earlier this year from AT&T and Verizon". No mention of arrest for the NSA hacking claims.
Not much info in the article about lots of things which could impact this.
First, it's in South Korea -- on base or off?
Personal computer or government furnished equipment?
What are the treaties in place for South Korea with regard to this?
What is the location of the victims' data for this?
Big things which could make this a UCMJ case would be (in my completely non-professional guess): He did it from somewhere on base. The victims were other military personnel. He used government equipment to do this. The US wants to assert jurisdiction according to a treaty.
All of this said, with the NSA issue hanging over it, there may be efforts to use the more easily proved crime to negotiate everything they can learn about the NSA claims.
tl;dnr - they can choose the jurisdiction. One side may assert priority and win (probably the feds).
The only thing I'm certain of is that every enlisted member will be brought in for a safety brief.
Which, notably, are Article II powers. Your usual Constitutional rights are abridged or suspended.
The USMJ limits some rights but also expands others. For example, a “jury of your peers” can more accurately reflect the accused, you receive Miranda rights earlier, you can request summary judgment for criminal matters, etc. On the flip side, free speech is more constrained due to the societal need for an impartial military, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.
His reporting looks more and more like the Daily Mail of cybersecurity.
Occasionally very good investigative journalism, yet always aggressively devoid of class.
Especially for young people the decent thing to do is to not name them in this kind of reporting.
Now not only he, but also is his mother, have to live with this article being the first result when you google either of their names. What did his mother do to deserve this? Should something he (possibly) did as a teen haunt him for the rest of his life, even assuming he is found guilty and served his sentence? It's absolutely disgusting and despicable.
> Are they things a major newspaper would include?
Yes. If they're the Daily Mail, which is the bottom of the barrel. There's a special place in hell for some of those journalists.
You'll find mention of the issue in many journalistic ethics codes, and many newspaper's policies. For a US example from the SPJ's Code of Ethics[2]:
> Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
> Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, [..]
> Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
> Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
> Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.
In the UK, for radio and TV, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains similar guidelines in less straightforward language.
Many news organizations won’t name juveniles even in jurisdictions where it is allowed.
Other guides will be based on the nature of the crime.
Most wire services for instance now don’t name suspects for “minor crimes”. Here is the ap announcement on the topic: https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/behind-the-news/why...
Note that their argument tends to be around the biasing impact on the persons life. As they are unlikely to follow up on the criminal outcome there won’t be a chance to clear the persons name.
In this case I think Krebs is on solid ground as it’s a) not a minor crime b) he can later follow up.
But it’s certainly not an area that is black & white.
I confusingly talked about both. My broader point was that the norm is changing in the us towards not naming suspects. And there are ethics conversations around this in the industry.
But I think krebs is on solid footing for this particular case. He’s well within the norm.
The article reports that the fellow is 20, and that the reporter talked to the fellow's mother. It seems very unlikely that Krebs fucked up and the fellow is actually 17. (He couldn't be any younger than that because he wouldn't have been able to enlist.)
In the west, English speaking countries are the odd ones out: For example in Germany, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and France, identifying suspects (not just juvenile ones) is either uncommon or even forbidden by law.
Many people in more restrictive countries (like Germany and the UK) are pretty shocked by what USians are permitted to say. Similarly, many USians are shocked by what folks in more restrictive countries are NOT permitted to say.
Krebs is an American journalist, living in America, writing for an American publication. The standard to use here is an American one, not any others.
I'm reasonably certain that I know the extents of what you can and can't legally say in the US better than most people who live there. National differences in these things happens to be one of my areas of interest, but that is besides the point.
I'm viewing this through an ethical lens. Legality doesn't enter into it beyond recognizing that laws that deal with crime are often informed by morality.
I'll update the post.
And yeah, when it comes to talking about things being discussed in the Public Square in America, the ethical standard should also be American.
I strongly take issue with this. The morality of something does not change based on where it occurs. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
We're likely both going to agree that executing gay people is not okay even if it happens in Saudi Arabia.
If you want to defend the practice, you'll have to make a proper argument. It being a local "standard" is not one.
Morals and ethics aren't the same thing. What is considered to be moral varies from person to person and from culture to culture.
Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean it is okay, has to be tolerated without comment, and is beyond criticism by those with differing views.
Just based on the value of fairness and that punishment should be decided in an actual court, not the court of public opinion or handed out by some guy named Brian, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs and I've made my reasoning for that pretty clear in this thread. I stand by that and you are still free to make some actual argument to the contrary. If the argument is just "in this country a lot of people feel it is fine", that's okay, just not very convincing to anyone I would imagine.
Sure, I agree. If you were USian, I would defend to the death your right to speak openly and publicly about your concerns. [0]
And just because you feel strongly about your incorrect opinion about a widely-held-to-be-acceptable practice in USian journalism doesn't mean that I have to let that incorrect opinion pass by without comment.
It's a big world, and there are differing opinions on many, many things... morals (and the formation of explanatory systems overtop of the same) included.
[0] Whereas if you're in a more draconian jurisdiction that would prohibit such comments, I'll be publicly miffed about it and express my deep displeasure.
> Federal authorities have arrested and indicted a 20-year-old U.S. Army soldier on suspicion of being Kiberphant0m...
The article also claims to have spoken on the record with the accused's mother, so I have no reason to doubt the article's claim about the fellow's age.
If it would harm a case against him then that's different. I would hate to harm a case against this turd.
Nope, I've heard others mention it before as well. I subscribed to the newsletter at one point and I don't think I've gotten a single useful technical article (which is fair, that's not necessarily his niche), but I have gotten a bunch of emails that just doxx random people.
More widely, the US "justice" system is wild and much more concerned with vengeance than actual justice. What criminals? We have someone who was indicted. The guy might be completely innocent, but his name will forever be plastered around the internet as a "criminal" to be humiliated.
In other developed countries, there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly. You're kept (pseudo) anonymous until sentencing, to make sure no innocent people get labeled as criminals.
Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. Not the only one.
But if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice.
> there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly
This is never universally applied. Particularly when it comes to crimes of corruption, which this case approaches.
> if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice
Many people would agree with you, imho, but it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does: is it more than some good feeling for the injured party? That seems not worth the costs and risks, including promotion of violence (in some form) as a solution to problems, rationalization of personal retribution and vengence (probably few distinguish between those terms), and possible harm to an innocent person (if the wrong person is convicted).
If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?
I do value deterrence and being made whole, and sometimes those overlap with retribution. And I'll say this about retribution: it could make it possible for the criminal and victim to move forward, including if they know each other. The criminal has paid their debt to the victim and guilt is absolved. Insufficient payment might undermine that.
It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. We aren’t bonobos.)
> If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?
Our sense of retribution is more than transactional. There is a perception of collective harm that’s explicit in our system of public prosection—it’s the people versus a criminal, not the victim.
Definitely an upside, though the punishment of trial (and the victim being heard), conviction, repayment, etc. may be sufficient for that.
> We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved.
Here I think you overstate it. I believe a large number of people, maybe the majority, do not choose retribution.
'Innate' has become a loaded word, and one used (not necessarily in this case) politically to make the speaker's argument into something inevitable. Stepping back from that:
Lots of things are 'innate'; people focus on the more harsh ones, but so are goodness, a desire for justice, fairness, love, hunger, laziness, sleepiness, etc. And innate drives are not all-powerful or determinative; some are barely noticeable and some powerful, often the same one varying greatly (consider sex drive, for example). And of course our actions depend, very much, on our will and reason and choice.
It is in other countries, is my point. In the US, anyone arrested has their mugshot and name plastered for everyone to see, regardless of merit
Give me one example. Where e.g. a public figure or terrorist suspect is kept under wraps until they’re found guilty.
Multiple footballers in the UK who were accused of sexual harassment. People tried guessing who they are, but all police released was "a footballer in his 20s from Manchester is under investigation for sexual harassment/assault/etc".
Not one example of it being done properly. One country. (I’ll grant New Zealand as a likely candidate.)
I think it's weird and creepy when LEO eagerly distribute suspects' personal details (via PR, website, etc). Which they seem to do at every possibility - even if doing so doesn't advance community safety in a demonstrable way.
Journalists, however, have a duty to honor their extra 1A protections by holding the powerful to account. I believe a default position of including identities in a story helps insure that the powerful are known when they behave badly.
It's an imperfect default but I think it's better than every alternative.
When the has-never-been-sealed Federal Grand Jury indictment that the article links to has the fellow's full name and alleged area of operation during the alleged crime, is publishing their full name in your article doxing them?
If it isn't, is providing screenshots of their publicly-available Facebook profile photos doxxing?
Is providing the presumably-willingly-given-for-publication name of the person's mother who you performed an on-the-record interview for the topic of the article doxxing?
Is it doxxing to provide details from previous investigative articles that you've done into folks who use their handles to credibly publicly declare that they've committed noteworthy computer crimes?
> The profile photo on Wagenius’ Facebook page was deleted within hours of my Nov. 26 story identifying Kiberphant0m as a likely U.S. Army soldier
Translation: "People pay attention to me!"
/s
I mean, when I was younger I would have been gleeful about some bragging idiot getting busted but now, *shrug*, everyone just has some "condition".
>Judische said he had no interest in selling the data he’d stolen from Snowflake customers and telecom providers, and that he preferred to outsource that to Kiberphant0m and others. Meanwhile, Kiberphant0m claimed in posts on Telegram that he was responsible for hacking into at least 15 telecommunications firms, including AT&T and Verizon.
That’s like saying we need plumbers and electricians who come into your house and steal everything.
”Between when we, and an anonymous colleague, found his opsec mistake on November 10th to his last Telegram activity on December 6, law enforcement set the speed record for the fastest turnaround time for an American federal cyber case that I have witnessed in my career,” she said.
[1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/11/hacker-in-snowflake-exto...
I mean, didn't army or some agency start investigating this before Kerb?
How do we know that they didn't?
i don’t think we generally deploy our actual good hackers abroad (i’m also not sure how many of them are directly employed by the govt vs contractors)
However, I would be skeptical that the people in uniform are the "actual good hackers." Unfortunately, uniformed career paths (set by law, in many cases, and certainly long tradition) are not conducive to anyone developing any deep, technical expertise. I think we have cyber operators in uniform largely to do the things that legally can't be done by someone who's not in uniform. I think they are backed by a lot of civil servants and contractors (including academics on loan or moonlighting) with the deeper expertise. I think this is true for a lot of the more technical military systems, by the way, not just a cyber thing, e.g. aviation, air defense, nuclear stuff.
That's not going rogue, that was the most heroic and patriotic thing anyone in his shoes could possibly do.
Everything he revealed was already revealed years earlier, it's just no one really cared or was paying attention in 2000-2001.
But "cowardice" - that claim is just mind-boggling. What he did, even if you disagree with his motivations, required self sacrifice and bravery. Fleeing (what he believes to be) unjust laws that would punish him for his work is not at all cowardly.
While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.
You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0]
[0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.
> “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18)
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu...
You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.
From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article:
> The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].
IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014.
When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons.
> I used to sympathize with ...Assange...
If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting.
[0] <https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lyin...>
What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"?
Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something?
Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today?
Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?
Yup.
Any committee that will leave entirely unpunished being lied to, directly, in person, by the fellow in charge of the biggest agency the committee is supposed to be overseeing isn't worth a damn.
Any committee that won't raise a big public stink about that agency's lawyers lying to the US Supreme Court? Same thing.
It's entirely possible to be both bipartisan and a Congressional committee but still be largely worthless to the public.
> Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee...
Snowden risked his ass (and is currently living in exile) to alert the public about long-running, major violations of Federal law. The most we get out of the absolute best member of that committee is "Man. The American public would be fucking incensed if they heard some of the things that we've been told in our chambers. Someone should really do something about this.".
And yeah, I'm aware that that report was written by a scratch committee assembled in the House and is organizationally unrelated to the permanent Senate intelligence oversight committee on which Wyden and company sit. In a crisis situation, these folks absolutely carry the same water, regardless of where they are on the org chart. One only need look at the retroactive immunity granted to the telcos for their long-standing, obvious violation of Federal law caused by their participation in NSA's then-very-illegal wiretap program to understand that.
Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.
[0] You should also read up on how the Ellsberg case made it impossible for anyone facing an Espionage Act charge for leaking classified information to argue that their disclosure was justified. This is one big reason why Snowden's departure from the country was a very, very smart move.
1) It's not the 1970s anymore. Things have changed.
2) Ellsberg walked out on bail and was able to speak publicly about why he did what he did. Snowden would be denied bail and visitors because of "national security" concerns.
2) In a novel application of law, Ellsberg was not permitted to raise a "my disclosure was justified because of very significant interest" defense. [0]
3) Ellsberg only walked free because Nixon's agents were caught breaking into Ellsberg's psychologist's office to search for more character-assassination material, and the judge found this conduct to be unconscionable. Had Nixon NOT done this, #2 above would have ensured Ellsberg had no choice but to go to jail.
4) Given the existence of the NSA wiretap program that Snowden revealed, FedGov would not have the opportunity to make the same blunder Nixon did... because they have an extensive secret database (that "happens" to contain information about US citizens) that they can make secret searches against to find all sorts of blackmail material.
[0] This right here is the REALLY BIG thing. It's my understanding that Ellsberg was expecting to be able to at least argue that his actions were justified by very significant public interest. While having that right stripped away is pretty normal in this day and age, it absolutely was not back then.
> Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.
This misdirected focus is particularly concerning given the escalating geopolitical tensions and the strategic importance of cybersecurity in national defense. Nation-state actors like China are leveraging advanced capabilities to outpace U.S. defenses, eroding trust in American institutions and diminishing global standing. With the potential for conflict over Taiwan and other critical flashpoints, resources spent on low-value cybercrime cases should instead fortify critical infrastructure and counter nation-state threats. A proactive approach is essential to prevent breaches, hold corporations accountable, and ensure the U.S. remains resilient in an increasingly volatile cyber landscape.