Here’s the e-mail trick Petraeus and Broadwell used to communicate | Hacker News Reader

Here’s the e-mail trick Petraeus and Broadwell used to communicate

washingtonpost.com

52 pointsdanso52 comments

So to make this a little more HN-y, there exists the possibility that two users were just using software in a counterintuitive and unplanned for fashion for whatever reason makes sense to them as users. It happens all the time.

Ask me how many shopping lists are in Bingo Card Creator ("I like it because I can write them at school and then pull them up on my iPhone!") or about Appointment Reminder users who use the appointment schedule as I-can't-believe-its-not-Google-Calendar in between their actual appointments. (Quick SQL suggests there are over sixty AR customers who have no-contact-info-included calendar entries which don't appear to represent actual people/appointments, like "class", "doctor", "soccer practice", etc.)

Or more broadly, have you ever seen:

+ Wordpress drafts used as a company internal knowledgebase?

+ TI calculator programs used as notepads?

+ Video games used as photo sharing communities? (Long story short: it is called Flickr.)

etc, etc, etc

I have a little paste bin clone running on the web for my family and friends to use (testing it before release as OSS). It allows for file uploads, and text/link storage. One day noticed someone was linking from one paste to another. Strange. Why would anyone save a link they have access to? Turns out they did not have access to Powerpoint and were using the program as an online presentation tool. It was quite clever. They would upload a file, writhe the caption under it in the comments box, then insert the link for the next item in the presentation. I would have never guessed someone could use it for such a thing. Went ahead and asked them about it, and they said the loved that feature... :)

You would have thought that they guy leading the freaking CIA would have a little more insight to how stupid-easy it would be to get that information out of Google, since they likely do it so regularly[1] in their terrorist hunts.

Further, you'd think he would be versed in better technologies (like encryption and/or anonymous services). What makes it hard to follow up on terrorists? Do that.

He obviously thought hiding things was important, so I can't fathom why he didn't take the security seriously.

1. Or maybe it shows they don't interact much with the like of Google, but I doubt it.

He obviously thought obscuring things somewhat was important.

There are always extra step we can take to be more secure. We tend to hold back because security is extra effort and our best measures are rarely worth the hassle when compared with the consequences of disclosure.

Presumably he did not expect that there would be an FBI probe, and so didn't see a need to go through more hassle.

I have not followed this story but I guess he was hiding from wife not from security services. Actually I'm not even sure how entering private life is justified in this situation. I can imagine speculations about leaking sensitive information and etc. but you need proof for that. I'm not saying that his private behaviour is good and I understand that as public influential person he basically does not have private life but that just shows that security services has nothing better to do...

It's a security breach in that it opens him up to blackmail.

OK. I agree. Still why should it be public? Private meeting between him and security service would be more than enough IMHO.

The FBI agent who initiated the investigation leaked it to Congressional Republicans, which probably led to it making its way to the press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/ho...

> That agent’s role in the case consisted simply of passing along information from Kelley to the FBI agents who conducted the investigation, but that agent was subsequently told by his superiors to steer clear of the case because they grew concerned that the agent had become obsessed with the investigation, the official said. The agent was a friend of Kelley and long before the case involving Petraeus got under way, the agent had sent Kelley shirtless photos of himself, according to this official.

But by the very nature of making it public it's no longer vulnerable to blackmail. The problem as such lasts for a very brief time, and now it's gone. There's no more problem, and no more need to shame him (beyond the people actually involved, that is), and no longer any security threat.

...but it could have been used, and he created the situation which made that possible - exhibiting a lack of judgement - not an ideal attribute for the head of the CIA.

I don't think it's punishment, it's a deterrent. The point isn't whether the government knows it. The wife didn't know it. The blackmail wouldn't be "we'll tell the government you're having an affair", it's "we'll tell your wife".

It's only "no longer any security threat" because he got caught. The punishment is to dissuade anyone else from having an affair, which a foreign government could use to make their lives difficult by telling their spouse.

"But by the very nature of making it public it's no longer vulnerable to blackmail"

Too little, too late.

It's complicated by the fact he is a military officer. Adultery especially by officers is seen as unbecoming conduct and a threat to military discipline.

He isn't a military officer anymore. He resigned from the army to become head of the CIA. If he were still in the army he would be facing charges.

That is correct and thank you as I was being unclear. I was intending to reply only to the question of why this is a matter for public comment; I do not believe given the information so far presented that he acted illegally. I'm not even convinced there was any real basis for resignation if he still had the respect of his peers and the confidence of the President.

Still, in my view, and I think in the view of many others, "flag" officers never really retire. And as such his behavior in this matter brings disgrace to the service and uniform. For me, it is just another recent example that really calls into question the ethics of an entire generation of our military. Patraeus, Ward, Sinclair, Allen, McChrystal, the list goes on and on.

His lover has been found with confidential information. It is possible he may have leaked sensitive information.

In the bottom right of your Gmail settings:

  Last account activity: 48 minutes ago
  Details

Yeeeep. Real secure. One peek gives you every IP address involved. Well, you can get around it with TOR, but that has its own problems.

Wow, never saw that! Thanks! :).

They're pretty good about notifying you if someone signs on from a significantly different IP address. I've had it pop up after most flights to new locations - my next visit back home (or after some time) will ask me if visit X was me, and tell me to change my password if it wasn't.

> Well, you can get around it with TOR, but that has its own problems.

I'm curious. What are the problems with TOR?

People who control the exit nodes could potentially see all your traffic.

Large intelligence agencies may have lots of honeypot tor nodes, you might get one of them

This is largely a theoretical argument that we hackers like to bring up as a way to dismis the tor network.

The truth that we all learned after the lulsec debacle was that the FBI will resort to much simpler and more effective low-tech procedures to spy on their prey.

There are some problems with TOR (Some have solution):

1. Someone with enough resources can create and add to the network enough servers, especially entrance and exit nodes, to effectively nullify the TOR router.

2. Some web tools can have side channel attacks that break out of TOR and use the internet to get a specific resource.

3. Another popular side channel attack is fingerprinting the browser, best demonstrated by the EFF here: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

4. TOR itself might have a bug or a backdoor, although this is getting a bit into the realm of conspiracy.

This is of the top of my head, but I'm sure I missed some.

My main reason: actively and repeatedly using TOR when you're a relatively high-profile military person will likely raise eyebrows, maybe even focused effort to figure out why. There are many ways to get information out of computers - taking over their account and checking their activity is probably one of the harder ones.

Other than that, you have to be very careful to use it correctly without revealing who you are, and all TOR would do in this case is (essentially) randomize your IP address. If e.g. you're consistent with using TOR for gmail and there's a time that doesn't correspond to your TOR activity, it's basically a guarantee that someone else accesses the account, though you haven't found out who.

I guess I am unclear why their affair would warent Petraeus's resignation. People have affairs. Was there a significant conflict of interest regarding their affair? If not, I don't understand how this is news worthy?

Secret affairs, or any other secret potentially embarrassing personal or sexual traits, are easy fodder for blackmail. People are irrational when it comes to such things.

Anyone in such a position needs to basically have no personal secrets that would cause major harm if revealed.

Looks like he doesn't anymore.

    Days after Petraeus' resignation stunned Washington,
    information continues to emerge. Among other things, a
    video has surfaced of a speech by Petraeus' paramour in
    which she suggested the Libya attack was targeting a
    secret prison at the Benghazi consulate annex, raising
    unverified concerns about possible security leaks.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/us/petraeus-cia-resignation/in...

The affair by itself should've had no impact. In fact, you can find tons of articles from today that talk about how Petraeus had every intention of staying on the job. However, once you get into the realm of 'what classified information did he spill in pillow talk?', then resignation seems like the least he should have to do.

Broadwell is lawyering up[1], and I bet that Petraeus does the same in the next days or weeks. There are going to be some serious criminal liability issues over improperly disclosed national security information.

[1] http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/paula_broadwell_lawye...

> However, once you get into the realm of 'what classified information did he spill in pillow talk?', then resignation seems like the least he should have to do

Then should we keep intelligence folk from ever dating or marrying anyone ever? I don't see how this is any different

Don't bother. This another example of Americans behaving like overgrown children.

Date/marry within the "family", which is apparently NSA's solution (it's not really official policy, but tends to happen).

If you look at the history of espionage going back n thousand years you'll see plenty of cases where people have been blackmailed, extorted, or otherwise compromised through illicit romantic affairs.

It may not be such a big deal if you're a four-star general but it's a very big deal in the intelligence community. If this sort of thing was tolerated at the top level of the CIA, the agency would have no moral authority to enforce the rules among the rank-and-file cloak-and-dagger types.

OTOH if he had reported the affair(s) in question as he was supposed to do, there might have been some room for negotiation. It's not so much the affair, but the cover-up.

Not really thousand years, not many (any?) historical cases where extramarital affair was a cause for blackmail or extortion.

One interesting case in US history involved an affair of Alexander Hamilton. It resulted in not only a lot of extorted money, but legal and political intrigue as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton-Reynolds_sex_scandal

Maybe it's something specific to the US history.

Not really, the UK during the Cold War had an ongoing problem with homosexual affairs in the Intelligence community (and the Soviet Bloc would even actively exploit this with agents who would seduce suspected or known homosexual employees) - particularly an issue given the time frame and location - many such people were ostensibly happily married, with children, and faced social and professional ostracization, even beyond legal and other threats aimed at them as a result.

well, my point is the past 2 centuries != N thousands of years.

I think it's been said that having an affair is expressly prohibited in his line of work (given the factors laid out by others here).

He broke a really big rule. When you're in such a high position, you don't get to break big rules and then get off scott-free; rather, you will either be dismissed in a dishonorable fashion, or you can resign and save a little bit of that honor.

If he had tried to ride it out, it would've created an even greater distraction in the news, drawing even more unwanted attention onto his office and that of his superior, and superiors don't like negative attention. After all of that, he _still_ would have been let go. Get out early and save face.

I'm pretty sure a certain president was impeached for similar issues...

[tangential] I don't know, this whole story just keeps reminding me of the ending of Burn After Reading... Keep imagining the CIA director as J.K. Simmons... http://youtu.be/46h7oP9eiBk "So what did we learn?"

It's even more funny to re-watch Burn After Reading after having played Portal 2, as J.K. Simmons voiced the character Cave Johnson.

Seems like it would have be safer and harder to detect if they used a private pastebin or some similar obscure scratchpad service.

That is essentially what they are doing, except in something that is somewhat easier to link to their identity.

Perhaps:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Anonymous-PasteBin-AnonPaste-Peo...

Though that might raise some eyebrows.

I don't quite see the point of this article.

So, someone had an affair and used GMail drafts for sexting / communicating with his lover?

How on earth can you insert the word 'terrorist' into that already borderline 'And the prince of ... has an new girlfriend' level article? [1] Really, what's the connection? Terrorists might use that as well? They eat bread as well, I guess. And maybe ride a bike from time to time.

1: I agree that it might be (?) interesting if the head of the CIA is potentially making himself vulnerable to blackmail, or if he's sharing secret stuff with his lover-at-that-time. But the article is low on anything of value?

Security through obscurity never worked.

Baffling that an CIA man does not know this.

> Security through obscurity never worked.

It works all the time for people having affairs. You're typically hiding from your spouse, not the CIA/FBI.

"It works all the time for people having affairs"

It rarely works ~well~ considering all the times that they're caught due to the extreme amount of suspicion their actions generate.

Plenty of people sustain lengthy affairs without being caught by their spouses.

Depends on how you define "works", certainly. People are rarely as clever as they think they are.

It works a lot less for the head of an intelligence agency, a political appointee, during an election season.

Even then, the set of circumstances it took for this to be revealed was quite the bizarre one. A socialite who's flirting with another general, a jealous reporter who's sleeping with the subject of her book, an FBI agent who wants to sleep with the socialite...

>Security through obscurity never worked.

In order to know this for a fact you would need to know all the instances it was tried, and that every single one of them failed.

Somehow I doubt you know that, and are just repeating an operating system platitude as if it applies everywhere.

So whats the big deal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com