7 ms·

Anything that's shipped from the US, basically. From the slides released with Greenwald's new book today: https://i.imgur.com/lCM0apx.png https://i.imgur.com/lC

Anything that's shipped from the US, basically. From the slides released with Greenwald's new book today: https://i.imgur.com/lCM0apx.png https://i.imgur.com/lCM0apx.png Here's the source, but be warned that this is a 90 MB pdf: http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Uncompressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl...

csandreasen 12y ago
I get the feeling that if every router was being intercepted, that picture would look more like a giant series of assembly lines rather than three people casually sitting around a Cisco box.
- intslack 12y ago
  Guess I should've been clearer: any equipment they're interested in that ships from the US is at risk. They don't need to go after all equipment. They only need to go after equipment being shipped to backbone providers abroad, and specific targets they are interested in that are "tough to crack." Further, if one believes that TAO is limiting themselves to terrorists buying Cisco equipment, I have a bridge to sell you. That's absurd considering they produly boast about their economic espionage, their spying on activists such as Wikileaks supporters and other "radicals," and their partners bragging about how they DDoS IRC chat rooms of hacktivists. One example: http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting/ http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-wa... All of this is summarized in Greenwald's new book.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    I don't expect them to be limiting themselves to terrorists - they're a foreign intelligence agency. I expect them to be gathering info on foreign governments, militaries, etc. (along with spying on terrorists). I've written about the NSA porno article before, so I'll just post the link to that thread[1]. The TLDR is that Greenwald seems to have left a good deal out of his reporting in order to both sensationalize and avoid discrediting his own argument. I haven't read his new book; maybe he addresses it in there. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885325
    - intslack 12y ago
      No, but that's their justification the vast majority of the time. They don't limit it to foreign governments or militaries either. They do engage in economic espionage, fact. They do single out anyone they don't like which isn't limited to terrorists in these campaigns: "radicals", among them Wikileaks supports, fact. Stewart Baker has discredited himself[1], his opinion is worth jack shit frankly. I wouldn't trust anything he says, not only because he was behind many of these programs as council but also because of Eben Moglen's interactions with him during the almost-prosecution of Phil Zimmerman, and suggest you do the same. That the documents are 'sensationalized' is the favorite refuge of NSA goons: when Keith Alexander's comment about collecting it all became public, SEXINT, PRISM, etc. He talks about all of those and leaves no doubt that this characterization is horse shit after the third chapter. [1] http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2014/04/hiding-in-plain-sight-evidence-that-nsa-isnt-wrecking-internet-security.html http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2014/04/hid...
      - csandreasen 12y ago
        Wow, thanks for accusing me of being an NSA goon. For the record, I said the reporting was sensationalized, not the documents. On the economic espionage front, I really don't care if the NSA spies in order to shape national policy. Things get a lot murkier when intelligence agencies spy and then hand off that data off to private companies. Huawei was caught red-handed using stolen source code from Cisco[1]. Cisco probably lost millions because Huawei was able to undercut them and skimp on R&D costs. Frankly, I don't want any foreign companies willing to steal trade secrets managing the same internet backbones I conduct business on, just like China probably doesn't want their internet backbones running on American equipment. If there is evidence that the NSA has been handing Huawei source code to Cisco, or any kind of data to any private organization for that matter, in order to gain a competitive advantage, then Greenwald has yet to show it. You can consider Stewart Baker's opinion to be worth jack shit, but apparently Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher and Ryan Grim thought his opinion was good enough to quote extensively for the SEXINT article that they wrote. But that's not even the point - they could have been quoting Glenn Beck for all I care. The issue is that they quoted him very selectively in order to not discredit their argument. That wasn't even the first time: right off the bat they omitted slides from the PRISM presentation in order to make the argument that the NSA had direct access to Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc.[2] I can see in the PDF file for Greenwald's book that he still extensively cites the Boundless Informant slides, despite the fact that they've been thoroughly discredited[3]. I'm honestly curious - did he mention that part in the book? The Washington Post silently corrected their initial reporting without issuing a public statement[4][5], and as far I know Glenn Greenwald has never issued any retractions. I'm sure that there's probably plenty of interesting information in the Snowden cache, but I don't trust most of the reporting up until now. [1] http://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record/ http://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-co... [2] https://medium.com/state-of-play/8ebc878074ce https://medium.com/state-of-play/8ebc878074ce [3] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInformant http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInfo... [4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washingt... [5] http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/ http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-pr...

csandreasen 12y ago

I get the feeling that if every router was being intercepted, that picture would look more like a giant series of assembly lines rather than three people casually sitting around a Cisco box.

intslack 12y ago
Guess I should've been clearer: any equipment they're interested in that ships from the US is at risk. They don't need to go after all equipment. They only need to go after equipment being shipped to backbone providers abroad, and specific targets they are interested in that are "tough to crack." Further, if one believes that TAO is limiting themselves to terrorists buying Cisco equipment, I have a bridge to sell you. That's absurd considering they produly boast about their economic espionage, their spying on activists such as Wikileaks supporters and other "radicals," and their partners bragging about how they DDoS IRC chat rooms of hacktivists. One example: http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting/ http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-wa... All of this is summarized in Greenwald's new book.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  I don't expect them to be limiting themselves to terrorists - they're a foreign intelligence agency. I expect them to be gathering info on foreign governments, militaries, etc. (along with spying on terrorists). I've written about the NSA porno article before, so I'll just post the link to that thread[1]. The TLDR is that Greenwald seems to have left a good deal out of his reporting in order to both sensationalize and avoid discrediting his own argument. I haven't read his new book; maybe he addresses it in there. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885325
  - intslack 12y ago
    No, but that's their justification the vast majority of the time. They don't limit it to foreign governments or militaries either. They do engage in economic espionage, fact. They do single out anyone they don't like which isn't limited to terrorists in these campaigns: "radicals", among them Wikileaks supports, fact. Stewart Baker has discredited himself[1], his opinion is worth jack shit frankly. I wouldn't trust anything he says, not only because he was behind many of these programs as council but also because of Eben Moglen's interactions with him during the almost-prosecution of Phil Zimmerman, and suggest you do the same. That the documents are 'sensationalized' is the favorite refuge of NSA goons: when Keith Alexander's comment about collecting it all became public, SEXINT, PRISM, etc. He talks about all of those and leaves no doubt that this characterization is horse shit after the third chapter. [1] http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2014/04/hiding-in-plain-sight-evidence-that-nsa-isnt-wrecking-internet-security.html http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2014/04/hid...
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      Wow, thanks for accusing me of being an NSA goon. For the record, I said the reporting was sensationalized, not the documents. On the economic espionage front, I really don't care if the NSA spies in order to shape national policy. Things get a lot murkier when intelligence agencies spy and then hand off that data off to private companies. Huawei was caught red-handed using stolen source code from Cisco[1]. Cisco probably lost millions because Huawei was able to undercut them and skimp on R&D costs. Frankly, I don't want any foreign companies willing to steal trade secrets managing the same internet backbones I conduct business on, just like China probably doesn't want their internet backbones running on American equipment. If there is evidence that the NSA has been handing Huawei source code to Cisco, or any kind of data to any private organization for that matter, in order to gain a competitive advantage, then Greenwald has yet to show it. You can consider Stewart Baker's opinion to be worth jack shit, but apparently Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher and Ryan Grim thought his opinion was good enough to quote extensively for the SEXINT article that they wrote. But that's not even the point - they could have been quoting Glenn Beck for all I care. The issue is that they quoted him very selectively in order to not discredit their argument. That wasn't even the first time: right off the bat they omitted slides from the PRISM presentation in order to make the argument that the NSA had direct access to Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc.[2] I can see in the PDF file for Greenwald's book that he still extensively cites the Boundless Informant slides, despite the fact that they've been thoroughly discredited[3]. I'm honestly curious - did he mention that part in the book? The Washington Post silently corrected their initial reporting without issuing a public statement[4][5], and as far I know Glenn Greenwald has never issued any retractions. I'm sure that there's probably plenty of interesting information in the Snowden cache, but I don't trust most of the reporting up until now. [1] http://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record/ http://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-co... [2] https://medium.com/state-of-play/8ebc878074ce https://medium.com/state-of-play/8ebc878074ce [3] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInformant http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInfo... [4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washingt... [5] http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/ http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-pr...