Snowden Interview with Jacob Applebaum

I think Snowden et al made a mistake with the PR, with regard to what they released first.<p>The &quot;PRISM&quot; stuff, the stuff with specific internet app&#x2F;service providers, is actually the _least_ troublesome. (And the closest to legal&#x2F;constitutional, with FISA orders involved and all.)<p>MUCH more troublesome, but receiving MUCH less media attention (such that I don&#x27;t even know the special program names, they are not &#x27;prism&#x27;):<p>* They are recording <i>everything that goes over the internet</i>, by tapping in at major backbones, undersea cables, etc.<p>* They deploy RAT malware to take over and observe targetted person&#x27;s computer. (Have we been given evidence by Snowden that they do this inside the US and&#x2F;or to US citizens? I am not certain. Do they get FISA orders&#x2F;warrants first? I am not sure. Have we gotten info released on the RAT stuff yet? This interview is the first <i>I&#x27;ve</i> heard of it, in fact.)<p>Both of these are WAY more alarming, more significant invasions of privacy, less likely to be legal&#x2F;constitutional, than PRISM. But PRISM&#x27;s getting all the attention.<p>I wonder if this was in fact part of NSA&#x2F;government counter-PR, to make sure PRISM gets the attention and people get burnt out on the story before they get to the REALLY disturbing stuff.

He has a nice idea about a prospective path of resistance:<p>&quot;The [telcom] companies should write enforceable clauses into their terms, guaranteeing their clients that they are not being spied on. And they should include technical guarantees. If you could move even a single company to do such a thing, it would improve the security of global communications. And when this appears to not be feasible, you should consider starting one such company yourself.&quot;<p>Google and Facebook don&#x27;t seem to care, but the people here can create the kinds of companies that do. Let the PRISM collaborators starve of a talent storage.

More of this Hollywood movie plot version of network security:<p>&gt; The analyst can then decide what he wants to do - the computer of the target person does not belong to them anymore, it then more or less belongs to the U.S. government.<p>This is kind of like when he said:<p>&gt; You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine.<p>Software types reading this stuff know that this is not how computer networks generally work. Maybe it is a dumbed-down reference to some sort of government malware. If so I would like to see more technical precision from Snowden before I can say that he has any chance of knowing what he&#x27;s talking about.

Some of this seems odd to me. Snowden appears very intelligent and credible, but how would he have been in a position to know who wrote Stuxnet?

<i>Question: What happens if the NSA has a user in its sights?<p>Snowden: The target person is completely monitored. An analyst will get a daily report about what has changed in the computer system of the targeted person. There will also be... packages with certain data which the automatic analysis systems have not understood, and so on. The analyst can then decide what he wants to do - the computer of the target person does not belong to them anymore, it then more or less belongs to the U.S. government.</i><p>I wonder if regularly wiping and reinstalling your operating system has any effect on the aforementioned computer compromising by government&#x2F;criminal elements?<p>Obviously, an open source OS is a better choice than some closed, proprietary, OS, but I seem to remember some controversy about BSD developers being approached by government agents for the purpose of coding a backdoor into the systems which they were working on.<p>Just how secure is my unix-like OS?

This information is illuminating, albeit not too surprising. But with all these releases, Snowden&#x27;s chance of securing whistleblower protection on constitutional grounds is completely shot. There could be a legitimate discussion about tapping US companies, or constitutionality of the information dragnet on Americans [1]. He could have had a fighting chance if the leak were confined to just those.<p>That&#x27;s not going to happen anymore, because now everybody is distracted by sensational asides: we&#x27;re hacking everybody, we&#x27;re behind Stuxnet, we&#x27;re in cahoots with the Europeans, etc etc etc. Snowden is allowing the spotlight to remain fixed on him; this whole thing is perfect fodder for the media -- an individual on the run, Hollywood-style hacking plots, and predictable Internet outrage. All while the constitutionality issue gets swept under the rug (see Congress). What&#x27;s more, Snowden will probably lose the battle of public (and legal) opinion because these foreign operations are arguably justifiable [2], and the leaks weaken the US bargaining position with other countries.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what the goal of this leak is anymore. Snowden is completely fucking himself over while diverting public attention from issues that have the best odds of an immediate fix -- the surveillance of Americans. This whole thing is a bitter popcorn-fest.<p>William Binney said this during the USA Today interview [3] a few weeks ago:<p>I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn&#x27;t a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that&#x27;s kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That&#x27;s getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason.<p>[1] Sorry, non-Americans: the Constitution doesn&#x27;t cover you guys. But we need to protect ourselves from our own laws first before we can help the rest of the world.<p>[2] If you think the US is the only one doing this, or if the world should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya: get a clue.<p>[3] <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usatoday.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;16&#x2F;snowd...</a>

I&#x27;m still conflicted over these Snowden revelations. On the one hand, it is (of course) an egregious (and probably illegal) breach of privacy.<p>On the other hand, I think it&#x27;s incredibly naive to believe that, once a technology exists, it won&#x27;t be aggressively used to further the interests of nation-states and multinational corporations alike.<p>What makes you think for a second that China and Russia aren&#x27;t using (or at least in the process of building) the same sorts of systems?

If the NSA saves all my stuff, then why do I need my own backups? Forget Dropbox, just give me access to my stuff at NSA. This is a service I&#x27;m already paying for.

He should start signing all his messages