That's crap, anyone paying attention knew that modern communications have been compromised by various governments over a decade ago, if not longer. The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place. Nothing Snowden released changes the fact that only stupid people communicate over third party services when they are trying to keep secrets. It would be like the US military issuing unencrypted cell phones to troops on the front-line.
Even if the higher echelons are better at security the shock troops (disposable) are not always so.
And to reverse what the IRA said the NSA/GCHQ "only have to be lucky once you have to be lucky always" - BP would not have broken tunny if a bored/lazy wireless operator had not broken the rules and screwed up a message.
Just because you don't understand doesn't make it wrong. I agree that dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents, in fact I would say the dumb ones are the most dangerous because they are rather difficult to identify beforehand; regardless of spying capabilities our government has.
But none of this has anything to do with my disagreement with the top comment in that all of the world's terrorists suddenly stopped using Verizon to discuss their dastardly plans just because of Snowden.
Apologies, I misread your comment. I've seen a lot of people trot out "well the smart terrorists already knew this" line in defense of these leaks purportedly having harmed national security, that it's proof that these leaks could not have harmed national security.
(which then is a bit ironic to claim that these leaks are not dangerous because terrorists already knew this, but that these leaks are important for civil liberties because apparently Americans did not know this)
First off, I don't necessarily feel apologies is warranted for this discussion.
Yes, I find that defense somewhat questionable in some terms because I do believe the leaks do in fact harm national security. The problem is that it seems that these programs are dangerously close to crossing the line of leading into a surveillance state and that the reason it may have crossed that line is because the people who have the responsibility to reign such things in have apparently failed to do so.
Therefore, yes, national security was harmed but I'm willing to sacrifice that somewhat to make sure our liberties are still intact. I don't feel the need to trade liberties for security if that security is essentially making the populace prisoners to the state for "their own safety".
I also enjoy seeing the contradictions such as you describe. The reports are full of "but" moments that no one seems to be addressing. The media is a big fail on all this.
Stupid terrorists are like stupid bomb makers. A self solving problem. If they didn't use encrypted communication before I can't imagine they will start now.
being smart doesn't preclude you from having someone stupid in your ranks. This applies to anyone trying to hide their activities. And im glad you're so sure about the comsec of all terrorist/spies/criminals.. totally separate, stand-alone communications networks, end-to-end encrypted, one-time pads, etc. why do anything at all? why? because its a ludicrous assertion and you know it. This goes to the point of the top comment.
Sure, there are stupid people in their ranks. That's why you have need-to-know rules for those people. If they get caught then only the things they know can be compromised. Such people are easily replaced. Why do you think such things go on forever? It's because the authorities are in a never-ending battle of dealing with underlings that know very little. It's the same principle with police dealing with organized crime or drug cartels. Most of the time the reason they can break up such a group is by getting someone on the inside that can get the info they need.
I don't believe I said that terrorist organizations were building their own "totally separate, stand-alone communications networks, end-to-end encrypted, one-time pads". I said they are most likely not using an unsecured third party service. I fail to understand why people cannot comprehend the idea that a small group of people need not use fancy technology to communicate to each other. They can simply meet.
I don't agree that it's a ludicrous assertion simply because I was arguing against the point of the top comment; that all the world's terrorists have suddenly dropped off easily compromised communications specifically because of Snowden. My assertion is that the top of the chain in the organizations have not used such communications for years and I fail to see how that is ludicrous.
Everything you say is valid. And I'm glad that you specify "top of the chain" as it is less likely than some mope at the bottom.
But that's my point. it is these lower level people, maybe even up to mid level which are the weak links. Analysis and targeting, it's what led folks to UBL in the end.
There is nothing more damaging, in my opinion, than confirming your abilities, or lack thereof, to an adversary. That's why things are classified, there is strength in secrecy.
I guess I should have specified that I meant the smart ones were at the top, I assumed an understanding of this in there somewhere. My bad.
I agree, the weak links are almost always at bottom of the chain. Sometimes you can get a middle guy that's working his way up but that's luck. In the end, these things are done by getting someone to give someone else up in terms of turning or gathering info. So far from what I've read, I see no indication that the programs in discussion would actually have helped in the matters they cover. I'm sure it helps identify some of the lower links of the chain but all that does is point the way to people to use the traditional methods on.
The way I look at it is that the police could put a tap on every phone in the city but I seriously doubt that would help them arrest the local crime boss. It would point the way to find people to lean on to get the information you need to pursue him, but I doubt you'd get real evidence that way. You'd probably have to end up planting bugs to overhear conversations in private homes and businesses. In that case tapping everybody's phone is probably not needed as you could simply ask the cop that's been on the beat for twenty years who they should be looking at as the low-level flunkies and he could probably name ten of them of the top of his head.
I also agree that the leak of such programs most likely harmed national security in some way. As you say, there's a reason to keep things secret. The thing is, for programs like this there is supposed to be oversight and so far it appears that oversight has failed. To me, the biggest issue isn't that the existence of such programs were confirmed, it was that they existed to the extent that they do without apparently any real oversight. If we've lost a bit of security then I'm fine with that if it means our liberties are intact, or in some cases we're now finding about, if it means our liberties are restored.
The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place.
I think the OP's point that it may have sent them off the grid with paranoia is valid. The weird thing is many of these folks have semi-normal lives. They might be using secure communications to talk about blowing something up but they also have their day to day lives of sending totally irrelevant e-mails to friends and family that perhaps were not secured. We already knew the CIA has used intercepted e-mail recipient lists to build social graphs of the fringes of these organizations. Identifying who is 2-3 steps removed from these organizations actually does have value especially to identify funding and support networks.
