• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

US federal judge rules NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

You know this stuff pretty well. Why is it nonsense?
 
PhDeac said:
You know this stuff pretty well. Why is it nonsense?
Click to expand...

Apple refuted the assertion publicly and I have some friends who run development for Apple projects. It's just not technically feasible. I could absolutely take your phone, jailbreak it, note your mac address, add a remote ssh daemon, and download everything on your phone remotely. I've done it with my own phone and certainly hope the government can do it as well. However, if you suspected this was done to you, detecting it would be extremely simple for anyone with a moderate technical background. For developer types who are working on hashed and check summed versions of iOS software, receiving an iPhone that's been tampered with would be immediately obvious (and would explode on Reddit/Twitter).

Below the OS and Firmware, it might be difficult to determine if the NSA was somehow altering a piece of hardware that ends up in the iPhone, but it's pretty absurd to think they have somehow intercepted a chip and modified it based on modern manufacturing practices (not to mention the highly specific nature of smartphone technology).

The facts in the documents make sense - I'm sure the government pursued leveraging jailbreaks to access many types of devices, and certainly the most popular phone on the planet. Based on what I've heard and read, the rest is just sensationalism. Altering the manufacturing of iPhones or intercepting millions of them during shipping and bugging them, having instant remote access to everyone - most articles say things like that with a disclaimer that it "could" be or "might lead to" that stuff. Until there's an ounce of proof that's happening those assertions live in the nonsense world for me.
 
Again, it's without question that he hurt national security and national interests. It's been without question for quite some time.
 
"national security " needed to be "hurt" as the NSA was absolutely out of control. I am glad he was brave enough to do what he did (at a great personal cost)
 
:noidea: It's the truth. Whether it was worth it, who knows. We'll absolutely be feeling ripples from it in foreign policy and the proliferation of cybersecurity for years and years.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that him hurting national security and him doing what he thought was right in the face of some questionable tactics are mutually exclusive?

I guess I already know the answer to that.
 
House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers and his Democractic counterpart Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger published a press release today touting a classified Defense Department report alleging that Edward Snowden’s leaks—and by proxy, stories published by news organizations—threaten national security and “are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field.”

Before going any further, let’s remember what the Washington Post reported just two weeks ago about the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper:

Clapper has said repeatedly in public that the leaks did great damage, but in private he has taken a more nuanced stance. A review of early damage assessments in previous espionage cases, he said in one closed-door briefing this fall, found that dire forecasts of harm were seldom borne out.

Now go back and read the press release closely. No specific examples are given, and you will notice virtually every sentence includes the word “could”—meaning real damage hasn’t actually occurred, and they are just saying it potentially could happen. And of course, the actual report is secret, so the two Congressmen are able to say whatever they wish about it, and it can’t be independently verified. (Rep. Mike Rogers also has a long history of not telling the truth.)

We’ve seen this same scene over and over again in the past decade, and the results are always the same: the government serially exaggerates damage to national security in an attempt to make sure newsworthy stories are not published or to villify whistleblowers...



This is a tried and true tactic used by the US government made famous by Richard Nixon. Back in 1971, the Nixon administration told the US Supreme Court that if the New York Times continued to publish the Pentagon Papers it would result in “grave and immediate damage to the United States.” The man who made those arguments, Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, later wrote in the Washington Post, “I have never seen any trace of a threat to the national security from the publication" of the Pentagon Papers. He called on the public to be skeptical of “national security” claims made using secrecy...


Virtually any time newspapers print something the government doesn’t like, they will claim it hurts national security without providing any details or proof.
Click to expand...
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/01/intel-committee-published-fact-free-press-release-about-secret-damage-assessments-nsa
 
Last edited:
guys, it's only a threat to security if we can find a 100% verifiable instance where snowden-leaked info (most of which we can't/won't know) was used to harm US interests

otherwise it's just FEAR MONGERING
 
Yep. The consequences of Snowden's leaks of thousands of pages of documents = 100% unicorns and blowjobs, 0% repercussions.
 
"Snowden is a hero" and "Snowden's disclosures threaten national security" are not mutually exclusive statements.
 
"National security" is a threat that was threatened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top