Snowden Doubts in NSA InvestigationAdded: Saturday, August 16th, 2014
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extratorrent.cc, 2014
Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor, provided previously unreported allegations of NSA cyberattack instruments, including a piece of software codenamed MonsterMind, which would automate a hostile response when detecting a network intrusion. In addition, Snowden also alleged that a 2012 incident, which took Syria’s web offline, was also the fault of the National Security Agency.
Snowden claimed that he actually left detectable digital traces of his theft of documents from the technically sophisticated agency, allowing it to know precisely what he took. However, for some reason, making a specific determination of the extent of the data breach has escaped the NSA, and the agency has made vast and dire claims about the damage Edward caused.
During its digital forensics investigation into the Snowden disclosures, the NSA claimed that it “wouldn’t dispute” that Edward took with him from the NSA 1.7m documents, although this is actually the number of documents that Edward was able to access, not what he actually took. So, if Edward’s allegation is true, it raises questions about the technical expertise and competence of the NSA investigation. Moreover, this would also call into question assurances that the NSA has implemented robust post technical defenses to forestall another mass leak of secret data.
When Snowden received asylum in Russia after his plans for asylum in Latin America were blocked by US government officials, he thought the NSA would have a hard time, but he didn’t figure they would be completely incapable.
Earlier this year, the Defense Intelligence Agency admitted that the intelligence community’s understanding of how much Snowden stole was a blanket assessment rather than verified fact. Such assessment provided National Security Agency with a basis for publicly alleging that Edward had done widespread damage to American intelligence efforts worldwide, endangered the national military personnel and prompted terrorist organizations to harden their cyber defenses. However, the authorities failed to provide public evidence for any of those assertions.
Snowden also told about previously unknown NSA efforts concerning cyberattacks: the MonsterMind software, for instance, is a digital instrument that can detect the beginnings of a hostile cyber incursion and automate a hostile response.
Another allegation was about the elite NSA hacking unit, Tailored Access Operations, which accidentally cut off Syria’s Internet access two years ago, when trying to install an exploit in the hardware of an unnamed service provider which would have provided the US with mass access to internet usage.
August 16th,2014Posted by:
Saturday, August 16th, 2014
|Quote:During its digital forensics investigation into the Snowden disclosures, the NSA claimed that it “wouldn’t dispute” that Edward took with him from the NSA 1.7m documents, although this is actually the number of documents that Edward was able to access, not what he actually took. So, if Edward’s allegation is true, it raises questions about the technical expertise and competence of the NSA investigation.|
They really do not have to justify every file he had access to publicly merely the potential threat he poses as a spy for foreign nationals which scaremongers everyone into not aiding him further,what I don`t think they expected was that he would get immediate asylum from Russia no doubt due to their claims of the amount of information he had which would be a great incentive for any foriegn power with opposing ideologies.
|Intel agencies are not in the business to be honest so anything they say is suspect.|
|Never Say Anything. The truth is so valuable it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies...|
|Various hypotheses are advanced to explain this. The organization needs to move screw ups out of positions where they do actual work, for fear they will screw up again. The organization wants to forestall investigations into the incident by displaying official approval of the result. The organization is rewarding the person who took the fall for the screw up, because the people who ordered it are higher up the chain. Which should we suspect is operating here?||
Most Popular Stories