Snowden Interview

[Sheilbh]

So I read Edward Lucas's e-book on Snowden. Very good for only 99p or $1.69:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Snowden-Operation-Greatest-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B00I0W61OY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392451395&sr=8-1&keywords=edward+lucas
I think it's worth reading if you've taken an interest in the story, regardless of which side you've been on in the arguments.

[Admiral Yi]

The latest news out on Snowden is that he accessed some of information that he wasn't allowed to by getting a coworker to log in to his computer.

[DGuller]

The latest news out on Snowden is that he accessed some of information that he wasn't allowed to by getting a coworker to log in to his computer.

Isn't that illegal?

[CountDeMoney]

Edward Snowden still thinks very well of Edward Snowden.

Snowden on Cyber Warfare: "We Really Started This Trend"
January 8, 2015, 11:33 am ET by Sarah Childress

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.

"The public still isn't aware of the frequency of these cyber attacks are being used by governments around the world," he said, adding that the U.S. "really started this trend in many ways."

Snowden spoke to journalist James Bamford in June for an upcoming NOVA film on cyber warfare. The whistleblower compared U.S. investment in online espionage to Jurassic Park — something we've built that could ultimately come back to bite us.

Classified documents obtained by Snowden showed that U.S. agencies have found and even created technical vulnerabilities that allow American agents to gather intelligence from phone calls, emails and other communications both in the U.S. and around the world.

But in making it easier for its agents to spy, Snowden says, the U.S. also makes American companies, and its citizens, more vulnerable to hacks. It sets a dangerous precedent for other governments to launch such attacks, he said. And the U.S. has much more to lose — in research, intelligence, and infrastructure — than other nations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/snowden-on-cyber-warfare-we-really-started-this-trend/

[OttoVonBismarck]

This guy is really not that bright. I'm not an IT person but I do have some managerial responsibility over IT procurement and I don't really think Snowden has the background to really be taken serious on this kind of thing. He was a sys admin (a job any monkey with basic training can do) who at best put together a few scripts to download a bunch of files off the NSA network to facilitate faster theft of  information. He's not a hacker, programmer, or anyone with any specialized IT knowledge. When you have legitimate access to a system through your job, downloading a bunch of files is something I could show my mom how to do, and some simple windows script to automate it is maybe a few hours of training for a literate person.

Cyber attacks were guaranteed the moment software systems were attached to important infrastructure. The benefits of doing that make it worthwhile, but actual hackers had been conducting profit or mayhem inspired attacks since the beginning of the Internet. The United States didn't invent the concept of doing it on a state scale anymore than it invented computers or electricity. If anything the U.S. has been significantly slower than the Chinese in developing a robust cyber attack capability. But because of inherent flaws in the security regime in all modern operating systems and software that relatively inexperienced kids in Eastern Europe can exploit this stuff is going to keep happening.

I don't know enough about the tech but I don't see that changing unless some paradigm-shifting technology comes out that significantly changes the stakes of the attacks. It's like check fraud, that's something that is inherent to using checks, and the only reason it decreased is because most people quit using checks for day to day purchases. Such frauds were essentially inherent to the paper check system and only moving to something entirely new could stop it.

[Brazen]

Still a douchebag.

 

[dps]

It's like check fraud, that's something that is inherent to using checks, and the only reason it decreased is because most people quit using checks for day to day purchases. Such frauds were essentially inherent to the paper check system and only moving to something entirely new could stop it.

Yeah, but you gotta be careful what you wish for.  Debit card fraud is probably a worse problem than check fraud.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In theory true debit cards are one of the safer methods out there. Meaning ones that can only function for debit transactions but not credit transactions, you don't see them nearly as much now (I know my bank if you push them enough they'll give you one, but they really want you to take their Visa branded card instead), but since they cannot be used for card not present credit transactions the only way to get money out of one is to have the physical card and the PIN code. The "Check Card" is a lot less protected since it can be used for card-not-present transactions, all someone needs is the base information on the card (which they can intercept in various physical and software means) and they can use it to buy stuff.

I think the consumer protections for both checks and debit cards is pretty robust, so for the end consumer it's almost a push really. For merchants though the cost of check fraud is a lot higher than debit. Checks tend to be used fraudulently for much larger amounts, the average check fraud is for >$1000 versus around $100 for debit fraud.

[Martinus]

Most debit cards are pay pass these days and these do not require a PIN code for smaller amounts.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Most debit cards are pay pass these days and these do not require a PIN code for smaller amounts.

In the U.S. if you run it as a debit transaction you have to use a PIN, it goes through the ATM network and simply won't work without one. If you run a credit transaction, or "signature debit", it's processed through a credit payment network (Visa/Mastercard, I don't believe Discover or Amex operate bank debit cards but could be wrong), but if it's a pure debit card it doesn't have access to those networks so cannot be ran as credit.

[Ideologue]

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.

And all without bombers.  Truly, this is the future.

[dps]

I've been told that there are Discover debit cards, but I kind of doubt the accuracy of that, because I've never seen one.

[mongers]

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.

And all without bombers.  Truly, this is the future.

Coffee tins, silver dollars, a spade and plenty of toilet paper.