373
submitted 9 months ago by ZeroCool@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] snownyte@kbin.social 72 points 9 months ago

Should've done what Snowden did. If you know what you're going to do, will lead to these consequences? Get the hell out of the country.

Because this is EXACTLY the kind of thing the American Government would've done to Snowden if he stayed. Snowden was right that he knew they wouldn't give him a fair trial.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 27 points 9 months ago

Eh, even if he did get a fair trial, what he did was clearly illegal and was definitely going to land him in prison. It was the right thing to do, but unless you have full faith that you're going to get a presidential pardon, you're right that you should be prepared to leave the country and never come back.

[-] Radicaldog@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

Whistleblower laws need strengthening. Snowden's leaks, for example, were clearly in the public interest and needed to be leaked. It's an unjust country that can't see that and spare him.

[-] mydude@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

When you're going against the permanent state, there's no such thing as a fair trial.

[-] GuidoMancipioni@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Bro, Snowden literally got people killed. That guy isn't the hero people like to pretend he is.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 30 points 9 months ago

What people did he get killed?

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

It's been a minute since I've refreshed myself on the Snowden story, and I don't have time to go deep into that rabbit hole again, but if memory serves I believe he released non-redacted documents that exposed the positions/identities of deployed US assets, and some who were operating undercover had their identities blown.

[-] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 67 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

He gave it to specific journalists with proven track records who concluded that the published info was in the public interest while running it by the government and redacting confidential identifying data.

You can't get more responsible than that.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 39 points 9 months ago

You remember the government claiming it, but as far as I know they never released any actual statements that his leaks killed anyone.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/438jmw/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N1BR287/

Both of these are pretty typical of all the articles I have seen, which is the government claiming he did great harm, but no actual examples of getting anyone killed.

[-] GuidoMancipioni@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That's because they were spies. Spies aren't typically talked about. SOME of the programs he detailed in those releases were within the scope of what he was trying to expose, but many were not. He dumped THOUSANDS of documents related to humint sources that absolutely got people killed, burned other active contacts / projects and cost years worth of work. There was a huge shuffle of personnel after those leaks as intelligence agencies TRIED to get their people out, but there were a great number who couldn't get out. Andrew Bustamante speaks about this, at some length, to just name the most well known talking head.

The majority of what he exposed had nothing to do with domestic surveillance programs, and the way he exposed that information was WILDLY irresponsible.

Yes, the illegal surveillance he exposed was a big deal, but again, was done in a really shitty way that compromised active investigations. He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections. Dude was an actual shit bag and a Russian asset.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections.

I'm not going to pretend he wasn't reckless as fuck but don't pretend for even a moment that "going through the proper channels" would have gotten him anything that even halfway resembled a fair trial.

[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

He neglected to do anything through proper channels, and instead betrayed his country rather than try to fix the problems through whistle blower channels where he would have actually had legal and tangible protections.

See Thomas A Drake

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If the gov didn't want its secrets out in the open, they shouldn't have been spying on their citizens. Maybe there would be less sympathy if the leaks didn't bring to light the bombing of Bagdad full of civilians in the middle of the night and how the military hid it.

Maybe it was all for the money and Snowden is just a dick, but I'm glad he did it.

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 10 points 9 months ago

Several things can be true at once. We don't have to be all-in on one side or the other of the Snowden affair. I've never understood why people seem so eager to pick a team on this issue.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

People no like to think nuanced, simpler to think black or white.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Eggyhead@kbin.social 14 points 9 months ago

Maybe, just maybe, if the government hadn’t been doing something worth whistleblowing about, those people would still be alive.

[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago

Evidence? I couldn't find anything that would indicate anyone died.

On the otherhand he did expose the government (NSA) spying program

Patriot Act was the worst thing to happen to America

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snownyte@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

Bruh, stop pretending you care about something as people dying. There's no evidence to the contrary or anything. You're happily talking out of your ass to sound important. Kindly go fuck yourself.

[-] sugarfree@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Being a spy is dangerous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

If you know what you're going to do, will lead to these consequences? Get the hell out of the country.

Pfft, I say this about every article about someone getting arrested for committing a major crime.

"Oh no I've murdered someone, let me just hide the body reallllly good and call it a day" LMAO

[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 60 points 9 months ago

Whether or not you think he should be jailed for leaking CIA secrets, the dude had child porn. He deserved a serious sentence because he expressed zero remorse for that. Along those lines he couldn’t even fucking pretend to have leaked the state secrets for any other reason than the CIA was a shitty place to work. You gotta play the fucking game if you’re gonna fuck with the government. You can’t just be a crusty old coder.

[-] S410@kbin.social 55 points 9 months ago

"Furman said Schulte continued his crimes from behind bars ... by creating a hidden file on his computer that contained 2,400 images of child sexual abuse that he continued to view from jail."

How do you get 2.4k images on a jail computer? Manifest it out of thin air?

Considering CIA is involved, which is known for torture, human experimentation, poisonings, planted evidence, etc. I'd not be too surprised if that file was straight up planted as an extra "fuck you" to the guy.

[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That was never part of his defense. Do you think the CIA colluded with him and his lawyer to accept responsibility for the material the CIA planted to sandbag his sentence? I feel like an innocent person would be screaming that. Hell, even possibly innocent/possibly guilty folks do.

Edit: here’s a quote about the material you’re defending:

Schulte called the child pornography he was accused of possessing a "victimless crime"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge

[-] S410@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The sentence previous to the one you're quoting, the one you've omitted, changes the context quite a lot.

When he heard that the government was pushing to keep him detained pending trial, his stomach dropped. “The crime I am charged with is in fact a non-violent, victimless crime,”

In the US a person pending trial can be either released or kept detained. (18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial) In cases when the defendant is being charged with non-violent crimes, it's fairly common for them to be released until their trial. Possibly on bond.

The wording of his statement is... questionable. But in this context, it could be re-worded to something like "you're are accusing me of possession of illegal material, which is not a violent crime. I was not involved in creation of said material, therefore there are no victims of mine".

Anyway, even if he did have the material in question, the fact that they report finding some on a jail computer is awful weird. Those aren't, exactly, known for having unrestricted and unmonitored access to the internet. I, also, would be surprised if those computers are less locked down than school or library computers, which tend to restrict users' permissions to the bare minimum, often as far as prohibiting creation of files.

[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Apologies. I copied the quote from his Wikipedia article. The other sentences I left out included him potentially assaulting a drunk roommate and the decade+ of evidence covering his interest in CSAM. That really changes your context quite a bit, no?

Still waiting for you to produce evidence of his defense about it all being the CIA. You’re really focused on the poor wording of a single news report covering his case and you’re missing the preponderance of evidence.

Edit: you really defended someone who claimed that CSAM was a victimless crime. What the fuck.

[-] S410@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago

I merely pointed out that in the context, his statement was, most likely, not trying to claim that CSAM is a victimless crime, but that his alleged possession of it is.

Substitute CSAM for something like murder, for example: It's one thing to have a video of someone committing murder and a very different thing to commit murder yourself and record it. One is, obviously, a violent crime; the other, not so much. It's a similar argument here.

He might be 100% guilty, he might not be. I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure, is that CIA and other alphabet agencies have a history of being... less than honest and moral. So, I exercise caution and take their statements with a fair bit of skepticism. Pardon me of that doesn't come off as I intend it to.

[-] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

I think one of the things that inflate image counts like that is that if there is a video of child porn, each individual frame of the video is counted as a single image. If he downloaded a 40 second, 60 FPS video, that's 2.4k images right there.

This is why it's more interesting when they mention total size in gigabytes of whatever, because image data has a maximum compression size but "raw number of images" is completely made up and could be a single file even when in the tens ouf thousands (still bad of course but you get my point)

[-] nolefan33@sh.itjust.works 22 points 9 months ago

Holy shit, they really buried the lede with that headline. For sure, throw away the key.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 6 points 9 months ago

I don't know about you guys, but I don't really trust the word of the CIA on those things. Or anything, really.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 37 points 9 months ago

Why does the CIA have a trove of child porn?

[-] grayman@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Leverage.

...

Drugs -> Money

Sex -> Control the Powerful

Plumbers protect the CIA.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

It's always big pipe isn't it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

To prove the charges. There have been enough cases of "she looks too young to be 18" where they were, in fact, 18. This database (which I thought was actually run by the FBI, but whatever) let's them show that the images were of Jane Roe, born May 5 1996, and the images/material were produced between 2008-2010.

IOW, to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were underage.

[-] Carvex@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

They take the man's entire life away because he revealed us terrible things our non-elected leaders are doing to us. Who was hurt by his actions?

[-] puchaczyk 32 points 9 months ago

They take the man’s entire life away because he revealed us terrible things our non-elected leaders are doing to us.

And for possessing child porn...

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 20 points 9 months ago

Furman said Schulte continued his crimes from behind bars by trying to leak more classified materials and by creating a hidden file on his computer that contained 2,400 images of child sexual abuse that he continued to view from jail.

Holy crap, dude was even watching child porn in prison. Clearly the CIA is hiring the cream of the crop.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

It wouldn't be far fetched that they put that themselves.

[-] Spot@startrek.website 10 points 9 months ago

Except the part where he was quoted saying that it was a victimless crime. Ick

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it's fairly insane. You'd think he would have denied it, got everyone in an uproar, maybe made a bid for appeal.

NOPE

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 18 points 9 months ago

Giving away methods for hacking/spying ensures your country is at a disadvantage.

[-] S410@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Disclosing found exploits allows developers to patch them out and improve security of everyone, which includes all the other alphabet boys and regular citizens.
There's no way to know that you're the only one who found any given exploit. Letting an exploit stay unpatched opens up an attack vector for everyone, not just you.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

What happened to the guy who staged a coup to overthrow the government? Remember where all those psychos with guns wailed on cops with flagpoles and shit on the walls and stuff, and that lady planted bombs by the RNC office? Remember that? What happened to that guy?

Oh nothing?

Oh.

Huh.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I wouldn’t say nothing, as he might become the next US president

(if the world is unlucky)

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

I wonder how many of the gaping security holes in softwares and systems he reported have since been patched that otherwise would have left to doors wide open for hackers?

As long as governments hoard security vulnerabilities, they are endangering security, safety, life and property of millions of people.

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

NSA accidentally leaking eternal blue lol

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The bulk of the sentence imposed on Joshua Schulte, 35, in Manhattan federal court came for an embarrassing public release of a trove of CIA secrets by WikiLeaks in 2017.

The so-called Vault 7 leak revealed how the CIA hacked Apple and Android smartphones in overseas spying operations, and efforts to turn internet-connected televisions into listening devices.

In requesting a life sentence, Assistant U.S. Attorney David William Denton Jr. said Schulte was responsible for “the most damaging disclosures of classified information in American history.”

The judge said Schulte was “not driven by any sense of altruism,” but instead was “motivated by anger, spite and perceived grievance” against others at the agency who he believed had ignored his complaints about the work environment.

A mistrial was declared at Schulte’s original 2020 trial after jurors deadlocked on the most serious counts, including illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information.

In a statement afterward, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said Schulte “betrayed his country by committing some of the most brazen, heinous crimes of espionage in American history.”


The original article contains 694 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

So, was he really just angry? Or is that a convenient lie?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
373 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59407 readers
2559 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS