SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks said Tuesday that it has obtained a vast portion of the CIA's computer hacking arsenal, and began posting the files online in a breach that may expose some of the U.S. intelligence community's most closely guarded cyber weapons.
A statement from WikiLeaks indicated that it planned to post nearly 9,000 files describing code developed in secret by the CIA to steal data from targets overseas and turn ordinary devices including cellphones, computers and even television sets into surveillance tools.
The hacking organisation made the statement as it announced a huge release of confidential documents from the CIA as part of its mysterious Year Zero series, founder Julian Assange claimed. The group said that from October 2014 the CIA was "looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks" to enable them to "engage in nearly undetectable assassinations."
takyon: WikiLeaks: Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed and (selected document) Weeping Angel (Extending) Engineering Notes. Also at NYT, USA Today, BBC, and Reuters. The Hill reports that Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu has called for an investigation... into the leak of the documents and tools.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @12:10AM (30 children)
The Hill TFA:
No, there's no big difference. A tool is a tool (is a tool) - explained:
1. no matter the subject of the leak, the way of leaking is pretty much the same. And has very much in common with the way any normal person conduct electronic banking, the only difference is in ebanking the parties need to be sure about their identities, in leaking at least one part is better off if the other side does NOT know the identity. Try to ban these technologies and you'll hurt ebanking/commerce too.
2. hacking methods (vulns/tools) have a bad habit of being discovered by others even if you try to keep them secret. While you may have good intentions on how to use the tools, the others (like.. I don't know... CIA?) may not be so ethical in how to use them.
This is what the dumb people getting elected don't seem to get through their thick skull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @01:00AM (14 children)
Are you autistic?
Otherwise you don't have an excuse for not recognizing that Lieu is talking about the content, not the form.
While I personally think the content of this leak is helpful because I believe the government should disclose security vulnerabilities to vendors rather than hoard zero-days, I can appreciate the difference between leaking information on tools that are helpful to american interests and leaking information about behavior which in no way serves american interests.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @01:30AM (6 children)
Your implicit assumption is that the behaviour actually serves american interest.
Please explain how do you reconcile in your head the ideas "american public is better served by the vulns disclosure" and "cia does not disclose the vulns, yet it serves american interest"?
What guarantees you have cia won't use them on you, as AC as you think you might be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:10AM (5 children)
> What guarantees you have cia won't use them on you, as AC as you think you might be?
Whether it is also used on me does not negate the value of using it on american adversaries.
I think you fail at basic boolean logic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:03AM (4 children)
Yeah, sure, it matters more we are able to throw shit to out adversaries, just don't look onto the fact these adversaries can use the same shit against the population we are sworn to protect.
No, this is absolutely not a problem, we need to investigate how come our obscurity was dispersed (i.e. who has leaked unclassified material?), just forget about the failure on the "protect our citizens" mission, it's not important (what I tell you three times is true).
You'd make a good politician, spinning the things like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:10AM (3 children)
Sorry dude, are those italics supposed to be words you are putting in my mouth?
Because, frankly I'm having trouble figuring out what the hell your point is other than random outrage.
Perhaps your meds need adjusting?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:16AM (2 children)
That is what I understood from your position. Would you be willing to discuss, you only need to correct it**
My point you ask?
My point is: "I fail to see how Ted Lieu concentrating on who leaked rather than what is the rationale CIA lets american public vulnerable" can be considered as logical.
---
** Based on the "Perhaps your meds need adjusting?" I have some doubts discussion is possible, so perhaps we might as well let the things how they are and agree to ignore each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:41AM (1 child)
> That is what I understood from your position.
Nah, more like something you dreamt up and decided to project on to anyone who thinks your first post was non-sensical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:20AM
(yeap. No discussion possible. Thanks for your time)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:13AM (6 children)
You seem to have been indoctrinated with the idea that anything NSA/CIA/FBI does is "in the American interest".
If we define "American interest" as something that benefits "we the people", it is hard to see how all this hacking nonsense benefits "American interests". In point of fact, this "Hack the World" craze only benefits an exceedingly small number of "we the people".
If any of us, or any members of our families, or any members of "we the people" actually benefit from hacking Germany's government, that benefit is only incidental, and wholly unintended. All benefits of hacking allied nation's government accrue to a small set of special interests. All of those special interests are either corporate interests, or political interests. Of roughly 350 million American citizens, far less than a million Americans actually benefit from this mind boggling "Hack the World" initiative. I highly doubt that more than a few thousand people see any real benefit from it. Corporate chiefs and political aspirants see immediate benefits.
But, who pays the price for all of it? Most certainly NOT those individuals who benefit. Nope, it's "We the People" who pay for it, in the form of taxes, lost privacy, more insane laws, embittered foreign relations, and more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:34AM (5 children)
> You seem to have been indoctrinated with the idea that anything NSA/CIA/FBI does is "in the American interest".
You also seem to fail at basic boolean logic.
The fact that the intelligence agencies do things that are not in the american interest does not negate the fact that they also do stuff in the american interest.
While internal whitehouse fuckups are never in the american interest.
That's the comparison colo complained about, nothing more. And you are both dunces for trying to make to make Lieu's complaint anything more than that.
Given your posting history, it seems likely that if it were internal fuckups of a Clinton whitehouse you'd be right there with me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:42AM (4 children)
Boolean logic has little to do with a concept called "values". Do I value American hegemony more, or do I value liberty more? This may be a tough one to call, for some people. We, Americans, have demonstrated that we are willing to sacrifice our own personal liberties for the sake of security. How much more willing are we to sacrifice other people's liberties, for the sake of our own security?
Regarding that American/Western hegemony - overthrowing that legitimately elected democratic government that I mentioned earlier has worked AGAINST all American interests. One of those unintended consequences, ya know? But, money talks, and bullshit walks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:55AM
> Boolean logic has little to do with a concept called "values"
Since nobody was talking about values, its good you have identified that you are completely off-topic.
Now, if you could only figure out the prescription for being off-topic...
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:34AM (1 child)
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:04PM
Thank you, Sir. Your fix is highly appropriate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @12:43PM
What's that expression, "The Fruit of a Poisoned Tree?" The CIA tortures people. Torture is a war crime. Therefore, nothing they ever do can be good. Indeed, their very existence has become antithetical to American values.
I personally feel that is also true of the NSA and the federal government more broadly.
But I don't hear a lot of people asserting American values these days, as you have and as I do. I remember as a kid everybody asserting those virtues all the time as something good guys strove for. The heros in every story were always hewing to the hard path of staying true to those ideals and never giving in to the temptation of becoming just like those they were trying to fight. Now, it's become fashionable to be as depraved as possible, as quickly as possible. The idea of good vs. evil has been so thoroughly deconstructed that nobody really knows what those things mean anymore. There's only power, who has it vs. who doesn't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:06AM (9 children)
I read the Wikileaks press release and what is interesting is that much of the stuff is NOT classified, because if it was, it would create legal problems for those who deploy it on targets' computers because they would be releasing classified info:
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ [wikileaks.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:14AM (4 children)
Ow, wow!! (speechless)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:46AM (3 children)
Saying you are speechless is literally the opposite of being speechless.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:54AM (2 children)
What about typing "speechless"?
Did you hear me uttering anything?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:44AM (1 child)
RTFA, we hear you typing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:27AM
But not uttering anything, right?
Please do tell me, otherwise I'd start to doubt the voices I keep hearing are not mine.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:16AM (3 children)
WRT classification: Bureaucracy, whether the government variety or not, always has to play catch up to the real world.
WRT copyright: Copyright is a red herring, actually using these tools is criminal and obeying copyright is at the bottom of the list of a criminal's concerns.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:45AM (2 children)
I think Assange was pointing out that 1) he wasn't releasing classified info, and 2) if the Feds wanted to try something like they did Kim Dotcom - they don't have a copyright on the material. He was also pointing out that it reduces the charges that hackers could face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:57AM (1 child)
Or he was just throwing some red-meat to his base.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:51AM
As the two aren't mutually exclusive, can be both.
Thus, would you object to "pointing out there's a whole bunch of legislation that won't apply" only because Assange is "throwing some red-meat to his base.".
BTW, care to explain what "throwing some red-meat to his base." means? You make it sound like it's something shameful, but your metaphor is wasted on me, I can't "translate" it into the actual intended meaning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:06AM (4 children)
The CIA has good intentions, at least from the perspective of those who benefit from the power of the USA. This includes indirect beneficiaries, such as Japan and South Korea and NATO countries. If you benefit from the success of these, then you too are a beneficiary. From your perspective the CIA is good, even if you'd rather not admit it.
Now, if you happen to be a Russian general or a tribal leader in Yemen (on soylentnews WTF), the CIA does not have good intentions. Consider becoming a US ally so that you can be on the same team.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:18AM
That's it - keep drinking the Kool-Aid, comrade. CIA = good! CIA can do no wrong! The CIA would never consider destroying a legitimately elected democratic government for the sake of corporate profits, right?
Don't bother to search for Operation Ajax, don't bother to read about it, and most certainly don't try to understand what it was all about. Don't even think about British Petroleum, in any of it's incarnations. Don't even ponder why the CIA would destroy a democratic government for the sake of BP's profits. Just drink some more Kool-Aid, and you'll feel good.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:19AM
And who exactly is that? As a citizen of the USA, I'm reasonably certain I don't in fact benefit from the power of the US government abroad: For instance, if you're going to tell me that gas costs me $2 per gallon rather than the $7 per gallon most of the world pays, I'll point out that the amount of tax money I end up contributing to pay for the military and intel to secure that power that lowers the gas price is far more than the $5 per gallon I save.
And on top of that, there's a reasonable question as to whether the CIA has in fact furthered the power of the USA, or done more harm than good in their constant efforts to, for instance, overthrow and/or kill elected leaders of foreign countries. What did the USA gain by killing Mohammed Mossaddegh and Salvadore Allende? How about trying to take out Fidel Castro over 500 times? Or more recently, how exactly did killing Osama bin Laden expand the power of the United States?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @04:22AM
Allow me to have some doubts on the good intentions of CIA (don't make me list all the CIA's "operation ajax"-like actions to justify my doubts, the list would take quite a while).
But, even if CIA would bleed their hearth out from all the good intentions it has, don't forget the The road to Hell is paved with good intentions aphorism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @03:42PM
The CIA has good intentions, at least from the perspective of those who benefit from the power of the USA. This includes indirect beneficiaries, such as Japan and South Korea and NATO countries. If you benefit from the success of these, then you too are a beneficiary. From your perspective the CIA is good, even if you'd rather not admit it.
Now, if you happen to be a Russian general or a tribal leader in Yemen (on soylentnews WTF), the CIA does not have good intentions. Consider becoming a US ally so that you can be on the same team.
But doing the wrong (i.e., unethical or destructive) things for the "right" (in support of agendas with which we agree) reasons is just as execrable as doing them for the "wrong" (in support of agendas with which we disagree) reasons.
I know, I know. Ethical behavior is passe. I'm just a fool who thinks that respect for oneself and others is important.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr