U.K. Ordered Guardian to Destroy Snowden Files Because Its Servers Weren’t Secure

[bemildred]

New trial balloon.

After NSA insider Edward Snowden absconded with thousands of sensitive U.S. government documents from unsecured NSA servers earlier this year and gave them to the Guardian newspaper, a U.K. spy agency forced the paper to destroy hard drives containing copies of the documents because the agency said the newspaper’s servers were not secure.

The U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, claimed that Russia or China could hack into the Guardian’s IT network and access the documents.

Although the Guardian insisted that the documents were not stored on its network and were secure, an intelligence agency expert argued that they were still vulnerable.

To illustrate how the information was still at risk, he told editors that foreign agents could train a laser on “a plastic cup in the room where the work was being carried out … to pick up the vibrations of what was being said” there. Vibrations on windows could similarly be monitored remotely by laser.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/guardian-snowden-files-destroyed/

[Luminous Animal]

1. Hahahaha!!! I already saw that bullshit parroted today. Of course,

it isn't supported by the timeline of harassment.

[bemildred]

3. It maintains the pretense that this stuff is still secret.

The Russians and Chinese already have it, and they want to steal it from teh Guardian, see?

[ProSense]

2. Rusbridger: destroying hard drives allowed us to continue NSA coverage

Rusbridger: destroying hard drives allowed us to continue NSA coverage

Guardian editor-in-chief says he agreed to 'slightly pointless' task because newspaper has digital copies outside Britain

Josh Halliday

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor-in-chief, has said that the destruction of computer hard drives containing information provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden allowed the paper to continue reporting on the revelations instead of surrendering the material to UK courts.

Rusbridger told BBC Radio 4's The World at One on Tuesday that he agreed to the "slightly pointless" task of destroying the devices – which was overseen by two GCHQ officials at the Guardian's headquarters in London – because the newspaper is in possession of digital copies outside Britain.

<...>

"It was a rather bizarre situation in which I explained to them that there were other copies and, as with WikiLeaks, we weren't working in London alone so destroying a copy in London seemed to me a slightly pointless task that didn't take account of the way that digital information works these days," said Rusbridger.

"Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America, which has better laws to protect journalists, I saw no reason not to destroy this material ourselves rather than hand it back to the government."

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/20/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-nsa

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023498667

[Recursion]

8. America, which has better laws to protect journalists

Let's not forget that bit

[KoKo]

4. Sheesh...has "Wired" always been sort of RW Leaning?

Have to admit I've not been over there to that site in a long time. Maybe that's why?

Where else have you seen this crap. I missed it. Would be good to know who was touting this so that I don't give their sites any views or hits.

[bemildred]

6. I would expect Wired to be sort of Libertarian. nt

[KoKo]

9. Most Tech Sites have been in the past...but, this seems excessive...

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. They're just reporting it - they are sceptical about it

The sentence before the excerpt used above was:

"It’s the kind of justification that only a government agency could make."

and after that, they called it a "bizarre explanation".

It's also a report of what The Guardian said:

"You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back," one of them said.

The same two senior officials who had visited the Guardian the previous month returned with the message that patience with the newspaper's reporting was wearing out.

They expressed fears that foreign governments, in particular Russia or China, could hack into the Guardian's IT network. But the Guardian explained the security surrounding the documents, which were held in isolation and not stored on any Guardian system.

However, in a subsequent meeting, an intelligence agency expert argued that the material was still vulnerable. He said by way of example that if there was a plastic cup in the room where the work was being carried out foreign agents could train a laser on it to pick up the vibrations of what was being said. Vibrations on windows could similarly be monitored remotely by laser.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london

[railsback]

5. Vagueness seems to be the main ingredient in all this NSA/Greenwald/Tyranny stuff

Without specific details and named sources, The Guardian can extend this stuff for months.

[RKP5637]

7. DUH to them, LOL! Now just who has unsecure servers in this whole debacle ... perhaps

the originator over the pond?

[geek tragedy]

10. By that logic, they should have ordered Booz Hamilton

to destroy its hard drives.

[grasswire]

11. zing!! nt

[joshcryer]

13. LOL! Nice! :)

[tsuki]

14. This is as boneheaded a move as the missing 18 minutes. nt