Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian) [LWN.net]

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 5, 2013 8:43 UTC (Sat) by geertj (subscriber, #4116)
In reply to: Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian) by ncm
Parent article: Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

> As with all pervasive surveillance, the real danger is not prosecution or divulged secrets, but extortion: who knows what you meant to keep secret is your master.

The Soviets proactively kept databases with compromising materials on on possible opponents, to be used as and when needed. They even have a name for this kind of information: "Kompromat"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat

A society where those in power have Kompromat on pretty much everybody (due to the petty crimes we unknowingly commit every day), combined with a law-enforcement system that no concept of "proportionality", is incompatible with Democracy. That is indeed the real issue with the "Total surveillance" world we live in now. And it is not just the US... There's many countries in Europe too where the politicians would *love* to have a similar system.

(Log in to post comments)

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 5, 2013 9:04 UTC (Sat) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]

You paint it as a problem that politicians would love to have a surveillance state. But that's not a problem.

A problem is when they can get it. That requires technical means, and the criminal energy for diverting significant amounts of a country's resources against the people's good: there is a reason the U.S.A. is on the brink of bankruptcy, not because they would bother providing basic second-world life standards to its citizens but because they are focused on mongering empire-level war, terror and surveillance on their own and foreign populations.

Sure, this kind of stuff is the wet dream of other politicians as well, but the point is that there are barriers against them getting it. For example a proper division of powers.

Take a look at Germany: with nice regularity the leading parties pass surveillance laws, and with nice regularity the Supreme Court throws them out again.

Now the U.S.A. has declared itself to be in a continuous state of emergency since sometime in the sixties or seventies or so, so they have unaccountable courts (basically justified like martial law) and unaccountable procedures, using unaccountable funds granted by secret commissions that don't have the technical means to verify the bullshit that the secret service et al sell them.

How about asking your representatives to goddamn put the U.S.A. out of the ridiculous state of national emergency that has been used as a cheap excuse for bypassing constitutional processes for generations already?

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 5, 2013 13:37 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I agree, one problem though is that knowledge of how society used to operate before the cold war is passing out of living memory, its hard to convince people to end "the emergency" when they have known nothing else in their life.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 18:59 UTC (Sun) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]

It should be fairly clear to those who have known nothing else that this isn't an emergency, it's normality.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 20:18 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

That is my point, since this is now "normal", to propose any changes to it is new uncharted territory, therefore harder to convince people to change, and not a return to "normalcy". It is a radical new world, and most people are not radical.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 5, 2013 22:32 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

Society is complicit in Kompromat too. You can't get any leverage from "the petty crimes we unknowingly commit every day" unless everybody is a hypocrite. And I think we've been getting gradually better at unwinding these hypocrisies since the Victorians.

A transition to a world in which your secrets are merely /embarrassing/ has rendered such Kompromat increasingly worthless. Remember when you could destroy a politician with the mere suggestion that they were homosexual? Not today. And it's not just about legalisation. Cannabis possession remains illegal in the US and UK, but it won't do a new politician much harm to admit to having smoked a spliff if they suspect old friends might say as much anyway.

Facebook means that in 5-10 years new politicians and others entering the public spotlight will almost _all_ have their younger days made available in minute detail without a single spook being involved. But just as we've become inured to death and injury from car crashes by the sheer number of such accidents which happen, we'll be inured to petty tales of infidelity, drug abuse, weird fetishes and minor law-breaking from the back histories of new public figures by the sheer volume of such things.

Reforming laws so that we aren't all committing "petty crimes" every day is a worthwhile goal independent of whether shadowy forces intend to use those crimes against us, but meanwhile I think we've (as much by accident as on purpose) concocted an effective antidote to this poison.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 6, 2013 0:16 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Remember when you could destroy a politician with the mere suggestion that they were homosexual? Not today.

Sure. Today it's more dangerous to be straight. Then either prostitute or maid can be used.

Reforming laws so that we aren't all committing "petty crimes" every day is a worthwhile goal independent of whether shadowy forces intend to use those crimes against us, but meanwhile I think we've (as much by accident as on purpose) concocted an effective antidote to this poison.

Nope. Different societies have different triggers, but if politician need to go there are enough ways to make him go. US uses maids and prostitutes, other countries may use something else. Even many years old incident can be used.

Frankly I find that amusing: Kompromat was used by politicians yesterday, it's still used by politicians today and it'll be used by politicians tomorrow. In USSR, former and future USA or any other place in the world. The exact transgressions which can be used to destroy someone vary but principle remains unchanged: everyone has some kind of kompromat on them and if you have enough friends in press then anyone can be ruined (unless they have equally well connections, that is). It's not matter of size of transgressions, it's matter of perceptions.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 6, 2013 5:09 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

It might be a bit premature to think Eliot Spitzer finished on the basis of his having resigned from one political office.

Perhaps it will be more illustrative to consider a real example. Take the Chris Huhne situation. Huhne drove a car too quickly about a decade ago. If the secret police had taken note of this fact and kept it on file to use against him that would be laughable, quite worthless as blackmail material. But instead Huhne received a notice through the normal action of the not-at-all-secret police instructing him to identify the driver at the time of the offence. Huhne decided to ask his wife to sign to say she'd driven the car, thereby avoiding the penalty for speeding himself. Some years later Huhne began cheating on the same wife with a colleague. Perhaps our hypothetical secret police if they had discovered _this_ fact could have attempted to blackmail Huhne, but in the end it became public knowledge anyway, without any appreciable impact on Huhne's political career. The resulting divorce did however give the ex-wife a motive to tell the story about the speeding ticket, and in the process implicate both of them in a serious crime - perverting the course of justice. And _that_ forced him to resign, shortly before they were both sent to jail.

Thom Yorke sings "You do it to yourself, just you, and that's what really hurts". Indeed.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 6, 2013 12:02 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It might be a bit premature to think Eliot Spitzer finished on the basis of his having resigned from one political office.

That was not the goal. The goal was to remove him from position where he can “rock the boat” prematurely (remember that it happened in the first half of 2008 when he tried to start investigation of Wall Street machinations). It worked beautifully. There was never a need to completely destroy him. In fact politicians prefer to work with people they can control with some form of hidden story thus of course Eliot Spitzer is not finished. If he'll do things which work for the other politicians—he'll be respectable politician again, if he'll try to go against the establishment one more time—he can be made to resign easily. What's not to like?

Perhaps it will be more illustrative to consider a real example. Take the Chris Huhne situation.

Well, let's.

blah-blah-blah
And _that_ forced him to resign, shortly before they were both sent to jail.

…right when he tried to attack media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Thom Yorke sings "You do it to yourself, just you, and that's what really hurts". Indeed.

Well, sure, people are doing stupid things. All the time. Both small, insignificant people and politicians, too. But what makes these acts important years later? It's your choice what to believe in, but I'm yet to see anyone who's free from any minor transgressions and from observations most of them surface “in the most inappropriate time” for politicians. Often many years after the actual transgression happened. Funny, no? Some people believe that there's god, but me… I think it's more like the “hand of God”.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 1:00 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

The issue of Jacob Frenkel wasn't really that he stole a certain item. This would have been forgiven. The issue was that he did not disclose it (which may have been reasonable), and when the issue was raised, he lied about it.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 6, 2013 12:53 UTC (Sun) by rich0 (guest, #55509) [Link]

Couldn't agree more.

I think that the ultimate solution to Kompromat will be the utter destruction of privacy. Kompromat only can exist when there is information asymmetry. If EVERYBODY knows EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY then it simply can't exist at all.

We should all be mounting cameras on our homes and cars, archiving all footage and publishing it on the internet, and mining the video for facial recognition and number identification and uploading that data to distributed public databases. Then everybody can look up the activities of anybody and we'll all have to come to grips with the fact that everybody does stuff that nobody talks about in public today.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 6, 2013 13:56 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

If EVERYBODY knows EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY then it simply can't exist at all.

But everybody can't know everything! You can only know and remember so much. Which means that even if all information is in the open you still can affect who's transgressions will be discussed in press at what times.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 9:59 UTC (Mon) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]

> If EVERYBODY knows EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY then it simply can't exist at all.

The problem is "to know", it implies being able to verify the information - googling is not enough, checking only by reading stuff on the net is not enough.
It is too easy to delete or fabricate stuff on the net, it is even not too difficult to identify you and give you only what you "need to read".

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 11:15 UTC (Mon) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

It's not enough, because there are still times when you can do something that's can be hidden and revealed later.
Please also install webcams in your bedroom, toilets and bathroom.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 21:01 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

That works great! I'm sure you won't mind everyone, including all your exes and enemies, knowing your passwords, bank account details and PIN, home address...

Jeremy Clarkson thought just as you did once. He published enough in a national newspaper that someone was able to forge transactions in his name. He recanted.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 13:11 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

You can't get any leverage from "the petty crimes we unknowingly commit every day" unless everybody is a hypocrite.

This is a good point, but it isn't the complete picture.

A transition to a world in which your secrets are merely /embarrassing/ has rendered such Kompromat increasingly worthless. Remember when you could destroy a politician with the mere suggestion that they were homosexual? Not today.

Maybe not in the UK, but in plenty of places in the world you still can.

One thing that has become more widely known in recent years is how some things that perhaps only surface years or decades after they occurred were effectively "public secrets": potentially large numbers of people know about the private details, activities or behaviour of individuals, with people in particular certain circles (media, politics) being especially well informed. Such information isn't immediately published despite its potential for newspaper sales because of the libel risk, but it may very well be the case that the leverage it buys the media is worth more.

And as I'm sure you know very well, political careers in the UK are less likely to be ended by significant political transgressions (lying to parliament about starting wars, for instance) than news that someone has broken a much less significant rule or promise, chosen almost arbitrarily by a bunch of people who have decided that they don't want to play with that person any more.

Facebook extends the "who knew that X was doing Y" audience, but nothing will come of it until people decide that it serves their purpose to use it as leverage. Even if Y is legal and widely seen as acceptable behaviour, it might still be sensitive enough in certain contexts to be considered leverage material some day. As you say, hypocrisy plays a big role, and transparency doesn't always protect even the innocent from its effects.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 20:12 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

don't forget the situation where changing definitions of what's "socially acceptable" mean that something that was no big deal 50 years ago is now grounds for political lynching.

Kompromat

Posted Oct 7, 2013 23:50 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Yes, tolerance cuts both ways. Also, societies can progress and regress. One cannot assume that something at one point in time might be considered acceptable in the future. Consider how even well-regarded historical figures can have aspects of their lives that justifiably offend sensibilities today.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 4:23 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

The model practiced by East Germany was probably the most effective one when controlling populations.

The idea is that you hire or otherwise coerce a significant portion of the population to spy on another part of the population, but you do not tell them who any of the spies are.

The person you could be told to watch could be another government spy. It could be a government spy from a different government. It could be a real threat, or it could be a test of your loyalty. People can also be made to spy on you. Maybe the guy you are suppose to monitor is suppose to monitor you right back. You are made to have no idea. This provides a very effective means to paralyze any sort of opposition movement.

...

However, at a certain point it becomes nearly impossible to tell the difference between incompetency and maliciousness in government when it all reaches a big enough scale. I think we are at that point now.

Historically, a significant number of the conspiracies committed by the USA government against the public in the past were done to simply cover up bad decision making and the damage this idiocy has caused to the USA.

I mean, seriously, when you are a director of the NSA and you think that making your office look like this is a good idea...:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/nsa-director-...

You are not playing with a full deck here. The apparent fact that he regularly used it to show off to other government officials and their typical reaction was to get excited and want to sit in the captain's chair (rather then recoiling in the horror at the insanity) just means that most people that high up are as confused, deluded, and as stupid as he is.

Scary actually that anybody takes these people seriously, much less give them a budget of billions and put them in charge of one of the most powerful organizations of all of human history.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 7, 2013 15:13 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

I'm not sure why you think he's insane when "self absorbed jerk" would explain the choice of decor just as well.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 9:33 UTC (Sun) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

> There's many countries in Europe too where the politicians would *love* to
> have a similar system.

The problem is that the power of Kompromat is actually in the hands of the secret services, which may decide to use it to control the politicians, or any other entities with power (justice, finance, etc.). Vladimir Putin was a KGB high officer, with just the kind of background to succeed in politics because he knows also how to control the secret services.

The USA now face the same problem than USSR, their secret services are in position to take control of the whole country.

Hang 'em

Posted Oct 6, 2013 18:52 UTC (Sun) by rogblake (guest, #18258) [Link]

I believe that what needs to happen is to try the NSA heads for treason and (upon being found guilty) put them to death.

I know this sounds radical, but through its actions the NSA has essentially declared war against the American people and has become the enemy within. Utterly treasonous actions. Putting Keith Alexander and his henchmen to death would send the strongest possible signal to those who would work towards erecting this type of police-state infrastructure in the U.S.

This is the type of heinous crime that the death penalty is quite appropriate for. Not that I think there is much chance of actually implementing this happy plan.

Hang 'em

Posted Oct 7, 2013 5:31 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]

Treason is too much for someone who can really honestly claim to have been acting in the interest of "the people", even if his actions were confused and unlawful.

But... a simple charge for lying to congress sure would be nice. Perjury or contempt of congress.

Hang 'em

Posted Oct 8, 2013 0:22 UTC (Tue) by filteredperception (subscriber, #5692) [Link]

"
Treason is too much for someone who can really honestly claim to have been acting in the interest of "the people", even if his actions were confused and unlawful.
"

No, it's really not. The purpose of having the trial, that thing called due process, is to allow the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence to collide, and see which is left standing under the cold light of due process. Maybe the defendant can persuade the judge/jury/public that they made an honest mistake that should be forgiven. Or maybe the judge/jury/public decides that the "just following orders I didn't understand" is not enough of a defence given the gravity of the crime.

The crimes going on are extremely grave. I'm ready to start filling some fresh graves over this.

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 19:11 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

I would be interested in evidence that this has not already occurred. Keith Alexander's continued freedom suggests that it has. Or does it only count as a takeover when they stop trying to hide it?

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 6, 2013 23:27 UTC (Sun) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]

Keith Alexander's main recognized felony would seem to be just perjury rather than conspiring against the constitution.

For perjury in high-level positions, the designated prosecutor would be the Attorney General. Attorney General Eric Holder has lied a lot under oath to congress himself. He is not interested in having perjury dealt with as law and propriety would demand.

When the trial against Ellsberg for the release of the Pentagon papers was thrown out of court, the judge stated: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

Unfortunately, the bizarre events surrounding its head Eric Holder nowadays have incurably infected the ability of the Department of Justice to prosecute felonies committed by government officials.

Why would Holder want to anger his fellow cronies?

Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity (The Guardian)

Posted Oct 7, 2013 4:27 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Everybody that is in a position to do anything about the NSA are their main supporters.

The president loves them, the people that are put in charge of the oversight committee over the NSA and DoD operations are the people that publicly denounce the media for 'misrepresenting' the NSA.

They all love and support the NSA.

I only hope this will help our European friends understand why Americans can hate and distrust their own government so much.