I showed leaked NSA slides at Purdue, so feds demanded the video be destroyed

Op-ed: Snowden confidante, a journalist, recounts recent tale at Purdue University.

Read the whole story

 

[Baron von Robber]

We must not speak about that which must not be spoken.......but we can look it up on the Internet all day and all night long.

 

[qasimq]

I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

 

[Nilt]

qasimq[/url]":2oalaw8g]I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

The issue is what's "out there" is only part of a whole. While the lengths to which they've gone to contain the leak (seriously, they expect family members to be bound by someone else's clearance requirements?!) are absurd, the basic premise is not. It's really indicative only of how over-zealous the current leaders of the US intelligence community are. They've gone well beyond any rational real world applications and live in an ivory tower which is toppling around them. Despite this, they have no apparent way of backtracking from their extreme views and policies without exposing things which are still "secret", so they double down instead.

 

[tetrapyloctomy]

I disagree with Purdue's actions but I don't find them surprising. If faced with even a tiny risk of losing an untold amount of funding I think most university administrators would say, "Delete it immediately and we'll deal with the fallout later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

 

[Alyeska]

qasimq[/url]":crm519ku]I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

Information has been released. We technically do not know what is real and what is false. By releasing classified information, they confirm what is real. And by process of elimination, even telling us what is false can also reveal what is real.

Think about it this way. I tell the world that I know your social security number and credit card number and I reveal information purporting to be said numbers.. Do you really want to refute me?

 

[kranchammer]

qasimq[/url]":669yxghe]I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

Ya just gotta understand that for most bureaucrats, especially those in the various IT security organizations in the post-Snowden and post-Manning era where ridiculous reactionary regs are created left and right, every day is just an exercise in CYA and checking boxes.

The logic of WHY a thing must be done is never considered.

 

[Thatmushroom]

Purdue is a fairly conservative campus, by public university standards. They also have a not-insignificant ROTC presence. It's not surprising that there are a few law-and-order people in attendance at a forum such as this one.

 

[Alyeska]

Z1ggy[/url]"at50iy6]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

The Pentagon Papers were classified too. Hell, some information has been retroactively classified.

Journalists didn't sign confidentiality clauses and don't have top secret security clearances.

 

[56kbit]

If you do get a copy back I would love to see it, thanks

 

[Eurynom0s]

Baron von Robber[/url]":jvpw8mhw]We must not speak about that which must not be spoken.......but we can look it up on the Internet all day and all night long.

My favorite part of all of this is that people with security clearances are the only ones not allowed to look at any of this information. I can kinda-sorta get the government's argument that it's still classified material and that you therefore still have to treat it as such, but to me it seems ridiculous that the only people legally forbidden from knowing what information has become public knowledge arguably have one of the strongest reasons of all to need to know what information has become public knowledge. It would seem to be problematic in terms of things like operational security if you're developing plans on assumptions of XYZ being classified when in actuality everyone else already knows about it, but you don't know that everyone else already knows about it because you've been forbidden from reading publicly available information.

 

[jdale]

Wiping my talk wasn’t “any sort of compromise of Purdue’s commitment to free and open inquiry,” its lawyer explains. https://t.co/TKjpRazeNw

Is it necessary to hide this reference behind a URL shortener, pointing to a Twitter post:
If you're looking for @bartongellman's NSA presentation at Purdue, you won't find it. @insidehighered's take: http://bit.ly/1jQRtO4

Which in turn posts a shortened link pointing to the actual article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... ied-slides

So, in order to see these comments about privacy and security, you have to reveal your intent (page you came from, page you are going to) and IP address to both Twitter and Bit.ly as well as the host of the actual content you want to read.

Why not just post the final link directly? The whole purpose of URL shortening services is to create another middleman layer so that usage data can be gathered, while forcing users to follow links that do not reveal their endpoint. It's pretty much the antithesis of the goals of privacy advocacy....

 

[arkiel]

Well shit, I guess the only sane and rational and forthright thing to do here is to make as much noise as possible about Purdue's leak.

Purdue, despite having classified facilities, leaks government secrets. Purdue admits as much by destroying records of said leak. Purdue has destroyed evidence that prosecutors could have sought to use against it in prosecuting said leak. Purdue and its President should be heavily fined, vetted for formal charges of treason, and lose all access to classified information.

Because Purdue exercised the kind of irrational fucking cowardice that deserves ultimate sanction. You want the kind of people that overreact this badly anywhere near anything of consequence to the federal government? Ron Swanson might. I'm not so sure about me.

 

[Nowicki]

STAY CLASSY NSA! Dont you know pandora doesnt go back in the box?

 

[the_great_ganonderp]

Z1ggy[/url]":b8kimhia]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

I didn't really read the article as accusing Purdue of being "in the wrong", but rather as suggesting that they should examine their priorities. Obviously at this point the damage (if you see it that way) has been done, and Purdue was legally obligated to act the way they did.

Same goes for the "classified" information: so what if it's freely available through other channels? The relevant TLAs have serious procedures for dealing with such information and they aren't going to just throw up their hands and say hey, you were right, let's just declassify it all! I am not a fan of the role the NSA seems to have in our country (and worldwide) today, but I'm not going to fault them for doing things by the book in this case.

 

[wangstramedeous]

Z1ggy[/url]":1nci34cx]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

I don't think its unpopular, it doesn't make coherent sense. By extension is Purdue monitoring all their computer networks and verifying if students are viewing the materials? Do they consider if they have to purge said systems incase anything is left behind?

Is that really what they've signed up for? If it is, then only way to coherently explain this episode, its political rather than rational decision.

 

[jdale]

Alyeska[/url]":3hl5rtrq]

qasimq[/url]":3hl5rtrq]I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

Information has been released. We technically do not know what is real and what is false. By releasing classified information, they confirm what is real. And by process of elimination, even telling us what is false can also reveal what is real.

Think about it this way. I tell the world that I know your social security number and credit card number and I reveal information purporting to be said numbers.. Do you really want to refute me?

Purdue only has an obligation to delete because of their participation in security clearance. The rational thing to do would be to restrict that obligation to the departments which actually participate in the program. Not to accept that the university's obligation extends to every talk and speech given by anyone -- not just employees -- anyone on their grounds, in connection to any department, for any purpose.

Once they say "this is not in a department covered by security clearance", that serves as neither confirmation nor denial, so your purpose is served. But, it permits the university to participate in the discussion.

 

[arkiel]

wangstramedeous[/url]":3m9bc4oa]

Z1ggy[/url]":3m9bc4oa]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

I don't think its unpopular, it doesn't make coherent sense. By extension is Purdue monitoring all their computer networks and verifying if students are viewing the materials? Do they consider if they have to purge said systems incase anything is left behind?

Is that really what they've signed up for? If it is, then only way to coherently explain this episode, its political rather than rational decision.

The fact that they were considering whether or not to destroy the projector he used shows the people in charge of implementing regulations have some positively magical thinking.

Whoever suggested that is insane, and shouldn't be in a position of authority.

 

[dorkbert]

We have citizens informing on each other. Why does it suddenly feel like we're living in East Germany?

 

[Z1ggy]

wangstramedeous[/url]":2l9ck1iv]

Z1ggy[/url]":2l9ck1iv]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

I don't think its unpopular, it doesn't make coherent sense. By extension is Purdue monitoring all their computer networks and verifying if students are viewing the materials? Do they consider if they have to purge said systems incase anything is left behind?

Is that really what they've signed up for? If it is, then only way to coherently explain this episode, its political rather than rational decision.

how is it not coherent? perdue was notified that someone was showing classified info in a presentation. they deleted the presentation, because legally they had to.

 

[JustUsul]

jdale[/url]":1b6iq0ct]

Wiping my talk wasn’t “any sort of compromise of Purdue’s commitment to free and open inquiry,” its lawyer explains. https://t.co/TKjpRazeNw

Is it necessary to hide this reference behind a URL shortener, pointing to a Twitter post:
If you're looking for @bartongellman's NSA presentation at Purdue, you won't find it. @insidehighered's take: http://bit.ly/1jQRtO4

Which in turn posts a shortened link pointing to the actual article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... ied-slides

So, in order to see these comments about privacy and security, you have to reveal your intent (page you came from, page you are going to) and IP address to both Twitter and Bit.ly as well as the host of the actual content you want to read.

Why not just post the final link directly? The whole purpose of URL shortening services is to create another middleman layer so that usage data can be gathered, while forcing users to follow links that do not reveal their endpoint. It's pretty much the antithesis of the goals of privacy advocacy....

At first I thought this was due to the 140-character limit on Twitter, but it sounds like that has been removed earlier this year?

 

[iheardawho]

As a student at Purdue, I can say with confidence that there is too much government research and government funding here to even consider violating any laws like this. Yes, we are fairly conservative here, and yes, the contract shouldn't cover "everyone, anywhere at Purdue," but as it stands right now, I feel like this is the only possible way that this situation could have played out.

 

[rick*d]

Z1ggy[/url]":i2p25g52]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

Then by your logic the government can simply classify everything and throw all journalists in jail for investigating anything. We would never have learned about Watergate or Iran-Contra or Benghazi or, well, anything. Rodney King was never beaten by those cops. Michael Brown was not shot by a cop. Nobody died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It never happened because we say it never happened, and if you say it did we'll throw you in jail for disclosing classified information, even if you were an eye witness and got it on cell phone video. Look, puppies!

 

[marsilies]

Not a video, but a transcript of the event is available here:
http://pastebin.com/zTyD3fdV

Edit: updated link

 

[FFabian]

Land of the free indeed /s

A story like this sounds like from Putin's Russia ...

 

[Schizoid]

Nowicki[/url]":2tmwij11]STAY CLASSY NSA! Dont you know pandora doesnt go back in the box?

Pandora was never in the box; she was the one that opened it.

 

[Thereitis]

tetrapyloctomy[/url]":2kfoniv8]I disagree with Purdue's actions but I don't find them surprising. If faced with even a tiny risk of losing an untold amount of funding I think most university administrators would say, "Delete it immediately and we'll deal with the fallout later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

Might not just be funding at stake. There could be all sorts of penalties applied.

 

[Einbrecher]

I can understand the criticism of Purdue's actions, but they all fall under the assumption that Purdue is dealing with rational, normal, human beings that exhibit reasonable responses to this sort of thing. The NSA, FBI, and friends are anything but. If I was Purdue, I'd have done the same thing given all the money that's at stake.

dorkbert[/url]":3clmd4sf]We have citizens informing on each other. Why does it suddenly feel like we're living in East Germany?

A professor or PhD student that sees behavior violating the contract accompanying all of their funding, which, in the latter case, means a paycheck, tuition reimbursement, and several years of dissertation work that might get invalidated. You're damn right he informed the college that this happened. I'm surprised he sat down and waited for the session to end.

 

[rick*d]

tetrapyloctomy[/url]":2d88ojw2]I disagree with Purdue's actions but I don't find them surprising. If faced with even a tiny risk of losing an untold amount of funding I think most university administrators would say, "Delete it immediately and we'll deal with the fallout later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

The prudent reaction would be to say "Quarantine it immediately and we'll deal with it later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

 

[Hesacon]

This comment does not exist.

 

[MarsSentinel]

qasimq[/url]":1axuwl5t]I don't understand the logic behind this. The cat's already out of the bag on most of this. All this information is easily available on the internet now. All these actions do is generate more bad press.

Security does not equal logic. It equals power.

 

[Z1ggy]

rick*d[/url]":xr5zsnxn]

Z1ggy[/url]":xr5zsnxn]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

Then by your logic the government can simply classify everything and throw all journalists in jail for investigating anything. We would never have learned about Watergate or Iran-Contra or Benghazi or, well, anything. Rodney King was never beaten by those cops. Michael Brown was not shot by a cop. Nobody died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It never happened because we say it never happened, and if you say it did we'll throw you in jail for disclosing classified information, even if you were an eye witness and got it on cell phone video. Look, puppies!

please explain how my logic that perdue was legally obligated to not share the information since they were made aware of it, means we need to jail anyone?

 

[theoilman]

rick*d[/url]":2fz5kxcy]

tetrapyloctomy[/url]":2fz5kxcy]I disagree with Purdue's actions but I don't find them surprising. If faced with even a tiny risk of losing an untold amount of funding I think most university administrators would say, "Delete it immediately and we'll deal with the fallout later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

The prudent reaction would be to say "Quarantine it immediately and we'll deal with it later after our lawyers have a chance to actually talk about this with us."

In the update in the article Purdue themselves admit they over reacted. If I were in their position I might over react too.

 

[MarsSentinel]

Einbrecher[/url]":vs3vq58x]I can understand the criticism of Purdue's actions, but they all fall under the assumption that Purdue is dealing with rational, normal, human beings that exhibit reasonable responses to this sort of thing. The NSA, FBI, and friends are anything but. If I was Purdue, I'd have done the same thing given all the money that's at stake.

dorkbert[/url]":vs3vq58x]We have citizens informing on each other. Why does it suddenly feel like we're living in East Germany?

A professor or PhD student that sees behavior violating the contract accompanying all of their funding, which, in the latter case, means a paycheck, tuition reimbursement, and several years of dissertation work that might get invalidated. You're damn right he informed the college that this happened. I'm surprised he sat down and waited for the session to end.

The turner's-in of people always have a "good reason".

 

[bobthe]

Z1ggy[/url]":t0iode0d]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

Your argument seems to be that the law is always right, which I find difficult to agree with. Or perhaps that you should always comply with the law even when it is wrong, which I also find difficult to agree with.

 

[Z1ggy]

bobthe[/url]":6cr09ob2]

Z1ggy[/url]":6cr09ob2]Ill be the unpopular one.

the stuff was still classified. you knew that before the conference(or at least during the conference since you answered a flat out is that stuff still classified question).

Now you might not have known perdues legal obligations, but that doesn't mean perdue is in the wrong here.

Mind you its an interesting article, and thanks for writing it, but you were showing classified info(that could be found everywhere, but it was still classified).

I really don't see the fault here. If you want to say they shouldn't have to, then that's another story. But as per the papers they signed they had to.

Your argument seems to be that the law is always right, which I find difficult to agree with. Or perhaps that you should always comply with the law even when it is wrong, which I also find difficult to agree with.

well I would say you should always follow the law unless you are prepared to accept the consequences, while working to get the laws you don't agree with changed.

Perdue does not want to accept the consequence(which would be the loss of their contract).

 

[azazel1024]

Eurynom0s[/url]":vejzw3fr]

Baron von Robber[/url]":vejzw3fr]We must not speak about that which must not be spoken.......but we can look it up on the Internet all day and all night long.

My favorite part of all of this is that people with security clearances are the only ones not allowed to look at any of this information. I can kinda-sorta get the government's argument that it's still classified material and that you therefore still have to treat it as such, but to me it seems ridiculous that the only people legally forbidden from knowing what information has become public knowledge arguably have one of the strongest reasons of all to need to know what information has become public knowledge. It would seem to be problematic in terms of things like operational security if you're developing plans on assumptions of XYZ being classified when in actuality everyone else already knows about it, but you don't know that everyone else already knows about it because you've been forbidden from reading publicly available information.

I thought worth mentioning, it isn't simply security clearance, which starts at confidential, it covers anyone in a public trust position as well. Which means just about any and all federal employees are banned from looking at the stuff too.

 

[Wyrmaster]

Hesacon[/url]":42zjufst]This comment does not exist.

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of these communications.