Yet Another Highly Misleading GCHQ/NSA Article From the Intercept

[ProSense]

Yet Another Highly Misleading GCHQ/NSA Article From the Intercept

More technical disinformation

Charles Johnson

Here we go again. Another hyperbolic fear-mongering headline that is not supported by the actual article: Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters. It’s an ongoing pattern of seemingly deliberate misrepresentations.

The premise of this latest breaking news bombshell by Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher is that GCHQ has been “spying” on people who visit the Wikileaks website, by collecting statistics with the open source Piwik analytics program. But if you read down to paragraph 20, you discover:

It is unclear from the PowerPoint presentation whether GCHQ monitored the WikiLeaks site as part of a pilot program designed to demonstrate its capability, using only a small set of covertly collected data, or whether the agency continues to actively deploy its surveillance system to monitor visitors to WikiLeaks.

That’s right — they do not know from these stolen documents whether this program was ever actually deployed in the real world. Yet the entire rest of the article does its best to give you the impression that it was, with subheadings like “GCHQ Spies on WikiLeaks Visitors.” Once again, this Greenwald piece deceptively conflates the ability to do something with actually doing it...more than that, the article contains these drastically incorrect technical statements about IP addresses…

The IP addresses collected by GCHQ are used to identify individual computers that connect to the Internet, and can be traced back to specific people if the IP address has not been masked using an anonymity service.

Wow. Folks, these claims are simply wrong in every sense...Internet Protocol addresses do not “identify individual computers that connect to the Internet.” An IP address is a unique number assigned to an Internet connection, not to the device using that connection. I have seven devices connected to the same IP address in my office...IP addresses cannot be “traced back to specific people.” That’s nonsense. An IP address can be part of a proxy system, for example, in which case there could be hundreds or thousands of people using the same address. Or it could be dynamic, in which case it could be different every time a person connects to the Internet. There is simply no way to get an individual’s identity using only an IP address, as this article claims, whether not it is “masked.”...When I tried to point out these things to one of the authors of the piece this morning on Twitter, here’s the response:

- more -

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43086_Yet_Another_Highly_Misleading_GCHQ-NSA_Article_From_the_Intercept

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[LeftyMom]

2. Little Green Footballs is an acceptable source on DU now?

[ProSense]

3. Well,

"Little Green Footballs is an acceptable source on DU now?"

...I expected that (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021186856#post17).

Sort of like when people were attacked for posting Andrew Sullivan.

Holy Crap !!! - Andrew Sullivan Is MUST READ Today !!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023761510


Guess, it depends, huh?

[LeftyMom]

4. That's a pretty lame defense for linking to a RW hate site.

[ProSense]

7. Please,

"That's a pretty lame defense for linking to a RW hate site."

...it's not a "RW hate site"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/little-green-footballs-ch_n_375357.html

I'm not advocating that the guy is the greatest journalist ever. The OP is simply a criticism of Greenwald, who has is own past steeped in RW bigotry and support for the Iraq war.

[LeftyMom]

10. So he got a puff peice on his supposed disassociation with the fringe right?

Does that make linking to an islamaphobic hate site on DU acceptable?

The fact that the very name of the site is a play on a racial slur should give you a hint.

[ProSense]

12. Stop trying to deflect with inaccurate information. n/t

[LeftyMom]

17. If you want to embarrass yourself by posting bullshit from dodgy sources, be my guest.

Now everybody on DU knows you read RW hate sites and find them credible.

[ProSense]

19. You're mistaken. It's you who continue to "embarrass yourself"

Apparently, the criticism of Greenwald was too much for you to take.

[struggle4progress]

18. The site actually was rather rightwing at the height of the Bush era

[ProSense]

20. I know about the site and its evolution. n/t

[struggle4progress]

16. Dear Robert Spencer: Yes, I’m Being Paid

A confession
Charles Johnson
Wingnuts • 6/02/13 1:24:10 pm

Anti-Muslim hate group leader Robert Spencer got very upset at my post pointing out that his partner in bigotry Pamela Geller had simply lied in a recent piece for Breitbart.com ...

He’s playing dumb, but Spencer knows very well the reasons why I got the hell away from him and his crazy, hateful friends, as does anyone else who’s paid attention to this saga. Spencer knows that I find his associations with groups like the English Defence League repellent and disgusting, and he knows that I’m on to his poisonous rube-fleecing hate speech ...

I’m being paid with the peace of mind that comes from knowing I did the right thing by renouncing him and his divisive, hateful agenda, and knowing that I’m continuing to do the right thing by exposing him and Geller when they lie, smear, promote fascist groups and ideas, and encourage the ugliest forms of xenophobia ...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42074_Dear_Robert_Spencer-_Yes_Im_Being_Paid/comments/

[Marr]

27. Oh, right-- I suppose *you'd* consider it a "moderate" hate site.

lol.

[ProSense]

28. No, reformed, like Greenwald claims to be. n/t

[struggle4progress]

11. Charles Johnson seems to have had an epiphany, cuz the site has changed in recent years

Far Right Political Stunt of the Day: Rand Paul Sues Obama Over NSA Surveillance
Shameless grandstanding from the libertarian right, co-starring Ken Cuccinelli
Charles Johnson
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43070_Far_Right_Political_Stunt_of_the_Day-_Rand_Paul_Sues_Obama_Over_NSA_Surveillance

Suddenly Chris Christie Is a Right Wing Hero, Invited to CPAC
What a difference a corruption scandal makes
Charles Johnson
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43045_Suddenly_Chris_Christie_Is_a_Right_Wing_Hero_Invited_to_CPAC

Misogyny Is a Winning Formula for Mike Huckabee
What’s wrong with the right?
Charles Johnson
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43025_Misogyny_Is_a_Winning_Formula_for_Mike_Huckabee

[LeftyMom]

15. Yeah, he's tried to position himself as a bit more moderate than the loony right.

Doesn't make him a DU-worthy source, especially considering his hateful history.

[struggle4progress]

21. Well, that's always a possibility. But it's going on about five years now.

Maybe Johnson had woke up same as David Brock once did

Video: Rick Perry Plastered?
The teleprompter’s been drinking again
Charles Johnson
Wingnuts • 10/30/11 12:32:57 pm • Views: 28,586
Speaking in Manchester, New Hampshire, Rick Perry was either in a very giddy mood due to exhaustion, or in serious need of a designated driver ...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39356_Video-_Rick_Perry_Plastered

Instapundit: ‘Shoeshine Boy’ Picture Not Racist
Charles Johnson
Weird • 1/03/10 9:25:47 am
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) says this picture of Barack Obama as a shoeshine boy isn’t racist — because Rush Limbaugh was a shoeshine boy ... The idea that you can remove the racial context from this picture by saying, “Well, white people have been shoeshine boys too!” is such a transparently empty rhetorical trick, I’m surprised that Reynolds would try to use it. And I’ll just point out that Limbaugh himself seems to have no doubt that calling someone a “shoeshine boy” is a deliberate slur ...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35503_Instapundit-_Shoeshine_Boy_Picture_Not_Racist/comments/

[Cha]

5. Yeah, fuck the GASbaggers. they don't have to be

truthful or held accountable(so they think).. and the proof is in pretzels.

"That’s right — they do not know from these stolen documents whether this program was ever actually deployed in the real world. Yet the entire rest of the article does its best to give you the impression that it was, with subheadings like “GCHQ Spies on WikiLeaks Visitors.” Once again, this Greenwald piece deceptively conflates the ability to do something with actually doing it."

Greenwald gets paid to be ratfucker.

thank you ProSense and Charles Johnson.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. "GASbaggers"?

Oh, Greenwald-Assange-Snowden. My goodness, aren't you the clever one!

[Jamaal510]

31. "GASbaggers"

Perfect!

[Cha]

32. ..

[Drew Richards]

6. People that dont know shit about TCP/IP Should not write articles. I can prove him wrong with one

Word.

NMAP

Nmap...do yourself a favor and down load it and learn what it can and cannot do...


That alone can find out a ton about your connection, equipment, number of pieces of equipment you have on your supposidly "hidden" network and possibly your name or part thereof if you foolishly like 99.999% of people login their computer with their name or part of their name as their default username...microsoft defaults adding that to the computer identifying group name...

I could go on but I really dont give a ....to argue about what I do for a living.

[ProSense]

9. If you

"People that dont know shit about TCP/IP Should not write articles. I can prove him wrong with one"

...don't care about the OP point, would you believe it coming from Greenwald?

Comments left in blogs

A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.

Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html

Maybe he "should not write articles" on the subject either.

[Drew Richards]

14. Greenwald? hes not a network engineer and besides I take everything that sleeze says with a grain

Of salt... I have read his stuff for years and he's an political oppourtunist that changes his beliefs like I change underwear...

He is out to get paid plain and simple not fight for a cause.

[freshwest]

29. I agree though, that the technology can decipher the computer OS, programs installed, etc. And most

people who use a desktop at their home address - land line - will take the tack that it does address them personally.
My modem connects to one computer, phone and cabled television at one addresss. It's me, not way around it. I've always known corporations and other entities can figure out who I am, as I gave them all the necessary data to rent my place, lease my phone and internet connection.

To do so I had to provide a lot of information that identifies me as a paying customer. It's justified as part of how they set accounts up to get paid, usually through banking.

The bank has one's social security and a lot more to extend that service, all they need to identify one. The only way to escape everything is to go 'John Connor' without any of the advantages of modern technology and privileges of a citizen, and live as an outlier.

I worked in outside and inside communications. I don't think people have thought this through. That's why I take the hysteria with 'a grain of salt.'

[bemildred]

33. +1. nt

[sheshe2]

8. Kick!

[Fumesucker]

22. Evidently they were the least untruthful possible...

[ProSense]

23. You're comparing Greenwald to Clapper?

LOL!

[Fumesucker]

24. A double standard is better than no standard at all n/t

[ProSense]

25. If you say so. n/t

[PoliticalPothead]

26. Wow, this has to be one of the laziest anti-Greenwald articles I've ever read.

That’s right — they do not know from these stolen documents whether this program was ever actually deployed in the real world.

So what? They're reporting on the existence of this program. I'd rather know about the program, even if it hasn't been used on Americans (yet), than not know about it at all.

IP addresses cannot be “traced back to specific people.” That’s nonsense

This is complete bullshit. IP addresses can absolutely be traced back to specific people, or did you not hear about XKeyscore?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. This article is factually wrong. NAT overloading typically occurs at the premise

That gets them to your doorstep. In the cases where NAT overload/sharing occurs somewhere upstream, it's trivial for the ISP to cross-reference the public-to-private address translations and/or port translations, whether or not addressing is dynamic. ISP's are required to keep logs of this data.

Bottom line: if you're NSA/GCHQ, you can get a street address from an IP address and a timestamp.