Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 10:38 PM Feb 2014

Yet Another Highly Misleading GCHQ/NSA Article From the Intercept [View all]

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


33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kick! n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #1
Little Green Footballs is an acceptable source on DU now? LeftyMom Feb 2014 #2
Well, ProSense Feb 2014 #3
That's a pretty lame defense for linking to a RW hate site. LeftyMom Feb 2014 #4
Please, ProSense Feb 2014 #7
So he got a puff peice on his supposed disassociation with the fringe right? LeftyMom Feb 2014 #10
Stop trying to deflect with inaccurate information. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #12
If you want to embarrass yourself by posting bullshit from dodgy sources, be my guest. LeftyMom Feb 2014 #17
You're mistaken. It's you who continue to "embarrass yourself" ProSense Feb 2014 #19
The site actually was rather rightwing at the height of the Bush era struggle4progress Feb 2014 #18
I know about the site and its evolution. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #20
Dear Robert Spencer: Yes, I’m Being Paid struggle4progress Feb 2014 #16
Oh, right-- I suppose *you'd* consider it a "moderate" hate site. Marr Feb 2014 #27
No, reformed, like Greenwald claims to be. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #28
Charles Johnson seems to have had an epiphany, cuz the site has changed in recent years struggle4progress Feb 2014 #11
Yeah, he's tried to position himself as a bit more moderate than the loony right. LeftyMom Feb 2014 #15
Well, that's always a possibility. But it's going on about five years now. struggle4progress Feb 2014 #21
Yeah, fuck the GASbaggers. they don't have to be Cha Feb 2014 #5
"GASbaggers"? WorseBeforeBetter Feb 2014 #13
"GASbaggers" Jamaal510 Feb 2014 #31
.. Cha Feb 2014 #32
People that dont know shit about TCP/IP Should not write articles. I can prove him wrong with one Drew Richards Feb 2014 #6
If you ProSense Feb 2014 #9
Greenwald? hes not a network engineer and besides I take everything that sleeze says with a grain Drew Richards Feb 2014 #14
I agree though, that the technology can decipher the computer OS, programs installed, etc. And most freshwest Feb 2014 #29
+1. nt bemildred Feb 2014 #33
Kick! sheshe2 Feb 2014 #8
Evidently they were the least untruthful possible... Fumesucker Feb 2014 #22
You're comparing Greenwald to Clapper? ProSense Feb 2014 #23
A double standard is better than no standard at all n/t Fumesucker Feb 2014 #24
If you say so. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #25
Wow, this has to be one of the laziest anti-Greenwald articles I've ever read. PoliticalPothead Feb 2014 #26
This article is factually wrong. NAT overloading typically occurs at the premise DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2014 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yet Another Highly Mislea...