Remember how someone leaked a presentation on how DEA was using "parallel construction" to prosecute cases when they were initially tipped off of illegal surveillance. They (DEA) might follow the subject and try to weave a chain of evidence that would make seem plausible that an agent accidentally stumbled on the crime somehow (so as to obscure the real source of the information).
Well spy agencies do this very often. For example if a an agent defects (say in this case someone from the Chinese intelligence agency). And they give up the names of 10 agents working for China in US. Well, if FBI goes to their homes immediately and starts arresting them, it will most likely disclose who that original source is. Presumably that kind of information is compartmentalized in China (or any intelligence organization) and once leaked it is trigger a mole hunt on a relatively small group of people (who have been read into that program).
So FBI might start monitoring those spies, and maybe only pick the ones that can do the most damage (or are about to leave the country, for example) and choose to prosecute them. Or I don't know turn them into double agents.
> Fuk and Tai were arrested at the Los Angeles airport after security agents searched their luggage and found an encrypted disk containing the files that Chi Mak had copied.
I would imagine someone working for Chinese intelligence would be using a robust encryption method. The article makes it seem like recovering the information from the disk was trivial.
It makes me wonder if the Chinese are just sloppy about secrecy, or if the US is just skilled at data recovery. I lean towards the latter.
I'm leaning toward sloppy reporting: The reporter swallowed the assertion that the disk contained what the FBI said it contained, without questioning how they know.
I sometimes wonder about the economics of these activities. Apparently China lets well educated, highly intelligent Chinese work for US companies, to spy on them, rather than working "genuinely" for a Chinese company. So either the secrets are extremely valuable, or they can't do R&D worth a damn at home.
Most highly educated people employed by companies tend to work on teams of varying sizes (but rarely consisting of just one person). Thus if a spy could report back significant details about the work of even a small team (maybe 5-10 people) it seems like the economics would work out quite well. Bigger teams would pay off proportionately more.
How to start a legal world war against the biggest enemy (China)?
1) They were spying us.
2) They are killing our people.
3) They bombed our ship.
For the justice and revenge!! easy job..
For anyone who pays attention to this kind of stuff, you would know China has an aggressive spy campaign against the US primarily for its technology. So I earnestly ask how in the world would China pass up the opportunity to get hold of the documents Snowden held? He was in their territory with the highest US secrets, and they just let him go? For just nothing in return? Just like that? Snowden said they never got anything (other than what has already been leaked), but there's no way I can honestly believe that when China has so much to gain.
As someone who has been a member of HN, longer than most I would say you should not apply that rule too broadly. Unless I am missing something, he just said "I'm probably gonna get down voted.". There is nothing wrong with that. People say that all the time on HN. [1]
That guideline talks about the case when someone explicitly complains about getting downvoted after the fact. Even comments that say "I don't know why I have been downvoted" are okay imho. Everyone should be allowed to ask why they are being down voted.
[1] As a site note: Usually types of comments actually get up voted. HN rarely down votes for unpopular opinions if they are well founded.
Anyway, everyone already knows what they need to know: if you're acting against the "interests" of the Five Eyes countries (primarily the US or the UK), don't trust any computers in or from those countries, unless you can reliably examine everything.
>Snowden was never taken into custody in Hong Kong.
Why would he?
>Anyway, everyone already knows what they need to know: if you're acting against the "interests" of the Five Eyes countries (primarily the US or the UK), don't trust any computers in or from those countries, unless you can reliably examine everything.
Well, that really goes for any country who has the capabilities, I would say.
I actually asked a question concerning Chinese intelligence gathering on US entities which by extension relates to Snowden. Why would the Chinese spy so heavily in the US, but pass up US secrets that's practically on their doorstep?
I'm guessing you're not aware that top secret clearances more often than not require "code words" and you are read in aka given access to said code words on a strictly need to know basis. Some code words themselves are classified. Having a too secret clearance does by know possible way grant you access to everything like say the US nuclear defense details.
>Because if they are "heavily" spying on the U.S., they already knew all what Snowden had, and more.
We don't know this, and how would the Chinese know specifically what Snowden has? Do you have anything to suggest that they did?
>How many gov employees + contractors have top security clearances in the US? That's how.
This doesn't say much. Just because you have a clearance doesn't mean you have access to classified documents. In the miltary, for example, almost all aircraft maintainers have a secret clearance and they just fix tires.
How would China having "so much to gain" lead to Snowden knowing more than he leaked? Maybe your opinion is unpopular because it contains very little logic.
Still, same question, how would it lead to him having documents he handed off? There is, after all, a big difference between China wanting them badly, and Snowden wanting China to have them badly. Just because they wanted him to still have the documents likely had little to no bearing on him having them.
"The investigation began when the F.B.I. was tipped off..."
Which is something about which there are no details.