Which Damaged National Security More: the OPM Data Breach or Edward Snowden?

[nitpicker]

http://www.overtaction.org/2015/11/which-damaged-national-security-more-the-opm-data-breach-or-edward-snowden/

Which Damaged National Security More: the OPM Data Breach or Edward Snowden?

Samuel Kramer on November 24

(snip) the verdict is in: the OPM data breach was far more detrimental to U.S. national security than Snowden’s thievery.

Here’s why: the People’s Republic of China stole sensitive, non-replicable information from OPM, including addresses and health and financial information from 19.7 million people, and at least 1.8 million from other people who are spouses and friends. FBI Director James Comey noted information stolen included details on people’s neighbors, their travel destinations, and any foreigners with whom they had come in contact.

In the case of the Snowden disclosures, other than what was already released, little is known about what was stolen. This uncertainty adds to the severity of the event because there is a chance what remains in Snowden’s possession could compromise intelligence agents. However, in the two years since the first disclosures, there has only been one known instance of this actually occurring, and it’s unclear what exactly happened.
(snip)

Furthermore, the OPM breach is also worse than the Snowden disclosures because it might be impossible to mitigate the damage. Some of the most controversial documents Snowden leaked detailed NSA’s surveillance programs, but last summer, Congress debated this issue at great length and eventually passed the USA Freedom Act. Under the Act’s provisions, NSA is now required to seek records from phone companies, and they must use a “specific search term” to limit the scope of the search. Although many might–and did–argue it is not a solution and introduce new national security vulnerabilities, it is however proof that these controversial programs can be altered.

On the other hand, the personal information that was stolen from the OPM cannot so easily be changed. That is, the data cannot be swapped out if we expect U.S. government employees to remain effective. During a briefing, Director Comey said: “There is a treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for the United States government. Just imagine you are an intelligence service and you had that data, how it would be useful to you.” The only effective way to prevent the sensitive information stolen from the OPM from harming either those affected or the interests of our country would be to replace every person whose information was stolen. However, that is not a solution because the victims of the breach were likely, as the British agents were, “doing useful work.” The U.S. government cannot simply remove millions of employees from duty.
(snip)

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Snowden revealed the extent to which our government is violating our rights as part of their

normal operations. That did not damage national security, it documented that we have become an unconstitutional national security state.

[GreatGazoo]

2. In the information age, any strategy which is based on long term secrecy is flawed

because long term secrecy is increasingly rare. Before computers and hacking there was "plausible deniability" but when the enemy has eventual direct access to what you would like to keep secret or deny, there is little defense.

[SheilaT]

3. Something of a false choice.

It is my opinion that overbearing secrecy is a core flaw in so-called National Security. Too many things are deemed secret. Too many unnecessary walls built between organizations and people who could use information.

Then there's the entire thing where the FBI entraps some supposed terrorist, who couldn't plot their way out of a paper bag in the first place, and then claim they've thwarted a real threat. It only got semi-real when they got involved.

We really need to know what our government is plotting, and who they are plotting against, otherwise they're no better than the group of genuine terrorists down the street, except that they get to cover themselves with a cloak of respectability, such as when they bomb a hospital and claim they'd had good intelligence that our soldiers were being fired upon from said hospital. Completely bogus, and now there's no hospital.