Yesterday we reported that in a historic first, an unknown group of hackers, the "Shadow Brokers" had hacked the NSA's cuberattack hacking division, "The Equation Group." Many were wondering what are the strategic implications of this dramatic escalation, which took place just as the US was accusing Russia of virtually every other recent prominent hacking, and whether it suggested something bigger was taking place behind the scenes. 
Today, the most famous NSA (ex) employee, Edward Snowden, chimed in on this topic in a tweetstorm in which he tries to explain who did it:


Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility. I suspect this is more diplomacy than intelligence, related to the escalation around the DNC hack
... why they did it:
This leak is likely a warning that someone can prove US responsibility for any attacks that originated from this malware server.
... and the consequences:
That could have significant foreign policy consequences. Particularly if any of those operations targeted US allies. Particularly if any of those operations targeted elections. Accordingly, this may be an effort to influence the calculus of decision-makers wondering how sharply to respond to the DNC hacks.
and concludes as follows

this leak looks like a somebody sending a message that an escalation in the attribution game could get messy fast.
In effect, Snowden suggest that Russia has either had enough of being accused for every hack in the US, or of being hacked itself, and is now retaliating. If he is correct, this is a far greater transgression by the Kremlin, and one which would absolutely necessitate a proportional US response to something which very well may have originated in Russia. The question is whether the administration, which has so far lobbed softballs as Putin for DNC hacks which may well have been done by 16 year old American hacker, will have the guts to retaliate to what is the first real act of global cyberagression.
Here is his full series of tweets on the topic (it can be found here in its original).

The hack of an NSA malware staging server is not unprecedented, but the publication of the take is. Here's what you need to know: 

  • 1) NSA traces and targets malware C2 servers in a practice called Counter Computer Network Exploitation, or CCNE. So do our rivals.
  • 2) NSA is often lurking undetected for years on the C2 and ORBs (proxy hops) of state hackers. This is how we follow their operations.
  • 3) This is how we steal their rivals' hacking tools and reverse-engineer them to create "fingerprints" to help us detect them in the future.
  • 4) Here's where it gets interesting: the NSA is not made of magic. Our rivals do the same thing to us -- and occasionally succeed.
  • 5) Knowing this, NSA's hackers (TAO) are told not to leave their hack tools ("binaries") on the server after an op. But people get lazy.
  • 6) What's new? NSA malware staging servers getting hacked by a rival is not new. A rival publicly demonstrating they have done so is.
  • 7) Why did they do it? No one knows, but I suspect this is more diplomacy than intelligence, related to the escalation around the DNC hack.
  • 8) Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility. Here's why that is significant:

  • 9) This leak is likely a warning that someone can prove US responsibility for any attacks that originated from this malware server.
  • 10) That could have significant foreign policy consequences. Particularly if any of those operations targeted US allies.
  • 11) Particularly if any of those operations targeted elections.

  • 12) Accordingly, this may be an effort to influence the calculus of decision-makers wondering how sharply to respond to the DNC hacks.

13) TL;DR: This leak looks like a somebody sending a message that an escalation in the attribution game could get messy fast.
And a bonus take:
Bonus: When I came forward, NSA would have migrated offensive operations to new servers as a precaution - it's cheap and easy. So? So...
The undetected hacker squatting on this NSA server lost access in June 2013. Rare public data point on the positive results of the leak.
You're welcome, @NSAGov. Lots of love.
The ball is now in the NSA's court.





It's quite cle that whatever Edward Snowden knows, someone(s) are trying very, very hard to make sure the American public never finds out. As this new story from Activist Post tells us, the state of California has just enacted an Orwellian bill that prevents reporters from posting 'undercover videos'. What else might 'TPTB' do to make sure that the truth never gets out? Might they even go so far as to attempt to shut down the entire 'free' internet, using China-style censorship? Who is so utterly petrified about whatever it is that Snowden knows? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? The DNC? The entire establishment? From the AP story.:

Earlier this morning, Snowden released a series of Tweets attempting to explain what we're now witnessing with our own NSA being hacked which resulted in a bunch of their hacking tools being released online. According to Snowden, what we're now watching could very well be a warning from Moscow to the United States. As Snowden also warns us, 'an escalation in the attribution game could get messy fast'. 

Snowden also warns in his Tweets we could now have proof that the NSA may have targeted elections. Not surprisingly, he also mentioned the DNC hacks in another Tweet. Is the NSA trying to steal the 2016 election for Hillary and the globalists? The mere fact alone that someone is going to great lengths to make sure that the truth never gets out should be a dire warning to Americans. As a trusted ANP contact recently mentioned to us, this also means we could be closing in upon their 'end game' for America: the UN round-up of Christians, US Patriots, 2nd Amendment supporters and anybody else that might stand in their way of global govt and a totalitarian 'new world order' that these leaks will likely expose.  
We also have to ask, is this latest hack of the NSA absolute proof that SOMEBODY, quite possibly Russia, has ALL of our governments 'dirty little secrets' and 'the evil hiding behind the mask' will do absolutely anything to prevent them from getting out? The full series of Snowden's Tweets can be seen at the bottom of this story below videos as his last Tweet simply read: "You're welcome, @NSAGov. Lots of love." 





Is Hillary Clinton squashing Donald Trump into oblivion in the polls? Or is her lead over him perilously shrinking? One thing we know is: there are countless ways to spin a poll. Consider the case of selective reporting on the most recent Bloomberg national poll.

On Aug. 10, Bloomberg reported “Clinton up 6 on Trump in Two Way Race.” But looking at the actual poll, Trump has moved so close to Clinton, the results are within the margin of error.

In the most recent poll, the spread between Clinton and Trump in a two-person race was down to just 3 percentage points, Clinton at 45% and Trump at 42%. That’s within the margin of error. When Libertarian and Green Party candidates are put in the mix, it’s Clinton 42% and Trump 40% –again within the margin of error.

But this notable trend isn’t reflected in the Bloomberg write-up here. Instead, the reporter chose to use the poll numbers that look better for Clinton: ones that added in “leaners.” What are leaners? Respondents who were first asked who they’d vote for, then answered they didn’t plan to vote or didn’t know who they’d vote for, and then were pressed to pick a candidate they were leaning toward, anyway. This is how Bloomberg got to the 6-point spread cited in its headline…double the actual spread of 3%.

The graphic Bloomberg used in its news story appears somewhat misleading in this context. It depicts the 6-point spread as the result of the question “…for whom would you vote?” It doesn’t disclose that the graphic adds in “leaners” who were asked a followup question.
It’s simply another reminder that what you read in the news often comes through a filter.
So here’s the primary thing Sharyl is calling out in the above paragraphs.

Is Hillary Clinton squashing Donald Trump into oblivion in the polls? Or is her lead over him perilously shrinking? One thing we know is: there are countless ways to spin a poll. Consider the case of selective reporting on the most recent Bloomberg national poll.

On Aug. 10, Bloomberg reported “Clinton up 6 on Trump in Two Way Race.” But looking at the actual poll, Trump has moved so close to Clinton, the results are within the margin of error.

In the most recent poll, the spread between Clinton and Trump in a two-person race was down to just 3 percentage points, Clinton at 45% and Trump at 42%. That’s within the margin of error. When Libertarian and Green Party candidates are put in the mix, it’s Clinton 42% and Trump 40% –again within the margin of error.

But this notable trend isn’t reflected in the Bloomberg write-up here. Instead, the reporter chose to use the poll numbers that look better for Clinton: ones that added in “leaners.” What are leaners? Respondents who were first asked who they’d vote for, then answered they didn’t plan to vote or didn’t know who they’d vote for, and then were pressed to pick a candidate they were leaning toward, anyway. This is how Bloomberg got to the 6-point spread cited in its headline…double the actual spread of 3%.

The graphic Bloomberg used in its news story appears somewhat misleading in this context. It depicts the 6-point spread as the result of the question “…for whom would you vote?” It doesn’t disclose that the graphic adds in “leaners” who were asked a followup question.
It’s simply another reminder that what you read in the news often comes through a filter.
So here’s the primary thing Sharyl is calling out in the above paragraphs.

While I’ll give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt and assume that they’ve always included the “lean” category in their totals (they did for June, unclear if they did prior to that), is adding this category to the total really justified? Moreover, Bloomberg should make this meaningful choice clear in the text of their article (they don’t), particularly when the tone of the article is unabashedly promoting the idea that Clinton is doing incredibly well.
All you need to do is take a look at the article’s heading to see how biased it is.
So with the four options that appear on most ballots, Clinton is in a pretty tight race with Trump. These are the facts, but as you saw, the article’s headline was incredibly misleading and skewed to make it seem as if a Hillary victory is inevitable.
But it’s not just the headline. The entire article reads like PR for team Hillary. A few more paragraphs of note:





A deadly African virus is on the brink of spreading to Europe and the Americas amid the largest outbreak in more than 30 years, a charity has warned.
Yellow fever can cause bleeding from the ears, eyes and nose, organ failure, jaundice and death in the most severe cases, and is considered such a threat that many African nations refuse entry to anyone who has not been vaccinated.
Yet despite those regulations, thousands of suspected cases have been reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) after the disease crossed the border from Angola.