Russia and China crack Snowden files: report
Citing anonymous sources, U.K. paper says MI6 pulling agents out of live operations
Russia and China have cracked the top-secret files stolen by Edward Snowden, according to a report from London newspaper the Sunday Times.
The report cites anonymous government sources who said the alleged decryption forced British intelligence agency MI6 to pull its agents out of “live operations in hostile countries.”
Moscow has gained access to more than a million classified files, according to the Sunday Times report, while China has also decrypted documents which contain details allowing British and American spies to be identified.
In regards to questions about any potential Canadian security impact, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and department of Foreign Affairs could not offer comment by press time.
A British government source quoted in the Sunday Times report said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.”
Snowden, a former American security contractor who is now in Russia, downloaded 1.7 million classified documents two years ago and leaked details to the press.
During a 2013 email exchange with former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey, published by The Guardian, Snowden claimed “no intelligence service” has the capacity to “compromise the secrets I continue to protect.”
The top-secret files disclosed information about sensitive government surveillance programs and sparked debate over where to draw the line between the fight against terrorism and Americans’ right to personal privacy.
Bruce Schneier, an American computer security expert and cryptographer who has spoken with Snow- den, expressed concern over the anonymous sources in the Times’ report, “when the United States government has tried so hard to make all sorts of claims about damage that never hold water.”
Schneier said there is “no other way” to obtain the information than hacking into the journalists’ files.
“Did these countries hack into the journalists? Now, we don’t know,” he said.
“It’s certainly possible, it’s not even implausible, but really without evidence, you’re really just parroting the comments of someone who has a vested interest in you believing it. And that’s just dangerous.” With files from Daniel Dale