What Bruce Boudreau Brings: Part Two- His Playoff Performance

http://ift.tt/29cirgd

When Bruce Boudreau was hired by the Minnesota Wild, it was a move that was generally applauded in the hockey community. With the applause came hushed concerns about Boudreau and what he brings to the Wild. Despite an impressive record in the regular season, that kind of success has yet to find Boudreau in the playoffs. And for better or worse, that is where coaches are ultimately judged. With that in mind, let’s examine Bruce Boudreau’s playoff record in a few different ways. First, we will compare Boudreau’s first nine years coaching to the first ten years of the first Joel Quenneville and Darryl Sutter: two coaches who have been trading Cups since 2010 until Mike Sullivan and the Penguins interrupted the party. Second, we will examine if Boudreau’s teams have played worse in the playoffs in comparison to their dominant selves in the regular season. Lastly, we will take a look at Boudreau’s biggest blemish on his record, Game 7’s.

Boudreau vs. Sutter and Quenneville

At this point in history, it is easy to point to Coach Q and Sutter as the best coaches in the league. It is all about winning the Cup, and these two have done it more than anyone lately. However, when one looks at both of their first ten years in the league, it becomes clear that they haven’t always been so successful in the playoffs.

Create your own infographics

Oddly enough, through his first nine seasons Boudreau has more playoff wins than Sutter and Q had, and has a better win percentage in the playoffs. The similarities between them in their first decade coaching in the league doesn’t prove Boudreau will be winning multiple Cups any time soon; but it does show that success in the playoffs isn’t necessarily representative of coaching ability.

The biggest difference between Quenneville, Sutter and Boudreau at this moment is time. Now that Quenneville and Sutter have won a few Cups, it seems like they are always in the finals. However, in Quenneville’s 19 years of coaching, he has only been to the Stanley Cup Finals three times. Sutter has coached in the NHL for 16 seasons, and has been to the Stanley Cup three times. This reality highlights just how difficult getting to the Cup is, let alone winning it all. In fact, in the past twenty seasons (starting with 1995/96 and ending with 2014-2015) only seven coaches have been the Stanley Cup more than once. This graph here shows who those coaches are, and how they have fared in the past twenty years.

 

Do His Teams Play Worse in the Playoffs?

Bruce Boudreau’s lack of playoff success is the albatross of his NHL coaching career. In his eight playoff appearances, he has only gone past the second round once. With that kind of failure following his teams, one would think that the performance of his teams must suffer.

If only it were that simple.

Bruce Boudreau (Flickr/clydeorama)

Bruce Boudreau (Flickr/clydeorama)

It all began in Boudreau’s first season with the Capitals. From the moment he took over, the Capitals were a great team and ended up winning the Southeast division title. Despite that level of success in the regular season, the Captials lost in the first round to the Flyers in seven games. As you will see in the following chart, it was not because the Captials played poorly. They were simply unlucky. This chart shows each playoff appearance and compares the underlying numbers of the corresponding regular season with the underlying numbers for the playoffs.

 

If only each year his teams played far worse than they did in the regular season, then we could simply say he just folds in the playoffs. However, that is not the case.

Perhaps the biggest head scratcher came in 2011. The Capitals rolled through the Rangers in five games in the first round, but then were swept by the Lightning in the second round. If you look at the chart for that year, that was actually one of their better playoffs. So what happened? Well, the Capitals goaltending was brutal, and the Lightning got great goaltending. If you look at this table here, it is pretty clear who was carrying play. Hockey is a heartless game, and that year it did not care that the Capitals deserved to win.

11′ Series
CF% xGF% Sv% Sh% Shots%
TB 44.75 48.94 92.38 13.63 47.05
WSH 55.25 51.06 86.37 7.62 52.95

It is not as if Boudreau teams always outplayed teams; at times, they played worse. Well there we have it, the reason his teams don’t win in the playoffs: they play bad. But wait, let’s look at the most recent Cup champions out of Pittsburgh. They came in hot under Mike Sullivan, and rode that all the way to a championship. Didn’t you see how many games in a row they out-shot their opponent?

However, the Penguins did not start really dominating games until the Eastern Conference finals. Prior to that, they were fortunate to get past the Rangers and Capitals. They didn’t play very well those first two rounds and were buoyed by rookie goaltender Matt Murray. Here, another graph to show what I mean. Overall, their numbers look great and show why they eventually won the Cup. However, when you look at their first two rounds, there underlying numbers all take a significant dip. All stats are score adjusted and are for 5on5.

So, if playing poorly doesn’t mean you lose and playing well doesn’t mean you win, then we cannot conclude that Boudreau’s lack of playoff success comes down to his teams playing poorly. Plus, they usually play well. What has been missing is a big win at the right moment even if they didn’t play their best game, just like Pittsburgh did this year. This missing peice is highlighted by Boudreau’s Game 7 record.

Boudreau’s Game 7 Record: 1-7

Remarkably, Boudreau has already coached in eight Game 7’s in his career. More remarkable, is that he has only won one of these games. His game seven record is a huge reason for a lack of playoff success. Imagine he wins just one of those games. His whole career could be different. Alas, we cannot deal in the imaginary, only what has already happened. And what has happened is mind-boggling. Boudreau cannot get a goalie to outplay the other teams goalie ever. Of the eight games, only in one has his goalie played better than the opponents. Guess what? That’s the only Game 7 he has won. Another chart coming right up.

 

As you click-through these, keep an eye on two things: save percentage and shooting percentage. The most glaring being a 0% 5on5 shooting percentage against Nashville this past year. This is where one could critique Boudreau. Is it his game management or preparation that is causing such low numbers in either category consistently? That I cannot answer, but I can say that the numbers are bound to even out soon; which is good news for Wild fans. No coach can continue to lose so unjustly in Game 7’s right? Right?

Overall, Boudreau’s playoff failures are more of an enigma than an indicator. Boudreau will continue to take his teams to the playoffs, and eventually things will even out. At least, that’s what the numbers would indicate. However, it remains to be seen if the Wild roster has what it takes to play the way Boudreau wants them to. If they do, Boudreau is ripe for things to start going his way, and finally getting the playoff success he deserves.



from The Hockey Writers http://ift.tt/wCFVXw
via IFTTT

Tuesday assorted links

http://ift.tt/293CZt1

1. Tim Taylor on BrexitBernanke on Brexit.  And Angus defends Brexit.

2. Michael Pollan defends psychedelic drugs.

3. Georgiana Houghton at the Courtauld is one of the best and most revelatory exhibits I have seen.  Hardly anyone has heard of her, yet she was one of the very best nineteenth century artists.  Make sure you use the magnifying glass, from both short and long distances.

4. How can the USA get away with spending so little on long-term care?

5. On some cooperative benefits of war.

6. Is Danish mobility actually so high? (pdf)

The post Tuesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.



from Marginal Revolution http://ift.tt/oJndhY
via IFTTT

Python Tutor: The First Three Years

http://ift.tt/1ZkKQT8

Python Tutor: The First Three Years

Summary

This article provides the backstory of how Python Tutor (

pythontutor.com

) gained momentum during its first three years of development, starting as a hobby project.

For the past six years, I've been developing Python Tutor (pythontutor.com), a free educational tool that millions of people from over 180 countries have used so far to visually understand their code when learning computer programming. Thousands of people use it every day to run tens of thousands of pieces of code in seven languages: Python, Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Ruby, C, and C++. This tool has also become a platform for HCI, educational technology, and computing education research. Most recently, it formed the basis for my faculty job applications that got me a job at UC San Diego.

How did this project grow from nothing to its current state? I've been wanting to write a “history of Python Tutor” article for a while now but never found a good time to do so. There's actually no good time since there's no logical stopping point when this project is “done” ... I hope to keep it going as long as I can. So in this article, I'll just focus on how it all began in its first three years.

I'll assume you're familiar with Python Tutor. If you're not, play around with it first before reading further. Here we go!

Inception: December 2009

It all started in December 2009 when I was halfway through the fourth year of my Ph.D. I had spent the past semester creating IncPy, an auto-memoizing Python interpreter, and submitted a TaPP workshop paper on it. After finishing that submission, I was looking for something else to do over winter break as a diversion. I started thinking about the problem of parsing messy data since I had to do a lot of that in grad school. I wanted to create a web interface where the user could paste in a blob of semi-structured textual data and interactively “grow a parser” by making selections and having the tool heuristically suggest parse rules.

I was directly inspired by Kathleen Fisher's PADS, especially her POPL '08 paper, From Dirt to Shovels. (Kathleen co-taught the programming languages course that I TA'ed that semester.) Unbeknownst to me, my friend Sean Kandel was starting to work on a similar project called Wrangler with Jeff Heer, Joe Hellerstein, and others. Sumit Gulwani at MSR was also thinking about this problem in the context of Excel spreadsheets. But I was just pursuing this on my own for fun over winter break; I didn't have any intention of turning it into a serious research project.

As I started prototyping a GUI for data parsing, one immediate challenge was rendering semi-structured nested data in a sensible way. Tabular data was easy, but what if your data was weirdly nested? To explore this question, I hacked up some JavaScript code to take in JSON data, recurse into it, and render it as HTML tables that clarified its structure. I made a simple web app where the user can paste in JSON, click a “Visualize Me!” button, and the tool renders that data using colored table cells. This example shows a list of structures, where the permissions field points to a nested structure (click to see full-sized screenshot):

(If this primordial user interface reminds you of Python Tutor, it's not a coincidence. Hold that thought.)

At the same time as I was hacking on this data parser GUI, I found out about Khan Academy, which at the time was just a collection of YouTube videos where Sal Khan explained math and science concepts while drawing on a digital tablet. It was still a one-man operation with Sal recording videos in his home; there was no global phenomenon yet. (The hype around online education and MOOCs wouldn't begin until almost two years later.) I got hooked on watching those videos and was super inspired to make something similar for computer programming, which Sal didn't cover at the time since he focused on K-12 math and science.

I was especially impressed by the way Sal sketched out visual explanations of how mathematical operations worked step-by-step. I wanted to do something similar to explain how computer code worked, but I didn't want to tediously draw those diagrams by hand. Instead, I wanted to create a tool that would take a piece of code, run it, and automatically generate those step-by-step diagrams. Then I could annotate the diagrams or record videos with them to create my own “Khan-style” tutorials. Even better, this tool would also allow the learner to edit the code examples and see how the corresponding run-time diagrams change in response to their edits, which is impossible when watching pre-made videos.

Since I wanted my tutorials to be accessible to as many people as possible, I decided to create an automatic visualizer for JavaScript code since that language runs in all web browsers. I excitedly cold-emailed Sal, and we had coffee at Peet's in Mountain View to talk about these ideas (he wasn't nearly as busy back then!). He probably doesn't remember that meeting, but it was pivotal for inspiring me to keep going with this hobby project that had absolutely nothing to do with my Ph.D. research.

I knew that JavaScript debuggers such as Firebug (the most popular one at the time) could single-step through execution and inspect the state of all variables, so I thought I could use that to build my visualizer. However, after a lot of poking around I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to expose that debugging functionality in an ordinary web application without hacking the browser itself or forcing the user to install a plug-in, both of which would negate the “user doesn't have to install anything” benefit of web apps. The final nail in the coffin came from me emailing one of the lead developers of Firebug, who said that what I proposed was impossible because no browser at the time would expose these debugger hooks for security reasons.

I was sad that I couldn't realize my dream in JavaScript since it would've been super convenient for people to write code in a web browser and instantly visualize it without needing to send data to a server. Realizing that I had to run code on the server, I then turned to the language that I knew best and was thinking about most recently since I had been working on IncPy. Instead of a JavaScript Tutor, I decided to create a Python Tutor.

Version 1: January 2010

As winter break ended, I ditched my plans of working on the growable data parser since it seemed too hard to make headway on it as a solo research project. (However, thinking about this problem would inspire me to join the Wrangler project the following year and add Jeff Heer to my Ph.D. committee.) Plus, after meeting with Sal Khan, I became a lot more intrigued by the potential of Web-based technologies for online education.

At the time, I had a gut feeling that web browsers were just about to get good enough to support rich interactive learning experiences, and I wanted to be one of the first to explore this frontier.

I recycled much of the ideas and code behind my JSON nested data visualizer prototype from the prior month to now visualize data structures in Python code. After a few weeks of hacking, I “released” Python Tutor Version 1 on January 19, 2010 by sending an email to a dozen friends. It was a simple text box where the user enters Python code, clicks “Execute code” ...

... and sees a step-by-step visualization of what their code does to data structures at run time (click to see full-sized screenshot):

An astute reader will notice that while x and y appear like they are referring to two separate lists with identical values [1, 2, 3, 4], in fact they really point to the same list in memory. However, since Version 1 was a minimum viable product hacked up in two weeks, it didn't use pointers to explicitly capture such aliasing. Instead, everything was rendered as nested HTML tables just like in my JSON nested data visualizer. This was the primary limitation of Version 1, but I was happy to get it out the door and return to my Ph.D. work. It was a fun month-long diversion, but that was it.

The 1.5-Year Lull: 2010 – 2011

Nothing happened with this project for the next 1.5 years. I returned to working on my Ph.D. research, finishing up my fourth and fifth years. I showed Python Tutor to friends whenever I got the chance, but it wasn't something that I actively promoted. Online education wasn't at all on my mind during that time.

One relevant trend I saw during that period was that more and more universities (including my alma mater, MIT) were starting to teach introductory programming courses using Python. And as MOOCs booted up in subsequent years, many of those were also taught with Python. Thus, it was tremendously fortunate that I ended up creating a visualizer for Python and not JavaScript simply because I couldn't get JavaScript step-by-step tracing working in the browser. Otherwise this tool would not have become nearly as popular, since JavaScript was not (yet!) a common teaching language.

The one stranger who contacted me about Python Tutor during that time was Professor Peter Wentworth at Rhodes University in South Africa. Besides teaching Python, Peter had also customized Allen Downey's popular textbook Think Python: How to Think Like a Computer Scientist into a Rhodes Local Edition (RLE) that used Python 3.

Peter found Python Tutor online, liked it, and wanted a version for Python 3 to use in his teaching; it supported only Python 2 back then, and porting was non-trivial. Since I didn't have the time or expertise to port it to Python 3 myself, in December 2010 I zipped up the source code and gave it to him to hack on. I didn't even bother open sourcing it at that point since I figured nobody would care, and I was too busy with my Ph.D. work. (I finally put it on GitHub in July 2011.)

By the end of 2010, Peter and his students finished a Python 3 port and hosted it on their university's server. I happily linked to it from my official Python 2 version. I was excited that I had at least one real user, and from halfway around the world too!

My first three users: Summer 2011

Aside from Peter, two other professors started using Python Tutor in Summer 2011 as they prepped for fall courses. Feedback from these first three users inspired me to evolve it into Version 2.

In July, Peter introduced me to Brad Miller from Luther College in Iowa, who did his own port of Think Python called Learning with Python: Interactive Edition. Brad later generalized that resource into a platform called Runestone Interactive, which now hosts digital textbooks from well-known computing education researchers such as Mark Guzdial's group. Brad wanted to hack on Python Tutor to embed it within his interactive digital textbook so that students could play with visualizations as they read.

As the summer was winding down in September, Suzanne Rivoire from Sonoma State University (near San Francisco) told me that she had been using Peter's Python 3 port of Python Tutor in her introductory courses. I knew Suzanne a bit already since she worked in the office next to mine at Stanford when she was a Ph.D. student, and I was also friends with her younger sister. I was happy to know that I had a third user, but I also realized that I should make an official port to Python 3 instead of solely relying on Peter's mirror site hosted in South Africa. (I didn't end up doing that for another year, though, mostly due to me prioritizing finishing my Ph.D. and job hunting.)

I spent that summer interning at Google, and as I was moving to Harvard to begin the sixth and final year of my Ph.D., I found myself with one crucial month of spare time. (Recall that I created Python Tutor Version 1 in about a month over winter break, so that amount of time was enough to make a bout of concentrated progress.) Since I now had real users whom I could talk to, I decided to heavily revamp the Python Tutor interface to make it more usable. Throughout this process, I sent mockups and prototypes to my three users – Peter, Brad, and Suzanne – and they gave me valuable feedback from the perspective of professors who were using it to teach introductory programming courses. And since MIT was right next to Harvard, I also went over to Rob Miller's HCI group meetings to pitch my prototypes and get feedback from him and his students. (Little did I know that two years later I would return as Rob's postdoc.)

Version 2: October 2011

After a month of furious hacking, on October 4, 2011, I sent an email to a few dozen friends and colleagues announcing Version 2. Here is a screenshot from running on the same example code:

The biggest change from Version 1 was that the visualizations now explicitly illustrated pointer aliasing. Thus, x and y are shown here as actually pointing to the same list in memory.

I also made a template-based framework where an instructor can create practice problems. Learners can write code, run it against instructor-provided test cases, and then use Python Tutor to visually debug when they get something wrong:

(Unfortunately this feature atrophied as I focused more of my efforts on core visualizer development, but it's still there in a much slimmer form as the “Create test cases” button on the site.)

While this project started as a hobby, I now had an ulterior motive for polishing up Version 2 as much as possible: I wanted to get a full-time job working on tools for online education. Since I was starting my final year of Ph.D., I was starting to think seriously about what I wanted to do afterward. I was a bit burned out by my dissertation research direction (even though in hindsight I really loved it!), and there was something about online education that lit a spark in me. This was Fall 2011; the Big Three MOOC providers – Coursera, edX, Udacity – were on the verge of launching in the coming months. Something electrifying was in the air, and I sensed it. I wanted to show off Python Tutor v2 as my “portfolio project” when job hunting in the coming months.

Fortunately I didn't have to look too hard. Incidentally, I received a full-time software engineering job offer from Google the day after launching v2. I had been an intern there last summer and did a full-time interview at the end. As soon as my offer came in, I immediately emailed folks within Google who were doing education-related work to shop around Python Tutor.

My resume got bounced around internally within Google for a few weeks. Then I woke up one morning to a cold-email from Peter Norvig, who at the time was teaching the first Artificial Intelligence MOOC with Sebastian Thrun, which was the course that would eventually launch Udacity. Peter wrote:

Hi Philip, I got [your resume] from [X]. We had just this week been playing with your Python Tutor. We were trying to figure out what a good API would be to allow custom drawing/layout of objects (for example, drawing a binary tree and traversing it as a program execution unfolds).

I'm personally very interested in Education, and in exactly the kinds of things you are doing, so I'd love to talk with you.

-Peter Norvig

Long story short: We had a great series of conversations, and I signed up to join his group within Google Research in July 2012 when I planned to finish my Ph.D.

By the start of 2012, even though Python Tutor still barely had any users, there was enough buzz around the online education wave building up at the time that I felt passionate about continuing down this path for my career. I had no idea what exact sort of career I'd eventually have, or where I'd end up working, but I knew that I wanted to keep making headway in this domain.

Version 3: Summer 2012

Summer 2012 at Google was magical. Under Peter's unbelievably generous leadership, I was able to devote a large fraction of my working hours to Python Tutor from July to October 2012. I had a Unicorn Job for those four months. Every day was amazing.

Besides iterating on the design closely with Peter, I also worked a lot with John DeNero. At the time, John was a research scientist at Google who also taught the 1,000+ student introductory Python course at UC Berkeley! In 2014, he left Google to become a tenure-track teaching professor at UC Berkeley. I can't imagine a better person for that job since he was already doing it while working full-time at Google.

I coded a ton during those four months. John helped me (finally!) add support for Python 3 since he needed it for his Berkeley course and accompanying textbook. He also nudged me to make lots of detailed technical improvements that would help his own teaching, such as support for closures and higher-order functions. Peter and other colleagues suggested (now-central) features such as encapsulating state within an easily sharable URL and making the visualizations embeddable via iframes. I also rewrote the visualization engine using D3.

On September 18, 2012, I released Python Tutor Version 3, which is the version that's currently live on pythontutor.com (as of June 2016). Besides a bunch of cosmetic UI improvements ...

... it also visualizes heap-to-heap pointers so that it can render arbitrary linked data structures in a sensible way:

(v2 could do only stack-to-heap pointers, and v1 had no pointers.)

Another significant code improvement was encapsulating each visualizer instance into a self-contained JavaScript object. Thus, multiple visualizers could now be embedded within a single web page without interfering with one another, which was crucial for embedding in digital textbooks and online course materials. (In v1 and v2, only a single visualizer could be displayed on a page, since there was no encapsulation; all state was global!)

In terms of making the v3 release announcement, aside from emailing a few dozen friends and colleagues as usual, I now had huge leverage from being at Google. The Research at Google PR people were constantly looking to publicize interesting open-source projects that employees were working on, so I got them to write a blurb about Python Tutor and post it on their Google+ account. At the time, this account had over 153,000 followers, which gave Python Tutor instant worldwide exposure. They also featured it on the Google Research home page for a few months, which kept traffic flowing in. This was a pivotal moment for the project, and it wouldn't have been possible had I not been at Google and reached out to the right PR folks at the right time.

Best of all, this initial Google+ post attracted the attention of Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python, who rebroadcast it to his own legion of online fans. Guido was also working at Google at the time (he would leave for Dropbox soon afterward). I arranged to meet up with him in person and nervously watched as he played with Python Tutor. Funny enough, his first few attempts at writing Python code in the browser led to syntax errors:

But still, it felt good to get the thumbs-up from Guido himself!

It was now nearing the end of 2012, three years after I started this project as a winter break hobby back in December 2009. The Big Three MOOC providers – Coursera, edX, and Udacity – were fully booted up and aggressively trying to expand. Fortunately for me, they all used Python in their introductory programming courses. That fact, combined with the initial publicity from the Research at Google posts and ensuing viral spread on Internet news sites, provided the perfect mix of conditions for usage to skyrocket in the coming years. With zero money spent on advertising, in the next three years Python Tutor organically grew from almost no users to around two million users from over 180 countries.

Epilogue (for now)

There's so much more to this story than I have time to tell right now. Soon after releasing Python Tutor v3 in Fall 2012, I decided to leave Google to re-enter academia, pivoting my research focus to HCI and online learning. In the past four years, this tool has become an experimental platform for prototyping, deploying, and evaluating my research ideas, which have in turn led to academic publications and funded grants. For more details, read my 2015 faculty job application research statement.

One major implementation effort over the past two years has been expanding beyond Python. I was very lucky to have chosen Python back in 2010, but to increase the impact and longevity of this tool, I knew that it had to support more languages. So far I've implemented support for six other languages: Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Ruby, C, and C++ (although the Java backend was originally written by David Pritchard and Will Gwozdz). Unfortunately I still haven't found a better project name yet, so “Python Tutor” will have to do for now.

Most recently, I've been trying to use Python Tutor to build visually-augmented REPLs and live programming environments for computing education. There are also 10,000 other ideas on my to-do list, most of which I'll probably never get to. So stay tuned to see what's coming up next!

Created: 2016-06-02
Last modified: 2016-06-02

Related pages tagged as software:

Related pages tagged as CS Education:

Related pages tagged as research:



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Edward Snowden’s Strangely Free Life as a Robot

http://ift.tt/28W5SFa


I,

SNOWBOT

For a man accused of espionage and effectively exiled in Russia, Edward Snowden is also, strangely, free.

Photograph by Peter Bellamy

Snowden attending a TED conference in Vancouver in 2014.

Edward Snowden lay on his back in the rear of a Ford Escape, hidden from view and momentarily unconscious, as I drove him to the Whitney museum one recent morning to meet some friends from the art world. Along West Street, clotted with traffic near the memorial pools of the World Trade Center, a computerized voice from my iPhone issued directions via the GPS satellites above. Snowden’s lawyer, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union, was sitting shotgun, chattily recapping his client’s recent activities. For a fugitive wanted by the FBI for revealing classified spying programs who lives in an undisclosed location in Russia, Snowden was managing to maintain a rather busy schedule around Manhattan.

A couple nights earlier, at the New York Times building, Wizner had watched Snowden trounce Fareed Zakaria in a public debate over computer encryption. “He did Tribeca,” the lawyer added, referring to a surprise appearance at the film festival, where Snowden had drawn gasps as he crossed the stage at an event called the Disruptive Innovation Awards. Wizner stopped himself mid-sentence, laughing at the absurdity of his pronoun choice: “He!” Behind us, Snowden stared blankly upward, his face bouncing beneath a sheet of Bubble Wrap as the car rattled over the cobblestones of the Meatpacking District.

Snowden’s body might be confined to Moscow, but the former NSA computer specialist has hacked a work-around: a robot. If he wants to make his physical presence felt in the United States, he can connect to a wheeled contraption called a BeamPro, a flat-screen monitor that stands atop a pair of legs, five-foot-two in all, with a camera that acts as a swiveling Cyclops eye. Inevitably, people call it the “Snowbot.” The avatar resides at the Manhattan offices of the ACLU, where it takes meetings and occasionally travels to speaking engagements. (You can Google pictures of the Snowbot posing with Sergey Brin at TED.) Undeniably, it’s a gimmick: a tool in the campaign to advance Snowden’s cause — and his case for clemency — by building his cultural and intellectual celebrity. But the technology is of real symbolic and practical use to Snowden, who hopes to prove that the internet can overcome the power of governments, the strictures of exile, and isolation. It all amounts to an unprecedented act of defiance, a genuine enemy of the state carousing in plain view.

We unloaded the Snowbot in front of the Whitney, where a small group had gathered to meet us for a private viewing of a multimedia exhibition by the filmmaker Laura Poitras. It was Poitras whom Snowden first contacted, anonymously, in 2013, referring to the existence of a surveillance system “whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards are not.” Their relationship resulted in explosive news articles and a documentary, Citizenfour — work that won a Pulitzer and an Oscar and incited global outrage. But the disclosures came at a high price for their source. If Snowden couldn’t come home, Poitras at least wanted him to share vicariously in the experience of her Whitney show, “Astro Noise,” which took its name from an encrypted file of documents he had spirited out of the secret NSA site where he worked in Hawaii. So she had arranged a personal tour.

Attending “Astro Noise” at the Whitney. Photo: Henrik Moltke

Outside an eighth-floor gallery, a crowd of Poitras’s collaborators and Whitney curators clustered around the Snowbot as a white circle twirled on its monitor. Then, suddenly, the screen awoke and Snowden was there.

“Hey!” Wizner said, and the group erupted in awkward laughter. The famous fugitive was wearing a gray T-shirt, his face pallid and unshaven. (He calls himself “an indoor cat.”) His voice sounded choppy, but some fiddling resolved the problem, and Poitras, soft-spoken and clad in black, made introductions. Snowden’s preternaturally eloquent Hong Kong hotel-room encounter with Poitras and the Guardian journalists investigating his leaks formed the core of Citizenfour, but even some of those who worked on the documentary had never met its protagonist. One of the cinematographers came forward and wrapped him in a hug.

“I don’t have hands,” Snowden apologized. “The most I can do is maybe …”

He scooted forward.

Sitting in the same homemade studio he uses for his frequent speaking engagements, Snowden could control the robot’s movements with his computer, maneuvering with uncanny agility, swiveling to make eye contact with people as they spoke to him.

Poitras began with the show’s opening piece, a colorful array of prints that resembled modern abstracts but were actually found objects: visualizations of intercepted satellite signals that turned up in the vast trove of NSA documents. “The whole show, there’s a lot of deep research that’s going on behind it,” she said. She led Snowden into a darkened gallery, where a spooky ambient soundscape was playing over video footage of a U.S. military interrogation. Momentarily disoriented, he careened into a bench. But Snowden quickly figured out how to navigate in the dark. When he came to parts of the exhibit that required complicated movements — lying on a platform to take in the watchful night sky over Yemen, or craning to look at an NSA document through a slit in the wall — the humans hoisted him into position.

“Wow, okay, I see it,” Snowden said as one of Poitras’s researchers held him up to view footage of a drone strike’s aftermath. “This is a surreal experience for a number of reasons.”

When the tour was over, Snowden held an impromptu discussion, likening his decision to become a dissident to a risky artistic choice. “There’s always that moment where you step out and there’s nothing underneath you,” he said. “You hope that you can build that airplane on the way down, or if you don’t, that the world will catch you. In my case, I’ve been falling ever since.” Still, Snowden said he had no regrets. “I do have to say,” he told Poitras, “that I will be forever grateful that you took me seriously.”

As usual, though, when the questions turned to the details of his non-robotic existence, Snowden remained courteously evasive. “What’s a day in the life now?” asked Nicholas Holmes, the Whitney’s general counsel. “Do you go for walks in the park?”

“Well,” the Snowbot replied, “I go for walks in the Whitney, apparently.”


Watch the Snowbot's visit to New York's office.


The idea that Snowden is still walking the American streets, virtually or otherwise, is infuriating to his former employers in the U.S.-intelligence community. Its leaders no longer make ominous jokes about wanting to put him on a drone kill list — as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden did in 2013 — but they still vilify him and maintain that he did real harm to America’s safety and international standing. While Snowden’s leaks revealed the NSA’s controversial and possibly unconstitutional bulk collection of domestic internet traffic and telephone metadata, they also exposed technical details about many other classified activities, including overseas surveillance programs, secret diplomatic arrangements, and operations targeting legitimate adversaries. The spy agencies warn that the public doesn’t comprehend the degree of damage done to their protective capabilities, even as events like the Orlando nightclub massacre demonstrate the destructive reach of terrorist ideology. The fallout from Snowden’s actions may have prompted a debate about security and privacy that even President Obama acknowledges “will make us stronger,” but there has been no such reassessment, at least officially, of Snowden himself. He still faces charges of violating the federal Espionage Act, crimes that could carry a decades-long prison sentence.

When Snowden first revealed the NSA’s surveillance — and his own identity — to the world three years ago this month, there was little reason to believe that he would be in a position to communicate much of anything in the future. The last person to leak classified information of such magnitude, Chelsea Manning, was sentenced to 35 years in prison. (Manning, who was held in solitary confinement while awaiting trial, has largely communicated to the public through letters.) Yet so far, to his own surprise, Snowden has managed to avoid the long arm of U.S. law enforcement by finding asylum in Russia. Leaving aside, at least for the moment, the ethics of his actions (and the internal contradictions of his residence in an authoritarian state ruled by a former KGB operative), Snowden’s case is, in fact, a study in the boundless freedoms the internet enables. It has allowed him to become a champion of civil liberties and an adviser to the tech community — which has lately become radicalized against surveillance — and, in the process, the world’s most famous privacy advocate. After he appeared on Twitter last September — his first message was “Can you hear me now?” — he quickly amassed some two million followers.

One thing Snowden refuses to do is apologize.“They’re saying they still don’t like me — ‘tut-tut, very bad’ — but they recognize that it was the right decision.”

“I feel like we’re sort of dancing around the leadership conversation,” Snowden said to me recently as I sat with him at the ACLU offices. Over the past few months, we have encountered one another with some regularity, and while I can’t claim to know him as a flesh-and-blood person, I’ve seen his intellect in its native habitat. He is at once exhaustively loquacious and reflexively self-protective, prone to hide behind smooth oratory. But occasionally, he has let down his guard and talked like a human being. “I’m able to actually have influence on the issues that I care about, the same influence I didn’t have when I was sitting at the NSA,” Snowden told me. He claims that many of his former colleagues would agree that the programs he exposed were wrongfully intrusive. “But they have no voice, they have no clout,” he said. “One of the weirder things that’s come out of this is the fact that I can actually occupy that role.” Even as the White House and the intelligence chiefs brand him a criminal, he says, they are constantly forced to contend with his opinions. “They’re saying they still don’t like me — tut-tut, very bad — but they recognize that it was the right decision, that the public should have known about this.”

Needless to say, it is initially disorienting to hear messages of usurpation emitted, with a touch of Daft Punk–ish reverb, from a $14,000 piece of electronic equipment. Upon meeting the Snowbot, people tend to become flustered — there he is, that face you know, looking at you. That feeling, familiar to anyone who’s spotted a celebrity in a coffee shop, is all the more strange when the celebrity is supposed to be banished to the other end of the Earth. And yet he is here, occupying the same physical space. The technology of “telepresence” feels different from talking to a computer screen; somehow, the fact that Snowden is standing in front of you, looking straight into your eyes, renders the experience less like enhanced telephoning and more like primitive teleporting. Snowden sometimes tries to put people at ease by joking about his limitations, saying humans have nothing to fear from robots so long as we have stairs and Wi-Fi dead zones in elevators. Still, he is quite good at maneuvering on level ground, controlling the robot’s movements with his keyboard like a gamer playing Minecraft. The eye contact, however, is an illusion—Snowden has learned to look straight into his computer’s camera instead of focusing on the faces on his screen.

Here’s the really odd thing, though: After a while, you stop noticing that he is a robot, just as you have learned to forget that the disembodied voice at your ear is a phone. Snowden sees this all the time, whether he is talking to audiences in auditoriums or holding meetings via videoconference. “There’s always that initial friction, that moment where everybody’s like, ‘Wow, this is crazy,’ but then it melts away,” Snowden told me, and after that, “regardless of the fact that the FBI has a field office in New York, I can be hanging out in New York museums.” The technology feels irresistible, inevitable. He’s the first robot I ever met; I doubt he’ll be the last.

The Snowbot with technologist Peter Diamandis in Las Vegas. Photo: Done Clark for the Wall Street Journal

Wizner, the head of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, says that Snowden asked him to do some research on telepresence in their first conversation, back when he was still very much on the lam. Now that his situation has stabilized — at least for the time being — he and Snowden’s small coterie of advisers are discussing ways they might use it for a widening range of purposes. Glenn Greenwald, one of Snowden’s original journalistic collaborators, jokingly talks about taking the Snowbot on the road. “I would love to let it loose in the parking lot of Fort Meade,” where the NSA is headquartered, he said. “Or to randomly go into grocery stores.” More seriously, Snowden’s advisers are in discussions about a research fellowship at a major American university. Already, the Snowbot has twice taken road trips to Princeton University, where he has participated in wide-ranging discussions about the NSA’s capabilities with a group of renowned academic computer-security experts, rolling up to cryptographers during coffee breaks and dutifully posing for selfies.

For larger gatherings, Snowden usually dispenses with the robot, addressing audiences from giant screens. (He often opens with an ironic reference to Big Brother.) He is scheduled to make more than 50 such appearances around the world this year, earning speaking fees that can reach more than $25,000 per appearance, though many speeches are pro bono. Besides allowing Snowden to make a good living, his virtual travels on the public-lecture circuit are part of a concerted campaign to situate him within a widening zone of political acceptability. “One of the things we were trying to do is to normalize him,” says Greenwald. “Normalize his life, normalize his presence.” In 2014, Snowden joined Poitras and Greenwald on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit, and last year he was elected chairman. It serves as a base for his advocacy and gives him access to a staff of technologists with whom he has been working on encryption projects, tools intended to allow journalists to communicate with “people that live in situations of threat” — in other words, people like Snowden himself.

Through a network of intermediaries — chief among them Wizner, who acts as his advocate, gatekeeper, and talent agent in the United States — Snowden is able to establish contact with almost anyone he desires to meet. “Ed’s now getting a lot of people on the phone, and it’s broadening his horizons,” says the author Ron Suskind, who has spoken with him on several occasions and recently had him lecture to a class he and Lawrence Lessig were teaching at Harvard Law School. Snowden also recently spoke to Amal Clooney’s law class at Columbia, starred in an episode of the Vice show on HBO, and published a manifesto on whistle-blowing on the Intercept, the website Poitras and Greenwald started with the billionaire Pierre Omidyar. And he has been maintaining his presence on Twitter, where he has been playfully talking up Oliver Stone’s forthcoming film, Snowden, which will star Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

The biopic’s September release date matches up with Wizner’s timetable for mobilizing a clemency appeal to Obama. “We’re going to make a very strong case between now and the end of this administration that this is one of those rare cases for which the pardon power exists,” Wizner said. “It’s not for when somebody didn’t break the law. It’s for when they did and there are extraordinary reasons for not enforcing the law against the person.” He says that while no single event is likely to shift opinion in Washington, Snowden’s activities work “in the aggregate” to further his cause.

One thing Snowden refuses to do, however, is apologize. If anything, the last three years have turned him more strident. Whereas he once espoused a fuzzy dorm-room libertarianism — “some of it was kind of rudimentary,” Greenwald recalls — today he offers a more traditional leftist critique of the “deep state.” On Twitter, he has been admiring of Bernie Sanders, acerbic about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, and bitingly sarcastic about her handling of classified emails. In February, he tweeted: “2016: a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs.” He sees himself as part of a hacktivist movement, and he took pride when the anonymous source behind the massive cache of offshore banking data known as the Panama Papers cited Snowden’s example. In his Intercept essay, he called such leaking “an act of resistance.”

WNYC recently staged a sold-out Friday-night event at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, not far from Fort Greene Park, where some artists surreptitiously erected a Snowden bust last year. At the appointed time, the fugitive appeared on a screen at the front of an ornate opera hall. It was around 2:30 a.m. in Moscow, but Snowden looked wide-awake, wearing an open-collared shirt and blazer and his customary stubble. “In an extraordinary and unpredictable way,” he told the audience, “my own circumstances show there is a model that ensures that even if we’re left without a state, we aren’t left without a voice.”

With encryption experts at Princeton. Photo: Courtesy of Surveillance Workshop

When Snowden went public, one of the first people he sought out was a historical antecedent: Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. He, too, was briefly a fugitive and faced Espionage Act charges, until they were dropped because of the illegal retaliatory actions of President Nixon. Now 85, Ellsberg was eager to talk to Snowden and they connected over an encrypted chat program.

“I had the feeling that, as I suspected from the beginning, we really were kindred souls,” Ellsberg told me.

Ellsberg, mindful of Manning’s experience, advised Snowden to give up any thought of returning home. Snowden was inclined to agree. From the beginning, he had spoken fatalistically about the consequences of his actions. “All my options are bad,” Snowden acknowledged in his first interview in Hong Kong, which was published in the Guardian. If the American government didn’t grab him, the Chinese might, just to find out what he knew. He hinted that the CIA might even try to kill him, either directly or through an intermediary like a triad gang. “And that’s a fear I’ll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be,” Snowden said at the time.

“He didn’t have a plan,” says Wizner. Snowden assumed that he would probably be silenced in one way or another, so he worked with a sympathetic programmer in the United States to design a website, supportonlinerights.com, which was to contain a letter addressed to the public. But instead, he more or less got away with it. After a nervy flight and an agonizing five-week wait in limbo at the Moscow airport, he was granted temporary asylum in Russia by President Vladimir Putin. Photos soon appeared in the Russian media showing Snowden pushing a grocery cart and looking slyly over his shoulder on a riverboat ride. It was an uneasy deliverance, though, one seemingly subject to Putin’s unpredictable geopolitical power considerations.

Snowden argues that he was put in Russia by the U.S. government, which canceled his passport while he was en route to Ecuador, trapping him in Moscow during a layover. But to critics, his dependence on Putin is discrediting. “I am not saying that he is a Russian spy, but he is in a tough spot,” says journalist Fred Kaplan, author of the recent book Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. “He is in a position where, because of his captive status, he can’t really say anything that terribly critical about his hosts, who happen to be some of the most sophisticated and intrusive cyberespionage hackers in the world.” Many in the intelligence community darkly speculate about the nature of Snowden’s accommodation with the FSB, the Russian security service, which is not renowned for its hospitality or respect for civil liberties.

Glenn Greenwald jokes about taking the Snowbot on the road. “I would love to let it loose in the parking lot of Fort Meade,” where the NSA is headquartered.”

Although Snowden acknowledges that he was approached by the FSB, he claims he has given them no information or assistance, and he vehemently denies he is anyone’s puppet. He cheered the release of the Panama Papers, which contained voluminous evidence of corruption in Putin’s inner circle. “I have called the Russian president a liar based on his statements on surveillance, in print, in the Guardian,” he said with an uncharacteristic flash of annoyance, when I asked whether he felt any constraints in discussing Russia. “I have criticized Russia’s laws on this, that, and the other. It’s just frustrating to get the question because it’s like, look, what do I have to do?”

Snowden seems determined to refute predictions that he would end up broken, like so many whistle-blowers before him, or drunk and disillusioned, like a stereotypical Cold War defector. (He has claimed that he drinks nothing but water.) “People think of Moscow as being hell on earth,” he said during his Whitney visit. “But when you’re actually there, you realize it’s not that much different than other European cities. Their politics are wildly different, and of course really they’re problematic in so many ways, but the normal people, they want the same things.” He says he does his own shopping and takes the metro. Family members come to visit. His longtime girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, reunited with him in Moscow and has posted Instagram snapshots of her life there.

Last year, before Halloween, Mills posted a Photoshopped picture that posed the couple in front of FBI headquarters, with Snowden costumed as the capped protagonist of Where’s Waldo? As improbable as it may sound, he has told confidants that he doesn’t think the U.S. government has managed to pin down his exact whereabouts. He says he has designed his new life around his unique “threat model,” minimizing his vulnerability to tracking by giving up modern conveniences like carrying a phone. “He does not believe that he’s shadowed all the time by the CIA,” says Ellsberg, who has been in regular contact. “But he does believe that he is in the sights of the FSB all the time, partly to keep him safe.” Snowden is most at ease when he’s on the internet, an environment he feels he can control. As a former systems engineer, he has been able to construct back-end protections that allow him to feel confident that he can evade locational detection, even when he is using the internet like a civilian. He has sometimes chatted via video on Google Hangouts.

Snowden is more wary about in-person meetings, typically conducting them in hotels like the Metropol near Red Square. More than a year after they began speaking, Ellsberg finally had the opportunity to meet Snowden in person, when he visited Moscow with an informal goodwill delegation that also included the actor John Cusack and the leftist Indian author Arundhati Roy. At the appointed time, Snowden called and said to meet him in the lobby of their hotel. Cusack took the elevator downstairs, and Snowden surprised him by getting on at the fourth floor. When they returned to the room, Ellsberg greeted Snowden by saying, “I’ve been waiting 40 years for someone like you.”

Two days of marathon bull sessions and room-service dining ensued. Ellsberg tried — unsuccessfully — to get confirmation of some long-held suspicions about the extent of the NSA’s spying on Americans. Periodically, Snowden would point to the ceiling, to remind the room that others were probably listening. Cusack and Roy later recounted the conversation in a 13,000-word essay, writing that when the meeting was over, Ellsberg lay down “on John’s bed, Christ-like, with his arms flung open, weeping for what the United States has turned into — a country whose ‘best people’ must either go to prison or into exile.”

The notion that Snowden has become, to some, a sort of mythic figure — the Oracle of the Metropol — is profoundly annoying to the people who actually hold the nation’s intelligence secrets. “I’d love to see him come back to the U.S. and take his medicine,” says Robert Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who has been deeply involved in both the legislative fallout from the NSA revelations and internal government discussions over the potential prosecution of Snowden. Litt says he sees the consequences of Snowden’s actions on extremist message boards, which now exhort jihadis to use encryption. “It cannot be disputed,” he told me, “that this has had immeasurable impact.”

Snowden believes that officials like Litt are merely trying to scare the public into acquiescence. Last October, the two had a showdown of sorts when they spoke back-to-back at a conference at Bard College. “Each time we have an election, it’s like another round of a game,” Snowden told the students. Using a livecasting program designed for gamers that allows him to project illustrations, he filled the auditorium screen with an image of George W. Bush shaking hands with Obama. “The policies of one president become the policies of another.” Then he played a video clip of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki’s son, a 16-year-old American citizen killed by a drone strike in Yemen. He cited a leaked 2015 email in which Litt addressed the hostile legislative climate, recommending “keeping our options open” for a change “in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”

“Surveillance is ultimately not about safety,” Snowden said. “Surveillance is about power. Surveillance is about control.”

Litt opened his remarks by joking that he could sympathize with the act that went on Ed Sullivan after the Beatles. “I can hear the NSA’s opinion any day,” one student stage-whispered, as he and many others got up to head for the exits. Litt called after them, saying he was “disappointed” with the disdain “given that this is an academic environment.” He then elaborated on the ominous sentiment expressed in his email.

“Every time something bad happens, the finger gets pointed at the intelligence community,” Litt said. “There is a pendulum that swings back and forth, in terms of the public view of the intelligence community, between, ‘You mean you’re doing what?’ and ‘Why didn’t you protect us?’ And that’s a pendulum that’s going to swing again.”

With Neil deGrasse Tyson in New York. Photo: Carlos Valdes-Lora

While much of Washington remains hostile to him, Snowden is far more hopeful about Silicon Valley and is increasingly focusing his efforts on influencing technology and the people who make it. “Like me, they grew up with this stuff,” he told me. “They remember what the internet was like before everybody felt it was being watched.”

The Snowden leak “was like a gut punch for people across Silicon Valley,” says Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist who invested early in Twitter and Uber and who now appears on the television show Shark Tank. Sacca was personally friendly with Obama, raising large sums for his 2012 campaign, but was shocked when he discovered the extent of the NSA’s spying and has since become a vocal Snowden supporter. Last November, Sacca did an admiring interview with Snowden at the Summit at Sea, an invite-only weekend of seminar talks and techno dancing aboard a cruise ship, which was attended by the likes of Eric Schmidt, chairman of Alphabet, and Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber. “After fielding over an hour of tough questions,” Sacca says, “he got a resounding standing ovation from the room.”

Even as Snowden captivated the audience on the boat, though, terrorists were mounting a bloody coordinated attack in Paris. The pendulum was swinging back. At first, Wizner says, Snowden was shaken — he worried that the attacks had wiped out all of his progress. Almost immediately, anonymous security sources blamed encryption for giving cover to the attackers. (Subsequent reports suggest they may have been more reliant on primitive tactics, like using burner phones.) “They dragged out all the old CIA directors, the line of disgrace, to suddenly try to reclaim a halo,” Snowden told me. “It did look really exploitative.” For three weeks, he went quiet, posting just once to Twitter, quoting Nelson Mandela about triumphing over fear. Meanwhile, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik attacked in San Bernardino, and Trump called for a ban on Muslim immigration.

Wizner advised his client to be patient. Snowden sometimes says he thinks of his existence like a video game: a series of challenges that culminate in a final screen, where you either win or it’s game over. But political outcomes are never so final — it’s an iterative process. In February, when Apple announced it was refusing to break into Farook’s iPhone for the FBI, Snowden was suddenly scoring points again. (“The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights,” he tweeted, “rather than the other way around.”) In an open letter, Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, talked the way Snowden does about privacy, encryption, and government “overreach.” The next day, Snowden spoke at Johns Hopkins University, where hundreds of shivering students lined up to get into a packed auditorium. “This is a case that’s not about San Bernardino at all; it’s not a case that’s about terrorism at all,” Snowden warned. “It’s about the precedent.”

Litt believes that, besides giving information to enemies, Snowden’s disclosures have also had a radicalizing effect in the private sector. “The technology and communications community has moved from a position of willingness to cooperate,” he told me, “to an attitude that ranges from neutrality to outright hostility, which is an extremely bad thing.” Recently, Snowden has been working with technical experts who are mobilizing to fortify the internet’s weak spots, both through collaborations with academic researchers and back-channel conversations with employees at major tech companies.

In all of these conversations, Snowden is operating on the assumption that a truly private space on the internet could be easier to create than to legislate — that it may be more fruitful to coax programmers to invent something that is difficult to hack than it would be to try to reshape the entire national-security bureaucracy so it stops trying. “I’m regularly interacting with some of the most respected technologists and cryptographers in the world,” Snowden said. “I believe that there’s actually a lot more influence that results from those sorts of conversations, because so much of technology is an expert game.”

The aspect of the Snowden leaks that most outraged technology experts was not the NSA’s communications surveillance but its efforts to undermine encryption, which had broad impacts on computer security. That news has “created a period of innovation” in encryption, says Moxie Marlinspike, the San Francisco–based security specialist who developed Signal, the messaging program that Snowden likes to use to communicate. Marlinspike has become friendly with Snowden, whom he met in Moscow, where they had a lengthy discussion about the trade-offs between security and usability. (Snowden is always seeing holes hackers can poke through; Marlinspike wants to make encryption accessible to laypeople.) In April, WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, announced that it had integrated the Signal protocol Marlinspike developed, allowing it to offer end-to-end encryption. Those sorts of technical decisions, like Apple’s strengthened encryption standards, affect the privacy of millions of customers.

But Snowden is skeptical of the motives of tech companies. “Corporations aren’t friends of the people, corporations are friends of money,” he said. He prefers to collaborate with academics and hacktivists, some of whom are helping him with projects he is developing for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. It already manages SecureDrop, a system for anonymously leaking documents, and the nonprofit’s technical staff is working with Snowden to develop other programs tailored to protect journalists and whistle-blowers. “His goal with us is to start designing and prototyping what the tools of the future will look like,” says Trevor Timm, the foundation’s executive director. One of Snowden’s priorities, unsurprisingly, is improving the security of videoconferencing.

About once a week, the team meets on a beta-stage video platform, where they discuss the painstaking work of testing their technology, a probing process called “dogfooding.” As a prime target for hacking attacks, Snowden is in a unique position to appreciate extreme-threat models. He often comes up with exotic problems to solve and is able to bring in outside minds for confidential consultations. “We’re building small projects,” Snowden says, but he can’t help but see larger applications. He talks enthusiastically about virtual reality, which could soon supplant videoconferencing. “In five years this shit’s going to blow your mind,” Snowden told me. But he also sees potential dangers. “Suddenly, you’ve got every government in the world sitting in every meeting with you.”

Snowden is especially concerned about the monitoring power of Facebook, which acquired Oculus VR, the virtual-reality headset maker, for $2 billion. “What if Facebook has a copy of every memory that you ever made with someone else in these closed spaces?” he asked rhetorically. “We need to have space to ourselves, where nobody’s watching, nobody’s recording what we’re doing, nobody’s analyzing, nobody’s selling our experiences.”

It is clear that in virtual reality, Snowden sees more than just a work tool. “Right now, the technology is not quite there, but this is the first step,” the Snowbot told Peter Diamandis, the space entrepreneur and Singularity University co-founder, in an interview at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show. “I have someone who is very close to me,” Snowden explained, “who was the victim of a serious car accident, and because of that they can’t travel.” Virtual reality could bring them together. Or it could allow him to visit home for Thanksgiving, overcoming what he calls “the tyranny of distance.”

Visiting New York’s offices. Photo: Adam Banicki/New York Magazine

More than one person told me that, after talking to Snowden for hours on end, they got the sense that he is lonely. His conversation is preoccupied with the theme of escape. He recently collaborated on a track with a French musician, delivering a spoken-word monologue on surveillance over an electronic beat, and recommended the title: “Exit.”

Snowden sometimes says that although he lives in Russia, he does not expect to die there, and he told me he is optimistic that he will find a way out, somehow. Maybe some Scandinavian country will offer him asylum. Maybe he can work out some kind of deal — whether outright clemency or a plea bargain — with the Justice Department. Wizner has been working with Plato Cacheris, a well-connected Washington defense attorney, but so far, there have been no official signals that the Justice Department would be willing to offer the kind of lenient terms Snowden would accept. And a window may be closing. He is unlikely to receive a more receptive hearing from Hillary Clinton, who has said he shouldn’t be allowed to return without “facing the music.” As for Donald Trump: He has called Snowden a “total traitor” and suggested he should be executed. “If I’m president,” he predicted last year, “Putin says, ‘Hey, boom — you’re gone.’ ”

So the comparatively thoughtful Obama may be Snowden’s best hope, but even Snowden’s allies concede that they doubt the outgoing president has the inclination to offer a pardon. “There is an element of absurdity to it,” Snowden told me. “More and more, we see the criticisms leveled toward this effort are really more about indignation than they are about concern for real harm.” He says he would return and face the Espionage Act charges if he could argue to a jury that he acted in the public interest, but the law does not currently allow such a defense. “These people have been thinking about the law for so long that they have forgotten that the system is actually about justice,” Snowden said. “They want to throw somebody in prison for the rest of his life for what even people around the White House now are recognizing our country needed to talk about.”

Earlier this year, Snowden was buoyed by an invitation from an unexpected source. David Axelrod, the president’s former top political strategist, asked him to appear at the institute he now runs at the University of Chicago. Beforehand, they had a video chat. “The president of the United States’ closest advisers,” Snowden told me later, “are now introducing me and sharing the stage with me in ways that aren’t actually critical. I’m not saying this to build myself up. I’m talking about the recognition by even the people who have the largest incentives to delegitimize me as a person, that maybe we overreacted, maybe this is a legitimate conversation that we need to have.”

Axelrod asked Geoffrey Stone, a liberal law professor who is friendly with Obama, to moderate the public talk. Stone is a member of the ACLU’s National Advisory Council and the author of a book titled Top Secret: When Our Government Keeps Us in the Dark, but he also served on Obama’s commission to review the NSA’s surveillance programs, an experience that gave him access to classified information and a dim view of Snowden. “My view is that he cannot be granted clemency, because he did commit a criminal offense and it did considerable harm,” Stone told me. “The people who are celebrating Snowden have no understanding of the harm, for the reason that the people in the intelligence world can’t really explain the harm to them.” Snowden considered Stone’s position to be “an example of regulatory capture,” proof of the seductive power of security clearances. Secret knowledge, Snowden says, “is a very intoxicating thing.”

Still, Snowden was looking forward to the debate, if only because it illustrates his progress. Wizner, who considered the Axelrod relationship important to his future clemency push, attended the May event in person. “We’ve gone from the president saying ‘We’re not going to scramble jets for a 29-year-old hacker’ to talking with the president’s rabbi,’ ” Wizner said backstage as event staff set up computers and projection equipment. “That’s a good journey for us.”

Axelrod shambled in, looking sleepy-eyed as always, as students filled the auditorium and Wizner texted last-minute instructions to his client over Signal. “Whatever you think about Edward Snowden and his actions, and the adjectives range from traitor to hero,” Axelrod said by way of introduction, “he has indisputably triggered a really vital public debate about how we strike a balance between civil liberties and security.” He sat down in the front row as Snowden’s bashful grin filled a large screen.

Snowden had already done one event that day, a cybersecurity conference in Zurich, and he seemed weary as Stone probed for logical weaknesses. The law professor asked when it was appropriate for “a relatively low-level official in the national-security realm to take it upon himself to decide that it is in the national interest to disclose the existence of programs that have been approved … To decide for himself that ‘I think they’re wrong.’ ” Snowden gave his usual homilies about the Constitution, whistle-blowing, and civil disobedience. “Do we want to create a precedent that dissidents should be volunteering themselves not for the 11 days in jail of Martin Luther King or the single night of Thoreau,” he asked, “but 30 years or more in prison, for what is an act of public service?”

Stone pointed out that Congress could pass a law allowing defendants to make a whistle-blowing defense in Espionage Act cases but shows no signs of doing it. “You believe in democracy,” Stone said. “But democracy doesn’t agree with you.” The professor jabbed and Snowden weaved, setting his jaw and taking swigs from a big plastic water bottle. But when the floor opened for questions, it was clear who had won the audience. One student after another got up to offer Snowden praise.

“Did you expect to become a celebrity in this way?” one asked.

“If you go back to June 2013,” Snowden said, “I said, ‘Look, guys, stop talking about me, talk about the NSA.’ ” But he added, “Our biology, our brains, the way we relate to things, is about character stories. So they simply would not let me go.”

Axelrod watched impassively, his fingers tented under his nose. The full effect of Snowden’s performance did not become clear until a few weeks later, when Axelrod had Eric Holder — the former attorney general, once Snowden’s chief pursuer — on his podcast, The Axe Files. Holder allowed that Snowden “actually performed a public service,” while Axelrod calmly presented Snowden’s arguments.

“I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done,” Holder replied. “But I think, you know, in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate.”

Holder’s concession made international headlines. It didn’t mean anything legally, but symbolically it spoke volumes. Political realities were starting to come into alignment with Snowden’s virtual ones. From his computer in Moscow, Snowden tweeted:

2013: It’s treason!
2014: Maybe not, but it was reckless
2015: Still, technically it was unlawful
2016: It was a public service but
2017:

*This article appears in the June 27, 2016 issue of New York Magazine.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

The Best Investors Literally Forget About Their Portfolios

http://ift.tt/28ZgZB7


“Set and forget” investing isn’t sexy, but it works. In fact, lazy investing is so effective, a study from Fidelity found that the best performing investors had either forgotten about their accounts or even crazier—they were dead.

http://ift.tt/1HNCv4b...

Many people don’t invest because it seems overly complicated. But if you want to build wealth,… Read more Read more

Fidelity reportedly conducted an internal study—a performance review of accounts between 2003 and 2013 to find which accounts did the best. I love the way Living Rich Cheaply explained it (emphasis ours):

They found that the best performing accounts were from investors who were DEAD! In second place were investors who had FORGOTTEN they had accounts at Fidelity.

This was an internal study that made its rounds when asset manager James O’Shaughnessy relayed it on Bloomberg radio. However, it’s certainly not the first study to show that lazy portfolios work. Over time, slow and steady seem to win the race when it comes to investing. While active investors will tell you it’s possible to time the market and make a killing by playing stocks, the data seems to show otherwise, and set and forget investing is probably the easiest and safest bet for beginner investors anyway.

http://ift.tt/29gqdo9...

We’re fans of easy, “set and forget” investing. And that means investing in funds with low fees… Read more Read more

MarketWatch makes a valid point, though—this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t check up on your portfolio every now and then and rebalance as you get closer to retirement. However, it’s a good reminder to avoid buying high and selling low, which is easy to do when you see the market take a nosedive. In other words—check up on your portfolio every now and then, but for the most part, forgetting about your investments is the best thing you can do for them. For more detail, head to the links below.

Fidelity Reviewed Which Investors Did Best And What They Found Was Hilarious | Business Insider Via Living Rich Cheaply

Photo by Steven Depolo



from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

YouTube: Memorializing Hockey in Unusual Ways

http://ift.tt/29edRwR

Everyone has a camera these day, and social media has taken over with these devices, YouTube is one of the fastest growing media sites and hockey is on its radar. The cellular revolution has pretty much made certain that every mobile phone now has a camera attached. Gone are the days of the bulky video cameras, and now are the ways of the slim, fits in your pocket, ready at any moment video taking device. While these cameras are awesome for catching your baby’s first step at a moment’s notice, they are also adept at catching others at their first or second misstep. With the advent of YouTube, everyone with a smart phone is now a potential film maker. I perused through the recent archives of YouTube to see exactly how YouTube views hockey. It is fairly easy to access the archives of history both good and bad on YouTube.
When it comes to the sport of hockey, is YouTube helping to preserve our best and most powerful images in hockey, or our worst? What exactly does YouTube have to show about hockey?

The Good

Every once in a while, we get a commercial that makes us stop and stare. Seeing something so ncredible as Bobby Orr flying through the air, is one of those times. Some commercials encourage us to buy this or that, The History Will Be Made commercial, made us want to fly too, and it certainly made us want to stick with watching the playoffs in 2001. The commercial series also has one of the best musical scores made, making every commercial historical in its own right. YouTube did good in preserving this awesome piece of hockey advertising.
History Will Be Made Commercials

After the tumultuous fall, we all need a reason to get excited about hockey. This YouTube clip illustrates the desire to turn up the love and turn back on our sets, after all Hockey is Back! Something even YouTube can’t deny.
Hockey is Back

The Great

There’s something that the coolest goals, the best saves, and the most awesome fights can’t hold a candle to. You know it’s ‘Hockey Night In Canada!’ when you hear, ‘The Good Old Hockey Game.’ By Stompin Tom Connors. We lost this icon of hockey history last week on March 6, 2013 at the age of 77. He had a lot of songs, but can’t imagine Saturday nights without him. YouTube definitely placed him in perpetuity, a pioneer and a poster boy for our love of hockey.
The Good Old Hockey Game

The Sad

One of the most difficult things in a sport or organization is lose someone, albeit in the most horrific of all instances a whole branch or team. Team Locomotiv Yaroslavl of Russia failed to gain altitude, catching fire therefore losing all 45 people on board except for the avionics flight engineer on September 7, 2011. The wonderful thing about YouTube is that things we ordinarily wouldn’t have an opportunity to see due to events in other cities and other times, we can now see. This tribute is one I can’t imagine seeing in person without a handkerchief or tissues, it’s that we’ll done, and that worth preserving.
Ruslan Salei Sand Art Memorial

One of the most touching things about video memorials, and especially this one dedicated to the whole of the Yaroslavl Locomotiv team, is that they preserve people at their prime. YouTube captures them at their best, their youngest, their strongest. Those guys who p,sued their hearts out, will never grow old, never lose their youth, never retire. They will be alive and well, young and vibrant for all of eternity. This is how we are supposed to be remembered.
KHL Memorial

The Bad

Can something as ground breaking as YouTube, ever make a misstep? Well, since its videographers are human, yes it can. And never more than when you give a kid a camera. While YouTube can preserve great moments, it can also preserve great embarrassments. Take the team from Nyack. Some kid got the great idea to do a hockey room rendition of the Harlem Shake, and post it on YouTube. Now their playoffs are history. While my back round is in education, (I may get pummeled for my opinion) I think pulling the kids out of the play offs is a bit harsh. Serving detention for a month, assisting the custodians, etc. is more appropriate than taking away something they earned due to a video that thousands have replicated. This is definitely one team that will learn more than improved power skating over the summer. They will have learned to leave the power of leaving their phone at home.
The Harlem Shake

Life in other countries always intrigues us. Do they eat they way we do? Do they raise their kids like us? Do their kids p,ay hockey like us? Well, in the Russian town, they play hockey, for sure. And it’s a bloodsport, but it’s a ten year old bloodsport. I was surprised to see that so many kids drew penalties and were so aggressive. The video is kind of funny, but yet really sad in that these are the future players of some pro teams. Hockey parents and coaches must be win at all costs, But it isn’t always the best way to win at that age. Do all hockey enforcers come from the same place? If not, they might all in the not so near future!
10 year old Teams In The SIn Bin

The Joy of Victory

If you’re an Amercian, and you aren’t a fan of hockey, there’s no doubt that you were a huge fan on this particular day. Back in the Cold War beginning Reganomics era, anything to do with Russia was frowned upon. Except for beating them. Take a group of college kids, let them practice, throw Ina crusty coach, and pray for a miracle. When you find out one of the powerhouses of hockey-Russia to say the least was going to play you for the Olympic gold, you do a lot more than sweat. I bet those guys were having panic attacks. How else could we explain that to the Russians they just lost a game they thought they could easily win; while our confidence didn’t allow for that fact, we couldn’t believe we won, and still can’t theirty years later. A miracle on ice it was and always will be.

1980 Do You Believe in Miracles

Last year was a great draft year. I admit being partial to the Avalanche, and boy did we get the good end of the deal when the Oilers went with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. Being second doesn’t always mean being picked last. Colorado has a history of playing their drafts, and boy did second pick Gabriel Landeskog of the Kitchener Rangers get some play time. He even inadvertently created a new word and physical position for winning a goal-Landeskogging. He takes every bit out of the joy he deserves in making some of the greatest most needed goals. He is one fun guy to watch. I can only hope we see a lot more Landeskogging in the future.

Landeskogging

The Agony of Defeat

You might remember years ago if you’re an American, Saturday afternoon on the television were reserved for sports. They even had a great commercial that showed the examples of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. The thrill of victory in this article, I had to cover with the 1980′s Do You Believe In Miracles. The agony of defeat clearly goes Ryan Miller in the gold winning game of USA Hockey versus Canada.
I wonder how many nights he’s gone over that last goal in his head. We’ve forgiven him, but has he forgotten? Can you forget something like that? Maybe 2014 in Souchi will let someone else be the poor guy failing head or heels down a snow bank instead of Miller.

Miller in Olympics

The Funny

Now what would article on hockey through Youtube’s eyes, be without bloopers. Sadly for the athletes, some of the funniest moments in history for the fans, are the moments the athletes would rather we forget. Here’s a sampling of some of the classic bloopers that we can’t seem to let go, no matter how much we love the game.
Bloopers

The Just Plain Angry
If YouTube has done any real damage to hockey, it’s been in letting amateur’s catch us at our worst. Jim Mayfair is the perfect example. After being given a bad call, he flat out LOSES it! The two guys on either side of him are I’m sure were,praying he wouldn’t destroy their sticks. The poor guy looked like he was going to choke himself pulling off his coat and hang himself with his tie on accident.

The Coach Losing It

The Truly Scary

The scariest things YouTube documentsmaremthe injuries. Throat slitting is a big one. It doesn’t happen,frequently, but when it does, you can bet someone’s videoing it. These accidents are as frightening as concussions. The next time you see a guy play NBA or NHL, remember those big boys may fall hard, but they don’t get potentially exsanguinated by the other players’s shoes. These video clips are painful to watch, yet propel us to think of better safety rules.
Throat slit by skate

And the Just Shaking My Head Query

One of the most impressive feats in hockey is Zdeno Chara’s slap shot. The math and physics of his shooting skill is mind boggling. I’m always impressed with the goalies who have to defend their goals against one of his shots.

This leads me into the perfect example of why you should stay way from this guy: if he can shoot that hard and fast, what kind of damage can he do in a fight? What’s more, there are people who actually willing and do fight with him. To me they look little more like rag dolls being tossed around in the hands of the Zman.

I like YouTube. I like a lot of things about it. It’s accessible, you get to relive those great moments, see a moving tribute to someone who deserves our respect and admiration and to live into eternity. I think the following statement applies to hockey fans, ‘If you want to know what someone fears losing, look at what they photograph.’
Just don’t leave the videography in the hands of your child!

Author information

Cherie Tinker
Cherie Tinker
Hockey History Writer at The Hockey Writers
Interests: Reading, writing, art, music, movies, history, and HOCKEY! BS.Ed., MS.Ed.

This article was originally published at: The Hockey Writers.



from The Hockey Writers http://ift.tt/wCFVXw
via IFTTT

How many catch phrases did you catch in the Game of Thrones finale?

http://ift.tt/28XpCaB

Most of the dialogue for Game of Thrones' season six finale was catch phrases. Did anyone else find that distracting? Not that there weren't beautiful visuals and beautiful plot twists and beautiful libraries, but the dialogue was constantly winking at me and it made me feel weird!

[SPOILERS FOR GAME OF THRONES BELOW]

Let's see:

  1. Tyrion said "the great game" referring to the proverbial "game of thrones," twice.
  2. Varys finished Ellaria Sand's very dramatic sentence for her with the Targaryens' house words "fire and blood."
  3. Sansa and Jon had a good LOL about "winter is here," which was off-putting both because Jon's laugh is unsettling and because both of them fully know that winter is prime White Walker season. And because "winter is coming" is a bad meme at this point, and 9 in 10 people who reference it also think "Khaleesi" is Daenerys' first name.
  4. Walder Frey got to shout "the Freys and Lannisters send their regards," a line I've been quibbling over since last week's teaser trailer because it's a callback to a line that Roose Bolton whispers into Robb Stark's ear in season three.
  5. Cersei wine-boards a septa and then moonwalks out of the room doing a cutesie impression of her "Shame. Shame. Shame." chant from the end of last season. It's almost like she doesn't know that's already a bad meme too!
  6. "Promise me, Ned." Lyanna Stark's last words are repeated about 8,000 times in the book (in the narrow span of time in which Ned is even alive to remember them, so it's very dense), and they are again in the show!
  7. Lil Lyanna Mormont gives a rousing "the North remembers" speech, which segues into perhaps the most unsettling catch phrase use of the entire episode...
  8. "The King in the North." Hooooo, boy. I can't wait to see how this works out the second time around!

In all, none of the catch phrases did for me — chills-wise — what seeing Dany's ships scootin' across to Westeros after six seasons did. I swear, Dany's butt and that Iron Throne are like a new TV generation's Jim and Pam. One more year until they fall in love, people!

i am trolled

More and more this show is starting to feel like a puppet show in which some lanky dude's wrists are visible. The writers teased Lady Stoneheart all season, only to hold her back yet again. They set up what seemed to be an elaborate political plot for Margaery, just to barbecue her with extremely cheesy-looking green flames. All along the only thing anyone could say for Cersei was that she loved her children — and they said it a lot — but she destroyed Tommen's life and barely batted an eye when he Thelma and Louise-ed it out of there. Unlikely character combination #9,478, Olenna Tyrell and Ellaria Sand, waltzed into the picture — okay, sure. A reverse Red Wedding never came, and Arya quietly slit the throat of one dude who was definitely top of the pool to be the show's second-ever natural death anyway. I am trolled.

septa

I am trolled by Ned and Lyanna whispering about Jon Snow's parentage so it's unclear if Bran really got what was going down; I am trolled by King in the North 2.0; and I am trolled by the props department, who made way too small of a head for Rickon's direwolf on purpose, just so we would write feeble theories. I know that happened last week but I'm still rankled.

Let me know in the comments if I missed any seamlessly integrated meta one-liners. "What's he doing, plucking his cunt hairs?" does not count.


LEARNING THE GAME OF THRONES THEME SONG ON A FUTURISTIC KEYBOARD



from The Verge http://ift.tt/oZfQdV
via IFTTT

Nassim Taleb Slams The World's "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" Class

http://ift.tt/28VDxyP

Nassim Taleb dared to speak out against the status quo once again today (via Twitter):

When people vote the way of the IYI elite, it is "democracy". Otherwise it is misguided, irrational, swayed by populism & lack of education.

And in doing so, exposed the world of average joes to the awful truth of an "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" ruling class... that is finally being overthrown... (via Facebook)

What's IYI?

 

Intellectual Yet Idiot: semi-erudite bureaucrat who thinks he is an erudite; pathologizes others for doing things he doesn't understand not realizing it is his understanding that may be limited; imparts normative ideas to others: thinks people should act according to their best interests *and* he knows their interests, particularly if they are uneducated "red necks" or English non-crisp-vowel class.

 

More socially: subscribes to the New Yorker; never curses on twitter; speaks of "equality of races" and "economic equality" but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver; has considered voting for Tony Blair; has attended more than 1 TEDx talks and watched more than 2 TED talks; will vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable; has The Black Swan on his shelves but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence; is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist uses statistics without knowing how they are derived; when in the UK goes to literary festivals; drinks red wine with steak (never white); used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; takes statins because his doctor told him so; fails to understand ergodicity and when explained forgets about it soon later; doesn't use Yiddish words; studies grammar before speaking a language; has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; has never read Frederic Dard, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, or Joseph De Maistre; has never gotten drunk with Russians and went breaking glasses; doesn't know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba; doesn't know that there is no difference between "pseudointellectual" and "intellectual"; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past 5 years; knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

 

But a much easier marker: doesn't deadlift.

The IYI, Taleb addds, look down at the great unwashed Plebes who haven't read Foucault in college and treat them like crap - as if they were inferior forms of life incapable of directing their own affairs.

But when you make them feel uncultured, lacking in intellect, and unlearned, like all bureaucrao-journalists, being all tawk, they get very queasy: hit them where it hurts.

They are arrogant down, they will be arrogantified from up.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

So Hey You Should Stop Using Texts for Two-Factor Authentication

http://ift.tt/28UpR6Q


Since two-factor authentication became the norm for web services that care about securing your accounts, it’s started to feel like a security blanket, an extra layer keeping your data safe no matter whether your password is as strong as 8$&]$@I)9[P&4^s or as dumb as dadada. But a two-factor setup—which for most users requires a temporary code generated on, or sent to, your phone in addition to a password—isn’t an invincibility spell. Especially if that second factor is delivered via text message.

The last few months have demonstrated that SMS text messages are often the weakest link in two-step logins: Attacks on political activists in Iran, Russia, and even here in the US have shown that determined hackers can sometimes hijack the SMS messages meant to keep you safe. Whenever possible, it’s worth taking a minute to switch to a better system, like an authentication smartphone app or a physical token that generates one-time codes. And for services like Twitter that only offer text messages as a second factor, it’s time to wake up, smell the targeted attacks, and give users better options.

“SMS is just not the best way to do this,” says security researcher and forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski. “It’s depending on your mobile phone as a means of authentication [in a way] that can be socially engineered out of your control.”

That kind of social engineering is more than hypothetical. Earlier this month, Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson found that his Twitter account was hacked to tweet pro-Donald Trump messages, despite having two-factor authentication in place. The hackers, as he tells it, had called up Verizon, impersonated him, and convinced the company to redirect his text messages to a different SIM card, intercepting his one-time login codes. And activists in Iran and in Russia both recently found that their Telegram accounts were being hacked, likely by state-owned telecom companies helping those authoritarian governments to hijack the SMS messages Telegram uses to log users in.

In fact, one doesn’t have to be a public figure to become a target. As password security expect Lorrie Cranor suffered a related hack, she noted that these “SIM swap” attacks have grown prevalent enough to prompt New York State to issue an official warning.

Adding a layer of SMS-based verification to your login process is certainly better than relying on a password alone. But Zdziarski goes so far as to argue that two-factor authentication using SMS text messages isn’t technically two-factor at all. The idea of two-factor authentication, he points out, is to test someone’s identity based on something they know (like a password) and something they have (like their phone or another device.) Better tools like Google Authenticator or an RSA token prove that possession, by generating a unique code that matches one generated on a web service’s server. It’s a test that, thanks to some clever crypto tricks, doesn’t involve any communication between the two computers. That’s far more effective than sending a text message with a one-time code to someone’s phone. It’s less convenient, though, which may be why it’s also less commonplace.

“SMS has turned that ‘something you have’ into ‘something they sent you,'” says Zdziarski. “If that transaction is happening, it can be intercepted. And that means you’re potentially at some level of risk.”

Tactics like social-engineering or strong-arming the phone company to subvert two-factor comprise only a fraction of SMS vulnerabilities. Fake cell phone towers known as IMSI catchers or “stingrays” can intercept text messages, too. And the security community has recently been calling attention to weaknesses in SS7, the protocol that allows telecom networks to communicate with each other. Hackers can exploit SS7 to spoof a change to a user’s phone number, intercepting their calls or text messages. “Any network can tell any other network ‘your subscriber’s here now,’ and until your phone says otherwise, every call and text is diverted to this other network,” says Karsten Nohl, the chief scientist at Security Research Labs, who recently demonstrated the attack for 60 Minutes. “If there’s an attacker, they get all your text messages. it’s completely trust-based…It’s so simple it’s almost embarrassing to call it a hack.”

Those attacks aren’t exactly easy to pull off, and likely require the attacker to figure out the user’s cell phone number in addition to the password that they’ve stolen, guessed, or reused after being compromised in a data breach from another hacked service. But for anyone who might be a target of sophisticated hackers, all of those techniques mean SMS should be avoided when possible for anything login-related.

Luckily, plenty of services offer better options. Google last week launched Google Prompt, a service that sends a second-factor login prompt directly from its servers to Android phones or to the Google Search app for iOS. But even more secure still are systems that don’t require any message to be sent at all. Apps like Google Authenticator and tokens like those sold by RSA generate one-time-password codes that change ever few seconds. Those same exact codes are generated on the servers run by services like Slack, WordPress, or Gmail, so that the user can cough up the code to prove their identity without it ever being sent over the internet. (The math behind that system is clever: When the user signs up for the service, the Google Authenticator app and the server both start with a seed value that’s transformed into a long, unique string of characters with a “hash”—a mathematical function that can’t be reversed. Then that string of characters is hashed again, and results are hashed again, repeating every few seconds. And only a few digits of those characters are displayed as the login code, so that no one who glances at a user’s phone can start their own hash chain.)

Unfortunately, some services like Twitter still only offer two-factor authentication via text message. But the embarrassment of high-profile hacks like DeRay McKesson’s account may have had some effect. Twitter tells WIRED in a statement that “we’re exploring additional ways to make sure your account stays secure.” In other words, Twitter, like other services that store your sensitive data, may soon be offering a second-factor option other than the rickety telephone line that SMS represents. And security-conscious users should take it.

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.


from WIRED http://www.wired.com
via IFTTT