Please don't editorialize titles when submitting to HN.

>"Well, we are told authoritatively by people in Downing Street, in the Home Office, in the intelligence services that the Russians and the Chinese have all this information and as a result of that our spies are having to pull people out of the field because their lives are in danger."

"Authoritatively".

How can we tell if this is true or just a PR stunt? I'm naturally suspicious of anything the security services say, but can see that this could have a germ of truth.

I have no idea how Snowden encrypted the files, nor do I know if any people are singled out in them. Does anyone know any better?

Knowing Snowden, the password was probably "1111".

Or "password".

We know his advice to Greenwald was to use a password like "MargaretThatcheris110%SEXY" to avoid dictionary attacks, and in his interview by Jon Oliver he says that short passwords can be brute forced. (See http://www.wired.com/2015/04/snowden-sexy-margaret-thatcher-... for both videos.)

Therefore, both of you are very likely incorrect.

On the chance that this is true (I have no reason to trust the British government on any surveillance topic), that would mean one of three things: 1. Snowden messed up and chose a bad encryption scheme/key. 2. Russia and China have the ability to break secure encryption schemes. 3. One of the journalists entrusted with the documents messed up with the handling of the keys.

Only number 3 seems a little bit possible, and even then I'm skeptical...

Number three isn't that unlikely. Encryption is hard to use and subtle mistakes can ruin the encryption.

And some of the mistakes are not that subtle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10276460/David-...

David Miranda carried USB sticks with emcrypted material through a UK border. He also carried a piece of paper with the password. The UK has abused their anti-terror law so ot was entirely predictable that they would abuse the law to detain and question Miranda.

4. Another contractor with as much access as Snowden defected.

After the recent OPM compromise, I'd find it hard to believe the US wouldn't pull out their agents anyway.

I sure is convenient timing. The idea that we just found out that both China and Russia had decrypted Snowden's documents right after the government suffered a rather significant security failure requires too many coincidences.

A simpler explanation is that other (probably not publicly discussed) sensitive data stolen in the OPM compromised required moving agents, and Snowden is a convenient scapegoat.

Greenwald has a good critique of the claims here:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-r...