> “These capabilities are among the Sigint community’s most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple ‘fact of’ could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,”
That's a statement designed to mislead.
"the adversary" certainly assumes that the NSA does what it does and acts accordingly.
Now, if "the adversary" is the general public, then the statement actually makes sense.
EDIT: The consumer is indeed part of "the adversary":
Extract of one of Snowden's documents: "These design changes make the systems in question exploitable through Sigint collection … with foreknowledge of the modification. To the consumer and other adversaries, however, the systems' security remains intact." Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryp...
That's a statement designed to mislead.
"the adversary" certainly assumes that the NSA does what it does and acts accordingly.
Now, if "the adversary" is the general public, then the statement actually makes sense.
EDIT: The consumer is indeed part of "the adversary":
Extract of one of Snowden's documents: "These design changes make the systems in question exploitable through Sigint collection … with foreknowledge of the modification. To the consumer and other adversaries, however, the systems' security remains intact." Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryp...