View Full Version : Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations
The 29-year-old source behind the biggest intelligence leak in the NSA's history explains his motives, his uncertain future and why he never intended on hiding in the shadows:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Rand Paul: NSA monitoring an 'extraordinary invasion of privacy'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/06/paul-monitoring-an-extraordinary-invasion-of-privacy-165742.html
Peeping Barry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeping-president-obama.html?_r=0
Glenn Greenwald Details 'Menacing' Reach Of NSA's Invasion Of Google, Facebook, Apple Servers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVSmLoJQo8)
Columnist exposes Obama surveillance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm3oj6iBdcY)
The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-irrationality-of-giving-up-this-much-liberty-to-fight-terror/276695/
Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Rand Paul Tells Fox Viewers To Join Lawsuit Against NSA: ‘I’m Going To Challenge This At The Supreme Court’:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-tells-fox-viewers-to-join-lawsuit-against-nsa-im-going-to-challenge-this-at-the-supreme-court/
robertlouis
06-11-2013, 03:30 AM
I guess it's just too much to hope that one day the intelligence services will hold up their hands and say, "OK guys, you got us bang to rights. Yep, we snoop on everything you do, we destabilise sovereign nations and we run dumb persecution campaigns against individuals and organisations all the time. After all, the politicians give us these huge budgets and we have to spend it on something."
But I'm not holding my breath and I don't believe in Santa Claus either.
In the meantime, they're ignoring the blatant enormity of what they're doing and saying it's all the fault of the whistleblower and that they're out to get him. Now THAT'S chutzpah!
Oh well, I guess Bradley Manning could do with some company.....
:pissed::pissed::pissed::pissed:
Rand Paul To Fight NSA In Supreme Court:
Rand Paul To Fight NSA In Supreme Court - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLZtAJCKatg)
I guess it's just too much to hope that one day the intelligence services will hold up their hands and say, "OK guys, you got us bang to rights. Yep, we snoop on everything you do, we destabilise sovereign nations and we run dumb persecution campaigns against individuals and organisations all the time. After all, the politicians give us these huge budgets and we have to spend it on something."
But I'm not holding my breath and I don't believe in Santa Claus either.
In the meantime, they're ignoring the blatant enormity of what they're doing and saying it's all the fault of the whistleblower and that they're out to get him. Now THAT'S chutzpah!
Oh well, I guess Bradley Manning could do with some company.....
:pissed::pissed::pissed::pissed:
Remember, too, what President Obama once said about whistleblowers. He briefly sang their praises.
Well, I think Obama has the best of intentions. I don't think he's a malevolent character. As the likes of Jeremy Scahill have alluded to. Scahill pointed out that politicians are motivated by the best of intentions....
I believe Obama thinks he's a decent and moral person.
It's just that power has a tendency to corrupt....
Ron Paul Worried U.S. Might 'Kill' Snowden With DRONE: 'I Don't Think For A Minute He's A Traitor'
Ron Paul Worried U.S. Might 'Kill' Snowden With DRONE: 'I Don't Think For A Minute He's A Traitor' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ktDaSlIO8)
notdrunk
06-13-2013, 09:39 PM
The story is starting to become hogwash. The relationship between the NSA and the tech companies is still unknown. Actually, the tech companies want the government to release documents about the relationship. He gives an interview to a Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong exposing US cyberwarfare against China. What was the point of that? Snowden comes off as a paulbot (i.e., irrational "Constitutionalist" aka I don't have a clue what I am talking about ) that was given too much access.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t27ie4qFlXM)
The story is starting to become hogwash. The relationship between the NSA and the tech companies is still unknown. Actually, the tech companies want the government to release documents about the relationship. He gives an interview to a Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong exposing US cyberwarfare against China. What was the point of that? Snowden comes off as a paulbot (i.e., irrational "Constitutionalist" aka I don't have a clue what I am talking about ) that was given too much access.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china
One either agrees or disagrees with the leaks. Plus one can support a total surveillance state, as it were.
I don't know anything about Ed Snowden. And I don't care.
I mean, I could care less if someone like Bradley Manning is gay or has gender issues. I mean, they attacked Julian Assange because he wore old running shoes and didn't bathe etc., etc.
I mean, that's what power systems tend to do: attack one's character flaws, as it were. We all have character flaws. None of us are perfect. So to call him a "Paulbot" isn't relevant. (I mean, the FBI were looking into Martin Luther King's private life to see if he was carrying out multiple affairs. What does that have to do with him being a great civil and human rights leader?)
What's important is the issue at hand.
And as Glenn Greenwald aptly pointed out: we should have a democratic debate about whether or not we want to live in a [complete] surveillance state.
Because Dems, for the most part, will support it because it's Obama. But what about when, say, a President Marco Rubio takes over the office.... Dems can't complain. Because he'll carry on the same policies as Obama.
Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance:
Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8)
notdrunk
06-14-2013, 04:30 AM
One either agrees or disagrees with the leaks. Plus one can support a total surveillance state, as it were.
I don't know anything about Ed Snowden. And I don't care.
I mean, I could care less if someone like Bradley Manning is gay or has gender issues. I mean, they attacked Julian Assange because he wore old running shoes and didn't bathe etc., etc.
I mean, that's what power systems tend to do: attack one's character flaws, as it were. We all have character flaws. None of us are perfect. So to call him a "Paulbot" isn't relevant. (I mean, the FBI were looking into Martin Luther King's private life to see if he was carrying out multiple affairs. What does that have to do with him being a great civil and human rights leader?)
What's important is the issue at hand.
And as Glenn Greenwald aptly pointed out: we should have a democratic debate about whether or not we want to live in a [complete] surveillance state.
Because Dems, for the most part, will support it because it's Obama. But what about when, say, a President Marco Rubio takes over the office.... Dems can't complain. Because he'll carry on the same policies as Obama.
Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.
Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.
Stavros
06-14-2013, 07:09 AM
Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.
Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.
Notdrunk, I think you are right to question this story in the manner in which it has been reported. Obama has come in for a lot of flak, but the PRISM system originated after 9/11 with the Bush Administration and is subject to rules established in law which do not appear to give the US govt absolute access to any information it wants wherever it sits- the link below is a severe critique of Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian articles that started this off.
As for surveillance, for heaven's sake, hasn't anyone read Foucault? Maybe he is out of fashion but he was writing about methods of surveillance -formal and informal- going back at least 200 years- you could argue that the pressure on small town folk in Virginia in 1810 to go to church on a Sunday amounted to a form of social, collective surveillance, think of Arthur Miller's The Crucible be it Salem in the 17thc or McCarthy's USA in the 1950s; the UK has more CC cameras per square inch than any other country in the world -when people see that vile murderer caught on tape moments before he snatched X and bundled him/her into a car, they approve of it. Do people peek at their neighbours from the window? What are they using this info for?
There are some serious issues here, and it may that people with Facebook accounts or some social media which identifies them by name and has their photo are at greatest risk -not just from prying govt convinced that Ali Mustafa or Sean MacBride are 'potential terrorists'- but from some criminal (Russian, I suppose) who needs your ID to create fake documents.
Be careful out there!
https://medium.com/prism-truth/82a1791c94d3
Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.
Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.
Paulbots -- ha ha! :)
You can certainly find some of [former congressman] Ron Paul's positions objectionable. That's fine. I mean, I think most of his supporters are white middle-class males in their 20s. I could be wrong. I haven't done any detailed study.
I liked some of Paul's positions. And others, well, I vehemently disagreed with.
I can't really say I'm a fan of any politician. Why would one be???
Do you think there is some type of conspiracy involving the media... with respect to: "... all the information that Snowden gave them."
Well, Glenn Greenwald did address that. He pointed out that they won't release certain things. Because they may indeed harm national security.
That's why Snowden approached The Guardian. He wanted them to go over it. And pointed out: he isn't a journalist.
We shouldn't have a democratic debate then? So: why do we go through all the rigmoral of elections if they literally mean nothing? Are we simply verifying, as it were, the elite decision-makers like Bush Sr. and Jr. and Clinton and Obama? I mean, choosing between Obama and McCain &/or Romney was essentially choosing between which elitist, as it were, will rule us -- :)
Do we not even have some semblance of democracy -- ha ha!
I agree this country is not a democracy and was never intended to be a democracy. (I mean, 70 percent of the population have no influence over public policy. None. Zero. Zilch. We live in a polyarchy -- or a plutocracy. The further up the income ladder you go, well, you've more influence. Over public policy. And those at the very top -- think: the Kochs, Adelson, Gates, Ellison, the Walton clan -- get what they want. Because they own the country. And the people who own it, well, run it.)
fred41
06-15-2013, 05:28 AM
Off topic for the moment:
The terms:"I mean" and "as it were" should be used sparingly, if at all.
...carry on.
Whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn says State Department investigators threatened to prosecute her for providing documents to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/12/state-department-whistle-blower/2413265/
Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs:
Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs. Fox News Sunday - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHavnUsndxU)
notdrunk
06-17-2013, 05:03 AM
Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs:
Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs. Fox News Sunday - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHavnUsndxU)
Snowden is starting to look like a traitor.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit
American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.
The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America's biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered "a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted".
Now, I officially support criminal charges against this guy.
Snowden is starting to look like a traitor.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit
Now, I officially support criminal charges against this guy.
There's no question he broke the law. Not many people are arguing that. I mean it's obvious.
A crucial point about society is: the populace have been inculcated to think that politicians are above the law.
Problem is: our so-called lawmakers are the lawbreakers. (Anyway, who makes the laws and why do laws look the way they do?) Think: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Jr, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter... and keep goin'.
But, again, we've been taught to believe that politicians are above the law.
The law doesn't apply equally. Look at O.J. Simpson. And how he managed to buy his way out of a first degree murder conviction. And why didn't the state of California seek the death penalty with respect to Simpson? Well, he's rich. Or: was rich! :)
Look at the banksters... and how they broke the law and were never punished.
Look at all of Wall Street.
Look at all the corporate criminals.
So, yes, Snowden did break the law. Just like Bradley Manning did break the law. Both should be punished.
But to what extent? I mean, I don't think Manning should get the death penalty. They can still pursue death penalty charges against him.
Remember that he exposed state crimes. But, again, we've been taught to believe that state actors are simply above the law. Anyway, the likes of Cheney and Bush and others will never see the inside of a courtroom. Not a chance.
Criminal charges are for the powerless: Manning, Snowden and others....
Noam Chomsky on Google Glass: Orwellian (Excerpt) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz1AImQ5jqA)
How Guys Will Use Google Glass - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjcqCx1Bvg)
maxpower
06-19-2013, 05:40 AM
....
A new poll shows the 65% of Americans want public congressional hearings on the NSA's surveillance programs, but instead of representing the American people, the house republicans instead waste their time on symbolic repeals of Obama care and restrictive anti-choice abortion legislation.
Conservative Circlejerk - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-8HynWOg-Y)
Edward Snowden Being Charged With Espionage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT-0zuQHaUU
Putin: 'Nyet' to US request to turn over Snowden:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nsa-leakers-global-flight-appears-stalled-now
Liberal icon Frank Church on the NSA
Almost 40 years ago, the Idaho Senator warned of the dangers of allowing the NSA to turn inward:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/frank-church-liberal-icon
Obama's Attack on Whistleblowers Criminalizes News Gathering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5yO3rbRDZI
If you live in a surveillance state for long enough, you create a censor in your head
There is a significant psychological price to being constantly aware of the variety of ways in which your activity might be tracked.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/if-you-live-surveillance-state-long-enough-you-create-censor-your-head
martin48
06-30-2013, 09:46 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23116517
How much did this junior contractor get away with?
Stavros
06-30-2013, 10:21 PM
Martin, there are I think, two ways of looking at this. If you take Ben's view, 'we the people' are the hapless pawns of the politics, corporations and the military who get what they want, when they want; the truth is we are all under the microscope.
Or, and I think this is closer to the truth, modern communications technology has reduced the levers of control: this to me is the profound anxiety, imagine some CIA team leader in a Jason Bourke type situation barking at his agents: We are Losing Control, people!
The US and its allies has used the Stuxnet virus against Iran; there are allegations of cyber-spying in US-China relations, the Chinese spying on the US, the US spying on the Chinese.
The anxiety is driven by the diffuse nature of the internet and its multiple and immediate modes of communication beyond the control of Washington, Moscow, Beijing and so on. The days when J Edgar Hoover could change a headline in the Washington Post or the New York Times have gone; and it isn't even about terrorism even if it was the violence of 9/11 that sparked the creation of such a vast network of 'intelligence agents' that a nobody like Snowden could emerge and be described as a 'hero' by some.
Here for example, are some daunting facts:
As Dana Priest and William M. Arkin pointed out in their 2010 Washington Post series "Top Secret America" more than 1,000 government organizations are paired with more than 1,000 private companies in the security labyrinth, all moving about blindly and haphazardly. Almost a million people hold top-secret security clearances, including janitors who manage the waste.
and
The greatest secret being revealed through all of this is that secrets themselves are becoming a thing of the past. How can Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning, each from his unimportant place deep in the bureaucracy, yet each wielding the radically unchecked power of the computer, so readily penetrate the most secure of government barriers? Their access shows what an illusion those barriers have become. The crisis here is that responsible governance, including that of a liberal democracy, requires the reasonable management of secrecy. What happens when both responsibility and management become impossible?
In the past, you had to have real, physical access to people and documents -think Guy Burgess, Aldrich Ames -these days, junior clerks have access to 'the crown jewels'.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/06/17/edward-snowden-reveals-deeper-secret-there-are-secrets/znKlnQQ6edHiWlsTQBHbYP/story.html
Refuge in Russia Will Hurt Edward Snowden's Credibility?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc7SFOeDK_c
Video: Did the NSA director lie to Congress?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/07/video-did-the-nsa-director-lie-to-congress/
Lovecox
07-03-2013, 07:45 AM
He's stuck in an airport in Russia ... it's like he's snowed in!
He's stuck in an airport in Russia ... it's like he's snowed in!
Ha ha ha! I made a similar joke to a friend of mine. Well, as the weather cools in Russia, well, he, at some point, could indeed be snowed in...
Noam Chomsky on the NSA, privacy:
Noam Chomsky on the NSA, privacy and more (2013) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa_aUWHXViY)
Section 215 of the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215
Patriot Act Interpretations Would "Stun" Americans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV1k8np44KI
President Obama embraces openness on day one:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20090121/index.htm
Obama's War on Whistleblowers Finds Another Target:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175719/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren%2C_obama%27s_war_on_whi stleblowers_finds_another_target/#more
Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data
NSA Blackmailing Obama?
NSA Blackmailing Obama? | Interview with Whistleblower Russ Tice - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk)
Snowden: Symptom or Disease?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDmidDKUON4
Noam Chomsky "Snowden Should Be Honored for Telling Americans What the Government Was Doing"
Noam Chomsky "Snowden Should Be Honored for Telling Americans What the Government Was Doing" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9jqY23hgqA)
Glenn Greenwald Fires Back After Partner Detained At Heathrow - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae9BnrsrcK0)
Church of the NSA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8BayMYAM8U)
"South Park" Opens Its 17th Season With an Episode on NSA Spying:
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/09/south-park-nsa-spying-episode-eric-cartman
The NSA uses '60 Minutes' for PR - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8jPXlECyqI)
Stavros
12-28-2013, 01:12 PM
A district court in New York has ruled in favour of the NSA by Judge William Pauley on the grounds that the agency needs to be able to 'join all the dots' in a broad sweep of metadata:
“The ACLU argues that the category at issue – all telephony metadata – is too broad and contains too much irrelevant information. That argument has no traction here. Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it is connecting the pertinent ones,” said Pauley.
However, Judge Pauley also made this bizarre remark:
Judge Pauley said privacy protections enshrined in the fourth amendment of the US constitution needed to be balanced against a government need to maintain a database of records to prevent future terrorist attacks. “The right to be free from searches is fundamental but not absolute,” he said. “Whether the fourth amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.”
Pauley argued that al-Qaida's “bold jujitsu” strategy to marry seventh century ideology with 21st century technology made it imperative that government authorities be allowed to push privacy boundaries.
It is wrong to claim that the Salafist ideology adopted by al-Qaeda is a 'seventh century ideology' -the Saudi version of it was created in the 18th century, in fact Mohammed ibn Abdul-Wahab, the man who created it, is an almost exact contemporary of Benjamin Franklin, and much recent versions of this political creed is of 20th century origin. It is no more stone age than the internet. If Judge Pauley is this ignorant, does it mean his ruling is of similar value?
broncofan
12-28-2013, 07:02 PM
It doesn't bode well Stavros. Although interpreting the law doesn't require a great deal of outside knowledge, it does require some common sense. One element of that is not to include something in an opinion for rhetorical flare if you are not sure of its relevance or accuracy.
The only relevant aspect of that statement is that we are dealing with modern technology. The elements of reasonableness and expectations of privacy built into the 4th amendment do need to take into account how broadly such devices are used and what people's expectations are when they use them.
The paradox of "reasonable expectations" is that they change once the issue has been discussed and people hear about what the government is doing. What I mean is that if the government intrudes on your privacy, and the courts do not immediately strike it down, the NSA can argue that you did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because you were given notice they could be listening. Perhaps courts ignore this element of it, and imagine a world without aggressive law enforcement. I have not read enough to know.
I am a bit mixed on what is private and what isn't...it's very easy when you're dealing with spatial dimensions but not so much when you're dealing with electronic signals and their transmission.
Spying on Congress -- NSA scandal gets even worse in 2014:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/09/spying-on-congress-nsa-scandal-gets-even-worse-in-2014/
BruceBarnes1
01-17-2014, 04:18 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/target-says-70-million-customers-were-hit-by-dec-data-breach-more-than-first-reported/2014/01/10/0ada1026-79fe-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html
Is it just me but does anyone think that Edward Snowden is behind this? It now appears that the cyber attacks are originating from the former Soviet Union. I think that Snowden may be doing this form monatary gain, as a way to support himself since he has no formal job. Second, Snowden is the only one with motive and knowledge to plan and execute something of this nature.
trish
01-17-2014, 04:36 PM
It's just you.
martin48
01-17-2014, 06:42 PM
What's been the reaction to Snowden's revelations in the US? In the UK, it is all very muted.
broncofan
01-18-2014, 02:30 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/target-says-70-million-customers-were-hit-by-dec-data-breach-more-than-first-reported/2014/01/10/0ada1026-79fe-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html
Is it just me but does anyone think that Edward Snowden is behind this?
Have you found anyone who agrees with you?
Obama announces reforms to NSA surveillance programs:
Obama announces reforms to NSA surveillance programs - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fcOalgv6FQ)
Bernie Sanders on President Obama's NSA Speech - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDwy7kY0j6k)
Obama's NSA 'reforms' are little more than a PR attempt to mollify the public:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-reforms-bulk-surveillance-remains
NSA defenders’ shameless “national security” bait and switch:
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/16/nsa_defenders_shameless_national_security_bait_and _switch_partner/
notdrunk
01-20-2014, 07:49 AM
What's been the reaction to Snowden's revelations in the US? In the UK, it is all very muted.
Not a major scandal like Watergate. Personally, I don't applaud what he is doing. I will give you some examples of why:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-reveal-nsas-extensive-involvement-in-targeted-killing-program/2013/10/16/29775278-3674-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_print.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
What is the point of releasing the information in those links?
martin48
01-20-2014, 05:36 PM
While Snowden’s generated headlines around the world and had a huge diplomatic fall-out, there has been little in the way of reaction from the authorities in Britain.
"Snowden, the most significant whistleblower of modern times, briefly amused London when he turned scarlet pimpernel in the summer," writes Simon Jenkins in The Guardian (which carries the leaks and is a liberal paper) "But the British establishment cannot get excited. It hates whistleblowers, regarding them as not proper chaps."
Even the storm over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of the journalist who broke the story, at Heathrow airport blew over after a few days.
And while American lawmakers were shocked to discover that the state was looking at its citizens' phone records and other data, there appears to have been little concern in UK Government. "Nothing better illustrates the gulf that sometimes opens between British and American concepts of democracy," Jenkins says.
Indeed Jenkins compares our government's reaction to that of the USSR. "While Washington has been tearing itself apart, dismissive remarks by William Hague in the Commons and Lady Warsi in the Lords could have passed muster in Andropov's supreme soviet."
All we are told “National Security” is at stake, our guys (GCHQ) never do anything wrong (we know ‘cos they said so.), and that’s about it.
trish
01-20-2014, 06:23 PM
Not a major scandal like Watergate. Personally, I don't applaud what he is doing. I will give you some examples of why:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-reveal-nsas-extensive-involvement-in-targeted-killing-program/2013/10/16/29775278-3674-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_print.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
What is the point of releasing the information in those links?One point is to make taxpayers aware of how 52.6 billion of their dollars is being spent and to allow them to measure the benefits against the cost.
I do not doubt that surveillance (including surveillance carried out by the NSA) has been invaluable for avoiding terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Nor do I doubt that broad disclosure of all the information with which Snowden absconded would endanger lives and embarrass more than a few allies as well as interfere with delicate diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, we are the government. We take a share of the credit when it behaves morally and we take a share of the blame when it doesn’t. In a government of, by and for the people, the people share in the responsibility of government actions. If we don’t know what those actions are, then we as citizens are acting irresponsibly.
Clearly it is not the legitimate business of the press to regularly steal classified information and allow journalists and editors to make the decision as to what information should be “declassified” and published and what information should remain secret. That is a mission for diplomatic and military professionals. What we require is strict adherence to a system of Congressional and Executive oversight. We require an oversight committee of bright, informed, honest individuals upon whom we can comfortably rely. Anyone in either House fit that description?
When we lack such oversight, whistleblowers are the only fallback. Snowden is neither a villian nor a hero. He was a man facing a dlilemma. Still is. It just this woman’s opinion that the U.S. would fair better if we extend Snowden and Greenwald assurances that they will not be prosecuted or detained and work with them.
While Snowden’s generated headlines around the world and had a huge diplomatic fall-out, there has been little in the way of reaction from the authorities in Britain.
"Snowden, the most significant whistleblower of modern times, briefly amused London when he turned scarlet pimpernel in the summer," writes Simon Jenkins in The Guardian (which carries the leaks and is a liberal paper) "But the British establishment cannot get excited. It hates whistleblowers, regarding them as not proper chaps."
Even the storm over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of the journalist who broke the story, at Heathrow airport blew over after a few days.
And while American lawmakers were shocked to discover that the state was looking at its citizens' phone records and other data, there appears to have been little concern in UK Government. "Nothing better illustrates the gulf that sometimes opens between British and American concepts of democracy," Jenkins says.
Indeed Jenkins compares our government's reaction to that of the USSR. "While Washington has been tearing itself apart, dismissive remarks by William Hague in the Commons and Lady Warsi in the Lords could have passed muster in Andropov's supreme soviet."
All we are told “National Security” is at stake, our guys (GCHQ) never do anything wrong (we know ‘cos they said so.), and that’s about it.Love the Scarlet Pimpernel reference. Personally, I'm not at all upset that the NSA collects metadata. As long as the length and width of my erection remain the exclusive concern of those of my lovers within high levels of the diplomatic corps. :)
martin48
01-20-2014, 07:10 PM
Love the Scarlet Pimpernel reference. Personally, I'm not at all upset that the NSA collects metadata. As long as the length and width of my erection remain the exclusive concern of those of my lovers within high levels of the diplomatic corps. :)
That would certainly endanger national security.
notdrunk
01-20-2014, 08:01 PM
One point is to make taxpayers aware of how 52.6 billion of their dollars is being spent and to allow them to measure the benefits against the cost.
I do not doubt that surveillance (including surveillance carried out by the NSA) has been invaluable for avoiding terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Nor do I doubt that broad disclosure of all the information with which Snowden absconded would endanger lives and embarrass more than a few allies as well as interfere with delicate diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, we are the government. We take a share of the credit when it behaves morally and we take a share of the blame when it doesn’t. In a government of, by and for the people, the people share in the responsibility of government actions. If we don’t know what those actions are, then we as citizens are acting irresponsibly.
Clearly it is not the legitimate business of the press to regularly steal classified information and allow journalists and editors to make the decision as to what information should be “declassified” and published and what information should remain secret. That is a mission for diplomatic and military professionals. What we require is strict adherence to a system of Congressional and Executive oversight. We require an oversight committee of bright, informed, honest individuals upon whom we can comfortably rely. Anyone in either House fit that description?
When we lack such oversight, whistleblowers are the only fallback. Snowden is neither a villian nor a hero. He was a man facing a dlilemma. Still is. It just this woman’s opinion that the U.S. would fair better if we extend Snowden and Greenwald assurances that they will not be prosecuted or detained and work with them.
No, the public doesn't need to know about the black budget. You do know that the public means the World? Anyway, we elect people to Congress for dealing with national budget issues. The problem is that some people (including yourself?) are claiming that Snowden is a whistleblower. However, he doesn't fit the bill of a whistleblower. He supposedly stole over a million classified files. He has given some of those documents to the press. The press wouldn't fully disclose what is contained in some of those documents because of the national security implications. A number of the documents released don't show criminal actions by the government but they show legitimate functions of the government; however, those functions need to say hidden from public consumption because targets of those functions will change their habits.
trish
01-20-2014, 08:23 PM
No, the public doesn't need to know about the black budget.Yes, the public at the very least needs to know of the existence of the black budget and a rough description of its goals and activities; the details being left to the oversight of the legislative and executive branches. But we are now in a position where the public (for good reasons or ill) questions the quality of that oversight.
You do know that the public means the World?Of course. I'm not suggesting we render our entire surveillance program transparent to the world. Curiously, neither are Greenwald nor Snowden; as you write yourself, they have refrained from publishing material that would endanger national security. What is bad about this situation is that journalists are making the decision about what is and what is not to be classified in the interest of national security. The best way to remedy the situation is to offer them immunity and take these two back under our wing.
Stavros
01-20-2014, 08:46 PM
A few points in response to the previous posts from Martin, Trish and Notdrunk:
1) Snowden (like Bradley Manning) was one of several hundred thousand people with access to classified information. There is clearly a mis-match between the availability of sensitive intelligence and the number people allowed access to it. I suspect that this is as much an administrative 'black hole' as much as it is part of the excess of information swilling about in this 'information age' just waiting to be trawled.
2) Snowden, again like Manning, violated a relationship of trust that he had with his employers. As a legal issue it is indefensible, Snowden signed a contract, if he didn't want to work for the government he should not have signed. As a moral issue I can accept whistleblowers in context. For example, someone hired by the police service does not expect to protect criminals because they are sharing the proceeds of drug deals with policemen; they should blow the whistle on it, though it might result in them being forced to wear concrete socks. I find it naive beyond belief that anyone would work for the US Government and be shocked at some of the things government gets away with that the public doesn't know about.
I wonder if the US public would be shocked to know what the hospitality budget is for their local Mayor, Sherriff, the Senator and so on. I once worked for a company that had a £100,000 budget for a Christmas party in company HQ to which (as usual) only the great and the good (and their secretaries) were invited. Is this scandalous? Should the shareholders know? Would they even care unless it impacted on their share value and dividends?
3) the primary anxiety with Snowden is that he has acquired sensitive data on individual members of the intelligence community, indeed most of his package has remained locked up as the editor of the Guardian has admitted it is too sensitive to be published.
4) Not all Metadata is stolen information, it is 'out there' in some cases such as the general record that most universities keep of internet traffic. As far as I am aware, the computing services departments of universities collect data on internet use and ought to be able to narrow down to a precise terminal or user any 'unusual' behaviour as long as the student or member of staff has signed on to use the university ISP. Private companies monitor internet traffic, usually as part of cyber-security in relation to intellectual property theft/industrial espionage. Again, the company that I used to work for blocked access to certain websites, and the awareness by most staff that accessing, for example, porn would show up in security was a healthy incentive to prevent this happening at work. Same, incidentally, with gambling web sites. I believe metadata on phone use is routinely trashed after a certain time but I don't know much about this.
5) World leaders eavesdrop on each others phone calls -I don't think anyone is surprised in fact I think most people expect spying of this basic nature to take place. In the old days the communists had their eyes in the office just as the Americans had spies in high places in Moscow, and the British during the Second World War (according a German historian I used to know) received raw intelligence on Adolf and his campaigns from the Chief of Staff of the German military (Halder, who had conspired against AH for years and was sacked in January 1945).
6. Defending the right to access private emails and telephone calls for matters of national security is both right and wrong. It is right because plots to plant bombs on public transport, in discos and supermarkets are real, and are probably happening right now. The Telegraph has reported that British 'Muslims' on their Syrian adventure are being trained to attack targets when they get back. Whether or not serious cells of 'guerillas' be they Islamic, Irish Republican etc, still use the systems that are being monitored I don't know, bin Laden stopped using them for years and was only tracked down through human intelligence -'eyes on the ground'. In the UK we need more exacting accountability to Parliament of our intelligence services but the fact is that until a decade or so ago the existence of MI5 and MI6 was denied and the identity of their heads was a 'national secret' when the head of the CIA was known by the whole world. I once shared a table with the head of MI6 but we knew in advance not to mention anything political, even though he was a charming man who would have dealt with my faux-Bolshevik attitudes with aplomb. This 'private club' mentality has been the bane of the intelligence 'community' so that even the Parliamentary body that has responsibility for it is still untrustworthy whatever Malcolm Rifkind says.
Worse is the way in which governments cover up all sorts of iniquities by claiming the 'national security' defence, so I agree with Trish and disagree with Notdrunk on this because a lot of this is used to cover up blatant incompetence and excessive spending on non-essential items. Operation Tiberius in the UK uncovered extensive links between criminal gangs and the police in Britain, extending into the Courts with bribes being paid to clerks, the nobbling of Juries and the corruption of officials in the Inland Revenue, to set alongside the Murdoch Empire's cash for intelligence also corrupting the police and other public bodies. In one celebrated case -the murder of Daniel Morgan- a private investigator and former criminal 'allegedly' murdered his business partner and then bribed the police to cover it up; in fact most private investigators in the UK are either ex-coppers or ex-criminals, the ex being flexible in both cases.
But this is crucial: Trish's comment 'We are the government'. I can't imagine anyone in the UK taking ownership of Parliament in this sense of the phrase -just as I dread to think what people would answer in response to the question 'Who does this country belong to?'. But then democracy has always had more vitality in the US than it has in the UK.
broncofan
01-20-2014, 10:45 PM
It appears that some of the activities Snowden complained about probably violated the 4th amendment. But though I could be wrong about this, I don't think it was settled law at the time. The Constitution is not one of those documents that you can easily read and from it determine which actions violate its norms.
I don't think individuals should be able to individually determine whether actions they are obligated to maintain secrecy about violate our Constitution. If it is something clear-cut, or about which there are already standards because similar issues have been litigated, I would be more sympathetic towards his actions.
The examples Stavros gave about police officers are good examples of typical whistleblower activities. Someone revealing that a police department is riddled with corruption and subverting its own mission would be a hero in my view. Just as someone who showed that the U.S government was violating clearly established norms, and causing significant harm to its citizens would also be engaging in an act of heroism. This was policy decision (though maybe the wrong one) where significant discretion is used to determine the balance between security and privacy.
Sorry if I sound a bit "right wing" on this one, but I am just a bit skeptical that government employees should reform our national security processes by releasing data. Someone offering a good rebuttal is liable to convince me though because I don't know a great deal about what Snowden has done or why he did it.
Stavros
01-20-2014, 11:20 PM
A comparable action could be Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers because they showed that the US government lied to the American public and also Congress by concealing the true extent of military activities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Here was an issue where American service personnel were in the field but the full extent of their mission, its cost, and consequences was covered up. Ellsberg knew much of what was in the papers (a key document being Robert MacNamara's historical study of US involvement in Vietnam) because he worked on some of them. He photocopied the papers which I assume is a form of theft. But Ellsberg didn't run off to Sweden or Venezuela -he stayed put, was arrested, put on trial, and acquitted. Finally the consequence -if not solely of the Pentagon Papers- was a reform of the US military and an improvement in Congressional oversight of military affairs.
notdrunk
01-21-2014, 04:04 AM
Yes, the public at the very least needs to know of the existence of the black budget and a rough description of its goals and activities; the details being left to the oversight of the legislative and executive branches. But we are now in a position where the public (for good reasons or ill) questions the quality of that oversight.
Of course. I'm not suggesting we render our entire surveillance program transparent to the world. Curiously, neither are Greenwald nor Snowden; as you write yourself, they have refrained from publishing material that would endanger national security. What is bad about this situation is that journalists are making the decision about what is and what is not to be classified in the interest of national security. The best way to remedy the situation is to offer them immunity and take these two back under our wing.
The media has already stated in some of their articles that they wouldn't publish some documents given to them by Snowden and company. In the black budget, the Washington Post added the following:
The summary describes cutting-edge technologies, agent recruiting and ongoing operations. The Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods. Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.
In the targeted killing article, the Washington Post added the following:
The Post is withholding many details about those missions, at the request of U.S. intelligence officials who cited potential damage to ongoing operations and national security.
broncofan
01-21-2014, 05:22 AM
I think Stavros makes a good point in the second paragraph. I don't know anything about the specific protections whistleblowers get but if we were to devise a test for when a such a person should be protected, one element of that test might ask what his/her reasonable expectations are.
Is it within the reasonable expectations of someone working in intelligence that they would come across government surveillance that invades personal privacy? I would say yes. Would it for instance, be within the reasonable expectations of someone working for the government that the government is poisoning our water or having people watch us while we shower? Obviously not.
It can't simply be a subjective standard, where someone has protection as a whistleblower because they have a good faith belief that there is something improper taking place. And it cannot be purely objective either; for they could be right, but act recklessly because they did not have enough information to form that conclusion at the time they acted.
Someone should only be able to claim whistleblower status if the actions they oppose are clearly improper and well beyond what they would contemplate is part of the ordinary course of business. It cannot be in response to a policy decision that must take into account many sets of competing values and requires significant discretion to apply.
I also agree with the statement below. The government will claim any privilege they can to avoid scrutiny, and often without any regard to why that specific privilege was created.
"Worse is the way in which governments cover up all sorts of iniquities by claiming the 'national security' defence, so I agree with Trish and disagree with Notdrunk on this because a lot of this is used to cover up blatant incompetence and excessive spending on non-essential items"
Stavros
01-21-2014, 07:45 PM
Edward Snowden is standing in the election to become Rector of Glasgow University...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25830364
Republican National Committee renounces the National Security Agency’s surveillance program:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/24/rnc-renounces-nsa-surveillance-program/
martin48
01-30-2014, 06:51 PM
Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-9093215.html
trish
01-30-2014, 07:55 PM
Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-9093215.html
Now that's an interesting development. Of course, since Obama won the prize some years back, it holds no clout for the right wing. Still, it doesn't look too good for the U.S. to be denying immunity for the very action that won a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
Even At 35,000 Feet The Government Can Spy On You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl7BZXmERJQ
sukumvit boy
05-18-2014, 03:53 AM
Lots of play in the media with the publication of Glenn Greenwald's new book "No Place To Hide".Amazon.com: No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State eBook: Glenn Greenwald: Kindle Store@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41OE85ZovLL.@@AMEPARAM@@41OE85ZovLL (http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance-ebook/dp/B00E0CZX0G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2/186-2369958-9491368?ie=UTF8&refRID=11X4TKV8BAFPB3JACD7P)
broncofan
05-20-2014, 03:40 AM
I read the introduction to Glenn Greenwald's book, which was available for free at Amazon. Predictably, he compares our system of wiretapping for national security purposes to surveillance that has been done in the name of maintaining compliance, fear, and conformity among the public of various states (both real and fictional). It's an argument that depends for its effect on paranoia. He reasons that any widespread surveillance begins with a legitimate purpose and then is broadened and used for nefarious purposes. But at least in the introduction, he doesn't claim that the NSA surveillance has been used to sniff out political dissidents or party traitors or to identify politically subversive activity.
His discussion of the fourth amendment, at least initially, is also deceptive. He talks about how the fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. He then takes it for granted that these protections were intended to protect privacy as we currently understand it. But it's not at all clear that our founding fathers did not mean it to only protect people against physical invasions. Certainly they never contemplated the nature of the surveillance that currently takes place, but it's possible they would find it much less intrusive than having people physically rifle through one's possessions during a search. I think privacy is important, but there also needs to be a balance between privacy and security. I agree that we haven't found it, and any system of surveillance badly needs oversight, but I am not convinced we are on our way to becoming a police state.
I also think Snowden's actions are hypocritical. I cannot understand how he can claim he was resigned to the fact that he was risking his life, but instead of being willing to explain his actions in open court, he flees to any jurisdiction without an extradition treaty. He finally decides upon a country that will grant him sanctuary, but which has actually engaged in the types of extreme practices meant to stifle dissent and free association that his supporters claim they are afraid of. Just my view...subject to change.
Edward Snowden Interview with Brian Williams FULL Part 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V2hqEnqrVE
robertlouis
05-29-2014, 05:08 PM
Joe Biden suggests that Snowden should "man up" and return to the US to face US justice.
Maybe the NSA and the White House should also "man up" and admit just how all pervasive, intrusive, and illegal their surveillance activities are. Or am I expecting too much?
Prospero
05-29-2014, 05:11 PM
You expect too much.... and they have your number Robert Louis...
robertlouis
05-30-2014, 02:56 AM
You expect too much.... and they have your number Robert Louis...
And I have yours so they do too..... :dancing: :hide-1:
Joe Biden suggests that Snowden should "man up" and return to the US to face US justice.
Maybe the NSA and the White House should also "man up" and admit just how all pervasive, intrusive, and illegal their surveillance activities are. Or am I expecting too much?
State power doesn't want their illicit activities exposed. The state is opposed to anything that minimizes their power.
Governments are power systems. The only thing they care about is maximizing their power.
And, too, what society likes dissidents? I mean, why would the government like people like Snowden or Manning or go back decades to Daniel Ellsberg.
The only ray of hope, as it were, for Snowden might be that Rand Paul becomes President. And I underscore: might. Rand Paul is fairly good on civil liberties.
But Rand Paul would be quite hideous on other things. So, I'm not advocating a Rand Paul presidency.
Why the Snowden Hero/Traitor Debate Is Meaningless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBjbP89IEMY
Rand Paul: Edward Snowden deserves leniency:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-edward-snowden-deserves-leniency/
And his dad, Ron Paul, from February:
Ron Paul launches clemency petition for Edward Snowden:
http://rt.com/usa/paul-petition-snowden-clemency-950/
buttslinger
05-30-2014, 06:42 AM
I remember Jerry Rubin writing in his book that if he was ever on Death Row for Crimes against the United States his last meal request would be a Burger, Fries, and a Coke.
Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden would not get a fair trial – and Kerry is wrong:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act
‘Bullsh*t!’ Greenwald and Iraq Vet Blow Up on Real Time over Snowden Leaks:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bullsht-greenwald-and-iraq-vet-blow-up-on-real-time-over-snowden-leaks/
Orwell’s Dystopian Future Is Almost Here: A Conversation With Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/orwells_dystopian_future_is_almost_here_a_conversa tion_20140703
danthepoetman
07-12-2014, 12:58 AM
....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.