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...r-surveillance

Rand Paul: NSA monitoring an 'extraordinary invasion of privacy'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politi...cy-165742.html

Peeping Barry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/op...bama.html?_r=0

Glenn Greenwald Details 'Menacing' Reach Of NSA's Invasion Of Google, Facebook, Apple Servers - YouTube

Columnist exposes Obama surveillance - YouTube

The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...terror/276695/


Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/bu...nted=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...supreme-court/

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

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

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...s-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...kong-and-china

Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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...s-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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.)

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/w...lower/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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs:

Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs. Fox News Sunday - YouTube

---

Snowden is starting to look like a traitor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...dev-g20-summit

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Snowden is starting to look like a traitor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...dev-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

How Guys Will Use Google Glass - YouTube

....

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

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-l...rs-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/commentisf...h-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...nsor-your-head

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23116517

How much did this junior contractor get away with?

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/2...bYP/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/2013/06/0...e-to-congress/

He's stuck in an airport in Russia ... it's like he's snowed in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lovecox

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


Section 215 of the Patriot Act:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-nati...ct-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/1757...r_target/#more