A Little Perspective on Gleen Grenwald’s Possible Involvement in the Theft of Classified Information from the U.S. Government
Edward Epstein in the Wall Street Journal:
Before taking the job in Hawaii, Mr. Snowden was in contact with people who would later help arrange the publication of the material he purloined. Two of these individuals, filmmaker Laura Poitras and Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald, were on the Board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation that, among other things, funds WikiLeaks.
In January 2013, according to the Washington Post, Mr. Snowden requested that Ms. Poitras get an encryption key for Skype so that they could have a secure channel over which to communicate.
In February, he made a similar request to Mr. Greenwald, providing him with a step-by-step video on how to set up encrypted communications.
So, before Mr. Snowden proceeded with his NSA penetration in March 2013 through his Booz Allen Hamilton job, he had assistance, either wittingly or unwittingly, in arranging the secure channel of encrypted communications that he would use to facilitate the publication of classified communications intelligence.
So Rick Ellensburg was not just in touch with Snowden before he took the job with the purpose of stealing our secrets. Rick Ellers also set up secure communication paths with which to receive the secrets, before Snowden stole the secrets.
But let us have no talk of any possible prosecution of Ellison! Because that would be a STAIN ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, I say!
After all, what does the First Amendment even mean if it doesn’t allow ideologues with a publishing capacity the right to coordinate a break-in to purloin our country’s most highly classified information?
Via narciso.
That said, I also saw a good NYT opinion piece about how Obama’s surveillance is not legal.
Maybe tomorrow.
There are not enough hours in the day.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:32 pmThere’s also my friend Charlie Martin’s Pajamas piece about the NSA,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:33 pmThis is the sort of secret we need to have revealed.
Besides they didn’t steal secrets, they confirmed accusations made by those 3 other dudes Steve is always waving around. In other words they reported the news.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:39 pmhttp://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/06/27/the-science-of-what-is-and-isnt-happening-with-the-nsas-phone-surveillance/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:46 pm“After all, what does the First Amendment even mean if it doesn’t allow former porn distributors, tax lien and debt judgement skippers, and purple prose spewing ideologues with a publishing capacity the right to coordinate a break-in to purloin our country’s most highly classified information?”
Patterico – FTFY
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:55 pm“our secrets”
god bless america
edward’s never told a single one of my secrets
not a single one
jesus is my virtue
but edward is the demon i cling to I think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:59 pmClearly Snowden didn’t act alone. He flew off to Hong Kong because he had pre-arranged contacts there. He says he chose Hong Kong because he didn’t need to apply for a Visa, which would have alerted the USG to his travel plans.
All I can say is anyone can book a room in a Hong Kong hotel. This guy had arranged for safe houses. That didn’t happen while (he claims) he was holed up in that hotel room. That happened before he went their. He clearly had contacts; it’s glaringly obvious to anyone except those who think he chose Hong Kong because of it’s strong commitment to free speech.
In the way of amplifying information http://neoneocon.com/ linked to this Vanity Fair article today. Maybe I’m just not familiar enough with their work, but I didn’t expect to read an article like this in Vanity Fair:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/errors-edward-snowden-global-hypocrisy-tour
As they say, read the whole thing. It explains my views on Holden to a great degree.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:08 pmPatterico: I suggest that for your posts involving Glenn Greenwald, you include a link to the classic 2006 sock-puppet post for those new readers unfamiliar with the Ellensburg/ Ellison/ Ellers references.
aunursa (179e32) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:18 pmI’m glad you’re happy because Snowden is helping even more repressive regimes than the Obama administration (yes, they do exist) only screw over their own people. More from the Vanity Fair article:
But hey! What’s the value of the lives of the Tibetans that Snowden can help ruin by letting the the CHICOMS evaluate their best-practices against NSA’s versus being a hero in your eyes, Mr. Feets?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:23 pmThis story seems pretty newsworthy to me. I would need to see something far worse than I have to give Greenwald anything but my thanks. I say that despite disagreeing with him strongly on almost everything (including his behavior at many times).
Snowden, on the other hand, obviously crossed the line in his sharing information with other countries. But so far all I see from Greenwald is journalism.
Greenwald’s reaction to the suggestion he be prosecuted seemed on the money to me. I’m not proud to live in a country that could prosecute journalists for telling Americans they are spied upon.
Dustin (303dca) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:42 pmThe problem, Dustin, is that now that the information is in Greenwald’s hands it can no longer be protected. I linked to a neo neocon post earlier; let me quote from another one.
I somehow doubt that the people who are the very reason we’ve always had to take extensive physical and information security measures to safeguard the intelligence now in Greenwald’s hands are going to be deterred solely by Greenwald’s opinion they can’t now have it when it’s no longer in a secure environment just because that would violate his journalistic judgement of what’s in the public interest.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:12 amNo doubt. And true, that’s a problem. Given that the US Government is spying on citizens, making a worthy story that required a few whistle blowers, that sounds like the fault of the guys in charge.
One essential component to security is loyalty. You shouldn’t have the loyalty of those sworn to the Constitution if you’re going to treat the fourth amendment like toilet paper.
Dustin (303dca) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:34 amDustin, Greenwald has said the majority of the information Snowden has given him has nothing to do with the USG treating the 4th Amendment like toilet paper.
Snowden was able to advertise that Greenwald has a great deal of information not in the American people’s interest but rather to this country’s enemies. It’s a lot easier to hack into Greenwald’s systems or just burgle his office or home than it is to do the same thing at NSA. And Snowden and Greenwald went public with the fact the information was now available at low risk to just about everyone by adopting the loud public posture they were looking out for America’s national security by not publishing the harmful information in Greenwald’s possossession.
If that were remotely true Snowden wouldn’t have stolen the information to give to Greenwald, and Greenwald wouldn’t have accepted it.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:58 am“So Rick Ellensburg was not just in touch with Snowden before he took the job with the purpose of stealing our secrets…”
– Patterico
Pfft. Cast unfounded aspersions much?
Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:03 amAnd who is this “our” you speak of?
Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:03 am4. Yes, we needed that.
Just a refresher, Gen. Dempsey lies like the Persian rug under four or five in the basement. Gen. Cartwright leaked the Stuxnet embedded bomb to NYT. Mullen whitewashed Benghazi. McChrystal came up with the ‘sacrifice ours before inconveniencing theirs’ mode of conquest. Alexander is head of the NSA, enuf said.
And Powell is a sleazy loves him some Farrakhan dirtbag.
That is our most trusted arm of government.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:29 amJust because some Pollyanna at the bottom of the chain of command believes in the system and his service to “Our Country” is whole-hearted and genuine doesn’t mean his notion of “Our Country” isn’t completely ‘effed up.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:37 amThis country is so stoned they don’t care whose buttering their bread.
mg (31009b) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:48 amIt’s rather convenient that Cartwright who is no longer with the administration, is the scapegoat, ho. Martin’s piece illustrates the quantitative difference between the program pre 2009 and now.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:24 amQui custodies custodium;
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/homeland-security-watchdog-accused-of-whitewashing-report/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:27 amThe fact I don’t feel like either praising or necessarily slamming Snowden tells me how uneasy and ambivalent I am in this age of Obama’s America–of the Western World in 2013. I can’t disagree with a word of what folks like Steve57 say, but at the same time I’m not exactly bothered by the sentiments of people like happyfeet.
Some out there (perhaps perceived as wearing “tin-foil hats”) have theorized there’s a hidden Jeremiah-Wright-ized agenda to not just fundamentally change the US, but to sort of tank it too. I may be suffering a bit of fallout from that. Call it a political-attitudinal version of Fukushima.
Mark (67e579) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:48 amI’m skeptical on most sides, of this thing, I know Greenwald, and he does not mean us well however,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:56 amStupid question: if NSA is monitoring all of our phone calls, email communications, Facebook posts, g-chats, instant messages, and text messages, how on earth did its massive computers miss this?
If you are justifying this based on “national security”, don’t you think that your system ought to be able to detect a guy who sets up a classified communication system with WikiLeaks funders and then gets a job that involves working with highly classified information?
Yes, this reflects badly on Snowden, but it also underscores how the programme fails under its own terms. Just saying.
bridget (84c06f) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:07 amSince Greenwald and the Guardian are reporting UK secrets of GCHQ I wonder what liability they’re potentially facing under the UK’s Official Secrets Act.
crazy (d60cb0) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:27 am=Qui custodies custodium;=
narciso-quit showing off that you speak Austrian.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:44 amAre there puppets? Because I’ll stay for good-day-sir puppets. Before reminding you that horses get out of barns and you might as well notice that one of the horses is headed right for YOU and your carrots of freedom.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:55 amEpstein’s other books are worthwhile. One of them I have read is Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It makes a pretty good case that Oswald was a KGB asset before the assassination. Hoover covered that up because the FBI had blown it so badly.
There is someone besides Greenwald behind Snowden.
Mike K (dc6ffe) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:58 amHe actually got ahold of “our country’s most highly classified information,” did he?
Icy (71a8b9) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:40 am7. Vanity Fair covers many aspects of life and is a magazine that for a very long while has been known as a place where interesting personalities “connected” to government or business can have things printed about them (or ideas and images about them can be “put out there”). The flashy, sympathetic, and one sided way in which they covered the Valerie Plame affair back in 2004 was a prime example of this. Or the unabashed love fest on David Petraeus back in 2010. (You’ve noted I’m sure that these two articles are both about CIA or soon to be CIA figures.) So I’m suggesting that one needs to be careful and a little wary about what they are being told/sold in its business and political pages whether one agrees or disagrees with the content, or likes or dislikes the personality covered.
That said, it is a mag that covers a full spectrum of people who are involved in art, music, food, fashion, theater, movies, crime, politics, travel, business, medicine, finance, etc. It uses the work of the top photographers in the world. I used to subscribe but now mostly read it at the hairdressers or in the auto dealership waiting room.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:41 amComment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:23 pm
— Congratulations. That is easily THE most disingenuous thing you have ever copy-pasted.
Icy (71a8b9) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:46 amI’ve got one foot on the tarmac
The other one on the plane
I think I’ll be in Vanity Fair
Alongside Valerie Plame.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/16/2013 @ 7:17 am
Sometimes I scare myself.
the prescient nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:13 amwitch
happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:14 amWith people like the following in charge and inserted throughout the bureaucracy, I truly fear (or have greater contempt for) them more than I fear Snowden or Grenwald. Besides, with friends like this, who needs enemies?
Mark (67e579) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:28 amnarciso @20 – That report can’t be right. It must be the result of malicious, rogue, low-level employees who have yet to be purged.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:33 amTrue, though they can always use it as an investigation tool after the fact, I doubt current computers are powerful enough to find really bad stuff in time. Of course, the worst terrorists are going to keep their communications off the internet anyway.
Give it ten years and we’ll see that this rich database combined with much more powerful computers will herald something out of a dystopian fantasy. In the power of a political party that unseals divorce records to win elections, or sics the IRS on its critics, we’re basically done with being a free country.
It doesn’t have to be that way. The citizens can refuse. That takes a media that is willing to take personal risk to get the truth out.
—
Mark, that quote of Rice is amazing. I can’t think of anyone involved with foreign policy who showed less concern for her country.
Dustin (303dca) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:12 amOver lunch I finally had time to read the Charlie Martin piece narciso linked up @4. Everybody, no matter what they already think they know, or already know they don’t know–should read this thoughtful, often funny, neutral, written by an expert (but crafted in laymanspeak) article.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:48 am“Gleen Grenwald”. Heh!
Icy (71a8b9) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:49 amGlad to see Icy admit the Snowden fan club has nothing better in its arsenal then unsupported and unsupportable accusations.
What? It’s disingenuous to suggest that leaking how the NSA conducts domestic surveillance won’t help the Chinese improve its own domestic surveillance?
That’s absurd; of course it can.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:34 am“What? It’s disingenuous to suggest that leaking how the NSA conducts domestic surveillance won’t help the Chinese improve its own domestic surveillance?”
Steve57 – What leaks? You’ve been claiming everything was already known.
The problem is everything was not known. Even neo neocon admits that. See her June 18 post.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:45 amHere ya go, Mr. Copypaste:
China’s top Tibet official orders tighter control of Internet
By Sui-Lee Wee
BEIJING | Thu Mar 1, 2012 8:56am EST
By Sui-Lee Wee
BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s top official in Tibet has urged authorities to tighten their grip on the Internet and mobile phones, state media reported on Thursday, reflecting the government’s fears about unrest ahead of its annual parliamentary session.
The move is the latest in a series of measures the government says are intended to maintain stability, and comes after a spate of self-immolations and protests against Chinese control in the country’s Tibetan-populated areas.
It is likely to mean phone and online communications will be even more closely monitored and censored than is normal.
Chen Quanguo, who was appointed the Chinese Communist Party chief of Tibet last August, urged authorities at all levels to “further increase their alertness to stability maintenance” ahead of the National People’s Congress, the official Tibet Daily newspaper quoted him as saying on Wednesday.
China’s rubber-stamp parliament session meets next Monday.
“Mobile phones, Internet and other measures for the management of new media need to be fully implemented to maintain the public’s interests and national security,” Chen said.
— Note the date, 12 months before Snowden ‘infiltrated’ the NSA. Also, “further increase their alertness”; they’ve been spying on Tibet’s Internet ever since Tibet has had Internet.
Okay, your turn. Please show how Snowden has given the ChiComs any information, abilities or ideas for spying on Tibetans that they weren’t already actively engaged in. GO!
Icy (71a8b9) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:14 pmdaley, why are you being ridiculous?
http://neoneocon.com/2013/06/18/todays-nsa-hearings/
Of course some of the detail is new. How the NSA does domestic surveillance doesn’t stand still, because neither does the technology and neither do their methods. I’ve said so several times; in fact past leakers have told us so which is why we’ve known the programs have been getting larger and more intrusive over the years. But as I’ve also said, and as neo neocon observes, none of the information about what NSA has been doing is new. And we’ve known more than just the broad outlines. We’ve known what they were doing in pretty good detail.
What have you not been paying attention to, daley, that makes you think you learned anything of value from Snowden about the NSA’s domestic spying?
Is this it somewhere in this part of neo neocon’s June 18th post?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:21 pm“Of course some of the detail is new. How the NSA does domestic surveillance doesn’t stand still, because neither does the technology and neither do their methods. I’ve said so several times; in fact past leakers have told us so which is why we’ve known the programs have been getting larger and more intrusive over the years. But as I’ve also said, and as neo neocon observes, none of the information about what NSA has been doing is new. And we’ve known more than just the broad outlines. We’ve known what they were doing in pretty good detail.”
Steve57 – No, you’re continually trying to have it both ways. Either the leaks were damaging or they were not. Either the information was new or it was not. Just make up your mind and stop going back and forth.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:29 pmIcy, the fact is the Chinese focus on US telecommunications, defense, and similar technologies as espionage targets precisely because we have capabilities they don’t. That’s well documented; why don’t you use your google skills and learn something about Chinese cyber espionage against foreign targets. And now instead of having to steal it Snowden walks into Hong Kong in a position to give it to them.
I guess you don’t read for comprehension, Icy. I said he can give them information that would help them improve their domestic spying programs. In order to know if he has already helped the Chinese improve their domestic spying I’d need an inventory of the data he has in his possession.
If you can give me a list of all the data Greenwald is sitting on for Snowden I’d love to tell you how that information may have already helped the Chinese improve their capabilities and excite their imaginations. And if you can give me an inventory of what he has on his laptops I’ll tell you how he already has done so.
Ready, go!
But it’s ridiculous for you to suggest that an NSA sys admin turned spy wouldn’t have access to precisely the type of information that the Chinese could use to improve their own domestic capabilities.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:42 pmdaley, why are you persisting in being ridiculous?
Snowden’s leaks about the NSA domestic spying programs aren’t news.
His leaks about the NSA’s legitimate foreign espionage are new, and damaging.
Your unfounded assertions are baseless. You can’t even tell me where neo neocon admitted the leaks are new. Why don’t you just back that little tidbit up if you can, since you brought up her June 18th post.
Obviously you can’t.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:46 pmSteve57 – Calm down Bond. I’m not the one being ridiculous. I’ve already quoted your words about the leaks about the NSA domestic spying helping the Chinese. How could that be if there was nothing new according to your theory? That’s crazy talk!
Neo neocon watched the same HPSCI hearing I did, which it seems obvious you did not, and came away with the conclusion that new details have been disclosed. Yes, details matter. General Alexander also poked holes in a bunch of the tale that Snowden and Greenwald were spinning if anybody is inclined to believe him.
The trio of leakers you keep bringing up, while I applaud them for attempting to go through appropriate channels, were not talking about the same programs, capabilities and details Snowden
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:55 pmhas exposed. You can keep repeating it, but it does not make it true, just as Milhouse repeating the same claims in his comments does not make them any more true.
==What have you not been paying attention to, daley, that makes you think you learned anything of value from Snowden about the NSA’s domestic spying?==
Steve57–you are clearly intelligent and well informed on a variety of topics. You feel strongly about certain things and enjoy expounding on them. That’s great. Where things so often go awry, though, is that it’s obviously incredibly important to you that other people on a blog, who are total strangers to you, must think exactly the same way you do. And you absolutely brow beat them and insult them if they don’t. And you utterly disrespect them if they don’t. daleyrocks appears to be today’s victim of your wrath although my impression is that he for the most part strongly supports and agrees with your position on Snowden’s mendacity and the danger to national security of the stolen intelligence.
Geez. This “you’ve learned nothing new” has been your attack mantra for weeks. Steve, people really should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they learned something new or of value about domestic spying from the leaks. Can’t you even entertain the possibility that people can be both quite concerned about the serious implications of the leaks/spying that was facilitated by an unbelievable lack of control and oversight allowing Snowden to do what he did– and still be able to legitimately say “wow! This troubles me. I didn’t know xxx was going on with my telephone carrier and my government?”
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:04 pmdaley, as it says in the title of this comment thread we’re not talking just about what he’s leaked to the press.
“…the Theft of Classified Information from the U.S. Government.”
The larger issue is what he’s stolen, not what he’s publicly exposed.
And what details did you think you learned about the NSA domestic spying program that contributed to your opinion that it’s either an intolerable intrusion or legitimate?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:06 pmelissa, where things go awry is when people tell me they learned something new from Snowden. And then cite supposedly new revelations that were reported in the press years ago.
Not some overbroad generalization like “the details matter.”
Does it really matter if NSA changes the cover names for the algorithms they’re continuously developing and the databases they’re constantly improving for the same domestic spying program as leaks occur over the years? Does it matter to learn that the NSA can intercept far more of the same type of data in 2012 than it wanted to but couldn’t intercept in 2008? Does it really change anything to learn that NSA can now store a far greater percentage of the data it intercepts in 2013 than it could in 2006?
I’d really love for someone who claims Snowden revealed something new about the NSA’s domestic spying program to tell me what exactly they think that is.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:21 pmI was kind of hoping maybe this would be the sentence you’d focus on and might click:
Steve, people really should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they learned something new or of value about domestic spying from the leaks.
So I tried. Have it your way.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:30 pm“And what details did you think you learned about the NSA domestic spying program that contributed to your opinion that it’s either an intolerable intrusion or legitimate?”
Steve57 – I made no comment either way if you paid attention.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:39 pmSteve57 – I hope you understand that people on this blog are under no obligation to agree with your opinions, no matter how hard and repetitively you try to ram them down their throats.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:41 pmNot following things real closely,
but I’m not surprised there is evidence of a plan ahead of time.
I’m guessing Snowden had a guaranteed income stream ahead of time for doing this, rather than depending on getting rewarded by the Chinese or Russians.
So the question is where is the money coming from.
I imagine there may be different legal consequences of a journalist receiving classified information as opposed to actually paying someone ahead of time to obtain it. The latter sounds to this non-lawyer as more of a crime.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:46 pmelissa, I saw that. But a question naturally arises when I read it.
Do you really think people should evaluate the significance of what Snowden is leaking now by ignoring the fact it’s old information that merely escaped their notice for years?
Sure, it’s new to them. The same way people will talk about buying a new car when they buy a used car to replace their older one. It’s a new-to-them car.
But it’s not a new car, in the same way what Snowden isn’t leaking new information about the NSA’s domestic spying programs.
I really don’t care if anyone who comments here wants to believe a salesman who’d sell then a 2010 Jeep Wrangler after rolling back the clock and convincing them it’s a 2013.
Snowden’s con job is of greater national significance. So if anyone wants to claim Snowden leaked new information about the NSA’s domestic spying it’s not out of line to ask them what exactly he leaked about it that’s new.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:48 pmWhat could possibly be the prosecutable act in a reporter setting up secure communications?
daniel (6e9bc1) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:48 pmEnjoy your 2013 Jeep Wrangler, daley.
You’re not obligated to agree with my opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own private set of facts.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:50 pmIt’s too bad David Gregory accused GG of a crime, but probably of the wrong crime.
Is it unlawful for a journalist to seek to hurt the US with exposure of classified info for that purpose alone, iow, not in the course of seeking a news story?
Patricia (be0117) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:50 pmLet’s not forget what is at the root of this whole episode: incompetence in the security officials at the NSA. It is a forgone conclusion that anytime you employ as many people as the NSA does, some portion – even a tiny portion – will have joined for alternative reasons than you think or they have “evolved”.
That should be a reason to strictly compartmentalize data domestic sourced vs foreign sourced, internet vs phone or what ever and MONITOR queries and downloads. Was everyone asleep at the slip after Bradley Manning – a US Army Private in a cubicle in Iraq – had:
– unfettered access to top secret military information in all formats relevant to Iraq and globally
– unfettered access to top secret State Department cables, reports, etc. relating to every country on earth. Why the hell is that kind of data available to a Private in the US Army?!?!?
– the ability to save it off-line to CD’s or USB memory devices
Good lord! I worked at mortgage companies a decade ago that had pulled floppy drives, CD/DVD drives and disabled USB ports on personal computers to prevent just that kind of purloined information. And access to our databases – containing marketing and transaction data – were secured and had regularly changing access codes and limits on who and what types of queries could be run. Logs were maintained and monitored.
I can assure you nobody had unrestricted rights to do anything. Lengthy queries producing lots of records would be terminated and the person running them would have to explain to management why they needed the results of that query. All in a stinking mortgage company!!!!
The breadth and scope of what was available to steal is breathtaking. Wasn’t all that data encrypted to prevent any unauthorized holder of it from easily reading it? If not, why not.
Inmates in charge of the asylum.
in_awe (7c859a) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:55 pmI don’t know if the reporter would actually have to pay the source or mere arrange for a quid pro quo. Obviously there’s evidence of a plan. Snowden arranged not only for a hotel room but for a safe house or houses. It’s entirely likely given Hong Kong’s status as a former British colony that the contacts that provided the safe houses were the UK Guardian’s.
Clearly Snowden couldn’t have arranged the contacts on his own. First of all he wasn’t a spy as he told the WaPo’s Gellman. He was the IT guy. Second if he had made such contacts while working at CIA or NSA those safe houses that contact arranged wouldn’t be safe.
The contacts might belong to Wikileaks, on the other hand. But clearly all involved are trading items of value for other items and services of value. I don’t see why actual payments would need to change hands before one could conclude they formed a conspiracy to compromise national defense information in order to profit from it.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:02 pm“You’re not obligated to agree with my opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own private set of facts.”
Steve57 – Please point out my private set of facts 007.
Being both pig headed and thin-skinned are usually not a good combination and you are a perfect illustration why.
We’ve been down this road before. Next you’ll accuse me of unfairly attacking you because I have a different opinion.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:05 pm*First of all he wasn’t a spy as he told the WaPo’s Gellman.*
Let me preempt anyone carefully parsing my words in their attempts to claim I’m trying to have things both ways.
Snowden wasn’t employed by any agency in the USG as a spy. But he is a spy now. We just don’t know who he’s working for.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:08 pmIt’s easy, daley.
What wasn’t known? That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a question of fact.
By definition you have a private set of facts if you won’t reveal them but continuously claim to have them.
While we’re on the subject of facts, here are two facts you habitually fail to grasp when you make sweeping statements like “What leaks? You’ve been claiming everything was already known.”
Fact: There is difference between foreign and domestic espionage. The distinctions between the two are both legal and geographic.
Fact: There is a difference between what what data Snowden has leaked and what he has stolen. The first is a tiny subset of the second.
So, confining yourself the NSA’s domestic espionage, what has Snowden leaked about it that “wasn’t known?”
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:21 pm“You’re not entitled to your own private set of facts.”
– Steve57
Everyone is so certain they know facts. “Facts” are fickle things.
My dad is very liberal. He is fond of telling me about “the facts,” and how the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals focus on “the facts.”
You folks are very conservative. You are also very fond of telling people about “the facts,” and how the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives focus on “the facts.”
Content yourselves with a broad array of information; facts have gone the way of the dodo.
Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:55 pmHe was basically support personnel for the CIA then CIA, like the backup for the team in ‘enemy of the state’ the closest parallel is to Christopher Boyce,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:58 pm‘the Falcon’ who worked for TRW in the 70s.
Read the linked piece by Charlie Martin, who used to work for similar outfits,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:07 pmTrying stand up comedy I see;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/edward-snowden-president-susan-rice
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:20 pm“information”— I think that is right, Leviticus@62. The more broad the array of information we open ourselves up to (all the while being mindful that we are subtly if not blatantly being manipulated at every turn) is key.
One of best things for me from grad school was reading the book Mindfulness by Ellen Langer for a course. It urges people to consciously use information and observation to provoke thinking–not to use, or rely on, information or accepted protocols that tell you what to think.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:29 pmtortuga walks desert
Colonel Haiku (662b3c) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:33 pmNew Mexican hat dancin’
his own titty bar
Leviticus,
Don’t you think we can know some things as facts? I believe we can know some things as facts. I also believe in reasonable or logical deductions.
Set aside politics, how could a jury render a verdict if we don’t believe in facts?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:36 pmIt’s not really stand-up comedy, narciso. Obama has so thoroughly emasculated himself that he really can’t get any weaker. The diplomatic consequences aren’t going to be very significant, considering all the damage he’s done to himself already.
The panelists on Special Report pile it on here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hz929CALn0M
A. B. Stoddard points out that Obama and Rice have to downplay Snowden because Putin and Xi have already b****slapped President Prom Queen.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:38 pmOf course, i know that Steve, had she any self awareness, she could have said ‘we are evaluating all possible connection relating to this matter,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:42 pmDRJ-I’ll wait to see how L. responds. But I did not take his comment to mean there are NO facts in the absolute. I mean, obviously most of us know facts such as whether we are boys or girls or what the day of the week it is or if our baseball team is in first or last place, or whether we have a blister on our heel, etc. I thought he was talking about something quite different, though.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:46 pmLeviticus @62, I don’t see how a timeline that tracks when specific aspects of the NSA domestic surveillance program were exposed can be conservative or liberal.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:48 pmMy team is in last place btw. It’s a very sad fact.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:48 pmMy team has the best record in baseball.
JD (b63a52) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:54 pmnarciso, Rice qualified for the National Security Adviser Post in Obama’s administration precisely because she demonstrated the requisite lack of self awareness after Benghazi.
I’d say the amount of self awareness Obama requires members of his entourage to lack is complete and total absence. That can be the only reason Jay Carney keeps showing up for work instead of committing suicide.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:55 pmWell I guess it’s up there with this;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/obama-in-speech-compares-nelson-mandela-to-george-washington/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:58 pmWhat do you expect the guy who thinks he’s the second coming of Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan and picked out his place on Mt. Rushmore after his 2004 DNC speech to say about Mandela?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:19 pmCongratulations JD. I like the Cardinals too. I waited impatiently through the long miserable winter and cold wet spring for baseball season to arrive. And now I’m ready to just slit my wrists from total disappointment with them. They’ll be dismantling the team before trade deadline I’m sure. It’d be nice if they could manage to pull through a win tomorrow when we’re in the stands, but I won’t hold my breath.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:19 pmTrade you for the Marlins,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:25 pmYou’re right, narciso, Thanks for the reminder. The Miami Marlins were and are an even bigger catastrophe than my Sox.
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:30 pmMy team has the best record in baseball.
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:54 pm
When did you become a Yankees fan, JD? I thought you were Cardinals.
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:30 pmAnd we get pay for that wonderful stadium for thirty years, cough.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:33 pmNk and Elissa – I misspoke. Pittsburgh is a 1/2 game ahead of us in the loss column. Yankees are 7 games back in the win column.
JD (b63a52) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:55 pmwhat if Snowden was a marketing ploy, not a leak.
interesting post at AoSHQ:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/341309.php
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:42 pmFacts still exist, L, but they are hard to come by when people are more interested in proving they are “right” than wanting to know the truth.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:18 pmYou know, red, you assume too much competence for that theory, specially when you consider this;
Seeking a provisional arrest warrant for Snowden, the US government submitted documents referring to Edward James Snowden …. In another document it just used his middle initial. According to his passport, however, Snowden’s middle name is actually Joseph.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:34 pmYou know, red, you assume too much competence for that theory
hah!!!
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:28 pmScahill’s another who’s always willing to give the enemy the benefit of the doubt, and suspicion for us;
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/glenn-greenwald-speaks-on-nsa.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:16 pmDid we really want people to know this
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union-offices-a-908590.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:18 pmDRJ, elissa, and MD:
I do believe we can know some things as facts, and I do believe in logical/rational deductions. I also believe the two are distinct – that is, I do not believe that my deductive processes necessarily produce facts, or (more specifically) that going through the motions of deduction renders my conclusions Facts.
What I am getting at, in the first instance, is what elissa points out – that deduction is a matter of inputs and outputs, and that the quality of inputs at our disposal is too suspect to trust unfailingly in the quality of our outputs. And (additionally) what MD points out: that the quality of our inputs is actively undermined by interested parties on a daily basis. So, I have to content myself with absorbing information – not Facts – and try to weave each new thing into the existing tapestry. The nice thing (in a way) is that where a Fact demands inclusion in the tapestry (often at the cost of a tense inconsistency), mere information that simply doesn’t mesh can be pushed to aside without pomp or circumstance.
What I am getting at most broadly is that “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” I’m not about to idolize my own capacities in the guise of a love of Facts.
Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:47 pmApparently we do want people to know things like that, narciso. Or rather Prom Queen thinks it’s too unimportant for him to start “Wheeling and dealing” to get “a guy extradited so that he can face the justice system here in the United States.”
If it’s too unimportant for President Clark to interrupt the Royal Griswald family’s “African Vacation; The Search for Cousin Eddie” to make a few phone calls then clearly he at least must want people to know crap like that.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:00 pmThe problem, Leviticus, is I’m not talking about deductive reasoning but inductive reasoning.
One can argue with the conclusions anyone can draw from observing specific events, but not with the specific events. For instance, one can argue with the the conclusion arrived at through inductive reasoning that Eddie Snowden had joined Booz Allen Hamilton to steal secrets and had arranged his escape to Hong Kong with third parties. But the sequence of events that conclusion is based on were never in doubt.
He had contacted The Guardian before joining Booz, he left for Hong Kong the same day the story broke, he didn’t leave his hotel room until after he was contacted by the Guardian (and interviewed) in Hong Kong, when he checked out of his hotel he didn’t check into another, the Guardian subsequently confirmed he was “in a safe place,” and he left Hong Kong after his passport was cancelled.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:19 pm*had arranged his escape
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:28 pmtothrough Hong Kong with third parties.*i served in the military for over 20 years… competence is something i do not generally ascribe to the government.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:09 amCommunications over the Internet is, at the moment, largely in a form that is the electronic equivalent of post cards. Getting an encryption key is the electronic equivalent of stopping off at Staples and buying a box of envelopes. The capacity to steam open envelopes is well within the national security agencies’ technical abilities, especially at the NSA.
Getting an encryption key or telling somebody else to do so is a big nothingburger. It is socially inappropriate to have so much of our Internet communications travel via postcard. On general principles, I occasionally try to get my parents to use one, have for well over a decade. This is neither a sign of espionage, nor anything else objectionable.
TMLutas (0876a3) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:25 amIn a Galaxy far, far away, in a time long ago, I “sort of” worked for the NSA as an analyst.
One thing we were taught is that it is good to make assumptions from circumstantial data, but – when diagramming a supposed net – if you were making an assumption about any of the links that you found in that data, they had to be done in “red”; and they stayed that way until proven from hard evidence.
In this matter there are a lot of unconnected dots, and a lot of unconfirmed connections, and I just ran out of “red” ink.
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:42 amSteve, that scenario certainly raises suspicions as to what Snowden was asked to do by The Guardian.
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:43 amComment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:42 pm
Icy, the fact is the Chinese focus on US telecommunications, defense, and similar technologies as espionage targets precisely because we have capabilities they don’t. That’s well documented
— They’re spying in order to learn how to spy? Hmm, you’d THINK that they would be going after defense targets in order to gather data about our defenses; but if it’s well-documented that they’re hacking us just to find out how we do hacking, then who am I to question their hacking-see hackidu methodology?
why don’t you use your google skills and learn something about Chinese cyber espionage against foreign targets.
— If we’re able to Google up the straight scoop on Chinese cyber espionage (ironic in light of the Chinese government’s public policy of censoring Google itself) then it’s looking more and more like they kinda suck at this.
And now instead of having to steal it Snowden walks into Hong Kong in a position to give it to them.
— Thank you for acknowledging that we don’t know if he’s given them anything at all.
I guess you don’t read for comprehension, Icy. I said he can give them information that would help them improve their domestic spying programs. In order to know if he has already helped the Chinese improve their domestic spying I’d need an inventory of the data he has in his possession.
— That’s the thing, though. Not only do you not know if he’s given them ANYTHING, but neither do you know if he has anything to give them that they didn’t already know . . . which, again, becomes kind of a moot point if he hasn’t given them anything.
If you can give me a list of all the data Greenwald is sitting on for Snowden I’d love to tell you how that information may have already helped the Chinese improve their capabilities and excite their imaginations.
— As far as any of us knows, the Gleens isn’t ‘sitting on’ ANY data for Snowden; although, if he is then I will concede you one point in the ‘Snowden is an idiot’ column.
And if you can give me an inventory of what he has on his laptops I’ll tell you how he already has done so.
— Because you have an accurate inventory of what the Chinese had pre-Snowden, and you can compare the two to determine what new capabilities they’ve learned from him?
But it’s ridiculous for you to suggest that an NSA sys admin turned spy wouldn’t have access to precisely the type of information that the Chinese could use to improve their own domestic capabilities.
— Again, IF he gave them anything. But my point was that they didn’t need Snowden (and didn’t wait for him to come along) in order to crack down on the Internet in Tibet . . . they were already doing that.
And the bigger question remains: If they’re learning from us how to be more repressive, then what does that say about us?
Icy (b7e728) — 6/30/2013 @ 9:59 amSnowden wasn’t employed by any agency in the USG as a spy. But he is a spy now. We just don’t know who he’s working for.
Comment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:08 pm
— Is he the White SPY or the Black SPY?
Or is it racist for me to even ask?
Icy (b7e728) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:10 amWell Assange, congratulated him on This week, like from Guayaquil I guess, but who is behind him.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:14 amPerhaps we should list him as a Spy Without Portfolio?
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:18 amJust another independent cowboy.
narciso – I think Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, but I could be mistaken.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:28 amThat is correct, daley.
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:36 amIs he, well I stand corrected, I just note people who can’t enter this country for good reasons, like Choudhary, nonetheless get access to our airways
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:44 amNot just Greenwald, Icy.
He obviously also gave information to Laura Poitras, whom he contacted in January even before he contacted Greenwald.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/qa_with_laura_poitras_the_woman_behind_the_nsa_scoops/
And just like Greenwald released the information about legitimate foreign espionage against China to coincide with Xi’s summit with Obama, Poitras gave this to Speigel Online to coincide with the Royal Griswald’s “European Vacation.”
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:46 amSo I would gather he is working with the Guanbu, although he shares some details with the SVR.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:07 pmIf he worked with the Guoanbu they would have been working undercover for Xinhua in Hong Kong. Xinhua is as more of an intelligence agency than a news organization.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:15 pmI’m sure he will think it a spirited debate;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/live-updates-anti-morsi-protests-across-egypt/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:16 pmDid news of this upcoming article cause the sudden abdication of the Emir of Qatar? (more likely a lot of things of which this article was a part)
Taking Outsize Role in Syria, Qatar Funnels Arms to Rebels – lead front page article New York Times June 30, 2013
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:41 pmAlso this:
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:42 pmMore nuance;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/obama-africa-be-wary-foreign-powers-even-us/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:16 pmAnd just like Greenwald released the information about legitimate foreign espionage against China to coincide with Xi’s summit with Obama, Poitras gave this to Speigel Online to coincide with the Royal Griswald’s “European Vacation.”
Comment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 11:46 am
— Time flies. It’s already hard to remember those old, dank days before Eddie The Traitor revealed the cold, hard truth that we spy on our enemies.
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:34 amI can tell that from the people who think Eddie revealed anything of significance about the NSA’s domestic spying program that we didn’t already know. Every significant thing about the NSA’s domestic program we knew from other sources before we ever heard of Eddie the traitor.
But now the sequence of events are supposed to be a matter of opinion.
I imagine in the future people will claim it’s just as valid of an opinion to claim Eddie gave his interview to The Guardian from his Hong Kong hotel room before he ever even arrived in Hong Kong, and I’m forcing my opinion on others when I insist he had to arrive in Hong Kong before he gave that interview.
As it gets harder and harder to remember the days before Eddie the Traitor it’ll be a matter of opinion if Eddie even went to Hong Kong at all.
And, yes, Eddie’s a traitor for detailing just who we target and how. But I know you need to avoid looking at the details, Icy, to gloss over the damage he’s doing so you can pretend he’s doing none.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:25 am*…Eddie revealed
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:26 amanythingsomething of significance…*So why not just publish the list of names of those spies? Eddie’s doing the technological equivalent.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:32 am“I can tell that from the people who think Eddie revealed anything of significance about the NSA’s domestic spying program that we didn’t already know. Every significant thing about the NSA’s domestic program we knew from other sources before we ever heard of Eddie the traitor.”
Steve57 – Out come the qualifiers. Please define “significance” and how that might differ depending on who is determining it? Please define “facts” as it relates to the NSA domestic spying program. Is it somebody who left the NSA in 2001 asserting in an article in Wired that believe the NSA is doing something? Is it somebody claiming we have the capability to do something? Is it somebody claiming we are actually doing something without offering any proof?
I can tell that people claiming Snowden has revealed nothing damaging have not carefully read analysis of his information, the history, or watched congressional testimony because there is still too little complete information circulating about these programs to accumulate facts into conclusive opinions.
There is a tremendous amount of speculation which people mislabel “facts”, but prior to Snowden’s leaks actual hard information was in very short supply.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:45 amdaley, the only thing of significance we’ve seen is the FISA court order because that’s documentary proof that verifies what prior whistle blowers have been saying for years. And there’s no evidence that came from Snowden.
But, sure, let’s define significant. I consider it insignificant to learn new cover names for databases or algorithms, new details about storage capacity, and new details about processing speed.
I don’t even consider it significant to learn that there are new algorithms or databases, considering they’re not intended to accomplish anything that the previous algorithms and databases were intended to do.
The things I consider significant are what is NSA doing, and what legal theory does FISA think makes it legal.
Any new details about how NSA is doing it I don’t find significant considering we already knew in significant detail how they were doing it. Not just broad generalities. And I’ll go through my history to post a couple of articles to prove that.
What do you consider significant?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:11 pmSteve57 – Exactly what have prior whistle blowers been saying for years? What “facts” have they been revealing?
You were the person getting upset about people having their own sets of facts. Look at Binney and his group. Their primary concern was that the information of too many American citizens was getting picked up in anti-terrorism surveillance of foreigners in violation of the 4th Amendment. They did not allege vacuuming of meta data of land line, cell phone and internet information of all American electronic traffic.
What did the 2006 exposure of a data closet in San Franciso attached to an AT&T facility reveal? That the government could download information from a telecommunications carrier? We knew that, but it didn’t reveal any specifics about programs as far as I recall.
What did the changes to FISA and the Patriot Act do in 2007 and 2008? They indemnified telecom carriers for participating, extended the life of the program and other things. Did people understand it potentially opened the door for a Hoover style collection process? I don’t remember, but I don’t think so.
Did James Bamford describing the construction of the Utah facility give anything away? Not in my opinion. He was describing capacity and capability, no practice.
So I’m curious, what “facts” you believe we knew prior to Snowden’s leaks and which whistle blowers disclosed them. There’s been a lot of speculation, but I am certainly interested in seeing your facts.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:34 pmSnowden is not my hero. Never has been.
He isn’t the story for me. Never has been.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said Monday that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden will have to stop leaking U.S. secrets if he wants to get asylum in Russia
— Rut-roh! I thought that leaking secrets was the price of admission(?)
But, if he actually is guilty of a crime, then (keeping in mind the need for proper application of our laws) he should be prosecuted.
I can tell that from the people who think Eddie revealed anything of significance about the NSA’s domestic spying program that we didn’t already know. Every significant thing about the NSA’s domestic program we knew from other sources before we ever heard of Eddie the traitor.
— Well, far be it from me to suggest that you are using a basic leftist debate tactic of claiming the supremacy of your argument by proclaiming your opponent’s concerns to be insignificant (EXAMPLE: Liberal claims that ‘Voter ID laws aren’t necessary because vote-fraud either doesn’t exist or is so insignificant that it can never sway an election’) so I won’t.
IF I were to do so, however, I would point out that you don’t seem able to make your case for “Snowden gave/sold secrets to our enemies!” without prefacing/post-scripting it — every time — with “we already knew EVERYTHING about the NSA’s domestic spying program” (an assertion that, for what it’s worth, I strongly question).
It’s one thing to say “You’re taking your eye off the ball.” I admit to doing that myself. It’s another thing to claim that your issue is all-important because the other person’s issue isn’t important at all.
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:35 pmIcy and daleyrocks–I believe Steve57’s point here is that “the science is settled.” Why can’t you just stfu?
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:52 pmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/01/video-16-dead-in-cairo-as-protesters-storm-muslim-brotherhood-hq/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:24 pmIt’s my narcissistic need for attention. As long as it’s being recorded by my government for posterity, I’m gonna have my say.
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:33 pmThings like this as a starting point:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245694/minimize-this:
From the earlier whistleblowers we already knew the sources of the information, we already knew the collection methods, we already knew the types of information collected (including content of the communication), we already knew in great detail about the surveillance architecture, we already knew what minimization procedures NSA publicly claimed to be following, we already knew (from people like Binney and Drake) they weren’t really following them.
In fact on top of misleading public statements on minimization procedures we knew that from the public statements of Senators on the Intelligence committee that NSA was in general misleading Congress about the it’s domestic surveillance program:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27patriot.html
I really don’t understand why you’re so focused on the identities of the whistleblowers. Is that what you consider significant information? We already knew from a variety of anonymous and named sources that the NSA had the capability to do exactly what it’s doing, that the only thing keeping the NSA on it’s leash was the FISA court, and we knew from Wyden and Udall back in 2011 that the FISA court had allowed NSA to run amock.
Tell you what; why don’t you point me to an article in which Snowden publicly reveals something new about the NSA’s domestic spying program?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:43 pmNo, I’m saying we have a chronology of significant revelations.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:46 pmThe slides apparently leaked to Poitras in the Post, reveals a rather comprehensive monitoring effort from a whole host of agencies, which makes
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:48 pmthe Tsarnaev matter almost impossible to comprehend, except it’s not.
elissa – I believe Steve57 is saying he is entitled to his own set of “facts”, but he has not revealed what they are.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:14 pmOn this thread alone I’ve linked to a 2011 article to show I already knew from Wyden and Udall that the NSA had gone off the rails and was lying about the scope of its domestic spying. I didn’t need Snowden to tell me that. Apparently you do.
On past threads I’ve linked to a whole host of articles revealing in great detail what we knew about the NSA’s domestic spying programs going back years.
Until you provide even the level of detail I’ve provided on this thread, though, I just have to conclude you’re just a clueless baby duck who hasn’t been paying attention if you’re surprised by anything Snowden has supposedly revealed.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:39 pmOh, and that FISA was rubber-stamping the NSA’s overbroad interpretation of the Patriot Act. I didn’t need Snowden for that either. I knew that two years ago.
What exactly about Snowden’s revelations are surprising? I don’t know. Apparently you don’t either but you keep insisting they are surprising revelations based upon some secret trove of facts you’re keeping to yourself.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:42 pmApparently some senators are learning new things and would like to know even more about domestic spying in light of the Snowden mess.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/nsa/bipartisan-group-senators-suggests-the-nsa-may-have-illegally-created-a-national-gun-registry/
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:03 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:05 pmBlast from the past: 2010
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/nsa-employee-indicted-for-trailblazer-leaks/39006/
I have no private facts. I’m willing to share what I knew and when. I’m not surprised by what Snowden had to say, but the baby ducks who think I should be won’t tell me why. So I’d be groping in the dark trying to figure out what people like daley who claim that Snowden revealed something heretofore unknown are even talking about. They refuse to say what those somethings are. They just insist those somethings are new, based upon their own set of facts. Which are apparently secrets.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:05 pmBut no biggy because we already pretty much knew that the senate is comprised of clueless baby ducks.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:08 pmAnd they’re learning these new things from Snowden’s public leaks, elissa?
I never said there’s nothing new to learn about the NSA’s domestic spying program. Just that we haven’t learned if from Snowden’s public revelations. Not yet, anyway, have we learned anything new from him through the press.
No, the science isn’t settled. But one thing you need in science is evidence, elissa, which is sorely lacking from the crowd who thinks Snowden’s public revelations have told us anything that wasn’t already out there.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:10 pmCall me an optimist but I think we’re making a little progress here.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:14 pmFrom your link, elissa:
From my 2011 NYT article:
What did Eddie Snowden contribute to this not so new twist?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:18 pmWe’d be making great progress if anybody who claims Snowden has publicly revealed something new about the NSA’s domestic espionage program could tell me what that is.
I’m willing to show my work, so to speak, and demonstrate why I’m not surprised.
It’s not a matter of opinion as to when we were all able to learn something, for instance the NSA’s secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that differed from any plain reading of the text. The fact is that was in the NYT 2 years ago.
I’m not shy about sharing my facts when I say we didn’t learn anything new from Snowden. So I have to wonder why the people who tell me I’m wrong aren’t revealing theirs.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:26 pm*…we didn’t learn anything new from Snowden about the NSA’s domestic spying program*
We learned a lot that’s new when he revealed the ISP’s the NSA was targeting in Hong Kong and the rest of China, for instance.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:27 pm==What did Eddie Snowden contribute to this not so new twist?==
Well, for one thing, the issue of domestic surveillance made the 5-6- and ten o’clock broadcast news and both left and right cable and blog coverage throughout June? I’d imagine quite a few more millions of clueless baby duck Americans are “aware” of its existence now than in, say, 2011.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:29 pmCall me an optimist but I think we’re making a little progress here.
Comment by elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:14 pm
— Since he basically seems to agree that on the ‘NSA domestic spying story’ the domestic spying IS the story and Snowden is NOT, I concur.
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:30 pmSteve57 – Which comment on this thread contains your link to the 2011 article? I’m not seeing it. Also, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never used the word “surprising” in the context of Snowden. The issue is whether his disclosures caused any damage. Just leave the goalposts on the ground.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:32 pm#123.
And you’re not one to talk about moving the goalposts. I’ve said Snowden has revealed nothing new about the NSA’s domestic spying. That’s a matter of record, not of opinion.
The revelations that have caused damage are the ones about legitimate foreign targets. I’ve been saying that ever since he started leaking about those in Hong Kong.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:48 pmI guess you missed that comment before you said:
If you missed that, how could I be off base when I say you haven’t been paying attention?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:52 pmPutin: Snowden must stop leaking secrets to stay
Why that no good dirty… huh?
I’m confused. Is there some way this can be twisted up as a poke in Obama’s eye? Putin is portrayed as the evil dictator in training.
Could it be professional courtesy between tyrants?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:55 pmUnless the numbering’s really all effed up in this thread there is no link whatsoever in #123 on my screen. Steve’s #134 has an excerpt from “my NYT article” but there’s no link there either that I saw.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:07 pmI have a comment @123; it’s on my screen and I’m positive it showed up at the top of the recent comments when I submitted it.
What do you see at #123, elissa.
Here’s the link again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27patriot.html
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:11 pmThere’s been something scripted and fake about all this from the getgo, papertiger. Maybe we’re witnessing that famous “more flexibility after the election” in some form that only Barry and Pootie understand.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:12 pmIcy is right before you and narciso is after it at 124. This is 123 in its entirety:
Icy and daleyrocks–I believe Steve57′s point here is that “the science is settled.” Why can’t you just stfu?
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:19 pmComment by elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:52 pm
No, I’m saying we have a chronology of significant revelations.
Comment by Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:46 pm
This is entirely possible. It would fit with all the other administration leaks which were designed to eliminate for future presidents the capabilities he had at his disposal when he entered office.
I’ve mentioned on other comment threads, concerning the US/UK intelligence sharing relationship (i.e. NSA/GCHQ) that Snowden and Obama seemed to be in a race to see who could do the most damage to what was formerly a special relationship.
Perhaps they were running a relay.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:22 pmelissa, your 123 is my 124. And again I’m positive I saw #123 at the top of the recent comments after I submitted it. I always look.
Here’s another link to an article I cited as evidence that Snowden’s revelations were old news:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245694/minimize-this
I’ll just quote one line:
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:28 pmAgee named every intelligence officer in Europe, and Africa, it turns out later he was working for
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:29 pmCuban intelligence, through their KGB controller, General Simenov, he also had a ballerina (where has Kim Mills gone off to? for a girlfriend,
Steve57–the NYT link screw-up is no skin off my nose. As always, I’m just trying to be helpful and serve as a cool, calming presence on this blog. 🙂
You were pretty rough on daleyrocks, though, unnecessarily so, for not seeing something that he and others of us were not able to see, because it was not on the screen we were viewing.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:38 pmCould it be professional courtesy between tyrants?
Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:55 pm
Nah. Snowden and WackyLeaks have their own agenda, and Putin sees no upside to giving them a base from which to operate. I figure that Ecuador is also figuring that they’re more trouble than they’re worth.
Always remember, when scrutinizing the motives of any government, that its foremost concern is the collection of next year’s taxes.
nk (875f57) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:42 pmRecall RT, has been a big supporter of both Assange/Anonymous and the Occupy Movement, although neither would have a prayer if they tried those tricks in Russia,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:46 pmOy! When referencing a previous comment, always do this:
Comment by Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:28 pm
[you’d think someone that spends so much time doing copy & paste could figger out how to . . .]
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:56 pmHe’s really stretching the concept of Chutzpah;
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/01/in-full-on-victim-mode-edward-snowden-issues-statement-no-new-photo-though/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:22 pmSteve57 – Your NY Times link didn’t show up on my screen until you reposted it. Since you claim it showed up on your screen that usually means your comment is stuck in the filter.
The most interesting part of that article, other than the unbelievable freaking roadmap that Wyden and Udall provide to the NSA’s illegal datagathering, I found to be the following:
That’s it. No specifics. NSA has questionable interpretation of law. Americans will be upset when they learn of it. Blockbuster whistleblowing content!!!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:25 pmdaley, in the past when it’s stuck in the filter I’ve never seen it pop up at the top of the recent comments. Which is why I always look when I submit. If I don’t have a link to follow back to the comment then I figure it’s in the filter. If there’s a link then I figure it went through.
And if you follow the other link you’ll see why I said this:
As far as this goes…
…no, they said that NSA had wildly exceeded the authority that Congress had given it.
What did you expect Senators sitting on the intelligence committe to do? Steal the documents and run off to Hong Kong?
And what did Snowden give you that made you understand the situation? Just cite a news article in which Snowden documents something we didn’t know.
Can you do that or not?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:01 pmThat equine is bereft of life; he is no more.
Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:06 pmSo I take it no one can point me to one of Snowden’s public leaks that added to the NSA domestic spying program knowledge base that already existed.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:39 pmIt’s like Iran and Iraq, you don’t want either side to win:
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/01/even-piers-morgan-bored-with-edward-snowdens-whining-now/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:40 pmCould it be professional courtesy between tyrants?
Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:55 pm
I interpreted it as saying that if Snowden wanted to stay in
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:54 pmthe USSRRussia, he had to quit sharing US secrets with the rest of the world (and just stick withthe USSRRussia).Seriously, he’s been behaving like Taylor Swift (sarc)
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:00 pm“So I take it no one can point me to one of Snowden’s public leaks that added to the NSA domestic spying program knowledge base that already existed.”
Steve57 – Why do you keep making unwarranted assumptions? I think your first comment on this site after the leak will serve quite nicely:
When did you realize you already knew the chilling stuff, like about more than the pen register, that you didn’t know?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:27 pmI think that was my link, Daley,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:32 pmdaley, I realized there was less to Snowden’s revelations than seemed at first when the WaPo started backing away from their claims on 7 June, the day after that comment you quote.
http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-post-backs-away-from-implication-that-tech-firms-knew-of-prism
By the 16th at the latest my opinion had become:
https://patterico.com/2013/06/15/nsa-discloses-the-breathtaking-scope-of-its-claimed-powers-or-maybe-snowden-was-right/
It was about 3 days later I backed off from the idea he had performed a service.
https://patterico.com/2013/06/17/nadler-says-nsa-not-exercising-breathtaking-powers-after-all-or-maybe-snowden-is-wrong/comment-page-9/
I see no virtue in persisting in error. Do you?
And I still haven’t gotten an answer to the question I’ve been asking since the 16th.
But in any case thanks for refuting the argument that I always think I’m right. Because as you demonstrate, I was initially wrong. The initial allegations were nowhere near as chilling as they first seemed to me. The evidence as it accumulated convinced me of that.
So I am open to evidence. Does anyone have any evidence that Snowden actually revealed anything new about the NSA’s domestic spying program?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:40 pmSee, now, I just responded to daley and the recent comments didn’t update.
That’s what tells me the comment is in the filter. If after I submit a comment there’s a link back to it I’ve always concluded that everyone else could see them.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:43 pmnarciso – That’s a cut and paste of Steve57’s comment. You had links to other sources on the thread, but his is the first to that WaPo story.
It’s funny that if you review his early comments on the Snowden NSA leaks he reveals what he did not know but now claims we knew everything all along.
If he doesn’t know what we didn’t know, all he has to do is reread his comments, there certainly are enough of them.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:10 amEye on the ball:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/06/spying-out-of-control-us-bugs-eu.html
Main takeaway: Dog diminished and therein the US.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:36 amI know now. After the Snowden story started to publicly unravel I began looking into it. I realized most if not all of what he was supposedly revealed had been publicly exposed earlier. That I had in fact heard of much of it. The Drake case in particular was a high profile case. The news did make a relatively big deal about Obama’s promiscuous use of the Espionage act. At least as big a deal as they make about anything Obama doesn’t do right.
All I needed was a little reminding and it took me less than a week. I got back up to speed quickly and now I’m wondering what your excuse is.
I don’t know if my earlier comment ever got out of moderation but here’s part of it.
I don’t know what you’re trying to prove, daley, except you’re either incapable or unwilling to learn from an initial mistake, and you must think there’s virtue in persisting in error.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:16 amAnd note the Snowden story started to unravel the day after I made that first comment on 6 June.
http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-post-backs-away-from-implication-that-tech-firms-knew-of-prism
As I said in the comment that apparently never made it out of moderation:
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:19 amThe New York Times reported yesterday on the front page Edward Snowden’s last job (according to him – that’s what he told the Guardian) was “infrastructure analyst .”
This means a hacker, as President Obama put it.
A person who figures out ways to break into Internet anbd telephone traffic across the world.
That would explain how he got ahold of documents about the capabilities of the NSA. He also had a list of 38 embassies and missions on a list of targets, some of which you would consider friendly to the United States, like offices belonginbg to France, Italy Japan and Mexico (according to the Guardian)
The article also says there was a widespread myth that the NSA could not intercept Skype calls, but now everybody knows (the NSA is complaining)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 3:17 pm