Edward Snowden

[Guest American Woman]

I read that one of the journalist for Britain's Guardian, thinks the US better hope nothing happens to Snowden because if something does, ALL information will be released.

Well, if that's what one of Britain's Guardian journalists says, then I'll be sure to say my prayers for Snowden's safety tonight.

Do you think what one Guardian journalist says has any relevance?

[Scotty]

According to Mr Snowden he had access to actual conversations. Whether they are emails, phonecalls, or skypecalls is irrelevent.

The program, as described by him, through the media, grabbed metadata only. When this provided interesting data, they had to get a warrant to actually listen in on conversations, at least, if those conversations were of Americans.

[Scotty]

I read that one of the journalist for Britain's Guardian, thinks the US better hope nothing happens to Snowden because if something does, ALL information will be released.

Snowden was a junior contractor who would not have had access to anything beyond the immediate scope of his own work. He seems to know quite a bit about this prism thing, but mere confirmation of its existence is almost certainly the biggest 'bombshell' he has in his possession.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Scotty

[ChristopherJ]

Well, if that's what one of Britain's Guardian journalists says, then I'll be sure to say my prayers for Snowden's safety tonight.

Do you think what one Guardian journalist says has any relevance?

Yes. His name is Glenn Greenwald. He's the journalist that broke the story. The man Snowden specifically picked to go through all the information he collected and release it to the public.

There isn't a more relevant journalist out there pertaining to Snowden and this whole story.

You're actually clueless.

Edited July 14, 2013 by ChristopherJ

[Scotty]

To put that number of private contractors in perspective, GM employs 212,000 people, Ford employs 164,000, and Chrysler employs 65,000. More Americans working for private security contractors have Top Secret clearance than work for the Big 3 automakers combined. Doesn't it concern you that "security" is now apparently a bigger industry in America than building cars? I find that astounding.

I would suggest that what is more likely here is that a lot of jobs have been over classified. To put it into context, everyone hired by the Canadian government has to undergo varying levels of security checks. Every single one, no matter what they do, has to be screened. Normally, they are screened only for 'enhanced confidentiality' I think it's called. I know a person whose job involved creating forms, though, who requires "Top Secret" clearance. Why? I have no idea. Nor does she. Nothing she does involves classified information at all. Nor does she work for DND or CSIS or anything like that.

Given the level of paranoia down south what has most likely happened is tons of people require Top Secret clearance even though they aren't doing anything particularly secret.. But merely having a Top Secret clearance does not give you any right to see, handle, or even know about information beyond the purvey of your particular job.

[Bryan]

Snowden was a junior contractor who would not have had access to anything beyond the immediate scope of his own work. He seems to know quite a bit about this prism thing, but mere confirmation of its existence is almost certainly the biggest 'bombshell' he has in his possession.

Somehow I doubt it. If what we know now is all Snowden has, I doubt he'd be as big of a concern for the US as he is right now. Even if they say otherwise, I still strongly suspect that it's what else he might have yet to release that is the real concern.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes. His name is Glenn Greenwald. He's the journalist that broke the story. The man Snowden specifically picked to go through all the information he collected and release it to the public.

There isn't a more relevant journalist out there pertaining to Snowden and this whole story.

You're actually clueless.

Oh, please. I'm not the one who's clueless.

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinian daily La Nacion.

That's absurd.

[dre]

The program, as described by him, through the media, grabbed metadata only. When this provided interesting data, they had to get a warrant to actually listen in on conversations, at least, if those conversations were of Americans.

No sorry this is completely wrong. Here is how Snowden himself described things...

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/354256#ixzz2Z4ZAEXY2

Edited July 15, 2013 by dre

[dre]

I would suggest that what is more likely here is that a lot of jobs have been over classified. To put it into context, everyone hired by the Canadian government has to undergo varying levels of security checks. Every single one, no matter what they do, has to be screened. Normally, they are screened only for 'enhanced confidentiality' I think it's called. I know a person whose job involved creating forms, though, who requires "Top Secret" clearance. Why? I have no idea. Nor does she. Nothing she does involves classified information at all. Nor does she work for DND or CSIS or anything like that.

Given the level of paranoia down south what has most likely happened is tons of people require Top Secret clearance even though they aren't doing anything particularly secret.. But merely having a Top Secret clearance does not give you any right to see, handle, or even know about information beyond the purvey of your particular job.

The reality is that the US government is really bad at IT and really bad at IT security. Hell... look at bradley manning... and the kind of stuff he had access to... some soldier in the field with access to hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables.

The problem is they have become so opaque, and try to keep SO MUCH stuff secret that they are leaking like a gigantic sieve. Millions of documents in the last few years alone.

Which is another reason why Americans need to demand that the government stop warehousing their communications... they cant be trusted to keep them secret, and people are going to start finding their private personal communications on wikileaks before long.

Somehow I doubt it. If what we know now is all Snowden has, I doubt he'd be as big of a concern for the US as he is right now. Even if they say otherwise, I still strongly suspect that it's what else he might have yet to release that is the real concern

.

Its not even really a matter of what Snowden has... Like I said the government is losing control of its data, and its just a matter of time until more people blow the whistle on more and more things. They want to make an example out of Mr Snowden like they did with Bradley manning, to scare of other potential whistle blowers.

[GostHacked]

At any rate, Snowden broke the law and should be held accountable to it. We can't pick and choose who can break the law and who has to follow it depending on our ideologies.

Obama : 'Yes we can!'

[ChristopherJ]

Oh, please. I'm not the one who's clueless.

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinian daily La Nacion.

That's absurd.

This is where media literacy is vary important.

That's a complete fabrication you've cited. Greenwald never said that and he's said as much numerous times over the past 3 days. That line you've quoted is from a terribly written Reuters article which is just trying to get website hits by totally miscontruing Greenwald's comment.

A little research would once again go a long way, but of course that doesn't fit your emotional bias so who cares! Go Murica!!!

[Guest American Woman]

This is where media literacy is vary important.

That's a complete fabrication you've cited. Greenwald never said that and he's said as much numerous times over the past 3 days. That line you've quoted is from a terribly written Reuters article which is just trying to get website hits by totally miscontruing Greenwald's comment.

A little research would once again go a long way, but of course that doesn't fit your emotional bias so who cares! Go Murica!!!

Try following along. First I dismissed the seriousness of the claim in the post I was responding to, for which you insulted me and said he should know more about it than anyone else, so then I included the quote that pertains to the post I was responding to to show why I wasn't taking it seriously - and now you insult me for posting it- even as I was still dismissing it?

You might want to pick a stance - and stick with it.

[Moonlight Graham]

The fact is, he didn't try any legal channels. At all. And that's my main criticism, along with it resulting in his compromising U.S. security. There are legal channels he could have tried, he knew that, he was informed of that as part of the job. There's no excuse for not going the legal route before breaking the law and going to the media; for jeopardizing the country's security.

I think Daniel Ellsberg, with the Pentagon Papers, did it more or less the right way:

On June 13, 1971, The New York Times began printing large portions of the Pentagon Papers.The papers were a large collection of secret government documents and studies pertaining to the Vietnam War, of which former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg had made unauthorized copies and was determined to make public. Ellsberg had for a year and a half approached members of Congress – such as William Fulbright, George McGovern, Charles Mathias, and Pete McCloskey – about publishing the documents, on the grounds that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution would give congressional members immunity from prosecution, but all had refused. Instead, Ellsberg gave the documents to the Times.

...Within the next two weeks, a federal court injunction halted publication in The Times;...Looking for an alternate publication mechanism, Ellsberg returned to his idea of having a member of Congress read them, and chose [Mike] Gravel based on the latter's efforts against the draft; [senator] Gravel agreed where previously others had not.[Gravel] began reading from the papers with the press in attendance, omitting supporting documents that he felt might compromise national security,and declaring, "It is my constitutional obligation to protect the security of the people by fostering the free flow of information absolutely essential to their democratic decision-making."

He read until 1 a.m., until with tears and sobs he said that he could no longer physically continue,^[71] the previous three nights of sleeplessness and fear about the future having taken their toll. Gravel ended the session by, with no other senators present, establishing unanimous consent to insert 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his subcommittee.... [T]he Gravel v. United States court case, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled upon in June 1972...held that the Speech or Debate Clause did grant immunity to Gravel for his reading the papers in his subcommittee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Vietnam_War.2C_the_draft.2C_and_the_Pentagon_Papers

IMO Gravel is one of the greatest and bravest US politicians in the country's modern history.

If this is true, and I tend to agree with him, then WikiLeaks is to be held to criticism, too; the Constitution should come before their agenda.

Wikileaks is, as you alluded, very dangerous because they simply believe that all info should be public and they have little if any care for security issues. There are some things that should be brought to public light, and some not. I was very critical of Wikileaks when it leaked a load of US gov info a few years ago that revealed classified Afghan civilian sources that provided the US/NATO with info to help them vs the Taliban. As was said at the time, this put these Afghan civilians and their families etc. in great danger of being punished/killed by the Taliban for helping out NATO/US. Very irresponsible by Wikileaks/Assange, and they clearly don't factor the repercussions of their actions.

IMO Assange and Wikileaks should be deemed by the US (and other governments) as an enemy of the state, not heroic. Like Snowden, some of this info should certainly be brought to public light but through responsible and (if possible) legal means.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Wikileaks is, as you alluded, very dangerous because they simply believe that all info should be public and they have little if any care for security issues. There are some things that should be brought to public light, and some not. I was very critical of Wikileaks when it leaked a load of US gov info a few years ago that revealed classified Afghan civilian sources that provided the US/NATO with info to help them vs the Taliban. As was said at the time, this put these Afghan civilians and their families etc. in great danger of being punished/killed by the Taliban for helping out NATO/US. Very irresponsible by Wikileaks/Assange, and they clearly don't factor the repercussions of their actions.

IMO Assange and Wikileaks should be deemed by the US (and other governments) as an enemy of the state, not heroic. Like Snowden, some of this info should certainly be brought to public light but through responsible and (if possible) legal means.

The thing is, leak media is a direct response to massive over classification. The government keeps millions of pages secret that have no direct national security implications and they keep stuff secret for way too long. If the government acted responsibly and only classified stuff that really should be classified, then they would have a much smaller body of secret data which they could effectively secure.

I couldnt help but laugh at some of the diplomatic cables that got leaked. Diplomats/politicians literally acting like little school girls, calling each other names, making fun of their counterparts hair or their weight... This is the kind of thing that gets classified on a regular basis. Theres so much stuff that the government needs to hire thousands of private contractors in a hopeless attempt to manage all the data. Then they cry when someone disclosed the fact that they act in a criminal way, or even just an embarassingly stupid way.

And I disagree with the whole premise that assange is an enemy of the state. Wiki Leaks has been a conduit for all kinds of different leaks over the last decade or so that have exposed everything from assasination plots, to the Japenese government lying to its citizens about dangerous radiation leaks at nuclear reactors.

The state is getting larger and more powerfull, and more secretive... they clearly cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about anything, so leakers are a necessary counterbalance and leak media is here to stay. And wikileaks is simply a place where anonymous whistle blowers can host information. They arent the source of the information, and if Wikileaks wasnt around there would be plenty of other ways for them to make the data public.

What this conversation really comes down to is that some people thing the authority of the state should be unchallengable. That we should just trust everything they tell us, let them do all this stuff in secret, and give them complete carte blanche to do whatever they feel like.

I dont feel that way myself, so Im really happy that theres people of concience inside the black box willing to forfeit their lives to create just a bit of transparency. And I dont believe this puts me in any danger at all. I think it makes me SAFER.

Edited July 15, 2013 by dre

[Moonlight Graham]

And I disagree with the whole premise that assange is an enemy of the state. Wiki Leaks has been a conduit for all kinds of different leaks over the last decade or so that have exposed everything from assasination plots, to the Japenese government lying to its citizens about dangerous radiation leaks at nuclear reactors.

He is an enemy of the state(s). He may publish classified info that will help expose government corruption etc., which is great, but he and those who provide him with the source material are also publishing classified info which is 1. harming national security, and 2. as I outlined above, putting the lives of classified people in jeopardy. These leaks can risk the lives of CIA/CSIS etc. agents and their families/friends etc when their identities are made public. Ann as I mentioned in my last post, some of these leaks likely have led to the deaths of Afghan civilians who were secretly providing help to NATO because the Taliban would have learned of their identity and sought to punish them. Who knows whose other lives were put at risk because of these leaks.

Again, some of these leaks are helpful for exposing info & corruption etc. we should know about, but some of these leaks are also INCREDIBLY dangerous as shown above, and are putting lives at risk, and shows gross irresponsibility on the leakers' part. Assange and other leakers have to be far more careful what info they leak because they should be held partly responsible for any harm that comes to people because of them.

Daniel Ellsberg did it a far better way: he went through mostly legal channels, and those who published the info were far more careful to not expose classified info that would unwisely harm national security or endanger people's lives.

The state is getting larger and more powerfull, and more secretive... they clearly cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about anything, so leakers are a necessary counterbalance and leak media is here to stay. And wikileaks is simply a place where anonymous whistle blowers can host information. They arent the source of the information, and if Wikileaks wasnt around there would be plenty of other ways for them to make the data public.

That doesn't make Wikileaks not responsible for what they're publishing, sorry. And I agree, governments cant be trusted and never could, and leakers/whistle-blowers are needed, but they need to be very careful what they do and don't leak because it can lead to very bad consequences they may not realize. They also need to do their best, like Ellsberg did, to try and get their information to the public in a lawful way if possible.

What this conversation really comes down to is that some people thing the authority of the state should be unchallengable.

That's a very incomplete assessment of "what this conversation really comes down to", it's only part of this issue. For instance, I, for one, don't think "the authority of the state should be unchallengeable", but rather, there is a right and a wrong way to challenge this authority. Challenging the state in a way in which the lives of (sometimes innocent) people are needlessly put at risk is 100% wrong!

Edited July 15, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Bob Macadoo]

Challenging the state in a way in which the lives of (sometimes innocent) people are needlessly put at risk is 100% wrong!

As I've heard the very same people this info comes from; "There is regrettable collateral damage when waging a 'War on Terror'".

[ChristopherJ]

There's no proof of Snowden putting anyone in danger.

He didn't blindly release whatever documents he could get his hands on. He spent months hand-picking which documents he would release based on his conviction that he didn't want to put American lives at risk.

His purpose was to inform the public that their government was unconstitutionally building a security apparatus that collected the public's information, not just domestically but abroad.

If you think that changes the dynamics of how terrorists operate than I don't know what to tell you.

Give me a concrete example of how Snowden has put American lives in danger? Because vague ideas about protecting your security without tangible evidence is exactly the foundations on which a security state is born.

[cybercoma]

If you think that changes the dynamics of how terrorists operate than I don't know what to tell you.

Anyone that argues this is a complete hypocrite, as there were news reports following Snowden's revelations that the NSA was watching terrorist groups change the way they were communicating in real time. This is about as much a revelation as what Snowden brought to light, but no one's calling for them to be tried for treason and hanged.

[ChristopherJ]

Anyone that argues this is a complete hypocrite, as there were news reports following Snowden's revelations that the NSA was watching terrorist groups change the way they were communicating in real time. This is about as much a revelation as what Snowden brought to light, but no one's calling for them to be tried for treason and hanged.

To my knowledge, that was one New York Times 'correspondents dinner' journalist who conveniently cited two 'unnamed sources', neither of whom claimed to be fully certain whether this was true.

In other words: mainstream media, government propaganda.

Edited July 16, 2013 by ChristopherJ

[Guest American Woman]

I think Daniel Ellsberg, with the Pentagon Papers, did it more or less the right way:

[...]

Wikileaks is, as you alluded, very dangerous because they simply believe that all info should be public and they have little if any care for security issues. There are some things that should be brought to public light, and some not. I was very critical of Wikileaks when it leaked a load of US gov info a few years ago that revealed classified Afghan civilian sources that provided the US/NATO with info to help them vs the Taliban. As was said at the time, this put these Afghan civilians and their families etc. in great danger of being punished/killed by the Taliban for helping out NATO/US. Very irresponsible by Wikileaks/Assange, and they clearly don't factor the repercussions of their actions.

IMO Assange and Wikileaks should be deemed by the US (and other governments) as an enemy of the state, not heroic. Like Snowden, some of this info should certainly be brought to public light but through responsible and (if possible) legal means.

Seems as if we are on the same page for the most part.

[dre]

Seems as if we are on the same page for the most part.

No you would have condemned Elsberg as well because he also broke the law.

And Assange is only an enemy of the state because the state is at times an enemy of its own people. One of the earliest wiki leaks releases was exposing the Japanese government for lying about a nuclear reactor leak to folks that lived near by. That makes them an "enemy of the state" I guess, but who cares.

The real problem is the state has so much to hide. These central intelligence agencies are basically global crime syndicates. They have been caught murdering, trafficing narcotics, trying to overthrow democratically elected governments, running guns to terrorists, and just about every other dispicable act under the sun including spreading false information that starts wars in which many many thousands of people die.

And you would have me believe some geek with a laptop is the bad guy? Please...

The only reason this guy is in your crosshairs is because he made your beloved government look stupid and weasely. End of story.

[dre]

Wikileaks is, as you alluded, very dangerous because they simply believe that all info should be public

What would be dangerous is NOT having groups like wikileaks around. If the government thinks they cant act with impunity and in secrecy, history shows they will do all kinds of disgusting things, and these things put way more people in danger than leak media outlets could ever dream of.

For example, we now know that that the CIA worked with an Iraqi political dissident in the runup to the Iraq war that tricked them into thinking Hussein had dozens of gigantic WMD factories. If this information had been made public, anyone with a brain would have said "Well no duh hes going to tell you that. Hes trying to con you into wiping out his opposition". Not the central (lack of) intelligence agency. They told the executive branch that WMDs were a "slam dunk" and about half a million Iraqis and Americans got killed.

We also know they cooked up a fake pretense to start the vietnaam war. 60 000 Americans died over that.

We ALSO know, that these intelligence agencies THEMSELVES have described much of the terrorism threat as blowback for their own actions. Thats not me talking its the DIA that says this.

So one has to ask... Who is it that REALLY is jeopardizing peoples safety and security? An intelligence apparatus that goes around the world commiting horendous atrocities and has gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed? Or some computer dorks that occasionally get their hands on some information that makes those idiots look bad?

We would be safer if every single one of these documents was dumped on the web, and our governments were forced to operate in a transparent and honest manner. Clearly theres a real need for some very limited secrecy... active troop movements while war is being fought, etc. But as far as Im concerned thats IT, and even those things should be made public once the troop movements are complete.

Instead... we have governments that have collectively kept secret a stack of papers that could reach the moon and back. THIS is whats dangerous. THIS is what threatens our liberty, and THIS is also what threatens our security.

Its time to revisit all this BS conventional wisdom that says we can only be safe if we are kept in the pitch dark. Its not true and it never has been.

Edited July 16, 2013 by dre

[Moonlight Graham]

Seems as if we are on the same page for the most part.

A rare event that is cause for celebration LOL

[Guest American Woman]

A rare event that is cause for celebration LOL

I'm always up for a celebration. Count me in!

[Scotty]

Anyone that argues this is a complete hypocrite, as there were news reports following Snowden's revelations that the NSA was watching terrorist groups change the way they were communicating in real time. This is about as much a revelation as what Snowden brought to light, but no one's calling for them to be tried for treason and hanged.

How so? Someone said the terrorists were changing how they communicated. Ie, they were able to watch the terrorists, and then the terrorists changed how they communicated, and now they can't. It's not like they revealed whatever new way the terrorists were using, or even suggested they knew how they were now communicating.

Personally, absent any information from anyone, it seems to me that the US and other western governments put a ton of effort into this monitoring for a reason, and that the terrorists, with all these revelations, would have obviously decided they were now going to have to find some other ways of communicating that the NSA and other agencies couldn't watch as easily. I don't see how this is not an entirely predictable effect of Snowden releasing the information to the public.