NSA WhistleBlower Outs Himself

An anonymous reader writes "The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. 'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,' he said."

Comments

Modern Jesus

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This man may well be our Jesus. The government is going to crucify him in their fury.

Re:Modern Jesus

[Trepidity]

He doesn't seem to be planning to: "I do not expect to see home again".

One plus of outing himself in Hong Kong is that if he suddenly gets disappeared or extradited, it makes China look like U.S. puppets, which they bristle at. So they may opt to protect him, whether directly or by running U.S. extradition requests through endless bureaucracy. We'll see, I suppose.

Re:Modern Jesus

[Grishnakh]

Sounds good, but what this has to do with Obama being Bush's protege and Obama apologists I don't know. Obama sucks not because he hasn't figured out how to get us out of a recession/depression (lots of Presidents wouldn't figure that out, plus it's not the President's job to write the budget, it's Congress's). He sucks because he made a lot of good-sounding promises, such as to have a transparent administration and to stop warrantless wiretapping and spying on American citizens, and as soon as he was elected he did a U-turn and just copied Bush's policies on surveillance, wars, and marijuana enforcement (actually, marijuana enforcement was more lax under Bush; Obama's been much worse), plus he's gone after whistleblowers with a vengeance.

Re:Modern Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

FISA was written in the late 1970s after the public found out that the NSA and CIA (sometimes in cooperation with the FBI) were snooping on domestic postal and fax transmissions. Only then did Congress pass laws and rules which ostensibly prohibited the NSA or CIA from operating domestically. Prior to that the only thing preventing them from operating domestically was the FBI protecting their turf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

In all likelihood, it was probably only the Nixon debacle which primed the public to actually reject this kind of snooping. Today we might just roll over. Then, like now, there are too many apologists and protectors of the police state, and not enough level-headed people willing to reject it. Perhaps the Tea Party radicals might actually be worth something, or maybe they'll just provide an easy excuse to ignore the naysayers as conspiracy theorists.

Re:Modern Jesus

[Somebody Is Using My]

It makes me wonder how much control the government really has over its agencies. Can the president or Congress really rein in the NSA, the FBI, the army? Increasingly we are learning that these organizations are powers unto themselves and have little loyalty to the government (much less the people) they supposedly serve. If Congress was to order the NSA to stop, would they really do so? Would they even pretend to stop? And what would we do if they didn't?

Re:Modern Jesus

[KGIII]

It feels good to vote for somebody instead of voting against somebody, doesn't it? The difference may seem subtle but it really isn't. I've been voting pretty much third party for well over 30 years now. I admit that it hasn't changed much of anything but it does feel good to be comfortable while looking in the mirror. I can confidently, honestly, and proudly state that I've never once voted for the winning president.

The state of affairs is such that I've even skipped the presidential nominee section of the ballot because the third party candidate was also unable to meet my criteria. I don't think my criteria is all that hard, say what you do and do what you say. Have a history of making good choices that benefit the people around you even if it means self sacrifice. Be open, honest, and communicative. Show compassion but be capable of making tough choices. Have an articulate plan for leading my country and minimizing the risks of harm to the citizens thereof. Demonstrate that you have an understanding of worldly affairs and articulate your plans for dealing with them.

Seriously, that's about it. Depending on those answers I can then decide if that person is best suited, out of the pack though I'm willing to write a candidate in, to represent me and my interests while also ensuring the welfare of the citizenry as a whole is effectively looked after.

Is it seriously so difficult to research the candidates and make reasoned choices based on your actual ideals instead of the political party from which they hail? Is it that difficult to examine your own self, find what form of governing you feel best suits your ideals and your fellow citizens, and then vote accordingly without regard to a political platform? Is it so difficult to see that the two major parties are not, in fact, diametrically opposed on many things and that the things they share most are jack-booted hunger for power, oppression of dissenters, and authoritarianism?

*sighs* I suppose that last sentence may seem a bit much. When I say both parties, I mean both parties. When I say that I judge the left more harshly that's because I do judge them more harshly. I am a member of the left-leaning voting populace. I hold them to a higher standard because, frankly, they should be more intelligent than they often demonstrate they are. The right has plenty of smart people in it but they're cut from the common cloth in much of the country and intellectuals have typically been left leaning. I don't assert that the right is stupid as a way to slander, I assert that the left is not as intelligent as they claim to be nor as intelligent as they should be and that it is unfortunate. Both sides are being played by people who have money, power, and prestige. They have absolutely no intentions of diminishing any of that and will continue their invasive quests of authoritarianism while continually eroding our rights by redefining words and intent in the Supreme Court.

Deny it, if you want, but the evidence is there and quite clear. Control of a nation, perhaps a planet as the US isn't unique in these regards, isn't usurped by a single act nor is it done overnight. It is a slow process implemented for your safety, your health, and because they know best. The Left has been excelling at it for quite some time now and their method is beautiful in that they constantly scream how it is the Right that is doing these things. It is the Left that demands you alter your behaviors, that you adhere to the same beliefs they do, and that works to deliberately silence the opposition. It is sad because I lean left and, frankly, I am tired of the lip service paid to freedom, liberties, and the value of either. Just come out and be honest, "We wish to control you because we want the power to decide." The right should do the same, though I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge at this point.

I think I'll close this with a fun piece of trivia, mental bubble gum if you wish, the first use of the "Free Speech Zones" was by the Democrats.

Re:Modern Jesus

[Trepidity]

Perhaps the Tea Party radicals might actually be worth something, or maybe they'll just provide an easy excuse to ignore the naysayers as conspiracy theorists.

I do think that could be one possible positive outcome of the Tea Party, if it could be channeled into an anti-surveillance political force. An engagement with techno-libertarian issues has historically been a weakness of American libertarianism, which is to a large extent based on imagining sparsely populated frontier localism: no taxes, let me keep my rifle, I'll fight off the government with my militia when they come, etc., etc.

Mostly it's ignored the information sphere and the need to keep any sort of pervasive surveillance state from being built, and has been relatively disconnected from considering what freedom might mean if you live in a modern city, rather than a sparely populated frontier. Not everyone has ignored it, of course, but it's gotten comparatively little focus, compared to guns & taxes.

Unfortunately, in my corner of the country (Texas), I see some signs that nativist worries are interfering with anti-surveillance instincts. It's not everyone, but a lot of tea-partiers around here have gotten the idea that some crazy pro-police-state ideas are not so bad, if they keep the Mexicans out. Everything from drone patrols of the border to regular ID-card checks to employment databases seems to be seen as a potential aid in the War Against Illegal Immigration, whereas to me all that is a lot scarier than the illegal immigration is.

Re:Modern Jesus

[drinkypoo]

look at the "No child left behind" program

I do. The American education system is based on a design intended to produce soldiers and factory workers. But we've got a shortage of factory jobs... No Child Left Behind only accentuated the problems already existing in the American education system; meaningless testing which is largely ignored, a curriculum full of lies, class sizes which prohibit meaningful student-teacher interaction, and a lack of cultural support for education (promoted by our idiocratic media) which defeats the best efforts of well-meaning educators are probably the least controversial and most frequently acknowledged problems in education today.

I know one former California educator who was handed a paper detailing their responsibilities under the NCLB mandate. If everything went perfectly, no bathroom breaks and no personal attention to any student, there were fifteen minutes too few in the day to comply with the mandate. They threw the paper on the floor and walked out, and quit shortly thereafter.

without truly independent oversight from the public these programs will just grow as much as their budgets will allow.

You can say that about any government program. And since men with guns will ultimately take away anything valuable you have to satisfy the greed of the state, their budgets can theoretically grow until we all go broke.

Re:Modern Jesus

[meta-monkey]

1) I am wholly against the surveillance state.

2) You do have to wonder what that meeting is like when a new president is briefed on the all the shit nobody else knows about.

I have a story, 2nd hand, and now third to you, so take that from a random slashdot user for what it's worth (absolutely nothing).

Guy I met a few times in college (we'll call him R) was good friends with my very good friend (call him S). R was very involved with the Republican Party at the local and state levels, wound up as an assistant to the state Secretary of State, and he did a ton of work on the Bush campaign in 2004. His reward for that was as an assistant to the National Security Advisor.

After the transition in 2009 R has drinks with S and tells him this story, and S told me. I have met R, and I know he did in fact hold this position. I don't have any reason to think he'd lie to S, or that S would lie to me. Still, take it for what's worth (nothing).

So when the transition is going down, obviously there are a lot of meetings between the outgoing and incoming administration. For one of these, R is told to go retrieve some documents from the State department. An armored vehicle shows up at the White House, R climbs in with four marines, each fully armed. They drive to the state department, inside, into a sub basement where R is given a locked briefcase which is handcuffed to him. They go back to the White House, and R has the distinct impression that the marines are not there to guard him from some attack on their trip. They're there to shoot him if he tries to tamper with or open the briefcase.

At the White House, R meets with Bush and Obama, and Bush tells R to give the briefcase to Obama. The marines unlock the handcuffs and case, and step back. The contents of the case are for the president's eyes only. They step back, and Obama opens the case and reads the documents. The obvious joke is that Obama went white, but that's basically what happened. Bush looked at Obama and said, "Well, you wanted it. It's your problem now, fucker!" And then the briefcase went back with R to the state department.

Obviously he has no idea what was in the case, and I have no way of verifying this story. No matter what it was it doesn't justify the police state we've become. But still, you do wonder about the shit they know that we never will.

Definitions

[InfinityWpi]

Wrong? No.

Illegal, Yes.

Be careful, Mr. Snowden, they're going to be after you...

Pulling an Assange?

[Bananatree3]

Sooner or later, the NSA would have found this guy. I wonder if outing himself first gives him "media immunity." It's harder to take someone out quietly, if they're in the limelight.

not a good idea. actually a horrible idea.

[decora]

look, the last thing we need is yet another whistleblower rotting in prison or blackballed from their profession.

People are all "oh, this is so noble". Uhm, yeah. Its noble, and thousands of other people have already done it, and they suffered immensly for it. Go read some books by actual whistleblowers. Imagine making $50,000 a year and then going down to minimum wage because its the only job you can get after you get blackballed. Imagine you lose your health insurance, your house, and you have to go into debt to pay lawyers to keep you out of prison.

Imagine your wife, family, friends, being raided by the FBI with guns. Imagine getting stopped at every airport checkpoint, train station, etc for the rest of your life.

Imagine never working in your field again.

Imagine a large number of your friends just drop you. No contact. No calls. No meetings. Nothing.

Thats what a lot of whistleblowers face.

Oh, how noble. But if this guy was makign your french fries or bagging your groceries, would you say "oh how noble" to him? or would you continue your day to day condescending attitude towards those who have to live outside the system for whatever reason?

This guy should have hid under a fucking rock and let the NSA and FBI go fuck itself for 10 years trying to track down the leak source. Just laugh at them from the shadows.

It reminds me of the story in Mandela's autobiography. There were a lot of anti-apartheid activitists who operated purely out of some messianic belief they were right. Well, the enemy used this, and decimated them. They went to prison. They disappeared. They got murdered. Most of all, they didnt contribute to the continuing battle. They are like Petya Rostov in War And Peace, all heart and no brains. They might have done something admirable, but they didnt actually help win the battle or the war because they were no longer around to fight anymore.

Now, the enemy, the NSA, or FBI, can just take this guy and swallow him into some prison.

Oh well.

Re:Why do you joke about prison rape?

[Luke has no name]

I don't get offended by many things, but I don't think it's humor, and that's why I don't like it. I know too many people who say of convicted felons "I hope he drops the soap a lot" and whatnot. Lots of people see prison rape as a valid part of one's punishment, and it's wrong.