Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files To Russia

mspohr writes "There's an interesting interview with Edward Snowden in the NY Times. He talks freely about his decision to start collecting documents. His experience in reporting problems and abuse convinced him he would be discredited. He also states he didn't take any of the documents to Russia and that the Chinese don't have them either. 'What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of the materials onward? There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists. He also corrects last week's NY Times story about the derogatory comment in his personnel file; it was due to him discovering and trying to report a vulnerability in the CIA's internal software."

Comments

Only moose and squirrel have them

[TWiTfan]

Once again our heroic leakers foil the bumbling Russkies!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were proof that they did have the documents. Better to spread FUD no matter the case, right?

"Land of the free, home of the brave". Biggest joke of all time. Osama may be dead but he won the war with such success far beyond his wildest dreams.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MickyTheIdiot]

Prove that they *don't* have something? Yeah.. that'll work.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Faluzeer]

If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Hmmm

Who believes that? The security services or the Politicians? I cannot help but remember that prior to the Iraq war the UK's security services produced reports on WMD in Iraq that were full of cautions about the evidence, these cautions were subsequently removed as the report was doctored, or "firmed up" as it was referred to, when the Politicians and their advisor's got involved when trying to make a case for war,

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh we know they have at least some of the documents, they can read US and UK TOP SECRET documents in the newspapers just like anybody else

Which is not what you were talking about. Lame equivocation is lame. You said:

At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

From your lame backpedaling answer it can only be assumed you have no evidence of your previous claim.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Desler]

So there's no proof but yet you keep spreading the claim as if it were true. Almost as if your whole point was the spread FUD instead of truth.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[darien.train]

Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?

His goal was to destroy Wall St and the US/Saudi economy (He was mad at his rich family and their rich US friends - Like the Bush's and Clintons!). Hence crashing planes into our primary economic hub. Remember that part? Makes much more sense as a tactic for financial ruin opposed to a recruiting strategy wouldn't you say?

In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[CanHasDIY]

Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.

One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.

The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.

I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.

Crazy idea, I know.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[AHuxley]

Cold a quick data dump form the US NSA is of little use to the Russians or China. Now Snowden has left, the NSA can work back over what given free to the press.
Russia would have wanted him to stay on as they tried to do with their long term gov assets in the GCHQ or NSA. Get the real gov job and move up to planning and policy, the gems of the NSA, well beyond basic contracting admin work. That would take years of effort and more education, clearances. Russia could have seen great results in 10-20 years.
China has a lot of students in the US - they learn as US academics discover - what the US knows, China knows by default.
Long term "Intelligence analysis, or to fill in missing pieces" is gifted/sold via people on much higher pay grades than a walk in admin: the Russians actually build trust with their spies.
A big dump of data for "free" might be a CIA/MI6 trap ....
As for releases of Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean - MI6 and the CIA often get huge amounts of data for the gift of cash and a new life.
With Russia they know not to allow too many people to have to much real data anymore.
China hides its data from its own people and fills in with stats that looks great to any reader - all junk.
Cuba Iran and NK have learned from Russia after years of CIA and MI6 attempts - keep it all hidden, mixed up and in small parts.
Sort of what the NSA did for many years but then forgot when it hired contractors ~ 10 years ago :)
The final aspect is just understanding docs from Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iran or North Korean - is it a person seeking a new life, a trap, junk or real.
A person telling the CIA or MI6 all about bunkers, factories, generals, exports, imports and then waits for a new house, car and identity.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[TapeCutter]

Do you recall that Mr. Greenwald's lover was carrying electronic copies of many documents with him, as well as a scribbled note with the password?

Yes, I also seem to recall the UK government "probed" Mr Greenwald's lover for 8-9 hour before letting him thru the border. Pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they had found a "spy". What Snowden did was most certainly illegal. I'm not so sure it was "wrong", but I'm sure as hell that baying for his crucifixion based on what been reported so far is immoral. .

Having said that I think there' more than political "coincidence" to the timing. Just prior to it hitting the news Obama was loudly beating his chest telling the world he was "not going to put up with cyber spying from China". The meeting was supposed to be a big deal, Obama was going to get tough with "cyber-spies", the meeting was blown off the front pages by the Snowden story. Talk about "egg meets face", the US tried to claim the moral high ground by loudly proclaiming it was China who was spying on everyone, it's my contention the Chinese responded by pulling Uncle Sam's pants down in front of the whole world (politically speaking).

When you look at the political powerhouses on the planet, Russia, US, EU and China, it's China (a federation of ancient empires) that shows the most unity at the top and given it's miraculous economic rise from famines to fortunes over the last 40yrs they have very strong support amongst the people. "Good", "evil", "apathetic", doesn't matter what kind of empire/republic it is, unity will win the day when push turns to shove..

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

There is a difference. The US birth rate is much closer to the replacement rate of 2.1. Some parts of Europe are at or below 1.3, which halves a population in about 45 years. For the US the primary source of immigrants is Catholic Mexico. Although Mexicans have their own distinct culture, they are not fundamentally hostile to the US and its culture. Europe is brining in many immigrants that are fundamentally hostile to its culture and reject it, if not in the generation that immigrates, the one after it. Unless current trends change, Europe may very well be in a civil war in 30-50 years.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MacDork]

In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!

I hear they even have insiders with the same agenda in the US congress.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[WhatHump]

Like Schrödinger's cat, we are all both guilty and innocent at the same time within the box of secret anti-terror laws passed by the government. Unless you can read the law (which most citizens can't), you cannot determine for certain whether you are complying with these laws or not. I suggest we all turn ourselves into the nearest federal law enforcement agency and ask them to prove we are innocent. Otherwise, we must be guilty and should be locked up, right?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Fwipp]

Taking your argument at face value, do a "s/white folk/white culture/g" on my previous post.

Seems to me that if everybody who cares about something is dead, it doesn't much matter what happens to it. People have a tendency to preserve that which is important to them, whether that's the traditions of their ancestors or a prototype Commodore64 with all-original hardware.

Also, first-wave immigrants have always "rejected" their new country's culture, causing fears about being "taken over". It is my understanding that the recent immigration to Europe is little different than most others, with the first wave retaining much of their ways, and subsequent generations beginning to assimilate and meld the two cultures. If you are American, you might know that Irish immigrants in the mid 1800's were not well-liked. Concerns were raised about their Catholicism being incompatible with "American" Protestantism, and more than a few people went so far as to say that they were non-white (playing to racist fears).

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MightyYar]

EU is 1.6, US is 1.8. Sure, Europe is lower but they are in the same general class. Remember that the US has a much larger immigrant population and immigrants have a higher fertility rate. Something like 40 million of the US population is foreign born - that's well over 13%. In contrast, the foreign born population of the EU sits at 4%. Increase that to 13% and watch the birth rate rise.

I can't comment on your theory about revolution in Europe. Historically it has been a pretty unstable place even without large numbers of immigrants, so maybe. But your theory seems at odds with common sense IMHO. First of all, why would people hostile to your country want to live there? Second, how is such a tiny minority going to overthrow the predominant culture?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[CanHasDIY]

Like Schrödinger's cat, we are all both guilty and innocent at the same time within the box of secret anti-terror laws passed by the government.

That made me laugh... one of those sad laughs. You know, where you start chuckling because it's kinda funny, but end up nearly crying because it's also kinda true?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

His goal, according to verifiable first-person statements, was the SPECIFIC REMOVAL of US Military air bases from Saudi Arabia. This goal was achieved, and an almost immediate concession, after 9/11/01.

There were other, minor and vague references to Palestinian cause for justice, really related to the Al Aqsa, that did not define specific outcomes.

Any other objective or motivation has been either inserted or "interpreted" by mediating commentator of differing source and agenda.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Great, Bullwinkle. Watch me pull a rabbit out of MY hat.

RELEVANT EXTRACT:
[Snowden] felt confident that he had kept the documents secure from
Chinese spies, and that the N.S.A. knew he had done so. His last
target while working as an agency contractor was China...
adding that he had had "access to every target, every active
operation mounted by the N.S.A. against the Chinese. Full lists of
them," he said.

"If that was compromised," he went on, "N.S.A. would have set the
table on fire from slamming it so many times in denouncing the damage
it had caused. Yet N.S.A. has not offered a single example of damage
from the leaks. They haven't said boo about it except "we think,"
"maybe", "have to assume" from anonymous and former officials. Not
"China is going dark." Not "the Chinese military has shut us out."

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MightyYar]

Well, I purposely used the US number from before the recent low, but this is all ballpark anyway. I'm not sure what specific country you are worried about, so I can only speculate. Germany is only at 1.4% and it has a "foreign" population of around 8% - but those seem to include other EU citizens... presumably you are not concerned about those. 4% identify as Islamic. Now granted, that is higher than the US's 1%, but I still don't see evidence to support your fears. How is a 4% minority a threat to the German "way of life", which of course changes dramatically over time with or without Islam.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Faluzeer]

Saddam considered the Iranians to be a strategic threat to Iraq and discounted the possibility that the West & UN would act against him in a forceful manner. As a result Saddam had his government continue to act as if they still had WMDs to fool the Iranians after they had secretly disposed of their VX nerve gas after previous fooling the inspectors. (It sounds stupid, but that was Saddam.) Saddam's strategic deception was such a success that he was invaded for it.

That was not the reason for the invasion, it was a political decision, that was merely the excuse for the decision. That is all beside the point, I was referring to the report that the UK Government revealed to the Members of Parliament and the UK people to justify the war, all the cautions that the security services had about the evidence were removed. Alistair Cambell, Tony Blair's spin doctor was heavily involved in that process, despite having no knowledge of either the security services or WMD.

If it makes you feel any better, there were unfilled chemical warheads found for Iraq's long range missiles. With a native chemical industry that had previous experience making chemical agents they could have been filled in the future. The disarmament agencies also recovered a number of anthrax bombs. I'm sure there is more. And the other causes of action were still true, such as the massacres of the Kurds - a crime against humanity, and Iraq's support for terrorism.

Yes, the remnants of Chemical weapons were found, all of which dates from the 80's and early 90's, and all of which tallied with the UN Inspectors reports about them decommissioned in the mid 90's (from memory I see to recall 1995). am aware of the Anfal pogroms, then again I was aware of them in the late 1980's, but as prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was the West's "friend" in the region, that was ignored by the Western governments, as were the reports that he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war.

Zero Percent Chance?

[Austrian Anarchy]

There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists.

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[TWiTfan]

God forbid anyone send them by email. They might fall into the hands of the NSA!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much do you get paid being a bootlicking shill of the US government? A traitor to the people masquerading as "patriot". How pathetic this country has become.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[HarrySquatter]

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying so that he could get access to the documents.

So no different to how the NSA uses the same tactic to get their people into companies to act as spies and to insert backdoors into said company's software and systems?

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being criticized by cold fjord is a compliment. Look at his past posts for an understanding of his moral alignment.

cold fjord, you have no standing on anything of moral consequence to the US or to the world. You support every government abuse against human rights that has occurred in the last 12 years. Go away, you are a bad person.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[khallow]

Speaking of lying, I'm more concerned about how radically the Obama administration changed its stories after Snowden's revelations. Basically, a bunch of officials were caught lying and only changed their story due to Snowden. It sure looks to me also like there is far more going on than most people want to believe.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[10101001 10101001]

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else.

Reading comprehension fail? Clearly the statement is that Snowden turned the documents directly over to journalists without some intermediary and not to known Russian or Chinese government agents. Obviously, Snoweden wouldn't know if he's handing over documents to Russian agents embedded in the journalistic field any more than he'd know, while he was still in the NSA's employ, handing over documents to Russian agents embedded in the NSA.

He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

Like how the NSA has no control over Snowden handing over documents to the Russians or Chinese once they handed over [access to] documents to him? Why, it's turtles all the way down!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[interkin3tic]

You're right, but I'm going to forgive him for engaging in hyperbole, given that the other side flat out lied about much bigger issues, while under oath to congress.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[BenfromMO]

There is always far more going on than most people want to believe. The problem is figuring out what exactly is going on. Governments have become experts and indeed surgeons at obfuscation in general, and they cloud up every issue with so much information that the average person only remembers the vague details like how "people who state that the NSA is recording your every internet stop" as being "tinfoil nutters". This was what people stated before Snowden released the proof that the NSA was doing that.....And the Government wants to spin this incident as "nothing to see here, move along", when the truth is that the NSA has been taking a back-door to our constitutional rights and not telling us. Now they will continue to do this out in the public eye and appologize to no one. The very real fact that most of the people who were supposed to be playing "gate-keepers" in congress were on board with this tells us everything we need to know that the US Government is not going to stop spying on every single citizen anytime soon.

Look, you are absolutely right that this is one of the bad parts of the revelations, but the most troubling part of it has nothing to do with how we were lied to, the most troubling part is that this information is now in the public domain and nothing has changed and nothing is being done to change it. The only result is that our Government wants to shoot the messenger who told mommy on it. That is the most troubling aspect...in that our Government is either so incompetent or so full of shit that the best they can do to fix themselves is shoot the messenger. Or how they do not even attempt to fix problems, but instead shoot the people who tell on them or waste so much time on wasting money as with the IRS. The Government is dysfunctional, and has been for some time where instead of firing those who screw up, those who screw up are given promotions to keep their mouths shut. They are only mad at Snowden after all because he told on them.

Re:Trust

[segedunum]

Stabbing who in the back, exactly?

Re:Trust

[Austrian Anarchy]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted.

If he would have gone to Cuba he could get a tan working in the sugar cane fields.

Re:Trust

[cheekyjohnson]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Precisely. Nonsensical things such as freedom and the constitution are overshadowed by the threat of the bogeymen who are out to get us.

Re:Trust

[aaaaaaargh!]

1. He has done the US a great service in the long run.

2. He is personally more trustworthy than the people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying already.

My 2 cents.

Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[TheRaven64]

The important thing to remember is that if it was so easy for him to get these documents, then that also means that there are about a million other people with the same clearance level as him who would find it equally easy. What's the betting that none of those are Chinese agents? Especially given how many Russian agents we've learned were working for the NSA and CIA during the cold war.

People focus on Snowden's disclosure as if it's possibly giving information to America's enemies (or, at least, not-so-friendly friends), but any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released. It was only secret from the people to whom these agencies should be accountable.

Re:Trust

[ClassicASP]

I dunno....I'd say he stabbed his country's _government_ in the back. I wouldn't say he stabbed his country in the back though. So far I haven't heard anything that would indicate that Snowden hates America.

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Errol backfiring]

He does not need to remain relevant. I think he just wants a boring life now, possibly including some potatoes. He already knows that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. And as long as he remains in a country that is willing to stick up a finger to the USA, he is probably safe.

Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[thue]

There has been various accusations that Snowden leaked the documents to Russia, willingly or unwillingly. This should (in a perfect world) make those accusations less valid. Also, this shows against that Snowden is damn brave and clever - it must have been very tempting to hold on to the documents, which he paid so dearly for.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174983/did-russia-china-harvest-snowdens-secrets#

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Austrian Anarchy]

He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.

Maybe Putin is starting a US expatriates of conscience theme park, like Houari Boumediene did for the Black Panthers and others?

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He's only "stabbed you in the back" if you're a bootlicker. Not all of us piss ourselves over "teh terrists" and need Big Brother to monitor our lives 24/7 "for our safety". He's no more stabbed anyone in the back than the persons who leaked the Pentagon Papers and the information on the Watergate scandal. Stop being a compliant ninny.

Re:Trust

[TWiTfan]

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Because he's been telling the truth and the NSA definitely haven't?

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

The government and the NSA are NOT the Country. The PEOPLE are the Country.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Wrong question.
The correct question is- WHO should we believe MORE, Snowden or the NSA? We know Snowden scooped up docs and turned them over to journalists in a responsible fashion. We also know the NSA has been lying to Congress and the Courts as well as the American People, violating their own policies and violating Court orders.
Given their respective track records, only a complete fool would take the side of the NSA in this.

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West;

He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector. He has made absolutely no efforts or claims to renounce his citizenship, he has not taken up arms or given aid or succor to an Enemy of the State. Thus, he is also not a Traitor.
If you have evidence otherwise, I'm sure the NSA in particular would love to hear about it.

Re:Trust

[TheCarp]

Funny, as one of his countrymen, I don't feel stabbed in the back at all, at least, not by him. I feel more like....I thought there was a knife in myback, I wasn't sure exactly how big or how far it was in, or what it looked like, but I felt it was likely there.

What I see him having done is tell me about that knife, exactly whose hand was on it, and how deep it was into my back.

Re:Trust

[Bucc5062]

Yes, but they didn't fall all at the same time, thus not a threat . In one sense we are paying not for the lose of 3000+ people, but for the towers. The spectacle of the towers coming down is what is sealed in peoples minds. That made the event larger then it really was and shaped our actions since.

I think it is the "Mass" in mass hysteria that drives the security machine and the spending of Billions on a very low probability act. More people die from shootings in this country then 9/11 and again, in such small numbers, spread out that the attitude is, wont happen to me. People don't like random acts of violence that they can't control, so they turn to the Government and say, control it please. Government does not do small thus the TSA and HLS when all we really needed was just better communication. Until I fall, I believe I am safe in my house. Walking down a street in I have no control over what will happen. Personally, I don't care or I just adjust where I go, but most people....they accept the false security of Government oversight and die any way (Boston).

Re:Trust

[khallow]

The Obama administration and the NSA chief have already radically changed the stories they were telling because of Snowden.

Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts

That's why we look at evidence and not just make up shit. The Obama administration has vast resources at its disposal with which to disprove Snowden assertions. It hasn't chosen to do so for some reason. I wager it is because Snowden's assertions and accompanying evidence are close enough to truth.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Trust that we see was poorly placed in the federal government.

Re:Trust

[phayes]

It also means that we do not attempt to whitewash Snowden or attempt to paint him into being some kind of idol that is only here to do good & has never done any wrong. The word of Snowden is no more gospel than the word of Assange, Obama or Bush & those of his allegations which are unsupported and self serving are no more credible.

Because you do believe that Snowden has his own agenda and are not blindly following it right?

Re:Trust

[TheCarp]

> NOTHING that Snowden revealed was a "secret."
> His revelations are simply not confined to the realm of conspiracy theory, anymore.

I think I take issue with both of these statements.

The truth was indeed secret. What we had were not conspiracy theories, but speculation. We all knew the NSA existed, we all knew some minor details about their operation. People had good reason to suspect some of their capabilities and how they would or could really spy on people if they wanted to.

What he did was expose the secret truth, which happened to be not far off from the speculation and rumors that were the result of many educated people making guesses based on what they saw as possible.

It was widely speculated that massive internet monitoring was possible and even feasible if you had the ability to be inserted at the right places on the network backbone. It was widely speculated that if anybody could be inserted in enough of the right places, it was the NSA.

However, being that it was possible and that they had the resources to do it, doesn't mean we knew they did it. Now we know they did.

Conspiracy theory is when you assert unproven connections to explain events. Like when you posit that a conspiracy of people working together prepared the towers to come down. That is conspiracy theory. Not all speculation is conspiracy theory.

Re:Trust

[Hatta]

He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector.

Indeed. He is a refugee.