Slashdot Mirror


NSA Has No Clue As To Scope of Snowden's Data Trove

krakman writes "According to a NY Times article, a 6-month internal investigation has not been able to define the actual files that Edward Snowden had copied. There is a suspicion that not all the documents have been leaked to newspapers, and a senior NSA official (Rick Ledgett), who is heading the security agency's task force examining Mr. Snowden's leak, has said on the record that he would consider recommending amnesty for Mr. Snowden in exchange for those unleaked documents. 'They've spent hundreds and hundreds of man-hours trying to reconstruct everything he has gotten, and they still don't know all of what he took,' a senior administration official said. 'I know that seems crazy, but everything with this is crazy.' That Mr. Snowden was so expertly able to exploit blind spots in the systems of America's most secretive spy agency illustrates how far computer security still lagged years after President Obama ordered standards tightened after the WikiLeaks revelations of 2010."

383 comments

  1. Yeah, sure... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a suspicion that not all the documents have been leaked to newspapers, and a senior NSA official (Rick Ledgett), who is heading the security agency's task force examining Mr. Snowden's leak, has said on the record that he would consider recommending amnesty for Mr. Snowden in exchange for those unleaked documents.

    What Snowden has leaked is stuff that many people suspected but could not prove. A lot of it are things we know that the technology existed for, and an unscrupulous Spy Agency (like the NSA) might be likely to attempt.

    But what this new disclosure says to me is that there might be things that go WAY beyond what we have learned or more accurately, confirmed, so far. Things that really do stretch way into the clearly unacceptable in ways that the disclosures thus far pale in comparison.

    Why else go public and suggest "amnesty"? Which, I don't think Snowdon would consider at this point, he would certainly risk ending up in a "accident" in a few years, something he is quite at risk from now.

    If as "they" say they think he has't given up everything he had to the News Media, we will never see it because it's in Russian hands. Snowden isn't that stupid.

    And by the way, I'll bet Julian Assage is feeling pretty jealous right now, what with the spot-light off of Him... Assage is a lime light whore, an ego the size of a blimp, he's got to be pacing back and forth in that small room of his, plotting a "come-back".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm willing to bet Julian Assange feels pretty damned justified right now. To hell with his limelight stealing and ego thumping, he got the ball rolling and got to see Snowden take things even further.

      If it wasn't for Julian Assange, Snowden probably would have taken his concerns up internally with his boss and then had an "accident".

    2. Re:Yeah, sure... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      " this new disclosure says to me is that there might be things that go WAY beyond what we have learned"

      I thought that was a given. It is well known that Snowden claims to have reserved some mind blowing information, deposited in various places, with a dead man's switch. If he dies or goes missing, the stuff is released.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Yeah, sure... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet Julian Assange feels pretty damned justified right now.

      That's nice, but what has Wikileaks released recently? We were told the Manning Papers where far and wide, yet apparently either they are not, or Assange is holding back for some reason? What could that reason be?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has't given up everything he had

      "You know the Vorlons used telepaths as weapons during the Shadow War, but what no one stopped to consider was that, in a war, you have a certain number of small weapons, a certain number of medium size weapons, and one or two big ones. The kind of weapons you drop when you're out of small weapons, and the medium weapons, and you've got nothing left to use. Someone like that would be the telepathic equivalent of a thermonuclear device. A doomsday weapon."

      -- Lyta Alexander & Michael Garibaldi, Babylon5

    5. Re:Yeah, sure... by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know this was fiction but I disagree with the sentiments of the Lyta and Garibaldi characters here:

      Sometimes you use the big weapons when you believe, rightly or wrongly, that using the big weapon now is better than using the not-so-bit weapons now.

      Take Truman's decision to drop the two nukes on Japan in 1945: Assuming what was reported to the public is somewhere near accurate, the United States and its allies could have defeated Japan without nukes, but it would have costs far more in American lives, possibly far more Japanese lives, and because the Russians would've become more involved it would've decreased American's say-so in post-war Japan and raised Russia's influence.

      So Truman went with the big weapons rather than continuing a non-nuclear war.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    6. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the victims would disagree, that was not a doomsday weapon, it was shock-and-awe.

      A doomsday weapon you only use when you have lost the war, and have nothing to loose, so you blow up anything left on both, on all sides... In snowden terms, he would use his "doomsday-powerpoint" when he knows for sure he's going to get killed, or someone will use it for him, after he had an "accident".

    7. Re:Yeah, sure... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      Snowden never took anything to China or Russia. He'd unloaded everything on his lawyer by then. I suspect this is why he was greeted so lukewarmly by both countries.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming what was reported to the public is somewhere near accurate,

      Assuming merely creates a nebulous bridge between solid facts and complete bullshit.

        the United States and its allies could have defeated Japan without nukes, but it would have costs far more in American lives,

      And then there is the brain-deadness of your second statement. The nukes did not have to be dropped on a populated area in order to
      compel Japan to capitulate. Only someone with a very limited intellect accepts such an obviously flawed claim.

      Dropping nukes on Japan was about two things :

      1) revenge

      and

      2) Showing the rest of the world what they could expect if they messed with the US.

      .

    9. Re:Yeah, sure... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was greeted by Russia with open arms. As it turned out, they were just pretending the "lukewarm" bit as a cover while they moved him elsewhere.

      They were ecstatic to get a chance to show up Obama. (Hell, I would have been too if I were them.)

      The chance to play the "justified political asylum" card on the U.S. Government? They loved every minute of it!

    10. Re:Yeah, sure... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Troll

      Most of what Wikileaks has released is about Scientology. Yup SCIENTOLOGY. Really? Papers about some Nut House?

      Wil=kileaks == FAIL

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    11. Re:Yeah, sure... by blue+trane · · Score: 3, Informative

      US officials discussed doing three things: 1) demonstrate the nuclear bomb before an international team of scientists 2) warn the Japanese before using it and 3) use it only on a military target. But Truman ultimately chose to go for the maximum psychological impact.

    12. Re:Yeah, sure... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, FFS - you sound like a jealous little boy who wanted to be diddled by Assange. To bad for you, he likes women.

      While you're throwing around baseless accusations, I'd like to remind you that the bimbos in questions seduced Assange, not the other way around. When women are throwing themselves at men, the men can't be accused of fucking their way through women.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Yeah, sure... by kanweg · · Score: 2

      If you read about the role of general Groves, Oppie's boss, his personal need to be more than a bureaucrat .

      Googled quotes:
      While Groves credited President Truman with the decision to use the atomic bomb, he qualified this by saying, "As far as I was concerned, his decision was one of noninterference - basically, a decision not to upset the existing plans".

      Groves was a prime mover in getting the atomic bomb built, on where it would be used, and on when it would be used.

      Bert

    14. Re: Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks wants to go through the material to remove names and such to avoid you wankers starting yet another whine about "endangers lives".

    15. Re:Yeah, sure... by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      I always thought this was a very bad idea.

      Sure, it may protect him from those who do not want the information released.

      But for those wo do want it released, they might feel motivated to force it...

    16. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      what has Wikileaks released recently?

      The GI files just finished being published. They, for example, tell us that around 2011 there was "not much of a free Syria army", but that they were financing, arming and training people to "commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within". Even worst, it also tells us that "They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi".

      So basically, while it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons against his people, it shows that since 2011 the USA consider this a necessity for their attacks. Here is the full leaked email

      There were many other revelations from the Global Intelligence files, but I think this is the most important one since over 100,000 people already died from the "civil war" the USA is creating in Syria.

      The other recent leak was the TPP IP, this is Forbes report on it: US Fails To Close TPP Deal As Wikileaks Exposes Discord

      And FYI, many of the "Manning Papers" (Cablegate) were published around the world and of course not on the land of the free, not just because American journalists are being persecuted, but also because they matter more for those countries.

    17. Re:Yeah, sure... by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds like a pretty noble thing to do really. That cult has fucked up so many lives, indulged in textbook slavery and is mixed up with a lot of suicides. Get it out there, cut off their victim supply, reduce the political pressure they can apply and then anyone in that cult that commits a crime is easier to drag in for it.

    18. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what this new disclosure says to me is that there might be things that go WAY beyond what we have learned or more accurately, confirmed, so far. Things that really do stretch way into the clearly unacceptable

      There's one of the biggest problems of the US of A: "What I hear now sounds bad, but this imaginary thing... oh boy, that would be sooo much worse. So let's ignore this current really bad thing, because it could be so much worse."

    19. Re:Yeah, sure... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily. If he had a few wealthy backers, with an amnesty, he could be voted president. I'd vote for him.

    20. Re:Yeah, sure... by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Mr. Assage has no need of a pardon. You can bet that if he is ever arrested or the victim of an "accident" that all kinds of materials will be made public. Maybe the feds should offer him one heck of a job with a huge paycheck.

    21. Re:Yeah, sure... by Sique · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      The justified political asylum is not a card, the asylum is justified. Period. The NSA has shown that a) it consideres everyone an enemy and monitors everything it gets the hand on and b) the only reason they don't to it very openly against U.S. citizens on American soil is that the FBI and the local police already do lots of surveillance, and the electorate might elect enough people who ride on a "too much spent on domestic surveillance" platform.

      What I am waiting for is a document leaked which shows how little evidence actually comes out of the big data heap. I do think that the actual profiles the NSA is able to create have about the same quality than the weekend horoscope in the tabloids - fitting everyone and saying nothing. The NSA's successes seem to be not much different from random chance. If you blindly fire a drone in South Yemen or in Northwest Pakistan on a group of people, the chance you also hit someone somehow linked to some fundamentalistic group is close to one -- the fundamentalistic groups are some of the few that are actually organised and can provide some support if a problem arises. If you have difficulties there you are not able to cope with on your own, the Taliban or the local al-Qaida branch might actually help, the local authorities not so much. It's the same reason the Muslim Brotherhood has so many supporters in rural Egypt.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    22. Re:Yeah, sure... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why else go public and suggest "amnesty"?

      It is far simpler than all of that. They did it to try to retain the moral high ground in the PR war.

      Unlike people here, the broader population is much less convinced of the narrative that the NSA bad and Snowden good. Offering Snowden amnesty (no matter how bogus of an offer) makes it seem like the NSA are the good guys because in the simplified world of the average unaware citizen bad guys don't offer amnesty, they just execute their enemies like North Korea just did.

      To read this single off-handed comment about amnesty as anything more than political posturing is silly. Posturing is all the government has done since Snowden made the leak, they keep throwing random ideas at the wall hoping something will stick. This amnesty thing was just one more random idea they floated to see what the public reaction would be, nothing more.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but what has Wikileaks released recently?

      Emails from Stratfor hack, Spyfiles3, TPP treaty draft text

    24. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They were ecstatic to get a chance to show up Obama.

      Putin was so ecstatic that he called Snowden an unwanted christmas gift. He was so ecstatic about Snowden being stuck in Russian airport that he said "the sooner he moves out of Russia, the better". Putin so wanted to show up Obama (whatever that means) that he granted Snowden asylum (Snowden had nowhere to go at this time after the incident with Bolivian president and no passport) on a condition that Snowden would stop doing anything that would damage "our American partners".

    25. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it may protect him from those who do not want the information released.

      But for those wo do want it released, they might feel motivated to force it...

      Once he had the information he had to choose one path or the other. The natural state he got without doing anything was that those who wanted the information hidden could make it that way by killing him. The other state is that those who want the information released could enforce it by killing him.
      Snowden have more information on who is most likely to kill him than we have and he made the judgement that it is more likely that those who want the information hidden would be willing to kill him to make it so.

      It is easy to get lost in conspiracies here but I think it is pretty simple.
      The US government and Russia have a pretty good idea of what spying is going on and they both play the same game. The US government doesn't want their people to know how extensive their surveillance over their people is while the Russian government doesn't give a shit about what either population knows.
      Thus the Russian government doesn't really care about if the information Snowden has is released or not. If it was it just a minor perk that has some entertainment value to them. Killing to get the information released isn't worth it considering the message it would send to potential future informants.
      Meanwhile the US government really don't want their population to know what is going on and they are willing to kill people to keep it that way.

    26. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they still granted him asylum all the same- and he's still been leaking... (Hint: Not all statements are at face value, even from Putin, when you're at Government Levels of making statements...)

      Next time start reading between the lines and pull your head out long enough to stop talking out your ass...

    27. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I am waiting for is a document leaked which shows how little evidence actually comes out of the big data heap.

      Because their public failures to stop high-profile attacks like the Boston bombing doesn't show that already?

    28. Re:Yeah, sure... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Even Scientology revelations would be most interesting if they detailed Hollywood's involvement with it.

    29. Re:Yeah, sure... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Throughout history one way to deal with these sorts of "problems" is to discredit them. Sometimes its true and they do dig up actuall dirt, sometimes its just propaganda.

    30. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the only reason why these women where allowed to come up with rape charges so far after the fact is that Sweden has a law meant for battered spouses which let them declare rape after they have had a chance to get out of that relationship and to a safe place.

      dropped for a reason.

    31. Re:Yeah, sure... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The justified political asylum is not a card..."

      "Playing the X card..." is a figure of speech, and it applies here. Apparently you are under the impression that it implies falsehood. It doesn't.

      It has often been over-used in the context of race: "He played the race card." But by itself, that doesn't imply he did it falsely. He may have, he may not have.

    32. Re:Yeah, sure... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Putin was so ecstatic that he called Snowden an unwanted christmas gift. He was so ecstatic about Snowden being stuck in Russian airport that he said "the sooner he moves out of Russia, the better". Putin so wanted to show up Obama (whatever that means) that he granted Snowden asylum (Snowden had nowhere to go at this time after the incident with Bolivian president and no passport) on a condition that Snowden would stop doing anything that would damage "our American partners".

      Holy crap, dude. Don't you know obvious politics when you see it?

    33. Re:Yeah, sure... by pureevilmatt · · Score: 1

      ...why would someone with so much real political power go into something as politically counter productive as professional politics!?

    34. Re:Yeah, sure... by Sique · · Score: 1

      No, I am under the impression that it was at first not a card, Russia played, but some kind of halfhearted attempt to deal with the situation. It was not an intended move in a game, it was trying to cope with a situation that needed dealing with. I wouldn't call an attempt to extinguish a fire "playing the firefighter card", because this misses totally the actual situation Russia was in. It wasn't a cool move as "playing the X card" connotates. It was trying to somehow get in control and not making things worse. Edward Snowden was a hot potato, and Russia tried to blow on it until it cooled enough to be dealed with.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    35. Re:Yeah, sure... by Sique · · Score: 1

      Or to make it more clear: The Evo Morales affair was a typical play of cards as in the figure of speech. It was a completely thought through setup to figure out how much which European country is in the pockets of the U.S., and Spain and France totally failed on this test, and the U.S. really looked bad.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    36. Re:Yeah, sure... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      wouldn't call an attempt to extinguish a fire "playing the firefighter card"

      You might not call it that, but that's what it is.

      You honestly don't think Russia liked the idea of one-upping Obama on a "human rights" issue? I think you are mistaken. It represented real political brownie points with the rest of the world.

    37. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was greeted by Russia with open arms. As it turned out, they were just pretending the "lukewarm" bit as a cover while they moved him elsewhere.

      They were ecstatic to get a chance to show up Obama. (Hell, I would have been too if I were them.)

      The chance to play the "justified political asylum" card on the U.S. Government? They loved every minute of it!

      Hell, I would also enjoy sticking it to the USA, a country who feels able to criticise China's human rights record while outsourcing torture to Jordan.

    38. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians were already heavily involved. They were taking island after island and on the verge of attacking Hokkaido. Japan surrendered to the lesser of two evils. Nuclear bombs weren't a magical deterrent (more civilians died in the fire bombings).

      Truman dropped the bombs to scare the Russians, and in the process Truman birthed the Cold War.

    39. Re:Yeah, sure... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Ad Hominem far too often works, which is why it is so often used. Interesting coincidence that a rape charge is brought somewhat far in the future after the Wikileaks/Manning incident. I don't believe in coincidence.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    40. Re:Yeah, sure... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wikileaks has the same problem as the NSA and CIA (& other TLA agencies); far and away too much data assembled. They could definitely use a hell of a lot more eyes tied to brains that aren't turned to mush. There are torrent links to the various bodies of data out there if you want to help.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    41. Re:Yeah, sure... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      And another nice piece of analysis. If you haven't been anywhere outside the 'First World' then you haven't got even a glimmering of the 'truth.' Sadly, much of the governing on this planet is less than useless since they don't even attempt to enforce anything resembling justice and even will take the opportunity to shake you down for more than the criminals got. Come to think of it, that's true in the 'First World.' You have to see it and experience it before you understand just what power means and how often it is misused. Then you get back home and guess what, you begin to 'notice things.'

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    42. Re:Yeah, sure... by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      I'll bet Julian Assage .. Assage is

      Why do so many forums (/., reddit) have so many Assage bashers even under articles that aren't about him.

      Back when he was best known as being a postgres contributor, he seemed like a very normal nice guy.

      It's not his fault that he claims big organizations are out to get him - because big organizations really are out to get him.

    43. Re:Yeah, sure... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he'll turn up in some hospital bed with a dose of radiation poisoning.

      What the disclosure says to me is the NSA is a bunch of bureautards abusing us with expesive toys that we bought them. Snowden should get amnesty and RUN for president. We could have Assange for Secretary of State. What the hell, if Hillbillary could screw it up, I imagine Assange would be a spectacular success. Russian relations would be strangely good, I'm sure. I just wanted to add that gear to the machine...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    44. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice a lack of Russian and Chinese disclosures so far.

    45. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA Has No Clue As To Scope of Snowden's Data Trove

      Which means they cracked the data stash and know exactly what he's got, and are quietly heading off the exposure points as we speak.

      Not to mention figuring out which of the known child porn collectors people will figure the NSA knows about and tipping off the cops about them.

      NSA knows about 50% or more of the crime that goes on in the US and has done nothing about it. (The other 50% is crimes of opportunity and passion that aren't planned.)

    46. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so many forums (/., reddit) have so many Assage bashers even under articles that aren't about him.

      Because the people running the government's propaganda have an internal narrative that differentiates between "good" (those who are loyal to the government) and "evil" (those who leak). IF leaker THEN punish. Furthermore, by conflating the two, it gets people to talk about the leakers, not the data they leaked. We spend all our time arguing over the leakers' personalities, and no time poring over the actual data -- you know, the data the government didn't want us reading in the first place.

      I have to give them credit, they've been getting better at it. Whether they're getting better at it fast enough to keep ahead of people like you, who recognize it when it happens, remains to be seen.

    47. Re:Yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the Soviets never kill their enemies? How many million did Stalin deliberately starve to death?

    48. Re:Yeah, sure... by davidwr · · Score: 1

      And then there is the brain-deadness of your second statement. The nukes did not have to be dropped on a populated area in order to
      compel Japan to capitulate.

      I stand by what I said with respect to the "nukes vs. no nukes" decision favoring the use of nukes for the reasons I stated.

      I concede that you may have a valid point on the "nuke a populated area vs. a non-populated area" distinction and concede that, for the moment, I am not well-studied enough to debate that particular point.

      Others who have already responded to you have offered reasons besides revenge to go for a populated area, such as "maximum psychological impact" (I'm assuming the /. contributor was referring to the psychological impact on the Japanese government, military, and civilians, not the rest of the world as you suggest in your "#2," but no doubt it had that effect as well.).

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  2. Amnesty? *snarf* by weilawei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those unleaked documents may be all that's keeping him alive. No sane being would ever give up that insurance policy in his situation.

    1. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And if he's smart, which he clearly seems to be, he has already given copies of the documents to a few people he trusts, with the threat of mass releases ensuring his safety. Surely the NSA has thought of this possibility. And any amnesty deal would have to be contingent upon him keeping a low profile, likely outside of the US, and be subject to revocation should anyone else release related documents that are believed to have been stolen by Snowden.

      If it were me, I'd have divided copies up among multiple recipients, with multiple recipients for each document but without all documents to anyone. Of course this assumes that there are people he thinks he can trust, which may not be the case. Or maybe he doesn't have much more that is interesting? Either way, I would not be quick to trust his word enough to offer amnesty, nor should he be trusting enough to accept a deal from a government he clearly does not (and probably should not) trust.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States

      Snowden revealed the activities of the US in countries like France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain.

      Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States? Gimme a fucking break here.

    3. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by runeghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.

    4. Re: Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course the public is the enemy, look who they keep voting into office.

    5. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States?

      There are tons of stateless actors (and not an insignificant number of nation-states) whom are clearly enemies of the United States that benefit from his disclosures of our SIGINT sources and methods. You obviously cherry picked the list to whitewash them away (and made some of it up, since the US doesn't spy on Britain) as though his disclosures of NSA's activities in friendly countries (that spy on us, FYI) are excusable.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions.

      But they do raise moral questions. As a US citizen, I want to know what my government--which is supposed to be working for us--is doing.

      and the damage he has done to the American intelligence community is incalculable.

      It's incalculable because you have no idea what it is, if the damage even exists. I'd be surprised if other governments didn't know this sort of things was happening.

      They aren't engaged in any actions that other nation-states (including those hostile to the United States) aren't doing.

      Bandwagon fallacy.

      His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States

      I'd say my government is the enemy, and by acting against the constitution and performing immoral actions, they are aiding our other enemies by destroying our principles.

    7. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by torsmo · · Score: 2

      Of course the NSA doesn't spy on the UK. They have outsourced that job to the GCHQ.

    8. Re: Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US actually DOES spy on Great Britain. The purpose is then to send the data to GCHQ so they can bypass British laws regarding spying on their own citizens.

    9. Re: Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.s. Not just as a US citizen. Nowhere in the constitution does it refer to 'citizens' in the context we know it. It refers to 'the people', so even the excuse of 'only spying on foreigners' is a non sequiter

    10. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Troll

      From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.

      People keep trying to pull this rhetorical nonsense of describing the American people as "the enemy," and it is utter nonsense - just plain stupid. If you want to do that, then please describe how you could inform 300,000,000 Americans about the most secret inner working of the intelligence agencies without the information also leaking to the many spies and terrorist group members or associates in the US, and ultimately to foreign adversaries? I think you need to demonstrate how you could do that if you want to suggest that the information shouldn't be protected by agencies and the legislators doing their job as representatives in a democratic republic. If you want a practical demonstration as to why your idea is really bad, just try sharing your account name and PINs with 100 of your closest friends and see how things turn out in a year or two.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its not the US he needs to be worried about, its all the dirt he might have on everyone else

    12. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States

      Snowden revealed the activities of the US in countries like France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain.

      Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States? Gimme a fucking break here.

      No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are. Some of the people in those countries are terrorists. Some of the people in those countries are foreign spies from adversaries or enemy nations.

      Part of the 9/11 attack came from a cell in Germany. There are still terrorists in Germany. German companies did big business with Saddam, and Iran. Germany has many spies from Russia, China, and Iran.
      There have been multiple terrorist plots aimed at the US from people in Britain. MI5 assesses the threat as being extremely high, and they can barely cover it. Spying against Britain is at Cold War levels again. There is no shortage of Russians or other foreign agents.
      Mexico has what is essentially a narco-terrorist fueled civil war going on, and it bleeds across the border into the US. Both violence and drugs flow north, along with about 10% of the population of Mexico into the US.
      Brazil has admitted to spying on the US, and French agents have been discovered before. Brazil's navy has been teaching the Chinese navy about aircraft carrier operations. Brazil has aspirations of being a major power, and is trying to extend its reach. Brazil is a major hub for cybercrime along with Russia.
      What can one say about the French? They have many fine and maddening qualities. They also have a rising tide of violence from their immigrant population, and growing extremism that is a threat to France and other nations. French companies are trying to get back into Iran. France has its fill of Chinese and Russian spies.

      There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy such as is occurring with Iran, and Syria. The British government was recently deeply embarrassed by losing a vote over intervention in Syria, the first loss of that sort by a British government in a very long time. There is certainly more to know that if they are or aren't shooting at you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has a representative form of government. You aren't the boss of anybody in government just because you vote. You get to vote for the bosses. You aren't entitled to know every bit of secret information the government has, including but not limited to: war plans, code books, lists of confidential informants, nuclear release codes, and plenty of other stuff. The fact that you either can't calculate the damage done here, or don't believe it exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If the government is your enemy, then you're very likely a crank. We've already seen that you have a lot of nonsense ideas.

    14. Re: Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Angela Merkel is a stateless actor? Since when?

    15. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has a representative form of government.

      And it's supposed to represent us. It works for us. It exists with the consent of the people. It draws any powers it has from the US constitution, which was accepted by the people, and which every 'representative' agrees to uphold.

      You aren't entitled to know every bit of secret information the government has

      But I am entitled to know when the government is violating the constitution, people's rights, and the very principles the country was founded upon. Thank you, Snowden.

      If the government is your enemy, then you're very likely a crank.

      Why not tell that to the Jews, to blacks, or to the Japanese citizens locked away during WW2? You ignorant, pathetic, and naive pieces of garbage are so profoundly ignorant of history that you believe the government to be made up of perfect angels. The US was founded on a distrust of government, and traitors such as yourself shouldn't be betraying those principles and ruining the country for everyone else.

      You are trash.

    16. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, and I would be sorely disappointed if my Government opts to forgive him these offenses in the misguided belief that he can be trusted to cooperate in containing the damage he has done and continues to do.

      You are seriously suffering from "shoot the messenger" syndrome. Yes, somebody was providing serious aid and comfort to the enemies of the citizens and the constitution of the United States, and I am sorely disappointed that the government is actively engaging in treason towards the country, its ideals and its laws.

      It is sad that there is literally no attempt to contain the damage those low-lifes have done to what the country stands for and continue to do, illegally, unconstitutionally, and with an appalling farce of self-righteousness.

      In the Nuremberg trials, "I was only following orders" was no defense. When are the traitors replacing the republic with a fascist unaccountable polycratic regime going to be on trial?

    17. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by AndyCanfield · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.

      And from the viewpoint of seven billion poeple on this planet, the United States government appears to be the enemy of the American public. The American people is the BOSS of the NSA; it's in the Constitution. The NSA has been lying to the boss, and they rightly have got their balls in a meat grinder. Edward Snowden is MY MAN! He can sleep on my floor any time.

    18. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Pav · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a trivial problem solved long ago - you report what's happening, just not specifically who it's happening to. Ubiqitous surveilance is only a problem in that it shouldn't be happening in the first place. This idea that "the people" shouldn't know the real truth, and that a special vanguard should control society isn't new either. The communist movement, the islamist movement (through their founding father Sayyid Qutb) and interestingly enough the neo-conservative movement (specifically their founding philosopher Leo Strauss) expouse this view. It's repugnant and toxic to democracy. Unfortunately the traditional guardians of wide enfranchisement (ie. the political left) seem to have bought into this idea too. It seems to me like the leadership of the western world doesn't believe in democracy anymore.

    19. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by AntiSol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, I'll bite.

      he crossed the line when he leaked information about their overseas intelligence operations

      Lol, I love this argument so much.

      NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions

      I love the way these people focus entirely on the legal issues - there's nothing in the constitution preventing the NSA from running pervasive global surveillance, therefore it's ok - it's only when they're spying on americans that there's any kind of issue. Let's just completely ignore any moral issues or questions of whether it's a good thing or not to live in a world where orwell's wildest nightmares are everyday occurrences and where all communications are monitored by blanket surveilance.

      So, as an american who is unconcerned with the activities of the NSA overseas, let me ask you this: how do you feel about the "enemy" intelligence agencies monitoring everything you do and say? Ever cheat on your significant other? Maybe you're into BDSM? Or maybe you just have erectile dysfunction? How do you feel about a pakistani intelligence officer laughing at you about it? Oh, that's right - you're the one person on this planet who has nothing at all to be embarrassed about, ever.

      They aren't engaged in any actions that other nation-states (including those hostile to the United States) aren't doing

      Which makes it OK! Duh!

      So, what you're saying is that the only reason why it's not OK to use chemical and/or biological weapons or build a doomsday device is because there are laws against it? Anything that anybody else does is OK just as long as there's no law against it - the concept of us being better than them and not using "evil" tactics doesn't exist - there's nothing inherently wrong about ethnic cleansing or human experimentation, it's just illiegal.

      His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States

      Which enemies? What specific group? Terrorists? Snowden still hasn't revealed anything that a half-way competent terrorist wouldn't have assumed was in place already.

      Your activities are arguably aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states: here's my case: every time I read this ridiculous argument I become a little more convinced that your government needs to fall.

    20. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "No legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its power, position, and prestige."

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Desler · · Score: 1

      There are tons of stateless actors (and not an insignificant number of nation-states) whom are clearly enemies of the United States that benefit from his disclosures of our SIGINT sources and methods.

      And yet the Boston bomber was able to succeed without every needing to know them at all. Why would anyone need to believe that these boogeymen "stateless actors" would either?

    22. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are.

      Interesting spin. So how does monitoring 35 world leaders fall into that "the bad guys are amougst us" line.

      There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy

      In other words, the NSA Surveillance Destroys Diplomacy and Democracy:

      How do democratically elected officials (the president, congressmen or senators) get control of a stand-alone secret government bureaucracy that was operating long before they arrived and will survive them after they've gone? A bureaucracy that knows everything there is to know about them, too? They don't. They can't. So the surreptitious, illicit actions of a US spy agency can undermine the diplomatic work of months and years. And the president - the elected official chosen to lead the country - is so hamstrung by the NSA that he cannot stop the interceptions and order an immediate investigation.

    23. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by hubie · · Score: 1

      I am curious to what extent you feel national intelligence should be conducted. None at all? Limited somehow? If so, how? It may or may not be true that "a gentleman does not read the letters of others," the history of our species suggests otherwise.

    24. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Unlike the NSA's panoptic surveillance, my passwords are used for something useful.

    25. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      A phone call from BHO to Mr. Putin, with an offer to give up a few high-valued Russian agents presently rotting in American prisons, and Mr. Snowden would die in a horrible automobile accident shortly thereafter

      Mr. Putin surely values this massive worldwide power assault on the US intelligence apparatus far more than he does a few operatives. His interests are well-served by protecting Snowden.

      NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions.

      The Constitution protects rights that are inherent, it doesn't grant them.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    26. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Interesting spin. So how does monitoring 35 world leaders fall into that [theguardian.com] "the bad guys are amougst us" line.

      Did you know that Japan was a member of the Allies in the First World War? Do you recall that Germany and Russia were allies during the first half of the Second World War?

      That's why, my dear little historical ignoramus. There are no friends among nations, only common interests.

    27. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me like the leadership of the western world doesn't believe in democracy anymore.

      How can you believe in democracy when you see the electorate begging you to be misled and lied to at every single election cycle?

      It's impossible to feel anything but contempt for these "citizens".

    28. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      NSA is spying on enemies. NSA is spying on American citizens. Therefore American citizens are enemies.

    29. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions.

      I very much agree with this, its well within the NSA's mission scope. What GCHQ, etc, should be doing is preventing the NSA from spying on its citizens, while the NSA should be preventing GCHQ from spying on its citizens. Instead we have all of them working together and pooling all their data, which is extremely fucked.

    30. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Sources and methods on how they treat their *allies* in times of *peace* are certainly not worth protecting. That behaviour is a blight on America.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    31. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Spying on other countries is considered illegal by all countries. Its always disavowed after the fact. We all know it happens, but nobody thinks its okay when its done to them.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    32. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he was 'smart' then he should have been able to determine the correct parties and procedures to elevate his concerns through, regarding evidence of wrong doings, and allowed sensitive government intelligence to remain in its proper place. Many things can look alarming and scary when presented out of context, and although I have no idea of the real goings-on inside the intelligence agencies of the world, I prefer to believe that actions are taken when there is good cause to suggest that they are necessary, not just cos a bunch of guys think its cool to go round breaching the privacy and security of other people at random.

    33. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by hubie · · Score: 1

      AntiSol seems to be arguing that the US shouldn't spy on anyone, including foreign countries. That seems to be a pretty unrealistic stance to take, even among the many persistently idealistic people around here.

    34. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Pav · · Score: 1

      People often live up to expectations, positive or negative... although there's a negative bais because it's harder going uphill than down. I think negative caracatures get people off side, and help them confirm your worst expectations.

    35. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Pav · · Score: 1

      Leadership should be about expecting great things from the electorate - Mandela expected his nation to come together despite human nature, and examples from other nations failures. I believe subsequent problems are largely due to lesser leadership - small thinking and failure to expect much of the electorate.

    36. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by AntiSol · · Score: 2

      I would argue that the unrealistic stance to take is that spying is necessary - let me ask you this: why is surveillance necessary? why do you need foreign intelligence?

      Are you worried about an invading army showing up on your shores tomorrow? who? You don't think you'd detect them with your radars, sonars, satellites, etc?

      Maybe you need to spy so that you can get the competitive edge in business - you know, get mcdonalds into antarctica and secure those lucrative jet fighter contracts for boeing. You don't think that the US and US companies could just get along by playing fair with everyone else? You don't have a reputation for superior engineering and good manufacturing - you need to play dirty to survive? Having a reputation as "the country that always plays fair" wouldn't be worth anything at all in financial terms?

      Aha, I've got it! you're worried about a sudden nuclear attack - those pesky french could always nuke Washington tomorrow, so you need to spy! You don't think that making a noble gesture like proposing a total blanket ban on nuclear weapons worldwide and offering to completely dismantle your stockpile would help relieve tensions? You really think the North Koreans would bother nuking you if you dismantled your entire stockpile? I think you'd find they just might dismantle theirs and start feeding their people a little better or risk revolution when the amazing and unprecedented news that the US just disarmed gets through to the people. Of course we'd need to send in weapons inspectors to make sure that you weren't being sneaky.

      Oh, I know - it's the same answer as everything else - you're worried about terrorists killing thousands of your civillians!

      Assuming that this is a real threat (something of which I've seen absolutely no evidence ever), has it not occurred to you that there might be other ways of addressing the issue that don't involve taking morally repugnant actions?

      Maybe you could ask them "why do you hate our freedom?" and they'll explain that it's not your freedom they hate, it's the fact that you aid their enemies and topple their governments so that you can get cheap oil. If you guys stopped being assholes, this "problem" would go away all by itself. A great way to start having this conversation would be to start talking about redressing crimes committed by previous administrations - the terrorist threat you foam at the mouth about would lose a metric fucktonne of momentum overnight if you'd charge dubya for the war crimes he committed, for example. "Terrorist problem" solved, zero new evil done.

      History does not suggest that we cannot better ourselves.

    37. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those unleaked documents may be all that's keeping him alive. No sane being would ever give up that insurance policy in his situation.

      So basically no one will ever see those documents since Snowden doesn't want to die?

    38. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France: denies us aid during wartime and sells unranium enrichment parts to known terrorist countries... amongst other things you can easily look up.
      Germany: Huge anti-american sentiment if you actually go there...
      Mexico: Has been caught over the decades using US Aid in the continued trafficking of drugs... killing and torturing US Agents, etc.
      Brazil: One of the kidnap capitols of the world; preferred target: US Citizens... the women rock though... :)
      Britain: Not really an enemy but the fact that they have been found doing the same to us... about 30 times?.. Give ME a fucking break. The old motto in the Intel community (something I have a few decades of experience in) is "In God we trust, all others we monitor"

      All that being said, There have always been regulations (USSIDS, etc) and laws (most revolving around Title 3 and 18) declaring what is going on as illegal. the NSA has gone WAY off the reservation at this point and desperately needs to get reined in... but that will never happen as they monitor all,.. and NO ONE has a closet empty of skeletons,.. especially the cowed politicians.

    39. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of our "diplomacy" is also based on what secrets we know about our "Friends".

    40. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck,.. all the things railed against above are things that have been going on since the 1950s... before there was a CIA or NSA,.. wtf?.. and you that dull that you don't know that... our enemies and friends have ALWAYS monitored us... and we them... that's the game... and it's been played admirably on both sides... and what I think is really funny,.. part of what the world is offended by?... THEIR INTEL OPS AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE WAS REVEALED!!!! The same SHIT people here are pissed about.. lol

    41. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Let's just completely ignore any moral issues or questions of whether it's a good thing or not to live in a world where orwell's wildest nightmares are everyday occurrences and where all communications are monitored by blanket surveilance.

      While I agree with you that it is a serious problem beyond the technical/legal, if people like the parent want to paint it in such a narrow scope then I'm okay with that; it's still completely wrong in that regard and--as much as it would be nice to wreck it all at once--I think good change will occur faster if we hit the narrow scopes first and work our way out.

    42. Re:Amnesty? *snarf* by AntiSol · · Score: 1

      if people like the parent want to paint it in such a narrow scope then I'm okay with that

      You shouldn't be - it's propaganda - this line of argument diverts the discussion away from the more serious issues.

      That's exactly what it's intended to do, by the way, it's a classic trick of the trade - Goebbels would be ever so proud.

  3. They have *worse* to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So we're to understand the NSA still more secrets that they don't want anyone to know, so much so they would consider forgiving someone they consider has committed treason?

    That was about the only thing that could have made me feel even more concerned than the last year of news stories about how the NSA is basically Santa Claus.

    1. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it's only treason if it doesn't expose treason ;)

      aanyhow... maybe they don't know what he took because they wanted to keep the system in such a way that there wouldn't be accountability about who did what and looked at what on the executive level in nsa...(he used some higher ups credentials).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...(he used some higher ups credentials)

      It has never been disclosed that he used "higher-ups" logins, only that he (supposedly) user "other people's" logins.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      The problem is his data may also info about legitimate foreign spying operations and info on the people involved. While there probably is still more evidence of wrongdoing in what he has, it's also likely he has his hands on something that could very well put a good deal of people's lives in danger. That data was stolen once, right out from under the NSA's noses. If the NSA couldn't stop it from being stolen, how can a single man ensure it won't be stolen from him as well? Remember, this data is very important, and he's as vulnerable as anyone to the $5 wrench decryption attack if he has it encrypted himself.

      So the USA really should try to offer him this, and also offer official protection from other nations who may also be interested in some of the things he's learned. This, of course, all hinges on how many copies of the data he has, and if he's given copies to more than he's told us.

      In any case, I see this deal falling through, and him possibly being forced to hand over a copy of the data to one or more third parties that are not the US, which can only end very, very badly if not handled correctly. Also, the more people handling it, the more likely it will fall into the wrong hands...

    4. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Re consider forgiving someone
      From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair to
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse to rendition and the junk global telco encryption -
      So much is now in history books and can be found by any academic or person -
      Think of how the Soviet Union got into any country - the press, academics, students, peace groups, trade unions, banking, trade, mil.... politics
      i.e. internal 'news' about trusted names/brands within the USA that where turned by the Soviet Union/Russia or "worked" for the US gov in the private sector.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird gives a hint.
      Generations of bulk insider trading within very trusted sectors of the private sector via privileged files and tips/front groups.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, supposedly almost everyone was higher up anyways than him so?

      they had more access than his creds anyways and the creds he used lacked notification systems too. it's likely the credentials lacked access histories since he doesn't know what he took too.

      now why would you run a db like that worse than criminal records database? in my country at least there's access records from that AND it has been used to penalize some officers.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by symbolset · · Score: 2

      There is a reason the application is named Sharepoint.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Put spies lives in danger? Isn't that what they agreed to when they became spies?

    8. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      now why would you run a db like that [...]? [...] it has been used to penalize some officers.

      Asked and answered.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    9. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sharepoint? You got to be joking. Why would the NSA use Sharepoint to store heaps and heaps of data? Surely they are using Access.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure its Excel, actually.

    11. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they spend the funds on that Star Trek set instead of listening to anyone that proposed some sort of system that would provide the tracking information. Authoritarians are not fond of anything that slows them down, which is why the bigger the company and the more important the bosses think they are the worse the computer and network security is.

    12. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put spies lives in danger? Isn't that what they agreed to when they became spies?

      Ah, so we are ok with Karl Rove outing of Valerie Plame now?

    13. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      Are you kidding? Is that really your answer?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      While there probably is still more evidence of wrongdoing in what he has, it's also likely he has his hands on something that could very well put a good deal of people's lives in danger.

      I'd rather take that 'risk' (not much of a risk, honestly) than let the government do whatever it pleases in secrecy.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't use anyone else's credentials. The NSA made all of that shit up to cover up the fact that he had access to the information or that they had poor security and to make him look like the bad guy "hacker".

    16. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere it was actually using the echo database.

      you know:

      echo "hey there, wanna have some fun with data?" >> /home/secret_db_387e8c0.txt

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I'm suspecting it's doublespeak. He used other people's credentials...in the sense that they didn't even bother giving each individual person their own login. I'm sure he wasn't technically 'supposed' to have access to some of that information, but that probably means he just copied it directly from some accessible file share instead of using their crappy web UI.

      The intelligence infrastructure is a joke. It is a giant uncontrolled operation flailing around randomly sucking up all the data it can, with no controls on anything internally.

      And Snowden did a huge service for this country. Not in the information he stole, not in the operations he revealed. That as nice to know, and to all those asshats who assert that intelligence operations need to be kept secret...sure, individual operations should be secret, yes. Not what type of operations and spying exist.

      But, anyway, the truely great service is that Snowden demonstrated that literally every intelligence agency in the world already has that information. Trust me, they are, at least, communally, as smart as Snowden, and as it is apparently fucking easy to just be invited to b given access to everything, everyone else already has it.

      In fact, considering how shitty the controls apparently are, it makes much more sense for other intelligence agencies to spend their time and effort subverting subdivisions of contractors of our intelligence services than trying to run their own network, letting them use our intelligence resources in real time. Without Snowden, the public at large would have no idea this was happening.

      The question is not 'Do you trust our government with all your private information', or even 'Morally, think about how would you feel if you knew the Chinese were doing the esame thing to you, and you'll understand how this makes other countries feel.'...it's 'How do you like the fact that the Chinese are spying on you, right now, using your own tax money and your own government agencies.'

      Because they are. Or, at least, could be if they thought you were the least bit interesting. (Incidentally, 'interesting' to intelligence services is not as high a threshold as people think. Do you, for example, work in the technology field and could conceivably be a useful asset to get malware somewhere they want it? Or have access to proprietary business secrets? Or medical information?)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      And even if he did use "higher-ups" logins, that doesn't demonstrate the had them illicitly. "Need this sooner than I can get you official access, here's my login, underling, get it done now" has to be in the Top 10 most-common management directives to IT in a bureaucratic (e.g. government) organization.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    19. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Ah, so we are ok with Karl Rove outing of Valerie Plame now?

      Yeah, pretty much. At the time her CIA identity was "revealed", didn't she drive every day to the CIA Langley headquarters to work and park in a CIA parking place? And had been doing so since 1997? I'm not entirely sure, but if I were a foreign intelligence agency, that little slip might just have tipped me off that she might have been a CIA officer even before Rove announced it.

      I was raising my eyebrows at the time and thought "this seems like an incredibly tiny thing to be all more-patriotic-than-thou about and will rebound badly on the Democrats when the next military-industrial complex whistleblower comes along".

      And here we are.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    20. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we treating Snowden like Rove? Rove was criticized a little but not indicted.

    21. Re:They have *worse* to hide? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Spies live lies. They voluntarily put themselves in danger. At least Snowden releases his information publicly, so spies that might be affected know their cover's blown. If they don't already have an escape plan, they might want to start making one.

  4. That's how it feels by kamaaina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know its hopeful thinking, but if the NSA was a person, they would know how it feels when you don't know what someone knows about you.

    1. Re:That's how it feels by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The US and allied intelligence agencies face that every day, and they always have. Maybe you haven't heard, but there is an entire world out there full of countries that engage in spying. The US, UK, CA, AU, NZ, FR, DE, NE, DK, NL, IT, SE, FI, NO, ES, PO, are all full of Russian and Chinese spies, many have Iranian spies, and spies from plenty of other countries.

      People here keep making cracks about oil, but the truly inexhaustible resource appears to be narcissism..

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:That's how it feels by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      'tis a lovely bit of irony, isn't it?

      If only we, the general public, were in as good a position to extend that sort of offer to the NSA. Too bad most people can't be bothered to get off their ass and actually take a hand in their civic duties...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:That's how it feels by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Snowden should release a letter of regret to the NSA, thanking them for their interest but indicating he can neither confirm nor deny possession of any NSA files as a matter of personal security.

    4. Re:That's how it feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the NSA were a person the problem could be fixed and still have rounds left in the magazine.

      As it actually is, you couldn't take them out with multiple nukes.

  5. And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've finally realized who *really* brought down the towers during 9/11, and they're freaking out because they think Snowden knows, too.

    1. Re:And so, it begins by cranky_chemist · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's worse than that.

      They're afraid that the world will soon learn some inconvenient truths: (a) that Oswald in fact acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, (b) that the crashed object at Roswell was in fact a high-altitude weather balloon, (c) that the Rosenberg's were in fact Soviet spies, (d) that the moon landings in fact happened and were not staged in a Houston hangar, and (e) that every ounce of the gold in Ft. Knox is in fact sitting exactly where it should be.

      And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.

      The horror...

    2. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.

      Eh, I kinda doubt that. Crazies gonna craze.

    3. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can be dismissive of everything else, but the collapse of building 7 was way too shady in my opinion. Add to that the fact that the news of its collapse were reported 20 minutes prior to it actually happening.

    4. Re:And so, it begins by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Got a cite on that?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, because he's completely ignorant of the logistics behind what he's proposing. I mean c'mon, all it took was one man to blow the top off the NSA, yet teams of trained demolitionists can rig an occupied building (or three) for collapse without raising a single eyebrow? And working in conjunction with all manner of news organizations to suss out a story they can pitch? Yet nobody, out of the thousands that would be involved, managed to find their spine and come forward?

      Get these people some stronger meds before they hurt someone.

    6. Re:And so, it begins by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      That's because it was all accomplished by Seal Team Seven, the deep deep super secret dudes.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its too good to fact check

    8. Re:And so, it begins by StrongGlad · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't mean to suggest that any of the conspiracy theories are accurate, but the BBC did, in fact, report WTC 7's collapse before it happened. They've basically admitted as much:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

      See also: https://archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

      The BBC erroneously reported the collapse at 4:53 p.m., as acknowledged in the above-linked article. The actual collapse occurred at 5:20 p.m., as confirmed by FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

      At the time of the BBC's report, however, WTC 7 had been on fire for some time, and was already in danger of imminent collapse, so I don't find it too hard to believe that they simply made an honest mistake in the midst of all the confusion.

    9. Re:And so, it begins by G-forze · · Score: 1
      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    10. Re:And so, it begins by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      all it took was one man to blow the top off the NSA, [...] Yet nobody, out of the thousands that would be involved, managed to find their spine and come forward?

      So you're saying that Snowden is a disinformation agent? Right, got it.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    11. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

    12. Re:And so, it begins by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Why would a conspirator prime the BBC to release information about the damage they were going to do?

    13. Re:And so, it begins by StrongGlad · · Score: 3, Informative

      They wouldn't. And didn't. Read my comment again--I began and ended it by dismissing the conspiracy theory. I was simply pointing out, in response to the prior poster (who requested a cite), that the BBC did, in fact, jump the gun.

    14. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An almost twenty-story chunk was cleaved from WTC7 by falling debris. What, exactly, is shady about it collapsing?

      http://i.imgur.com/ZpLnb7z.jpg

    15. Re:And so, it begins by strstr · · Score: 1

      The original poster is talking about how it didn't really collapse, it was secretly being targeted from space or other remote location with a directed energy weapon, which destroyed the molecular bonds of the material, and turned the building to dust mid-air on live TV during a controlled demolition. There is good evidence that this happened according to Dr. Judy Wood, an engineer/physicist who wrote a book about all this and the evidence that it happened.

      Her website has a several hour video presentation, and she has backing of some in the scientific community. Link: http://www.drjudywood.com/

      I also want to share the details about Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, the NSA/etc's other secret directed energy weapon which was used to rape and maim me:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4545961&cid=45673227

    16. Re:And so, it begins by strstr · · Score: 1

      The collapse may have been reported early by nearly every media outlet because of messages coming from government to do so, as they were trying to get the media to propogate false information about the buildings collapse for some reason. Maybe it was to hide the fact that the World Trade Center was secretly being dustified with a directed energy weapon, and they wanted everyone to think it was really collapsing from the plane attack.

      Dr. Judy Wood covers this in her book and on her website. Watch the two hour video at the top of the page that shows what really happened.

      http://www.drjudywood.com/

      Then again, the media could have just dropped the ball, each one trying to beat the other to the report. Lol.

    17. Re:And so, it begins by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I always found it funny that the conspiracy theory brought in the British news media. I mean, it's absurd to give anyone a script, but the British news media?

      <sarcasm>Because if there's any group that would just fall in line with the Bush administration murdering thousands of people, it's the British news media.</sarcasm>

      I remember when the assertion that one of the terrorists was actually still alive showed up...and my response was 'So you assert the US government, instead of just making up Iraqi terrorists to pin this on to invent a war, used pre-existing Saudi terrorists that they could not confirm were already dead?'

      And the less said about the 'using missiles instead of planes' theory the better. Man, was that one silly or what?

      There are two kinds of conspiracy theories out there. One that postulates plausible causes for actual events. I mean, Jack Ruby _did_ have mob ties, and the Kennedy administration was cracking down on the mob, so if you want to assert that Oswald did a mob hit of JFK, and then was taken out, hey, I don't quite believe you, but you're not _insane_. That is indeed plausible.

      The other kind of conspiracy theory is where you take some event and randomly find 'inconsistencies', which are usually just things said in confusion that are untrue, or misunderstandings of what is going on, or things that are completely normal but don't look normal to people who don't understand disaster, and try to build a massive conspiracy using every single one of them. None of which will hold up to the single question of 'Why the hell would anyone running that conspiracy actually do that?'

      Which, in the context of the Kennedy assassination, is basically trying to make there be more other active shooters beside Oswald, elaborate conspiracy theories about misunderstanding of physics and bullets instead of just saying 'Yes, Oswald shot him...but _why_?', which is a much better question.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did Bldg 7 collapse when no steel-framed building has ever collapsed because of a fire?

      And, why did Bldg 7 collapse as though it was a controlled demolition, neatly in its own footprint? Real building collapses fall over one side to another. How could a controlled demolition be set up in a burning building in an afternoon?

      If the Bldg 7 explanation doesn't make sense from a physics/engineering POV, and it doesn't, then one must doubt the entire gov explanation of 9/11.

      Quite a lot of very serious and rational architects and civil engineers have concluded that the conspiracy here is the gov's conspiracy.

    19. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did Bldg 7 collapse when no steel-framed building has ever collapsed because of a fire?

      ARE
      YOU
      FUCKING
      RETARDED?

      Seriously, you delusional assholes need to be locked up before your stupidity spreads any further.

    20. Re:And so, it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're afraid that the world will soon learn some inconvenient truths: (a) that Oswald in fact acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, (b) that the crashed object at Roswell was in fact a high-altitude weather balloon, (c) that the Rosenberg's were in fact Soviet spies, (d) that the moon landings in fact happened and were not staged in a Houston hangar, and (e) that every ounce of the gold in Ft. Knox is in fact sitting exactly where it should be.

      And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.

      +6, Insightful: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about the answers.

    21. Re:And so, it begins by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The collapse may have been reported early by nearly every media outlet because of messages coming from government to do so, as they were trying to get the media to propogate false information about the buildings collapse for some reason

      That would be an exceptionally dumb thing to do because it would give evidence of fakery directly to the media.

    22. Re:And so, it begins by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      'Why the hell would anyone running that conspiracy actually do that?'

      Yeah like the flapping US flag in the supposedly faked moon landings. Did they actually bring a fan into the studio? Why didn't it blow all the dust around?

      I have a suspicion that somebody confused US east coast time with GMT or British local time in the instance of the BBC.

  6. NSA should release all their documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way they can stop worrying. Tax funded documents should be public domain anyway.

  7. As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I immigrated to US in 1998 and to honest, and until recently, I was under impression that US was the best county on the entire globe. Period.
    Guns, jobs, "Freedom", country had real drive. That is how I saw it for last 30 years.

    It me a while to sink in that it shit is going down a drain.
    Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't make me change my opinion.
    Economic Meltdown in 2008, and the fact that no one went to jail and CEO's got big ass bonuses, didn't make me change my opinion.
    Fucked-up Health Insurance didn't......

    Guess what changed my opinion ? NSA.

    1. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should've read James Bamford's The Puzzle Palace back in the early 80s. Over the years, I've found two *original* 1st edition copies, one handed down and one purchased in a used book store. They have an ISBN number different from the one listed as a "1st edition" now, and much more (previously) classified content. The NSA didn't do a perfect job suppressing it, but as I was told by the person I received it from, they went around rounding up those early copies which had a limited print run.

    2. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed my point. That book on Amazon has a different ISBN than the actual 1st edition and far less content.

    3. Re:As immigrant in the US by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well your priorities see a little strange to me. Consider the dead, the wounded and the traumatized, the economical and structural damage of each of these actions:
      Iraq and Afghanistan wars
      Economic Meltdown/Fraud
      Health Insurance problems
      The NSA snooping

      The NSA snooping out of these strikes you as the most damaging to yourself, the USA and the world in general?
      Why?

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    4. Re:As immigrant in the US by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      The USA peaked on July 20th, 1969. We still hold the title of "Leader of the Species" from the viewpoint of taking humans further away from it's birthplace than anyone else. Maybe the Chinese will take over that spot in 10-20 years, until then it is the flag of the USA that will possibly outlive the nation itself... The real conspiracy is why we feel the need for the NSA to even exist. The saddest thing is that we are so introspective as a species still that we spend all our resources fighting each other while we sit on a small speck of dirt in the middle of a chaotic and violent universe that any moment could spew a huge rock at us...instead let's fund the ACA to get more people hooked on narcotics! Blind jackasses, all of us.

    5. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      The NSA spying is a blatant violation of the constitution and people's rights, and is something every police state would want. Do you not see the dangers of the government having this information?

    6. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA ... still hold the title of "Leader of the Species" from the viewpoint of taking humans further away from it's birthplace than anyone else.

      The Native Americans could've told you that a long time ago....

    7. Re:As immigrant in the US by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather than fascists leave than the ones who won't acknowledge that we have a problem and try to fix it. Leaving wouldn't help fix anything, and if he went to a "shithole," then his situation would probably end up being even worse.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:As immigrant in the US by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Why?

      TLDR: You need a secure channel to create a secure channel, smae with trust.

      If you dont have trust you dont have anything.

      The US government have demostrated their belief that in order to protect their people, they cant allow themselves to trust their own people.

      All over the world people say they dont trust their government, have done so for a long time, and will contrinue to do so. But when a government actually demonstrates it, its hard to come back from that.

    9. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously from a third world country originally.

      The US isn't the best country on the entire globe, not even close...hasn't been for decades.

      It's running anywhere from 20th to 30th for the last 20 years or so.....depending on what measure you use.

      Of course, compared to Bolivia or Yemen I suppose it's marginally better.

    10. Re:As immigrant in the US by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      You took a huge magical leap from one point to another. I was with you, in spirit, up to the ellipsis, then you just don't make sense.

      Sure, it is crazy that after a few thousand years we still fight each other as a species, though I put some of that blame on religion (not Faith). That we spend trillions on "security" be it internal or otherwise is just plain nuts when we could do so much more with our capital including getting more hjumans off this rock. But then you have to go and make a point about the ACA that makes you sound nuts, negating the better points before.

      The ACA does nothing to hook people on drugs any more then the EPA makes us all compost and ride bicycles. The ACA sets standards for Insurance companies to provide health insurance to the citizens of the US of A. It increases medicaid requirements so more people who could not afford to even see a doctor for a minor issue can now do so. You want hooked on narcotics, point a finger at the Cigarette manufacturers who legally push the most addictive drug upon our species.

      SO let's just say you didn't make that last statement. That you are an insightful person that had a momentary lapse and press on with the notion that we really do not need agencies like the NSA sucking the dollars and the privacy away from people of this world.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    11. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Linus, I hope your opinion change does not mean removal of mod_nsa from the kernel tree? Please?
      Best Regards,
      Keith Alexander

    12. Re:As immigrant in the US by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      Care to give us the "actual" first edition's ISBN? Maybe someone could scan it and upload it...like you?
      Ever done a diff of the original and the new versions? What was cut?

    13. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think is considering the potential of police state. Please look up STASI (East Germany) Securitate (Romania) for internal secret police and please don't argue that this is not the case. We are long past that point.

    14. Re:As immigrant in the US by Euler · · Score: 1

      I agree with the AC, the NSA snooping is fundamentally different (in the negative direction.)

      The justification for Iraq was flimsy. Our healthcare system is what it is, and economic bubbles have been problematic. But these are just big fuzzy issues with many competing players. Basic human conflict.

      Civilized society is fundamentally based at some point on a basic level of trust and openness. The USA is founded on the ability of the people to supervise and object to the actions of the governing people and agencies. Keeping the NSA snooping as a secret has violated a basic contract of trust that the people bestow upon individuals who operate the government.

      How can the American people oversee the activities of big agencies if such agencies can lie to, conceal from, and even intimidate the people?

      The NSA has been caught in one lie after another as new documents are revealed. People and corporations have been forced into silence.

      I understand that confidentiality must exist when pursuing suspects, but that is completely different.

      Why the secrecy? Was it really about tipping off the subjects of investigations, or was it simply knowing this behavior was unjust and thus had to be kept out of the light of scrutiny? This is what children do when they know their parents will say 'no.'

      We cannot have a functional society if these basic tenets of civility are violated as a matter of routine.

    15. Re:As immigrant in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because everything else (killing, stealing) is historically business as usual

  8. All of the documents by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Last month, the NSA said maybe 50,000 to 200,000 documents.
    Last night, 60 Minutes said it was 1.7 million documents
    Today it's "we may never know"

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:All of the documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear they're building a facility in Utah to store everything they think Snowden may have r-u-n-n-o-f-t with.

    2. Re:All of the documents by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      I like your title. Let's just assume that Snowden has everything. He only left behind some inconsequential bullshit. He downloaded everything, just as most of us would.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:All of the documents by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      bzip2 is a hell of a compression tool.

    4. Re:All of the documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been described and discussed on Slashdot, Snowden established huge, encrypted insurance files, and they have been placed in the public domain.

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/2342225/intelligence-officials-fear-snowdens-doomsday-cache

      If anything happens to him the keys to these files will be released by a trusted custodian(s?). The total size of these files is slightly over 400 Gigabytes. This is a gigantic amount of information. If the average size of the individual file is 200 KBytes, then there are 2,000,000 damaging files which can be released. It has been asserted that the files are multiply encrypted, and that Snowden is holding the final key - hence Rick Ledgett's trial balloon. If Snowden does have this final key, he can get a free pass by cooperating with the feds.

      2,000,000 files is a lot of data for one person to move. I cannot avoid feeling that he had an accomplice in his endeavor.

  9. Well, at least there is an upper bound to it :) by davidwr · · Score: 1

    He can't possibly have revealed more data from the NSA than what the NSA actually had.

    Okay, that's probably a huge upper bound, but it is an upper bound.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Well, at least there is an upper bound to it :) by rusty0101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      However due to the way that information is compartmentalized within the NSA, it is entirely possible that Snowden has more information than a senior NSA official may be aware that the NSA has. There is a wel known security policy that states that information should only be provided to eople on a need to know basis, and it is entirely possible that up to now the senior NSA official may not have had a need to know just how much data the NSA collects. For that matter, it is possible that the official may still not have a need to know, or never have it.

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:Well, at least there is an upper bound to it :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that an upper bound? Does NSA have open paths to the direct information gathering (ie: bugs).

      If so, then it's possible (but unlikely?) that Snowden has direct recordings of data the NSA
      would have discarded. These might include the NSA mgmt and others...

    3. Re:Well, at least there is an upper bound to it :) by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Is that an upper bound?
      Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.

      Here's a clearer version:
      He can't possibly have revealed more data from the NSA than what the NSA actually [ever] had, cumulatively, over its entire existence.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. Databases by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US mil has had a long history with computer databases going back to the 1960's with the Community On-line Intelligence System effort.
    The CIA, FBI and MI5,6 all knew what a motivated cleared individual could do with a "photocopier", "camera" and more trusted clearance level to a paper file system.
    Would digital files be that just left to be that easy?
    East Germany showed what a levels where needed to protect aspects of running spies or handling covert materials - a split of data making any one "walk out" very limited in what was lost.
    We are now to believe 'the' US agency at the centre of US data integrity, protection and world wide data penetration could not rewind its own networks logs?
    Snowden was CIA, was passed onto a contractor with his CIA work 'cleaned' at some point by someone and then onto the NSA.
    Snowden would have had direct id/code/physical location contact with how many people who could have been allowed to look into files from "that" "site" in the USA?
    What are the options? The NSA structure is now (~past 10 years) so 'sharing', 'out sourced', 'cloud based' and privatised that any staff "member" can look down over many projects without 'question' or any useful 'logging'?
    That an admin can be so 'skilled' to cover/find/alter all digital tracking logs, using digital methods that none in the NSA, FBI, CIA, MI6/5, GCHQ ever thought about?
    With all the Soviet/Russia spy hunts wrt staff, past whistleblowers over ~30 years, the digital file structures where 'outsourced' to such an extent that all security protections are now lost?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Databases by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I wish I could mod you up. This is a great insight into the dysfunctional nature of the current out of control intelligence apparatus.

      The outsourcing model was also a big part of the failed Iraqi invasion. (Blackwater ring a bell?) That also wasted vast resources and had a terrible political outcome. I guess that both started right after 9/11, but we are only seeing the incompetence and bad results from the NSA types now.

      The next logical question is why outsource core mission operations?. I think there are two reasons. First is ideological. Outsourcing is supposed to be more efficient. It also is a big part of right wing political theory, where efficient private companies replace wasteful government bureaucracies. Remember the expansion of intelligence and the creation of Homeland Security happened under Bush, so that's when outsourcing happened big time.

      The second big reason is plausible deniability. Have contractors to do dirty work makes it much easier to avoid oversight and implement policies that are illegal/immoral/stupid/wasteful.

      A very current example is the rogue operation in Iraq of CIA contractor Robert Levinson. The White House is quoted in the article as saying "was not a U.S. government employee", which they can do because he was a contractor as opposed to an employee.

      This operation was screwed up that those directly responsible were forced to leave the CIA, and procedures were changed to keep this kind of event from happening again.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Databases by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      re " used IDs and passwords which were not his then it could be impossible to establish which logins were in fact performed by SNoden himself."
      All that would have been logged too. How many cleared gov staff could one admin have 'seen'/'used' from his site/location with his clearance as a new contractor?
      All staff are watched, all staff have geographic locations, hours, levels of files and projects they can work on/with....
      Unless the system is flat and anyone can look at anything, at anytime for any reason, over any project .... with no logging ... a subset of geographic ID's and times will stand out.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Databases by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      A very current example is the rogue operation in Iraq of CIA contractor Robert Levinson. The White House is quoted in the article as saying "was not a U.S. government employee", which they can do because he was a contractor as opposed to an employee.

      You may want to re-read the original AP article about Levinson.
      He was "not a U.S. government employee" because at the time of his disappearance, his contract had finished and he was working on spec.

      Problem was, Levinson's contract was out of money and, though the CIA was working to authorize more, it had yet to do so.

      "I would like to know if I do, in fact, expend my own funds to conduct this meeting, there will be reimbursement sometime in the near future, or, if I should discontinue this, as well as any and all similar projects until renewal time in May," Levinson wrote.

      It's a very nuanced position to make and the government should be ashamed for making it, but they're not factually incorrect.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Databases by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Who watches the watchers? The same people that like to tell us there are checks and balances in place to prevent domestic spying? What makes you believe every device has an audit trail - or that every login is recorded?

      Think of it this way, if a system was created in the 90's or 00's (On, for example, Solaris, or various flavors of UNIX) and still works perfectly fine, would you replace it? Would you disable things like RSH? Harden NIS / NFS and friends - there's a very long list of exploitable software. Or would you just do your best on the technical side and simply trust that the people you give positive vetted TS security clearances to are not going to do what Snowden did?

      It's entirely conceivable that the NSA truly has no clue what the man had access to, and maybe never will.

    5. Re:Databases by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The UK tried not having watched its top translators into the late 1970's. The Soviet Union just walked out with vital sat (Ryolite and Canyon) and submarine tracking information ("Project Sambo"). After the early 1980's 'everything' was going to be watched.
      The NSA really pushed down onto the UK on that aspect - never again would any top/cleared staff just get to wonder a 'safe'.
      Digital tracking would very easy and the FBI/MI6/NSA/CIA/GCHQ knew what no digital tracking would allow again.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the key benefit of outsourcing for politicians:
      Campaign donations from beneficiaries of outsourcing policies.

    7. Re:Databases by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Given that he got access via social engineering and such clever "exploits" as asking "and what was your password?", *nobody* is going to admit that they were a conduit, as they'd be out of a job.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    8. Re:Databases by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume someone in "management" actually reviews tracking logs or even responds to notices that specific logs/entries being explicitly flagged for attention (e.g. the Boston PD failure to act on stolen vehicle flagging by plate cameras, for MONTHS) as suspicious, even if that is their primary job description. They spend their day whacking off to the pr0n collection they brought in on the DVDs in their lunch bag (as it is unlikely the rent-a-cop or enlisted drudge at the security booth is going to notice a DVD under the sandwich or if noticed, file a report on a muckety-muck that probably can have them fired in a few short minutes with all "no good deed goes unpunished" consequences delivered to a whistle blower). You've already seen the level of competence in a government bureaucracy demonstrated by DHS/TSA. What evidence do you have that the NSA dipwads are any better? It is unlikely there is either efficacy or efficiency to be found in ANY three letter agency swilling at the taxpayer trough.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  11. say what? by jafac · · Score: 1

    I find it very difficult to believe that they don't have audit logs that show exactly when and where he logged on, and what data he accessed. On the other hand, I find it easy to believe that while they HAVE the audit logs, the mandated Microsoft tools make it impractical to search for the pertinent data.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree totally. No logs? C'mon. NSA doesn't run a good SIEM tool or file and DB audit tools like Varonis or Imperva? Weird.

    2. Re:say what? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      It really does not make sense. They have logs of where you and I took our cellphones, who we called, who and what we texted. But not what was happening on their own secure network with an unvetted Dell subcontractor admin. Yeah right.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just need to ask the DBA to access the logs... oh wait.

    4. Re:say what? by Znork · · Score: 1

      They used to have audit logs but then someone pointed out Keith's LOVEINT logs and there were grumblings about Rick's kickbacks from businesses. Best just to leave accesses to data unlogged so everyone can go around their business without interference. Who could have expected someone like Snowden actually taking a moral high ground? With all that unmonitored and unsupervised access to everything about everyone he should have had some fun with the dirt, like everyone else.

    5. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it does make sense, if their own internal logs could be used for audit purposes, then maybe they set it up so that it cannot be easily audited.
      Then they don't have to lie under oath to the oversight committee when they say they cannot search their own e-mail, they don't know how many spies were spying on their senators / bosses / neighbours / love interests, etc.

      That would show that they were more worried about their supervisors finding out what they were all doing every day, rather than use the access logs for counter-espionage; catching infiltrated spies from other countries or criminal organizations.
      fritsd

    6. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it very difficult to believe that they don't have audit logs that show exactly when and where he logged on, and what data he accessed.

      Because it is a hassle to set up - and it doesn't really help. If they could say exactly what Snowden took, he would still have it and publish it at will. The threat of logging will keep some people in line - those who want a future inside the company. It does not stop someone who is prepared to flee the country before the logs get examined.

      Also, good logging uncover how the bosses abuse the system internally. And that is the real reason it is not implemented. Intelligence organizations needs internal disorder to protect the guilty. Or you get a lot of bosses fired for snooping - they can't have that.

    7. Re:say what? by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't that they don't have logs. The issue is that they have no idea who he was when he got the documents. He used his sysadmin privileges and social engineering (read: Give me your password and I'll fix your problem) to get access to a bunch of accounts and passwords that didn't belong to him over a long period of time. They have no way of differentiating between him and legitimate users.

    8. Re:say what? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the IT credentials of everyone taking this position. Its not hard to get a lot of data out of a system without an audit log picking it up if you know what you're doing. Its not hard because configuring a system to truly require that level of auditing is very hard and very costly and rarely worthwhile, especially if you believe the legal ramifications are sufficient.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  12. That's one powerful add-on by davidwr · · Score: 4, Funny

    A phone call from BHO to Mr. Putin

    I've heard of browser helper objects phoning home, but never phoning heads of state.

    I wonder if this BHO can make my experience at healthcare.gov any more pleasant?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:That's one powerful add-on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they were gonna get stoned... (butane hash oil)

  13. Management involvement by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem the NSA's having is likely the same one most large businesses have when it comes to IT: the management involved has absolutely no clue about what's going on with their computer systems, and they won't believe what the technical people who do know what's going on are telling them because it disagrees with what that management thinks should be going on. End result, the steps that are taken don't fix any of the security problems and the steps that would fix the problems are vetoed. And it'll be "lather, rinse, repeat" until management starts being fired (not allowed to resign, fired for incompetence) and losing their cushy termination benefits packages because they failed to listen.

    1. Re:Management involvement by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Single Point of Failure.

      Diminishing Returns.

      Planning Fallacy.

      Cybernetic Death -- Too much noise (entropy), not enough progress (signal) in the system.

      I can think of a million reasons why the NSA has always been doomed to fail. Greed is the general answer.

      We have an amazing array of spy satellites launched via the biggest rockets in the world. No terrorist or enemy could mobilize any real threat to the USA that we would not know about instantly. The big nations are no threat sine we have mutually assured nuclear destruction. The NSA couldn't be content with their awesome spying capabilities offline, and so they got greedy and tapped all civilian information even though there is no substantial threat: Every year Cars and Cheeseburgers kill four hundred times more people every year than a 9/11 scale attack. Such expense can't possibly be worth protecting us from 1/400th of the risk in driving to get a Happy Meal. It seems they're not trying to protect us at all -- It seems more likely they're trying to protect themselves from the people who, once they have seen the numbers, will decide we need a base on Mars and the Moon, and tastier health food, and a hyper loop instead of the NSA and DHS terrorist "protections".

  14. Going to jail by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Economic Meltdown in 2008, and the fact that no one went to jail and CEO's got big ass bonuses

    Bernie Madoff made off with billions and as a reward the American taxpayers gave him 150 years of free room and board, should he live that long.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re: Going to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was just one person, there are multiple banks that need to be seized and dozens of executive officer that need to be imprisoned.

    2. Re: Going to jail by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Many banks were, in effect seized in that they were shut down and their assets and liabilities transferred to other banks and the top executives (and, sadly in some cases, low-level employees) left without a paycheck, at least temporarily.

      By the way, the post several up from here said "and the fact that no one went to jail." I provided a counter-example.

      There is a big difference between saying you are mad because nobody went to jail and then being informed otherwise and presumably no longer being upset, or at least not as upset, and being upset because you (probably correctly) believe that dozens of executives should have gone to jail but didn't.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. "NSA Has No Clue" by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Could have left the headline at that.

    So we as good little citizens are supposed to help the NSA "find a better way" to "connect all the dots," but they have no idea what to do even when all the "dots" are in their physical possession?

    Maybe if they spent more time monitoring and logging their own systems everyone would be better off.

    1. Re:"NSA Has No Clue" by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Well, I think I've discovered how to defeat PRISM. All you have to do to remain off their radar is work for the NSA!

  16. We may need to patch ourselves... by Pav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of the value of ubiquitous surveilance is character assassination, and a key part of that vulnerability is in our own oversimplified thinking. Yes, Assange is a limelight whore, but perhaps he's making the best use of that failing. Nelson Mandela was at one time a terrorist expousing violence, could have a quick temper and had a "colourful" personal life. Reagan and Thatcher painted him as a terrorist for years before the saint image became dominant - but BOTH these images are oversimplifications. We MUST work on this "oversimplification" vulnerability in ourselves and those around us even if it seems an impossible task.

    1. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Pav · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apparently this statement is from one of Mandelas trials - it's an interesting read. Mandela says although he engaged in violence he was never a terrorist. Yes, the man was defending himself in court, but I had difficulty even parsing the argment. After it sunk in I was ashamed, and shocked/afraid at my own malleability - of course terrorism isn't the catchall defined in the media. The statement follows :

      "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. We believed violence by the African people had become inevitable. [T]here would be outbreaks of terrorism. Without violence there would be no way open to the African people to suceed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.

      [Umkhonto] volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledge to fight a Civil War against the whites.

      50 years of nonviolence had brought the African people nothing our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

      As violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and nonviolence

      [In mid-1961] the ANC was prepared to depart from its 50 year old policy of nonviolence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence.

      I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC.

      Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision. Sabotage Offered the best hope for future race relations."

    2. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Nice. Thank you for that. Ghandi was lucky in that his opponent, the British Empire, did accede to a non-violent approach.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    3. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Ghandi had English education, and knew the inherent decency of their people and legal system, and took advantage of it with passive resistance. MLK modeled his movement after that.

      One of the favorite What If scenarios historians play is wondering how Ghandi would have done against Nazi Germany.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall, the inherent "decency" of the English system allowed for apartheid in Australia and other colonies, and in the case of Gandhi, it was images of the police brutally beating the crap out of non-violent salt protestors that encouraged international support of his cause. You know, kind of like how Mandela was in prison for umpteen years and how grass roots recognition of this put pressure on governments to stop supporting the Sth African apartheid government, whereas before that, they were complicit and/or condemning Mandela as a crook. How things have changed.

    5. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Yes, those alternative history stories are what immediately brought this to mind in reference to Mandela. And on the bright side, alternative history based stories have actually created paid employment for historians. [Rather than being bus drivers, ....]

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    6. Re:We may need to patch ourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The violence of Africans is to be the color of their own excrement, to start with. They are violent in all possible ways by nature. Period.

  17. Non-issue by oldhack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NSA has nothing to worry about if it has done nothing wrong.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  18. Snowden would be an idiot to accept "amnesty". by runeghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The U.S. government has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy. The best he could hope for would be to have his lawyers arguing the validity of his amnesty in front of secret courts while he's tortured in a black site somewhere.

  19. No surprise the China and Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both China and Russia know exactly what was on the four hard drives Snowden carried, since they no doubt copied them.

    1. Re:No surprise the China and Russia by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      China and Russia would not touch the files as the person was CIA, then a contractor and then NSA with no background to Russia/China.
      Russia would have been tempted if the plan was to stay in US gov for years and all docs could be considered over time.
      Any of the bulk actionable documents could be a set trap, internal US intel junk for US political budget consumption, or lost internal bait for KGB/FSB spies...
      Russia is not the Soviet Union and won't fall for such an 'easy' document trick again and again.....
      Better to charm the press with optics of travel, a job, sit back and sees what plays out.
      China knows everything crypto from the US is a trap and is working its way around all the US telco tech as fast as it can in its own way.
      No need for unknown 'document' help, just time, skills and manufacturing prowess.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:No surprise the China and Russia by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      While I disagree that Russia/China wouldn't take the documents if they could, whether they believed them or not, I would say that the most important information Snowden can provide is how weak the e-security is at the NSA. How he got access, rather than what he got access to.

      We only know of Snowden because he chose to go public. Any competent US contractor would be using their access, legal or not, to spy on its rivals, on Congressional vote intentions, on bids, etc. And it seems unlikely, given how much Snowden had access to (for example, details on how Australia bugged the phones of East Timor politicians during negotiations over oil/gas deals), China and Russia would be crazy not to, for example, pose as US intelligence contractors to hire insiders at other contractors to illicitly gather information (or provide clearances) for them.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    3. Re:No surprise the China and Russia by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Notes on access changes would have been passed by real staff with Russian connections, been considered by Russia as a trap or just ongoing upgrades.
      Russia mostly seems to like US gov workers in place and moving up in their respective areas with 'problems' that Russia understands. A contractor might be all over interesting projects and then in the private sector again with little in the way of really useful product and way too much info on Russian 'methods' in the USA.
      Cleared Australian staff would have been all over the USA as part of their cleared working life and more able to speak with cleared US staff more freely than their own Australian govs staff.
      Thats a huge issue for Canada, UK, NZ, Australia long term to ponder - everything flows back the US, extra countries the USA trusts, contractors and others.
      Sections of the Australian armed services did have a moment of clarity on that issue after WW2 but that wisdom seems to have been lost in rush to hand everything over to the US/UK.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Hmm... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    If only the NSA had the resources and some sort of process by which they could have kept track of Snowden, like his phone, email, computer and internet usage. Oh wait...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  21. Amnesty won't work by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article says: Mr. Snowden has said he would return to the United States if he was offered amnesty, but it is unclear whether Mr. Obama â" who would most likely have to make such a decision â" would make such an offer.

    Even if the offer is ever made, Snowden would have to be a complete fool to accept it. He may never be prosecuted for the data leak; however the government will be free to legally fry him for any other crime that he may be framed for. Or, if that is not desirable, he may become another victim of criminals, who would never be found.

    1. Re:Amnesty won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the only way that amnesty could be remotely trusted is if the heads involved have all already rolled. It is quite simple: if they're willing to punish them for all of their wrongdoings they're serious and there is no one harmed left in power to retaliate.

      Captcha: reflects

  22. How did he do that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone has uploaded a video on how Snwoden did that :
    What the US need to know

  23. In due time, according to classification rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  24. No amnesty for the guilty. by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    Find him, grab him, put him through the most excruciating interrogation, then go from there. He'll talk, given that he's not likely to have had formal training in resisting interrogations, much less from the US.

    Mass releases won't help if they're matched with an entity (the United States) that can make it perilous for all of them to try.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:No amnesty for the guilty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easy way out of that is to give the would-be kidnappers no choice but to kill him. Snowden is a patriot who loves his country. Someone who is that passionate and dedicated would not have a problem sacrificing himself for the greater good.

  25. Only 2% published so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from cryptome:

      13 December 2013. Add 26 pages to Trojkan (SVT). Tally now 797 pages (~1.4%) of reported 58,000. NSA head claims 200,000 (~.40% of that released). Australia press reports "up to 20,000 Aussie files."

    Rate of release over 6 months, 132.8 pages per month, equals 436 months to release 58,000, or 36.3 years. Thus the period of release has decreased in the past month from 42 years.

    http://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm

  26. No clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell you what, that's not the only thing this multi-billion dollar government masturbation agency has not one single clue about.

  27. The deadman's switch can be neutralized. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    When you're working with an entity at the size and capability of the United States, that will likely not happen.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:The deadman's switch can be neutralized. by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      The size and capability of United States don't know what Snowden took, is offering him amnesty because they can't stop him to reveal what he could have, and is reaching that point because probably can't bear with the consequences of what that the knowledge of what they were doing could affect their population, their allies, and the rest of the world.

    2. Re:The deadman's switch can be neutralized. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're working with an entity at the size and capability of the United States, that will likely not happen.

      translation:
      U-S-A!
      NUM-BER ONE!

  28. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll make a fantastic leader of a fascist dystopia some day.

  29. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He acts only against the US

    Strange how revealing the government's criminal activities to the very people it's supposed to be working for is acting against the US. The US is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and was founded on a distrust of government. How is revealing the fact that the government violated the constitution and the principles the US was founded on acting against the US? I feel that I, as a citizen of the US, have a right to know.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  30. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the good old lynch mob. truth justice and the american way always was a huge lie, now you dont even bother to deny it.

  31. Don't worry NSA by HalAtWork · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide!

    1. Re:Don't worry NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha... good one!

      I wonder if Snowden is holding an Ace up his sleeves, like you know.... the UFO files! ;-) All the current leaks are just fodder to ensure that his reputation and word become unquestionable... then later... BAM! Area51 bitches!

      Cmon it's time we met the real overlords already.

  32. I can tell you right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have time to read this whole article right now but I can tell you right now what you've got is a privacy concern and it's the republicans and the democrats in the white house.

  33. practically in jail by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok look, I'm with you on the fact that Snowden didn't release any new info, at best it confirmed and gave operational details to stuff that was known publicly since 2006...

    Snowden isn't a free man. Whoever has been pulling his strings has got him on a tight leash.

    Why doesn't he have a blog? Why haven't we seen or heard of him around town in Russia? Why is he always wearing the same light grey shirt?

    He's in trouble...he got himself in it, either by doing something to get blackmailed (downloading kiddie pr0n from a scammer) or deluded himself into thinking he was some kind of 'Deep Throat' figure.

    Other questions:

    Why didn't Snowden use Wikileaks?

    Why didn't Glenn Greenwald release Snowden's name?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fine Gish Gallop if I ever saw one.

    2. Re:practically in jail by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why didn't Snowden use Wikileaks?

      After some sabotage removed the entire Bank of America leak he may have assumed that someone else could be turned to do the same thing. Or maybe most of the ways in to Wikileaks are being carefully watched by the NSA or he just assumed they would be? We could do this for hours. Eventually someone from the press may get to ask him a few questions and we'll find out.

    3. Re:practically in jail by globaljustin · · Score: 2

      Well thanks for engaging my question.

      I agree those are all possibilities.

      Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence? he has only made very tightly controlled appearances...

      And let's just remember to compare his treatment with others like Assange in Russia. Assange leaked info during the Bush administration and was on TV in Russia.

      I know you can always just say "Snowden was afraid of getting sent to a black site" to any question but I'm hoping to hear more than that. I really want to know what you think.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:practically in jail by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I've written what I think above and I'm waiting for more information to come out to get an idea of what is actually going on. It could take a while especially if he's doing a book to try to get something to live off out of the situation. It could take even longer if he's under some sort of house arrest or full imprisonment.

    5. Re:practically in jail by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The main difference between Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is the role they play in the leaks they are connected to. Julian Assange is never the original source, he's the guy providing the platform to publish it. As a publisher, he's a public head. Edward Snowden is the actual source, he's got the data. There are different channels for him to publish it. Instead of WikiLeaks, he has chosen the Guardian and the New York Times as publishing outlets.

      If you need to compare him to someone, he's more a PFC Manning than a second Julian Assange. And he learned from Chelsea Manning that trying to hide your identity after the leaks works only for so long, so he decided to flee forward, make his identity open and in the same time got out of the direct reach of the U.S. authorities. There are not much places in the world where you are out of the reach of the U.S. authorities. He never openly decided for Russia, it was the place he got stuck.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence?

      It simply shows that he's more concerned with the information getting out there to help people than being able to bask in the limelight. He has always said since the beginning that this isn't about himself.

    7. Re:practically in jail by SimplexBang · · Score: 2

      Hey man ,

      "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.”

      Anything is possible

      --
      Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
    8. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: what do you think about his lack of communication and public presence? he has only made very tightly controlled appearances...

      Snowden probably has something on Russia and has been granted asylum, sort of, on the condition that he shuts up about Russia and keeps making the US look worse. If able to play "pass the Snowden" at some point, Russia would get egg on it's face too.

    9. Re:practically in jail by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Then why not use cryptome?

      I'd extend that question to Manning and 'what's his name'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't Snowden use Wikileaks?

      Because they have a tarnished reputation and a highly questionable track record. Snowden is a Professional, so he went to where he knew the information would be properly protected, properly vetted, and responsibly used. Manning didn't have a clue what he was doing, he went to someone he thought would be reliable, and found out the hard way he'd chosen poorly.

      Why didn't Glenn Greenwald release Snowden's name?

      Because that would not be responsible for him to do.

    11. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly - wish more people understood the guy was probably blackmailed by either the Russians or Chinese. If you think he's a hero you've been scammed. Just wait until he's of no more use to the Russians - oops, slipped on an icy sidewalk and got hit by an errant vehicle while he was down. The possibilities are endless. Just keep watching. And remember how they got Philby and what a happy life he had after defecting.

    12. Re:practically in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that he didn't want to be associated with wikileaks. Which was probably a very good idea on his part.

  34. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We have no idea what a random person working for a contractor with access to our top-secret systems managed to steal before he went on the run...

    but we have to know your shoe-size, what toilet-paper you use, and what kind of porn turns you on.

    A well-prioritised spying agency, there.

  35. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The information may appear favorable but the problem is that he acts against all citizens

    No, the problem is that you are a fool who doesn't understand who the real criminals are.

    When the government is spying on its own citizens in a manner which runs counter to the highest
    law in that country, then the government IS the enemy of the people.

    Just get your sorry right wing fascist ass the fuck off this forum, you dickeating loser fuck.

  36. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Why do you hate America? You should be sent to gitmo and waterboarded.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  37. Close enough for government work... by jcr · · Score: 1

    Incompetence at a government agency that routinely classifies their fuck-ups to avoid repercussions? I'm shocked!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  38. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by jcr · · Score: 2

    Cowardice? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Snowden is a hero. You are a brain-dead bootlicking jackass.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  39. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Then I'm sure that you'd prefer to deal with Russia and China, where crime and corruption is so deep that the US can't match. Freedom is measured in connections and money to a much higher degree than you could ascribe to the US.

    In the US, the average citizen enjoys more freedom than could ever be had by citizens of countries run by Snowden's new (and fair-weather) friends.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  40. by whom? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    what part of my comment is a half-truth?

    is it the article from **2006** that says "NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" & makes public much of what Snowden released (minus the operational details like the name 'Prism')

    I posed questions...are you saying those questions are half-truths somehow?

    I think YOUR comment is the fucking 'Gish Gallop'...all you did was link to some wiki...you didn't **engage with the topic** and point out why...because you can't, because you're 'Gish Galloping' this topic

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  41. Assange had his own TV show by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    for the record, Julian Assange was able to have **his own television show** in Russia

    Snowden can't even change his fucking shirt...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Assange had his own TV show by benzapp · · Score: 1

      I rarely read anything on slashdot I find truly insightful. But your comments are are fantastic. Thank you.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  42. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Then why is it that the unauthorized disclosures now start to include targets that are legitimate for the NSA to pursue? Last time I checked, the NSA is allowed to pursue foreign targets without any need to disclose to the public.

    Once he switched his allegiances from the US to Russia, he's done more harm to the US in general than any good that could have been realized. Never mind that he has foregone any opportunity to redeem himself by releasing anything damaging to Russia or China in the process.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  43. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for you, I like America. The only thing that Snowden should be doing in Russia or China is collecting intelligence on their governments, not trashing our own.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  44. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    If "Well, we're not as bad as the other guys!" is all you have, I'd say something is very, very wrong. Being punched in the face may not be as bad as having your arm chopped off, but that doesn't mean being punched in the face is a good thing. More generally, X being better than Y does not mean X is good.

    Your comment didn't even address anything I said.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  45. He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    What he has done only has served to damage the US - and not just its government. Had he released secrets about Russia and China, he'd have earned the title of patriot.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      while I agree he is no patriot, nothing released has really done anything more than a few red faces and my bad's, not even close to damage let alone severe damage

    2. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      May be he's a patriot to the America it claims to be rather than the America it has been shown to be.

    3. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government has done so much more to damage the US than Snowden has that Snowden's actions aren't even worth talking about in that regard.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I am an American living in America and nothing that Snowden has done has harmed me. In fact, it's helped immensely to open up quite a few eyes and get people riled up against the US government.

    5. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are so blind that you think Snowden is anything less than a patriot, then you are a fascist and a traitor to the United States of America and should be sentenced to death for treason. People like you hate freedom and support tyranny; you are no better than a terrorist.

    6. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he's damaged the USA by spreading important truths about the US Gov. Truths that everyone including US citizens should know.

      Car analogy - say US cars spy on everyone and he tells everyone about it. That damages the US and the US car industry, but why shoot the messenger?

      Lastly, patriotism is overrated. Anyone who thinks it is such a wonderful thing should go die for their country ASAP.

    7. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Should know? That's the job for the classification system to objectively determine, not Snowden's to outsource.

      When the messenger becomes a large enough liability, you don't let them get larger.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    8. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      How is he not a patriot? Would a German citizen who leaked info about the concentration camps to the citizens of that country not have been a patriot during WWII just because he thought what his country was doing to be wrong?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I think comparing spying which should be a NO SHIT post WWII to the holocaust is a great example on how skewed current opinion really is

    10. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a cop-out excuse and you know it is.

    11. Re:He's no patriot for his anti-US actions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a secret that Russia and China spy on their own citizens? You care more about Russians and Chinese than you do Americans.

  46. Truth is not flamebait or troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (No text)

  47. Can't you see? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the propaganda which is rather amusing coming from a place with a Congress and Senate full of attention whores, let alone the high profile CEOs or the entire fucking entertainment industry. Even Assange looks humble compared with any one of those.
    Also even if all the wild claims are true he doesn't come close to being compared with Polanski. Polanski does not need to hide in an Embassy toilet even though he's been wanted for decades for the violent rape of a child.

    It's all about "might makes right" and going after some guy that publicly embarrassed Hillary Clinton. It's been dragging on for so long that people forget that it's such a petty revenge thing resulting in making unreasonable demands on two other countries to inconvenience an embarrassment.

  48. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll make a fantastic supporter of a fascist dystopia some day.

    FTFY

  49. So much for "oversight" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They claim to have all those checks and balances in place but are unable to figure out what an external worker looked at.

    How are they going to do checks and balances if they don't even keep tabs on what they make externally available?

    They not just siphon off data from everyone, they also play fast and loose with it. If they have no tabs on circulation of classified documents, why should they have them on individual data?

    The whole "oversight" claim is plainly ludicrous.

  50. Heck of a job by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not the capability of the USA here, it's the capability of some clowns that thought it was a good idea to get a Hollywood set designer in to do an operations centre. It's not Tom Clancy calling the shots here - reality is closer to Conrad's "The Secret Agent" where deluded and petty figures are just taking advantage of anything they can.
    You are getting them mixed up with the military. They are toy soldiers and a network of Horse Judges that got the job because of who they knew, and a lot of it seems to be pointless busywork designed to justify a flow of money.

    1. Re:Heck of a job by martas · · Score: 1

      pointless busywork designed to justify a flow of money

      Ding ding ding! There is no reason to expect the organizational structure and goals of the NSA to be any different from middle management at Microsoft, except unlike Microsoft, the NSA doesn't have a finite money supply dictated by the market and a CEO that would be willing to draw the line somewhere if enough money was squandered. I don't know what performance metrics they use at the NSA (doubt it's stack ranking), but at the end of the day it's going to be about helping your boss convince his boss that you should be awarded a bigger budget because what you're working on is really cool and will impress the guys upstairs.

  51. Ignore the scaremongering. by VortexCortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you ignore the scaremongering of how much Snowden "took" (it was still there after he "took" it, he didn't "take" anything -- a copy was made) -- If you dismiss the spin about Snowden, you'll realize that the NSA is admitting that they're letting the Chinese, Russian, Turkish, etc. spies get access to all of the information they've collected on the world and American citizens. If you can't even trace what was accessed, then you certainly can't prevent access. Snowden was a contractor, he's not amazing, any average fearless security researcher would have a field day with the NSA. They use MS Windows, FFS, ever since they ported Omnivore from UNIX to MS platforms to create Carnivore (away from Unix? Huh, yay MS license fee pork!) It's not amazing that Snowden got access. Hell, even if they use Linux there's zero day exploits for every known OS on the black market. Any state sponsored spy has even more access than Snowden dreamed of.

    Congratulation should be awarded the National Security Agency for becoming the biggest threat to National Security the world has ever known. In becoming the greatest single point of failure, and failing, it is now their duty to extinguish themselves. In programming we call a system capable of completely internally representing and emitting copy of itself a Quine. In cybernetics I call this being alive. In government we call this SNAFU. Indeed the very nation's existence is owed to the cyclic redundancy error called revolution. Fortunately the founding fathers foresaw such eventuality and gave their people the ability to break the cycle of deadly rebirth without violence: To call an emergency session of congress and hold a vote of no confidence therein.

    The whitehouse could have been a relief valve, but have come out in favor of letting the NSA run amok -- Hard choices indeed. Would you come out against the NSA who refuses to stand down, and thus prove the government is illegitimate, or would you align yourself with them and maintain the despotic peace a little while longer -- give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety? The longer the pressure builds, the bigger the collateral damage will become. The tech giants are injured yet oddly not nearly as reactive as you'd expect, by the time they decide to really push back it'll be too late, they'll have less power than the military industrial complex. If they realize the table is turning the big guys will all begin buying up defense related tech to try and ensure their future. It's almost as if the government wants the economy to be destroyed so that the people face bankruptcy, repossessions, and foreclosures and the corporations lose the money they use to maintain firm grips on the lobbyists. Afterwards they could simply blame those who spake out against them for holding different "destructive" economic ideals and put them in concentration camps until the scared public is cowed and accepts things the way it's going to be whether we the people like it or not. You could just avoid the internment altogether and just let the homeless remain effectively neutered. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say everything was going according to plan.

    1. Re:Ignore the scaremongering. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      I wonder if some corporation could sue the NSA for failing to protect their data, if it turns out that the the data was used to harm the corporation in some way. After all, Snowden worked for the NSA, so it was their responsibility to keep him in line.

  52. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    In the US, the average citizen enjoys more freedom than could ever be had by citizens of countries run by Snowden's new (and fair-weather) friends.

    You mean countries where journalists who are embarrassing to the government are arrested or "disappeared"? Where defectors and whistle-blowers are poisoned? Where the family of any perceived opponent of government risks being harassed by loyal government men (with and without authorisation)? Countries that do what you want the US to do over the Snowden affair.

    You're remarking on the difference between freedom in the US and that in Russia/China, while arguing without a shred of irony for the US to invoke precisely the same "strong-man" tactics of Russia/China which destroys freedom. You somehow fail to see that you are an enemy of the People of the United States.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  53. Very simple answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Seen a blacksmith on TV? That should show you that hot steel is not as strong as cold steel.
    Now you can stop worrying about that and focus on the real conspiracies that are being uncovered. There's plenty so no need to be greedy and make them up.

  54. Not professional by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You've lost track that at some point the NSA changed from what you described to the sort of place where somebody could get a Hollywood set designer in to do an ops room. That and the need for the bosses to have anything right now with no hoops to jump through does seem to have produced a situation where the NSA is publicly stating that they do not have a clue what Snowdon has. They could be lying but if they are it's a lie that damages their reputation enough that it puts the jobs of the people saying it in far greater peril than saying nothing. That makes me think they are being honest this time and doing some "damage control" before someone with power over their employment finds out the hard way and takes it out on their hides.

    1. Re:Not professional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've lost track that at some point the NSA changed from what you described to the sort of place where somebody could get a Hollywood set designer in to do an ops room.

      That ops room was made while Alexander was in the Army, not the NSA.

    2. Re:Not professional by dbIII · · Score: 0

      So? The clown is now in the NSA most likely putting on a similar clown show since he has no adult supervision to stop him.

    3. Re:Not professional by identity0 · · Score: 1
  55. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    He never switched allegiances. He's still a US citizen, not a Russian. If the US government stopped persecuting him, there's no indication he would never come back, though I wouldn't think he would, as he'd fear a change of mind. The US abandoned him. The government acted illegally, and he worked for the people of the US in exposing it. He's more loyal to the US than the US government is.

  56. Well, if I was NSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this is the kind of diversion I would be throwing when I felt I am close to tracking down Snowden's doomsday device(s). Nothing like a good old bit of disinformation, especially one that your adversaries want to believe so hard.

  57. He won't get an accident as long as... by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    He won't get an accident as long as they want him alive and well more than they want him gone. As far as we know, there's a group of three unknown people that together can "set free" all the data he has stolen. As long as the USA doesn't want him to reveal all that data, he's safe from them killing him. They may want to abduct him back to the USA, but they know they can't kill him because then all hell will break loose.

    The Soviet Union probably gets something in return for his visa, but he won't be giving them the crown jewels all at once. They won't tolerate him there once he's of no use to them any more, so whatever the deal is, they're not getting a lot of secrets out of him. For all we know, they might just keep him around to piss off the USA and that alone is of enough value to them.

    The "amnesty" sounds like a trap. What possible gain could the USA have to keep him free/alive once the bear is back in the cage? He's a liability just for knowing what he stole, so the only way to contain that is to contain him.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:He won't get an accident as long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He won't get an accident as long as they want him alive and well more than they want him gone. As far as we know, there's a group of three unknown people that together can "set free" all the data he has stolen.

      The ultimate goal of the government and the NSA is that nobody will ever have three people he can trust. Even if just by making sure that you can never talk about any confidential matter without somebody listening in on you.

  58. Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama will be directed to call for a massive thermonuclear preemptive strike on Russia, just to kill Snowden, and have some fun with 30 million dead and 300 million hospitalized.

    Que Marv Albert voice, "It's Geo Political Get Back Snap Shot Baby!"

    1. Re:Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with 30 million dead and 300 million injured and dying

      FTFY. There aren't enough hospitals now to house 300 million people, let alone after a nuclear attack.

  59. That was rich on rich crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only sort of crime committed by the rich that yields consequences.

  60. Inspiration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russian hosts are very interested in Snowden's revelations and want to see if NSA might be doing something they aren't doing yet. If there's any interesting ideas, they will be sure to implement them.

    On the other hand, the revelations are quickly becoming stale. The NSA is sure to develop new schemes Snowden has no knowledge of... unless, he left some communication channels open...

    1. Re:Inspiration by PPH · · Score: 1

      The NSA is sure to develop new schemes

      Yes. But which ones? If they don't know what has been compromised, they'll have to replace everything. If they get a list of documents, they can target their efforts.

      I guess the question the NSA needs answered is: "Is it safe?"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  61. That is because he is making lots of it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you honestly think all the stuff he is saying is true? Think about it, even system admins don't have access to the stuff he is talking about, because per NSA procedure Top Secret info is not on network connected devices. They are on dumb computer sitting behind REALLY secured areas that guys with guns watch over. They don't let people in there without someone ELSE watching over what you are doing.

    He prob got some stuff, but nothing as mind blowing as you think.

    1. Re:That is because he is making lots of it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume the people in the government to be competent. Your assumption ignores reality.

  62. STFU, armchair strategist by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The nukes did not have to be dropped on a populated area in order to
    compel Japan to capitulate.

    Ha! Sirry loundeyes missed! Rucky for us.

    BANZAIIIIII!

    Then you're back the long time, lots of lives scenario.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:STFU, armchair strategist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because those yellow men aren't really like us, and therefore, not capable of rational behaviour.

    2. Re:STFU, armchair strategist by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      They disregarded one attack on an actual city (a little more than a strong hint) thus necessitating a second. Yet you think they'd have taken more notice if a few trees or a mountain top had got blown up?

      Don't even use the word "rational". You clearly don't know what it means.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:STFU, armchair strategist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rational" means you run up the white flag after the first atomic bomb removes one of your cities from the map, not two of them.

      The Japanese people were lucky that someone was around to make Uncle Joe step the fuck back. Those bombs are the only reason Japan doesn't look like North Korea today.

  63. Is this just setting Snowden up? by hazeii · · Score: 1

    Could it be they are now going to (as often suggested on here) deliberately leak something pretty serious (possibly about some past actual harm, with a nicely polished backstory) and attribute it to Snowden? Effectively, by saying "we don't know what he's got" , it leaves the door open for them to attribute *anything they like* to him.

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  64. snowden is a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dead man, and will eventually either be found in an expired condition and will disappear entirely

    1. Re:snowden is a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily for him, there is something called a dead man's switch.. Even I have setup one even if it's empty right now. But it's fast and easy too add documents to it in case of emergency

  65. Answer's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 - offer him amnesty
    2 - torture him the minute he gets off the plane
    3 - identify the co-conspirators who have the rest of the papers and shoot them
    4 - show trial, followed by execution. Perhaps piano wire?

    It's what Himmler, Pol Pot or Stalin would have done, so we're in good company...

  66. We are not discussing PIN numbers! by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are foreign adversaries a justification for domestic policy? We outspend the world's militaries, what exactly should we be afraid of?

    The American people are not and should not be the legitimate target for the State intelligence apparatus. If you have done something against the interests of the State, it would be a matter for our police. If you have not done something against the interests of the State, if you are merely thinking about doing that, or even taking steps towards doing so, you have not yet in actual fact committed that crime. The choice is fundamentally whether to permit people to commit crime, or to treat everyone as if they were a criminal. We can't guarantee that we can catch criminals after the fact, and it's hardly possible to keep people from committing criminal acts in jail, let alone in the greater society. This suggests that a police state is not a good value proposition: trying to stop people before they commit crimes is flawed, in principle and in practice.

    But we are not speaking of common crimes, we are speaking of crimes against the State, and correspondingly the bodies we have endowed with the right to pursue those who have committed such malefactions. The NSA has become not only the foremost intelligence body of the US Military, but as such it is undeniably the most effective intelligence body that the world has ever seen. It is wrong for the police to pursue men who have not committed criminal acts, but it is far more wrong to be treated as an enemy of the State, and investigated as such, without an inarguably just cause, or existential necessity. Not only does this rule out mass surveillence entirely, but it is difficult to describe how few external existential threats these United States face. So far the internal police appear to be adequate to the task of containing whatever terrorist uprising we may be in danger of.

    The parent poster is not being facetious. The American People, and our Allies, are being targetted by the Signals Intelligence branch of the United States Government. There are quite excellent reasons this is forbidden, which have nothing in particular to do with our laws, and a plenitude of historical examples which bear this point out. Mass surveillance of the American public is nothing less than enormitous treason.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  67. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We did no such thing.
    -Next leak
    We were going to tell you, scouts honor.

  68. So another double fork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IF WL reports on government malfeasance, they're being anti-USA.
    IF WL reports on nongovernmental malfeasance, they're FAIL.

  69. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately for you, I like America. The only thing that Snowden should be doing in Russia or China is collecting intelligence on their governments, not trashing our own.

    He is not trashing the U.S. government. He merely lifted the lid off the trash can. But the trash in there is not his own. It is paid and voted for by the American people.

  70. Betrayal, of Snowden and of all of us, by US Gov. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    You could, in fact, say that the US government betrayed him. In fact, it did so twice. First, when it betrayed all of us, by acting against out interests as a populace and constitutionally mandated rights as citizens. Then, when Snowden saw the depth of the government's betrayal and tried to bring it to light, they betrayed him again (personally, but in a way with consequences for us all) by abandoning all those promises about whistleblowers and choosing to persecute and vilify him instead.

    Personally, I doubt he actually has gone over to the Russians. Nationalism is a strong drive, and you don't get to work at the NSA and have a clearance unless you've got a good bit of it. On the other hand, somebody who was as strongly pro-US-government as you seem to be, but a little less blind and righteous about it, may have felt the depth of those betrayals deeper than I would. If it turns out he has gone over, I'm certainly not going to judge him for that. The USA has amply demonstrated it does not deserve his service or support, first in the actions of the NSA, then in the actions of the Obama government in general, and finally in the actions of the populace at large (who have continued apathetically doing nothing of consequence while the whole scandal unfolds, rather than stand up for somebody willing to take such a risk for the sake of freedom).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  71. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He acts only against the US

    Strange how revealing the government's criminal activities to the very people it's supposed to be working for is acting against the US. The US is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and was founded on a distrust of government. How is revealing the fact that the government violated the constitution and the principles the US was founded on acting against the US? I feel that I, as a citizen of the US, have a right to know.

    I'm an American and I don't feel there is anything wrong with what the NSA is doing and don't feel it has done anything to remove my freedoms. It's worth pointing out that that the majority of Americans feel this way, too.

  72. Release them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The time has come to release ALL of the documents. The US clearly has not changed its stance that ubiquitous unlawful surveillance of American Citizens is both morally and legally acceptable.

    The only way there will be enough outrage generated for these idiots to be thrown out of office is going to be a "shock and awe" campaign.

  73. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    I'm an American and I don't feel there is anything wrong with what the NSA is doing and don't feel it has done anything to remove my freedoms.

    Then perhaps you should read the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to do this, and the fourth amendment doesn't allow for general warrants or any other such thing. The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't.

    I think you should also study some history. There was never a government that didn't abuse its powers. Japanese citizens felt the wrath of the US government when they were put in internment camps. Blacks, women, and various minorities all knew what it felt like to have one's rights violated. The US government can and already has shown that it will abuse its powers, and the US was founded on a distrust of government, so why would you ever trust them with such powers? Don't you realize that the people in the government are simply humans, and are as subject to corruption as anyone else? Why would you want them having all this information, especially given all the historical evidence that suggests that governments will abuse their powers should they be given the opportunity to do so? I do not understand.

    I'd say there's a good reason that organizations like the ACLU and EFF--who dedicate themselves to defending liberty in various ways--are rather upset about this. The fact that you don't get it suggests to me that you're both profoundly ignorant and naive.

    It's worth pointing out that that the majority of Americans feel this way, too.

    Even if true, I don't see how that's worth pointing out. Do you think that popularity is meaningful or something?

    This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Why don't we start acting like it?

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  74. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtu.be/5j2F4VcBmeo

    This is how the NSA should have responded to this.

    I still haven't seen anything Snowden has released that I have a problem with the government doing to create a peaceful society. Hell, most of what has come out was known years ago and there are court cases debating the civil liberties and NSA was cleared.

    And, why is Slashdot posting so many stories on this. There are more important things to talk about. The NSA won't impact my life today or tomorrow.

  75. Good by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Couldn't happen to a better agency. Guess they don't like their secrets getting out. Boo hoo. Hows it feel assholes?

    Oh wait they might not read this comment. That would be sad, cuz if they don't, it can't implant itself in their minds like a sleeping agent, and explode like a semtex package at the sears tower; infecting their minds like anthrax in the pentagon ventilation system.

    There, fixed that, now, why are you still reading this and not doing the right thing and leaking everything you can find? Do you work for the people or the NSA? The two are mutually exclusive.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  76. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    I still haven't seen anything Snowden has released that I have a problem with the government doing to create a peaceful society. Hell, most of what has come out was known years ago and there are court cases debating the civil liberties and NSA was cleared.

    I won't even bother repeating myself. A sad state of affairs that people with your mentality even exist.

    The NSA won't impact my life today or tomorrow.

    Yeah, they're just violating people's rights. No big deal, right? And if they actually use that information against someone, it's not a problem as long as it isn't you.

    You seem just a tad bit selfish.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  77. He'll "Consider Recommending Amnesty" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "... he would consider recommending amnesty ..."

    Sorry, NSA, but with your ongoing violations of our civil rights and your outright lying to our representatives faces, your "recommendations" don't mean shit. Your credibility about anything is long gone.

  78. If I understand correctly... by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    If I were Snowden, I"d combine the knowledge of only 2 things here, and proceed:
    1) The NSA doesn't know how much data he took 2) He has a nice setup in Mutha Russia So I'd simply say, "Ok, deal!" and I'd hand them 2 more slightly irrelevant items of news, say "yup, th, th, th, th, th, th, that's aaaall folks!", get "pardoned" and simply stay in Mutha Russia.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  79. Stale Mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dangled repatriation offer vs document stash. I offer you asylum for returned documents and you return to US a freeman and likely hero we just need to "debrief" you first, Comrade. Can assume a non serious offer as said before the documents are your life insurance policy, unless in Russian hand, and this is why we need talking to you Comrade, cause if you released to Russia then your usefulness for information and life insurance terminate together. It's your move, Comrade.

    1. Re:Stale Mate by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'd expect an offer of amnesty/repatriation following disclosure of the documents in Snowden's possession. There is no way the NSA is actually going to get them back. First of all, encrypted copies are probably floating around all over the 'Net. Good luck finding them. And the NSA/Justice Department is smart enough to realize that Snowden is smart enough to hold on to a lifetime guarantee of his well being. Specifically, the decrypt keys* to those documents.

      So the NSA will find out what is out there, which is valuable information by itself. They'll know what has the potential to be compromised and perhaps get some idea of which internal data stores were compromised and how.

      *I assume that the documents have been broken up into blocks and that there's a key for each block. That way, Snowden can threaten incremental damage or negotiate in steps.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  80. Really? by koan · · Score: 1

    There was no tracking in place for document retrievals? Even after Manning...

    So anyone working for that contractor could be downloading and selling stuff left and right and they wouldn't know it.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  81. Which means that their assurances are void by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    This just means that their assurances that the data won't be abused because it's under some form of protected access with an audit trail are false. Obviously.

    This is predictable. Once secret information with secret dossiers exists, they will be abused because no one knows it exists in the first place; of course no one can get caught abusing a system that doesn't exist, or at least it's unlikely that anyone will get caught.

    There needs to be some kind of radical transparency whereby everything everywhere is recorded but it's impossible to abuse and not be caught having abused it.

    We need this information to be collected like it or not, but the way it's being done now is provably inept and open to abuse in a million ways. This is because the whole system \is a product of a group of people who are not visionaries, as of course most of us aren't, imbued with an oppositional mindset towards not just terrorists but to any type of transparency at all by anyone .

    What needed is something strongly counter intuitive. A repository of secret information, means, methods and procedures which nevertheless yield to an on demand , arbitrarily scoped, irrefutable correct and transparent accounting chain of who did or accessed what when where under whose authority for any given action taken.

  82. no info leaked on elint or remote neural monitorin by strstr · · Score: 1

    There has still been no leaks on elint or Remote Neural Monitoring that have been significant. What has been leaked is just a bunch of pussy shit on how the NSA can get access to just about any computer systems it wants over the telephone/internet networks, but the other whistleblower, Russell Tice claims that is the low tech system for spying. There is also a huge network of remote sensing technology, "satellite capability" according to Russell Tice, and nobody has been talking about it. What is probably there are an arsenal of directed energy weapons, some of which get used to target humans for experimentation and sabotage, and remote brain emission reading technology called Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, which lets them warrantlessly spy on peoples thoughts and memories abd other nervous system functions directly. The NRO does have several ELINT satellites that could be used to do this, and the technology might even have mobile ground based versions as well. All brain activity can be remotely tampered with..

    Link to more details about Remote Neural Monitoring and Russell Tice Revelations, plus patent for mind reading tech: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4545961&cid=45673227

    Edward Snowden could be holding onto information on this, or something seriously damaging to the NSA for them to want to give him amnesty still. What he's leaked so far was old information, which Russell Tice had already leaked in 2006, and it just doesn't seem all that ground breaking. The main difference is Snowden has the documents on it, where as Ruseell Tice did not save or publish any.

  83. Still living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know why he is still living they are scared he has held back for release upon his death the really important shit they think he might have.

    meh jeopardy for a captcha....

  84. Re:no info leaked on elint or remote neural monito by strstr · · Score: 1

    There's something crazy about this that the NSA wants to cover up. Lol

    See parent post for more links/info. Or go to http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

    Is the NSA Conducting Electronic Warfare On Americans?

    Jonas Holmes May 19, 2006 CHRONICLE ARTICLE

    Russ Tice, former NSA intelligence officer and current Whistleblower, was to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Apparently the testimony, Mr. Tice wanted to give, makes General Hayden’s phone surveillance program look like very small potatoes. Mr. Tice’s testimony is expected to reveal further illegal activity overseen by General Michael Hayden which even loyal and patriotic NSA employees view as unlawful. I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. IT’S PRETTY HARD TO BELIEVE, Tice said. I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now. According to Mr. Tice, what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. What in the world could Russ Tice be talking about! To figure it out let us take a look at Russ Tice’s work at the NSA.

    According to the Washington Times and numerous other sources, Mr. Tice worked on special access programs related to electronic intelligence gathering while working for the NSA and DIA, where he took part in space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems. Special Access Programs or SAPs refer to Black Budgets or Black Operations. Black means that they are covert and hidden from everyone except the participants. Feasibly there would be no arena with a greater potential for abuse and misuse than Special Access Programs. Even now Congress and the Justice Department are being denied the ability to investigate these programs because they don’t have clearance. To put it in CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s words a top secret government agency, the NSA, the largest of its kind in the world, is denying oversight or investigation by the American people because investigators lack clearance. To add a layer of irony to the Black Ops cake this travesty is occurring in America, the supposed bastion of Freedom and Democracy, which we are currently trying to export to Iraq.

    It just gets scarier. The Black Ops that Mr. Tice was involved in related to electronic intelligence gathering via space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems. For greater insight as to the impact of these programs readers should review decades old FOIA authenticated programs such as MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD, COINTELPRO and ARTICHOKE. Radar based Telemetry involves the ability to see through walls without thermal imaging. Electronic Warfare is even scarier if we take a look at the science. NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation. NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950's, which included neurological research into "radiation" (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as "Radiation Intelligence," defined as "information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation." Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are

  85. Remote Neural Monitoring by PPH · · Score: 1

    Information on remote neural monitoring has been blocked from release by The Reynolds Group to protect the markets for their products.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Remote Neural Monitoring by strstr · · Score: 1

      You're slighyly right, because of the ignorance of our reporters, people on the internet, and even our lawyers on the subject, it all is seen as something to laugh at. But ELINT does have quite a few satellites, and there are patents and devices used for mind reading. Since the nineties, computer software using EEG and other BCI tech has been capable of decoding human emotions and other commands for computer control. Remote Neural Monitoring is just a version of this technology that works using a satellite, telescope, or long range dense array antenna to read brainwave emissions.

      Look at all those ELINT/SIGINT and other satellites the NRO has launched: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_Launches

      Look at the remote mind reading patent from 1998: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6011991.PN.&OS=PN/6011991&RS=PN/6011991

      The NSA already has disclosed or is understood to have remote sensing technologies for nearly every other type of emission. Why is it so hard for people to believe their brains aren't also being tapped, considering the intelligence information that the government could get from it? Literally, the human mind is the greatest electromagnetic recording and storage device in existence, and what you see snd hear, think, feel, dream, and store is what they really want, not your fucking emails and Facebook posts (but they get those too, through RNM/EBL, and PRISM/ECHELON/Signals Intelligence).

      Btw, tinfoil is useless shit for blocking radiation emissions, and it doesn't protect your brain or nervous system from remote access. MIT found it actually amplified signals sometime ago, and I'm sure that based on my experience, their technology cannot be blocked by any object, let alone some flimsey tinfoil.

    2. Re:Remote Neural Monitoring by PPH · · Score: 1

      Btw, tinfoil is useless shit for blocking radiation emissions, and it doesn't protect your brain or nervous system from remote access. MIT found it actually amplified signals sometime ago, and I'm sure that based on my experience, their technology cannot be blocked by any object, let alone some flimsey tinfoil.

      The best approach is to jam transmissions with noise.

      Thinking about porn, thinking about porn, ......

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  86. Is there really more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the NSA still doing things we don't know about that are illegal? Shut that agency down.

  87. Then that makes the lawyer complicit as well. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    At that point, the lawyer ceased to provide legal advice when they involved themselves in Snowden's crimes(by receiving the information). Any "lawyers" that Snowden has had from that point are political minders.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Then that makes the lawyer complicit as well. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The shyster doesn't know what's in the encrypted file.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  88. ...of stuff the US gov is doing that is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to think that the government's depravity is only a few reveals away from the bottom of Snowden's cache. This just seems to imply that the NSA knows the pit is bottomless and could go on forever.

  89. Manning got outed by Lamo by globaljustin · · Score: 0

    he learned from Chelsea Manning that trying to hide your identity after the leaks works only for so long

    Oh c'mon...you're still buying into the *false narrative* of Snowden

    Chelsea Manning was duped by Adrain Lamo in a chat session....Lamo is a 'hacker' who snitches for the feds.

    Manning was snitched on by a 2-bit hacker, because of things Manning herself said in chat...**it was her own fault**

    This is common knowledge, see the chat logs for yourself: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

    Snowden is either a total self-deluded idiot or a self-deluded victim of blackmail....he could've **leaked these anonymously** through many channels.

    The US actually has really well defined journalistic protections for **journalists** who keep their sources anonymous.But Glenn Greenwald didn't do that.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Manning got outed by Lamo by Sique · · Score: 1

      I don't buy into anything. Edward Snowden seems to believe that there is no security by obscurity for long, and that he shouldn't bet his future on this. Yes, Chelsea Manning stumbled for her own fault. No, I don't think Edward Snowden might have fallen for the same trap. But in the end, it makes no difference which coincidence or happenstance would have revealed his identity. He wanted to get out of the U.S. reach, and by doing that, he was revealing his identity anyway or at least was putting himself as a prime suspect for the leaks when he didn't appear on his workplace anymore.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Manning got outed by Lamo by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      If the US has such good protections for journalists, why are they introducing double-blind systems for anonymous data submission?

      I suspect its because they don't feel like their sources are protected at all.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  90. Re:Betrayal, of Snowden and of all of us, by US Go by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    somebody who was as strongly pro-US-government as you seem to be,

    I don't think of myself as pro-US-government, so I'm confused how that slipped in, and as it's a color statement for the rest of your reply, it seems that there's a fundamental disconnect in our viewpoints.

    Perhaps it's my "it's not Obama, stupid" stance. Obama did nothing that wasn't already done by a Republican before him, not even the health care. So vilifying Obama is blind partianship. I'm anti-partianship, so I'll "stand up" for Obama by pointing out the evils of the other side. Though that's in no way supporting the president I didn't vote for for either term. It's just thought as such by people who don't like him. Other's bad assumptions do not define my views. Obama is bad. Bush was worse.

    If anything, because I'm anti-party, I'm anti-US-government. The USA isn't the government that represents it, but the people that constitute it.

  91. WTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They spend billions to collect data on everyone yet don't know what one fucking person found?!?

  92. Whatever happened by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

    ...to the Principle of Least Privilege? What was the oathbreaker (I refuse to speak of him by his given name, and if that makes me a troll, so be it) working on that would give him copy access to that many files? Was he preparing some sort of comparative concordance with the WikiLeaks files?

    The Principle of Least Privilege is one of the core emphases for the CompTIA Security+ certification exam. One would hope that an organization that goes by the moniker of "National Security Agency" would grok what's on that certification exam, at the very least.

    Just my 2p worth. Save up the change for a root beer or something.

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
    1. Re:Whatever happened by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      You are such a dreamer, Snowden has already proven they dont know their ass from their elbow when it comes to network security. It doesnt take much, especially in a Microsoft environment, to have gobal, unlimited access. Its not like they actually have any tools, procedures, workflows or user education in place to audit, prevent and/or flag for these actions of exceeding authorization or social engineeringsome maroon's credentials. It is doubtful they are even aware of the concept of two factor authentication at the level where it could be requested for budgeting or that, once budgeted, they could competently and effectively roll it out in less than 5 years and under $1 billion. LOL the lowest (more likely, no) bidder would probably provide comprimised Huwei tokens purchased from China on Alibaba!

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:Whatever happened by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

      The Principle of Least Privilege is also one of the core emphases in the Department of Defense's security-clearance program. This appears, to me, to be yet another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing...or, possibly worse, not caring.

      With that said, I see no reason to live in fear. If others choose to do so, it's their choice, and I have no say over their choices; only over my own.

      --
      All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  93. Seems likely to me that Snowden is a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    russian spy

  94. True patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We may not realize it now, but what he did was true patriotism. In the long term it will make our country better.

  95. Kind of hard for that given that Snowden betrayed. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Snowden made the choice to betray, not the US. The only thing that the US failed to do was to act on a recognized threat - before and after his departure from US soil. If anything, the only thing saving him is that the current administration:
    1) thinks that what his actions are compatible with their own animus towards the US.
    2) doesn't want to lose flexibility by taking definitive action on something.

    If he's willing to hand over information to a US-hostile government and claim asylum from the US, he's effectively expressed an allegiance to that other country. Normally, that results in consequences that range from long prison sentences to death.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  96. Snowden's pursuers will only change, never die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's impossible as it'd just change to someone that would just take them out as a private actor.

  97. To a self-declared libertarian as yourself, !surp. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    By going the extra mile to avoid justice, he only is signalling his guilt and the strength of the case against him. If he really thinks he is innocent in the face of the evidence against him, he would have taken his chances in a court of law, something that doesn't really exist in Russia or China.

    Me? I'm someone that understands that the Reagan administration would have not let it get this far - Snowden would have been handled much sooner. It also was the same administration that understood the value of keeping national defense secrets(versus the Carter and Clinton eras) while enhancing freedom.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  98. We should have nuked Detroit by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Dropping nukes on Japan was about two things :

    1) revenge

    and

    2) Showing the rest of the world what they could expect if they messed with the US.

    It's too bad the U.S. didn't try dropping a nuke on Detroit -- there's a chance that Detroit would look as good as Hiroshima does these days.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  99. Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, the NSA has no clue as to what kind of spin campaign to run to smooth over the scandals of future released dirty laundry.

  100. The NSA isn't in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    The American people is the BOSS of the NSA; it's in the Constitution.

    But the government's argument is that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the NSA's activities. How much more unconstitutional can you get?

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  101. Our real enemies went underground LONG ago. by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    There are tons of stateless actors (and not an insignificant number of nation-states) whom are clearly enemies of the United States that benefit from his disclosures of our SIGINT sources and methods.

    Oh, please. Our real enemies have known for a long time to avoid electronic communications. That's why it took so long to find Bin Laden — he communicated with the outside world through a network of trusted, non-electronic couriers.

    The only point of the panopticon's activities these days is to (1) catch really dumb terrorists, and (2) serve their unidentified masters in the creation of a totalitarian surveillance state.

    Just yesterday, Slashdot posted an article about how Boston police had plenty of information about a stolen motorcycle yet did nothing. So fighting crime obviously isn't high up on the list of priorities for our panopticon. So what is?

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  102. Time travel! by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    the collapse of building 7 was way too shady in my opinion. Add to that the fact that the news of its collapse were reported 20 minutes prior to it actually happening.

    Didn't you know? The NWO/Illuminati/Bilderburg/whatever conspiracy goes back in time in order to cover up their activities! That's why there's no evidence! And the lack of evidence is proof that it happened!

    With my level of insane paranoia, I easily qualify to work for the government intelligence services.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  103. Snowden the only leak? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

    Even though if the intentions were to only use the data against criminals, terrorists and what not, the fact is that this data will be leaked again and again. How many more people than Snowden at NSA got hold of data, but did not go public with it, but maybe sold it? A system as large as NSA is running can never be totally secure. Just to running it, and to make any use of it it requires thousands of people to have access. This alone is an argument for not storing all data you can. Because it is not only you who will access it. Your enemies will too.

  104. There are no friends, only common interests. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no friends, only common interests.

    There are no friends, period. Only common interests.

    There are no friends and no common interests. Period

    FTFY

    But most of us, despite not being friends, are better off if there is less totalitarianism and more openness.

  105. Its selfishness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's your "Guns, Jobs, "freedom" comment, it shows how seriously your priorities are screwed up.

    I bet you didn't join the military, so the wars didn't effect you,
    You probably aren't heavily invested in the market, so who cares if people lost their life savings.
    Health Insurance, well your young and feel invincible so why should you have to buy health insurance. You have the ER.

    But Oh no the NSA may have a little info on you, time to load up your guns.

    The people who claim that the 2nd amendment is protection from the government have really no platform to stand on as they have done absolutely nothing to stop these trends.

  106. Re:Kind of hard for that given that Snowden betray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only thing saving him is that the current administration: 1) thinks that what his actions are compatible with their own animus towards the US.

    The Obama administration hates the US? Can you honestly believe those lies? It's like people forget to think when they listen to that stuff.

  107. Re:no info leaked on elint or remote neural monito by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    You can read about Tice here.

    There is nothing to what you say. HE clearly was talking about the same programs Snowden has leaked.

    Anyway, having spent some small time studying in the general area yo're talking about, brainwaves etc there's really no chance of this yet, Like, none. It might come to pass but that is even farther off than threats from nanotechnology.

    Sure' they'd love to effectively read minds, even more so from a undetectable and vantage point with a wide view of subjects, as space based satellites would afford. But there's just no way. The signals are way way too weak. No one even knows if specific thoughts correlate to specific detectable electrical activity. No one can even particularly correlate any brain activity with "a thought" which is itself a very slippery eel, even though you think your thoughts are things with clear boundaries and specific content.

    There's so many thing wrong with the idea that you can read thoughts at all. Maybe a general state of agitation or anger maybe from small distance maybe. But controlling people's minds and thoughts and knowing what they're thinking ala MKULTRA forget it; Really. Just forget it. They can't do it, they're not going to be doing it in our lifetimes, the barrier to doing is simply mountains of basic science which yet to be done or even conceived of.

    Just in case you're really worrying about this or worse actually conducting your actions in the real world based on some idea that this is true, know that really, it's just not. Whatever else you have to worry about, both known and unknown to you, you absolutely don't have to worry about this.

    Peace.

  108. Re:no info leaked on elint or remote neural monito by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    LOL "here" shoudl have been the wiki article under his name

  109. "he wanted" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    He wanted to get out of the U.S. reach, and by doing that, he was revealing his identity anyway

    because of false assumptions, mistakes, delusion, and manipulation! HE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE...

    he could have released the info, done the 'right thing' and REMAINED ANONYMOUS...he could have even kept his job probably...the guy who released the Pentagon Papers (which were at this level of scandal) during Vietnam had a 30 year career in the FBI after

    Snowden screwed up, because his worldview is flawed just like many other techie-types & the cognitive dissonance is off the charts...you can see it going back over our exchange and other's responses

    you tacitly admit that but you won't say it plainly but I'm not out to get some conversational catharsis...i don't care

    what I care about is understanding **what is actually happening** which very few people seem to understand

    the USA Today article from my GP and other questions I've raised completely undercuts the Snowden narrative

    its time techies stop projecting their Asperberger's-Inspired devotion to government spying on Snowden and start seeing that Snowden is a dupe, and so are they

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  110. The problem with gathering everything... by Kubla+Kahhhn! · · Score: 1

    ...is that you don't know what you have, and you must hire so many people to deal with it that you have no idea who is looking at what, and you can't even figure out who is stealing what. Madness.

  111. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    If your goal were to live in a free and righteous USA, you'd have to believe that Snowden is not in fact working against it.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  112. There is suspicion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is a suspicion that not all the documents have been leaked to newspapers"

    No there isn't, there is outright knowledge of the fact that there is a shitload more documents.Something like 3% has been released.

  113. Re:no info leaked on elint or remote neural monito by strstr · · Score: 1

    IBM predicted in 2011 that mind reading would be mainstream within 5 years, in the consumers hands. The link is on my website, or Google "IBM 5 in 5 2012". The patent on mind reading is from 1998, and even describes using remote firing devices to stimulate the brain remotely, allowing full remote control. It is already done, computers allow any electrical emission using EEG to be decoded and interpreted. There are even recorded videos from humans of what they see when watching a movie, which is also on my website.

    The physics behind remote mind reading is also sound. I totally know that the NSA has had this since at least the nineties, ever since computers got fast enough to do all the work. They're just kept it totally secret. Period. Anyone who says anything else is a fucking noob, period, with no background or understanding of the issue.

    Go look again noobs: http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    If they can focus a satellite at your brain, or yo yo theyr city, they can do mind reading. The satellites today are 51200 times more powerful than Hubble, dudes, if you apply Moore's law which does apply to optics and integrated sensors and curcuits. A single satellite could potentially monitor hundreds of thousands of people at once, and it's all being used today to secretly tap everybody.

  114. Disclosures Not Yet Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are two:

    1) NSA surveilance based on ARP layer, not on TCP/IP.

    2)US Govt has active physical surveillance throughout the US using US DoD personnel and contractors physically follow "persons of interest."

  115. USB this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fukkin Saved.

  116. US has the best journalist protection by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    anywhere...period.

    First, the 1st Amendment is the world's standard for the free press. Nowhere is it codified more surely.

    our laws say that a journalist cannot be forced to give up a source...the journalist can be called to testify, and if they choose not to, they *can* be incarcerated without trial but only for a period of time.

    If they can wait it out, the law says until the detention is no longer coercive...that means **if they stick to their guns they will be released**

    It usually is a matter of a few months but can be up to a year.

    If a journalist does that, especially with something like the Snowden leaks, ****THEY GET RICH OFF A BOOK DEAL**** and can write their professional ticket.

    When I was in college learning this stuff we all *wanted* to be the guy who goes to prison to protect the source...it's a badge of honor!!!!

    Fucking Glenn Grenwald wouldn't know the first thing about journalism, professionalism, honor, or ***PROTECTING HIS SOURCE***

    It works. Look at Deep Throat and the Pentagon papers. It proves the whole Snowden narrative to be a sham.

    Damnit! and damn you for not knowing this!

    This used to be common knowledge to any High School graduate.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  117. South Africa's government were terrorists by billstewart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Apartheid governments of South Africa had no business calling anybody else terrorists; Mandela was 30 when they took over, and they were far worse than the British colonial government he'd been working against before then.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  118. Very different situations by dbIII · · Score: 0

    the guy who released the Pentagon Papers

    ... was embarrassing Johnson with old material while Nixon was in power after being voted in on a platform that included getting out of Vietnam. The Snowden stuff is more current and is not on something that the current administration has spoken against so would provoke a serious hunt if it wasn't known where it came from.

  119. so what? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    are you saying that the government during the Pentagon Papers was somehow ***LESS INTERESTED IN COVERING ITS ASS***???

    wtf are you talking about? minimizing the influence of the Pentagon Papers? You're just doing debate geometry now...you're just spitballing counter-arguments no matter how valid or realistic.

    the CIA during that time **killed presidents** and **presidential candidates** among other things...you're saying that the military industrial complex didn't give a shit about the Pentagon Papers

    and BTW, the guy who released the Pentagon Papers, and several other examples, are living normal lives right now

    even if your dumb assertions were true it still wouldn't prove my point wrong

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  120. Why is the NSA such a big issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up the history of East Germany and the STASI for your answer. http://www.amazon.com/Stasi-Untold-German-Secret-Police/dp/0813337445

  121. Amnesty is insulting. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Whistleblowers get immunity and awards, not amnesty.

    We have a criminal class ruling the USA. We need to stop dancing around the reality and begin to deal with it. Just because this class has a great PR machine doesn't mean they should get away with conning the US public indefinitely.

    As compartmentalized as the NSA is, SOMEBODY is responsible. Precisely who is, and should be tried for treason nobody seems to want to talk about. I supposed we could start with the entire Congress...

  122. Very very different situations by dbIII · · Score: 1

    are you saying that the government during the Pentagon Papers was somehow ***LESS INTERESTED IN COVERING ITS ASS***???

    Looks a lot like it doesn't it. The known leaker was only subjected to petty harrassment as distinct from planes being diverted etc for Snowden.

    the CIA during that time **killed presidents** and **presidential candidates** among other things.

    It didn't say that in the Pentagon Papers did it? Im sure there would have been a much stronger reaction if it did.


    Why are you bringing the CIA into this anyway? Do you know anything at all about the Pentagon Papers? If you don't why are you bringing them up?

  123. Re:To a self-declared libertarian as yourself, !su by jcr · · Score: 1

    Justice, my ass. The current Ruling Party regime claims that they can hold people without trial indefinitely, kill them without so much as an indictment (let alone a trial and conviction), kill civilians in other countries without a declaration of war, and as Snowden informed us, commit billions of felonies on a routine basis.

    Snowded would have to be as stupid as you are to let the government you worship get their hands on him.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  124. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is value in releasing secrets about Russia and China, let the NSA release them. Russia and China don't pretend to the "home of the free and the land of the brave" and no one thinks that they are. Would you be shocked to learn of a porn star who had sex with women other than his wife? Russian and Chinese spying is no secret.

  125. Never mind that they both target the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'd be quite harmful to China and Russia if there was information released about their espionage activities, especially China's Huawei.

  126. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Except for the part where he's sided with countries hostile with the US and given them (amongst other parties) that stand to gain from his betrayal of the US and all of its citizens.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  127. Re:Then start by rounding up the journalists with by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    When did he do this? Feel free to actually back a statement like that up with facts? If you mean Russia, there's no data to suggest he's sided with them at all.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)