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."

41 of 383 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    4. 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!

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
  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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  3. 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.
  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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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."

  12. 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"
  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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!
  16. Don't worry NSA by HalAtWork · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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!
  20. 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.

  21. 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...
  22. 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.

  23. 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*
  24. 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.
  25. 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.