Slashdot Mirror


Did Russia Trick Snowden Into Going To Moscow?

An anonymous reader writes "Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko says that spies from Russia's SVR intelligence service, posing as diplomats in Hong Kong, convinced Snowden to fly to Moscow last June. 'It was a trick and he fell for it,' Karpichko, who reached the rank of Major as a member of the KGB's prestigious Second Directorate while specializing in counter-intelligence, told Nelson. 'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'"

346 comments

  1. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

    His statement conflicts with Snowdwn's statement in his last interview.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... yea, so Snowden still doesn't know he was tricked?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously one of them is incorrect.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to Snowden, he destroyed all the files once he successfully handed them off to Greenwald. In which case, there's no intelligence to steal except his personal knowledge.

      Lest you think he didn't destroy them properly enough, he apparently gave lessons to other intelligence officials on counter measures. So he would be well versed in how to secure and destroy data.

      Granted, maybe Snowden is lying. But we have no evidence of his lying. Everything he has said so far has been either corroborated by the government or met with silence. And in some cases, both; for example, he always said that he used proper whistleblowing channels, and the government said they had no knowledge of this. Then more recently the government corroborated one of the instances he claims. I think it's fair to say that the government is either not telling us what it knows, or is just incompetent.

    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he always said that he used proper whistleblowing channels, and the government said they had no knowledge of this.

      And yet, with all the millions of documents he stole, he cannot provide any evidence of this beyond "trust me." I also don't know why you blindly take him at his word. Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance, and the fact that he's sold out US foreign intel to the point where he was trying to barter it for personal gain (political asylum), he has a strong need to spin his facts and sell his view to keep from looking like a traitor.

    6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... yea, so Snowden still doesn't know he was tricked?

      Considering he's held in Russia, the results of implicating Russians in any way probably wouldn't be too smart. If he was tricked, and if he has figured that out, he's probably smart enough not to attack his "hosts".

      Cuz when you're a fly that wants to live, it ain't smart to piss off the spider that has you all trussed up in its web.

    7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... he lied on his resume, lied on his background check disclosure, and lied when he accepted a clearance that required him to keep classified documents classified. This is common knowledge, and not something that he has ever, once, denied. It is, in fact, what this whole thing is about. If you need citations of this data at this point in the narrative, then you quite obviously haven't been paying attention.

    8. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He gave up a 200k job in Hawaii and left the country of his birth forever for his personal convictions. I don't think self preservation and comfort are his top concerns.

    9. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I think it's fair to say that the government is either not telling us what it knows, or is just incompetent.

      I dont believe those to be mutually exclusive

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      the feds have come out and said they found an email verifying his claim (they say they ONLY found 1, but they still verified that he did in fact try)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Of course he can't produce evidence because he isn't stupid and doesn't carry any.

      Not everyone is as stupid as when the government says "Trust me".

      Then again, let me know how that's working out for you so far.

    12. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, mostly because pretty much everything he has announced has been admitted to be true. I don't think I've seen any stories with Snowden-released information where it was disproven, although I could be wrong on that.

      On the other hand, the US (and other Governments) eventually admitted that he was telling the truth about the releases.

      Given two stories from two entities, one which is a proven liar and one which is not, which would you be more likely to trust?

    13. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance

      The oath he took was to "protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

      He's committed many crimes, but breaking that oath does not appear to be one of them.

    14. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by jeIlomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, with all the millions of documents he stole

      Copied.

      he cannot provide any evidence of this beyond "trust me."

      Why do you think it is reasonable to expect that people have perfect foresight? He was in a dangerous situation, and not all of the instances where he might have tried to report the problems were necessarily recorded or accessible to him.

      I also don't know why you blindly take him at his word.

      Who really believes that corrupt government scumbags would care about this, especially when they're the ones who did this to begin with, and many of them still support it?

      And for what it's worth, I would have preferred he *had not* gone through the 'proper channels'. The People have a right to know when the government is violating the highest law of the land or people's liberties; not only do they have a right to know, but they should be the *first* to know. By going through the 'proper channels', you risk getting taken out of a position where leaking the information is possible, and then the whole issue would be swept under a rug.

      Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance

      He had a duty to report the violations of the constitution and people's liberties, silly "oaths" be damned.

      he has a strong need to spin his facts and sell his view to keep from looking like a traitor.

      You mean like the government? And you realize this is just a silly opinion piece, right?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 1

      Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance,

      Like the one to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Seems to me he kept that oath, at great personal risk and loss.

    16. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect, they released one email in which he asked a legal question about the precedence of laws vs executive orders. In the email, he did not raise any concerns about any programs. It did not verify his story.

    17. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by torsmo · · Score: 1

      he was willing to break the oaths he took

      I can't say whether Snowden did indeed do the above. He may have. But what about all these functionaries in the government who took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. constitution and have been willingly breaking them?

    18. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Feds said they found an email where he asked a question to clarify a point in some training material regarding the ability of Executive Orders to override statues (the way the material was present implied the two were equal but did not say that). At no point in that email did he bring up anything the NSA was doing or state any objection to NSA actions, and the answer he got said Executive Orders cannot override statutes. If you want to interpret asking a question about how a sentence is phrased as Snowden stating an objection to the NSA's actions, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion, though my interpretation would be different.

      As others have said though, Snowden claims to have complained/objected multiple times, yet so far the only thing that has come out is the one document you reference, and that was released by the NSA, not Snowden, and it isn't an objection to NSA's activities. Did Snowden really fail to keep any copies of the documents that would obviously be needed to help him defend his claims about his actions, or does he have copies of whatever he did and for some reason is choosing not to release them despite making claims about them during interviews (this would imply something about them to me, but that would be speculation, though that doesn't seem to stop most on Slashdot)?

      Personally, I think part of Snowden feels his actions were justified, but I also feel the way he did it has caused a lot more harm to legitimate interests than he, or his supporters, want to admit. This of course presumes that one believes there is ever a reason to conduct surveillance against enemies and potential enemies in the world we live in - hint, think about the consequence of being the only one who doesn't perform such surveillance, and I mean in the world we have, not the one you want to think should exist.

    19. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what oath did he break? Because broken oath for broken oath, compared to the people he exposed, he's cleaner than Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

    20. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Uh... he lied on his resume, lied on his background check disclosure, and lied when he accepted a clearance that required him to keep classified documents classified.

      Yeah, because every applicant the NSA receives is 100% honest. In fact, I'd assume most that were THAT honest would never be hired. One would also have to assume he successfully beat a polygraph as that's a typical requirement these days.

      I'm sure he would have clearly got the job and we would have found this information out had he been completely honest. The NSA are a bunch of traitors and their corporate lapdogs in the US telecom industry deserve everything they are getting for essentially whoring themselves out as NSA thugs. Personally, I'd trust just about ANY individual before I trust a damn thing the NSA says.

    21. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he does. But he needs to return to the U.S. now when he will probably be feted at the WH for being a true American hero and then let out to live his life.

    22. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote incompetent. Although, I also think we have a huge chunk of our current government which is truly anti-American and can finally use their positions/powers to bring us down.

    23. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Everything he has said so far has been either corroborated by the government or met with silence.

      That's patently incorrect.

      Snowden claims to have raised concerns about the NSA programs, and the administration has patently denied this:

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...

      Recently, Snowden claimed that he was a field agent. The administration has denied this, in no uncertain terms.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Granted, maybe Snowden is lying. But we have no evidence of his lying.

      We don't have proof he is lying, nor proof he is telling the truth, just his making an extraordinary claim about actions he claims to have done that if any reasonable person were to plan, would also make sure they documented so they could later prove it. So far we have not seen any such proof. The suspicion of lying by Snowden is predicated upon (1) that he would have great motivation to give such lies if what he were saying was not true given his current situation, and (2) that given his current position and claims he would almost certainly have presented evidence to support it if he had it, yet he has not. This doesn't prove he is lying, but in criminal law it is what is called strong circumstantial evidence.

    25. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Recently, Snowden claimed that he was a field agent. The administration has denied this, in no uncertain terms.

      Of course he wasn't a field agent. One doesn't send someone with admin passwords into the field...

      Now, whether he was TRAINED to be a field agent before they decided he was more useful as a systems guy is debatable. And as I recall, he didn't say he'd been a field agent, merely that he was trained as one.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by evilviper · · Score: 1

      And as I recall, he didn't say he'd been a field agent

      "Field agent" is overstating it, I should have simply said "spy", but otherwise, you remember quite incorrectly:

      "I've worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, undercover, overseas." ... "being assigned a name that was not mine"

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by khallow · · Score: 1

      And yet, with all the millions of documents he stole, he cannot provide any evidence of this beyond "trust me."

      And how would he go about proving that? The burden of proof is on the US government and they deep-sixed that evidence.

    28. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden is a liar... Dishonest. He broke his oath. He tricked his coworkers. Aided the enemy. He's a Russian spy. A Chinese spy. Useful idiot. Traitor. Put you in danger.

      Do you notice anything about the above narrative? Not once does it actually address any of the issues Snowden raised. Shoot the messenger! He is the problem. What did he say? That's not important.

    29. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      but they still verified that he did in fact try

      No, they found a single email from him to the general council's office, asking about legal issues around a training program. The government hasn't found/verified anything such thing as the fiction you just described.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    30. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by dnavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance

      The oath he took was to "protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

      He's committed many crimes, but breaking that oath does not appear to be one of them.

      Among the things included within the Constitution are rules governing who gets to determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted and who gets to enforce its language. Nowhere within the Constitution does there exist a clause that states any citizen is entitled to substitute their own judgment for the authority delegated by the Constitution. When Snowden or anyone else swears to protect and defend the Constitution, they do not specifically swear to defend a couple of clauses within the bill of rights, but the entire Constitution. When Snowden first disclosed himself in his very first published interview he stated he did not know if the intelligence programs he was disclosing were strictly speaking illegal, since they had been authorized by the office of the president in some cases and authorized by legislation in other cases. What he said was that he felt he needed to start a dialog about them. And while he was basically correct in that its obvious the majority of the American people want that dialog, there exists no Constitutional authority or right by which Snowden started that conversation.

      However else you justify Snowden's actions, they were extra-Constitutional in nature. Its something to consider when considering that the primary power the Constitution provides to its citizens to remedy situations like this is basically the vote. We live in a Constitutional republic, not a Constitutional democracy, and our primary power as citizens is we can change the makeup of our representation within that republic. If We The People don't think that works anymore, its not the Constitution that needs saving, its the Constitution itself that is intrinsically broken. It did not anticipate a day when the people would be incapable of choosing a government capable of representing its own interests.

    31. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both are proven liars.

    32. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a government contractor, he took no such oath. Contractors' sole sworn duty is to abide by the three lifetime obligations, one of which is not to divulge classified information. Only government employees - civilian and military - take the oath to protect the constitution.

    33. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, the 'just following orders' defence. It's been a few minutes since we heard that one.

    34. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm pretty sure they agree to defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't think there is an exemption for government officials who have overstepped their power.

      Being authorised by the office of the president, or legislation makes no difference if the law is counter to the constitution. Eventually when it comes before a court it will be declared unconstitutional (assuming the judges are not corrupt, but that's a whole other problem) and retroactively will cease to exist.

      The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

      So you think the constitution is intrinsically broken, but you still want to follow all the things that are set up by that constitution. You still place the broken government of the day, above the broken constitution. Either way, shining a light on the whole mess is the best way to start fixing whatever it is that's broken.

      I dnavid, hereby declare on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic (except when I'm just following orders, even if I know those orders are wrong and are counter to the constitution I'm swearing to protect).

    35. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by gargleblast · · Score: 2

      That is incorrect, they released one email in which he asked a legal question about the precedence of laws vs executive orders. In the email, he did not raise any concerns about any programs. It did not verify his story.

      You won't get better confirming evidence from the NSA. This is how they roll.

    36. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was completely honest on my TS-SCI application, and I've never had to take a polygraph. In fact, judging by an impromptu poll just now, nobody in my division has ever had to take a polygraph. You don't seem to really know what you're talking about.

      And, for the record, it's much better to be honest about your pot smoking days as an Anon hacktivist than to lie about it and have them discover the truth. Firstly, that can land you in jail, but also important is that everyone -- everyone -- has some dirt, somewhere. If you're upfront about it, the whole process is easy as pie.

    37. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by dnavid · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they agree to defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't think there is an exemption for government officials who have overstepped their power.

      That's true, but as I mentioned previously: a) Snowden initially claimed he did not know if "government officials" were actually violating the Constitution and b) if everyone was allowed to make that determination on their own there would be no need for a judiciary. Defending the Constitution includes defending Article 3, which vests the power of adjudicating Constitutionality with the US Supreme Court and its lower Federal Courts.

      Legality is decided based on due process according to the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution and claim to defend it, then you believe due process is the best and only way to decide legality in our country. If you believe due process doesn't work, or decide you're the exception to due process, you aren't defending the Constitution against all its enemies, because you're one of them.

      I dnavid, hereby declare on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic (except when I'm just following orders, even if I know those orders are wrong and are counter to the constitution I'm swearing to protect).

      It would be a somewhat different situation if Snowden actually stated "I'm absolutely certain that the instructions I've been given are unconstitutional acts that I'm legally obligated to ignore." That's not what he stated. He originally stated he wanted to "start a dialog" about the surveillance programs he witnessed, and did not know if their basis was constitutionally legal. "I declare under oath that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic unless I want to start a dialog about them" is not a valid conscientious objection.

      This is not a question of whether Snowden was "right" or "wrong" but whether his actions were Constitutionally legal. I cannot see any reasonable argument that says they were. There are a lot of reasons why the mass surveillance programs were undesirable, but undesirable is not the same thing as unconstitutional. If they are eventually determined to be unconstitutional I would say that's a strong mitigating circumstance surrounding Snowden's actions. But until such a ruling is made, unconstitutionality isn't decided by opinion poll.

      I don't consider this a hypothetical situation either. I think a large percentage of IT professionals find themselves in situations legally analogous (if far smaller in scope) to Snowden: IT professionals are exposed to a lot of information about a lot of people, and are bound by various civil and legal restrictions governing the use and disclosure of that information. It is sometimes the case there is no appropriate legal action: you have to decide based on your own conscience what is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes you have to voluntarily break the law to avoid an unacceptable consequence. But I think nothing is gained by lying about it or wrapping it in euphemisms. Civil rights leaders were not "defending the Constitution" when they staged acts of civil disobedience. They decided to violate the law to serve what they felt was a higher purpose. There's no shame in admitting you believe the Constitution and the laws derived from it are inadequate, and the people need to be marshalled to improve it, and you're willing to break some laws to a point to achieve that goal. In fact, I think its important to acknowledge that fact, to underscore the seriousness of those actions. We respect people like civil rights leaders because they felt their cause was important enough to become essentially criminals to further its cause. I would probably have more respect for Snowden if he simply stated that he felt the mass surveillance programs were so abhorrent to him that he f

    38. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Legality is decided based on due process according to the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution and claim to defend it, then you believe due process is the best and only way to decide legality in our country

      This is not a question of whether Snowden was "right" or "wrong" but whether his actions were Constitutionally legal. I cannot see any reasonable argument that says they were.

      Snowden is yet to have his day in court, so by what you have said anything he does is constitutional because it hasn't been proved otherwise. When he has his day in court, that same court can then declare all the other things unconstitutional.

      You can't have your cake and eat it too, if it's obvious what Snowden did was counter to the constitution then it's just as obvious (I'd say even more-so) what the NSA did is counter also.

      Though I do basically agree with most of what you said.

    39. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      he cannot provide any evidence of this beyond "trust me."

      Because in 2007 I watched with my own eyes NSA guys hooking up harvesting nodes to ATT email system.
      Trust the government??? You've got to be kidding I'm Cherokee.

      You can trust your government ask any Indian...

      The dudes a hero in my book.

  2. Well that makes no sense by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Didn't he release all of his information? What more use would be interrogating him?

    I see some possibilities here:

    1. He did not actually release everything he had.
    2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Well that makes no sense by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      systeminfo and logininfo, even if most likely all logininfo is invalid, how system works and are connected to other system/internet is quite valuable to know

    2. Re:Well that makes no sense by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      There's probably a significant amount of internal operational knowledge that Snowden has which isn't in the documents he has released, as well as knowledge of other employees, seniors etc which would be interesting to foreign intelligence agencies for various reasons.

      Think of it as the operational equivalent of traffic analysis - you can gain some insights into the NSA while not having any access to information about projects etc.

    3. Re:Well that makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no he didn't release all of his information, he has stated so himself.

    4. Re:Well that makes no sense by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would Russia release this information?

      It's not "Russia" but a US resident who used to work in USSR intelligence, so it's a guess that needs to be taken with a bucketful of salt. It may be true in a stopped clock being right twice a day way but it's an opinion shouldn't be trusted without hearing from another source a bit closer to the action who may be able to offer something other than an opinion.

    5. Re:Well that makes no sense by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      He lives in the UK and is a stooge of the UK version of the NSA.

    6. Re:Well that makes no sense by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't he release all of his information? What more use would be interrogating him?

      I see some possibilities here:

      1. He did not actually release everything he had.
      2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?

      He did not.
      Snowden released ALL of the data to 2 reporters and a documentary film maker.
      He was caught in a catch 22. If he did not release all of the data, the government could argue he was trying to manipulate the government by only release bits and pieces. At the same time, if he released all of it as Manning did, it could put some people in danger. He's always argued that he did not want to harm the US's legitimate interests.

      So he picked journalists that he thought were responsible and he thought he could trust, gave them all of the data and relied on them to keep it safe and only release data that would further his transparency goals. This is also why he didn't approach the NewYork Times. They'd already agreed to hide information they had on government programs with the Whitehouse. Snowden knew this, and didn't trust them because of it. Their complicity lost them the biggest story in the history of the world.

    7. Re:Well that makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lost them the biggest story in the history of the world"
      No, make that the entire universe, no, no, the multiverse, or something even bigger.

    8. Re:Well that makes no sense by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I see some possibilities here:

      1. He did not actually release everything he had.
      2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?

      I see 1 possibility and 2 questions.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Well that makes no sense by fuzzywig · · Score: 2
      "2. Why would Russia release this information? What do they have to gain from saying this?"

      This guy isn't in Russia any more, he defected, so this is either disinformation from someone in the US/UK security apparatus, disinformation from the FSB just to screw with everyone, or possibly he just likes to see his name in the papers and has made it all up.
      Either way it smells like propaganda of some form.

  3. "The Russians are extracting all the intelligence" by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Americans had any intelligence and sincerity, Snowden would not have had any reason to flee in the first place.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  4. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's incriminate wnowden even more, shall we? A supposedly reputable source does not equate to fact.

    1. Re:Nope. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      So you shouldn't be protected.
      I'll drink to that.

  5. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is there any evidence at all that he had contact with Russia prior to ending up there? As far as I know, there isn't.

  6. Plot Twist by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's where the plot twist falls into play: Snowden is still working for the NSA but is feeding Russia misinformation. It's all a very elaborate scheme to trick our old adversaries. While the price to pull it off was high with releasing top secret information, it wasn't exactly anything that everyone didn't know or think was happening.

    1. Re:Plot Twist by Exitar · · Score: 1

      Even better:
      Snowden isn't working for the NSA, but the NSA let him get wrong informations and managed to have him flee to Russia to feed them misinformation.

    2. Re:Plot Twist by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      What kind of intelligence agency traps an agent in Moscow?

      It is possible Snowden is working for the CIA. Either the American's are really dumb, trapping him in Moscow, or they are smart and deliberate.

    3. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      with releasing top secret information

      Decade-old top secret information, at that. The "oh noes tor is bad" presentation was from something like '06. Since then the US has become the omnipresent network watcher that tor's developers warned about thanks to PRISM. You can bet that every packet on tor is logged and traced from its source to its destination and back.

    4. Re:Plot Twist by dcmcilrath · · Score: 2

      Hold on! I have M. Night Shyamalan on the phone, he thinks we can get Daniel Craig to play Snowden, and Will Smith to play Obama. With some luck we can get the extremely Russian Sean Connery to play Vladimir Putin.

      --
      -1 Comment Contains Portal Reference
    5. Re:Plot Twist by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      Actually Russian agents within the NSA are leaking real information through what the rest of the NSA believes is false information ans Snowden is involved in this operation playing along with the game, letting the NSA believe the intended plan was to defecting to Russia and feed the Russians false information...

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    6. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for Yakov Smirnoff to play Putin.

    7. Re:Plot Twist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually Russian agents within the NSA are leaking real information through what the rest of the NSA believes is false information ans Snowden is involved in this operation playing along with the game, letting the NSA believe the intended plan was to defecting to Russia and feed the Russians false information...

      Yes, they were (indirectly, of course) placed there by American operatives who have infiltrated the highest levels of Russian government.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Plot Twist by dbIII · · Score: 2

      He made a fool of powerful "Horse Judges" promoted seven levels above their competence where they were caught out doing "a heck of a job", so he's been trapped in Moscow out of spite.

    9. Re:Plot Twist by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

    10. Re:Plot Twist by mbone · · Score: 1

      I have long thought that Snowden represents a surface manifestation of a fight within the "organs of state security" about the path things were taking, pre-Snowden. In this hypothesis, he is either a brave representative of or a fall-guy for those inside the complex who want constitutional controls and norms re-instituted. Otherwise, it is hard to see how he could have gotten so much material (and known what to look for inside that mass of material).

      There is an aspect here not many seem to be picking up on. Originally, Snowden was a lowly sys-admin who just happen to have access to some big unencrypted file archive inside the NSA. OK, it is hard to see how all sorts of classified need-to-know material would be stored in a big mass like that, but it is just plausible, as a stupid mistake. Now, however, he claims to be a spy, flat out, trained for deep cover and all that. Do we have so many undercover agents, and so few sys admins, that the spies have to moonlight as computer geeks? I doubt that, so the cover he built to explain how he got so many documents is just not realistic. On the other hand, if, as I suspect, he was just handed the material by some NSA analogue of Admiral Canaris, it doesn't matter what he did on the job, just what he was willing to do once he left it.

    11. Re:Plot Twist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Or, Snowden is terminally ill and he and the CIA used this opportunity for a heroic, self-sacrificing act of doubleagentism.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't some kind of "Bond, JAMES Bond" sort of spy.

      When I graduated school, one of the possibilities was Fort Meade.

      They said that I would be trained by the NSA, given a job with IBM or GE, and would be stationed in another nation, maintaining spook stuff. Sounded pretty cool, to this young geek.

      I wasn't too thrilled about cleaning toilets for six months before getting my clearance, so I never followed up.

    13. Re:Plot Twist by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gotta be said at this point:

      Yo, Dawg! I heard you like [REDACTED], so I [REDACTED] in your [REDACTED] so you can [REDACTED] while you [REDACTED]!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Plot Twist by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      10 points for the most creative fill-in-the-blanks-for-10-points :)

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    15. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta be said at this point:

      Yo, Dawg! I heard you like [REDACTED], so I [REDACTED] in your [REDACTED] so you can [REDACTED] while you [REDACTED]!

      Sweet! I love NSAd-Libs!

    16. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, only because Tim Conway is dead.

    17. Re:Plot Twist by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no NSA, it's a smoke screen for an agency you don't know exists.

    18. Re:Plot Twist by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      If we're open like that. Capitalism is a Russian invention to bring down Western civilisation. With the collapse of Goldman Sachs they were ALMOST there.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    19. Re:Plot Twist by HiThere · · Score: 2

      In the first place he wasn't trapped in Russia by an intelligence agency. That was a piece of political grandstanding, and as stupid as such usually is.

      In the second place, the actions of the US govt. have more commonly been seen to be stupid than brilliant. This doesn't mean that the actions are more commonly stupid, but merely the actions that one hears about. But this is one we heard about, so I opt for stupid. (Besides, stupid is consistent with the other indications.)

      That said, if I were a Russian intelligence agency, I'd certainly be concerned that it was an intentionally misleading plot. Not because that's a high probability, but because the cost of missing that happening would possibly be quite high.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Plot Twist by tomhath · · Score: 1

      With the collapse of Goldman Sachs they were ALMOST there

      Not even close. Goldman Sachs was a front for AT&T that was no longer needed.

    21. Re:Plot Twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or this. Snowden has always been working for the NSA. His mission is to spread misinformation about how well the NSA is doing their job. Maybe in reality, hundreds of billions of dollars went to contractors and they essentially have nothing to show for it?

    22. Re:Plot Twist by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

      If they wanted a plant in Russia, you'd think they'd have done at least as awful a job as they tried with Oswald. This whole fiasco would, against all probability, make for an even *less* convincing cover...

  7. Propaganda by watermark · · Score: 2

    Just more propaganda and doubt to bring into the mix

    1. Re:Propaganda by gnupun · · Score: 1

      They (the propagandists) are trying to shift the blame from Snowden to Russia.

    2. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Eric Holden called in a favor

  8. More speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More speculation from people who have no fucking clue of what is actually going on...

  9. Sorta plausible by sasparillascott · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only fly in the ointment of this possiblity, is that it was the Obama Administration that suspended Snowden's passport on his flight to South America that connected through Moscow (while in flight from Hong Kong to Moscow), stranding him in Russia (obviously with intent to politically smear him - which has worked with alot of not informed people).

    The shortsighted political decisions of the Obama Administration to do this (locking someone like Snowden in the home of the former KGB) for political gain seems like one of the premier examples of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Obviously the Obama Administration made the political calculation (up at the executive level) that it was worth stranding someone with all his knowledge there. Seems ridiculously shortsighted.

    1. Re:Sorta plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is the report, though, that the State Department suspended the passport before the flight and was surprised that Snowden was still able to fly out of Hong Kong. The Russians may have made his flight happen, valid passport or not.

    2. Re:Sorta plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Russians may have made his flight happen, valid passport or not.

      My understanding is that passports aren't checked very rigorously on departure, only on arrival. We saw that with the missing indonesian plane and the early reports about two asylum-seekers boarding with known stolen passports.

      I think the most probable explanation is inertia in the system - it wasn't designed for "real-time" flow-control, so cancelling a passport takes a while to filter through all the different systems.

    3. Re:Sorta plausible by cultiv8 · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, it's not plausible, this is another example of the US gov't trying to discredit Snowden. Here are some facts:

      Based on the limited google search I did, and this article sums nicely, it seems more like Russia was monitoring Snowden as early as 2007 and then this Boris guy made some pretty outlandish claims about the monitoring.

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    4. Re:Sorta plausible by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

      This one is easy to fix though - if the White House doesn't want him in Russia (home of the KGB), just "un" suspend his passport so he can move on to a "safer" (for extraction of secrets) 3rd party territory, which is what he was originally trying to do.

    5. Re:Sorta plausible by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Snowden has already stated that he didn't take any intelligence to Russia. He had passed it all on and was no longer in possession of it by the time he left Hong Kong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Sorta plausible by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I think he was able to leave China because they didn't want him. They presumably had already extracted whatever information they could (if there was any). At that point he was just a liability. They didn't want to "cooperate" with the US, but at the same time didn't see any advantage in creating an incident. They had not reason not to let him go.

      Russia presumably did want him in the hopes (true or not) that he had useful intelligence information with him. They probably decided that he made a useful political playing chip as well.

      The US bungled this really badly. By to aggressively trying to retrieve Snowdon they made it clear that his allegations were largely true and attracted a huge amount of media attention. Something along the lines of "A low level NSA employee has defected to Russia. We can't comment on whether or not he had any sensitive information. He had been showing signs or stress recently. We are negotiating with the Russians for his return", followed by the traditional "no comment" on any of the issues Snowdon raised would probably have worked a lot better.

      Of course even better would to not have had the NSA act in a way that if caught would do substantial damage to US interests .

    7. Re:Sorta plausible by Microlith · · Score: 1

      No offense, and I guess this goes to the rest of Slashdot, but if you're going to link to an article and it's from the Daily Mail or (worse) Free Republic, find a second source for it and link that instead. Neither the Daily Fail nor Free Republic carry any credibly as they write things explicitly to enrage and inflame their readership.

    8. Re:Sorta plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only fly in the ointment of this possiblity, is that it was the Obama Administration that suspended Snowden's passport on his flight to South America that connected through Moscow (while in flight from Hong Kong to Moscow), stranding him in Russia (obviously with intent to politically smear him - which has worked with alot of not informed people).

      The shortsighted political decisions of the Obama Administration to do this (locking someone like Snowden in the home of the former KGB) for political gain seems like one of the premier examples of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Obviously the Obama Administration made the political calculation (up at the executive level) that it was worth stranding someone with all his knowledge there. Seems ridiculously shortsighted.

      Why not fly to South America first before leaking?

  10. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > This now comes down to whether Snowden was a "useful idiot" or was he working for the Russians all along

    If he had been working for them all along he:

    (1) Would have gone directly to Russia
    (2) Would not have given the information to reporters

  11. 3. Bunch of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FTA, this is coming from an Ex-KGB man who "fled" Moscow.

    I'm too lazy to go to my kitchen and create myself a nice tinfoil hat, but I'd throw these possibilities out there:

    - Guy with little current knowledge is looking for fifteen minutes of fame.

    - Guy who "fled" Moscow found an opportunity to increase visibility and thus safety. You generally don't want to polonium up people who are being discussed in the media.

    1. Re:3. Bunch of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      tl;dr KGB defector who happens to be toeing a convenient pro-US government line. Evidence: none.

      Misinformation from an intelligence agent? it's part of the job description.

  12. Breaking News: US Gov. shoots itself in the foot by Joel+Cahoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One more reason why whistle-blowers like Snowden should be protected, rather than demonized. If this is true, then his fear of repercussions is the key factor that allowed Russia this opportunity in the first place. Even if it isn't true, it's a scenario Americans should be concerned about, because it's highly plausible.

  13. Extracting all the intelligence by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'

    Sounds like a good reason to not criminalize whistleblowers. If he had felt safe in the US, he wouldn't have been tricked into going to Moscow.

    1. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?

    2. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, because you should be able to release everything about national defense out to the public and your nation's enemies with no fear of jailtime

    3. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal?

      So what are you insinuating here? That because he released non-ilegal things that Snowden was not a whistle blower? And therefore he should be prosecuted?

      That line of thinking smells a lot like a logical fallacy.

      And anyway, did Snowden release the documents himself, or was it the journalists that he passed them on to?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and against the constitution....

      but that does not matter, because you don't have rights if you are not American

    5. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some of us hoped they still respected the 4th amendment. Nope.

    6. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by fey000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?

      Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government. This can also be seen in that no one has been arrested for what amounts to systematically breaking the constitutional rights of the american citizen.
      Their actions are however highly immoral and reprehensible, which is the reason that Snowden wanted to inform the public. This because he values right over might.

      Does that answer your question?

    8. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal?

      The same line was tried against Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers as well. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

      Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?

      Because he felt the world had a right to now. No different than any other whistleblower.

    9. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by mellon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whistleblowers don't just release things that are illegal. Lots of really evil behavior is "legal". That doesn't mean it's right, or that people will support it when they find out about it. Need I remind you about the FISA Amendments Act of 2008? That made lots of exciting things legal...

    10. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything, cool. Where is the torrent that I can download the nuclear codes from?

    11. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by jeIlomizer · · Score: 2

      He made almost zero attempt to blow the whistle without going public

      And you made almost zero attempt to find out why he went public.

      and did irreparable damage to the US intelligence apparatus.

      As an American, I hope so. The US intelligence apparatus acts in immoral and unconstitutional ways. But I don't think it'll be damaged so easily.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by bsolar · · Score: 2

      Some practices are technically legal, but it doesn't mean they should. In some cases the laws are simply lacking and new ones should be defined (especially true in technology). It might also be that some practices are technically legal through loopholes which allow you to do something legally in the letter of the law even if against the spirit. In other cases the laws are actually made with the required loopholes, a blatant example defining some practices which are clearly torture as not being torture to be able to "legally" employ them.

    13. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you as a citizen agree that it was in national interest? because i didnt agree to agencies conducting economic spying on other countries nor do i agree that it is in "national interest"

      in the information age trust is the new currency and we just gave away all of it for something that never should have happened in the first place

      please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

    14. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?

      If the NSA is a "government organization bound by law", why did they spy on Americans in direct contradiction to the US Constitution? Why did they go to such great lengths to hide their activities from the US population, lie to Congress, and in general direct their focus on the exact group they have the least reason to focus on?

      Right, perhaps just because the NSA does some good things doesn't mean it isn't doing a lot of bad things. And given that no one in the NSA is going to be punished for all their clear malfeasance, which is of a much higher magnitude than anything Snowden did--espionage isn't even a spelled out consideration* in the US Constitution while warrantless spy is and honestly the act of spying on people is much worse than informing people who otherwise shouldn't know the how, what, and when of being spied on--, over some apparent "pragmatic" reasoning, it'd seem that an equally "pragmatic" view should seek to not punish "whistleblower[s]"** when it could lead to information leaking that could compromise future spying operations.

      Really, given how any idea of justice or right and wrong have gone out the window long ago when it comes to the US's international actions*** and has all boiled down to some pragmatic "everyone else does it and it's not spelled out as illegal in the Constitution", trying to look more deeply into the motives, actions, etc of one person who did engage in whistleblowing at some level to sidestep the pragmatic implications of threats against revealing malfeasance of the sort demonstrated is laughable at best. All your statement has any merit to is a debate on how much of a real hero Snowden is. Well, yea, Snowden like most other figures in history is much less of a clean-cut hero than generally lauded.

      *It's rather hard to call what Snowden did as Treason given that a large part of what Snowden did was spell out what the NSA was doing to allies, not enemies. One could argue that they may turn out to be potential enemies in the future and there's a real need for precautionary intelligence, but that argument falls flat when you consider how much real military hardware we sell to allies or even not-enemies-right-now-but-likely-to-be-in-a-few-years with some of those purchases subsidies by US aid. Really, in a physical sense the US government has engaged in much more figurative treason than anyone.

      **Two wrongs don't make a right, but then we're talking about the pragmatic point of what to do. If we gave a fuck about right and wrong, the NSA would have been already had many key figures arrested already, Bush and Obama would already be in jail for malfeasance, plenty of the last dozen administrations would be in jail for malfeasance, racketeering, etc.

      ***Not to mention the US's treatment of corporations which is established on the idea that to disrupt a corporation by actually jailing a guilty CEO would be so catastrophic to the economy that it's virtually unthinkable and only monetary payouts are an acceptable punishment. The same mentality seems to pervade the US government as well, although there a payout would be pointless--the government to itself with a budget deficit caused by such a thing being papered over with a larger budget to compensate next term. But once you get down to "the little PERSON", well, you can literally jail a PERSON and it becomes clearly sensical to speak of a PERSON in terms of motive, action, etc. So, ignoring that Gen. Alexander is a PERSON or that he set himself as responsible for and accountable for what the NSA does regardless of whether he personally approved every action when it's clear he did personally approve the general scope of those actions...

      PS - Yes, all this does seem to be focused on deflecting upon addressing Snowden's poten

    15. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's in that for the business of government? If they want to keep expanding indefinitely, they need more crises to justify their agenda, not less. "Everything is just dandy" isn't exactly a justification for more power and revenue.

    16. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      "That because he released non-ilegal things that Snowden was not a whistle blower? And therefore he should be prosecuted?"

      Well ya, that could certainly be argued. When you get a security clearance it is made very clear to you that it is illegal for you to release classified information, under penalty of law. You sign plenty of documents to that effect and so on. So if you do, you should be prosecuted because you broke the law.

      Now, the twist in that comes from if you revealed the government was involved in something it shouldn't be. That is what it means to be a "whisteblower" you are "blowing the whistle" on an illegal activity (as a referee blows their whistle on an illegal play in sports). Most people would say in that case you deserve protection from prosecution, because while you agreed to keep information a secret, that is different than keeping information of a crime secret.

      Hence why someone can argue that the leaks of information about foreign spying aren't whistleblowing. I mean that is why America has the NSA, CIA, NRO, and so on: To spy on other nations. That is their express purpose and if they aren't doing that, there is little reason to keep them around. So revealing classified details about that isn't whistleblowing, at least not by a normal definition of the term.

      Also trying to argue semantics about the journalists releasing information is silly. After all, Snowden is the one who originally got his hands on it, and chose what to give to the journalists. He maintains some responsibility for what they choose to release. If there was things he didn't want out, he shouldn't have given that information over. You can't hand information over to someone, with the intent of them releasing it, and then later say "Well but I didn't want them to release THAT!"

      So the grandparent is being quite logical. I'm not saying you have to agree with them, but the point they make is valid.

    17. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal?

      So what are you insinuating here? That because he released non-ilegal things that Snowden was not a whistle blower? And therefore he should be prosecuted?

      That line of thinking smells a lot like a logical fallacy.

      And anyway, did Snowden release the documents himself, or was it the journalists that he passed them on to?

      I'll jump in:

      GP thinks Snowden is a legiimate whistleblower who also released properly-classified information on international espionage activities the NSA is meant to perform.

    18. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the NSA shouldn't be spying on foreign governments, and actively develop the ability to do so?

    19. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden obtained classified data X. Classified data Y, a subset of classified data X, is pertinent to accusations of illegal activity, and making it public in light of ineffective or nonexistent oversight should be protected. Classified data X, a superset of classified data Y, contains information unrelated to said illegal activity, and making it public in any fashion should not be protected in any way. Classified data X has been made public as a direct result of Snowden obtaining classified data X. Snowden, therefore, is responsible for publicizing classified data X; his actions should not be protected, even though classified data X contains classified data Y, the independent publication of which should be protected.

      Perhaps if you weren't using your olfactory senses to detect logical fallacies, you would have more success at doing so.

    20. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      if your government does things that are illegal under its own laws, yes. There are limits to "national security", too.

      Just yesterday I saw the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" again (good one if you ever get a chance to watch it). It shows very well how "normal", honest, just and generally morally integer people, judges, can become accomplices of an unjust, horrible, inhuman regime. All it takes is thinking it was for the "national security", for the "greater good", for the "defense of the nation", and that it will just be a passing moment, that eventually these things will return to normality once the threat has been eliminated, once the enemy is vanquished.

      The enemy is inside the system. You cannot win that war. You cannot even fight it sensibly. A system built on fear demands more and more power to survive. Power over everything. Its enemies, its subjects, eventually even its proponents. In the end, fear is all that is left. And the only cure for fear is more power, more control, more rigid structures that give you the illusion of stability, in an attempt to compensate this fear, ignoring that the fear of the unknown cannot be cured by avoiding it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government.

      Using your example, the government are within their rights to publicly execute you and constitution be damned.

      Okay, since you're fine with this, you will be the first for the FEMA detainment camps.

    22. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh no. parts of the government can, actually, do things that are illegal. that's why there's something called impeachment.

    23. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by schlachter · · Score: 1

      'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'

      Soon he will be without any intelligence!!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    24. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by mpercy · · Score: 2

      No, that the illegal things he exposed make him a sort of whistleblower--going to the press first instead of the authorized channels was not cool, but that we might be willing to overlook for the good that came.

      But the removing copies of thousands of classified documents regarding legal NSA operations (like tracking Taliban) and giving those to the press and foreign governments means he committed espionage and having knowingly violated many US laws regarding classified information. For that he should be prosecuted, especially since it seems that he entered his position specifically to get access to those documents.

      If a guy saves your cat from a tree but then rapes your daughter, you don't give him a pass because of the good thing he did.

    25. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The point is that though he was a whistle blower for certain illegal behavior by the NSA he engaged in the release of classified legal programs and methods as well.

      Whistle blower status from one does not convey to the other. He was a Hero for revealing the illegal domestic surveillance and outing Clapper as a liar but he's a criminal for revealing the legitimate espionage and methods.

    26. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Sure, and they can and do, once they follow "due process" it's Constitutional. Who gets to decide what is due process? The government (the courts).

    27. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government.

      Because when the President (or Executive branch) does it, that means it is not illegal.

      Right?

      Protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    28. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      MOST of what the NSA does is illegal SOMEWHERE. Violating the laws of other nations still makes you a criminal organization.

    29. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone believes that disregarding people's inalienable rights just because they're foreigners is a moral or legitimate cause.

    30. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by jeIlomizer · · Score: 1

      He's not a traitor to Americans or the principles this country ("the land of the free and the home of the brave") is supposed to aspire to. The government, however, is full of traitors to those principles.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are you insinuating here? That because he released non-ilegal things that Snowden was not a whistle blower? And therefore he should be prosecuted?

      How about, "Snowden was a whiny Millennial douchebag who got fired, so he became a contractor and stole secrets at the first opportunity out of spite?"

    32. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government.

      That's not the way the US Constitution works. It is possible for our government to do illegal things. And sometimes people even get punished for it.

    33. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't go to the press first. He tried using official channels. That he didn't was an NSA lie - they're now claiming he did, but not enough. Some people just can't stop repeating those lies & smears, though!

    34. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying the NSA shouldn't be spying on foreign governments, and actively develop the ability to do so?

      This wouldn't be a problem if it was limited to only political and/or diplomatic spying but they have been using their network to give economic benefits to US companies, including but not limited to stealing trade secrets.

    35. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this comes down to argumenting semantics on the term "illegal", but if the NSA, being part of the government, performs actions which are against the constitution, my understanding is that those activities are illegal (even if they are supported by an executive order, as these do not legally take priority over the constitution). The NSA being part of the government does not by definition make all their activities legal.

    36. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't.

    37. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That line of thinking smells a lot like a logical fallacy.

      And anyway, did Snowden release the documents himself, or was it the journalists that he passed them on to?

      That question doesn't make any sense. Passing classified documents to anyone without clerence is "releasing" them. SO your question is "Did snowden release the documents or did the reporter he released them to release them?"

    38. Re: Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you violate said laws on their soil, you bet it does. US law is not the only law that matters. Just the only laws that matter to YOU apparently. Refusing to respect the laws of another nation is a direct refusal to recognize their sovreignty. Their laws DO apply to you when you tread on their turf.

    39. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'

      ... which will provide no advantage at all to Russia once he releases all of it to the entire world -> level playing field.

    40. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't whistleblowing apply to a lack of regulation?

    41. Re:Extracting all the intelligence by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Whistleblowers don't just release things that are illegal. Lots of really evil behavior is "legal".

      It does make it tricky to know if someone is a whistleblower or just a criminal though. In a perfect society, who would decide, and using what process?

      1. NSA employee releases tons of classified documents to people who do not have the legal right to possess that information.
      2. Some of that material shows spy programs that are currently legal according to courts (mostly secret court rulings).
      3. To the average person, it appears that NSA may be violating the constitution. But no court has ruled on that yet.

      At this point, what, legally, should happen? Don't arrest Snowden, but set a court date to rule on whether the NSA violated the constitution? In the meantime, what becomes of the reporters and the "evidence" in question? Do the reporters, on good faith, hand the docs back, pending the outcome of the trial?

      Whistleblowing is tricky.

  14. A "trick"? Seriously? by sirwired · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure it's possible to "trick" somebody who fled the U.S. to hang out with the Peace and Freedom Loving Peoples of the PRC. Unless Snowden is a completely gullible idiot, it's beyond ludicrous to think he didn't know that months of intelligence extraction awaited him after a flight to Russia.

    Frankly, I don't understand the guy. There are plenty of better options that would have been available to him; I still can't figure why he chose the PRC as a first stop. Once he got stuck there, his options were between slim and none.

  15. Whether or not Russia tricked him is irrelevant by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Snowden hadn't been treated like a traitor by his country, he wouldn't've had to flee in the first place. Uncle Sam only have himself to blame if snowden is spilling the beans in Russia.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Whether or not Russia tricked him is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't *have* to flee, he could released docs, turned himself in to local police (i.e. not spies) and started citing his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, served some prison time, and been granted a pardon by some future president if the American people agreed with his outrage as forcefully as he believed they would. Would it suck? Yeah! So would having to flee your home and live in an autocracy with ulterior motives.

  16. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The intelligence revealed in the media has done more to drive wedges between the Americans and their allies at a time when both China and Russia have taken on a more aggressive foreign policy.

    So then maybe the US government shouldn't have been doing things that would piss off their allies? Being a rapist, murderer, etc. also tends to drive wedges between the criminal and their friends. But that's squarely on their own head not the person who told the world they were a criminal.

  17. nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's incriminate snowden even more, shall we? Information obtained from a supposedly reputable source does not equate to fact. The only purpose of this is to assassinate his character.

  18. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by jonfr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He is a "useful idiot" with a lot of information in his pocket. When they are finished with him, he is either going to be returned to the U.S or he is just going to "disappear" into the abyss.

  19. Is this for real? by djhaskin987 · · Score: 1

    I just can't believe a Russian military officer would just come out and say that they're milking Snowden. I don't doubt they are; just that Russia would want to brag about it.

  20. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intelligence gathers YOU!

  21. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are plenty of better options that would have been available to him

    Erm... it's like people didn't pay attention at all. Governments forced planes to land on the mere suspicion that Snowden might've been riding on them. Multiple countries denied his requests for asylum. Flying around a lot would have endangered him even further.

  22. Re:Breaking News: US Gov. shoots itself in the foo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. For the sake of national security, the US has to give medals to whistleblowers instead of jail time.

  23. News Release by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 0

    "Karpichko Information Services are proud to announce that we have won a high-profile contract worth a six-figure sum from a US client. The client, a low-profile multinational data-gathering business, wishes to discredit certain information sources and shift the blame for their own loss of control of the situation. Our operative, ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko, enjoys a well-earned international reputation in the disinformation field, and has recently graduated summa cum laude from the IBM Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt School."

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  24. Re:Breaking News: US Gov. shoots itself in the foo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What do you expect with people like this in charge?

    “More importantly, much more importantly, what he’s done is hurt his country,” he said. “What he’s done is expose, for terrorists, a lot of mechanisms which now affect operational security of those terrorists and make it harder for the United States to break up plots, harder to protect our nation.”
    - Sen. John Kerry on Edward Snowden

    “I just think that’s a lot of baloney because, to whatever degree it may be true, they will wind up putting themselves at the mercy of those people who are very effective (at) who are there, who will deal with those guys,”
    - Sen. John Kerry on dangerousness of Taliban detainees

    Let's get this straight: direct release of enemy combatants...ok, release of documents related to collecting phone records of every american...not ok. Political astroturfing...priceless.

    ""The American people want to trust in our government again – we just need a government that will trust in us. And making government accountable to the people isn't just a cause of this campaign – it's been a cause of my life for two decades."
    - President Obama on protecting whistleblowers

    Remember this quote, remember what he promised? I guess we missed the footnote: "except in cases where I lose political powers...".

    Why do we forget so easily?

  25. to say its trickery is wrong. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying it was a trick flagrantly ignores the fact that the vast majority of more than 75 nations would openly and gladly transfer snowden to the United States. As a nation all we'd have to do is threaten to withhold/offer to increase aid to the target nation and in turn theyd cough him up post-haste. this doesnt account for the numerous countries with dictatorial governments favorable to our interests in which we could simply just ask.
    Russia is one of a handful of successful foreign nations with the power, both economically and militarily to resist whatever the US asks for. Sending cia agents to him for rendition is a suicide mission, both militarily and politically. We are beholden to 5% of our oil supply from Russia, and the last time we offered an economic incentive was when we bought up a few hundred nuclear missiles from them and converted the payload to nuclear fuel in the 80's so we arent exactly an economic juggernaut in their world.

    snowden was smart to take the Russian offer. He was going to expose clandestine secrets about the United States government that fly in the face of the constitution and our rule of law, and Russia saw nothing but gain from his efforts. finally, after 50 years of chest thumping freedom and swinging-dick foreign policy, a piping hot dish of humble pie had been prepared to which America would reluctantly have to at least take a bite and say, "Politically we're no less reprehensible than any other nation. we just have better propaganda."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:to say its trickery is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Russia didn't make an "offer". He was stranded in the Moscow international airport. Unlike most nations, Russia pretends that its airport is international territory. That allows them to ignore asylum requests which it would otherwise have to hear under international law.

      There are lots of other people stuck in the Moscow airport, but they all have valid passports, so eventually they run out of money or get tired and move on to another country. Snowden, however, no longer had a passport. That means he was stuck in the airport in perpetuity--he sure as heck wasn't going to fly back to the U.S. So Russia granted him a visa. There was no offer, because there was no quid pro quo. Russia just wanted to score some f-you points on the international state.

      Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport is another airport that is international territory. Unlike most countries (the U.S., U.K., etc) when you're in the Charles de Gaulle transit zone you have no automatic right to due process proceedings. Again, the point is to allow the government to ignore asylum seekers, notwithstanding their international treaty obligations.

    2. Re:to say its trickery is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Americans seem to have a very strange idea of US foreign aid...

      There's only one country in the world that receives enough aid from the US to actually put a noticeable blip into its national budget: Israel. Aid to every other country is basically at the level of "bribes to special interests to play ball".

  26. did he have much choice? by stenvar · · Score: 1

    I don't think "trick" applies here. Snowden went to Russia only after pretty much all other options had been closed off by the Obama administration. If instead of going batshit insane on Snowden, the administration had quietly tolerated (or even encouraged) asylum in some small South American nation, the Russians wouldn't have him and the US secret service could keep an eye on him.

    1. Re:did he have much choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden was only flying through Russia to get somewhere else. It was the US government that prevented him from leaving.

    2. Re:did he have much choice? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      And beyond that, if this was all a trick to get him to stay in Russia, why did they leave him in the airport for 39 days on not just grant him a visa right away? It's also very fortunate that they were able to convince the US to cancel his passport at the right time...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:did he have much choice? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Including the planes of sitting heads of state. Don't forget about that one.

    4. Re:did he have much choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's the Russian spies in the Obama administration which closed the options.

  27. It is only a trick if... by redback · · Score: 1

    ..they promised him something then refused to provide that something.

    They may have convinced him to go there with nefarious motives, but that's not necessarily a 'trick'

    1. Re:It is only a trick if... by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      He thought it was just a stopover on the way to South America. I don't think the russians were the ones preventing him from continuing onwards though. If you'll recall the US was having planes from Moscow to South America diverted so they could be searched. It was a proud fucking moment.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  28. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any evidence at all that he had contact with Russia prior to ending up there? As far as I know, there isn't.

    Yeah. I'll admit my memory of the topic isn't perfect, but I thought it was the folks at wikileaks that that were trying to help him and suggested Russia was the safest stopover point.

  29. Re:Still in the news? by jeIlomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Agreed. People should just stop caring about whether the government does anything illegal or violates people's individual liberties. Who needs freedom and privacy, anyway?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  30. Regarding Boris Karpichko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Before we start discussing whether Mr. Snowden has been tricked by KGB or not, we need to look at what kind of fella that Boris Karpichko is

    Boris Karpichko fled to Britain from Russia and sought political asylum in the 1998 - and as a "living asset" of the UK government he has to do something in return for the protection the UK government has given him

    Hence, the same Boris Karpichko has made extraordinary claims throughout the years. I'll list only 2 below (and there are more but to save space I'll just list two)

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-kgb-agent-boris-karpichkov-2800352

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297444/KGB-agent-Boris-Karpichkovs-claim-David-Kelly-exterminated-faces-probe.html

    As you guys can see, this fella simply can't live a normal life. He just HAS TO make extraordinary claims from time to time, just to satisfy his own urge to have his name appearing on the news

    Therefore, this "revelation" of Snowden being marked by KGB for 6 years and "tricked" to go to Russia is nothing more than one-more-fairy-tale from Mr. Karpichko

    That is all to it - no matter how you look at it, this Karpichko fella had to get his name in the media - and he just "hitch a hike" on the "Edward Snowden bus"

    1. Re:Regarding Boris Karpichko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The posting sure seems like a case of NSA astroturfing, with more in the comments.

    2. Re:Regarding Boris Karpichko by wulfhere · · Score: 1

      Posts like this are why the moderation system needs to allow scores higher than 5.

      --
      -- Sent from a computer.
  31. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So which US government agency fabricated this theory in order to bolster anti Snowden sentiments?

  32. Nice opinion piece... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    I didn't know opinion passed for news these days....

    1. Re:Nice opinion piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That calls your knowledge of the world around you into serious question.

  33. If I know more than Snowden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get a Job? My governent doesn't pay me shit!

    If the russians were smart, why don't they make an example of Snowden by paying him lots of money and rewarding him for coming in from the warm instead of bragging about how they tricked him?

  34. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Noryungi · · Score: 1, Informative

    He was in Hong Kong, not in the "PRC". Document yourself instead of spouting nonsense.

    And he knew the FSB was going to be interested in him, he was just hoping to leave Russia ASAP to go to South America. The Obama administration revoked his passport, stranding him in Russia. Furthermore, I believe that most of what Snowden gave to Greenwald, the FSB/Russian intelligence knew already: NSA, like many other US agencies have had its share of moles.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  35. Long-ago defected KGB spies hunted by Russia by KramberryKoncerto · · Score: 1
    Boris Karpichko:

    Boris Karpichkov worked as a KGB agent in the 1980s before fleeing to Britain as a place of safety. He talks about his career, why Russian spies are again targeting Britain – and why he'll never stop looking over his shoulder ... Karpichkov, it turns out, knows a huge amount: about Russia's murky arms sales abroad, for example. He is intelligent, and a first-class analyst – but, of course, he has no one to report to. Karpichkov says he is "no way scared". But he confesses he is now "dead tired" of the exhausting world of espionage, and concerned for the safety of his wife and grownup children.

    Oleg Kalugin:

    With the return to power of elements of the KGB, most notably Vladimir Putin, Kalugin was again accused of treason. In 2002 he was put on trial in absentia in Moscow and found guilty of spying for the West.[3] He was sentenced to fifteen years in jail,[6] in a verdict he described as "Soviet justice, which is really triumphant today".[7] The US and Russia have no extradition treaty.[7] Kalugin currently works for the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI CENTRE) is a member of the advisory board for the International Spy Museum.[8] He remains a critic of Vladimir Putin, a former subordinate, whom he called a "war criminal" over his conduct of the Second Chechen War.[3][9]

    1. Re:Long-ago defected KGB spies hunted by Russia by wytcld · · Score: 1

      So Boris, who depends on Western intelligence services to avoid being assassinated, as other Russian spies who fled to Britain have been, says what his protectors want him to. Business Insider is just plain stupid to publish this.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  36. Your understanding of the event sequence is wrong by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Snowden hadn't been treated like a traitor by his country, he wouldn't've had to flee in the first place. Uncle Sam only have himself to blame if snowden is spilling the beans in Russia.

    You don't understand the event sequence, so you are wrong. It went like this.
    1) Snowden steals a bunch of documents in secret. He flies to Hong Kong. At this point, nobody knows anything about him or what he has done except Snowden himself.
    2) While in Hong Kong, Snowden gives a bunch of documents to various members of the press and holds a press conference to announce what he has done and to point out that he "had" to do it because it was the only way to let the American people know the truth.
    3) The US government wakes up and realizes it has a really big problem on its hands. It's only now that the "traitor" charges begin and the US leans on China to send him back, instead prompting China to turn a blind eye as Russia agrees to make this its problem and headache to deal with. This gets China off the hook, although the Chinese have surely previously copied Snowden's stuff and possibly reached a deal with the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russia to share with each other what they find out.

  37. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the US government is astroturfing anti Snowden propaganda like mad. No sane citizen would actually think Snowden is a traitor or even managed to harm US interests, where "US interests" is defined as the interests of the American people and not the interests of the kleptocratic psychos who make up the ruling class.

  38. Re:"The Russians are extracting all the intelligen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom , Liberty ®, Democracy: patent pending.

  39. On the other hand... by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    Snowden asserts that he brought no classified files with him when he left the US.

    And Russian intelligence has good reasons for spreading a story like this, even if it's false. It makes Russia look smart and the US look stupid. And it will likely the US to abandon a variety of intelligence assets for fear that they are compromised.

    I don't think we have any way of knowing who to believe.

  40. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by mbone · · Score: 2

    A three letter one, of course.

  41. Too convenient... by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    A story like this is the U.S. government's wet dream. This is highly suspicious.

    1. Re:Too convenient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's suspicious is that the source is Boris Karpichko, who routinely makes these sort of conspiracy claims.

      What's REALLY suspicious is how many "did you mean" jumps that Wikipedia dances through when you search for the guy:

      Search for: Boris Karpichko
      Did you mean: Boris Karpicko
      Did you mean: Boris Karelo
      Did you mean: Boris Karol
      Did you mean: Boris Karloff
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      Obviously a conspiracy by Jimmy turned USSR agent secretly enacting NSA's mole hunt.

  42. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by cpghost · · Score: 1

    When they are finished with him, he is either going to be returned to the U.S or he is just going to "disappear" into the abyss.

    s/XOR/OR/.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  43. Re:"The Russians are extracting all the intelligen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much are you getting now, like $0.25 per post? Last I checked it was around 17 cents, but I'm sure with all the sentiment against the policies of the last few administrations, they'd have to be getting up there by now. Keep up the good work! $1.00 a post may be in your future!

  44. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he was working for the Russians all along, he would have simply stayed put and kept stealing secrets.
    No need to flee anywhere. He also wouldn't give a fuck about the domestic spying aspect, if he wanted to drive a wedge he could have released that part anonymously while giving all the other juicy secrets to the Russians.

  45. If Snowden had any information left by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    under his control to disseminate, he would have been dead by now.

  46. Russia doesn't need Snowden to spy on the NSA by cpghost · · Score: 1

    How can anybody be so naive as to think that NSA isn't already crawling with Russian spies? Everything NSA knows, its Russian counterpart knows nearly at the same time. It doesn't take a Snowden to achieve that. Remember: Russians have a long tradition of building up sleeper and secret agents in foreign targets, and they are renowned for their patience and the time they take in placing those agents in high positions.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Russia doesn't need Snowden to spy on the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like - Obama?

  47. According to Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he gave the documents to the reporters in Hong Kong. I don't know why anyone should trust someone who makes claims based on hearsay (more likely tall tales). If you look up this guys name on google he has made many other unverifiable claims that the media eats up.

  48. Re:Your understanding of the event sequence is wro by mellon · · Score: 1

    According to Snowden, he didn't have "stuff" to copy. So unless China has developed brain download technology, there's no copy to discuss. I guess Snowdon could have been lying about that, but what would be the point?

  49. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If he was really working with Russia he wouldn't have left at all. The whole point of being a double agent is to not out yourself. Since the NSA seemed to be so incompetent to allow him to download massive amounts of classified data he could have easily passed it on the Russia without detection or needing to leave the country. He left because he did not want to be silenced and rot in prison while the NSA kept chugging along with no one else the wiser.

  50. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won't return him because they don't want the USA to learn what information he gave them.

  51. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a lot of information in his pocket.

    Do you or any of the other government shills have proof of this? You guys keep making this unsubstantiated claim but have yet to back it up with actual evidence.

  52. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Frobnicator · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Does it matter? One nation wants to lock him in prison until he dies, one nation will grant him freedom. Is that such a hard decision?

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  53. only a trick if the truth makes a difference by dominux · · Score: 1

    "Hello Edward, I am a Russian diplomat, come to Moscow and we won't extradite you to the Americans"

    "Hello Edward, I am a Russian spy, come to Moscow and we won't extradite you to the Americans"

    I can't imagine Snowden was under any illusions about the job title of the "diplomats" he was talking to, so it wasn't much of a trick. It might not have been a particularly good long term deal, but there wasn't a whole lot else on the table.

    1. Re:only a trick if the truth makes a difference by alphatel · · Score: 1

      "Hello Edward, I am a Russian diplomat, come to Moscow and we won't extradite you to the Americans"

      "Hello Edward, I am a Russian spy, come to Moscow and we won't extradite you to the Americans"

      I can't imagine Snowden was under any illusions about the job title of the "diplomats" he was talking to, so it wasn't much of a trick. It might not have been a particularly good long term deal, but there wasn't a whole lot else on the table.

      It seemed pretty clear in reading Greenwald's book that Snowden had no illusions about anything he did or the consequences. He never attempted conceal his activities or obscure his own person. He knew that due to US policies he would be charged with treason and found guilty. His only hope was that he could avoid extradition and not spend the rest of his life in a 10x10 wet hole in gitmo. Whatever rumors swirl around him mean nothing so long as he can stay out of prison until America changes his policies, or he can get on a rocket to Mars. The latter is probably more likely to happen sooner than the former.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:only a trick if the truth makes a difference by sethradio · · Score: 1

      He knew that due to US policies he would be charged with treason and found guilty. His only hope was that he could avoid extradition and not spend the rest of his life in a 10x10 wet hole in gitmo.

      He should be pardoned and given the presidential medal of freedom.

      --
      "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
  54. Re:Still in the news? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but usually they reserve the spying for other governments and their secrets. Not the privacy of their own people.

    Say, wasn't that what we said the Russians are doing?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can just as easy be blinded by patriotism as by idealism...

    You are an perfect example I must say...

  56. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure it's possible to "trick" somebody who fled the U.S. to hang out with the Peace and Freedom Loving Peoples of the PRC. Unless Snowden is a completely gullible idiot, it's beyond ludicrous to think he didn't know that months of intelligence extraction awaited him after a flight to Russia.

    Frankly, I don't understand the guy. There are plenty of better options that would have been available to him; I still can't figure why he chose the PRC as a first stop. Once he got stuck there, his options were between slim and none.

    Plenty of options? Like going to congress where the hard liners were calling for his execution? The truth is that it was hard line bullshitters like that which drove Snowden to Russia. The US political class shot it self in the foot with its come-down-on-him-like-a-ton-of-bricks attitude and now Russia is benefitting. It's basically a reverse of the situation faced during the Cold War by people who had legitimate reason to criticises the Soviet system had no way of doing so except by defecting to the west to avoid being locked away. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the only place from which the NSA and the US govt. can be safely criticisesd these days on certain issues without having to fear being disappeared into some CIA run solitary confinement unit, is a shark tank like Putin's Russia?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  57. Regarding Boris Karpichko by illaqueate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yep, pretty much. He claimed that Mi6 killed David Kelly because he would have undermined the case for the iraq war. This guy is a clown. Slashdot should be embarrassed to post this nonsense.

  58. It's likely they never needed him by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One of the things Snowden exposed is how utterly shambolic the NSA is and how there is a vast attack surface which would be highly vunerable to foreign agencies or even organized crime. If China and Russia didn't already have access to what an external contractor in Hawaii like Snowden had then they wouldn't have been trying at all.

    Chinese have surely previously copied Snowden's stuff and possibly reached a deal with the USSR

    The press already have it so there's no reason for governments to make deals - a few bucks or a cheap favor to a paper and they've got the lot.

  59. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He was in Hong Kong, not in the "PRC". Document yourself instead of spouting nonsense.

    Your differentiation is about 17 years obsolete.

  60. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As opposed to being blinded by fear and the hatred of individual liberties? I can't understand why else people would be angry that someone leaked information that showed the government was violating people's liberties and the highest law of the land. I'm not sure what it has to do with suicide bombers, either.

  61. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Agency for Slandering Snowden?

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  62. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, it's more like, "one nation's government wants to lock him up for what he did to them, another nation's government wants to lock him up for what he can do for them, and other nations don't want him at all, but will probably hand him over to one or the other in due course."

    People like to prattle on about the tree of liberty and refreshing it with the blood of patriots and tyrants; they always forget the part about the consequences of getting the short end of the stick being rather severe. Mr. Snowden's only real mistake was thinking that he was individually smart enough to take on these world powers and personally win, when in reality he's never going to be free from the machine.

    If he wanted to be free and to have done this, he'd have had to move some place isolated, remote, and where he could be somewhat anonymous, and to have released his documentation through several intermediaries. Some place like rural west-central Australia, for example. Unfortunately for him he chose to be known in his releases, and he'll end up paying for that choice for the rest of his life, and possibly with his life.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  63. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sharp stick can be even more effective.

  64. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    or it could be spin by our media to turn the americans who support snowden against him. That seems more logical

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  65. he has no intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought he left all his "intelligence" with reporters in the US, so there wouldn't be anything to extract once he got to Russia.

  66. Re:Still in the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not saying you or anyone else here is a government hack, but it did make me wonder. What would be the laws regarding slashdot mods and people posting comments who are government employees either in the US or abroad? Are there laws that protect slashdot from subversion under freedom of speech? We talk about the NSA I think because we want to make our country better in one way or another but it seems vulnerable to me and I'm wondering how much protection the law provides this forum. Any input is appreciated to help me understand the integrity of the posts and of the mod scores here. I assume there is a slashdot strory about this, if not, why?

    Thanks for the help.

  67. No. by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    We know that whenever a headline asks a question, the answer is typically, "No."

    In this case, you could go so far as to say, "Obviously not."

  68. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by c · · Score: 2

    If he had been working for them all along he:

    (1) Would have gone directly to Russia
    (2) Would not have given the information to reporters

    Yes, but Congressman Mike Rogers said he was a Russian spy. Surely a US Congressman wouldn't lie about important stuff like that?

    </sarcasm>

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  69. Re:"The Russians are extracting all the intelligen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you must mean "Freedom, Libery, Democracy on the internet"

  70. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by nickmalthus · · Score: 1

    Acting on faulty inteligence by paid informants has not been an obstacle in the recent past.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  71. Oh for f_ck's sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's next!?!

    First, he's a nobody who didn't get away with anything...
    Then, he's a script kiddie who got away with a few things...
    Then, he's an average IT person who probably got help...
    Then, he's a mastermind terrorist trying to topple the U.S. government...

    Now... he's a dupe of the Russian spy agencies.

    Next month, he'll be a long-term deep-cover Russian mole sent to steal all the U.S. secrets...
    Month after that, he'll be the next Bond villain, sitting is his swivel chair and stroking his white cat ;)

    What *will* they think of next!!!

    1. Re:Oh for f_ck's sake... by Mondor · · Score: 1

      Dirty nuclear missile, my friend, that's what it was all about on the first place. Snowden wants to kill all Americans. Those, who trust in God. Those, who have built this country. Our kids and our future.

      Sorry, I answered your question with the quote from the future.

  72. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by GameMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    The No Snodens Agency.

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  73. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by blue+trane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He gave all the information he had away. What else does he have, expired passwords?

  74. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one nation will grant him freedom.

    It must be blissful to be so woefully naive.

  75. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was in Hong Kong, not in the "PRC". Document yourself instead of spouting nonsense.

    Hong Kong is part of the PRC. You need to update your maps. The British lost control of it years ago.

  76. Re:"The Russians are extracting all the intelligen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better comment I have read all day. These propaganda articles about middle East is bad, Russia is bad are becoming a pain in the ass. Next thing I know, they will discover Snowden is Russian.

  77. credibility deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story from Karpichko lacks the required credibility to be taken seriously.

  78. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you have to claim national security as a reason for doing it, it's probably unconstitutional, otherwise you could do it through normal legal channels. Snowden exposed what seems to be a clearly unconstitutional action by the government, he put himself at great peril to do so, that is the reason he is viewed as a hero. The US government is doing everything it can to make him a martyr.

  79. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by mpercy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I also consider myself to be a sane citizen. While I am grateful that the NSA's metadata collection activities were exposed, Snowden did much more than that. If he'd been some low-level NSA worker who stumbled on the NSA's meta-data collection operations in the US in the normal course of duty and felt compelled to blow the whistle and stand up to take the consequences...well, that'd be one thing. As it looks now, he's not much more than a deliberate spy who knowingly committed espionage with a "good reason" who lied, stole data, and fled prosecution, much like Jonathon Pollard (q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J..., Pollard sold classified data to Israel because he didn't think it was right to withhold intelligence information from our ally).

    Saw this in Slate magazine of all places, not exactly a right-wing publication:

    It is true that Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of American citizens—far vaster than any outsider had suspected, in some cases vaster than the agency’s overseers on the secret FISA court had permitted—have triggered a valuable debate, leading possibly to much-needed reforms.
    If that were all that Snowden had done, if his stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the NSA’s domestic surveillance, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing.

    But Snowden did much more than that. The documents that he gave the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA’s interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what’s going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls “worldwide,” an effort that (in the Post’s words) “allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.” In his first interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden revealed that the NSA routinely hacks into hundreds of computers in China and Hong Kong.

    *Correction, Jan. 6, 2013: This article originally stated that Edward Snowden had not released any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries. In fact, he leaked documents that detail the cyber-operations of Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.

    These operations have nothing to do with domestic surveillance or even spying on allies. They are not illegal, improper, or (in the context of 21st-century international politics) immoral. Exposing such operations has nothing to do with “whistle-blowing.”

    Among other things, Snowden signed an oath, as a condition of his employment as an NSA contractor, not to disclose classified information, and knew the penalties for violating the oath.

    In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him “access to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.” He stayed there for just three months, enough to do what he came to do.

    Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel of Reuters later reported, in an eye-opening scoop, that Snowden gained access to his cache of documents by persuading 20 to 25 of his fellow employees to give him their logins and passwords, saying he needed the information to help him do his job as systems administrator. (Most of these former colleagues were subsequently fired.)

    [Snowden] gets himself placed at the NSA’s signals intelligence center in Hawaii for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents. (How many is unclear: I’ve heard estimates ranging from “tens of thousands”

  80. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by mpercy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    And how about the countries he admires, those stalwarts of freedom and liberty?

    He thanked the nations that had offered him support. “These nations, including Russia [communist/socialist], Venezuela [socialist dictatorship], Bolivia [socialist], Nicaragua ["social democrat"] and Ecuador [socialist], have my gratitude and respect,” he proclaimed, “for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful.” Earlier, Snowden had said that he sought refuge in Hong Kong [China, communist] because of its “spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.”

    China has a “spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent?” Bwahahaha.

  81. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden is bad because terrrists.

  82. Real easy to see what's going on here... by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine a hypothetical situation:

    You are cheating on your wife, and have been doing so for some time now. A good friend of hers finds out about what you're doing and tells your her. At this point, people are going to be pissed off at one of two people. People loyal to you are going to be pissed off at your wife's friend for ratting you out. People loyal to her are going to be pissed off at you, and see your wife's friend as a hero. That's just the way things work. So you can always tell where someone's loyalties really lie by determining whom they are pissed off at.

    In this situation, the secret police/military complex/power elite/establishment is effectively screwing over the general public and the Constitution (the highest law of that land, for those that are unfamiliar), and has been doing so for some time now. Someone finds out about what they're really doing and tells us. At this point, people are pissed off at one of two people (or groups of people). People who are loyal to the secret police/military complex/power elite/establishment are pissed off at Snowden for ratting them out. People loyal to the general public and Constitution are pissed off at the people screwing them, and see him as a hero.

    I'm not trying to scream "shill" to every person who wants Snowden's head on a pike, but you'd better believe that any prominent figure who is crying traitor day in and day out in the public media, well, you know where their loyalties lie is all I'm saying. It's not too hard to figure it out.

    1. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is simplistic. I am all for Snowden leaking information on the NSA's illegal activities. I am totally against all of the superfluous information he dumped on the public about US intelligence operations abroad. He is far more Brenda Manning (or whatever his name is now) than Danny Ellsberg. People such as yourself dumb the entire debate down to "is he a whistleblower or isn't he?".

      The reasons people such as myself are so pissed off at Snowden aren't that we're defenders of the NSA as your simplistic argument claims. We're pissed off because he vastly exceeded the actions of a whistleblower and drove deep into the realm of espionage against the US. Now, we're seeing that he's actively working WITH foreign intelligence services. You think he's working at a Moscow McDonalds?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      It's simplistic on purpose. Because as far as the general public and people who are loyal to the Constitution, rather than the secret police, are concerned, he gave us concrete evidence that we're being systematically denied our basic human rights by the wicked authoritarian regime that's risen to power out of the dark depths of the intelligence community and that's all that matters is that we are getting fucked.
       
      I guess I could expand my analogy to say that not only is the husband a womanizer, he's also a slimy scumbag with a history of questionable activities, murder, and shady business deals. So to cross him, you'd better be ready to go all in. At that point, you can't just stop with telling his wife how she's getting fucked, you tell everyone he's fucking the whole world over what he's up to.
       
      Otherwise you risk opening yourself up to his wrath. If Snowden just leaked a document or two about the light, fluffy things the secret police are doing to the public, he would have faded into obscurity and then permanently "disappeared" by the powers that be. You know what I mean by that. His only choice was to leak every, single document he had and keep himself in the public eye in order to keep safe.
       
          Again, was it right? Possibly not, again that all depends on where your priorities lie. If you are the general public, you aren't real concerned with what the spooks are doing overseas, you care what they are doing to you right here at home. I'm just explaining why everyone *does* think he's a hero, just as the wife in my "simplistic" analogy above probably wouldn't care too much about how her murdering scum husband's dirty laundry was aired, neither does anyone care what happens to the NSA at this point.

    3. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by jeIlomizer · · Score: 1

      If you are the general public, you aren't real concerned with what the spooks are doing overseas

      As an American, I am absolutely appalled that so many people think that foreigners have no rights. "Duty"/"Just doing my job" is no excuse. Violating people's rights is immoral.

      So there are some people who are like me, at least.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even that would involve that the man might have had at least some decent reason for doing it even if it was for bad judgement on his part, maybe she was cheating on him or maybe she was just some Jurassic Thundercunt of a bitch. The man still have at least some leeway to claim he had justification. The Snowden reaction in the US is more like this:

      You start working at a daycare, shortly afterward you find out this daycare is actually using these kids in the production of hardcore kiddy porn. You report them as it isn't right for the ones they are doing it to and the parents deserve to know and it causes this huge public outcry and backlash.

      Now, when it is all said and done, who do you blame? The Daycare staff for doing it or the new employee who blew the whistle on it because if he hadn't none of this would have happened? Which you choose should tell you what your true intentions were and this is how the US was with the Snowden issues. Them chasing him is like the pedophiles going after the daycare associate who blew the whistle for ruining their fun.

    5. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      No, it's simplistic because you're choosing to ignore the leaking of information on valid intel operations overseas. And that is my ENTIRE point. If you look at Snowden selectively then ignore the reasons people criticize him, then yes every one who speaks ill of Snowden starts to look like a villain.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    6. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      No offense, but the Snowden debate really doesn't factor in how foreign nations feel about being spied on. And, talking about your "rights" not to be spied on is just naive.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    7. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by jeIlomizer · · Score: 1

      Naive? Like it's naive to expect the NSA not to spy on us? Like it's naive to expect that the government respect the constitution? Like it's naive to expect that the government not murder people without trial?

      Having ideals and principles is not naive, even if they're at odds with the entire world. I am aware that every government in the world is full of evil scumbags; you don't need to tell me that. But I oppose their actions.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      There you go again not reading. If you pay attention to my 1st two posts the point I've been trying to make is that people like you ignore the distinction between NSA spying and leaking information on foreign intelligence ops. Every time Snowden is criticized, someone like you reverts to using NSA spying analogies as your defense of Snowden when that isn't what people we're complaining about.

      WE AGREE ON NSA SPYING!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Now, go back and read my original post on what we DON'T agree with.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Real easy to see what's going on here... by jeIlomizer · · Score: 1

      If you pay attention to my posts, you'll see that I'm saying the foreign spying was immoral as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  83. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it isn't. Mainland China and Hong Kong are still *VERY* different, and the fact that you don't appear to be aware of this should perhaps make you question the keenness with which you vomited up that link.

  84. And what were his options... by Flytrap · · Score: 1

    And what, exactly, were his options...
    ... joining Bradley Manning (aka Chelsea Manning) in Extreme Solitary Confinement that has been described as cruel, inhuman and degrading by the United Nations and many others such as this very detailed report on The Torture Of Bradley Manning by Andrew Blake, or this article by Jesselyn Radack that catalogues exactly How the US Military Tortured Bradley Manning

    Russia is the last place that I would have thought of seeking refuge... but I think that we must all trust that Snowden probably knew better than all of us which countries would have succumbed to US pressure to hand him back and which would have taken great pleasure in not doing so.

    Now, if Snowden is a true patriot, he will fight for the right to come back home and have a fair hearing before a jury of his peers... and seek to be recognised and judged as a whistleblower.

  85. Clearance by mpercy · · Score: 0

    It doesn't really matter why he did it. He's effectively confessed to a number of espionage crimes. If he was a *just* a whistelblower about NSA's metadata collections, there were ways he could have done that

    18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
    (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
    The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
    The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
    The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
    The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
    The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
    (d)
    (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
    (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
    (B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
    (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (

    1. Re:Clearance by jeIlomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It doesn't really matter why he did it. He's effectively confessed to a number of espionage crimes.

      It doesn't matter to me whether or not he broke unjust laws.

      If he was a *just* a whistelblower about NSA's metadata collections, there were ways he could have done that

      "And for what it's worth, I would have preferred he *had not* gone through the 'proper channels'. The People have a right to know when the government is violating the highest law of the land or people's liberties; not only do they have a right to know, but they should be the *first* to know. By going through the 'proper channels', you risk getting taken out of a position where leaking the information is possible, and then the whole issue would be swept under a rug."

      The only 'proper channel' is through The People.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copying and pasting legal boilerplate does not make a case or impress anyone.

    3. Re:Clearance by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is illegal to obey an illegal order and that includes orders to break the constitution, regardless of whether or not it is illegally written into law. It is already a matter of record that the ways of doing it properly were completely and utterly broken, especially when the NSA representatives including the head of the NSA publicly lied under oath. For which they have as yet failed to be charged for the crime committed on public record!!! Also note not, not one single individual has as yet to be charged for the huge level of criminal activity within the NSA. So pointing to laws in this case is to point to empty twaddle, completely and utterly meaningless where the administration, the agencies they command, and private for profit contractors all routinely broke laws and have all have been failed to be held accountable. Which of course also means the US Department of in-Justice is also now just as culpable.

      Did a Russian agent trick Snowden, well based upon repeated demands the Snowden be murdered out of hand with out trial by many US politicians, not really, Snowden was destined to go there or remain in China or possibly South America. Would a Russia agent claim extra credit for Snowden, depends upon whether it is promotion time or not, if a promotion is in the offing you can pretty much guarantee it, just like any other spy vs spy type any where in the world (publicly bragging about it is rather questionable unless it was an act of misinformation). As for getting a copy of the data, if Snowden didn't have it, then Russia would simply buy a loose copy direct off one of the many private contractors, who has access to it. Don't forget that copy nabbed at the airport in the UK.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  86. Snowden proving to be the perfect stooge by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    A young cocky and very intelligent man who thinks he's way smarter than he is. The way he got conned into that Putin interview should be exhibit A that he's not that insightful. The fact that his exit plan was so cobbled together is also proof.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  87. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by spencerogden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the sounds of his interviews, I think he believed that the information would carry more weight if the source was know. If these were just anonymous leaks, they would be easier to discredit. It seems like he was fully aware of the dangers, and what he would be giving up, and decided it was worth it.

    I think he was right, the leaks carry more weight with a name behind them, and further, its clear to the public that he wouldn't put himself in this position just for the "fun" of releasing false information.

  88. This by mpercy · · Score: 0

    The clearance documents that he signed clearly expressed the expectations, laws, and penalties. And there are whistleblower channels within the government and contracting agencies that he should have known about and utilized -- I have not seen any reports that he made any effort to use these before packing up his stolen classified information and fleeing to Hong Kong.

    1. Re:This by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      Those whistleblower channels? He did know about them - and what had happened to those who tried to utilize them (Drake, Binney, et al). Don't sit back and wait for "reports" to be handed to you, do your own research (unless you enjoy the smell of soap-scented paper).

      As for the GP's suggestion that he should just suck it up and serve some prison time - what? Really, what? The US government tortured Manning with solitary for almost a year - before Manning was even convicted - and Manning had less on their dirty laundry compared to Snowden:

      The detention conditions prompted national and international concern. Juan E. Mendez, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, published a report saying the detention conditions had been "cruel, inhuman and degrading."[100] In January 2011 Amnesty International asked the British government to intervene because of Manning's status as a British citizen by descent, although Manning's lawyer said Manning did not regard herself as a British citizen.[101] The controversy claimed a casualty in March that year when State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley criticized Manning's treatment and resigned two days later.[102] In early April, 295 academics (most of them American legal scholars) signed a letter arguing that the treatment was a violation of the United States Constitution.

      When constitutional violations are known to be institutional, when the known reactions of your government are to persecute those who follow channels and torture those who don't, what would you do?

  89. Re:Your understanding of the event sequence is wro by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

    If Snowden hadn't been treated like a traitor by his country, he wouldn't've had to flee in the first place. Uncle Sam only have himself to blame if snowden is spilling the beans in Russia.

    You don't understand the event sequence, so you are wrong. It went like this.

    1) Snowden steals a bunch of documents in secret. He flies to Hong Kong. At this point, nobody knows anything about him or what he has done except Snowden himself.

    2) While in Hong Kong, Snowden gives a bunch of documents to various members of the press and holds a press conference to announce what he has done and to point out that he "had" to do it because it was the only way to let the American people know the truth.

    3) The US government wakes up and realizes it has a really big problem on its hands. It's only now that the "traitor" charges begin and the US leans on China to send him back, instead prompting China to turn a blind eye as Russia agrees to make this its problem and headache to deal with. This gets China off the hook, although the Chinese have surely previously copied Snowden's stuff and possibly reached a deal with the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russia to share with each other what they find out.

    Sorry, you're off by quite a bit there.

    Snowden knew what the NSA Was doing.
    He didn't want to release it because Obama was going to win and promised to end the secret programs.
    Obama took office and not only did the program continue, it was ramped up. Snowden saw whistleblowers getting nailed all over the place.
    The NSA actually FRAMED one guy. Litterally framed him. When the documents were found to be fake the feds dropped the case.
    Snowden then realized that there would be no fair trail inside the US. He would be framed as well.
    He also saw how other leakers had released information to a single news source and that news source had spiked the story at the whitehouses request.
    He contacted 3 journalists over a period of months and setup a meeting in Hong Kong
    With multiple media sources, no single org could stop the story. If one covered it up, the others could release it.
    The journalists met him in a hotel room there where they interviewed him over a period of a week or two. He gave them all the data.
    They sent some of their documents back to the US for stories and then watched the whitehouses reaction.
    They hoped there would be an immediate turn around in policy as the public realized what was going on and the NSA realized what snowden had stolen.
    Instead President Obama came out and flatly lied to the public. Not just a little, not just speaking out of context, he told bold faced lies and members of the justice department and congress went along with him.
    Snowden realized this meant it was an institutional conspiracy. There would be change without releasing all of the data.
    So Snowden went public because he wanted to counter what was so obviously a lie. Without an "inside man" to explain how things really worked the president could spin the story any way he wanted to. By being the face to the story, he made it very real to most Americans.

    Have no doubt, he sacrificed himself for us. I don't know what else he does or his political views. I'm sure there are things about him I'd dislike or even hate. But if more of us could have a moment of clarity like he did, if we could do the right but painful thing that needed to be done more often, we'd all be better off.

  90. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People like to prattle on about the tree of liberty and refreshing it with the blood of patriots and tyrants; they always forget the part about the consequences of getting the short end of the stick being rather severe.

    Do they forget? I've seen plenty of people recognize that Snowden could have done things to protect himself, but commend him for willing to make the sacrifice to put his own name and life on the line to back his message.

  91. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The documents that he gave the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA’s interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what’s going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls “worldwide,” an effort that (in the Post’s words) “allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.” In his first interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden revealed that the NSA routinely hacks into hundreds of computers in China and Hong Kong.

    [slaps forehead smartly] Do you have any idea how blindingly obvious ALL of that crap is? No one with a functioning brainstem, and that includes Iran, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Russia, China, the King of Siam and the boogey man, is the least bit surprised that the NSA has been doing all that. The only red flag is the part about "tracking people whose movements [happen to] intersect", which, with the fact of an all-seeing eye scrutinizing every single person's life, is the whole point of Snowden's revelation of blatant unconstitutional overreaches.

    Furthermore, mere revelation that the NSA has been engaged in those processes conveys no useful information whatsoever to any enemy of the US.

    Jesus wept to think that so many people are getting hoodwinked by this crap.

  92. More Businessinsider crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Businessinsider is a cheap clickwhoring "news" site that posts most anything, I would even go so far as to advise against spreading their links.

    In recent months they've been home to pro-Russian propaganda on Ukraine, plus a bunch of conspiracy crapticles similar to Zerohedge. No vetting of writers, no real background checks on content.

  93. Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't listen to ex-FSB/KGB officers who fled to other countries. They know nothing, but they need attention through "revelations", to keep either the status (of refugee) or money (as they can't earn otherwise). Since this guy left Russia in 1998, that is - 16 years ago, he knows nothing about the case, perhaps even less than us, as there is a chance his internet skills are not so high.

    Also, Major is a good, but not too high rank in FSB, to know everything. If he would be colonel or general - that would be another story.

  94. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly any information that contradicts your preexisting conclusions must have been fabricated by the evil US government.

  95. This story may have been planted by a U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    intelligence group, that's their M.O.

  96. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by some+old+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Among other things, Snowden signed an oath, as a condition of his employment as an NSA contractor, not to disclose classified information, and knew the penalties for violating the oath."

    The entire Wehrmacht swore an oath too. Breaking a pact with evil is no evil. I suppose you think Colonel von Stauffenburg was a traitor as well?

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  97. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a story as touchy as Snowden's, nothing is as simple as you make it out to be. Not your theory, not the GP's theory. There are probably thousands of strings being pulled as we converse on the subject, and we have no idea.

  98. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you need a reminder, what that "freedom-granting" nation does to its own defectors? It involves polonium poisoning. Rings a bell?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  99. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    If I close my eyes, I can actually see pink bunnies running in a field of lily flowers. So peaceul. If only I could keep them shut.

  100. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's very simple. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your theory that the US government fabricated this story. You believe that's the case because it fits your existing worldview.

  101. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russians understand history. There's a reason Kim Philby lived until 1988. Him being alive and reasonable well made it easier to convince other people to help out the USSR. Snowden will be protected by Russia for the same reason, so future defectors will be less afraid.

    Of course, that works for the well-known faces. The anonymous informer is a risk, and they will disappear for that simple reason. Snowden probably figured this out, and becoming famous wasn't an incident at all.

  102. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying he's a useful idiot?

    But I disagree with your premise that he would stay and work as a double agent if the goal was to cripple the US intelligence gathering apparatus, which appears to be the point of the revelations.

  103. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PRC regained control of Hong Kong in 1997. It is now a "special administrative region". Check your facts.

  104. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. The United States deserves anything bad that comes their way after all of the shit they've put others through. It's about time the evil empire died.

  105. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are cultural differences between mainland China and Hong Kong due to China not wanting to devalue their financial center. However never mistake this difference as China not having absolute control over Hong Kong.

  106. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know the government fabricates stories.
    We know the story is full of holes and makes no sense.
    It could be a lazy journalist, or someone trying to make themselves seem important, or someone trying to deflect attention elsewhere. Or just as plausibly 'the government' or someone who thinks it's in the interest of 'the government' to further try and discredit snowden. We have already seen what they are capable, this is hardly a step forward.

  107. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is there any evidence at all that he had contact with Russia prior to ending up there? As far as I know, there isn't.

    Yeah. I'll admit my memory of the topic isn't perfect, but I thought it was the folks at wikileaks that that were trying to help him and suggested Russia was the safest stopover point.

    You are correct it was Wikileaks that bought him his plane tickets out of Hong Kong when China was looking like they were about to give him up to the US. Russia was supposed to just be a stop where he was supposed to get on a plane bound for Cuba then Ecuador. But the US state department revoked his passport preventing him from leaving the airport in Russia after sitting in the international lobby for weeks unable to leave, Russia gave him a one year grant of asylum. This is just a bunch of political propaganda to discredit Snowden.

    Also remember the US forced a landing of the jet carrying the President of Bolivia because we thought that Snowden might be on board.

    The only reason Snowden is in Russia is Because the US government has trapped him there.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  108. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by gTsiros · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he set a personal example and proved this is something worth sacrificing yourself for.

    i respect that. complete lunacy, but we do live in a crazy world.

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  109. So, let me get this straight by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    A government agent secretly posed as a government agent and promised that should he come to Russia he would come to no harm and be treated well.
    And then he arrived and learned that the government agent that told him those things was allowed to lie about it.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  110. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH how it must make you feel to know all those countries come off looking better than yours throughout this whole ordeal.

    We can sense the rage within you straining to get out. Go on, tell us one more time how Truth Justice and The American Way will win through.

    Come on, one more election, I'm sure it will work this time. The next president will surely bring back freedom and liberty.....bwahhhh hahaha.

  111. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Mr. Snowden's only real mistake was thinking that he was individually smart enough to take on these world powers and personally win, when in reality he's never going to be free from the machine."

    Nothing I've read from Snowden indicates that he thought he would beat this. He knew the consequences and chose them anyway.

  112. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    You're right. Evidence is for suckers.

  113. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was in Hong Kong, not in the "PRC"

    Any chance you'd update to a newer edition of your atlas? I'd recommend anything beyond 1997.

  114. And what did this really change for all of us? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    I have a question for all you software developers, IT staffing and security experts. Has Snowden action changed anything in your work road maps or personal lives?

    I can tell you that Snowden revealing all these secrets has changed nothing in my work or personal life and I can tell you that it is the case for most people. When I mention Snowden and what he did, most people are completely unaware of him and his actions. Why? I can only speculate that they can't be bothered to change their day to day or they just don't care that NSA knows everything about everything.

    Please do not take this as a sign of disrespect towards Snowden as I believe the man is a modern day hero but I feel very little will change even after his huge sacrifice.

    1. Re:And what did this really change for all of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he changed at least the schedule, the risks we were willing to take to roll out a security feature sooner.

      He also changed the threat model against which we design. Lavabit changed that as well, though, perhaps more than Snowden did.

  115. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by rilister · · Score: 1

    I don't see any need to invent anything beyond what's in the public domain:

    Snowden reckons as Hong Kong as the most developed/politically-stable/safe place to be when the shitstorm blows up, from which extradition will be the least likely. Seems like a reasonable guess. If he'd been working with Russia, it'd be easier to go to Russia - they've extracted agents from the US before.

    Say what you want about Russia (economy/industry/military) but they have a large, competent spy agency in the FSB. As soon as this blows up, they are certain to try and get some of their agents as close to Snowden as they can, just in case. I mean, they aren't going to sit back and watch CNN with an asset this big: they don't know what he has, but it's clear he's valuable given the noise the US is making.

    Things unfold and it becomes clear China are not as resilient to US pressure as Snowden hoped, and he needs an exit. Cue FSB/SVR offering him a way out. They aren't going to announce themselves as "Hi! We're spys" but as diplomats, the time-honored cover for spying. But unless Snowdenn is naive (he's not) he would have been pretty clear that a spy agency was behind it: it's what they are for.

    Now the FSB/SVR really want to rub it in to the US and there's few enough success stories they can bring to the Russian public these days. Spying tends to be secret. So spin the story this way. It's pretty close to the truth, except you make Snowden sound a dumber than he is. What do they care?

    --
    'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
  116. US Gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's CIA, NSA, FBI, and etc are useful idiots to the KGB and Russian and Chinese government...

  117. NO! by sethradio · · Score: 1

    Snowden is a Russian spy! Listen to Darth Cheney!

    --
    "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
  118. I still have spy buddies and they tell me things.. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    So your a long since retired double agent KGB goon and "spy friends" are still spoon feeding you sensitive information 16 years after "fleeing Moscow" and subsequently making a living selling information to the west? Sure I can believe that...

    Suppose I can also believe CIA had credible information on "yellow cake from Africa", aluminum tubes, Iraq working with Al Qaeda and NSA not "wittingly" collecting call records of everyone in the US.

    There seems to be a concerted effort to smear Snowden in absence of any objective credible evidence. News media never pays a price for engaging in propagation of hearsay or propaganda.

    Breaking News: Peter King is an FSB agent and a secret friend of the DPRK.

  119. anal-int by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are giving him plenty of food. After that is digested they are analyzing his feces for intelligence data. In their jargon this is called anal-int, they have found plenty of valuables there, as a matter of fact, they found Boris Karpichko there

  120. Eddi Snowden = a loser trying to get famous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well it worked,

    and certain spy agencies pop the champagne for getting decades of research and development for free on a silver plate

    but who cares, right

  121. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why I find this discussion so absurd.

    If the US really was concerned about Snowden giving US secrets to Russia, why not reinstate his passport so he can leave? They're the reason he's stranded in Russia, not because Snowden wanted to go there.

  122. True info important piece of deception campaign... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, mostly because pretty much everything he has announced has been admitted to be true. I don't think I've seen any stories with Snowden-released information where it was disproven, although I could be wrong on that.

    That is normal in deception campaigns. Release accurate information to build credibility so that the eventual strategic deception will be more likely to be believed. Don't read too much into past info being true, remain skeptical of each and every new piece of info when dealing intelligence agencies and people involved in that world.

    For example in WW2 the British double agent Joan Pujol Garcia, "Garbo", had sent real info to the Germans for a while. This culminated with actually sending the Germans real info about the Normandy invasion immediately before the invasion, about 3am - as paratroopers were landing but several hours before the 6am beach invasion, too late for the German's to decode, process and use the info. However this solidified his credibility with the Germans with respect to having high level access to information, it was confirmed that he transmitted hours before the invasion. Then a couple of days later he sent info that the Normandy landing was a diversion and that the main forces were still in England getting ready to land at the Pas de Calais. Mr Garcia is credited with keeping 2 armored divisions and over 12 infantry divisions out of the battle at Normandy. Sending true information was key to the eventual big deception.

  123. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of idiocy has to stop. What better choices were there? Pray, do tell. Keep in mind that:
    - The United States got the governments of 4 European countries to issue no fly orders to the presidential plane of Bolivia. Austria actually carried it out this act of aggression. Do you seriously expect that if Snowden was aboard the plane, he's be allowed asylum in Austria? You'd have to be daft to think he'd be on anything but the next plane to the United States.
    - The United States threatened to revoke a trade agreement with Ecuador (which would cripple them economically) for considering asylum for Snowden.
    - Germany has said on several occasions it doesn't want Snowden to testify in Germany because it would cause too much diplomatic strain with the US.
    - Hong Kong told Snowden his passport was about to be cancelled (that the form had been filled out wrong the first time and the US would probably resubmit it soon), and if it was, they would have to consider the US's extradition claims.

    Really, anyone who does not think that Russia, Iran, North Korea & Cuba are about the only countries in the world who would not extradite him, has their head so far up their behinds that they're suffering from oxygen deprivation to the brain. Russia is the clear pick of a very bad lot. The US is playing too hardball for Snowden to be able to wind up anywhere else, and idiot comments like yours are just a ploy to get him to try to go anywhere else so they have another chance to strong arm someone into handing him over. He'd be an idiot to try go anywhere else at this point - and an idiot he is not.

  124. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

    The US government is doing everything it can to make him a martyr.

    Actually, they're doing everything they can try to NOT make him a martyr. If he's a martyr, it's makes the PR issue even worse, and can lead to others taking up his cause. They want to discredit him, turn public opinion against him, and then destroy him. (See: Julien Asagne)

    They're the good guys, he's the bad guy, mission accomplished.

  125. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by tehlinux · · Score: 2

    So we're allowed to have one?

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  126. Free Republic? Not exactly the best "source". by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    How about directly linking to the article instead of the commentary?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  127. Another Snowden lie, given the circumstances. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given that the Russian government is protecting him as much as they are, he handed some intelligence over to buy himself some time. That's the most likely manner in which they'd offer him protection.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Another Snowden lie, given the circumstances. by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Given that the Russian government is protecting him as much as they are, he handed some intelligence over to buy himself some time. That's the most likely manner in which they'd offer him protection.

      Not really - it's cheap political theater. He's a highly public figure that the US desperately wants back on US soil - it costs Russia nothing to have him & they gain a lot of 'respectability' points for sheltering a US dissident from the wrath of "an out of control US government". The political points for having Snowden lecture the US on privacy issues & transparency from Moscow are huge - Russia couldn't buy a better venue to tweak Uncle Sam's nose.

  128. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    "I think he was right, the leaks carry more weight with a name behind them"

    I think he should have used a cool-sounding pseudonym, like Deep Throat

  129. Nope. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The only people that should be protected is the people that end up catching, prosecuting, convicting, and carrying out the sentence on Snowden.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  130. Grant him immunity. He'll probably come home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like an easy fix.

  131. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by weszz · · Score: 1

    There's no logical explanation, so it MUST be aliens.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

  132. Baseless assumptions by Snowden vs NSA evidence by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Snowden asserts that he brought no classified files with him when he left the US.

    All he has is assumptions that are taken up by the pro-Snowden (and anti-America) choir.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  133. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Yes, but Congressman Mike Rogers said he was a Russian spy. Surely a US Congressman wouldn't lie about important stuff like that?

    Well he is a spy, and he is in and talking to the Russians, so that's pretty much the definition. Snowden pretty much knows it's either co-operate or get your ass shot full of peanut oil before getting the dunk in ice water; so I doubt there will be anything that the Russians would want to know, that Snowden would be able to keep from them.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  134. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What evidence do you have that this story is true? The words of an ex-spy who defected to the US decades ago. That is all. And yet you believe it to be true. Who is the one with the bias?

  135. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    I did not express that opinion at all.

  136. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What information? All the stuff Snowden released publically boils down basically to "spies are spying, news at 11". Of course, the new thing is that USA actually got caught red-handed so everyone can now act outraged, but really. What the hell did people think CIA and everyone else were doing? Cuddling puppies?

  137. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by dkf · · Score: 2

    He is a "useful idiot" with a lot of information in his pocket. When they are finished with him, he is either going to be returned to the U.S or he is just going to "disappear" into the abyss.

    Snowden's principal value to the Russians is for propaganda purposes, and this was the case all along. Making one's opponents look very bad is quite thoroughly valuable from a diplomacy perspective, since it persuades third parties (e.g., most of Latin America and Africa) to be more receptive to your message.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  138. Won't happen. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Never mind that he would have a price on his head no matter where he walked.

    He's effectively open season for anyone that wants him gone.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  139. Fixing your errors. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Because as far as the general public, rather than pro-Snowden minority is concerned, he gave us concrete evidence that he betrayed his country and that's all that matters is that we are getting fucked as long as he's not prosecuted or otherwise handled.

    Fixing that for you.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Fixing your errors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When and how did he give that evidence? So far, I've only seen evidence that hist former employer betrayed his country.

  140. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Oh look, the Chewbacca defense.

    --
    Good-bye
  141. Russia knows already... by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Also, I don't see any reason for Russia to have any interests in Snowden's intelligence.

    On the contrary, I see 2 reasons NOT to:

    - Russia probably knows most of this already. That's the country with FSB/KGB/etc.: They've been at this spying game for a long time and have a lot of experience. If a lone guy like Edward can pull such an operation without much help, imagin what Russia could do with way more ressources. (Ditto for China).

    - Because he's known, it would be a diplomatic problem to openly use snowden as an intelligence source. better not touch him even with a 10-foot-pole and rely on their own (better funded, better trained) spy force.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  142. since he didn't bring anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He purposefully didn't bring anything with him to Hong Kong, and since this is such a high profile situation Russia is clearly not going to coerce anything out of him. The best they can hope for is to try and trick Snowden into revealing anything that might help them get a tip off on how to steal the info from the journalists themselves who might suffer a surprise "break in" in their house.

    But really why would Russian intelligence so anything at this point? All they have to do is wait and all of the damage will be done automatically.
    Why would you want to mess this up? It's not like they weren't tracking a lot of this already. The exposed documents will just help solidify things they already suspected.

    I don't doubt that Russia may have tried to trick Snowden, and they will continue to try to trick him. I just think they haven't been successful

  143. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    You realize I'm not the GGP and that I didn't take sides, right? I don't have a theory.

  144. Sorry Godwin, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... everything Hitler did was legal.

  145. Hong Kong isn't part of the PRC? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Funny, I must have missed the part where Hong Kong is an independent country. (Hint: It isn't.)

    While Hong Kong does have a high degree of autonomy, they have no control over the political policy regarding foreign affairs, while they have as much control as the mainland feels like allowing over economic affairs. I guarantee the PRC took direct control of the "Snowden Situation".

  146. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hong Kong is technically part of the PRC although it is a "special" autonomous region.

  147. There were plenty of options before he went public by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Instead of flying from Honolulu to Hong Kong, there are any number of Western European states he could have flown to prior to going public. Once there, he could have happily Schengen'd himself nearly anywhere in Western Europe at will, as there are precisely zero border checks within the Schengen agreement. It would be fairly easy to hide for months.

    I expect the NSA figured out the source of the leaks within 24 hours, as a simple check of passenger manifests showing an unauthorized trip by an NSA clearance-holder to Hong Kong would have been pretty damning. If, on the other hand, he had merely told his boss he was going on a long vacation to Europe, it would have been a while before they were able to pin it on him.

    I can't say Western Europe would have been safe indefinitely, but he would have had much more time and more options than HK and Russia.

  148. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    another nation's government wants to lock him up for what he can do for them

    I haven't seen any evidence of that. He's been in Russia for some time now, living a fairly normal life by all accounts. Him just being alive, and free (within Russia's borders; obviously they have no control over how other countries treat him), and popping up in the media now and then serves them quite well since it's a thorn in the side of the US and makes the US government look bad.

  149. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    But the US state department revoked his passport preventing him from leaving the airport in Russia after sitting in the international lobby for weeks unable to leave, Russia gave him a one year grant of asylum.

    Lack of a passport wouldn't stop him from traveling. Just like Russia granted him travel papers to go from the international lobby into Russia proper, any other country could have done the same, but the US made it clear there was nowhere he could go. They did the equivalent of grounding Air Force One to search it for Snowden. Had that happened to the US done by Ecuador, it would have been considered an act of war. But the US violates international law with impunity.

    There doesn't look to be any direct flights from Hong Kong to South America (they land in Australia, Mexico, or the USA). So he had to fly west to avoid a US controlled destination.

  150. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The US government's actions have not been consistent with their statements. They wanted Snowden out of Russia, but revoked his travel papers, making that increasingly difficult. The US lied about the content of what Snowden was revealing. The US government has been caught in numerous lies. What proof do you have that the proven liar is telling the truth this time?

  151. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    No, you carefully worded your words to say nothing while attacking others. What, do you work for the government? You sound like you should.

  152. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Jesus wept to think that so many people are getting hoodwinked by this crap.

    mpercy wasn't hoodwinked by anything. That account is astroturfing and the original owner may or may not even be involved. That post was packed from one end to the other with the Party Line, in every detail. It's meant to affect the thinking of people reading it. I should say, it's meant to damage the thinking of people reading it. It's disinformation/spin/propaganda. Call it what you like. I call it bullshit.

  153. Re:There were plenty of options before he went pub by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

    Instead of flying from Honolulu to Hong Kong, there are any number of Western European states he could have flown to prior to going public.

    You forget over whose airspace the Bolivian president's plane was forced down. He knew damn well any western European nation would have fallen all over itself to rush him into US custody, preferably secretly.

    Flying to a nominal US adversary and ending up in an actual US adversary was his only option. US allies are obviously eager to break their own laws and their own human rights treaties if the US government says so.

  154. Re:Breaking News: US Gov. shoots itself in the foo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if you believe that he's a "whistleblower" instead of a traitor. There's a blatant pattern of only attacking western nations in his releases.

  155. Nice FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny what language makes it into such propaganda articles.
    The "Second Directorate", something that we never heard much about because counter intelligence was always the more boring part (real spies are much more fun, eh?) suddenly becomes the "prestigious Second Directorate".

    Also, any time you need some Russian mystery man, an ex-KGB major will do. Just low enough so nobody wouldn't possibly have ever heard of him and just high enough to make him a little more than a simple foot soldier to make him an expert in whatever is needed.

    Of course the Russian FSB's actual counter-intelligence are so incompetent as to allow an defector to keep in touch with old colleagues, otherwise there just wouldn't be a nice narrative. Not to mention that of course all FSB counter-intelligence personal are super excited to keep a defector in the loop!

    It's funny how all the "free media" outlets are part of the giant propaganda machine, any absolutist regime would be proud for.

    At least in this case, they really have to work hard to build up their traitor narrative, because of the overwhelming evidence people just aren't buying it (yet).
    I just wonder if even the Fox-News crowd buys the story that the FSB is super interested in a sysadmin who copied data and wasn't involved in any actual intelligence work, because they are assumed to be so grossly incompetent, that they don't have any better sources to learn about actual "spy stuff".

  156. Russia in Vogue once more by seoras · · Score: 1

    I grew up in the cold war believing that the "bad guys" were all communists and the Russians were baddest of the bad.

    After the Berlin Wall collapsed and East/West made up a new enemy was announced and Islam and the Taliban became the new fashion in Western media's world evil.

    Now we see negotiations with the Taliban, prisoners exchanged, troop withdrawals, etc.
    Look who's the bad guy again.
    Just today I was reading an interesting BBC article on medieval armed combat (trying to get away from the usual media junk food politics).
    Yet even in that article the journalist managed to turn it into negative piece on Russia.

  157. Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko says .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko and current mouthpiece for MI5 attempts to discredit Edward Snowden .. and the name should be 'Karpichkov'
    --

    PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

    DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people --
    --

    V for Vendetta (2005)

  158. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Clsid · · Score: 1

    By your same logic, you also have no evidence to back up your theory that the US did not fabricate this story. Besides, the whole article is based in speculation and when it comes to Snowden the facts quickly go down the drain.

  159. Re:A "trick"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it isn't. Mainland China and Hong Kong are still *VERY* different, and the fact that you don't appear to be aware of this should perhaps make you question the keenness with which you vomited up that link.

    You're saying the equivalent of something like "He was in the Navajo Indian Reservation, not the United States". Absurd.

  160. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks. Your post is great metadata on shilling activity here on slashdot.

  161. That's how it always is by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    Like something out of a bad spy novel, take one disgruntled security worker who has managed to end up alone and with a lot of people out to get him, and you send somebody to be his buddy. Sometimes a girl with boobs too big and a skirt too short. Sometimes it's friendly uncle Boris, you know, how loves the foote-ball like you do, heh heh heh, on big screens of tele the vision, heh heh heh.

    Oh honey, I completely understand, you just want to do the right thing for all people. And those bad old Americans just don't understand you like I do. Must be so sad being alone. Awwwww. But I know some friends who have a place you can stay, hide out, relax, have a little ffffuuunnnn, giggle, look at my spectacular rack (and I don't mean server rack) so why don't you come to Moscow with me, huh honey?

    Of course the friends turn out to be really quite nice, and Boris really does have a big TV and the girl agent really wants to be his girlfriend forever. And they all live happily ever after in lives of completely moral, monetary, and sexual fulfilment.

    Sure they do.

    Everybody in life is trying to use you for something. Nothing is free. Some offer money in exchange for work. If you do it at desk or on your back in a bed, it's still just a trade: they use you in exchange for something. And the more they offer, the more strings are attached. When they promise exactly what you happen to want, there's going to be a very big price attached even if you refuse to believe it. Nothing is free, not even information. Nothing.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  162. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the Russian govt that said "no, you can't catch a flight out of Moscow without a valid passport." They could have issued him a temporary passport themselves, or just waived the requirement entirely. They didn't.

  163. As a former HK resident: Yes, there's a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Hong Kong and Mainland China are related hardly interchangeable.

    Puerto Rico isn't exactly The United States either.

  164. Why brag about it? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If this happened the way Boris Karpichko tells us, what is Russia's interest to brag about it?

  165. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, where do I even begin with this? This is a huge list of lies cleverly disguised as true-sounding facts. If you consider yourself a "sane citizen", I fear for our democracy considering the ease with which you fell for such propaganda.

    1. You compare Snowden to a spy who sold classified info to Israel. The spy sold shit for money, not for any public good. Snowden released the information to the public with no profit for himself, indeed he has lost everything he owns in the process.

    2. You blame Snowden for the stories about NSA foreign intelligence programs such as against the Taliban. Except Greenwald effectively demolished this lie on his Colbert Report interview. Those stories came from The New York Times and other places that are NOT working with Greenwald or off of the Snowden documents. The "Snowden leaks" HAVE been entirely about flagrantly illegal programs. The rest has been false-flag stories intended to discredit him and make people like you hate him for doing the right thing.

    3. Calling the deliberate hacking of every computer in the world with a special focus on our closest allies "not immoral" is disturbing on a deep level. You really don't understand morality at all.

    4. Snowden signed an oath to uphold the Consitution, and that trumps any level of classification. The "sanctity" of classified documents is not part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is.

    5. The "scoop" that Snowden lied to get his co-workers passwords has never been proven or even corroborated. It was claimed by NSA spokespeople with no evidence, in fact the only external "verification" was people who said they offered Snowden their passwords and he refused and told them never to give out their passwords.

    6. He placed himself at Hawaii in order to gather the proof that Drake and Binney and others who went before him did not have. The number of documents is purely conjecture, the NSA has no fucking idea what he took or how many documents he held. But it doesn't matter, because the only information that has escaped from that trove is the stuff that Greenwald has published and the information that people like Bruce Schneier learned by studying it on his multiple-encrypted air-gapped machine solely devoted to holding the subset of documents he has. Furthermore, the US Congress specifically asked Bruce Schneier to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the US Congress could not get that information out of the NSA despite their mandate for direct oversight. So... your idea of "espionage" is the US Congress learning what the people they are required to oversee are really doing. The "legal and proper" channels 100% denied that information to Congress. Reference the CIA deleting documents out from under the Senate committee investigating them for crimes.

    So to sum up: Snowden is not responsible for the stories about "legitimate" NSA spying on foreigners, government shills planted those stories to deceive people like you. And it worked. You fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Now the real question... will you admit you fell for a lie and Snowden acted morally, or will you double-down on your hate?

    P.S. - I challenge everybody who has an opinion on Snowden to thoroughly research Binney and Drake et al., and explain why Snowden would not have suffered the same fate.

  166. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

    Probably GCHQ in the UK, although given how closely they work with the NSA I'm not sure there's a substantive difference.

  167. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm not. I'm saying you were constructing a false dichotomy.

  168. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden is bad because terrrists.

    You misspelled that. It's "tewowists".

  169. So many shills here, much government astroturf ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how many people are being paid to post all this pro-surveillance, anti-Snowden propaganda here? Slashdotters, for all our faults, are a tough audience to target with that rubbish. You're better off going back to the comments on the Mail Online, Huff Post etc. Much bigger audience there too.

  170. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    Yes. I secretly work for the CIA.

  171. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes no sense. If he wanted to sell the information to Russia or any other government, he could have. Instead, he gave it to journalists to parse and give to the public, at great risk to his own personal safety. Meanwhile, we have every reason to believe his claim that he's used strong encryption throughout; encryption that Russia would not be able to break, even if they stole a copy of the files. I don't want to make a personal attack, but I just hope you realize the irony in calling someone a useful idiot in this case. I'm sure there are people in US government who are quite happy when citizens come to the same incorrect conclusion that you have.

  172. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by jonfr · · Score: 1

    I am not a citizen of the U.S. Never have been and I don't plan to be one at any time in the future. What you don't realize is that Russia most likely are paying Snowden for his trouble. There is no such thing as free meal in the spy world. That rule clearly applies in this case.

    Russia did go into great length into housing Snowden. They do want there investment returned in some form.

  173. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about ignorant !
    The Russians ALREADY have EVERYTHING snowden knows AND things in his head he is not even aware of.
    Snowden's intent has nothing to do with the inevitable charges to be levied against him.

  174. Ain't ded yet by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Which is an advance on the position he'd have assumed (in rigor mortis) if he'd stayed within reach of American "justice".

    Snowden - 1

    CIA . . . . - 0

    KGB . . . - ~0.7

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  175. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    And *quotation marks* are for words used as ironically/sarcastically as the word "evidence" was, by you, sir, in that pre I previous post. Good day!

    --
    -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  176. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Optali · · Score: 1

    [...]because we thought that Snowden might be on board.

    So, it was you all the time, eh?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  177. may i call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flamebait?

  178. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Is there any evidence at all that he had contact with Russia prior to ending up there? As far as I know, there isn't.

    Yeah. I'll admit my memory of the topic isn't perfect, but I thought it was the folks at wikileaks that that were trying to help him and suggested Russia was the safest stopover point.

    You are correct it was Wikileaks that bought him his plane tickets out of Hong Kong when China was looking like they were about to give him up to the US. Russia was supposed to just be a stop where he was supposed to get on a plane bound for Cuba then Ecuador. But the US state department revoked his passport preventing him from leaving the airport in Russia after sitting in the international lobby for weeks unable to leave, Russia gave him a one year grant of asylum. This is just a bunch of political propaganda to discredit Snowden.

    Also remember the US forced a landing of the jet carrying the President of Bolivia because we thought that Snowden might be on board.

    The only reason Snowden is in Russia is Because the US government has trapped him there.

    You guys should realize that live in Russia is not at all bad. Particularly for an educated person. My son worked 10yrs in USA, moved to Latvia (marriage), and after learning Russian, applied to several international companies there. Job prospects were great. He accepted an offer for Moscow, but his wife refused to relocate there, and that kaboshed that opportunity. Salaries, when you factor in Free quality medicare, is comparable to that earned by an MBA with 15 years management experience.

    Good food, one month vacations, great vacation areas. Negative -- cost of housing, if you want an independent house, like a cottage or bungalow.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  179. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    This is why I find this discussion so absurd.

    If the US really was concerned about Snowden giving US secrets to Russia, why not reinstate his passport so he can leave? They're the reason he's stranded in Russia, not because Snowden wanted to go there.

    Can this happen? Russia allows Snowdon as a landed immigrant. After the probationary period, he receives citizenship and a new passport. He will then be able legally to change his name. And by that time, he may also be married and living a happy married life.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  180. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that it's SUPER STUPID.

    The Russians don't need Snowden's data to learn that the NSA is spying on Americans. There is likely nothing useful in his data for Russia. They want to steal technology and wealth for their corporations, perhaps in the same way that might be going on behind the scenes here; picking the winners and losers and people in power scratching each other's back -- we have no way of knowing how this information is abused.

    What we DO KNOW from Wikileaks document dumps, is that any spying agency can just buy all the info they need about Americans from the contractors -- they can just buy huge databases of information.

    Spying isn't for the interests of the nations anymore -- this is a quaint old story. It's corporations trying to get advantages over other corporations and paying off government to do it. The only "secret" they worry about is that the various people of these countries figure out it's just the haves verses the have nots and Russia really isn't worried about destabilizing our government or we theirs. These militaries are only to procure resources and get cheap labor -- not much else.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  181. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    Well the smart people were on Snowden's side because they suspected that the NSA was doing these things and they understand how it can ruin a Democracy.

    And the dumb people were against Snowden because he popped their little bubble of plausible deniability.

    The world used to be a lot of shades of gray for me, but it's thoughtful that all the morons, evil doers twiddling their mustaches and douche bags are lining up to get on the same team. I'm waiting for one of these guys to do a villain laugh on TV and scream; "Fools!"

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"