Slashdot Mirror
NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure
AHuxley (892839) writes "The Desk reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden" and the NSA's refusal to release all documents. "The National Security Agency has acknowledged it retains a record of e-mail communications from former contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden, but says those records are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act. In a letter responding to a June 27 FOIA request from The Desk, the NSA’s chief FOIA officer Pamela Phillips wrote that while the agency has retained records related to Snowden’s employment as a contractor, they are being withheld from public examination because, among other things, releasing the records 'could interfere with law enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures.' Other records are being withheld because those documents were 'also found to be currently and properly classifiedand remains classified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL.' The letter marks the first time the NSA has publicly acknowledged retaining communication and employment records related to Snowden’s time as a contractor."
And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Snowden / Binney 2016!
That image is my original artwork (with friendly tips from Slashdot user Indigo), copyright 2014 Robert Bushman, licensed under CC by-nc-sa. It is properly sized for a 2.75" by 5" sticker with .125" bleed at 300 dpi. I'm getting them printed at psprint.com (I recommend doing a search for "vinyl bumper stickers", since they often have a coupon running on Duck Duck Go). I haven't seen my physical proofs yet, but the on-screen color conversion looked good to me. Please feel free to print a stack and spread them far and wide.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
No longer inhabits the constitutional legal framework of its purpose or foundation.
It is an illegal institution, with no basis for either loyalty or obedience.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
He's already released a few, didn't he? The result was NSA-apologists calling him a liar and saying he made it all up.
At this point, there are numerous things happening such as laws, inquiries, public debate, and policy changes that are all due to Snowden's release of information. I feel that he has brought to the forefront an important issue and revealed things that the public needed to know. I can understand to some degree that people don't like how he did it, but given the machine that is the government, I don't doubt that this was the only way to bring about such changes (or at least debate and knowledge).
After a bit of a cool down period, I don't hear nearly as much hate for Snowden. Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and all other flavors should want a more open government. The government does also need to keep some things secret. This gives them a reason, the means, and a public grant of power to keep things from public knowledge. Some times the only way to circumvent that power is through a leak/whistle blower.
As far as this story, the public needs to pressure the government to keep no more secrets about Snowden. The cover of endangering certain sources or resources is no longer being accepted as we have seen little damage and much good from the release. It's time the US Government come clean and it's time we tell them that we demand it.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Perhaps they should try and contact Edward Snowden and see if he has copies of those email messages that'd he'd care to release.
Yeah, this smells like NSA trying to hide that Snowden did in fact try to bring up the issue through official channels, before he leaked documents to the public.
...Snowden would waive his right to privacy, but the NSA's answer would no doubt be the same.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are absolutely correct but they know perfectly well it would just be followed up with the obvious and very specific request for "All e-mails from Edward Snowden with subject matter relating to the legality of the internet monitoring and cellular meta data gathering activities conducted by the NSA".
And then they'd be right back here were they are now. Having to make the same excuse, which might have some legitimacy as those mails probably are evidence in an on going criminal investigation of Snowden; all though we all know he isn't returning to the States without some kind of immunity agreement so its rather hollow sounding. Think how hollow it would sound if it was a second excuse given.
The reality is Snowden's story about having attempted to raise the issues thru the proper channels is likely truthful and would just expose more NSA and State Department lies. The would rather just look like dicks and someone felt just shutting down the FOIA avenue would look less Dickish than being evasive.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:
You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA. They could be lying outright, or they could be doing it the DC way, which is telling the truth in a misleading way, by overlooking the fact that he approached them in person about it instead of in written form, which I certainly would have, as I'd be nervous as shit about writing an email like that.
He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.
He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii. There's nothing cowardly about all that.
Edward Snowdon understood what would happen if he where to seriously try and push the issue internally.
The global surveillance network was a core NSA policy authorized at the highest levels. This was not simply some rouge agent or rouge department. Previous individuals have attempted to raise concerns internally and failed to achieve any change underlying policy. The NSA has even deliberately lied to congress on the matter.
As a contractor, he has no employment rights. Making noise would likely get his security clearance revoked and his employer finding someone else who doesn't have a moral problem with surveillance. It would also likely get himself added to the NSA watchlist.
As a pragmatist, his decision to publicly release records has successfully created enough political pressure for congress to at least review the NSA's policies. A cowardly little shit who was willing to risk everything on a high risk venture, with a very strong possibility of getting caught, that takes some major balls from someone who knows exactly what the NSA is capable of.
Like ... how? Tip off Snowden that he's wanted?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels? Now I wonder why that might be?
You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No. He already said why. He didn't take anything with him beyond Hong Kong and there is no reason tothink he could have had the foresight to take the emails at the time he took the other documents. The fact we're attacking him over what is trivial compared to the crimes he's brought us should send up a red flag. They are distracting us and the administration, prior administration, and at least some of those in congress amongst others should be charged with treason and in prison. Unfortunately our system doesn't work in such a way that true justice can be realized. Those accused tend to be those who are the enemy of the state (people in power) or simply being taken advantage of for poitical gain (Aaron Swartz, Bernie S, etc).
Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels?
a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.
b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.
You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?
If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?
The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.
If you really beleive what you wrote, why do think the NSA is refusing to release them?
And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.
Well the government has made one thing very clear. They believe that they are the only beings on earth that are entitled to privacy or secrecy, and they are entitled to ALL of it while simultaneously violating everyone else's eight ways till friday.
Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.
Except the NSA just released one of Snowden's emails questioning the legality of things one or two months ago. They then claimed that was the "only" email they had from him. Now they are saying they have lots but can't release them for some reason. So, the NSA has been caught lying to you yet again and you continue to look the other way. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?
Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.
Ok, I'll stipulate that he claims he wrote them.
All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.
I honestly and sincerely don't even see it as related. He may not even anticipated that someone would challenge. He was seeking to establish beyond credible doubt that the NSA was doing XYZ. That is "the story" he was looking to tell. That someone would try to argue that a big part of the story would be "hey, can you prove you tried to tell someone inside, first" possibly didn't even enter into his mind.
In the big picture, it doesn't even matter. What matters is what the NSA was doing, not how vigorously Snowden tried to change it from within first.
Regardless of how important this particular detail is to you, its at best a tangential detail to the main story.
Its just a small minded distraction to try and divert attention from the main story. Like obsessing over Julian Assange's significant personal flaws instead of focusing on the actual wiki leaks leaks.
Maybe because they don't exist?
That doesn't fly within this thread of the sub-argument.
You'd stipulated they DID exist and contained the NSA's response that they were legal. You can't now argue that maybe they didn't exist, at least not within this sub-thread.
Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?
They could redact them. Even if they were just "walls of black ink", they would establish that they existed.
I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.
You are contorting like an acrobat. You are arguing that "if they exist, the NSA is rightfully keeping them secret, therefore we should assume Snowden is lying about their existence, and that they don't exist". That's not even coherent.
Seems to me then, its perfectly reasonable to accept Snowden's claim they exist.
Which "general consensus" is that?
Lets see:
the 5 member Privacy and Civil liberties Oversight Board created by Congress ruled them illegal.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled them illegal.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled them illegal.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/b...
And even the NSA itself, has ADMITTED substantial wrongdoing.
http://thehill.com/policy/tech...
"The one on Slashdot?"
Yeah, sure, the one on slashdot too. ::eyeroll::
This may be the most ironic thing I've seen in a while.
"would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures"
in other words, it would expose your illegal activities. gotcha.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.