Slashdot Mirror
Glen Greenwald: Don't Trust Anonymous Anti-Snowden Claims
Glen Greenwald casts a scathing look at the claims (such as by the Sunday Times) that Edward Snowden's leaked information had been cracked by Russian and Chinese spy agencies. Greenwald compares Snowden to some other public figures against whom underhanded tactics were employed by the U.S. government. A slice: There’s an anonymously made claim that Russia and China “cracked the top-secret cache of files” from Snowden’s, but there is literally zero evidence for that claim. These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified. There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that, particularly since other government officials are constantly accusing both countries of successfully hacking sensitive government databases?
Anyone who has been following these Snowden-related news already knew the US government officials lied, lied, and lied repeatedly, lied to the world, lied to their own people, lied to their Congress, all without any consequences.
Anyone who still believed them would need to have zero capability in logical thinking, so what's the point in pointing out flaws in the logic of these statements?
Sure, have a healthy suspicion of anything you hear from the government, but these complaints just don't make sense.
>> These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified
What, so you expect the government to publish the names of former covert agents previously operating in hostile countries? How about their home address while we're at it?
>> There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that, particularly since other government officials are constantly accusing both countries of successfully hacking sensitive government databases
One of the whole points of an intelligence organisation is to know what the 'enemy' knows and how they got that information. There are loads of ways you can find out how knowledge came about, such as observing coincidental timing (china discovers several things at the same time what were all in unreleased snowden files), asking your source, or obtaining secret documents from your opponent describing how the information was obtained.
foo mane padme hum
After all, China and Russia are supposed to be the bad dude, and Snowden is supposed to be a traitor
Who are us to argue with the mighty Uncle Sam?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They're flinging it everywhere and try to make some of it stick to someone else.
The Snowden leaks were accepted uncompromisingly when they came about, even through the majority of the "evidence" were redacted papers and power point slides. The US government didn't do the thing they always do in every other situation: deny everything. Hell, there is more evidence given by 9/11 truthers than what showed up in the beginning of the Snowden leaks (and really even the continual leaks).
We are to believe that a man who worked from home, in Hawaii, making $200k a year with a smoking hot girlfriend, just decided he was morally obligated to spill the beans and release all this classified information. Is it possible for one man to get all this information? Yes. Chelsey manning did it. But after that I have trouble believing the narrative.
Snowden speaks more elegantly than any other whistle blower. He is the model of perfection. He has had that nose piece missing from his glasses in every interview and god that's got to get annoying. Surely one of his guards can go to a store in Russia and get it fixed!
I'm sorry, the Snowden story doesn't add up. It's too perfect and every new agency has picked it up as the gospel truth without question.
Let me ask you this? What is the true implication of the mass spying? It's not that the government is spying on individuals; it's that they can release a piece of propaganda and test to see how many people believe it. It's the means by which a nation can measure their bullshit. In the wake of the Snowden leaks, there have been no revolutions; no riots; no people screaming in the streets. It's the ultimate proof that domestic spying works! You can spy on an entire nation; prevent any form of dissent and no one gives two shits.
Snowden is a limited hangout and I bet he still works for the NSA.
... the whole "snowden's leaks did it" could be a cover for what other hacks did.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I have seen a four headed cow and the alien from Area 51 - my claim is legit!
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/14/tom-harper-nsa-files-snowden-howell-intv-nr.cnn#
Will the weasels at the Sunday Times print the names and photos of the "anonymous officials" who give them their public relationships fodder?
"These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified"
Why you would identify these spies even if they were caught?
"There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that, particularly since other government officials are constantly accusing both countries of successfully hacking sensitive government databases?"
Because admitting to being hacked, and admitting to having a spy operation go south are very different.
It's absolutely predictable that those files would be cracked, why is that not more believable?
Given that we just had the big story about the Office of Personnel Management getting hacked six ways from sunday by parties unknown, 'OMG Snowden' seems unlikely to be the biggest of the US spooks' problems at the moment.
Just about the least grammatical scapegoating response I've seen on Slashdot.
I am also claiming, based on a trip I had to Maseru where I spoke to some well placed people, that Lesotho has also cracked the encryption.
Of course, for the same reasons above, I cannot provide even a shred of evidence. You will have to take me on my word, as this is SERIOUS.
Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning?
The encryption designed, implemented and deployed by the world's leading experts in the field was broken in a couple of years (and this occurred simultaneously in two other countries).
Yet crooks and criminals are using technology so advanced that GCHQ, NSA, .... cannot break it and governments start proposing ill thought through and half-baked laws about use of encryption and ask for back doors.
EITHER they were all encrypted with the same details and 'rubber hose' cryptanalysis was used [which would be both unlikely and a massive breach of operating procedures]
OR our beloved leaders are being at best misguided and/or disingenuous or at worst dissembling schemers [aka 'cock-up vs conspiracy']
... the russians and chinese arn't going to suddenly go out and arrest a load of US spies making it obvious that they've cracked it. They'll probably use the information to make high value gains. When the british cracked Enigma in WW2 they made damn sure it wasn't obvious to the germans that it had been cracked and even allowed some of their own ships to be sunk even though they knew where U boats were just so they had the advantage of continuing to decode more important correspondence.
I thought this was a pro-Snowden claim. Am I on the other side of 'your' planet? YES!
If there was any danger to British Agents why were they not recalled a year ago when that claim was first made?Also, the whole argument is an attempt to justify the " Snoopers Charter ", as an excuse to spy on British Citizens . They want our information unencrypted because they say they can't do it themselves, yet Russia and China can? It is either a lie or an admission of complete irresponsibility and incompetance on behalf of Western Security.They are saying GCHQ and M.I.6. are unfit for purpose.What an admission. We should also remember that China would not give Snowden asylum,-why then would they want to unencrypt his files?Russia, likewise allowed asylum for a limited period with reluctance.
Is anyone buying this BS?
Seth Rogan is on it like a fat guy on a Big Mac.
Yes I see many problems with your line of reasoning. The word "facile" comes to mind.
If Russia and/or China would have decrypted messages, they would most certainly not tell the rest of the world.
Similarly, they wouldn't publish it if they managed to locate enemy spies.
If somehow, this DID happen, the US government would most certainly not publish the fact that they knew.
Information is valuable.
Information the enemy thinks you don't have is invaluable.
The fact that this is published tells me it's most likely not true.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
And what agency does this Glen Greenwald work form?
This is all misinformation so that the false information CIA agent Snowden gave to the Russians and chines is believed.
'nuff said.
Snowden was starting to get some very begrudging props for his role in the limited NSA reforms passed by the US Congress. This laughably ridiculous and unsubstantiated attack on him was deployed to help keep Snowden trapped in the traitor role.
The real danger here is that if the powers that be keep destroying their own credibility like this, eventually they will start to lose control and then all Hell will break loose. They seem to be reacting emotionally, not rationally and they seem to be losing touch with reality. It reminds me of the craziness of the last days of the Nixon White House. Only this time the problem goes much deeper. It is no longer a single person and the tight knit group surrounding him. The insanity has metastasized.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
> Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning?
Oh, no. Not the least.
May I add Vanuatu to te list?
If it is the case that UK spies can be identified from information held on databases in other countries, sack the head of MI5, immediately !
Personally, as soon as i heard the story on that bastion of unresearched garbage, the BBC, I knew it made no sense. The Sunday Times article simply confirmed this.
Agreed (especially reminding me of watergate bs as you note): They've ALL crapped on themselves (all governments from BOTH 'sides' - IF there even IS such a thing that is, since face it: BIG MONIES around the planet *REALLY* "run the show", not governments (they're just puppets/tools for the aforementioned super-wealthy)).
Sure - some, perhaps even MOST, government folks go in with "the right idea", only to find out the "REAL DEAL" in that ALL OF "THEIR DECISIONS" (not really theirs is what I am leading to) are arrived @ via blackmail &/or coercion... how fucking sad.
E.G. #1 -> State Official, say governor or senator, wants to do TRULY "the right thing" & gets told "Well sir, if you do NOT 'go our way', it'd be a shame to let your wife know about your funtimes with your secretary" (via the NSA spy machine for example getting that info)
OR
E.G. #2 -> "Well Sir, if you do NOT 'go our way', those jobs in your district, all the many 1,000's of them? Will "go away", since we 'got smart/wise to the game' & don't BUY plant, property, or equipment anymore, we lease it so we can be instantly mobile & fuck with guys JUST LIKE YOU... good luck getting re-elected once your constituency loses their jobs buddy!"
(Some small examples, perhaps oversimplified, but examples nevertheless).
In any event? Personally?? I don't KNOW what to believe anymore.
See - in a BIG way - I agree with what Snowden did. I really do.
That type of mass spying lunacy SHOULD have been exposed... why?
The gov't BROKE ITS OWN RULES, since the NSA charter is NOT DOMESTIC SPYING (that's the FBI's job)... stupid of them really. It would have been BETTER HANDLED & MORE "LEGAL" (for whatever that means, since face it, those same shenanigan examples I put up above are also the same guys "MAKING THE RULES" & rewriting them, using their puppets in gov't. (or blackmailed for real good guys) to do so, writing up the "new bills" FOR THEM, for Pete's sake).
When those in law enforcement or those making the laws, which are supposed to be EQUAL FOR ALL start BREAKING or even BENDING THEM? It's all for piss, & thinking people don't see that is STUPID TO THE MAX also!
Makes folks lose faith... the WORST that can happen is that. Your 'followers' lose faith in you.
(Face the truth, they're not, those with BIG money get more "law"... there is no JUSTICE though, & the letter of the written for the rich law is what is followed, not the spirit of it, everytime).
I think they've all CRAPPED ON THEMSELVES but good.
Why?
I figure MANY FOLKS like myself are just like "WTF! There's SO MUCH 'spin' & 'disinformation' out there, nobody REALLY knows wtf is going on & I don't have time to dig for the truth - I have a life to lead, bills to pay, a job to keep, a family to love & manage etc." instead.
In the end, the shit will REALLY "hit the fan" since everyone gets wise & starts acting like rats (especially those in gov't. since they just 'give up' & start REALLY acting in their OWN interests planning ahead for the shitstorm to come, covering "them & theirs" as best they can - but same with "the little people" too... it all starts @ the top & cascades downwards... that's what SHIT does!).
APK
P.S.=> Stupidity TO THE MAX is what reigns now... & as far as folks here saying "government that is working for us?" Yea, WAKE UP... everyone is working FOR THEMSELVES, it's all a BIG rat race for a piece of the pie, everyone's using everyone else (that's just what you get in a world of LIMITED RESOURCES, sometimes INTENTIONALLY LIMITED as in OIL being the main power source fuel when tech's been good enough to shift over enmasse for a LONG TIME now - just being done intentionally, like DeBeers & diamonds restricting supply thus economically increasing the value of basically worthless but useful stones with a HUGE abundance, so "certain parties" stay in power & have "control", since they REQUIRE THAT for their socio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
If there is a political point to be made, yeah, I'd expect them to name every single one of them.
They'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
What's the weather like on your planet?
People expect the kind of shit the government is pulling from Russia and China, they just don't want it from countries which are actually *supposed* to be bastions of freedom.
In the long run he did more harm than good. The same practises will continue to happen, he just enabled our enemies to know about them too.
Yes, most of us are aware how those in the US and other '5-Eyes' governments view their citizens.
China and Russia? They knew long before Snowden. These guys are not amateurs. The only people who did not know were the general populations of the US and the world, the ones upon which this global surveillance & tracking behemoth is aimed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
After the massive breeches of government employee's and even the White house computers being hacked. I doubt that China or Russia or any other Country need a Snowden to access sensitive information. Our Country is in pathetic shape when you look at how poorly we product our data. Yet, we seem to do great accessing and spying on our own people? Let's face it, our President thinks we have more internal problems and climate problems then we do anything else. He is void of any concern for foreign threats. Even Hillary Clinton seems to have this same void of concern about Russia or China. Wonder how bad the trade deal is considering all this spying and hacking has China written all over it?
Make folks lose faith in their leaders, from BOTH "sides" (puppets are leaders controlled by BIG money, like say the IMF whom your response alludes to I suspect OR big OIL monies etc.), all per what I said here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
* Gotta admire it for the shrewdness, & there's ALWAYS "the man behind the curtain" skulking in the shadows setting up 'fallguys' like in this case, & what I suspect you are alluding to, governments the WORLD over... make THEM the fallguys.
Pretty soon, everyone loses faith, doesn't know WHAT to believe, & drowning men? WILL GRAB A RAZOR to escape death (meaning they're "looking for a savior") - anyone that can 'promise to fix it all' & along comes the IMF etc. once the petro-dollar collapses with their "PERFECT ANSWER" (which is, I strongly suspect per Rockefeller & Aaron Russo's conversations, is going to be a "CASHLESS SOCIETY" that allows even GREATER control - since, as Rockefeller said "anyone gets outta line? Turn off their chip! They starve" real NUMBER OF THE BEAST technology with that much sinister potential for control... only it doesn't TAKE a chip anymore. It takes a UPC (whose guard bars @ the start, middle, & end are literally "6" symbols, though they 'say they aren't' anyone with EYES can see they are), & RFID tracking ink, which real cattle are tracked by satellite with no less... easily put in your right hand OR on your forehead in fact just like prophecy says).
I'm no 'conspiracy nut' but I *am* willing to listen & consider ANY & ALL possibles... that above is one. Entirely possible.
Sound crazy? Fine... it's possible though.
APK
P.S.=> It's a CRAZY world, there's NO DOUBT of it, & I've been alive 1/2 a century now, & it's worse than it EVER has been in that timeframe, & many of MY seniors agree with me as I often look to THEM for advisement + their experience & wisdom since they are my seniors & thus, usually my LIFE SUPERIORS in experience/wisdom (which is just punches in the head we all learn from really)...
Hey - I'm just trying (really trying in fact) to just stay sane in that CRAZY world (& survive + plan ahead for) - you're all probably the same thinking "WTF IS WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE RUNNING THINGS NOWADAYS? They're running it into the GROUND!" however, per what you state which IS a real possibility? Perhaps intentionally so... apk
There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that,
The only way they could have known that is by having agents inside the Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies. They just blew their decades of work, all by themselves. Or maybe the fear, uncertainty and doubt are the very thing they want to inflict. And their secret government shadow organization, accessible from the basement levels of Broadway Buildings, 54, Broadway is called The Chaos!!
The guy's name is Glenn Greenwald. At least spell the names right.
You are welcome on my lawn.
More likely JTRIG than US NSA.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/07/14/jtrig-tools-techniques/
JTRIG (GCHQ's propaganda and demonizing agency).... because if Home Office came out and denied it, it would be the end of the lie, so they would need UK involved in the lie. JTRIG are the official black ops propaganda unit and so the lie would come from them.
The flawed logic in the story isn't really relevent because its for Fox to cover, and for Murdoch's rags to cover, so it doesn't need to be true or even plausible, it only needs to fool people who never question the news fed to them.
Isn't this the same Greenwald that cropped the "Collateral Murder" video in order to make it fit his narrative?
As others have pointed out, this hatchet job coming on the heels of the pathetically-accidental discovery of the massive FedGov personnel breach cannot be unrelated. An obvious attempt to divert blame from the stunning incompetence of multiple agencies by laying it at the feet of the evil totem Snowden. But obvious still seems to work on increasingly harried USians with little time left in their days to think critically and ask: who benefits?
Edward Snowden had no family to take care of. He was a loner who could afford to flee the country. Most other people are not in this kind of position.
I don't care who you are; people act in their own self-interests. For many government workers, their self-interests include keeping their job, taking care of their families, and not getting thrown into jail. So when a government employee tells you something, you can't trust it. But that's not because they're lying. Most of the time, they're misinformed. Nobody in the NSA knows what anyone else in the NSA is doing. It looks like it's so poorly managed that the management doesn't know what the rest of the organization is doing. (Hey, they should try spying on themselves!) The rest of the time, they're just saying the minimum that is safe to say. The main thing impacting what they say is keeping out of trouble, so they'll say whatever achieves that goal.
Considering that neither you nor I have the circumstances or cojones to do what Snowden did, we're in no position to judge what he or anyone else has done. Most slashdotters in his position like to talk big right now, but the fact is, you'd be scared shitless and do absolutely nothing. Or maybe if you could manage in this economy, you might try to find a different job. Someone really smart and dedicated would work to gain employee status so they could be covered under whistle-blower laws. But that's neither you nor I. The same applied to every other government position.
And as I say, everyone else is in the same position. You want to judge the people who work for the federal government. But they act with total self-interest in the same way that we do. Don't make waves, feed your family, don't get arrested. The only way to fix these problems is to change the law, and that is slowly happening. It may take decades, but it'll happen.
Meanwhile, we all need to be cognizant of the needs to maintain both freedom in our country and also security. We should not sacrifice one for the other. But that makes this a delicate and dynamic balancing act. There are no simple solutions. And on our own, neither you nor I knows the whole solution (in part because the solution has to keep adapting to the ever-changing threats to freedom and security).
Just to be clear. The government lies. Government workers just say whatever they have to to stay out of trouble. This results in lies, but the individual employees aren't lying, at least not intentionally. Only upper management has culpability for not specifying what to say that is truthful.
Snowden is a spy for the NSA. His mission was to convince the world that the NSA has more capabilities than they actually do.
Trust the math
It is possible that the NSA have hooks into their encrypt. Backdoors and the like. Or even just in the Windows OS on computers. And, you see, those backdoors don't know that it's the NSA using them, so anyone can.
You know, russia, china, whoever.
The backdoors, if available (and there is some evidence there is, remember that the NSA USA wide dragnet was denied as "tinfoil hattery"), would make it just as easy for the KGB to decrypt as the NSA.
By the way, that report was not picked up by most news agencies. BBC had it on their front page but since removed it. It seems that they smell a rat too.
I've been on Slashdot since near the beginning and they have never deleted a comment with only one exception that I am aware of which was a threat made against the President, and in that case they made it clear what happened.
You've presented no specific evidence for your claims, and your claims of being persecuted on Slashdot is just evidence of paranoid delusions.
So you believe unsubstantiated quotes just because they fit your pre-determined narrative. Gotcha.
> People defending him seem to think that China and Russia at bastions of freedom
No they don't. Can you give any examples?
Just because someone criticizes the US govt does not mean they admire "enemy" govts.
Your post is like saying "People who criticize police brutality seem to think that organized crime gangs are working for the good of everyone". Or "People who criticize the rapacious health insurance industry seem to think that diseases and injuries are good for people."
The world is not so simplistic us-vs-them.
Snowden is a hero to me.
We're to believe both nations cracked the crypto at the same time? Were they practicing synchronized cryptanalysis? Or do they expect us to believe the even less plausible idea that Russia and China are sharing their most valuable state secrets? They can't expect us to buy the idea that Russia and China have a highly successful joint cryptanalysis effort, can they? A joint effort, mind you, that's more capable than Five Eyes?
This story is a transparent lie. The only people who would believe it are Cold War paranoids who don't understand modern geopolitics. China and Russia would not cooperate this way. If the anonymous source of this story really wanted a sensational scaremongering lie, why didn't they just throw in North Korea and Iran as well? Hell, why not go all the way and add zombie Hitler?
...But I trust the US Government more than I do either the Chinese, the Russians, or Snowden; Not that I trust the US Government that much to begin with, which is why we have the Constitution.
In other words:
The guy that supported the spook that stole from the spooks is complaining about the other spooks that stole from him.
Snowden needed to get caught in order for the press to report the revelations seriously. The foreign intelligence and criminal moles in the NSA and CIA don't want to get caught. With thousands of people with TS clearance within those organizations and apparently a complete database of those individuals in the hands of foreign intelligence... how many actual moles are there?
"This hopelessly dishonest blogger has been posting misleading articles for years" Then you'll have no problem posting some of them and pointing out why they are misleading, right?
Indeed, we that view Snowden as a patriot, don't see his exile to Russia as an endorsement of Russia, merely a condemnation of what the US has become: A place where telling the citizens (of a democracy) what the government is doing is considered a crime.
So which one's Alien and which one's Predator?
Information about CIA, NSA and DoD employees is available directly from the source.
Have gnu, will travel.
A Large government (with virtually unlimited funding) will crack any commodity encryption scheme.
That claim goes against all public analysis of the ciphers in play - what extraordinary evidence do you have to support it? Hollywood doesn't count.
Recall that physical access to the hardware trumps most security. In the crypto world physical access to the person who has the cipher keys would be the equivalent. Ignoring coercion, the CIA and KGB performed many amazing technical surveillance feats back in the day. Some of it damn near unbelievable, beyond what hollywood dreams up (ex 1945-52 a listening device with no power supply or active electronics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... There is no reason to believe comparable technical feats no longer occur.
Greenwald is as wrapped up in all of this as Snowden is. And like Snowden, he's a selfish douchebag who did it all for his own benefit. Should you trust the governments about this? Of coourse not. But you should trust Greenwald even less.
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
So is China our Enemy now like Russia once again? Thats what the article implies. Its odd because I just spent a wonderful evening with a group of my Chinese friends in Beijing (Im a white guy) video chatting...
How can I consider them my enemies now when we sit around together in our PJs and watch movies, listen to music ,talk almost every night...
I grew up during the cold war and this all seems very odd to me now... they are not the villains I once thought they were.
Critical intelligent people think otherwise, but they are lost and this propaganda is not for them.
Critical intelligent people are open minded. They are quite aware of the fact that a professional liar will tell the truth when the truth coincidentally serves the liar's interests.
A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.
Even if things are true, I don't trust Greenwald in this instance since Snowden is a little bit of a cash cow for Glenn, so making Snowden legit benefits Greenwald.
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
You remind me of the kind of @hole that cuts people off when driving, then gives them the finger.
Then I could send him a check, so a) I could say he was working for me, and b) he could argue that he was not doing espionage, but legitimately working for US citizens.....
mark "all you millenials: go read about the Church Commission, in the '70's"
FTFA:
What Snowden revelaed is just too much unchecked power waiting to be abused. It's a structural flaw in how governments operate that one day is going to cause catastrophic damage to democracy.
I would not have done what Snowden did just because think of the damage to national security and where's the evidence this power is currently being abused to stifle democratic liberties?
Where are the bodies and innocent ruined lives?
Where's the influenced or rigged elections?
Where 's the blackmail of Senators and Congresspeople?
All of these crimes are the stuff a panopticon faciliates, but we find no evidence for them, at least yet.
The worst we know about was what Anonymous revealed- a despicable but private effort on the part of govt. contractors to smear and destroy Glenn Greenwald's career and ability to make a living.
But that was private actors, the Chamber of Commerce going to Stratfor looking to destroy him, not the government.
OTOH revealing what he revealed absolutely helps Very Bad People do Very Bad Things. So that is absolutely a cost to society that can't be just brushed aside.
Point is, this panopticon 1984 shit should never have been put into place without serious limitations and safeguards, ones which were not left in the hands of a small group of political lackeys like the FISA court.
Abusive panopticons are what develop in the dark when no one is looking. No one is above the temptation to create unlimited power and take it unto themselves "for the greater good". If it's not being abused, it will be.
We would never know about it- Wyden wasn't able or willing to get the word out- except for Snowden. So we all owe Snowden a debt of gratitude, even if his process was imperfect. He could not sort everything he took for relevance \ danger to national security \ criminality. It was a logisitcal limitation. So he left it to reproters to sort it out.
It's complicated and I dont feel a need to make is less complicated than it is.
He clearly revealed things that are illegal and dangerous to the point of killing the democracy- dangerous to the point of *clearly being a threat to national security*.
At the same time he clearly damaged national secuity.
Legitimate appeals to national security cannot be allowed to evolve into a democracy suicide-pact.
You can't be allowed to baby-step the democracy off a cliff. You built a dangerous system you can't legitimately claim you can control, that is ripe and aching for Stasi / Nazi / Soviet style abuse, which could be used to kill the democracy. Your otherwise legitimate claims to national security are severely undermined .
What Snowden means is the NSA et al were power hungry madmen building a democracy killing WMD and someone who was not brainwashed into the cult found out about it and blew the whistle, and damaged our national security in the process.
The scary thing is this- we're not any better than THAT at preventing group-think within the parts of government that might wield extraordinary power.
This is the professionalization and fineness of capability at keeping people with dissenting views out.
If our system worked, Greemnwald and Snowden would work WITHIN the NSA in watchdog capacites, not outside it, throwing a baby out with every bathtub of dirty water.
It's not their fault in that sense. It's ours. It our failure to demand that government condict itself in light of the science we have done; science about group think, science about exclusionary tendencies of teams, about mobbing within organizations, about the ways power becomes corrupted.
OK then.
Presidential pardon for Snowden- reinstate him and whomever he selects as watchdogs within the NSA. Let outsiders from academia , lawyers and scholars who understand civil liberties into the sytem in a formal way and give them real, unusurpable apolitical power.
We need to go radically outside the comfort zones of those currently in power. Give them their medals and pensions and honors and then retire them; times are changing faster than they can keep up with.
We're not dealing with treasonous traitors. This is an internal dispute betwen equally patriotic Americans.
Don't trust Greenwald's claims.
Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth. The figurative language in this case illustrating the truth that very few critics of the US would want to live anywhere else.
That said, you are also having a forest and trees moment. In my post I was simply pointing out that cliches, like myths, old sayings, etc sometimes have a kernel of truth in them.
t's not completely true what yo'reb saying. Many terrorists did NOT know about the extent of our capabilities. I am ot saying this as a rebuttal to your entire argument, just facts are facts and we shouldn't cloud them for any reason. Both things happened. Snowden blew the whistle on illegal and unconstitutional practices AND ALSO terrorists were made aware of techniques and methods that otherwise would have been used to catch them. Both. Are. True.
I like your comments.
The one thing I'd add though, is that Edward Snowden didn't act in his own interests. He sacrificed so that the rest of us could find out what was being done "in our name". That's part of what makes Snowden's actions admirable.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth.
Well I guess you are inclined to credit AC with the use of "figurative language". I'm inclined to judge his post as having no intellectual merit whatsoever, and it appears as though I'm not the only one with that opinion.
BTW, your "creationist" troll was a little clumsy.
Snowden blew the whistle on illegal and unconstitutional practices AND ALSO terrorists were made aware of techniques and methods that otherwise would have been used to catch them.
Yeah, like the Tsarnaev brothers and the others. It should not be a surprise that so many terrorists seem to slip by/around all this surveillance.
The type of mass surveillance being carried out is not suited for, nor is it intended to, catch foreign terrorists.
It is intended to and is most useful for gathering detailed data on as many individuals as possible, so if somebody 'steps out of line' the data can be sifted through to find some convenient method of silencing them, either by leaking (or threatening to) damaging personal information or to find something with which to (threaten to) charge them with.
It is a tyrant's surveillance-WMD wet dream. As designed and implemented, the US's domestic mass-surveillance dragnet has little utility other than spying on and controlling the domestic population and needs to be scrapped, with those in charge sent to prison or executed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Seek PROFESSIONAL help. Seriously.
Still lost in the trees I see. What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not. Whether a person is creative in their language or not is only relevant to the the "selling" of an idea, not the actual facts behind an idea. And your "judgement" does not alter the fact that those critical of the US often prefer to live in the US. The figurative language you dismiss is not a literal invite to leave, it points out a hypocrisy of harsh critics who think the US is so evil yet they choose to remain. Suggesting that their actions expose the exaggeration of their words. In contrast to many of our ancestors who lived somewhere they thought was bad and decided to actually leave.
Read my other post; I am well aware of this. But both can be true. The potential for unlimited blackmail and or targeted destruction AND the leaking of methods and tactics to the enemy. Both.
No one is helped and nothing is advanced by lying or going with a purely emotional (fear based or hate based) argument. As long as we don't tell the story ully in all its complexity , the other side" will detect our fundamental dishonesty and use it to dismiss our entire argument.
First, tell the truth.
See subject: Grow up, & get on topic too, you unidentifiable ac troll with NO balls... ok?
* Are you "AbNoRmAL-AnDy" Madigan by any chance?
After all:
I only ask as He'd be the ONLY one "butthurt" (literally in HIS case "BUTT" he LIKES it, lol) enough to do what you have!
APK
P.S.=> Especially after the ass raping he gave himself here this week -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
AND THIS HERE TOO http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funniest part is, the little "fruit" started it with me, ONLY TO HAVE COMPLETELY FINISH HIM OFF FOR IT using valid facts (including his "StRaNgE" habits that give him hemorrhoids & force him to wear a diaper after, lol)... apk
Read my other post; I am well aware of this. But both can be true. The potential for unlimited blackmail and or targeted destruction AND the leaking of methods and tactics to the enemy. Both.
No. The 'catching terrorists' angle is simply the cover story used to justify the construction of the surveillance state.
A non-existent propaganda justification is incapable of being crippled, except as being revealed as the propaganda it is. Mass surveillance's usefulness in catching terrorists cannot be harmed as it was never intended to catch "terrorists" of the type portrayed in mass media. The system's practical utility is almost exclusively as a tool of the State to oppress and control the general population.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
...there's no argument there to devalue. There's an unsupported claim followed by a cliche. That's it.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents. There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even remotely close to "truth".
But by all means, continue to imbibe AC's two sentence post with a much depth of thought and "truth" as you like.
ps - you should take note that many definitions of "cliche" describe them as phrases that are overused to the point of losing their original meaning. Seems to me that using meaningless phraseology could weaken an argument after all.
>>No. The 'catching terrorists' angle is simply the cover story used to justify the construction of the surveillance state.
Not a chance that that statement is true.
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
No, not at all. The reason you are in the trees is that you are failing to distinguish between defending the original AC and rejecting the notion that use of a cliche implies falsehood. Those are different things. I'm not engaging in the former, only the later, but you are failing to see that. Hence the trees.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
Yes, please look at the post in question, but its not the one you think. The relevant one would actually be my original response where I did *not* include that first sentence, only the second. Can you imagine the reason? I'll offer a hint, I wasn't interested in the debate around the first. I was only interested in the cliche aspect of your response. Something tangential.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents.
Actually, no. The "love it or leave it" meme was employed by a much older demographic historically.
There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even remotely close to "truth". But by all means, continue to imbibe AC's two sentence post with a much depth of thought and "truth" as you like.
Again, you have deluded yourself. I was only interested in the later of the two sentences and your apparent reaction to suggest a cliche lacks a kernel of truth. Trees.
ps - you should take note that many definitions of "cliche" describe them as phrases that are overused to the point of losing their original meaning.
No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse. The point, the kernels of truth, are not changed by overuse.
So far we have evidence of 'parallel construction' and other abuses against civil rights while actual, real, kill-people-and-blow-crap-up terrorists are getting through.
Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is because the system was designed for use against the general population not against terrorists. Mass surveillance is meant to control mass populations. Targeted and specific surveillance is meant to identify and track specific individuals.
Besides, I am much less concerned about terrorists than I am with having my civil rights violated, especially with no actual 'safety' having been purchased with the mass violation of our civil rights, only very-poorly-scripted 'security theater'.
Strat.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
But anyone who read the Sunday Times article needs to see this: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
No, not at all. The reason you are in the trees is that you are failing to distinguish between defending the original AC and rejecting the notion that use of a cliche implies falsehood. Those are different things.
...which isn't the meaning of the idiom, yet you keep using it. But perhaps I'm mistaking your ignorance for malice. After all, your response to my post equated my simple question with creationist idiocy.
The relevant one would actually be my original response where I did *not* include that first sentence, only the second. Can you imagine the reason?
When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth. The only reason I could imagine why you decided to insert the issue into the discussion was that you were somehow trying to defend AC's rather pathetic post. Obviously I mistook your attempt to educate us all about the nature of cliches for something else.
Actually, no. The "love it or leave it" meme was employed by a much older demographic historically.
I was using "obstinate adolescents" figuratively - i.e., as a proxy for "weak minded". Sorry you failed to recognize that.
Again, you have deluded yourself. I was only interested in the later of the two sentences and your apparent reaction to suggest a cliche lacks a kernel of truth. Trees.
Yeah, and I recognized your point about cliches/truth in my previous post, so there's no need for you to continue to be argumentative about it. But like I said above, the reason you decided to go off-topic and preach to everyone about the nature of cliches remains unclear.
BTW, you should probably stop with the "forest for the trees" idiom. You're applying it erroneously. You're stating (correctly) that I was asserting that you were making an argument that you weren't, and that I claimed there was no kernal of truth in some cliches. As you note, those are two different things, but this is clearly not a case of me focusing on details at the expense of the bigger picture.
No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse.
Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.
Cheers!
When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth.
He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are stupid. I responded pointing out that though overused cliches can convey a truth, refuting the notion that cliches are inherently stupid.
No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse.
Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.
From http://dictionary.reference.co....
"1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse"
He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are inherently stupid.
You're seeing things that aren't there. nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche, not cliches in general. Further, if one takes the word stupid to mean unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, obtuse, or doltish, AC's post certainly qualifies.
In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth". Those are the positions you've been prattling on about, and the word "stupid" is nowhere to be found in your original post or in any of your subsequent posts - until now.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche
So what? From Wikipedia
an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.
But since I've already acknowledged your position that cliches contain an element of truth, I'm not sure why you've dug up a dead horse in order to beat it some more.
nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche ... In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth".
Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid. Its merely unimaginative.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche
So what? From Wikipedia
an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.
Actually it seems a quite rare definition, possibly erroneous, buy hey its wiki. The wiki references include several dictionaries and they agree with the loss of impact. The wiki editor apparently lifted the definition from a literary device website. So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.
Yeah, I really did check 4 dictionaries, I thought maybe I got lucky with the first but all 4 agreed.
Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid.
None of the above was in a reply to nadaou, it was in reply to me. You do realize that I'm not the one labeling the cliche as "stupid", don't you? If you had actually challenged nadaou on his use of the word "stupid" at the time he used it, then your excuse above might have some validity. But you didn't, so it doesn't.
So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.
Ironically, "beating a dead horse" is also an example of figurative language. However, your continued waste of words on an already settled matter indicates you may not understand the idiom's meaning. Kinda like the Forest/Trees thing.
Yep, still trolling.
If the Commies (more likely Russians than Chinese, for economic reasons) had cracked Snowden's document cache, they'd be able to throw lots of people at reading them all quickly and correlating them, and they'd need a month or so to recall any spies that were outed, or give them good false information to spread, and bust any US and other countries' spies they can (or give them even more disinformation.) But after that, they'd be free to start releasing documents embarrassing to the Obama and Bush Administrations and the permanent NSA/CIA/DIA/FBI/DEA/TLA/etc. agencies, totally tanking most of their composition here and throwing the US into chaos, along with GCHQ, UK Parliament, and probably some Canadians or the Deutsche Bundesfoo..
They haven't. This either means they haven't cracked the document cache, or that they're a really devious conspiracy, blackmailing US/UK politicians or waiting until after the election or something. (Maybe they want the Tories to trash the UK, for instance.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks