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?
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 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.
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?
That should not be a problem if the hostile country knows it already...
The stinking key issue that should give you a clue is "hidden officials claim..." So what's next? FUD
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.
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?
> It's absolutely predictable that those files would be cracked, why is that not more believable?
Cracking one of current strong cyphers is hella bigger news than some spying operations having to be terminated.
"Well, we had to move a few of our agents. Oh, and also, whole Internet needs to be rebuilt, and everything you did over HTTPS in the past and we sucked off the net will be readable in a year, after we plug in more computers".
PS: Not to mention the small detail that russkies weren't even supposed to have the encrypted files.
One of the whole points of an intelligence organisation is to know what the 'enemy' knows and how they got that information.
...and then make that information public? No, that's the propaganda department's job, and they don't usually care to validate the "information" they spread. Whenever a government makes a public claim to have proof of something and then refuses to make that proof public, they're LYING. Every single time.
It certainly is a problem! Before you publish, one hostile country's government knew. After you publish, every other hostile country, sympathiser group or random nutjob who feels like making a statement knows.
foo mane padme hum
In order for the files to be cracked, someone would first have to get their hands on them, and then manage to break the encryption.
Neither of those is particularly believable. Snowden is a former intelligence contractor, not some guy who uses "passw0rd" as his password.
There's no reason to believe that his files have ever touched a network-connected system (communication with the media was via thumb drives), so someone would have to obtain physical access without being detected.
And breaking the encryption is, so far as anyone knows, impossible. All of the leaks regarding NSA capabilities indicate that they revolve around bypassing or subverting the encryption rather than breaking it. Which is somewhat harder to do when the target is aware of your capabilities.
And even if they managed both of those, why would Snowden's files include information on human resources? Why would a contractor even have access to that information? Everything that's been leaked has been about technical SIGINT capabilities.
Yeah, no hostile government would share information with their allies.
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.
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
So basically, we have no evidence, but there are reasons why we have no evidence so we should just trust the claims blindly.
What we've found out from Snowden, and Manning for that matter, is only a revelation to us. Our enemies already knew.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Take your anti-psychotics.
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
Once someone has been exposed as a spy, they can't really be used as such again, because you simply have no idea who the country they were spying on and have been exposed to have told that that person is a spy.
It'd just be far too risky to put them back out in the field, the best you can do is bring them back home and give them a desk job there, at which point there's no problem in outing them because it gives credibility to the argument.
Even if you say, well, he's been spying on Russia, they hate ISIS, we hate ISIS, so we'll use this person as an anti-ISIS spy you're taking too much of a risk with that agents life because you still have absolutely no idea if anyone in Russia that knows about this spy has still leaked information about them to someone who isn't so unfriendly towards ISIS. What if the Russians let the Syrians know about this spy they've outed, and some Syrian who then knows gets captured by ISIS and tortured for information?
When a spy is done in the field because they've been unmasked, they're done for good in the field and with good reason.
Greenwald is right, the fact they're saying that some people have effectively had their spying careers shut down - because that's what being found out by even one nation implies, without giving any evidence that that's actually happened, means that such claims are as good as worthless. If any such agents have indeed been unmasked then they're now sat back safely in the US/UK with a desk job requiring no identity protection.
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.
The problem with outing them officially is now you've validated the information. Better to pull them and possibly a few nin-agents as well to keep the other guys wondering about the accuracy of the data.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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.
well then they should have leaked to the press how they got the information and how they got the files that they weren't supposed to even have, much less were supposed to have the means to decrypt it.
it just sounds like some guy in a suit wanted a free dinner from the magazines journalist and DADAA... it's like the fucking journalist did no self critical thinking of the story at all (it would have been written differently if there was any analysis whatsofuckingever into what he was writing).
it's just so ludicrous to claim that china and russia would have started a nuclear war without these extra special mi6 agents. ..whose names were probably already hacked from the cia anyways.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What if the Russians let the Syrians know about this spy they've outed, and some Syrian who then knows gets captured by ISIS and tortured for information?
I have it on good authority from the people that have criticized the U.S. government for using water-boarding, and from president Obama himself, in the executive order he signed outlawing the practice, that no useful information comes from torture. So that won't be an issue.
Unless you don't want me to believe president Obama?!?
The guy's name is Glenn Greenwald. At least spell the names right.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
No, *that* is a lack of understanding.
1) Plaintext attacks (or "knowing some of the decoded contents") are applicable only to some cyphers in some configurations.
2) With best currently known attack against AES-128 it'd take ~3000 billion years at 10^18 attempts per second. 2 years mean complete breakdown. Nobody said "realtime", DId you miss the talks about snooping and storing everything that might be of interest on the net? That data might be lying in cold storage for now, but if it's crackable in a reasonable timeframe, NSA and all the other agencies will be reading through it soon.
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
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.
MI5 work inside Britain (think FBI/secret service), and MI6 (actually called 'SIS') works outside of Britain (think CIA).
So you believe unsubstantiated quotes just because they fit your pre-determined narrative. Gotcha.
Well spotted:
And even if they managed both of those, why would Snowden's files include information on human resources? Why would a contractor even have access to that information? Everything that's been leaked has been about technical SIGINT capabilities.
This is the reason not to believe the story.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Snowden is a hero to me.
1) It removed the government's plausible deniability with regards to the rules of engagement (Manning) or the use of surveillance against Americans (Snowden).
2) The government's reaction to the leaks demonstrated that they are not incompetent, but evil.
These discussions would not have happened otherwise. Manning and Snowden did not sacrifice themselves for nothing. Tides will eventually turn, and history will eventually vindicate them (well, vindicate Snowden. Perhaps "Understand and excuse" Manning).
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I don't deny the same thought went through my mind when the leaks happened, but after two years, I just don't buy it. I think Snowden's on the level.
So what's the greater truth hidden by the limited hangout?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You have zero evidence about any of the ridiculous claims you concocted. As for eloquence, I'd dare say Ellsberg is/was brilliant and eloquent, but my suspicion (since you misspelled Chelsea Mannings name) is that you probably spend too much time listening to Alex Jones/Info Wars, rather than thinking. You also ignore the fact about the Snowdens Field Time as a CIA agent in Europe, in a lame attempt to pretend he was no better than a Devry tech student who could never possibly have this level of information.
What is the exact narrative you think Snowden is spinning, which others like Ellsberg who have given public support for his whistle-blowing, as well as the other 4 post 9/11 NSA whistle blowers who have supported his position equally?
And- all hostile governments are allies!
But the Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend. Right?
Anyone with half a brain also already knew what they revealed.
No. Anyone with half a brain already believed what they revealed. Now we have proof. If you think that you already knew what they revealed, then you are a wingnut or a complicit member of the intelligence community.
Snowden wasted his time,
Possibly.
put people at risk
Our own government has said that this is not true, that our enemies already knew the "secrets" which have been revealed about informants, operatives etc.
that couldn't have been done in a safer and more reasonable way;
There was no more reasonable way to deliver the information to the public, which needs to know; not only our own citizenry, but also the nations with whom we hold treaties which we have broken. They need to know that we have become the world's greatest evil, and not to do help us.
Holding either of these children up as examples of 'standing up to the machine' is just ridiculous;
What have you done? Jack fucking shit. All you've done is tell lies about them. Fuck off immediately.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...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.
And even if they managed both of those, why would Snowden's files include information on human resources? Why would a contractor even have access to that information?
Because everything you believe about government information security, air-gapped networks, and security clearances is wrong. The truth is that none of this information was critical enough to get anyone killed, and therefore none of it was treated with the respect that you think its security classification merits. And even if it were that important, they probably still wouldn't protect the information properly.
The federal government is having real problems hiring directly, especially the military. Therefore they are using very large numbers of contractors. They have extra-special problems finding competent technical employees, so those employees are more than typically likely to be contractors. Get the picture yet?
The truth is that highly scrupulous yet intelligent people won't go to work for the government in the first place. If you're smart, you know that it's a big crock of shit. If you're scrupulous, you won't go support that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"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?
MI5 work inside Britain (think FBI/secret service), and MI6 (actually called 'SIS') works outside of Britain (think CIA).
Because of the way 5 eyes works I think MI5 work more closely with the NSA and CIA than MI6 does; MI5 have to know and be known to the NSA and CIA so that MI5 don't accidentally interfere with some US spying operation in the UK.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
And- all hostile governments are allies!
But the Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend. Right?
Do you tell your friends your deepest darkest secrets? Especially the new friends, the friends of convenience?
> 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.
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.
If you think that you already knew what they revealed, then you are a wingnut or a complicit member of the intelligence community.
Actually, Snowden wasn't the first insider to blow the whistle. Several others came out before him. What about Bill Binney? Or Russel Tice? Thomas Drake or Kirk Wiebe?
But nobody listened to them because our government's propaganda arm ran through all the same bullshit they are doing now to Snowden, but since these guys "went through the official internal systems" instead of walking away with proof, they were blasted as liars and conspiracy theorists.
> 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.
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.
Actually, Snowden wasn't the first insider to blow the whistle.
What made Snowden special is that he came with armloads of proof.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
hardly. All you know is they pulled 6 people who may or may not have been actual agents and you have no idea who is still there.You might surmise they were agents but cannot be sure; and now must also suspect anyone they have had contact with as a potential spy for their side.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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!
I personally see Ed Snowden as a criminal
It's clear what he did was a crime, that's not even an interesting question. The question is, should he be punished for what he did? Intent is always relevant. His intent appears to have been to make the general public aware of the situation vis-a-vis mass surveillance. Therefore, I say that the punishment should fit the crime; that is to say, there should be none.
I do see Ed Snowden as a traitor to his own cause. If he really wanted to change things, he would have stayed. He would have been tried and likely found guilty. Then there's a decent chance that the appeals courts would have found some of these laws unconstitutional.
Whether one man martyrs himself on the cross of the American as-much-justice-as-you-can-afford system really doesn't mean shit like you think it does. All the American people have been injured by these programs, so any of us has standing to bring suit. It doesn't require that Snowden be crucified.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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