Slashdot Mirror
5 Years on, US Government Still Counting Snowden Leak Costs (apnews.com)
National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the lid off U.S. government surveillance methods five years ago, but intelligence chiefs complain that revelations from the trove of classified documents he disclosed are still trickling out. From a report: That includes recent reporting on a mass surveillance program run by close U.S. ally Japan and on how the NSA targeted bitcoin users to gather intelligence to combat narcotics and money laundering. The Intercept, an investigative publication with access to Snowden documents, published stories on both subjects. The top U.S. counterintelligence official said journalists have released only about 1 percent taken by the 34-year-old American, now living in exile in Russia, "so we don't see this issue ending anytime soon." "This past year, we had more international, Snowden-related documents and breaches than ever," Bill Evanina, who directs the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, said at a recent conference. "Since 2013, when Snowden left, there have been thousands of articles around the world with really sensitive stuff that's been leaked."
I miss the days where the biggest threats were misguided idealists instead of stone cold traitors Like Donald Trump and his enablers in the republican party.
And yet they don't seem to care about the $2,300,000,000,000.00 that went missing the day before 9/11
Snowden is a convenient smokescreen to keep you distracted from the real outright theft of your illegally garnished federal income tax.
It cost the guilty nothing either. How many were fired after they were exposed? I haven't heard of a single person going to jail over any of it. It just cost them their reputation. Which is and will always be nothing. It only exposed what we already suspected. Our government will go to any lengths to keep their crimes secret.
He cannot possibly claim to be "leaking" with a purpose when he didn't even know what he was revealing.
But he did claim that it was not his intent to do so. In his version of the story, he's on his way to meet a journalist in Hong Kong (who would have been tasked with responsible disclosure) when his passport is revoked during at a stopover in a Moscow airport, then they leaked all of it. Something he had even anticipated as a possibility, but was forced to accept as a risk to meet with the one journalist he felt he could trust, in the one location that journalist felt safe, within the time frame they had available.
You certainly knew that, right? Certainly you wouldn't be constantly astroturfing over his version of the story while pretending to know something if you actually didn't know any better, would you?