General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPeople who would attack the messenger to supress what they have to say...
...should NEVER be trusted. To them anything can be justified if the goal is "lofty" enough.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(73,754 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)via PRISM. Why should anyone trust him?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Your proof is that the companies involved swear it isn't happening. Well, it is happening, but it's not nearly as bad as you think. Well, it's happening, and we can't tell you how much, and we can't tell you who, and we can't tell you how often. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-google-to-comply-with-fbis-secret-nsl-demands/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/google-nsl-range/
But Google says that there is no backdoor that allows the NSA total access, the same way there was no secret room at the AT&T servers right? So who can we trust. How about a US Senator, a Democrat, who says that this PATRIOT ACT crap is worse than we thought? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/
But hey, it's easier to blast Greenwald than to admit your own Government is "Hoovering" up everything they can right?
ReRe
(12,189 posts)Those are some great articles there!
Here's one that I'm trying to get everyone to read that really goes into depth on what the NSA is doing. (Hayden, former NSA and CIA Dir, said a good description for what they are doing is "digital Blackwater."
They are basically farming out the collection of all the data and that's how they can say they "aren't" spying on anyone. The private contractors are doing it. Anyway, here's the link. Read it and weep, folks:
http://www.Wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/
randome
(34,845 posts)You're asking for someone to prove a negative. Can you PROVE that the FBI is not going through your garbage each night?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The FBI is not going through my garbage. They would be sensed (heard, smelt, or just picked up by vibrations) by the various animals. The trash is then taken to a central collection point. Now, they might be checking it out there, after it is compacted, but that is the only possibility. Any other questions?
Besides, I've learned, and you should have long ago. Just because the Government or one of it's agents says they aren't doing something, doesn't mean they aren't doing it. Police don't lie under oath. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?_r=0
The Government would never experiment on humans the way Nazi's did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
The Military and Intelligence agencies would never withhold vital information from the President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona#Background
Every assurance we have received has been received in history, and every assurance was shown to be a lie. So when they tell me they aren't listening to our calls, I filter that through my experience, my knowledge, and ask how we can be sure. Trust us is the only answer offered.
And don't think that the testing on Humans was limited to African American's at a time when we did not properly value them as equals. Try the Navy, irradiating thousands of sailors, officers and men, at Bikini atoll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
They took readings, so they would have an idea of the average exposure, and then watched as radiation ate those men to the bone for months, years, and in some cases, decades of agony.
Trust us the Government says. Give me one good reason why I should.
randome
(34,845 posts)Nothing prevents anyone from doing whatever the hell they want.
But we have laws, regulations and rules to try and keep some semblance of organized and civilized behavior.
If evidence that these laws, etc. are being broken cannot be furnished, most of us simply get on with our lives.
If you want more laws, go for it. I don't think any of us have a problem with the NSA showing more transparency and less secrecy. But to say you can't trust any government agency still sounds paranoid to me.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You are fine with the assurance from the Government that all is well?
You asked a question, I answered it. You ignored the answer and continued on your well worn, some would say worn out, thread. All is well, nothing to worry about. Go on with your lives, trust the Government.
I've seen this before. Now where was it?
randome
(34,845 posts)...without evidence that they are subverting the law. Obama's word that the NSA is operating legally is good enough for me.
I understand that's not enough for everyone which is why more transparency and less secrecy is needed.
It's always a balancing act to keep national security secrets and try to be transparent at the same time.
Obama also greatly expanded whistleblower protections. He's established a National Declassification Center that is due to issue a report in Dec.
The word of Obama versus the word of Snowden -since neither can prove what they say- tilts in favor of Obama, in my opinion.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Read the Venona Project information. Neither FDR, nor Harry Truman were told about the project, because the Army decided that the White House was untrustworthy. That is common knowledge, and if the powers that be then could so easily decide to deceive the President then, who is to say that it would never ever happen now?
I find it easier to believe that the self appointed guardians of the National Secrets would create the cover story and promise that it is true than I do that there is nothing to these stories.
After all, it was Omar Bradley, one of the most beloved Generals by the troops who decided that the President didn't have to know about Venona. He consulted with J. Edgar Hoover by the way, and these two career Government officials dictated National Policy without consulting or informing the head of the Government chosen by the People they purported to serve.
Are we to believe that there are no such egos involved in Government now?
ReRe
(12,189 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Rand Paul type stuff.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...since back in the 60s. It is also a standard position of journalists, or it used to be. Daniel Schorr used to start one of his classes by telling his students: "Remember this: Governments lie".
So yes, these days we hear more anti-government conspiracy stuff from the far right these days. But the government gives us all reason to indulge in these feelings, whenever it lies to us. And the government lies, and hides information, much more often than is needed or justifiable IMO.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)that requires trust of government generally, even if you may not trust the people in power at the time. but to dismiss "government" generally is a reactionary rightist position.
I suppose you could call anarchists leftists but they are really so far left they are to the right (the political spectrum being more of a circle that a straight line.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is a very good rule of thumb for anyone to keep in mind, whether they are left, right or center.
Yes, government can be a force for good. But every government lies, independent of who is in power at the time. Anyone who does not know this will be duped again, and again, and again. This is particularly true of things that fall under the umbrellas of security or diplomacy or anything to do with the military. It's just the nature of those games. But it also extends to their dealings with corporations etc. In fact nowadays, government is as corrupt as I have ever seen, largely due to the role of money in politics expanding with few forces to countermand it, and Supreme Court decisions to cement it in place.
You're talking about our politics over the last 30 years or so, and how Reagan's famous statement that "government is the problem" has been embraced by right wing Randians. No argument there; what he started with those words has done a lot of harm. But none of that alters the fact that government should NEVER be given blind trust.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)that is just a fact. different than saying I don't trust anyone ever. But I guarantee you no human over the age of 3 years old has ever lived who hasn't told a lie.
think
(11,641 posts)I don't think so.....
railsback
(1,881 posts)I've served on enough juries to know not to take a leap of faith one way or another. Someone is making accusations. Its up to them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We know that Snowden worked for Booz Allen, and Booz Allen is a subsidiary of the Carlisle group.
We are told that the metadata is very closely held, and access restricted to people who have a reason (warrant) to search the data. According to other reports, from the same sources, it was accessed some 300 times in 2012.
What was Booz Allen doing with even to copies of the FISA court order, when they were not involved in the FISA court, they are not allowed to represent the Government, and obviously the DOJ did not need a contracting company to go get the data? So how did Booz Allen get the FISA court order? What need to know did they have on the collection of the Metadata?
We know that the PRISM system intercepts and flags communications through the internet based upon the briefing papers. We are told that this happens only with a FISA court order, which the DOJ, files for the Government. The NSA says that they are not limited on international communications, and they intercept only suspected messages, never Domestic.
How did Booz Allen's computers get copies of the program that they should never have been involved in? As a consultant company, I can see them given a lump of data, and told to sort it, if that's what they do. But access to even the briefing papers that are classified Top Secret should have been strictly limited. Are you telling me that every security consulting company is in this network and given access to the briefing papers, and what else?
You get the point. What we are told does not meet even the most shallow examination of what we know. It is said that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Is it possible that these Top Secret programs, that even a majority of Congress were not briefed in on, because Congress didn't have the need to know, would be available to anyone with a Top Secret Clearance? I seriously doubt it, and if they were, that makes the Government look even worse IMO.
So if the data is examined sparingly, only 300 times in 2012, then why are we spending $2 Billion to build a huge collection and sorting facility in the Utah Desert? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
What remains? That they are sorting through the data, using these systems, and many others. It is the only thing that makes sense. It is the only remaining solution that meets the test of logic, and common sense. Now, if I had documentary proof to back this up, I'd be on the run with Snowden, charged with Espionage wouldn't I? There be the rub, if you can prove it, you're a traitor.
While it is nice to see both parties agree on something. It is troubling that the only thing both parties agree on is spying on us.
railsback
(1,881 posts)PRISM is nothing more than a project management tool for information collection.
So, yes, we get the picture. The picture is that there's a ton of embellishments going on right now. I trust Greenwald's reporting about as far as I could toss a 3 ton elephant.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Because they come initially from a messenger you don't like?
In a way, you're sort of like those fundie parents. When presented of proof that their child is sick, say cancer. They refuse to believe it, instead trusting the vision they had from "God" who said that their child has a demon. No amount of proof is enough for some of us here, we will refuse to believe because we have an almost religious belief in our party over all other things. Fortunately, those parents wishes are inevitably overruled by Judges who are acting on science and logic instead of passionately held feelings. It's a shame we can't argue this subject with logic, common sense, and intelligence.
railsback
(1,881 posts)while an openly public field manual identifies PRISM as a management tool. How exactly you 'expose' something that's already public is beyond me.
Galraedia
(5,331 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)point is Greenwald claims they are and can't prove it - Guardian had to walk his story back. How embarrassing.
randome
(34,845 posts)Got you! Or do you want us to swallow the ridiculous idea that your keyboard levitates, too?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
railsback
(1,881 posts)making me a 'truth teller' and you an Obamabot liar.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Remember the 'secret' room they denied, but thanks to Whistle Blowers we know now it was not a CT, it was a nightmare reality for a Democracy.
FB just denied that it has been giving information to the Turkish Govt. Do I believe them or the protesters? Not a hard decision for me. But then I've become so cynical considering all the lies we've been told, the deceptions, the 'special words' they invent to deceive the people etc.
railsback
(1,881 posts)like in 'God'.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that you don't really know what is going on but you 'believe' the Government would never lie to us? In the 'belief' department, since we are just 'believing', I'd say the odds of the Government and its Private Security Corps lying (see Clapper eg) are pretty high.
railsback
(1,881 posts)so far, the 'evidence' requires leaps and bounds of faith. So no one should be crying that their accusations aren't being taken seriously because they can't prove any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...like when Greenwald reported the NSA's training slides claimed they were getting information directly from company servers, AND ALSO reported that the companies denied that.
NO ONE, including the NSA, has denied that the training slides made the claim. That is because they did make the claim, exactly as Greenwald reported.
railsback
(1,881 posts)and could go in whenever they liked, which was a lie.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
This is the headline with subheadings:
• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007
railsback
(1,881 posts)to which the tin foilers are presuming that these tech giant's highly paid, highly educated IT personal couldn't detect data being sucked out of their servers, because that's how the article presents it.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.
In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."
Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of Prism or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.
So please take your lies elsewhere.
Where, oh where does it say specifically that the NSA was accessing these servers without authorization? It doesn't, nor does it say it had authorization. Of course, that's deliberately misleading, or just really shitty reporting. 'And Also', PRISM, according to the public for some time Information Collection Field Manual FM 3-55, is nothing more than a data management program. So you'll have to ask Greenwald why he considers a publicly acknowledged system a super secret evil automated data collection monster that no one even knew about until he himself broke the story.
Don't be telling me that I need to be putting on the knee pads, too.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and clearly says the companies in question deny it.
OTOH, it does take the claims at face value. Remember those are NSA training slides and the NSA has never denied their authenticity. So are you saying Greenwald should ASSUME that the slides are lying?
Anyway, enough of this. You have your view of it and I have mine. Yes I said you are lying. Maybe I should have just said you "misspoke".
TTFN
railsback
(1,881 posts)Nothing more, nothing less.
I won't live in that world.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)about the messenger, they are neither attacking him, nor trying to surpress what he has to say.
And insinuating that valid queries are equal to attacks, surpression, or character assassination is juvenile.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)The message is the territory.
The message stands or falls on it's own merits.
The message is the subject requiring of debate.
Take down the message and the messenger becomes irrelevant.
Do nothing but question the messenger and the message get drowned out. Which has been the whole point of the relentless attacks on both Snowden and Greenwald.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thus when the messenger is delivering a message that can not be independently verified, the messenger becomes very important. He decided what to leak and what not to leak.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who want to distract from the documented message, will attack the messenger. That is what is happening now. It happened to Binney, Ellsberg, Drake, Manning and a whole host of other 'messengers'.
However, this doesn't work very well any more, as seen in the dropping of the charges against Drake, whose credibility is superior in the eyes of the public to Politicians and their loyal supporters.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He selected what documentation to leak.
Issa leaked documentation about the IRS going after "tea party" groups. He did not leak documentation about the IRS going after "occupy" and "progressive" groups.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)I distinctly heard this or last week that progressive groups were pulled out too with tea bag groups. I don't know how they would pull occupy groups, as they were not "political." They campaigned against Wall Street (1%.) And Occupy did do things of social support.
And guess what? 5013 and 4 orgs are supposed to be APOLITICAL. By law. If the IRS was scrutinizing these groups who were blatantly political but applying for non-profit status, this is exactly what they were supposed to do. Now, dragging their (IRS) feet on getting back to the org that was applying for non-profit status WAS a problem.
Issa wasn't a "leaker" or a "whistle blower". Just saying..
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I admit the situation is not exactly the same. But it demonstrates that the person releasing the information can vastly alter public perception.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)the messenger deserves to be suppressed.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)He wasn't on the lone flight to Cuba today.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you go ahead and continue to obsess on snowden and his whereabouts, and i'll continue to rail against the surveillance state.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we didn't know. Or has the changed now?
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)he released a map showing the locations of fiberoptic cables in the oceans. That isn't something every terrorist already knew, or needed to know.
But the other reason it matters is he says he has much more; he claimed to have the names and locations of all the US agents working around the world. And in an interview a few days ago, he said he wanted to release his documents to foreign press of the various countries involved so they can decide whether to release them.
So how come all the people upset at Valerie Plame's outing aren't more upset about his threatening to out many more US agents?
Yes, I realize Plame wrote what she did in support of him, but her statement was addressed only to internal US surveillance and was published the day before Snowden's last statement. No one in their right mind could believe Plame would support him in outing her NSA peers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)confused with all the changing defenses for this massive surveillance program.
And I'll go with Plame on this, she certainly knows the difference between a Whislte Blower and vindictive, war criminal out to punish someone who is telling the truth. Seems to me she is identifying with the Whistle Blower. Maybe because she knows more than we do.
How come everyone upset when Bush was caught spying on the American people, creating No Fly lists, are they gone btw? 'suspect lists', which was all of us, are not upset these policies anymore?
And don't tell me that they 'fixed' the law to 'make it necessary to get a warrant'. Because that could not be further from the truth. They DID fix the FISA Law and weakened it AFTER Bush was caught violating it. It was ALWAYS necessary to get a warrant, Bush ignored that and Congress rushed to his aid and redid the law, retroactively, making what he did illegally, LEGAL. They also rescued the telecoms from all the lawsuits they were facing, by making their illegal activities legal also. Democrats back then were furious. Funny how some of them have now forgotten the details of that scam to cover for Bush and the telecoms.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)is his threat to out American agents like Plame. There's no way she'd support that, but he hadn't had that interview at the time she published her statement.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to keep their stories straight.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)luckily that is looking more and more likely as Eddie the traitor seems to be running out of options
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)But I find it hard to tell sometimes which reasoning (or lack thereof) is behind this. Could be:
- malfunctioning logic
- intentional ad hominem / red herring
- emotional rage clouding judgement
And if one really doesn't want to believe that it is Thursday, that makes it all the easier to latch on to this kind of messenger killing.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)I think I've read it before. Do you know who wrote the quote?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or does it only work on one direction?
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)The veracity of the message comes into question.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That the government has not denied to veracity.
Good grief
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)what has been revealed.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)This one has a major credibility issue.
The blatant misrepresentation of facts only helps to expose the opportunistic nature of this stunt, as a number of Snowden's "supporters" have their own credibility issues.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)no need for translation, or misdirection.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And a small group of extremists take those lies and exaggerate them?
frylock
(34,825 posts)do tell. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)messenger is from Mars. As he said himself, if he dies or disappears it won't change anything. He could be a porn star, a tax evader, a serial killer even, like Cheney, but if there are documents, that is what matters. Hmm, did you not know about the documents? Maybe THAT'S why we are seeing all the incorrect information about what has been released, people are just reacting without knowing what they are reacting to.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Snowden's central allegation - which has been repeated here by his sycophants - is that the US govt is routinely listening & recording every American citizens' phone call & reading every email. Snowden also said that he had the power and ability to tap anyone's phone, including the President's. Glenn Greenwald said that the US govt has direct access to all the information on the major carriers' servers.
The President has repeatedly said that this is not true. Members of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees have repeatedly said that this is not true. Most knowledgeable legal & technical experts are saying that this is not true.
The text of the warrant Snowden provided proves that this is not true. It covers only anonymous metadata, which isn't linked to any particular individual without a further warrant.
Snowden, with the help of Greenwald, has made a lot of allegations which simply aren't supported by any documentation, or any facts that we know about. Yet here we have people willing to swallow their shit whole, and who attack anyone who raises reasonable questions about Snowden's veracity.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the documents say. And today we found out some more about what we could only suspect, NOT FROM HIM, from the documents. And the documents say that since 2001 up to 2011, the 'experts' have all been wrong.
And now we know, NOT from Snowden, but from the DOCUMENTS, how they were getting the warrants. Just as people suspected, because you just can't get ONE warrant without probable cause and to get ONE warrant to cover millions of people?? How on earth can they show 'probable cause of wrong doing or over three million people?
Well, now we know and it's not good.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in attacking other messengers.
So we should NEVER trust you?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...and ignore the personalities/reputations involved.
I may sometimes anticipate a known messenger's message, but it's still the fucking message I pay attention to, and not the individual carrying it, and more likely than not, I'm usually halfway through the narrative, before my eyes find the author, and I think "You again."
It would be a hell of a lot easier to ignore known arseholes, and dismiss them as not worthy of my attention, but it would be wrong. Sometimes there are rare gems of wisdom to be found in what they have to say.
And occasionally, very occasionally, I notice that individuals have stopped playing the man and started playing the ball.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can multi-task here.
Quit playing the victim then and discuss the message.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)smear campaigns orchestrated by powerful people against messengers. We know that there are 'Security Corporations' like HB Gary, who, as clients of Bank of America eg, have proposed as part of their contracts, smear campaigns against messengers, in particular since we actually saw the evidence, Glenn Greenwald and several other Liberals, as they pointed out in their proposals.
Paying for smear campaigns, the Koch Bros have been implicated in these campaigns also, is now big business and Glenn Greenwald became a target when he refused to stop writing about The Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America who were receiving proposals from several Spy Corporations.
What a country! And to think they only have to spread their stuff around the Right Wing Tabloids, like the Daily Mail, and a whole lot of people will do the rest for them, often free of charge.
What a great business it is, monetarily, morally is another matter. At least one of the bids for smears against Glenn Greenwald appears to have been accepted. I wonder how much they paid for the Daily Mail article and the 'opposition research' that consisted of something so minor, after all we have many prominent people, some in our government, who for years, didn't pay taxes at all? I would not have paid a penny for that research, it has blown up in their faces already and made Greenwald more popular than ever. But no one said these were smart people, just unethical people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Only to those who have doubled down when they should have admitted he is not such a saint.
If they wanted to stay on the database message, they could have. Instead it's a protest against discussing anything else, while simultaneously, not discussing anything else.
All OP had to do was post an OP about the database and whether it's dangerous for the government to have it. OP chose to cry more about people discussing Eddie, which he could ignore/trash thread.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from the newly released documents. Now we know what we kept asking, HOW they got those warrants, from 2001 - 2011! How do you feel about how this was done now that we are no longer guessing?
I am expecting the goal posts re warrants, lol, to be shoved all over the field now in an attempt to explain away the rubber stamping that was going on.
This will be interesting.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)to suppress criticism of the messenger.
UTUSN
(77,795 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)UTUSN
(77,795 posts)all the other specialized audiences get from their own conduits. Yeah, the pure data just springs from Zeus's head!1
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... but then I heard that Greenwald once had an argument with his condo board about the size of his dog. Not only that, he got to keep the dog.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Nothing says "I'm a sociopathic dickweed!" like jumping into a McCarthyist smear campaign.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And it's not a smear campaign if the objective is to paint an accurate picture.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Why paint it?
Tell me again how a proven liar who can't hold a job is more trustworthy than a sitting Democratic President of the United States.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)sense
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Firstly, the black and white way this thing is debated is seriously aggravating. On balance, whether what Snowden did was more good than evil is something we'll have to wait a while to see. He did unveil the fact that the NSA has continued to spy on domestic activities with warrants that are a joke. But the rest of what he did was not only wrong, it endangers future whistleblowers who want to reveal stuff like this, by making it easy to tag them as traitors.
Because the rest of what he did is traitorous.
Now, on to PRISM.
It took me, I am not lying, 15 seconds to find this using Google.
Computer Evidence Specialists (CES) Launches PRISM, a Social Media Investigative and Research Tool
With the rise of social media, more and more individuals and organizations are posting publicly available content. Within that content lies pertinent information which is useful to organizations. Before PRISM, users had to manually comb through multiple social media sites to try and synthesize the available data for information relevant to their needs. PRISM offers a single place to pull together all available data, filter out the noise, and make sense of the avalanche of information out there. To aid users, PRISM features the ability to map posts, compare digital footprints, monitor profiles, and to identify and monitor organizations. Users can export all data, including meta-data, for use with knowledge visualization analytical tools. PRISM is built upon an extremely versatile platform which can be accessed from anywhere with an Internet connection. PRISM allows any organization to efficiently manage the collection and analysis of publicly available information on persons, organizations and events.
…
About CES
CES is a professional firm, founded by Carl Florez, a former FBI executive, to provide investigative, intelligence, and analytical services to government agencies, private companies, and law firms. CES has consistently provided new and innovative tools and techniques to meet the needs of their clients.
So much for that big revelation. It would have taken Greenwald literally seconds to figure out someone was blowing smoke up his rear end.
Now, the one thing he did right was to launch this whole debate about the NSA collecting our metadata. That is in fact dangerous.
But he went well beyond that. He is offering to give up every CIA agent around the world, and what their mission is. That info may (no way of knowing, and no one is going to volunteer that this has happened) already be in the hands of both the Chinese and the Russians.
Why would he do this?
No reason related to these NSA revelations re domestic surveillance.
But what about the rest of the world, someone says plaintively?
The NSA, or whomever from the USG, hacking into systems around the world is just a cyber version of spying. That's all. The rest of the world should expect that if this method is available for spying, it will be used. You can be sure our Defense Dept assumes this and acts accordingly.
Snowden revealing NSA domestic surveillance with ridiculously written warrants makes him a whistleblower.
Snowden revealing our spying, down to where agents are and what their missions are, makes him a traitor, and dangerous to every whistleblower who comes after him.
Greenwald believing what Snowden told him re PRISM makes him a sucker, by the way. Just for the record.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)who allowed such a horrific thing to happen. That sort of intelligence should not be available to low level employees. There are nearly a million people with his level of clearance. Who let him have such things?
And if he has them, if the nature of the 'missions' is illegal or even criminal, then it is not treason to divulge them in fact it could be treason not to.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)We now know that he went to Booz with the specific purpose of spying on the spies.
The supposition that he had this kind of access is, from everything I know just from working in large companies, more than likely wrong. Far more likely is that he went in with a plan on how exactly to hack into the systems and get as much data out of them as he could.
In large companies, the security model followed is least privilege access. In other words, everyone, including sys admins, gets the lowest level of privilege that they need to do their jobs. There were plenty of things even the sys admins couldn't do at the places where I worked, and to which they, at least nominally, had no access. In practice everyone realized they could hack their way in if they really wanted to, but the check on that was logs that went out every day on things like who logged in with root access, for how long, and for what purpose. The reports had do be signed off every day, and reconciled against approved requests for this access that demonstrated a need for it for whatever the task was. Any access that couldn't be reconciled had to be specifically explained and signed off on by a managing director.
Additionally, every application manager was responsible for identifying critical directories and files that could not be changed except by request. Once again, any change to those files and directories had to be reconciled against approved requests, and once again if no request was at hand the explanation for why it was changed had to be signed off on by a managing director.
One can assume something like this was in place at the NSA.
That being the case, he didn't have this sort of access just by the by. He deliberately hacked in and then proceeded to steal this stuff. The one thing that made me throw up my hands and wonder what kind of operation they're running in there is that he took this stuff using a thumb drive. No one where I worked could use one of those, not even a sys admin. Those USB ports were locked down and could not be used.
If they did allow these ports to be used by the admins, that was just crazy. I tend to think they didn't, and that he hacked the ports to access them for his purpose.
As for your supposition about the missions being illegal/criminal, well, spying is illegal and in most countries gets the death penalty. In the Revolution, the Brits executed Nathan Hale, and we executed Major Andre, Benedict Arnold's British collaborator.
Every country spies on every other country. By definition what the CIA/NSA/DIA do is illegal in every country where it's done. I don't even know why you would bring something like that up.
Response to TheMadMonk (Original post)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Galraedia
(5,331 posts)from a federal judge to even the president?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Wow.