I wonder who the NY Times mule was?

[Luminous Animal]

The Times’s involvement in the story also brings into sharp relief a second question: Whether carrying classified documents across national borders can be an act of journalism. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin recently compared David Miranda, Greenwald’s partner, to a “drug mule” for having sought to bring a thumb drive with classified documents from Brazil into the United Kingdom; British officials detained Miranda and confiscated data he was carrying.

Now the Times or an agent for the paper, too, appears to have carried digital files from the United Kingdom across international lines into the United States. Discussions of how to partner on the documents were carried out in person between top Guardian editors and Times executive editor Jill Abramson, all of whom declined to comment on the movement of documents. But it appears likely that someone at one of the two papers physically carried a drive with Snowden’s GCHQ leaks from London to New York or Washington

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/new-york-times-guardian-snowden

[99th_Monkey]

1. What I don't get is this: why in the age of the interwebs w/ digitized data, any of this matters

I mean so what if someone has something on a thumb drive? That same data could
just as easily been uploaded (from one place) to Wikileaks (or some such site), and
then downloaded from the same site, at some other location after having crossed
a national?

So given THIS scenario, is anyone being a "mule"? ... or can anyone even do much of
anything about it?

Seems to me we're (or they're) trying to stuff the digital genie back in the bottle, to no
avail, but "the authorities" seem oblivious to all this, still acting like they did when paper
documents were the currency, such as when Elsberg broke the Pentagon Papers.

[Hydra]

2. The "Mule" idea is stupid

But serves the purpose. The NSA and other such entities are attempting to control the flow of information. They are trying to criminalize having information and passing it on to others without their approval.

[99th_Monkey]

3. But isn't the NSA et. al. pissing into the wind?

Given the digital age and all, I think it's insane to imagine that they'll ever
"control" all the data; unless of course they shut down the interwebs; which
I suppose may happen at some point, if they get desperate enough.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. The can not control it, but they could shut down sources as they discover them.

[99th_Monkey]

15. They don't want to control it exactly, just surveil its enormous entirety 24/7 to bust us whenever

they so chose.

Also, see post #6 by Hdra & conv. for more on this line of thinking.

[Hydra]

6. I don't know if this is true

But I was told the internet was built by the military and they have parallel "internets." I was told 10 total. Shutting down this one wouldn't be a big deal if they decided to do it, but that's like using a flamethrower to kill a mosquito. I think what they are currently shooting for is a way to track people and information in real time and then to jail or kill the person to stop the flow.

The disinformation ops are designed to blunt whatever comes out. We've seen that here...but either they're being sloppy or the bubble in Washington is too thick for them to get an outside perspective.

[99th_Monkey]

10. hmm.

yes, that does sadly sound all-too-plausible: the web we know is increasingly a useful
surveillance tool, but it's especially useful if the public remains duped into imagining
that their information & communication is "secure" <-- which is why NSA/Obama are
so pissed about Snowden's whistle-blowing.

[Hydra]

11. Exactly

The illusion of freedom is very useful to tyrants. Allowing people to have a venue to vent allows them to keep an eye on you and eliminate you if the need arises.

If they don't have that, they have people like the unibomber- loners who can become extremely adept at keeping out of sight while they wreak havok. That's why the "lone gunman" BS they peddle is both inaccurate and at the same time a window to their greatest fear. Someone who is outside their control who can hurt them.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Someone with names like Manning, Snowden, Assange, Hastings, et. al. ~nt

[Hydra]

14. Perfect example

People who don't obey but are needed in the system scare the crap out of them.

Irony- obedience screws your creativity and ability to perform. They need people who can't obey to do their special work...but they can't trust them not to have issues with it.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Yeah,

as I understand it, AQ was one such Frankenstein that was useful initially but then "got out of control".
except maybe not really, in light the shadowy Bin Laden Clan/House of Saud connections.

[Hydra]

17. I don't buy that AQ ran off the rails

I'm fairly sure they're still on our payroll- they make too useful a face for the faceless "Terror" war. I always knew one day they'd offer OBL on a platter when it was politically sound to do so, but I've never seen a real concerted effort to eliminate them.

There's a very real question as to who the real AQ is though- seems like every place we want to send troops or drone there's an AQ in _____ franchise. If we were a smarter nation, I'd have said it's gotten downright silly...but people still lap it up.

[99th_Monkey]

18. War on Terror was a PNAC wet dream.

AKA a smokescreen to hide (or at least obscure) the steady rise of our brand-
spanking new Surveillance & Security State, and waa-laa .. here we are.

[bahrbearian]

5. Juith Miller ?

[LearningCurve]

7. Jeffrey Toobin?

He's got an awesome cover story.

[Luminous Animal]

8. Ha!

[99Forever]

9. Congrats for the ...

... lamest attempt at a Shoot the Messenger crock o'shit of the day.

Authoritarians really aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, are they?

[Aerows]

12. I know what I'd do to transmit it

and it wouldn't end up in too many hands, but it would be all over the fucking place if I needed to access it.