General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Edward Snowden Belongs in Prison
China, Russia got into Snowdens "encrypted" files. Now targetung US/British intel asse5s
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/russia-and-china-broke-into-snowden-files-to-identify-british-and-us-spies?CMP=share_btn_fb
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Aerows
(39,961 posts)on everybody even applying for security clearances couldn't possibly be at fault, now could it? The massive and catastrophic mess the intelligence apparatuses made themselves couldn't POSSIBLY be at fault, now could it?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The forms authorities believed may have been stolen en masse, known as Standard Form 86, require applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant's Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.
In a statement, the White House said that on June 8, investigators concluded there was "a high degree of confidence that ... systems containing information related to the background investigations of current, former and prospective federal government employees, and those for whom a federal background investigation was conducted, may have been exfiltrated."
"This tells the Chinese the identities of almost everybody who has got a United States security clearance," said Joel Brenner, a former top U.S. counterintelligence official. "That makes it very hard for any of those people to function as an intelligence officer. The database also tells the Chinese an enormous amount of information about almost everyone with a security clearance. That's a gold mine. It helps you approach and recruit spies."
Cha
(296,832 posts)
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/06/13/a-tweet-or-two-299/
From Twitter..
"Didn't Snowden say China/Russia didn't get any files? Someone has some re-affirming to do .."
https://twitter.com/MichaelKelleyBI/status/609853231494266880
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609868934658019328
“There’s a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents" -- Ed #Snowden, NYT, 17 Oct 2013
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609869236727627777
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609868513730260992
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609865311735672833
https://twitter.com/hdevreij/status/609854116240748544
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1117409
But, I don't care if he stays in Russia or not.. he thinks it's such a great bastion of civil rights.. let him stay there. He doesn't seem the type to take responsibility for his actions.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)So there's that 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)
bluesbassman
(19,360 posts)He's consistent though, I'll give him that.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)He's a weasel.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)I call bullshit.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)would have any kind of an agenda.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They'll never quit, will they?
BeyondGeography
(39,346 posts)Which is why you need to think long and hard before doing something that just might get you on their bad side.
I once heard John Perry Barlow speak at an Internet gambling conference many years ago. He said governments might be big, slow and stupid, but they can really make your life miserable when they decide they want to.
Snowden's life just got a little worse. Maybe even a lot worse.
QC
(26,371 posts)
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Guardian: What if David Cameron is an evil genius?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/david-cameron-moriarty-downing-street-radical-thatcher
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)n/t
marym625
(17,997 posts)One publication in the UK, put out this bullshit from one unnamed "source" from "Downing Street. " Not one other publications like has any source, named or not. No one in the US has even hinted it. But yeah, let's blame Snowden.
How about putting the blame for putting these people in jeopardy squarely where it belongs, the US government.
There is no way that the government is so stupid any code would be the same as it was when Snowden left 2 years ago.
He has never been changed with giving anything to another country and the US has stated they have no proof he has. After 2 years, if he had, they would have had proof.
But some people can't accept that the only thing Snowden did is alert us to unconstitutional spying.
villager
(26,001 posts)Not surprising in the least, of course.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Never mind the crimes being committed against citizens of the United States, or how the Chinese hacked every single government employee's personal records and military and intel data http://news.yahoo.com/union-says-federal-workers-fell-victim-hackers-071851098--politics.html
This OP should be flushed into a tertiary sewage plant because it couldn't be infected with any more fetid horse shit.
marym625
(17,997 posts)It's just hopeless. They only care about ridiculous accusations against Snowden. Forget reality
But good for you for continuing to try to spread sense.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… That's one way I don't have to read their shit.
I donated again to Sanders. This shit is just going to promote more to support him. It's the DLC drone factory at its best. Most of what was Snowden news whizzes through their limbic brain and right out their nose!
marym625
(17,997 posts)Notice how many of our great writers on du, most of which were pro Snowden people, are no longer here?
Very cool! OS is going to meet Sanders tomorrow and tell him about the ACT BLUE DU pac. 
DLC drone factory. Well put!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm pretty sure that most people are able to focus on more than one story at any given time. However, I can certainly understand why a linear, myopic thinker may believe more than any one story is by definition, a distraction...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Response to arely staircase (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #9)
Post removed
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,494 posts)
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)taken seriously.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Remember this one also claims that Sanders represents 95% of his/her own political positions.
I guess the remaining 5% are disagreements about whistle-blowers, government spying, capital punishment and torture?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I like to pretend I know who belongs on DU also. Doing so gives us allowance we're more clever than we may otherwise indicate...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)They are uniform.
Anyway the jury agreed with me.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)the U.S. or British government says about any of this.
840high
(17,196 posts)Response to arely staircase (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)A Big Brother government who feels they have the right to spy on American citizens and warehousing vast amounts of our data without a warrant (or our knowledge) is the bigger problem.
Snowden wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't have a government that wants to know everything about everyone.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)being paid for by their own tax dollars, then there would be no story.
They have blocked every legitimate channel to investigating the problem, and they lie about it when they are confronted. So fuck 'em.
The more people there are like Snowden, who will put their asses on the line to get the word out on how we are being screwed over with our own tax dollars, the better.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)We are all in a soft prison, with our every action monitored by corporate governance and its dogma protected by quislings in our midst.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)China/Russia also responsible for that. But so convenient to blame Snowden if any dangerous info got out.
Without Snowden the Patriot Act would still be in full force. The guy is a hero: some people just can't deal with the idea of leaks (even though Ellsberg helped end Vietnam by doing the same thing...). Stop being so anal because someone else did something illegal. In my view all the smearing that the government did in pursuit of Snowden should be illegal. If attributing this hack to Snowden was leaked by the CIA, THAT should be illegal, as it may endanger Snowden's life and liberty.
Geez.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Well... a few are.
The rest of the world sees the game, and haved moved on.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Anonymous government officials?
WHY? Why would they need anonymity? To avoid accountability?
Oh yeah. We've lived this before. In the lead up to the Iraq slaughter.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)How would they hack what he didn't have?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)- snip -
So, in summary: How were the files breached? "I don't know." Were the files hacked or did Snowden hand them over? "We don't know." Were MI6 agents directly under threat? "We don't know." How did the government know what was in the files? "That's not something we're clear on." Can you substantiate the claims? "No."
The interview is quite extraordinary because it makes absolutely clear that not only was this entire dubious story based solely on claims made anonymously by government officials, the reporters who regurgitated the claims did not even seek to question the veracity of the information. They just credulously accepted the allegations and then printed them unquestioningly. That really is the definition of stenography journalism — it's shameful.
It's also worth noting that in Harper's interview he admits he has no idea how the Chinese and Russian governments supposedly obtained the files, yet the whole story was based on a bombshell claim that the trove of files was somehow "cracked" by Chinese and Russian government operatives (i.e. that the encryption on them was broken). As I noted above in point #9, if Snowden just handed over the files, why would these governments then need to "crack" them, unless the claim is that he handed over a set of encrypted documents? Either way, Harper says he has no idea how the files were obtained, so how does he know they were "cracked"? This central allegation seems to have been invented completely out of thin air, at worst a fabrication by technologically inept reporters who don't understand what terminology like "cracked" means, at best derived from evidence-free conjecture from spineless government officials too afraid to put their names to the claims.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Or does that only apply to torture?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)good explanation for his wrong doing.
randome
(34,845 posts)Snowden can't be blamed if the people he trusted didn't live up to his expectations of them! There's always something happening in June with Snowden. It's like he wants to celebrate his anniversary or something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)THE SUNDAY TIMES’ SNOWDEN STORY IS JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST — AND FILLED WITH FALSEHOODS
BY GLENN GREENWALD
@ggreenwald TODAY AT 8:48 AM
- snip -
The Sunday Times “journalists” printed an outright fabrication in order to support their key point: that Snowden had files with him in Moscow. This is the only “fact” included in their story that suggests Snowden had files with him when he left Hong Kong, and it’s completely, demonstrably false (and just by the way: it’s 2015, not 1971, so referring to gay men in a 10-year spousal relationship with the belittling term “boyfriends” is just gross).
Then there’s the Sunday Times claim that “Snowden, a former contractor at the CIA and National Security Agency (NSA), downloaded 1.7m secret documents from western intelligence agencies in 2013.” Even the NSA admits this claim is a lie. The NSA has repeatedly said that it has no idea how many documents Snowden downloaded and has no way to find out. As the NSA itself admits, the 1.7 million number is not the number the NSA claims Snowden downloaded – they admit they don’t and can’t know that number – but merely the amount of documents he interacted with in his years of working at NSA. Here’s then-NSA chief Keith Alexander explaining exactly that in a 2014 interview with the Australian Financial Review:
AFR: Can you now quantify the number of documents (Snowden) stole?
Gen. Alexander: Well, I don’t think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents.
Let’s repeat that: “I don’t think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting.” Yet someone whispered to the Sunday Times reporters that Snowden downloaded 1.7 million documents, so like the liars and propagandists that they are, they mindlessly printed it as fact. That’s what this whole article is.
Then there’s the claim that the Russian and Chinese governments learned the names of covert agents by cracking the Snowden file, “forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries.” This appears quite clearly to be a fabrication by the Sunday Times for purposes of sensationalism, because if you read the actual anonymous quotes they include, not even the anonymous officials claim that Russia and China hacked the entire archive, instead offering only vague assertions that Russian and China “have information.”
Beyond that, how could these hidden British officials possibly know that China and Russia learned things from the Snowden files as opposed to all the other hacking and spying those countries do? Moreover, as pointed out last night by my colleague Ryan Gallagher – who has worked for well over a year with the full Snowden archive – “I’ve reviewed the Snowden documents and I’ve never seen anything in there naming active MI6 agents.” He also said: “I’ve seen nothing in the region of 1m documents in the Snowden archive, so I don’t know where that number has come from.”
randome
(34,845 posts)And how is it a 'lie' to overstate the number of documents Snowden stole when Alexander says they don't really know?
Greenwald makes that a central point in the article because it sounds good to accuse the accusers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 09:49 PM - Edit history (3)
community members say.
Come on... At least try.
See post #63.
http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-china-russia-questions.html
5) "A senior Downing Street source said: 'It is the case that Russians and Chinese have information'."
Of course they do: the same information that the rest of the world has access to in public news reports and documents published as part of those. If the claim here is that the Russians and Chinese have access to every single document in the entire archive (i.e. all the unpublished material), where is the evidence to support that? How do the officials know? Are they speculating? These are serious claims — and serious claims demand serious evidence. Which is unfortunately not provided here.
6) “Why do you think Snowden ended up in Russia?” said a senior Home Office source. “Putin didn’t give him asylum for nothing."
I thought this one had long since been debunked by now, but apparently not. The reality is that Snowden never intended to stay in Russia. He was trying to get to Latin America and only ended up in Russia because his passport was revoked by the US government while he was transiting through.
7) Senior Home Office source: "His documents were encrypted but they weren’t completely secure and we have now seen our agents and assets being targeted.”
So the UK Home Office is alleging Snowden lied about taking documents to Moscow? How has it established that? And the "targeted" assets — how does the source know this has happened as a direct consequence of the Snowden leaks? There are many other factors at play here, and correlation does not imply causation. Especially with regard to Russia, given that anonymous UK "security sources" claimed months ago — again in the Sunday Times — that they are engaged in a "new Cold War" against Kremlin spies due to the broader issue of Vladimir Putin's heightened military posturing.
8) "A British intelligence source said: 'We know Russia and China have access to Snowden’s material'."
As I noted above: the Russians and Chinese have access to documents published with public news reports, sure, that's obvious and true. But is the claim here that they have access to material beyond that? If so, where's the evidence? How does this source "know" and what does he "know," exactly? Why the vague statement? Let's hear what it is the source knows and how so we can properly assess and scrutinise the merit of the allegation.
9) "It is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden’s data, or whether he voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow."
If it's not clear then why does the top line of the story say the Chinese and Russians "cracked" the documents? If Snowden just handed them over, why would they need to "crack" them? And if the Russians and Chinese somehow stole the documents in encrypted form, how did they a) manage to obtain them in the first place (especially given Snowden says he didn't carry the files with him into Russia), and then b) break the encryption?
10) "David Miranda, the boyfriend of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly classified' intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow."
This is wrong...
- snip -
UPDATE II, 15 June 2015, 19:00 BST: The lead reporter on the Sunday Times article, Tom Harper,...
Howell: How do senior officials at 10 Downing Street know that these files were breached?
Harper: Well, uhh, I don't know the answer to that George. All we know is that this is effectively the official position of the British government ... we picked up on it a while ago and we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources, and when we approached the government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed effectively what you read today in the Sunday Times, so it's obviously allegations at the moment from our point of view and it's really for the British government to defend it.
How do they know what was in them [the files], if they were encrypted? Has the British government also gotten into these files?
Well, the files came from America and the UK, so they may already have known for some time what Snowden took — uhh, again, that's not something we're clear on ... we don't go into that level of detail in the story we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment.
Your article asserts that it is not clear if the files were hacked or if he just gave these files over when he was in Hong Kong or Russia, so which is it?
Well again sorry to just repeat myself george but we don't know so we haven't written that in the paper. It could be either, it could be another scenario ... when you're dealing with the world of intelligence there are so many unknowns and possibilities it's difficult to state anything with and so we've been very careful to just stick to what we are able to substantiate.
The article mentions these MI6 agents ... were they directly under threat as a result of the information leaked or was this a precautionary measure?
Uhh, again, I'm afraid to disappoint you, we don't know ... there was a suggestion some of them may have been under threat but the statement from senior Downing Street sources suggests that no one has come to any harm, which is obviously a positive thing from the point of view of the West.
So essentially you are reporting what the government is saying, but as far as the evidence to substantiate it, you're not really able to comment or explain that at this point?
No. We picked up on the story a while back from an extremely well placed source in the Home Office. and picked up on trying to substantiate through various sources in various agencies throughout Britain, and finally presented the story to the government, and they effectively confirmed what you read in today's Sunday Times. But obviously when you're dealing with intelligence it's the toughest nut to crack and unless you have leaked documents like Snowden had, it's difficult to say anything with certainty.
So, in summary: How were the files breached? "I don't know." Were the files hacked or did Snowden hand them over? "We don't know." Were MI6 agents directly under threat? "We don't know." How did the government know what was in the files? "That's not something we're clear on." Can you substantiate the claims? "No."
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Proud to be DUer after reading that thanks.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Proud to hide that nonsense.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The Sunday Times “journalists” printed an outright fabrication in order to support their key point: that Snowden had files with him in Moscow. This is the only “fact” included in their story that suggests Snowden had files with him when he left Hong Kong, and it’s completely, demonstrably false (and just by the way: it’s 2015, not 1971, so referring to gay men in a 10-year spousal relationship with the belittling term “boyfriends” is just gross).
Then there’s the Sunday Times claim that “Snowden, a former contractor at the CIA and National Security Agency (NSA), downloaded 1.7m secret documents from western intelligence agencies in 2013.” Even the NSA admits this claim is a lie. The NSA has repeatedly said that it has no idea how many documents Snowden downloaded and has no way to find out. As the NSA itself admits, the 1.7 million number is not the number the NSA claims Snowden downloaded – they admit they don’t and can’t know that number – but merely the amount of documents he interacted with in his years of working at NSA. Here’s then-NSA chief Keith Alexander explaining exactly that in a 2014 interview with the Australian Financial Review:
AFR: Can you now quantify the number of documents (Snowden) stole?
Gen. Alexander: Well, I don’t think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents.
Let’s repeat that: “I don’t think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting.” Yet someone whispered to the Sunday Times reporters that Snowden downloaded 1.7 million documents, so like the liars and propagandists that they are, they mindlessly printed it as fact. That’s what this whole article is.
Then there’s the claim that the Russian and Chinese governments learned the names of covert agents by cracking the Snowden file, “forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries.” This appears quite clearly to be a fabrication by the Sunday Times for purposes of sensationalism, because if you read the actual anonymous quotes they include, not even the anonymous officials claim that Russia and China hacked the entire archive, instead offering only vague assertions that Russian and China “have information.”
Beyond that, how could these hidden British officials possibly know that China and Russia learned things from the Snowden files as opposed to all the other hacking and spying those countries do? Moreover, as pointed out last night by my colleague Ryan Gallagher – who has worked for well over a year with the full Snowden archive – “I’ve reviewed the Snowden documents and I’ve never seen anything in there naming active MI6 agents.” He also said: “I’ve seen nothing in the region of 1m documents in the Snowden archive, so I don’t know where that number has come from.”
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)I just thought taking Snowden out and shooting him was a little harsh.
You will have plenty of chances to hit me with truth because I'm frequently wrong, doubleminded and full of character flaws and human errors. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Who don't really know what they are doing and what consequences it might have.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And some people believe the sophomoric idiots.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)This is dangerous stuff, and Greenwald does an excellent job of laying out before the reader how exactly the administration is doing this, I can only encourage all persons of liberal, moderate, or non-authoritarian conservative bents to read this book. The one criticism I have would be that there are no footnotes, but all of these items have been reported by major media at one point or another, and are easily uncovered with a simple google search.
While Greenwald barely mentions impeachment in this book, the implication is clear - this President has openly admitted committing what amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Where do you think the spying program and the recent use of the Espionage Act comes from? However they weren't idiots, they would like you to believe rather that rather than what they were really doing. Like Arpaio using the I'm incompetent defense in his contempt of court case going as far as to saying this guy from Seattle had info the Judge or his wife had a tip that she was trying to fix his election but requested payment so he could investigate the claim he is making instead of I hired a PI to spy on your wife because that's what I always do when I have a political or judicial opponent.
Snowden scored over 145 on IQ tests. A co-worker described him as a "genius among geniuses" and Mensa nominated him for their IQ award.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)or that they are keeping us safe.
Naive as far as Snowden would be to dump this on the nearest news station or even worse flying to NYC and walking into the Fox News building with it. Naive would be "here it is now lock me up under the Espionage Act". He took a bold & calculated risk, did he make mistakes on the along way, it would be hard not to but considering the circumstances.
I will say he was naive when he joined these various impressive government jobs he became disillusioned quickly because he didn't see it for what it is and I didn't even have those jobs and know they aren't as honorable as cracked up to be.
---
Mr. Snowden, a native of North Carolina, told The Guardian that he signed up in 2003 for an Army Special Forces training program because he wanted to fight in Iraq.
“I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression,” he said.
“Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/former-cia-worker-says-he-leaked-surveillance-data.html
Same thing with joining then quitting the CIA though many people will doubt the story, the ones with diplomatic cover do most of the spying US, Russian or otherwise or the risky stuff such as recruiting, kidnapping, etc while somebody unofficial without an official designation -- like DEA -- wouldn't do something that would blow their cover.
I'm sure Snowden is well aware of the spy world than any of us here, really, but it is ugly all the way around & should stop trying to find out everyone's secrets when we are so concerned about our own.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)of the New York Times and The Washington Post, this Sunday Times article should set off all kinds of bullshit alarms.
Also, see post#63.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)There is no proof of this.
"...quotes a series of anonymous sources from Downing Street, the Home Office and British intelligence..."
You know, from a right-wing administration, and an intelligence service that forced the smashing of a newspaper's hard drives?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I'll just say they don't see the irony here and Snowden is still out there.
Do you think the most recent leaks are going to send more people out to cabins in the woods?
I don’t think your average American cares. After a couple of months these kind of things usually blow over, and no one thinks about it anymore. But with the Snowden leaks, it might be a bit different. Every day that he is out and free, he’s bringing more attention to this issue. People get it thrown in their face on the nightly news.
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/enemy-of-the-state-2013-7/
There is a point there, who is talking about Thomas Drake or what Bradley Manning revealed anymore?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)a name for himself and reap the benefits, but instead he's stuck with the consequences.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Howell: How do senior officials at 10 Downing Street know that these files were breached?
Harper: Well, uhh, I don't know the answer to that George. All we know is that this is effectively the official position of the British government ... we picked up on it a while ago and we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources, and when we approached the government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed effectively what you read today in the Sunday Times, so it's obviously allegations at the moment from our point of view and it's really for the British government to defend it.
How do they know what was in them [the files], if they were encrypted? Has the British government also gotten into these files?
Well, the files came from America and the UK, so they may already have known for some time what Snowden took — uhh, again, that's not something we're clear on ... we don't go into that level of detail in the story we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment.
Your article asserts that it is not clear if the files were hacked or if he just gave these files over when he was in Hong Kong or Russia, so which is it?
Well again sorry to just repeat myself george but we don't know so we haven't written that in the paper. It could be either, it could be another scenario ... when you're dealing with the world of intelligence there are so many unknowns and possibilities it's difficult to state anything with and so we've been very careful to just stick to what we are able to substantiate.
The article mentions these MI6 agents ... were they directly under threat as a result of the information leaked or was this a precautionary measure?
Uhh, again, I'm afraid to disappoint you, we don't know ... there was a suggestion some of them may have been under threat but the statement from senior Downing Street sources suggests that no one has come to any harm, which is obviously a positive thing from the point of view of the West.
So essentially you are reporting what the government is saying, but as far as the evidence to substantiate it, you're not really able to comment or explain that at this point?
No. We picked up on the story a while back from an extremely well placed source in the Home Office. and picked up on trying to substantiate through various sources in various agencies throughout Britain, and finally presented the story to the government, and they effectively confirmed what you read in today's Sunday Times. But obviously when you're dealing with intelligence it's the toughest nut to crack and unless you have leaked documents like Snowden had, it's difficult to say anything with certainty.
So, in summary: How were the files breached? "I don't know." Were the files hacked or did Snowden hand them over? "We don't know." Were MI6 agents directly under threat? "We don't know." How did the government know what was in the files? "That's not something we're clear on." Can you substantiate the claims? "No."
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)documents he admitted to leaking some time ago.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)He was referring to the content of the original post.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)and a comment about sophomoric idiots.
BTW, Snowden and his antics have been in the news for years now, and all that history is not erased because you're excited about an article from yesterday.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)
OP posted about the Sunday Times article.
Steven Leser responds with "THIS is what happens..."
You're wasting my time. Have a nice day.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)a sophomoric idiot... C'mon now, you wasted your own time.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)every defense contractor, John Ashcroft, etc in prison first.
madokie
(51,076 posts)in a whole different way. If he was smart enough to figure out how to do what he did then he was negligent in not exploring other avenues. I know about the times etc. but thats not the answer either. I don't know the answer and I'm smart enough to know that. Edward Snowden needs his day in court and let the chips fall where they may. Greenhound is not much better or far behind him either.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
marmar
(77,053 posts).....(snip).....
On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants – something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations – particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”.
Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations – and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it. ...............(more)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/edward-snowden-hero-government-scare-tactics
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)you buying into the crap too! That is so not true about Snowden. The news papers lie all the time.
NewSystemNeeded
(111 posts)But that's just silly ole me being progressive.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Can I accuse you of something, without evidence, and you go to prison?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)No proof, apparently, but off with his head!
G_j
(40,366 posts)that's the ticket..... 
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I used to think I had a pretty Manichean view of the world but the denizens of this board have nothing on me.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)enter the equation. 
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The American people gave George W. Bush a 92% approval rating once, so...
Actually, NPR did a story about the poll results and how what results you got about the NSA and Snowden and the intelligence-gathering controversies turned out differently depending on how you framed the question.
olddots
(10,237 posts)As H.G Wells said. Today's conflict is tomorrow's joke .What Snowden did is nothing but become a talking point for little babys who make a living off of secrets that eventually become common knowledge .
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I *DARE* you.
NSAsplain how wrong everyone that called bullshit on this from the get go is.
Go on.
I eagerly await our favorites (you know who you are - the ones with the dogs) to step up to the plate and confront it.
