General Discussion

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)

35. According to the NSA, Snowden was the one

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 02:43 PM

Jun 2013

who leaked the Verizon warrant:

One question many had been asking since Edward Snowden came forward as the source of recently leaked National Security Agency documents was just how someone in Snowden’s position got access to an order issued by the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The order, requiring a Verizon subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over the metadata about calls made by all its subscribers over a three-month period, was top secret, and had no relevance to Snowden’s job as an IT system’s administrator working for an NSA contractor.

Well, we now have an answer. He had access to the order when he was being trained.

After a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told reporters that Snowden had access to the document during an orientation he attended at NSA headquarters in Maryland.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/snowden_verizon_nsa.php

That seems like a good bit of evidence to me and to the other three former NSA employees.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The NSA searches its mass database of phone records without real judicial oversight. [View all] dkf Jun 2013 OP

If this would be the rule then police would not be able to ask any questions of Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #1

You wish regular warrants were approved on this basis? Guidelines for the police to interpret? dkf Jun 2013 #3

I never said I would like for warrants to be issued everytime a query is made, but if you get this Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #4

It's search and seizure. That's how the 4th amendment works. dkf Jun 2013 #5

I am surprised you would really want this to happen, frivolous in the least. BTW, the Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #7

Why would the Internet go away? dkf Jun 2013 #8

You ask a lot of questions which should be simple but no more queries, no news, if Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #10

Well I have no idea why you think the Internet would be shut down. Weird. dkf Jun 2013 #17

Weird you don't undertstand. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #19

I'm baffled at why the internet would go away, too. dawg Jun 2013 #18

Would it be proper to say you are not in position to make the decision of what would suffice. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #23

No. dawg Jun 2013 #25

You do understand I'm not talking about a google search, right? dawg Jun 2013 #26

Why would you assume that? Phone company metadata does not include any of that. randome Jun 2013 #34

Well I'm not assuming it entirely. That's why I said "probably". dawg Jun 2013 #36

Now I gotta say, this is an interesting new talking point nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #20

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling everyone else's posts to be 'talking points'. randome Jun 2013 #29

What in the world does ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #30

Anyone can be "queried" solely on the basis of secret computer profiles that aren't subject to leveymg Jun 2013 #2

'Grocery items'? Where do you get that from? randome Jun 2013 #6

They are collecting directly off of the fiber optic cables. That's pure raw data. dkf Jun 2013 #9

How do you know? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #11

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #13

How is it done? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #16

AP dkf Jun 2013 #24

i would not bother engaging with them if they will not even discuss the facts of the documents Monkie Jun 2013 #53

Just what I thought, just throw some words out and let the story continue. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #56

They copy the data from the fiber optic cables. dkf Jun 2013 #57

I do understand more than you know but you continue your talking point. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #58

You'd think Snowden would have mentioned this if it was true. randome Jun 2013 #12

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #14

You know the article ProSense Jun 2013 #22

I'm not defending Bush. Am I supposed to be blaming him for the fact it still goes on? dkf Jun 2013 #54

Link? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #55

This is what the EFF lawsuit is about...they have ATT records. dkf Jun 2013 #15

Bush era stuff. I agree, let the EFF lawsuit proceed. randome Jun 2013 #27

Snowden wasn't director of the NSA. dawg Jun 2013 #21

I don't think he had access to anything because he wasn't able to show any evidence. randome Jun 2013 #28

There is enough information out there now to be concerned about ... dawg Jun 2013 #31

He could easily have hurt the case he wanted to make. randome Jun 2013 #46

I think it's interesting how everyone else here but you cites multiple sources leveymg Jun 2013 #32

The link about Snowden's fake resume. randome Jun 2013 #33

That mischaracterizes things. I left my comment over at the other thread. leveymg Jun 2013 #37

It's looking like he also lied about working for the NSA before going to the CIA. randome Jun 2013 #42

According to the NSA, Snowden was the one ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #35

Note to Snowden debunkers: Alexander is not saying the documents are fake. leveymg Jun 2013 #38

No one is saying the warrant is a fake. randome Jun 2013 #41

Never said he was. eom leveymg Jun 2013 #52

I meant he didn't have access to private information. randome Jun 2013 #40

He knew because of the documents he found. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #43

I'm not disputing the validity of the Verizon warrant. randome Jun 2013 #44

I don't need to trust him to ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #47

I hear you. randome Jun 2013 #48

Not really - ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #49

They started their cases back in the Bush Era. randome Jun 2013 #51

and the aclu. allin99 Jun 2013 #45

Yes, them, too. n/t ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #50

K&R KoKo Jun 2013 #39