Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[boutons_deux]

Chomsky: An Ignorant Public Is the Real Kind of Security Our Govt. Is After

A leading principle of international relations theory is that the state's highest priority is to ensure security. As Cold War strategist George F. Kennan formulated the standard view, government is created "to assure order and justice internally and to provide for the common defense."

The proposition seems plausible, almost self-evident, until we look more closely and ask: Security for whom? For the general population? For state power itself? For dominant domestic cons uencies?

Depending on what we mean, the credibility of the proposition ranges from negligible to very high.

Security for state power is at the high extreme, as illustrated by the efforts that states exert to protect themselves from the scrutiny of their own populations.

In an interview on German TV, Edward J. Snowden said that his "breaking point" was "seeing Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress" by denying the existence of a domestic spying program conducted by the National Security Agency.

Snowden elaborated that "The public had a right to know about these programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the public."

The same could be justly said by Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning and other courageous figures who acted on the same democratic principle.

The government stance is quite different: The public doesn't have the right to know because security thus is undermined - severely so, as officials assert.

There are several good reasons to be skeptical about such a response. The first is that it's almost completely predictable: When a government's act is exposed, the government reflexively pleads security. The predictable response therefore carries little information.

A second reason for skepticism is the nature of the evidence presented. International relations scholar John Mearsheimer writes that "The Obama administration, not surprisingly, initially claimed that the NSA's spying played a key role in thwarting 54 terrorist plots against the United States, implying it violated the Fourth Amendment for good reason.

"This was a lie, however. Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director, eventually admitted to Congress that he could claim only one success, and that involved catching a Somali immigrant and three cohorts living in San Diego who had sent $8,500 to a terrorist group in Somalia."

...

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-stag...efine-security

Catholic Church is another example where the defense, continuation of the CC overrode the rights of its (young) members NOT to be sexually abused.

[boutons_deux]

Google’s Eric Schmidt Believes They’re Sufficiently Protected From Government Spying

Back in 2013, the NSA’s Project PRISM was one of the bigger tech scandals as it implicated several big tech companies such as Google, Yahoo, and Apple as working together with the NSA to allow spying and gathering of information on their users.

Naturally the companies denied this, and Google themselves were outraged that the NSA had somehow managed to hack into their system which led to tech companies meeting with President Obama and calling for reforms. That being said, Google has upgraded their security since which has led executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, to believe that all their data is now safe from the government’s prying eyes.

This was announced at SXSW in which Schmidt was quoted as saying, “Pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government’s prying eyes,” with regards to Google’s recent security upgrade.

Schmidt also revealed that apart from increased encryption, Google has also made other changes to its security in the recent months, although he did not go into detail as to what they might be.

Understandably so since the last thing Google needs is hackers knowing what kind of security they use so they can begin hacking their way in!

Naturally some critics feel that these upgrades might not necessarily be enough and we have to agree. While tight security will deter some hackers, there are those out there particularly skilled and determined who will eventually find a way in since no system is 100% secure, but in the meantime we guess it’s good to know that Google has made those changes anyway, for their users’ sake.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2014/03/goo...rnment-spying/

Of course, once the Feds demand Google et al to hand over the user data, they will.

[boutons_deux]

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”


32-year NSA Veteran Who Created Mass Surveillance System Says Government Use of Data Gathered Through Spying “Is a Totalitarian Process”

Bill Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees.

Binney has been interviewed by virtually all of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, PBS and many others.

Last year, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:

We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.

But today, Binney told Washington’s Blog that the U.S. has already become a police state.

By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.

All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally “launder” the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way … and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.

This is a bigger deal than you may realize, as legal experts say that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all … and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it.

The NSA also ships Americans’ most confidential, sensitive information to foreign countries like Israel(and here), the UK and other countries … so they can “unmask” the information and give it back to the NSA … or use it for their own purposes.

Binney told us today:

The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. [See the 2 slides below].
These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts – cause it has been acquired without a warrant.

So, they have to do a “Parallel Construction” and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a “planned programed perjury policy” directed by US law enforcement.

And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to “Foreign Counterparts.”

This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process – means we are now in a police state.

Here are the two slides which Binney pointed us to:

(Source: Reuters via RT; SOD stands for “Special Operations Division,” a branch of a federal government agency.)

We asked Binney a follow-up question:

You say “this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.’” Does that mean that foreign agencies can also “launder” the info gained from NSA spying? Or that data gained through foreign agencies’ spying can be “laundered” and used by U.S. agencies?

Binney responded:

For countries like the five eyes (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and probably some others it probably works both ways. But for others that have relationships with FBI or DEA etc., they probably are given the data to used to arrest people but are not told the source or given copies of the data.

(See this for background on the five eyes.)


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...ice-state.html

[boutons_deux]

Inside the NSA’s Secret Efforts to Hunt and Hack System Administrators

Across the world, people who work as system administrators keep computer networks in order – and this has turned them into unwitting targets of the National Security Agency for simply doing their jobs. According to a secret do ent provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the agency tracks down the private email and Facebook accounts of system administrators (or sys admins, as they are often called), before hacking their computers to gain access to the networks they control.

The do ent consists of several posts – one of them is led “I hunt sys admins” – that were published in 2012 on an internal discussion board hosted on the agency’s classified servers. They were written by an NSA official involved in the agency’s effort to break into foreign network routers, the devices that connect computer networks and transport data across the Internet. By infiltrating the computers of system administrators who work for foreign phone and Internet companies, the NSA can gain access to the calls and emails that flow over their networks.

The classified posts reveal how the NSA official aspired to create a database that would function as an international hit list of sys admins to potentially target. Yet the do ent makes clear that the admins are not suspected of any criminal activity – they are targeted only because they control access to networks the agency wants to infiltrate. “Who better to target than the person that already has the ‘keys to the kingdom’?” one of the posts says.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/a...dministrators/

[Winehole23]

absent the Snowden leaks, it's doubtful this would have come to pass, if it passes:

The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.

Under the proposal, they said, the N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans’ calling habits. The bulk records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us...dayspaper&_r=0

[Winehole23]

The Washington Post and The Guardian win the 2014 Pulitzer gold medal for public service:

The Pulitzer Prize has rendered its vote on what it thinks of Edward Snowden’s revelation of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic surveillance techniques today by giving a gold medal in public service to The Guardian US and The Washington Post for breaking the stories. The Pulitzer committee credits the Post for helping "the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security," while The Guardian is recognized for "helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/14/ed...lead-to-pulitz

[boutons_deux]

.. and hero whisteblower Snowden gets nothing but criminalization.

[Winehole23]

Greenwald and Poitras win the Polk Award: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/bu...to-the-us.html

[pgardn]

.. and hero whisteblower Snowden gets nothing but criminalization.

Thats what happens when you choose to break a law.

What he did was very important to our understanding into lack of oversight. And how deeply the NSA and quite likely other agencies are getting into information they don't need to be in. As well as programs that are very questionable legally and exactly the type of programs we think are so dangerous to the free flow of information.

But he broke the law. And then landed in a country exactly the opposite of what he professed to be morally within his qualifications based on how they treated the free flow of information.

So thanks for the info Ed, I wish there was some other avenue you could have used.

[boutons_deux]

Snowden had to break the law to expose the STILL UNPUNISHED law-breaking of NSA.

What other choice did he have? "go through channels"

[pgardn]

Snowden had to break the law to expose the STILL UNPUNISHED law-breaking of NSA.

What other choice did he have? "go through channels"

So you know there was no other way to get the information out to people in our government that would see the law breaking? You know there is NO OTHER way. He had to break the law. I think I would have completely exhausted this avenue before copying anything illegally.
You know there was no other way and you know he exhausted all possibilities BEFORE breaking the law.

And besides all this he is a hypocrite. You think he surfs the internet in Russia boots?

[boutons_deux]

Snowden certainly knew the horrible record and abuse of whistleblowers.

Suggest his alternatives to law breaking. And we're talking about breaking the laws of the ing beyond-the-law NSA messianic Few Good Men.

[pgardn]

Do you have any idea the precedent this would set boots? Anyone with govt. Access could release things they deemed important. Individual workers would be the judge and jury of what can be released. So of course they give up some State dept official or some operative for intelligence in Ukraine and the operative gets axed.

Good show.
You don't see the scenarios that could arise? You don't think its important that we get accurate info, for instance in Ukraine, we just rely on Ukraine and Russia to tell us what's really going on?

I don't want people like you deciding what needs to be released.
I don't want individuals releasing what THEY judge to be important.

[Winehole23]

actually, Snowden released the NSA info to journalists, who then decided along with their editors what was in the public interest to release.

as for going through proper channels, many of those who've done so since 2009 have been been subject to official secrets prosecution. Obama has chilled whistleblowing.

[boutons_deux]

Do you have any idea the precedent this would set boots? Anyone with govt. Access could release things they deemed important. Individual workers would be the judge and jury of what can be released. So of course they give up some State dept official or some operative for intelligence in Ukraine and the operative gets axed.

Good show.
You don't see the scenarios that could arise? You don't think its important that we get accurate info, for instance in Ukraine, we just rely on Ukraine and Russia to tell us what's really going on?

I don't want people like you deciding what needs to be released.
I don't want individuals releasing what THEY judge to be important.

"deemed important" AND ILLEGAL

[pgardn]

"deemed important" AND ILLEGAL

So I want you to go work for the IRS, decide there is too much privacy, and use Assange to release everyone's tax return.
Excellent.

[pgardn]

actually, Snowden released the NSA info to journalists, who then decided along with their editors what was in the public interest to release.

as for going through proper channels, many of those who've done so since 2009 have been been subject to official secrets prosecution. Obama has chilled whistleblowing.

First sentence, my point still stands. An individual could steal and release govt. info of his choosing. This is a problem.

Then don't release the info unless you are willing to pay the price. The chill has been exposed. It will become easier if people take the abuse of authority seriously. Which some democrats and republicans are.

Ask Valerie Plame how it feels when someone within a govt. agency releases info to journalists...

[TDMVPDPOY]

a snitch or not, cops loves snitches but they dont protect snitches...lmao corrupt cops

[Winehole23]

Ask Valerie Plame how it feels when someone within a govt. agency releases info to journalists...

So 2003. Have you read a newspaper since?

[Winehole23]

you might find a few relevant threads in this forum if you really cared so much.

[pgardn]

You get the point Winehole.

So 2003...

It was a bad year for your favorite wine?
It was the year your smoking jacket caught fire?

The point is still the same. If you don't get it by now and would like to prove my point for me then do so.

[pgardn]

you might find a few relevant threads in this forum if you really cared so much.

Of course.
ST is the repository given I don't read newspapers anymore.
Damn ink...

[Winehole23]

If you think Plame is relevant to the discussion, you're living in the past. Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Richard Barlow are a bit closer in time, all three got it much worse than Plame, and that's just off the top of my head. Obama puts Bush in the shade wrt whistleblowers. There are a number of searchable threads on this topic that might bolster your pose of knowledgeability . . .

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190614

[Winehole23]

Binney, Roark, others here: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6113161