^ Downing Street has less credibility than Snowden, tbh...
Maybe.
But when you got a person choosing what he deems important to give out the probability that mistakes get made goes up. All of these countries have spies. So the hero traitor ? becomes very muddy. I again state what Snowden did was of huge importance and illegal.
You give many individuals with access to information a huge amount of power if they alone decide what is allowed to be made public.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...h-and-us-spies
This is all just out of the box so it maybe overblown but it does again highlight the concerns of having access to sensitive information and singly deciding to leak it.
The intelligence apparatus grew too big unchecked, and with that growth came the excesses. Gathering intelligence is fine, doing so violating our rights as Americans is not. Snowden simply brought to light such excesses, at a great personal price.
Even if this incident is true, it's far from the end of intelligence gathering for the US or the UK. As we've seen, even the disclosure of flagrant violations to our Cons utional rights, including the judicial deeming them illegal, barely moved the needle. A lot of hawks in this country just need to get old and die.
And the UK is even worse than the US in some of the heavy handed legislation when it comes to terror. Laws like forcing people to reveal passwords or face jail time are a good example. Luckily for us, *some* amendments, like the fifth, are still upheld in this country.
Timing is also suspect as , considering the recent Chinese hack that allegedly exfiltrated SF86 data, which apparently contains complete dossier of purported agents.
Also, from somewhere else:
GCHQ and the UK have been crying wolf about encryption for years. Now after all their bleating about how they can't crack encryption, they're claiming the Russians and Chinese have done it, but they couldn't?
None of this changes the fact that one man working for a govt. contractor made a huge decision on his own about what to leak. As I stated in my first post in reposting all of this, the disclosure was very important but very illegal and is very dangerous. I purposely posted this in its infancy to illustrate the importance of individual decisions that affect a huge number of people. I have no idea where it's going.
Comparing what China and Russia fund or allow is not my concern in this post although it is interesting. When the UK hacks Chinese industry for their own economic gain please post this as it would be very worthy and would add depth to the contradictory comparisons we turn to when examining our own problems.
spy agency leaking this to the media
s
The Intercept trashes the Murdoch toilet paper Times of London
THE SUNDAY TIMES’ SNOWDEN STORY IS JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST — AND FILLED WITH FALSEHOODS
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/
I don't really see it like that. In my opinion, it was a necessary step towards righting some wrongs, which would have not been righted if the action didn't take place. Whistleblowing always carry risks and inevitably leads to side effects. The final question is: was it worth it? And the answer to that varies heavily between people, from Snowden himself to everybody. Personally, I think it was.
Certain level of oversight was long overdue in this area, and if it takes shinning some light into the pile of to do it, then so be it.
traitor
Fair enough.
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits That He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him
So we've already written about the massive problems with the Sunday Times' big report claiming that the Russians and Chinese had "cracked" the encryption on the Snowden files (or possibly just been handed those files by Snowden) and that he had "blood on his hands" even though no one has come to any harm. It also argued that David Miranda was detained after he got do ents from Snowden in Moscow, despite the fact that he was neither in Moscow, nor had met Snowden (a claim the article quietly deleted). That same report also claimed that UK intelligence agency MI6 had to remove "agents" from Moscow because of this leak, despite the fact that they're not called "agents" and there's no evidence of any actual risk. So far, the only official response from News Corp. the publisher of The Sunday Times (through a variety of subsidiaries) was to try to censorthe criticism of the story with a DMCA takedown request.
Either way, one of the journalists who wrote the story, Tom Harper, gave an interview to CNN which is quite incredible to watch. Harper just keeps repeating that he doesn't know what's actually true, and that he was just saying what the government told him -- more or less admitting that his role here was not as a reporter, but as a propagandist or a stenographer. Here's the key snippet:
If you can't see or hear that, it's Harper saying "we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government." This is a claim that he repeats throughout the interview, pleading ignorance to anything factual about the story. In short, his argument is that he heard these allegations through a "well placed source" within the UK government and he sought to corroborate the claim... by asking another source in the UK government who said "that's true!" and Harper ran with it.
Some more highlights. CNN's George Howell kicks it off by asking how UK officials could possibly know that the Chinese and Russians got access to the files, and Harper immediately resorts to the "hey, I just write down what they tell me!" defense:
Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times.
Again: government official tells them stuff, and they confirm with another government official -- and that's the story. Note that he says he showed the UK government "evidence" yet there is no evidence in the article itself. Just quotes and speculation. He goes on, trying to downplay the entire point of journalism, which should be to ferret out the truth. But, to Thomas Harper, if you question his report, you should be asking the government about it, not him. That's not his job.
It's obviously allegation at the moment, from our point of view. And it's really for the British government to defend it.
So, you publish an explosive story based on anonymous quotes and already proven falsehoods, and then you refuse to defend it, saying that it's the government's job to do so? Do you even know what a journalist is supposed to be doing, Harper?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...told-him.shtml
Murdoch toilet paper, anybody surprised?
Look at this pasty got ass "reporter" trying to defend his "journalism"
"we don't know"
"I don't know"
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/201...-world-videos/
"We just publish, uh, what we believe to be the position of the British Government"
https://vine.co/v/eedM73dwDzj
HAYDEN MOCKS EXTENT OF POST-SNOWDEN REFORM: “AND THIS IS IT AFTER TWO YEARS? COOL!”
Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on Monday marveled at the puny nature of the surveillance reforms put in place two years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a vast expansion of intrusive U.S. government surveillance at home and abroad.
Hayden mocked the loss of the one program that was reined in — the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata information about domestic phone calls — calling it “that little 215 program.”
And he said if someone had told him two years ago that the only effect of the Snowden revelations would be losing it, his reaction would have been: “Cool!”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-2-years-cool/
The militarized surveillance police state is way beyond the control of govt. America is ed and un able, democracy dead.
Hearing of the 1.7 Million do ents stolen and the "game changing" repurcusions for USA/UK, was one of the happiest Political news I've seen since 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/edward-s...united-states/Edward Snowden says he has offered to return to the United States and go to jail for leaking details of National Security Agency programs to intercept electronic communications data on a vast scale.The former NSA contractor flew to Moscow two years ago after revealing information about the previously secret eavesdropping powers, and faces U.S. charges that could land him in prison for up to 30 years.
Snowden told the BBC that he'd "volunteered to go to prison with the government many times," but had not received a formal plea-deal offer.
He said that "so far they've said they won't torture me, which is a start, I think. But we haven't gotten much further than that."
In an interview broadcast Monday on the BBC's "Panorama" program, Snowden said he and his lawyers were waiting for U.S. officials "to call us back."
Earlier this year, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said a plea deal with Snowden was a possibility.
EU Parliament offers asylum:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...ays-ParliamentToo little has been done to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights following revelations of electronic mass surveillance, say MEPs in a resolution voted on Thursday. They urge the EU Commission to ensure that all data transfers to the US are subject to an "effective level of protection" and ask EU member states to grant protection to Edward Snowden, as a "human rights defender". Parliament also raises concerns about surveillance laws in several EU countries.
This resolution, approved by 342 votes to 274, with 29 abstentions, takes stock of the (lack of) action taken by the European Commission, other EU ins utions and member states on the recommendations set out by Parliament in its resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens, drawn up in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations.
By 285 votes to 281, MEPs decided to call on EU member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender".
If he moves to Europe, the CIA will violate the Euro country's sovereignty, like they violate ALL countries' sovereignty, and kidnap him, or better, kill him.
CIA framed Assange with two Swedish es.
Links for Assange and sexual misconduct (rape) framing by CIA.
I will say your stuff is better than hater's but has been tinged in the past.
And why did Snowden even attempt to get charges dropped and come back if the CIA was going to kill him anyway?
both Sverige ladies accusing Assange of rape or unprotected or whatever had CIA contacts. How serendipitous could that be?
Do Your Own Research -- WC
why do you refuse to cite your source? are you ashamed of it?
Cryptome slaps at Snowden and First Look, aka Snowden Inc.:
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354Young and Natsios are introduced, correctly, as “renowned figures within a larger community people interested in keeping governments and ins utions accountable, and using do ents to do that.” But they also offer deep insights into the media and how it has handled revelations about U.S. intelligence and the National Security Agency. And their remarks, such as the quote above, clearly catch their host by surprise.
In the 18th minute, they issue a scathing rebuke of “celebrity” journalism as practiced, in their opinion, by The Intercept, the publication owned by Pierre Omidyar’s First Look Media. The interview is worth hearing in its entirety, and I urge anyone who’s had questions and concerns about Edward Snowden and his relationship to The Intercept’s founding editors, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, to listen to it and carefully consider their arguments.
Why? Because Cryptome raises serious questions that nobody else on the left or in the media want to talk about, including how Omidar has created a business from Snowden’s cache; what exactly Snowden may have been doing while he was working for the CIA prior to his time at NSA (and what else he may have been doing at NSA itself); and why Snowden and The Intercept continue to proselytize for Tor, the anonymization tool, despite its massive funding from the U.S. government, the Pentagon and the national security state.
sameCryptome’s critique, as expressed in the interview, is not new. Ever since Greenwald first wrote about Snowden’s do ents in The Guardian in 2013, the organization has been keeping careful track of the glacial pace of the do ents’ release and The Intercept’s almost-total control over the cache. Their latest tally, posted this week, is 6,318 pages of what The Guardian first reported as 58,000 files.
From the start, Young and Natsios made it clear that they strongly disapprove of the fact that this cache has not been made widely available to the public and posted for all to see – as they have done with the tens of thousands of intelligence files they have released since the late 1990s (and as Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers). Take a look at how Gawker, a publication very friendly to The Intercept, reported on Cryptome in June 2013:
When the Guardian and Washington Post published their blockbuster NSA reports based on Ed Snowden’s leaks, journalists lined up conga-style to congratulate them on the scoops. Not Cryptome. Instead, the secret-killing site blasted the Guardian and Post for only publishing 4 of the 41 slides that Snowden gave them about PRISM, the NSA’s system for spying on the internet.
“Mr. Snowden, please send your 41 PRISM slides and other information to less easily cowed and overly coddled commercial outlets than Washington Post and Guardian,” Cryptome wrote in a June 10th dispatch led “Snowden Censored by Craven Media.”
To longtime followers of Cryptome, this response was unsurprising. Before Wikileaks, before Ed Snowden, there was Cryptome. Manhattan-based architects John Young and Deborah Natsios founded Cryptome.org in 1996 as a repository for do ents no one else would publish, including lists of CIA assets, in-depth technical schematics of sensitive national security installations, and copyrighted material. As leaking has created a vibrant media ecosystem in recent years, complete with favored outlets, journalists and sources, Cryptome has positioned itself as its curmudgeonly ombudsman, quietly but blisteringly cutting down the hype and blather it sees in its compe ors while advocating a form of radical transparency as straightforward as Cryptome.org’s bare-bones website.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
