Guardian Ignores MI5 Warnings, Vows To 'Publish More Snowden Leaks' 301
dryriver writes in with news that a new round of Snowden leaks may be on the way. "Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says he plans to publish more revelations from Edward Snowden despite MI5 warning that such disclosures cause enormous damage. Mr Rusbridger insisted the paper was right to publish files leaked by the US intelligence analyst and had helped to prompt a necessary and overdue debate. Mr Rusbridger said more stories would be published in the future as the leaked documents were 'slowly and responsibly' worked through. His comments come after criticism from the new head of MI5, Andrew Parker. Making public the 'reach and limits' of intelligence-gathering techniques gave terrorists the advantage, he said. He warned that terrorists now had tens of thousands of means of communication 'through e-mail, IP telephony, in-game communication, social networking, chat rooms, anonymising services and a myriad of mobile apps'. Mr Parker said it was vital for MI5 to retain the capability to access such information if it was to protect the country. "
Re:Dope (Score:5, Informative)
I think the guardian got all his stuff in a batch file, they're just going through it slowly, the man himself is not releasing anything new.
Re:Dope (Score:5, Informative)
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/26-years-snowden.htm [cryptome.org]
The data exists outside Russia. No new data is been released from Russia.
Other interesting comments
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-link-removed.htm [cryptome.org]
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-tor-disinfo.htm [cryptome.org] and http://cryptome.org/2013/10/questioning-snowden-truth.htm [cryptome.org]
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4, Informative)
I see that occurring on Slashdot, along with various claims of "everyone's a terrorist" for some reason or another generally involving disingenuous rhetoric. As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.
You mean like when they consider the Occupy movement, political protests and environmental groups terrorism?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/peaceful-protest-treated-as-terrorism-by-the-fbi.html
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:2, Informative)
I think this is what you are looking for:
Occupy organizers linked to Cleveland bridge bombing plot [humanevents.com]
Fellow activists express disbelief at arrest of NATO summit bomb plot suspects [nbcnews.com]
I think there are one or two more, at least, associated with Occupy.
Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers. [forbes.com]
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Informative)
Bad analogy, since much (not all) of what McCarthy said turned out in fact to be true. The State Department WAS rife with people who were in fact Communist sympathizers or active Soviet agents.
Not really. McCarthy didn't have evidence or even a reasonable basis for making his claims. Playing the lottery and winning doesn't mean you can see into the future or are a whiz with statistics; claiming that there are communists in the State Department didn't mean he had even the tiniest bit of intelligence.
Plus, if he did know, it would've been grossly irresponsible to say so. Exposing known enemy spies and agents just means that they'll be replaced by others who you'll have to find all over again. The better tactic is to in some way turn the ones you know about so that you control what information they send back to your enemy.
And 'rife' is somewhat of an overstatement.
Frankly, McCarthy was a drunk bully. We'd all have been better off if he'd never been in politics at all. It's entirely proper to despise him and it's nice to see that so many do.