Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States

Edward Snowden Is Not Alone: US Gov't Seeks Another Leaker 204

Posted by timothy
from the well-maybe-he's-just-that-good dept.
bobbied (2522392) writes Apparently Edward Snowden is not alone. CNN is reporting that recent leaked documents published by The Intercept (a website that has been publishing Snowden's leaked documents) could not have been leaked by Snowden because they didn't exist prior to his fleeing the USA and he couldn't possibly have accessed them. Authorities are said to be looking for a new leaker.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden Is Not Alone: US Gov't Seeks Another Leaker

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:11PM (#47610449)

    They just need an Operation Showerhead.

  • by MindPrison (864299) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:12PM (#47610461) Journal
    ...they are the FACES we know.

    Those you and I never see - are MANY more, I'm guessing thousands. It's a cat and mouse game, spy vs spy. Someone somewhere leaks something, and someone else gets assigned to find out what leaked, who leaked it and how do we close the leak and clean up after it.
    • by Dutch Gun (899105) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:48PM (#47611059)

      I briefly read the headline as: Snowden is Not Alone. US Seeks Another Leaker. As in: From the US Citizens: You're not alone, Snowden! We're with you! And we're looking for other brave souls to come forward and keep us informed about what the NSA is really doing! Then I reread the headline correctly, and realized I far preferred my earlier interpretation.

      I'm not quite as bullish on Asange. When he revealed the war-related documents he did without sanitizing them, he put the lives of many Iraqi and Afgani citizens who worked with our forces at risk, and didn't appear to give a shit if they lived or died. If they worked with the evil American empire, they apparently deserved whatever fate they get at the hands of folks who have a history of doing really awful things to their fellow human beings. That alone makes me pretty uncomfortable, regardless of whatever positive things he's done or established.

      Snowden, on the other hand, is a patriot of the highest order, in my opinion. He made the ultimate conscientious decision after seeing an unconscionable overreach of government authority, throwing absolutely everything away in an effort to bring this to light. If you hear him explain his decision, you get a sense that he doesn't have an ax to grind, nor is he some sort of glory-seeker, but was simply motivated to do the right thing for the right reasons. He got nowhere in a sincere effort to work through legitimate channels before ultimately resorting to leaks. The intransigence of the government in admitting any wrongdoing is, I feel, evidence enough that his internal efforts could never have been fruitful.

      There are a few things he released that I actually wish he hadn't. For instance, I think the details on technologies and methods used for targeted surveillance, for instance, should have remained secret. If you think about it, that's *precisely* what the NSA should be doing: precision strikes, rather than carpet bombing, so to speak. I'm not opposed to their mission of finding legitimate threats to US citizens and interests, but don't put the entire damned country under mass surveillance to do so. It defeats the entire purpose if we have to turn into a police state to remain secure. But overall, he's done a pretty good job of releasing only relevant documents that highlight abuses, since he likely has information that, if released, would actually harm our national security or legitimately put people at risk.

      Ultimately, I feel the country is in better shape thanks to Snowden. What we learned needed to be known, and thanks to him and the price he paid (and is paying), we can start trying to address the problem. I wish he would get pardoned, but I doubt that will happen.

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @11:55PM (#47611651) Journal

        When he revealed the war-related documents he did without sanitizing them, he put the lives of many Iraqi and Afgani citizens who worked with our forces at risk,

        [Citation Needed]
        http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1015/Wikileaks-US-says-limited-damage-from-leak-of-Afghan-war-logs [csmonitor.com]

        No U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs by the WikiLeaks website, the Pentagon has concluded, but the military thinks the leaks could still cause significant damage to U.S. security interests.

        The assessment, outlined in a letter [written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates] obtained Friday by The Associated Press, suggests that some of the Obama administration's worst fears about the July disclosure of almost 77,000 secret U.S. war reports have so far failed to materialize.

        The White House led with the notion that Wikileaks War Logs might put people at risk, but that talking point has long since been abandoned.

        If you keep in mind that the Government (via the NY Times) already knew what was going to be published,
        it's hard to imagine that they didn't mitigate the potential fallout and that's why there's no harm that can be shown.

        Not to mention that the Feds have been doing everything to keep Manning's lawyers from seeing the damage assessments from the leaks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Dutch Gun (899105)

          It's not so much about the results as the methodology. Assange seemed (at least in the Manning case) to advocate a "publish it all and damn the consequences" approach, not really considering that the consequences could involve risk to real lives. The fact that no one has apparently been harmed as a result doesn't necessarily mean the potential danger wasn't real.

          In contrast, one of the things I admire about Snowden is his method of responsible disclosure. He's been, by all accounts, quite careful to rele

          • by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @03:07AM (#47612091)
            Wikileaks asked for the US to redact the leaked information, but the US refused, so Wikileaks worked with the Guardian and other news agencies to redact what they deemed sensitive before releasing. You can just as well blame the US government for not simply helping out when the writing was on the wall.
            • Why should the US Government offer any help in an illegal act? That would have legitimised Wikileaks actions.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Because lives were at risk?

              • by quenda (644621)

                Why should the US Government offer any help in an illegal act? That would have legitimised Wikileaks actions.

                Why should wikileaks offer any redaction to the US government or its collaborators? That would legitimise their actions.

                A bit late to take the moral high ground when you have illegally invaded a foreign country, killed countless thousands, destroyed their infrastructure and covered up the crimes.

            • by kriston (7886)

              The various entities circulated notices that individuals are specifically not allowed to view classified material for which they are not authorized, even if such material is on WikiLeaks. Your neighbor could read it, but you could not.

          • Assange seemed (at least in the Manning case) to advocate a "publish it all and damn the consequences" approach, not really considering that the consequences could involve risk to real lives.

            Really? You still believe that? Ask yourself, why did WL share the info with the three major international news outlets? Who recruited the staff from the Guardian and NYT, etc? Why were the recruited? What were they doing for six weeks?

          • Assange seemed (at least in the Manning case) to advocate a "publish it all and damn the consequences" approach

            He advocated the correct approach.

        • Assange leaked a whole bunch of diplomatic cables aside from the war logs. That comment is highly misleading.

      • by jeIIomizer (3670945) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @01:24AM (#47611865)

        There are a few things he released that I actually wish he hadn't. For instance, I think the details on technologies and methods used for targeted surveillance, for instance, should have remained secret.

        Nope. They're doing unconstitutional spying, so they deserve to have the details leaked so people can better try to defend themselves.

        • Nope. They're doing unconstitutional spying, so they deserve to be drawn and quartered in the public square.

          Fixed.

      • by Jim Sadler (3430529) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @04:53AM (#47612347)
        The tipping point for me was the use of torture. I really don't mind the endless spying so much but when we get to the point that we allow any degree of torture I begin to believe that we all have some sort of responsibility to be in rebellion. In the 1960s and early 1970s we saw groups form that were in serious rebellion against our government. Our latest wars and lack of decent behavior are making those rebels in my generation look more and more like they were right all along. Whether it is foreign hostiles or prisoners in American jails all people deserve reasonable treatment. Keeping people in isolation and breaking their minds through endless boredom is simply never acceptable and the public should not allow it at all.
      • by NoKaOi (1415755)

        If you think about it, that's *precisely* what the NSA should be doing: precision strikes, rather than carpet bombing, so to speak.

        You do mean with probable cause and a legal search warrant, right?

  • It was me. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:14PM (#47610473)

    Guys, it was me. I'm sorry, but I just can't keep a secret, which is why I revealed it, and why I had to tell you that Mrs. Jenkins across the street? The UPS man was parked there 45 minutes this morning, and he smiled coming out.

  • by turkeydance (1266624) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:15PM (#47610481)
    maybe, just maybe, Snowden is the FACE of the leaks.
    • by dnavid (2842431) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:51PM (#47610749)

      maybe, just maybe, Snowden is the FACE of the leaks.

      Which begs the question: who are the BA, Hannibal, and Murdock of the leaks.

    • Have you ever actually MET Snowden? How do you know he really exists and isn't a CGI construct like SimONE? He's probably acted by Andy Serkis. I've never seen Snowden and Serkis in the same room...

  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:23PM (#47610537)
    Despite the NSA's back to business reaction post-Snowden,

    and the lack of meaningful change from the initial outrage,

    Maybe, just fucking Maybe, Snowden's legacy will be his inspiration to leagues of others who are driven to reveal outrages instead of ignoring them like good little soldiers.

  • One is believable. Lots would be believable. Two, and only two, not so much.

    • Re:More than one (Score:5, Interesting)

      by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:08PM (#47610861) Journal

      If one person does it, they'll think he's a traitor.
      If two people do it, they'll think they're both faggots.
      If three people do it--imagine! Three people walking in, leaking information, and walking out? They'll think it's a terrorist organization.
      And can you imagine 50 people walkin' in, leakin' information, and walkin' out?! They'll think it's a terrorist movement!

      (Apologies to Arlo Guthrie...)

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @10:10PM (#47611143)
        Now friends, somewhere in Utah, enshrined in a little server, is a study in ones and zeroes of this Slashdot post. And the only reason I'm writing this post now is 'cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if you're in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's log into the message board wherever you are, just log in and post "General, you can read anything you want at Anonymous' Restaurant."

        And log out.

        If one person does it, they'll think he's a traitor.
        If two people do it, they'll think they're both faggots.
        If three people do it--imagine! Three people walking in, leaking information, and walking out? They'll think it's a terrorist organization.
        And can you imagine 50 people walkin' in, leakin' information, and walkin' out?! They'll think it's a terrorist movement!

        And that's what it is, the Anonymous' Restaurant Anti-Censorship Whistleblowin' Movement, and all you gotta to do join is post this message the next time this article appears on the Slashdot dupe post.

        With feeling.

        So we'll wait for it to come around as a dupe on Slashdot here, and you can post it when it does.

        Here it comes.

        You can read anything you want at Anonymous' Restaurant
        You can read anything you want at Anonymous' Restaurant
        Exfiltrate with a simple hack,
        Pop the return address from your program's stack,
        And you can read anything you want at Anonymous' Restaurant.

        That was horrible. If you want to limit the powers of the surveillance state and actually be able to exercise your civil liberties the way your scraggly-haired hippie parents did, you gotta post in ALL CAPS! I've been typing this post for 27 minutes, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I can type for another 27 minutes. I'm not proud. Or tired.

        So we'll wait for the American voters to elect candidates who are willing to force the domestic intelligence community back into compliance with constitutional law, or at least USSID-18, by means of a 21st century Church Commission, and this time with four-part harmony and feeling.

        *pause*

        (Okay, so we might be waiting for a bit longer than 27 minutes...)

        • by mt1955 (698912)

          Funny +1

          We used to sing that song for real till Nixon stopped the draft -- just in time for me -- only 5 weeks after I had to register

      • Re:More than one (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cmdr_tofu (826352) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @07:57AM (#47612843) Homepage

        To me it's not purely a question of numbers. A leak-less intelligence apparatus could exist if the only members were radically different in terms of culture than the rest of the population. People who went to special schools and who at a young age were identified by themselves and/or family members for military/intelligence careers. To me people who go to West Point and the Citadel are not "regular people". They may be fine people, but culturally they are not the same and may have a different set of values.

        However after 9-11, the intelligence apparatus grew so large that it pulled in a lot of ordinary nonmilitary people, some of whom were not raised to unquestioningly follow orders that they perceived to be unconstitutional/immoral/etc resulting in folks like Snowden. So in that sense it is a question of numbers to fill high growth. We may have a movement on or hands but maybe not-

        I think it is possible to have a leakless surveillance state with a military intelligence minority "keeping check" on a non-military freedom-loving-but-freedom-denied majority. People "selected" to work in intelligence would just hve to be people "built inside the system", going to military academies etc from a young age. Just one frightening distopian thought to wake me up if my 2nd cup of tea doesn't work.

        That being said, I don't have any real-world knowledge or experience in the real cloak and dagger world of intelligence and national security, so anything I say is uninformed speculation.

    • Re:More than one (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @10:10PM (#47611147)

      The UK had two Russian spies in their government: Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess . . . and Kim Philby.

      Ok, their three Russian spies were: Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Kim Philby . . . and Anthony Blunt.

      Start again. Among their Russian spies were: Donald Maclean, Guy Burges, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross . . . and . . .

      Oh, bugger.

      The unmasking took years to complete . . . um . . . if it was completed . . .

      However there is a big difference here . . . those spies did it for Russia. Snowden did for America.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Meanwhile important stories NOT appearing on Slashdot...

    Cash, Weapons and Surveillance: the U.S. is a Key Party to Every Israeli Attack [firstlook.org]

    The U.S. government has long lavished overwhelming aid on Israel, providing cash, weapons and surveillance technology that play a crucial role in Israel’s attacks on its neighbors. But top secret documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden shed substantial new light on how the U.S. and its partners directly enable Israel’s military assaults – such as the one on Gaza.

    Over the last decade, the NSA has significantly increased the surveillance assistance it provides to its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU; also known as Unit 8200), including data used to monitor and target Palestinians. In many cases, the NSA and ISNU work cooperatively with the British and Canadian spy agencies, the GCHQ and CSEC.

    and

    Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, by the Numbers [firstlook.org]

    Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government’s widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government documents obtained by The Intercept.

    Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists” that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.

  • Back in May they already said Snowden didn't have access to all that data: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]

    As recently as May, shortly after he retired as NSA director, Gen. Keith Alexander denied that Snowden could have passed FISA content to journalists.

    "He didn't get this data," Alexander told a New Yorker reporter. "They didn't touch --"

    "The operational data?" the reporter asked.

    "They didn't touch the FISA data," Alexander replied. He added, "That database, he didn't have access to."

    • Believable, but considering that the CIA said that nobody had access to the senate's subnet, and then it turned out that common IT workers had access AND USED IT -- and Snowden was in a similar position -- and I'd take anything said by NSA leadership with a grain of salt. Often at that level, "he didn't have access to" really means "the policies stated he shouldn't access that." It doesn't mean that it wasn't possible, just that it was outside accepted policies and procedures, and that at some point, someone SHOULD have airgapped it and added in the appropriate ACLs such that it wouldn't be possible.

      But I'd believe more that Snowden was the one who escaped with the data, but there are actually a number of people who were involved in obtaining it in the first place. And now that Snowden has opened things up but prevented himself from providing other leaks, the rest have found an alternate route that didn't involve a courier in the same manner.

      The thing is, if they can leak like this, that means it's just as easy for other actors to be leaking to people who might want the information but who won't tell about it. This shows that access control at the NSA is still thoroughly broken, no matter who the leak was.

      • Hey, we told the IT guy to change the permissions on that folder to keep himself out. He must have been some kind of super-hacker to get past us...
        • Hey, we told the IT guy to change the permissions on that folder to keep himself out. He must have been some kind of super-hacker to get past us...

          He wrote the bloody backup system...

      • by ron_ivi (607351)

        Often at that level, "he didn't have access to" really means "the policies stated he shouldn't access that." It doesn't mean that it wasn't possible, just that it was outside accepted policies and procedures

        Or I guess it could also mean "the guy who made the comments was never permitted to know the details of how much access he had".

      • Hedging a bet (Score:5, Interesting)

        by s.petry (762400) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @11:00PM (#47611429)

        Since the US media has become useless in terms of actual journalism, I don't think they care. TV based media simply ignores leaks, so the population that relies on TV media for news is just as clueless as if the leak never happened. Not a new tactic mind you, just lots easier with TV Propaganda^wNews today. They are probably betting that people will just forget. Happens all the time with Government and has for decades.

        There are a few good radio stations that will talk about these issues, but none are nationally syndicated. Anything that receives lots of airtime gets bought out by Fox^wClearchannel and changed to a "Sports" station. Before you say it, Alex Jones sold out long ago and is now just a more extreme version of Rush Limbaugh (sometimes okay for scaring people awake to problems, but not often).

        Newspapers? WTF is a Newspaper? Well, more seriously the few that are left are all controlled like Radio and TV.

        I would be willing to bet that there are more leakers than just Snowden. If I was going to leak I may blame him since that might save me from a likely life term in "pound me up the ass prison". As long as Snowden is in Moscow he probably does not mind, it keeps him popular and relevant which I'm sure leads to a bit of income.

        Having spent 10 years in the DOD I can tell you that security is possible (Not to brag, well maybe a little bit, I built the first NISPOM compliant secure networks off of a military installation). At at the time I left (8 years ago) they were trying to skimp and even offshore work. One of many reasons for me leaving mind you. Systems can be secured and audited, but it's expensive and everyone in the management and executive chain wants bigger bonus checks. Politicians want bigger kick backs, so the money train works against security as often as possible.

        This shows that access control at the NSA is still thoroughly broken, no matter who the leak was.

        I would have to agree, because you don't change a decade of shit security in a year. You would need to re-architect a decade worth of systems, and I'd bet a box of donuts that they just tried slapping bandaids on things.

  • There is another leaker, except if they failed to revoke all Snowden's accesses.

    But I could not seriously imagine such ridiculous outcome.

    • Re:Another leaker (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Will.Woodhull (1038600) <wwoodhull@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @11:26PM (#47611545) Homepage Journal

      Of course there are other leakers.

      What is remarkable about Snowden is not that he was able to obtain all this "secret" information, but that he went public with it. Rather than selling it to someone like maybe one of those rich guys who are paying ISIS's way. It is some of the other "leakers" who are unquestionably doing that.

      The NSA, etc, needs to be shut down. If only because it is demonstrably true that persons who make a career in climbing bureaucracies lack the kind of intelligence necessary to managing the needed level of security.

      There may or may not be other good reasons for getting the government out of this kind of spying and database management. But just as it would be stupid to hire Cordon Bleu chefs to run an explosives manufacturing plant, it is stupid to put even the very best bureaucrats in charge of this kind of data collection and database management. They might be very good at what they have experience in doing, but this kind of stuff is going to blow up in everyone's face. Explosive technologies cannot be handled with cookbook methods.

      The only sane course is to get USA government out of this activity. It is not something a democratically oriented bureaucracy can do. We need to look to other methods.

      • Re:Another leaker (Score:4, Interesting)

        by currently_awake (1248758) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @12:55AM (#47611797)
        The NSA needs focus. They are trying to do too many conflicting actions and it just doesn't work. Spin off the foreign spying to the CIA, pass off domestic spying to the FBI, concentrate on securing the network to keep China/Isis etc out of America. Secondly bureaucrats are very good at doing dull repetitive work without making very many mistakes, and that works for security provided you hire the right people. Third: cooking is applied chemistry, so chefs make good bomb makers. There is a reason terrorists use the kitchen to make their home made bombs.
  • ...the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... [wikia.com]

  • "mole"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ysth (1368415) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @08:37PM (#47610657)

    CNN seems to be very confused; in what way is this additional whistleblower a "mole"?

    • He's releasing documents to the public. That makes him an agent of a hostile power, no?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The public is about as hostile a power as you could wish for.

    • Re:"mole"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:15PM (#47610891) Homepage Journal
      A sleeper agent would feed the docs back to another country and do everything to keep their cover and advance via decades of great US gov work.
      No deep cover agent would be allowed to just become a "whistleblower" as many cleared docs are created for and tracked per staff member.
      Under examination each copy can be tracked back, why risk all for one domestic database press event?
      ie a mole would send unique one of a kind material to their handler and thats it.
      If the source gets documents published its a whistleblower.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        No deep cover agent would be allowed to just become a "whistleblower" as many cleared docs are created for and tracked per staff member.

        I love it when people make declarative statements based on nothing whatsoever but their own inadequate imagination. A mole, having outlived their usefulness as a mole, might well be converted into a whistleblower to extend that usefulness. I'm not proposing that happened here, but only claiming that it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which that might be useful.

        • by AHuxley (892839)
          Re "converted into a whistleblower to extend that usefulness." sounds fun in the press but will still get caught and then be turned, debriefed or put up for a show trial.
          A sleeper agent in is place until detected or just keeps advancing, trying to ensure safe career advancement.
          Even better they get to selected their new colleagues - a free second generation if you can keep it all well hidden.
          If you want a limited hangout or trial balloon best to use a true believer or useful idiot. Nothing can be tracke
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Re "converted into a whistleblower to extend that usefulness." sounds fun in the press but will still get caught and then be turned, debriefed or put up for a show trial.

            You mean like what happened to Snowden?

  • because they didn't exist prior to his fleeing the USA and he couldn't possibly have accessed them.

    That's what someone thins....

    You think the NSA would know a few things about security.

    Rule 1. Change all passwords when a privileged user leaves the organization, especially to accounts with access to confidential files.

    Rule 2. Close all the covert backdoors they opened up before leaving.

  • Let the witch hunts begin!
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:07PM (#47610859) Homepage

    All of these agencies are shown to be violating the law, lying to us (and Congress) about it, and generally ignoring basic rule of law.

    So, either you have to conclude that everybody who works for these agencies has bought into the Kool-Aid of fascism ... of some of them are going to realize that the surveillance state has gone way beyond what it should and is undermining everything.

    This level government secrecy and abuse is a cancer, and it needs to be removed.

    Quite frankly, leaking is pretty much moral obligation of anybody who has realized the extent to which these agencies have become toxic.

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @10:44PM (#47611363) Homepage Journal

      So, either you have to conclude that everybody who works for these agencies has bought into the Kool-Aid of fascism

      Did you miss how this went last time? These employees are "just following orders." Or perhaps we should change that to "just paying the mortgage" this time around. Also, 'cause terrists.

      Snowden is a leaker, but unless you suppose a fifth column inside the TLA's, then they're all sticking their necks really far out to just do that. The entire abuse reporting process is a sham, so the only option is to go all the way. Many people would rather "pay the mortgage" than to be prosecuted for treason. The sham of a reporting process is a well-known factor and really good for keeping such a tight self-reinforcing environment.

    • by Sir Holo (531007)

      gstoddart: ... the surveillance state has gone way beyond what it should and is undermining everything.

      Precisely.

      Several foreign governments have outlawed purchase of US-designed, computer-related devices.

      Several are also looking into creating their "own" internet system that is air-gapped from "the" internet.

      Go NSA! Good job destroying your own country's economy!

  • backdoor? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:12PM (#47610875) Journal

    Is it possible that Snowden still knows a way to get into the machines he used to manage?

    A long time ago, I left a company where I had been the sole admin for several years. I had been training up a PFY who eventually replaced me. His last assignment was to find my back door and close it. From my new job, I'd occasionally log into my old machines, have a look around, and send him an email to watch for this thing or fix that thing. He eventually figured out that the usenet news service account had a password.

    I know I know, but it was a different time.

    Point is, maybe there's new leaks because Snowden still has a back door into his old machines?

  • by slick7 (1703596) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:23PM (#47610929)
    Some where I remember a saying, "The harder you grip your hand, the faster the sand runs out."
  • ... shame on you.

    Fool me twice, shame on me.

  • huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @09:48PM (#47611063)

    You mean to say, you hired dedicated patriots, with a fundamental desire to server the public, put them through intensive training, made them take a solemn oath to uphold the constitution, then employed them and asked them to violate those very principles, and that oath... and you mean to tell me a few of them may have turned against you?

    The lunacy of our federal government never ceases to astound me.

  • Mole? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sir Holo (531007) on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @10:01PM (#47611115)
    The CNN talking-head calls the leaker a "mole." WRONG.

    A Federal Whistle-blower is not a "mole," but simply a whistle-blower.

    This is similar to the concept of "jury nullification," whereby a jury can find an accused guilty of breaking a law, but can also recommend ZERO punishment, as jury nullification is a mechanism for citizens to nullify unjust laws.

    It was used a lot in the civil-rights era, but has been buried by Attys. and judges alike, leading to a lack of awareness by potential jurors.

    PS – Want to get out of jury duty? Get informed, and assert your faith in Jury Nullification in open court during voire dire.

    They hate being held to account, and prefer an ignorant "jury of peers."
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      This is similar to the concept of "jury nullification," whereby a jury can find an accused guilty of breaking a law, but can also recommend ZERO punishment,

      Well, no. Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org] is where the jury finds the accused not guilty, even though their actions may be illegal under the law as written. If they found the accused guilty, they wouldn't be engaging in nullification.

    • PS – Want to get out of jury duty? Get informed, and assert your faith in Jury Nullification in open court during voire dire.

      They hate being held to account, and prefer an ignorant "jury of peers."

      Which is why you should keep your mouth shut about nullification and serve on the jury. While now more than ever I hate the phrase "now more than ever," now more than ever smart, concerned citizens should not be dodging jury duty. One way we can hold the government accountable is by demanding they obey due process of law when prosecuting someone. Stand up for your fellow man. Make sure his rights are observed. Serve jury duty.

      • by Sir Holo (531007)

        meta-monkey: ... Serve jury duty ...

        I do, but always get removed in voire dire due to being "too educated." Neither side usually likes PhDs, MBAs, MDs, or JDs serving in juries. Too much potential surprise factor.

  • by mt1955 (698912) <mt1955@gma i l .com> on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @10:17PM (#47611195) Homepage Journal

    ... That I have but one life to give for my country.

    As for me, Edward Snowden is a man cut from the same cloth as Nathan Hale

  • There's two issues here;

    1: Various US government departments may be doing something dodgy
    2: Someone is leaking classified data to the wider population

    Now, I've no opinion on the first one - I'm not a US citizen (though I class myself as a US sympathizer). If true, it's a thing for the citizens and the justice department. I hope the issue gets resolved, right prevails etc

    But the second one is a security breach: the guy (whatever his intentions) has broken his contract with the company, and also the
    • by Sabriel (134364) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @12:27AM (#47611735)

      The catch with your #2 is that the ultimate boss and owner of any data held by the US government is the US public. The constitutional foundation of their entire system of government is not "We the Government", but "We the People of the United States", no matter how much winking, nudging and outright fraud goes on in the corridors of power.

      So if you found your company (government) was up to no good, and upon going up the chain got told to stick your head in the sand if you know what's good for you, I'd hope you'd strongly consider going to the police (public). And as a human being, I'd be less than impressed if someone chose their own very comfortable life over the endangered liberty of the people they'd sworn to protect.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2014 @11:30PM (#47611569)

    They are NOT whistleblowers or moles... they are our nations TRUEST, in every sense of the word, Freedom Fighters.

    Lets repeat that again, Freedom Fighters.

    I'm not a religious man, but I'll bloody well say this. God bless you, for you are the few protecting us from the tyrants within.

  • ... Édward Snöwden

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...