Glen Greenwald: Don't Trust Anonymous Anti-Snowden Claims 222
Glen Greenwald casts a scathing look at the claims (such as by the Sunday Times) that Edward Snowden's leaked information had been cracked by Russian and Chinese spy agencies. Greenwald compares Snowden to some other public figures against whom underhanded tactics were employed by the U.S. government. A slice: There’s an anonymously made claim that Russia and China “cracked the top-secret cache of files” from Snowden’s, but there is literally zero evidence for that claim. These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified. There is speculation that Russia and China learned things from obtaining the Snowden files, but how could these officials possibly know that, particularly since other government officials are constantly accusing both countries of successfully hacking sensitive government databases?
Logic need not apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has been following these Snowden-related news already knew the US government officials lied, lied, and lied repeatedly, lied to the world, lied to their own people, lied to their Congress, all without any consequences.
Anyone who still believed them would need to have zero capability in logical thinking, so what's the point in pointing out flaws in the logic of these statements?
But we know that USA is the *GOOD GUY* (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, China and Russia are supposed to be the bad dude, and Snowden is supposed to be a traitor
Who are us to argue with the mighty Uncle Sam?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But we know that USA is the *GOOD GUY* (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
> You're goddamn right we are the good guys.
but even the greatest morons are right sometimes.
GP doesn't show much more intelligence. God damn right the USA with its many many flaws is still worlds a better place to be than the mafia state which is Putin's Russia or the Orwellian disco that is modern capitalist China. Humans are notoriously bad at weighing dichotomy but seriously get a grip. Goldmans may be whispering in the ear of the USA government but at least they aren't actively selling the organs of the new age religioners on the open market the way the Chinese are or blatantly executing New York Times columnists on the streets the way the Russians are doing to their own.
The fact that the foundations of the USA are philosophically strong is precisely the reason that the good parts of the USA are worth fighting for. At present the US government may be a bit fucked up and 0wned, but at its core the US Constitution is still a one of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements and worth fighting for tooth and nail.
Re:But we know that USA is the *GOOD GUY* (Score:5, Insightful)
All the more reason to push back against this creeping corruption all the more vehemently, is it not?
Re:But we know that USA is the *GOOD GUY* (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be so, but how does this make the US government good, or the US Government honest. This is a strawman argument.
The US Government might not be as outwardly harsh about dealing with dissent, but thats only because it has more subtle ways which are equally as effective.
I firmly believe if we didn't have hollywood, journalists, and a long tradition of marketing and advertising goons, you'd see the same sort of oppressive state apparatus as you do in China and Russia.
We also have a much higher standard of living because we exploit more from third world nations. The standard of living of the Average American is not by his hand, but by the gun he forces on others. The "Success" isn't even shared equally, and we have a large underclass that for all intents and purposes do not have any real benefit of living in a first world country.
We also have the highest incarceration rate in the world, namely to deal with the organized street militias that prowl the neighborhoods of the disenfranchised, malcontents, and those who violate moralist superstitions.
Re: (Score:3)
I firmly believe if we didn't have hollywood, journalists, and a long tradition of marketing and advertising goons, you'd see the same sort of oppressive state apparatus as you do in China and Russia.
At the rate we're going, it won't be long before our state apparatus is indistinguishable from the others.
Re: (Score:2)
>
We also have a much higher standard of living because we exploit more from third world nations. The standard of living of the Average American is not by his hand, but by the gun he forces on others.
I've heard this argument over and over again. Are you sure that all the technology Americans invented had nothing to do with that? Are you sure we didn't use our natural resources far more effectively than other countries did? Because if you look at history there are certainly empires whose standards of living were definitely based upon what they could take from weaker peoples. I'm not sure that the US qualifies. The US already had its high standard of living before we started extracting resources fro
A truth is a truth, even if unoriginally expressed (Score:2)
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth. The figurative language in this case illustrating the truth that very few critics of the US would want to live anywhere else.
That said, you are also having a forest and trees moment. In my post I was simply pointing out that cliches, like myths, old sayings, etc sometimes have a
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth.
Well I guess you are inclined to credit AC with the use of "figurative language". I'm inclined to judge his post as having no intellectual merit whatsoever, and it appears as though I'm not the only one with that opinion.
BTW, your "creationist" troll was a little clumsy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
...there's no argument there to devalue. There's an unsupported claim followed by a cliche. That's it.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents. There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even r
Re: (Score:2)
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
No, not at all. The reason you are in the trees is that you are failing to distinguish between defending the original AC and rejecting the notion that use of a cliche implies falsehood. Those are different things. I'm not engaging in the former, only the later, but you are failing to see that. Hence the trees.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
Yes, please look at the post in question, but its not the one you think. The relevant one would actually be my original response where I did *not* include that first sentence, only the second. Can you
Re: (Score:2)
+6 kind sir. I have mod points but they don't go to 6. *sigh* (another once in a year +6 post.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
live free brother
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But we know that USA is the *GOOD GUY* (Score:5, Insightful)
You're goddamn right we are the good guys.
False. We're better to our citizens, but we do more harm to the world at large. Maybe that's only because we have more global power, and not because they're better people; in fact, I suspect that is precisely the case. But what does happen here is also not acceptable. I'd rather be boiled slowly than quickly, I might find a way out of the pot, but I'd rather not be boiled at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to the harm those governments are doing to their own citizens and to the countries that border them?
Look, I'm not going to pretend I like China. If you check my posting history, I've been modded down many a time for saying bad things about it, damn the torpedoes etc. I am clear that the way they treat a segment of their population is abysmal. But have you looked around, lately? Oh wait, you don't see the people that this country abuses the hardest, because they're all in prison suffering from institutionalized slavery. But beyond that, I feel that what a nation does to its own people and what a nation doe
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think you had an answer. I was right.
So why don't you log in and be counted among the 'right'? I'm sure we'd all like you to have a comment history which would give you some sort of plausibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who has been following these Snowden-related news already knew the US government officials lied, lied, and lied repeatedly, lied to the world, lied to their own people, lied to their Congress, all without any consequences.
Anyone who still believed them would need to have zero capability in logical thinking, so what's the point in pointing out flaws in the logic of these statements?
The point is propaganda. The method they use: the strict father model - if daddy says so, it must be true. No matter if he is wrong, is he says so you have to accept it. And "daddy" here is the government, the NSA, or that good and reliable Sunday Times. Critical intelligent people think otherwise, but they are lost and this propaganda is not for them.
Professional liars often tell the truth (Score:2)
Critical intelligent people think otherwise, but they are lost and this propaganda is not for them.
Critical intelligent people are open minded. They are quite aware of the fact that a professional liar will tell the truth when the truth coincidentally serves the liar's interests.
A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.
The NSA has lied about many things regarding the Snowden case, and Snowden hasn't (as far as I know). Critical thinking should help you figure out which is more likely to be a reliable source now.
No one's claiming that _everything_ that the NSA says is a lie, that's a straw man. However, since they have repeatedly been shown to have lied in the past, y
Re: (Score:2)
Many commenters are acting as if breaking the crypto would be necessary. That is severely misguided. Hacking and technical espionage are all that is required. It is quite plausible for Snowden's data to have "leaked".
The reliability of the
Re: (Score:2)
They'd statistically be more Iikely to be correct assuming the NSA is lying.
Actually that is debatable. Successful lying usually involves a lot of truth telling too. Plus why would the truth be statistically unfavorable to the NSA? The truth is the truth regardless of the character of the person or organization sharing it. Its an extreme example but consider NSA claims about some ISIS member doing bad things.
Now Snowden is certainly quite different than an ISIS member but the fact that he has accessed his encrypted data while in China and Russia leaves the door open to technical
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said in the previous article, Proof aside, If Russia or China had access to the file store, they've cracked it by now.
A Large government (with virtually unlimited funding) will crack any commodity encryption scheme. Considering that it's years of your Adversaries Espionage data, It's priceless in the espionage world and spending millions of dollars on a decryption operation would be worth every penny. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the KGB pulled a Bletchley Park-esque operation to decrypt
Re:Logic need not apply (Score:5, Insightful)
If a foreign country can decrypt anything we've got then you'd expect them to be able to keep it reasonably secret and they'd especially try to keep it secret when Gov'ts are hunting round for reasons to snoop on everything.
It's far more likely to be a political ruse that's completely made up just for the purpose of rail-roading the public.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're happy to believe that Russia/China can decrypt our strongest encryption (unless you think Snowden just ROT-13ed the files) and have chosen to go after Snowden's files (despite the fact that they could just use rubber-hose cryptanalysis instead) rather than infiltrate live systems?.
Decrypting those files is not the way to go. Better hack the laptop that decrypts the file, and record keystrokes.
Re:Logic need not apply (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Logic need not apply (Score:3)
A Large government (with virtually unlimited funding) will crack any commodity encryption scheme.
That claim goes against all public analysis of the ciphers in play - what extraordinary evidence do you have to support it? Hollywood doesn't count.
Or you have physical access to person with keys (Score:4, Interesting)
A Large government (with virtually unlimited funding) will crack any commodity encryption scheme.
That claim goes against all public analysis of the ciphers in play - what extraordinary evidence do you have to support it? Hollywood doesn't count.
Recall that physical access to the hardware trumps most security. In the crypto world physical access to the person who has the cipher keys would be the equivalent. Ignoring coercion, the CIA and KGB performed many amazing technical surveillance feats back in the day. Some of it damn near unbelievable, beyond what hollywood dreams up (ex 1945-52 a listening device with no power supply or active electronics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. There is no reason to believe comparable technical feats no longer occur.
Re: (Score:2)
A Large government (with virtually unlimited funding) will crack any commodity encryption scheme.
Bollocks. The government would have to be larger than the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Do yourself a favour and go learn about encryption, making sure to remain silent on the subject until you do.
Re:Logic need not apply (Score:4, Insightful)
The first casualty of war is the truth. As the US is at war with everybody and everything these days (all undeclared), including its own population, there is no truth whatsoever to be had from any of its mouthpieces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about getting the lies 'right.' Like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see when it's done.
Snowden created a mess, and the people in charge of covering things up haven't generated a proper 'story' that sits well with the people (the bad people are truly bad, the good people are truly good, etc.). Normally it takes two or three variations to strike the right chord, but with Snowden they've had to resort to random generation and painful iteration to find something that truly resonates.
I hadn't considered that... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the whole "snowden's leaks did it" could be a cover for what other hacks did.
It seems a trifle curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It seems a trifle curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It seems a trifle curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a reaction to a report published in the UK that says there need to be new laws to govern spying on us. Now the new laws are up for debate, the oppressors got in early with "evidence" of how bad things are so they can demand more powers.
So let's get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
The encryption designed, implemented and deployed by the world's leading experts in the field was broken in a couple of years (and this occurred simultaneously in two other countries).
Yet crooks and criminals are using technology so advanced that GCHQ, NSA, .... cannot break it and governments start proposing ill thought through and half-baked laws about use of encryption and ask for back doors.
EITHER they were all encrypted with the same details and 'rubber hose' cryptanalysis was used [which would be both unlikely and a massive breach of operating procedures]
OR our beloved leaders are being at best misguided and/or disingenuous or at worst dissembling schemers [aka 'cock-up vs conspiracy']
Even if it has been cracked... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the russians and chinese arn't going to suddenly go out and arrest a load of US spies making it obvious that they've cracked it. They'll probably use the information to make high value gains. When the british cracked Enigma in WW2 they made damn sure it wasn't obvious to the germans that it had been cracked and even allowed some of their own ships to be sunk even though they knew where U boats were just so they had the advantage of continuing to decode more important correspondence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Russkies decide the potential damage is greater if those agents remain in place then they will arrest the agents. If they decide knowing who the agents are grants the greater benef
pro-Snowden? (Score:2)
Glen Greenwald on Snowden claims. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was any danger to British Agents why were they not recalled a year ago when that claim was first made?Also, the whole argument is an attempt to justify the " Snoopers Charter ", as an excuse to spy on British Citizens . They want our information unencrypted because they say they can't do it themselves, yet Russia and China can? It is either a lie or an admission of complete irresponsibility and incompetance on behalf of Western Security.They are saying GCHQ and M.I.6. are unfit for purpose.What an admission. We should also remember that China would not give Snowden asylum,-why then would they want to unencrypt his files?Russia, likewise allowed asylum for a limited period with reluctance.
Is anyone buying this BS?
Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
If Russia and/or China would have decrypted messages, they would most certainly not tell the rest of the world.
Similarly, they wouldn't publish it if they managed to locate enemy spies.
If somehow, this DID happen, the US government would most certainly not publish the fact that they knew.
Information is valuable.
Information the enemy thinks you don't have is invaluable.
The fact that this is published tells me it's most likely not true.
Re:Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is published tells me it's most likely not true.
They lost me at "may have prevented a nuclear war". Transparent scaremongering.
Sure it is *wink* *wink* (Score:2)
This is all misinformation so that the false information CIA agent Snowden gave to the Russians and chines is believed.
Snowden had started getting props ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden was starting to get some very begrudging props for his role in the limited NSA reforms passed by the US Congress. This laughably ridiculous and unsubstantiated attack on him was deployed to help keep Snowden trapped in the traitor role.
The real danger here is that if the powers that be keep destroying their own credibility like this, eventually they will start to lose control and then all Hell will break loose. They seem to be reacting emotionally, not rationally and they seem to be losing touch with reality. It reminds me of the craziness of the last days of the Nixon White House. Only this time the problem goes much deeper. It is no longer a single person and the tight knit group surrounding him. The insanity has metastasized.
News Site (Score:2)
The guy's name is Glenn Greenwald. At least spell the names right.
Laying the ground work (Score:2)
Government workers don't lie--they're just scared (Score:4, Interesting)
Edward Snowden had no family to take care of. He was a loner who could afford to flee the country. Most other people are not in this kind of position.
I don't care who you are; people act in their own self-interests. For many government workers, their self-interests include keeping their job, taking care of their families, and not getting thrown into jail. So when a government employee tells you something, you can't trust it. But that's not because they're lying. Most of the time, they're misinformed. Nobody in the NSA knows what anyone else in the NSA is doing. It looks like it's so poorly managed that the management doesn't know what the rest of the organization is doing. (Hey, they should try spying on themselves!) The rest of the time, they're just saying the minimum that is safe to say. The main thing impacting what they say is keeping out of trouble, so they'll say whatever achieves that goal.
Considering that neither you nor I have the circumstances or cojones to do what Snowden did, we're in no position to judge what he or anyone else has done. Most slashdotters in his position like to talk big right now, but the fact is, you'd be scared shitless and do absolutely nothing. Or maybe if you could manage in this economy, you might try to find a different job. Someone really smart and dedicated would work to gain employee status so they could be covered under whistle-blower laws. But that's neither you nor I. The same applied to every other government position.
And as I say, everyone else is in the same position. You want to judge the people who work for the federal government. But they act with total self-interest in the same way that we do. Don't make waves, feed your family, don't get arrested. The only way to fix these problems is to change the law, and that is slowly happening. It may take decades, but it'll happen.
Meanwhile, we all need to be cognizant of the needs to maintain both freedom in our country and also security. We should not sacrifice one for the other. But that makes this a delicate and dynamic balancing act. There are no simple solutions. And on our own, neither you nor I knows the whole solution (in part because the solution has to keep adapting to the ever-changing threats to freedom and security).
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear. The government lies. Government workers just say whatever they have to to stay out of trouble. This results in lies, but the individual employees aren't lying, at least not intentionally. Only upper management has culpability for not specifying what to say that is truthful.
Other news agencies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It was all over the British press. The BBC did run it but yes, they showed a great deal more skepticism and quoted other skeptical people. The BBC gets ragged on a lot but I tend to find it's still a lot more obviously neutral than newspapers are.
I like snowden (Score:2)
A fight between Greenwald and Anonymous (Score:3)
So which one's Alien and which one's Predator?
Why would they bother? (Score:2)
Information about CIA, NSA and DoD employees is available directly from the source [slashdot.org].
Wish I had Snowdon's mailing address (Score:2)
Then I could send him a check, so a) I could say he was working for me, and b) he could argue that he was not doing espionage, but legitimately working for US citizens.....
mark "all you millenials: go read about the Church Commission, in the '70's"
snowden et al (Score:2)
FTFA:
What Snowden revelaed is just too much unchecked power waiting to be abused. It's a structural flaw in how governments operate that one day is going to cause catastrophic damage to democracy.
I would not have done what Snowden did just because think of the damage to national security and where's the evidence this power is currently being abused to stifle democratic liberties?
Where are the bodies and innocent ruined lives?
Where's the influenced or rigged elections?
Where 's the blackmail of Senators and
Re:Why wouldnt they have been hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's absolutely predictable that those files would be cracked, why is that not more believable?
Cracking one of current strong cyphers is hella bigger news than some spying operations having to be terminated.
"Well, we had to move a few of our agents. Oh, and also, whole Internet needs to be rebuilt, and everything you did over HTTPS in the past and we sucked off the net will be readable in a year, after we plug in more computers".
PS: Not to mention the small detail that russkies weren't even supposed to have the encrypted files.
Re:Why wouldnt they have been hacked? (Score:4, Informative)
No, *that* is a lack of understanding.
1) Plaintext attacks (or "knowing some of the decoded contents") are applicable only to some cyphers in some configurations.
2) With best currently known attack against AES-128 it'd take ~3000 billion years at 10^18 attempts per second. 2 years mean complete breakdown. Nobody said "realtime", DId you miss the talks about snooping and storing everything that might be of interest on the net? That data might be lying in cold storage for now, but if it's crackable in a reasonable timeframe, NSA and all the other agencies will be reading through it soon.
Re: (Score:3)
And even if they managed both of those, why would Snowden's files include information on human resources? Why would a contractor even have access to that information?
Because everything you believe about government information security, air-gapped networks, and security clearances is wrong. The truth is that none of this information was critical enough to get anyone killed, and therefore none of it was treated with the respect that you think its security classification merits. And even if it were that important, they probably still wouldn't protect the information properly.
The federal government is having real problems hiring directly, especially the military. Therefore
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
One of the whole points of an intelligence organisation is to know what the 'enemy' knows and how they got that information.
...and then make that information public? No, that's the propaganda department's job, and they don't usually care to validate the "information" they spread. Whenever a government makes a public claim to have proof of something and then refuses to make that proof public, they're LYING. Every single time.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
So basically, we have no evidence, but there are reasons why we have no evidence so we should just trust the claims blindly.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
What we've found out from Snowden, and Manning for that matter, is only a revelation to us. Our enemies already knew.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It removed the government's plausible deniability with regards to the rules of engagement (Manning) or the use of surveillance against Americans (Snowden).
2) The government's reaction to the leaks demonstrated that they are not incompetent, but evil.
These discussions would not have happened otherwise. Manning and Snowden did not sacrifice themselves for nothing. Tides will eventually turn, and history will eventually vindicate them (well, vindicate Snowden. Perhaps "Understand and excuse" Manning).
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with half a brain also already knew what they revealed.
No. Anyone with half a brain already believed what they revealed. Now we have proof. If you think that you already knew what they revealed, then you are a wingnut or a complicit member of the intelligence community.
Snowden wasted his time,
Possibly.
put people at risk
Our own government has said that this is not true, that our enemies already knew the "secrets" which have been revealed about informants, operatives etc.
that couldn't have been done in a safer and more reasonable way;
There was no more reasonable way to deliver the information to the public, which needs to know; not only our own citizenry, but also the nations with whom we hold treaties which we have broken. They need to know that we have become the world's greatest evil, and not to do help us.
Holding either of these children up as examples of 'standing up to the machine' is just ridiculous;
What have you done? Jack fucking shit. All you've done is tell lies about them. Fuck off immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Snowden wasn't the first insider to blow the whistle.
What made Snowden special is that he came with armloads of proof.
Re: (Score:2)
well then they should have leaked to the press how they got the information and how they got the files that they weren't supposed to even have, much less were supposed to have the means to decrypt it.
it just sounds like some guy in a suit wanted a free dinner from the magazines journalist and DADAA... it's like the fucking journalist did no self critical thinking of the story at all (it would have been written differently if there was any analysis whatsofuckingever into what he was writing).
it's just so lud
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Once someone has been exposed as a spy, they can't really be used as such again, because you simply have no idea who the country they were spying on and have been exposed to have told that that person is a spy.
It'd just be far too risky to put them back out in the field, the best you can do is bring them back home and give them a desk job there, at which point there's no problem in outing them because it gives credibility to the argument.
Even if you say, well, he's been spying on Russia, they hate ISIS, we
Re: This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the Russians let the Syrians know about this spy they've outed, and some Syrian who then knows gets captured by ISIS and tortured for information?
I have it on good authority from the people that have criticized the U.S. government for using water-boarding, and from president Obama himself, in the executive order he signed outlawing the practice, that no useful information comes from torture. So that won't be an issue.
Unless you don't want me to believe president Obama?!?
Valerie Plame (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame [wikipedia.org]
If there is a political point to be made, yeah, I'd expect them to name every single one of them.
They'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Re:Valerie Plame (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Whenever the issue of "damage from leaks" comes up, somebody will say "Ya know, people died because of Manning." And I'll concede that Manning's leaks were far less discriminate than Snowden's, with a much greater potential to compromise a solider in the field.
But name one. Do you honestly believe that if brave, brave Private Schmuckatelli had died to some nefarious sneak attack by The Enemy, betrayed by Manning, it would not be plastered all over Fox and CNN? We'd have tributes, pictures of his wife and kids and dog, interviews with his parents and everybody who ever knew him, lamenting over the loss of Private Schmuckatelli, press conferences, talking heads discussing whether Manning should get death or merely life in prison for his criminal responsibility in this matter. There is zero chance the government would not have exploited that death for maximum political gain.
But it never happened. Not once. Because nobody, nobody, not one person, died because of Manning's or Snowden's leaks. Won't stop them from claiming people did, though.
Re: (Score:2)
And- all hostile governments are allies!
But the Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
And- all hostile governments are allies!
But the Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend. Right?
Do you tell your friends your deepest darkest secrets? Especially the new friends, the friends of convenience?
Re:Snowden Limited Hangout (Score:4, Insightful)
Take your anti-psychotics.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny the same thought went through my mind when the leaks happened, but after two years, I just don't buy it. I think Snowden's on the level.
So what's the greater truth hidden by the limited hangout?
Re:Snowden Limited Hangout (Score:5, Insightful)
You have zero evidence about any of the ridiculous claims you concocted. As for eloquence, I'd dare say Ellsberg is/was brilliant and eloquent, but my suspicion (since you misspelled Chelsea Mannings name) is that you probably spend too much time listening to Alex Jones/Info Wars, rather than thinking. You also ignore the fact about the Snowdens Field Time as a CIA agent in Europe, in a lame attempt to pretend he was no better than a Devry tech student who could never possibly have this level of information.
What is the exact narrative you think Snowden is spinning, which others like Ellsberg who have given public support for his whistle-blowing, as well as the other 4 post 9/11 NSA whistle blowers who have supported his position equally?
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the weather like on your planet?
People expect the kind of shit the government is pulling from Russia and China, they just don't want it from countries which are actually *supposed* to be bastions of freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
In the long run he did more harm than good. The same practises will continue to happen, he just enabled our enemies to know about them too.
Yes, most of us are aware how those in the US and other '5-Eyes' governments view their citizens.
China and Russia? They knew long before Snowden. These guys are not amateurs. The only people who did not know were the general populations of the US and the world, the ones upon which this global surveillance & tracking behemoth is aimed.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
t's not completely true what yo'reb saying. Many terrorists did NOT know about the extent of our capabilities. I am ot saying this as a rebuttal to your entire argument, just facts are facts and we shouldn't cloud them for any reason. Both things happened. Snowden blew the whistle on illegal and unconstitutional practices AND ALSO terrorists were made aware of techniques and methods that otherwise would have been used to catch them. Both. Are. True.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden blew the whistle on illegal and unconstitutional practices AND ALSO terrorists were made aware of techniques and methods that otherwise would have been used to catch them.
Yeah, like the Tsarnaev brothers and the others. It should not be a surprise that so many terrorists seem to slip by/around all this surveillance.
The type of mass surveillance being carried out is not suited for, nor is it intended to, catch foreign terrorists.
It is intended to and is most useful for gathering detailed data on as m
Re: (Score:2)
Read my other post; I am well aware of this. But both can be true. The potential for unlimited blackmail and or targeted destruction AND the leaking of methods and tactics to the enemy. Both.
No one is helped and nothing is advanced by lying or going with a purely emotional (fear based or hate based) argument. As long as we don't tell the story ully in all its complexity , the other side" will detect our fundamental dishonesty and use it to dismiss our entire argument.
First, tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my other post; I am well aware of this. But both can be true. The potential for unlimited blackmail and or targeted destruction AND the leaking of methods and tactics to the enemy. Both.
No. The 'catching terrorists' angle is simply the cover story used to justify the construction of the surveillance state.
A non-existent propaganda justification is incapable of being crippled, except as being revealed as the propaganda it is. Mass surveillance's usefulness in catching terrorists cannot be harmed as it was never intended to catch "terrorists" of the type portrayed in mass media. The system's practical utility is almost exclusively as a tool of the State to oppress and control the general pop
Re: (Score:2)
>>No. The 'catching terrorists' angle is simply the cover story used to justify the construction of the surveillance state.
Not a chance that that statement is true.
Re: (Score:2)
So far we have evidence of 'parallel construction' and other abuses against civil rights while actual, real, kill-people-and-blow-crap-up terrorists are getting through.
Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is because the system was designed for use against the general population not against terrorists. Mass surveillance is meant to control mass populations. Targeted and specific surveillan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MI5 work inside Britain (think FBI/secret service), and MI6 (actually called 'SIS') works outside of Britain (think CIA).
Because of the way 5 eyes works I think MI5 work more closely with the NSA and CIA than MI6 does; MI5 have to know and be known to the NSA and CIA so that MI5 don't accidentally interfere with some US spying operation in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A person would have to be very stupid (Score:4, Insightful)