Edward Snowden Is Not Alone: US Gov't Seeks Another Leaker 204
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.
Operation Showerhead (Score:3, Funny)
They just need an Operation Showerhead.
Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
Re:Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the US Government offer any help in an illegal act? That would have legitimised Wikileaks actions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because lives were at risk?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a pretty ridiculous circular argument you have there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a pretty ridiculous circular argument you have there.
It's called accepting the inevitable and attempting to minimize the damage.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Assange seemed (at least in the Manning case) to advocate a "publish it all and damn the consequences" approach
He advocated the correct approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange leaked a whole bunch of diplomatic cables aside from the war logs. That comment is highly misleading.
Re:Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They're doing unconstitutional spying, so they deserve to be drawn and quartered in the public square.
Fixed.
Re:Snowden and Assange... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't mind the endless spying so much
Glad to know you want to live in a free country.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re:It was me. (Score:5, Funny)
The UPS man was parked there 45 minutes this morning, and he smiled coming out.
I'm guessing he smiled more going in.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a Mrs. Jenkins? No wonder my CI system can't keep it's mind on the job at hand.
tin-foil tempest in a teapot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:tin-foil tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Funny)
maybe, just maybe, Snowden is the FACE of the leaks.
Which begs the question: who are the BA, Hannibal, and Murdock of the leaks.
Re:tin-foil tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Funny)
No it doesnt. http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
Linguistic prescriptivists are always on the wrong side of history. This is to be expected, since history isn't written by losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Good like. Misusing "begging the question" is wrong because it is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesnt. http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
When people stop using "lowest common denominator" to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means, I'll reconsider "begs the question."
Also, the begs the question website is trying to preserve the meaning of an idiom: idioms have special meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words. Which means if they were as strict linguistically then as the begs the question website is trying to be now, "begs the question" wouldn't mean what they want it to mean either.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not if we don't stand up for them. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the citizenry continues to allow the government to punish the leakers, and further to completely get away with doing everything that was leaked, we can expect this trend to be short.
We, by which I mean you, need to get up and publicly protest and push charges against the government officials who betrayed us.
Justice will not happen by itself.
Re:Not if we don't stand up for them. (Score:4, Funny)
Funny, I thought you were going to say "... by which I mean I ."
Re: (Score:2)
I can't do it alone. That's why I said "by which I mean you." Standing alone gets you arrested and forgotten about. Not interested.
Agreed. But you emphasized the word "I" rather than "we". Which made it sound like you were specifically excluding yourself from the call to arms.
Re: (Score:3)
Max Headslash?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot Gamma?
More than one (Score:2)
One is believable. Lots would be believable. Two, and only two, not so much.
Re:More than one (Score:5, Interesting)
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...)
Re:More than one (Score:5, Funny)
And log out.
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...)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:More than one (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd prefer to rephrase that last sentence a bit.
... those spies did it for a foreign, enemy power. Snowden did it for his own country.
Yeah, keep focusing on the messengers (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile important stories NOT appearing on Slashdot...
Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, by the Numbers [firstlook.org]
This is the story referenced by the submitted CNN story.
Back in May they already said Snowden didn't have. (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Back in May they already said Snowden didn't ha (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Back in May they already said Snowden didn't ha (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Another leaker (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
concentrate on securing the network to keep China/Isis etc out of America
Seems that would be redundant with the Department Of Homeland Security's Office of Cybersecurity and Communications: http://www.dhs.gov/office-cybe... [dhs.gov]
The more you tighten your grip... (Score:2)
...the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... [wikia.com]
"mole"? (Score:4, Insightful)
CNN seems to be very confused; in what way is this additional whistleblower a "mole"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The public is about as hostile a power as you could wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"mole"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Change your bloody root password (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with TOTP or HOTP systems the secret has to be stored on both the token and the server. And like with the RSA attack, having all those secrets in one location is stupid.
TOTP is probably good enough for most. It has a few things going for it that a password doesn't: (1) HUMANS don't generate or control what the secret is, so it's actually a strong secret.
(2) With a TOTP system such as Google authenticator, the NORM is you will have a different secret for each site. This is different from a huma
WITCH HUNT! (Score:1)
How can there not be? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How can there not be? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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?
Get a grip (Score:3)
Fool me once ... (Score:2)
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Re: (Score:2)
A Bushism. It figures.
I suppose the government motto could be: We learn from our mistakes. That way, we recognize them when we make them again and again.
huh (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Mole? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear AC, your argument is analogous to suggesting a person should be jailed for jaywalking if they run across the street to stop a kidnapping.
My only regret is... (Score:3)
... 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
Am I the only one around here ... (Score:2)
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
Re:Am I the only one around here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They are NOT whistleblowers or moles (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The other one is ... (Score:2)
What else ? (Score:5, Insightful)
They will call the whistle blowers "TRAITORS" and they will come up with all the usual justifications - that they need to fight "terrorism", or whatever it is ...
America is turning into an extra-large-size concentration camp and still there are people wanting it to happen !
Re:What else ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. "Second Leaker" is a little less damaging to the NSA than "Persistent, undetected back door access".
It's a form of disinformation as misdirection, related to "plausible deniability" [wikipedia.org] and "limited hangout" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Heh. "Second Leaker" is a little less damaging to the NSA than "Persistent, undetected back door access".
It's a form of disinformation as misdirection, related to "plausible deniability" [wikipedia.org] and "limited hangout" [wikipedia.org].
Are you sure it's not a modified limited hangout?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's not a modified limited hangout?
No, I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not sure how that would be different from what I speculated! :-)
Re:What else ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It could also be used as a convenient excuse to prosecute any undesirable person as a potential "Second Leaker".
Re:What else ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. "Second Leaker" is a little less damaging to the NSA than "Persistent, undetected back door access".
It's a form of disinformation as misdirection, related to "plausible deniability" [wikipedia.org] and "limited hangout" [wikipedia.org].
Is it possible that the second leaker is actually someone from outside the system that has managed to hack their way in and thus browse all that "leaked information". ?
That would explain the date disparigy
Re: (Score:2)
A NATION of LEAKERS!
Demand it, today!
Re: (Score:2)
"As of 2008 there were reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats"
The fun part of the new list is "“no recognized terrorist group affiliation”" count. Wonder how you make that side of the colorful chart?
Re: What else ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it's more like Stalag 13 than like Stalag 17.
That issue was great.
https://archive.org/stream/sta... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The FSB keeps working... (Score:4, Insightful)
For that the FSB would want the US security private, underfunded and digital only.
The more leaks, the more active the FBI, CIA and UK hunters become. The more leaks suspected from within the US gov and mil, the more tracking of all US gov staff.
Voice print tracking, web use, review of all life stories of all cleared US bureaucrats would not be something any skilled nation wants to induce the US gov to fund.
Any outside gov would want the US hunting foreigners in distant lands to the point of been distracted from basic interviews and paperwork of gov applicants over generations.
A push to induce the US gov to seek languages, life experiences, slang, accents would be the perfect cover. A flood of new staff would be great. Looking at all staff again is not so good.
Whistleblowers appear every generation to expose torture, wars, deaths, domestic surveillance.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of safe cleared staff working for other govs over decades.
It depends on the quality of the person found by other nations. Some share the same faith, cult, country and will always put that first over generations.
Some people get into cash flow or lifestyle issues and need help form other nations.
Some just get passed over or fail and then stay in for decades helping other nations.
Historically the best times to get fo
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing said or done.
Thanks to you, and others like you, who just wanted a paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
> they didn't exist prior to his fleeing the USA and he couldn't possibly have accessed them. Why couldn't of he of created a back door to later access the system?
Because the system we are talking about is not connected to anything but itself. It's like having a "back door" that leads into a totally enclosed prison exercise yard made of reenforced concrete 2 feet think from the cell block and trying to break into the prison from outside the fence using the back door. Your biggest problem is going to be getting into the exercise yard.
Snowden has no way to access the system anymore and being physically in Russia pretty much insures that.