If Ed Snowden is a Hero, we're a Nation Bereft

If Ed Snowden is a Hero, we're a Nation Bereft

By Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 7:31pm | Politics

There is nothing wrong with being young. Nothing wrong with not having a high school diploma. Nothing wrong with being idealistic. Nothing wrong with distrusting the government if something they're doing doesn't strike you right.

There is something wrong with taking a job so sensitive to national security it requires a solemn oath to keep what you've seen secret, and within three months of your starting date you've already disregarded the oath and have stolen the very secrets you promised to protect.

Edward Snowden, through his top security clearance, had access to our most sensitive materials. He worked on government contracts assigned to a private contractor--an arrangement common in this country. Depending on the job, these private contractors are often privy to state secrets.

Candidates for top security clearances are vetted and investigated through a process worked out by the government. The FBI is involved and, often, so is the CIA. It isn't an overnight process and any dark mark in the candidate's past can stop the process dead. At the end of the process, every employee awarded a high security clearance signs an oath and is warned that a security breach is against the law. They will be prosecuted. That warning is repeated every six months. It takes time and much footwork to make sure the candidate will live up to such serious responsibilities, and that's the way it should be. We put our nation's secrets in their hands. We give them an enormous responsibility and we expect them to honor it.

We've had two incidences in the past few years where young men took it upon themselves to use their clearances to steal classified materials. (In 2010 I wrote about Bradley Manning in a piece called "Still Looking for the Wikileaks Heroes", which caused a veritable firestorm at the time. I went back and read it this morning. I believed what I wrote then and I believe it now.) I wonder how many more wannabees are waiting in the wings, ready to use their high security access to steal more documents? I can only hope their idealism is coupled with judicious, thoughtful consideration of the implications. I can only hope they understand what they were told: that what they're doing is against the law and they will be prosecuted. Barring that, I can only hope they'll find another line of work.

We are not a country where gulags abound. Our young men don't disappear into the night because the government fears they will rise up and attempt an overthrow. We don't have government-led massacres, we don't throw our citizen-dissidents into prisons, we don't punish people for making hateful remarks against the White House or congress. So far, every prediction about the terrible things the government will do to us if they catch us talking against them hasn't come true. There is no evidence that our government is coming to get us.

It's chilling to think that these young, untested men are stealing government documents and are picking and choosing which parts of them will be released to the world. But what's even more chilling is that there are whole factions in this country that so distrust our government they're willing to defend their right to do it.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

Topics:

Politics

Comments

I see what you're saying but in terms of a national call registry, maintained by an unaccountable part of the government -- tell me in advance and allow me to opt out.

We might not have death squads and gulags, but we have politically motivated prosecutions and investigations and harassment, originating from both sides (but, to be honest, mostly from theirs).

Our government has not been as honest with us as it should have been.

Obama says that if you can't trust the presidency, Congress or the courts, there's a problem. Well, there is a problem. The courts have been long packed by people who err on the part of law enforcement rather than citizens, Congress has been abdicating responsibilities to the executive for decades (particularly with regards to war) and no executive, even run by a guy as smart as Obama, will say no to powers granted to it. The game is stacked. Checks and balances are not working. It is a good thing that young people are trying to build those checks back into the system and, really, the only one I can think of is sunlight.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 8:07pm

Our government has never been totally honest with us. It's not in the government's best interests to be totally honest with us. I'm not siding with the gov'mint when I say that; I'm just stating a fact.

My concern is with the treatment of these guys by almost everyone in the progressive movement. Using their security clearances to put themselves in positions to steal government documents goes far beyond "young people trying to build those checks back into the system."

In a Salon interview with Laura Poitras, the woman Snowden contacted by email, along with Glenn Greenwald, I read this:

Since he contacted you before he started working at Booz Allen, the implication people were drawing was that he went to Booz Allen with the express intention of leaking this.

That’s completely absurd. I had no dialogue about what the information was — there were claims, that’s all I received.

So the implication that you sent him into Booz Allen to spy was incorrect.

Are you kidding? I didn’t know where he worked, I didn’t know he was NSA, I didn’t know how — nothing. There was no like, Oh do you think you …, no nudging. It’s like the crazy correlations that the NSA does. There’s no connection here. We were contacted, we didn’t know what he was up to, and at some point he came forward with documents.

If it's true that Snowden was actually trying to connect with Poitras and Greenwald before he started working at Booz Allen, what does that mean? Did he know he could access those documents even then? How? Even with the job there, there was no guarantee he would get the kind of clearance he needed. That doesn't happen for everyone. How could he have been so sure he would have something for them?

by Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:48pm

Snowden's argument has always been, far as I can tell, that he knew about this stuff back in the later Bush years but that he chose to reveal them after Obama won the election, had ample time to walk them back and hasn't. So, I figure that when the Booz opportunity came about, he saw it as his chance to check up on Obama and to see if the same stuff was going on. If it was, he had planned to leak it. If it wasn't, he had planned to enjoy a very highly paid assignment.

I'm not put off by that moral calculus.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:53pm

I had forgotten that he was an IT operator, so it could be that a clearance that high goes with the territory. But in the interview it sounded like he didn't have the job yet. I thought that was odd.

by Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:12pm

To be clear... I could be wrong. My Snowden knowledge isn't Wikipedic, by any means.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:32pm

I'm not sure about that Mona. There are unhappy extremes at either end. On one hand, we don't want every self-appointed hero to be able to reveal whatever he or she deems appropriate regardless of the consequences. On the other hand, we don't want civil servants so blindly obedient that they keep every secret they have been sworn to protect, no matter how vile or dangerous.

I think that almost everyone recognizes and opposes these two extremes, but we differ about the real cases that fall in the middle. For the most part, such differences of opinion are genuine and honest, and the controversy is good for democracy because it helps us to grapple with difficult issues. In other words, whether or not Snowden is a hero, it's a good thing that people are arguing about whether or not Snowden is a hero.

by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 8:14pm

These are incredibly difficult issues. I've struggled with this ever since I first heard about it. I planned on waiting until I knew the whole story before I wrote about it, but I realized that no matter what else I learn about this story, it won't change how I feel about the theft of American documents by someone who holds a security clearance. That hasn't changed since I first struggled with the Bradley Manning story.

The story isn't over and I want to learn the truth along with the rest of the country. And yes, I think it's a good thing that we're discussing this. But I cringe every time I hear the words "Snowden" and "hero" in the same sentence.

by Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:10pm

Maybe part of the problem is that the hero/traitor debate is a detour that doesn't get the interested citizen anywhere near they want to go.

I like the way Josh Marshall said it, which is that leakers can be a "safety valve" of sorts, even when they leak with ill-intent. We certainly don't want the government to have 100% control of its secrets. But we also know that loose lips can, indeed, sink ships. We don't want to lionize an activity that, even if the leaker has angelic intent, might lead to awful ends.

So, maybe the answer is to let the hero/villain debate slide and ask yourself if you think you're better off knowing what you now know. In this case, my personal answer is "yes," because I object to what's being done and can now voice my opposition to something that everyone admits exists, which is better than voicing opposition to something that other people might suspect is just a fantasy.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:37pm

Someone linked to a Taibbi piece last week, I think it was Lulu or PP, bemoaning the hero-villain debate about Manning. It's an interesting piece, but I think he's wrong. I don't think it's feasible to separate the leakers--their motives and personalities--from the information they leak. Each leak is a morality tale in which the leakers are central characters, and our perspective on the controversy pivots on whether we see them as heroes or villains.

by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:57pm

Motives matter, no doubt. But it's not like much of the important stuff here has been denied, much less refuted. In that case, can't we move onto the substance of the charges?

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:43pm

It's not a question of moving on. The media is not a courtroom where you only get to question one witness at a time. (Motive established. Next witness!) It's an organic medium, a swarm, a mob.

I think that's what bugged me about the Taibbi piece. Manning is on trial, so of course the media is playing up the hero-or-villain controversy. That's what's on everyone's mind. That doesn't mean the media has never or will never talk about any other elements of the case. Back when the documents got dumped, they were all over the content.

Same with Prism. It was the story until Snowden popped his head up in HK and said that the story wasn't about him. So then of course the story was about him. The attention will return to Prism if Congress investigates it or legislates against it--and if Snowden keeps his mouth shut.

PS Fwiw, I expect Snowden to reveal more secrets as soon as the attention begins to wane.

PPS I will say that personality naturally upstages the other elements. Everyone loves celebrities.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:32am

Yes, that's where my own personal struggle comes in. I deplore the methods used to get the information, but I'm glad the information is out there. Does the end justify the means? Not for me it doesn't. I would like to think there would be other ways to get to that end without giving just anyone the go-ahead to crack security and release dozens or hundreds or thousands of classified documents.

Who's to say the leakers aren't keeping secrets from us, too? What's to keep them from succumbing to the lures of somebody else looking to use those documents to harm us? If we can't trust our own government what makes us think we can trust some kid whose motives might be equally suspect?

by Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:09pm

"Other ways..."

Yes, but it appears that leakers who tried other ways are now working retail at Apple stores and the like.

These "other ways" need beefing up and protection so that someone, in good faith, can object, call out, what have you, and not get fired or legally persecuted or otherwise sent out to pasture.

Not sure about Snowden, but when you read the stories of some of the other leakers who faced the music, they appear to have been devoted intelligence workers, people who believed in what they did and all the secrecy surrounding it.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/11/2014 - 8:58am

Your strongest point, in my opinion, is that it's somehow wrong for one person without the authority to take it upon himself to make secret information public based on discussions with himself that it's the right thing to do and in the country's best interest.

Think of the outcry around the news that "one man" with a "kill list," Obama, was deciding who to assassinate. Just one guy who, arguably, had the authority to do what he felt was right to protect the country.

"We need oversight and checks on this" was the proffered solution. But where is the oversight and checks on someone like Snowden or anyone who simply reveals what he, on his own, decides needs to be revealed.

People like that this information was revealed and, apparently, no one died as a result. But that's only a contingent circumstance and doesn't address the procedural problems.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/11/2014 - 9:13am

Josh got a lot of flak over his piece, but I thought it was well done and very fair. (no surprise. . .) I would have liked to comment but of course he has the comments hidden behind TPM Prime so I couldn't.

There are things we need to know that are obviously being kept from us. That's a given. There are other things being kept from us that maybe we don't need to know. A press more involved in actual investigation would help. Whistleblowers from within the system would help.

I'm still obsessed with the idea of rank amateurs filching documents without thought to what kind of Pandora's Box they might be opening. I really wish we would stop encouraging them.

by Ramona on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:22pm

I agree with you on pretty much all counts. Why should we trust that the leaker is giving us the full story? How do we know the leaker isn't holding back information that undermines the story they want us to believe? Even if the leaker isn't holding such information back, how do we know that the reporters and editors dealing with the leakers aren't either withholding or revealing things for the wrong reasons? It's not easy.

In this case, the information seems to be unrefuted (there have been, and are, debates about certain details, but the government has conceded the main points and declined to elaborate on the details). The lack of outright denials suggests accuracy.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:41pm

It strikes me as really odd that there is such an outcry about government infringement of our right to privacy (and rightfully so) but those same people who are deeply offended by it don't seem to think that what Manning and Snowden have done has the capability of infringing on our right to privacy as well.

If they, or leakers like them, have figured out how to steal documents in our system, they could very well go on to steal and release information about any one of us. There is plenty of it out there. Where are our protections there?

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 9:15am

Another great point. Though, ironically, what Snowden did is what even alerted us to the fact that we are all potentially vulnerable to people like Snowden.

One defense is to ban the collection of such information by the government, which at least removes government databases as a target for such theft.

The other is to ban the CIA from using outside contractors like Booz, Allen. That wouldn't have stopped Manning but might have stopped Snowden.

by Michael Maiello on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 11:04am

Though, ironically, what Snowden did is what even alerted us to the fact that we are all potentially vulnerable to people like Snowden.

Reasons to break a law are numerous, usually bad, but sometimes, IMO, honorable. To me, and based on what we know so far, "being like Snowden" probably falls into that second category. Regardless, focusing all attention on his character and motives detracts from paying deserved attention to the abuses and potential abuses that the data collection and retention programs facilitate. History and common sense tell us that the potential for domestic abuse will result in domestic abuse of that program. That is certainly true to the extent that the concept of certainty has any meaning in relationship to human choices on a large scale.
Usually it is great power held by one person or a small group which is most dangerous. In this new type situation there are so many people who can access the information that it is bound to be used wrongly by some, even by some who are honorable in their motives.
Humans do not need being taught to value their personal privacy. Invasions of that privacy are 'naturally' offensive, although people can be conditioned to accept it as long as they don't feel any direct personal affect, especially if they are of a nature to bow to authority, to want to be led, to want others to make the tough decisions and tell them that it was for their own good, and especially when authority's wrongdoing is kept secret.
If we did not have a fourth ammendment, a study of the abuses made possible by this program would prove why we need one if just for pragmatic reasons alone, and that we should therefore pass one. The programs proven to exist by Snowden seem to me to be obvious violations of the fourth amendment, both in its letter and its spirit. The searches and seizures of the details of our personal lives are just not reasonable. Having the good luck of our Constitution containing the fourth amendment as a base law, we should now demand that that law be followed and we should do so with fervor beyond that of our demand that leakers which prove its violation be punished while the violators of that law go unpunished and likely get career advancement. Of course those violations can become 'legal' by an arbitrary decision of the Supreme Court, but that wouldn't make the program 'right'.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:16pm

Usually it is great power held by one person or a small group which is most dangerous. In this new type situation there are so many people who can access the information that it is bound to be used wrongly by some, even by some who are honorable in their motives.

You could just as well be talking about Manning, Assange, Snowden, Greenwald, et al. Or maybe you are.

I agree with your thoughts about the Fourth Amendment. I'm not sure that what Snowden exposed were exactly revelations. If we didn't know the scope of it, we certainly knew the existence. If we didn't call it Prism, it was no secret that the NSA was into wiretapping and other types of domestic surveillance. We still don't know the scope or the methods or the motives. But we're talking about it and that's a good thing.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:36pm

" I'm not sure that what Snowden exposed were exactly revelations."

Sen. Jon Tester, who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said the same thing, telling MSNBC about the disclosures that "I don't see how that compromises the security of this country whatsoever" and adding: "quite frankly, it helps people like me become aware of a situation that I wasn't aware of before because I don't sit on that Intelligence Committee."

Yes, revelations.

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez said after Congress on Wednesday was given a classified briefing by NSA officials on the agency's previously secret surveillance activities:

"What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."

Thank you, Mr. Snowden.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 4:00am

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The servers of large corporations were searched, not persons, houses, papers or effects. For certain overseas phone numbers and/or email addresses.

If it's so bloody private and personal what's it doing on a platter of a hard drive, owned by a corporation and kept on their property, not yours, along with a hundred thousand or a million other people's data?

It's as if it's OK for everyone else, from Facebook to Google to Citibank or Yahoo, to have, store, sell and analyze people's personal data to make a buck, or a billion bucks. When the government looks at that same data, to protect the nation from attacks like we saw in Boston, that is 'unreasonable'? Only in the mind of the self-obsessed, vain or paranoid.

by NCD on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 6:49pm

Yeah, that's why I was ruminating about outdated notions of what's your home/what's your castle on Maiello's first thread. We aren't in the world of one sacrosanct single family house, automobile and landline per nuclear family anymore, Dorothy. We haven't clarified what the boundaries are. It was really easy to extend the right of US mail to telephone conversations when anyone could actually see the actual line that went to your house from the pole, an actual physical boundary that you could plot on paper.

It's happened so rapidly, if you watch a two-year old movie, no one in it has a smartphone, now everyone on the street seems to have one.

People don't just snoop on each other's business, they take photos of what they consider misbehavior and post them on the internet. That part is like Dorothy's Kansas, small town snooping in everyone's business America, come to think of it.

Should it be outlawed? Shouldn't individuals be subject to fear of lawsuit like newspapers if they publish a picture of someone on the internet without permission? You didn't even know you got in the frame of that snapshot of that party that is going around Facebook, you told the boss you were sick....

Is Dagblog a private community? No, ANYONE can read what you say here, it's totally public. Hence the old debates about using real names at TPM, the disgust of some when Josh Marshall decided to require log in from a big portal like Facebook or Google. Even with an anonymous screen name, you know you've got to watch what you say or at least you know in the back of your mind, you should be watching it. TPMCafe might recall how easily "Ripper McCord" was ID'd.

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 7:29pm

There is a discussion of privacy law and court decisions on privacy at NBC:

...The Supreme Court explained its pen register vs. wiretap distinction in 1979 by calling on the "third-party doctrine." Americans lose their expectation of privacy, the court reasoned, whenever they voluntarily give information to a third party, such as a phone company. Telling the phone company who you call by dialing a number is enough to surrender your expectation of privacy that you are contacting that person, the court held. It did, however, preserve the letter analogy from law governing U.S. mail. That is, only what's on the envelope's outside is fair game....

by NCD on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 11:07am

Well, has Google ever waterboarded anyone or declared someone can be detained indefinitely, forecefeeding them through tubes stuck up their noses to get to their stomachs?

Does Facebook have the ability to declare someone a terrorist and freeze all their assets, putting them on a secret no-fly list?

Has Yahoo ever infiltrated a group pretending to be a friend and set them up for weapons charges, even giving them free beer, dope and a job over the course of a month just to make sure it happens?

Has Citibank ever stolen billions of dollars by misappropriating taxpayer dollars during a crisis?

Oops, got me on the last one, though 1 out of 4 ain't even good in baseball.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 2:56pm

Yes, corporations are good, government is bad. Vote Republican.

The subject was the privacy of data people freely give to 3rd parties. Such information is not protected by the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.

by NCD on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 5:56pm

I'm not sure what Maiello meant by "people like Snowden", but it could've been an aptitude simile as much as a moral simile. I.e., "people like Snowden" might simply refer to people with the ability (usually due to a combination of talent and placement) to reveal secrets on organizations (and/or people).

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 3:00pm

Definitely the latter. Kind of an aside, but I once dated a lawyer and was called in for jury duty. It was a huge federal death penalty case. There were a lot of people called and a long questionnaire to answer. They really wanted to kill this guy (and, as it turns out, will) so there was question after question about whether, if I found somebody guilty, would I also be willing to vote in favor of the death penalty. I answered honestly that as a death penalty opponent in all circumstances, I would not. Of course, I was not called to serve. The lawyer remarked to me that I should have lied because my honesty only served to insure that no death penalty opponents would ever have a voice in death penalty cases. She was right, I think. You're not always serving justice by playing by the rules.

by Michael Maiello on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 5:07pm

Good point - I don't really care about whether US gun ships shut up civilians and Reuters reporters - I want my privacy, and I'm concerned Manning might have infringed it.

Similarly, think of all the damage that Snowden might have done to our privacy by reporting the government can track where all our calls went. I mean, first it means he may have had access to this too (like the 4 million people who have some kind of security clearance). And he might have released some of this data even though he didn't.

Worst is, now Al Qaeda knows that the US government is capable of monitoring their phone calls. We're all in more danger. Up to now, Osama bin Laden & crew thought the feds could only tap them if they stayed on the phone for 3 minutes or more.

Wait, even worse, now after both Manning 4 years ago and now Snowden, the US government is going to have to be really really serious about its ban on removable media in top security facilities. I hear they've expedited this now critical move to 2014 or 2015. The expense these 2 have put us through is incredible. Not to mention the discredit bestowed on Lady Gaga.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 1:04pm

Maybe, but denials can lead to deeper inquiry and a can of worms.

How do we know the leakers aren't lying to us, which is sort of what you're saying.

There needs to be a clear, sanctioned, and protected route for would-be leakers to say "this is wrong and needs to be fixed."

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/11/2014 - 9:01am

"Whistleblowers from within the system would help."

The system is broke.

Greenwald: Some Democrats have tried to distinguish 2006 from 2013 by claiming that the former involved illegal spying while the latter does not. But the claim that current NSA spying is legal is dubious in the extreme: the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted efforts by the ACLU, EFF and others to obtain judicial rulings on their legality and constitutionality byinvoking procedural claims of secrecy, immunity and standing. If Democrats are so sure these spying programs are legal, why has the Obama DOJ been so eager to block courts from adjudicating that question?

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 6:51am

I agree with Michael W that one can't separate the leaker from the story. But its only a small part of the story imo. Whether the leaker is a hero or a villain is so superficial. Its much more complex than that.

Let's look at Deep Throat the Watergate leaker. For years he's been portrayed as a hero. When at best Mark Felt was pissed off at not getting a promotion and at worst, attempting to discredit Patrick Gray so that Nixon would fire Gray and appoint him as the Director of the FBI. Yet I don't think anyone wishes that the story of Watergate had remained a government secret. Without at least some leaks it likely would have. The act of leaking the Watergate information could be considered a "heroic" act but the motivations were "villainous."

More important to me than the motivations and personality of the leaker are questions about the leak. Is it information that the public has a right to know? Does it endanger undercover agents or intelligence assets? Does it damage our national security or interests?

Imo while some of the information Manning leaked would pass those tests some of what he leaked would not. So I can't support his massive data dump.

So far Snowden's leaks passes all the tests I have for what I would consider a "proper" leak. We have a right to know about the government surveillance of US citizens and so far I've seen no credible evidence that the leak damages our national security.

Is Snowden a hero? I just don't think in those terms. He did the right thing imo, I'm glad he did it and I respect him for taking that action whatever his motivations were. I just hope he doesn't do anything too stupid that draws the focus away from this important story or by discrediting himself he discredits the story.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:47pm

I was thinking about Deep Throat too. I wonder how Watergate would have played out if Felt's identity had been known at the time. Nixon was so larger than life himself and his crime so shocking to people that I doubt that it would have completely changed the narrative, but I bet it would have emboldened Nixon's supporters.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:37am

I don't see a connection between "Deep Throat" and what Manning and Snowden have done. Mark Felt didn't steal truckloads of classified files to prove his point. He passed along information he knew and Woodward and Bernstein went with it. We believed it without having to see scores of documents as proof. That's what true whistleblowers do.

You can be glad the information is out there--as I am--but I'll draw the line at respecting Snowden for what he's done.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 9:05am

Ramona, thanks for writing this. The issue is very complex, but I agree with you that Snowden did this with pre-meditation, and took a vow that he obviously had no intention to keep. I can't respect that. Hero? Not in my world. If he wanted to be a hero perhaps he would have written all this out, sent copies to major newspapers and turned himself in from the visitors gallery of Congress for all of us to see.

However I also am glad that this has been exposed.

Did Dick Cheney take a vow? Did anything happen to him for outing a CIA agent and causing the deaths of untold agents whose identities were blown as a result? I am really sick of all of this, and I honestly think that our country is in decline and we are just seeing the symptoms of decay.

by CVille Dem on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 10:50am

I'm glad it's been exposed, too. We should have been talking about the excesses of domestic surveillance for a long time now, but I'll stop short of thanking Ed Snowden for bringing it to our attention.

I want to know more about just how abusive the NSA tactics are, but in the meantime I'll go on stewing about the Snowdens and Mannings of the world and the people who insist on making them heroes and martyrs.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:24pm

It is the ones who shoot the messenger who make the messenger a martyr.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:35pm

You're glad its been disclosed and you wish we had been talking about it for a long time. But you want it to happen without the leak and I just don't see how you get that to happen.

People have been trying to talk about it for years and have been derided at conspiracy theorists when in fact the program was worse than many imagined. The ACLU has tried to get the Supreme Court to rule on just some small parts of the surveillance laws and in a stunning act of duplicity the White House got the case thrown out by claiming lack of standing when they knew that not just the plaintiffs but every god damn person in the United States, the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and even the Supreme Court justices, had standing to move the case forward.

Senator Ron Wyden has been trying to get a debate going and James Clapper lied to congress to hide the program. We only know he lied because of Snowden's leak. Wyden said, "You cannot have strong oversight if intelligence officials don't give you straight answers."

How exactly do you expect to have a debate about a secret government program that government officials are lying about, even to congress, without someone leaking information about it?

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 4:00pm

Somewhere else I also said I thought whistleblowers should do it through the system. I also said I thought the press should do their jobs by investigating the things they hear off the record. (And they hear plenty.)

Do you think the only way to get information is to encourage people to steal government documents? When does it stop? Is there nothing we won't do to give some satisfaction to the people who demand to know?

By the way, leaking and stealing are not synonymous.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 4:34pm

Who's encouraging people to steal government documents? I've posted in other threads long before Snowden and in this thread a couple of times that I don't support Manning. Each leak needs to be judged on its own merits and I definitely see limits.

Sometimes a leak is in the public interest and sometimes its not. I've posted some of the reasons I think Snowden's leaks are in the public interest.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 4:50pm

So if Snowden's leaks are in the public interest, how did he strengthen his case by stealing documents? What are we talking about more--the fact that he stole government secrets or the necessity for more NSA transparency?

When we talk about NSA transparency from now on can we ever get beyond the fact that in order to make it transparent we had to welcome the theft of government documents?

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 5:55pm

Well, I think he needed proof of some kind. He couldn't very well fly to Hong Kong and say "the NSA has gone too far!" Crickets....

I'm not sure myself why he released the hacking info. But I think it's an effort to save his own skin. Jesus told us what we needed to know, then hung around for martyrdom to really drive the point home. I think snowden would prefer to avoid the second part. To put it another way, phase 1 was the (arguably) good-guy release of info that he felt the public needed to know. Phase 2 is a much more practical, perhaps even cynical effort to end up somewhere acceptable.

by Erica (not verified) on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 7:10pm

I don't have this issue about "stealing" documents that you seem to. When Iran contra was leaked Oliver North shredded thousands of documents. I wish someone had stold the documents. Because they were destroyed there was no proof and the full story never came out. Reagan had deniability over his criminal actions.

If you had your way North wouldn't have even had to destroy the documents. Since unauthorized leaking of government documents is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 8:08pm

Oliver North stole the documents he shredded. They weren't his to shred. If he had done his duty those documents would still be there, possibly de-classified after all these years, and we might now know at least some of what really happened.

I believe, as so many others do, that they're too quick to classify documents and too lax about de-classifying once the need is over--if there ever was a need.

What I'm really against is the wholesale cheering on of anyone and everyone who steals government information and exposes it to the world. That's a dangerous path to tread.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:45am

I think you're overly optimistic, but if true, the idea that we might finally know the truth about Reagan's criminal actions 30 years after he left office doesn't mollify me at all. The idea that if Snowden didn't leak we might know about the extent of the NSA surveillance of US citizens in 2043 doesn't do much for me either.

I'm not sure where you see this wholesale cheering of anyone and everyone who steals government information. Perhaps at FDL as some have suggested below? I'm among those who rarely read FDL. I don't think its the bell weather of the progressive community. There's definitely a fair amount of controversy here and at most other sites I read over both Manning's and Snowden's leaks. Especially with Manning who seems to get little support from the progressive community and now, Assange, who seems to have lost much of the support he had.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:32pm

I only brought up Felt to illustrate my view that the hero/villain dichotomy was a rather superficial way of discussing these situations. I have strong disagreements with your analysis of Felt and the Watergate history but I really don't want to get into rehashing that story.

Each leak and leaker is different. I have a problem with your attempt to conflate the actions of Manning and Snowden. Manning released hundreds of thousands of documents. Long before Snowden I posted that I couldn't support that. However many documents Snowden may have what he has released so far is at most a couple of dozen pages. Ellsberg released top secret documents that became a nearly 1,000 page densely written book. Snowden is reported to have 47 pages of charts about the Prism program of which 5 have been released. 5 pages, even if all 47 pages had been released it would still be a far cry from the amount Ellsberg released.

So if your problem is the amount of documents released Snowden is far on the low end of that spectrum.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 4:26pm

So tell me--how do you know how many documents Snowden has stolen? Greenwald says he has many more and he'll decide when they'll be released.

But I'm not sure what the number of documents has to do with anything. It's the content as much as the amount. At this point, we just don't know what's left. It could be big. Or not. We don't know because we have no control over what, when, how and how many will be released. Somehow, that makes me nervous. Don't know about you.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 4:40pm

I don't know how many documents Snowden has. I only know what has been released, a rather small amount. Very focused and targeted. So far I see a level of discrimination and caution that is appropriate in these types of situations. Something I didn't see in Manning's document dump.

I discussed the number of documents because you brought it up the issue. "Mark Felt didn't steal truckloads of classified files." Its seemed to be an issue to you so I addressed it.

If Snowden or Greenwald deviate from the very cautious and discriminating release I've seen so far I'll condemn them for it.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 5:10pm

I'm sorry, I'm not finding the release of surveillance documents to China discriminating. I find it reckless and outrageous.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 6:00pm

Ok Ramona, that's somewhat disingenuous as this report was just released this morning. 99% of your outrage and all my comments occurred before this news report. You can't justify all your previous outrage with this most recent report.

I've had some time to look over the information and I do find it inappropriate. But let's look at what it entails. There's not much information about this disclosure but it appears that it simply states that the NSA is hacking civilian computers and it includes some of the identifying ip addresses. It doesn't detail how the hacking was accomplished nor does it include ways to stop the hacking. It only includes civilian targets and not military targets. It doesn't include what information was targeted. Its a rather limited disclosure.

If we're going to critique China for hacking of civilian computers we need to limit our hacking of civilian computers. This revelation simply exposes US hypocrisy. Hard for me to see how it damages our national security.

I don't find it reckless or outrageous but I do think its inappropriate and I wish he hadn't done it.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 8:04pm

Nothing disingenuous about my comment. It was in reply to your comment, which you wrote after we already knew about Snowden's release of surveillance information to China. You find his actions there "inappropriate". I find them reckless and yes, outrageous. I also wish he hadn't done it.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:24am

This is a false statement. Really ramona, are you so desperate to "win" that you're willing to lie to do it. I thought so much better of you. I stand by my previous comment.

I'm sure you find the disclosure outrageous since you found all his previous disclosures outrageous. I've explained why I don't see them as outrageous. No explanation from you as to why you disagree, beyond that its "stealing" and therefore evil.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:40pm

I don't appreciate you accusing me of lying. Show me where I lied.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:25pm

your comment, which you wrote after we already knew about Snowden's release of surveillance information to China.

Your blog and most of your comments were written before the news was released. Unless you saw the article the second it was released some of your comments were written after the article was released but before you knew of it. I'm not at all embarrassed to say that it took me some short number of hours to see this news report since I'm reasonably sure it took you some number of hours to see it as well. Its highly unlikely your saw this article the second it was released.

I stand by my statement.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:08pm

You know what, Ocean-kat. I don't know what you're talking about or where you're going with this. I don't feel like reading all my comments again to figure out what you're talking about. As near as I can remember, I didn't use the word "outrageous" until after I had read what he did in China.

If you have a point, then make it. If I can figure it out, I'll respond.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:18pm

You know what ramona, I'm as offended that you implied I was lying when I posted "all my comments occurred before this news report" as you are by my accusation in return. But it was a small part of the dialog and I'm inclined to let go of my anger unless you intend to pursue your's.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:31pm

Ocean-kat, I am not now and never have been angry. I just don't appreciate being called a liar. This seems like a misunderstanding to me. Letting it go is a great idea.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:40pm

I don't see the connection either for the same reasons.

by trkingmomoe on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 6:27am

I'll post this little link from the South China News today and I'll keep my opinion to myself.

Top-secret US government records shown to Post by whistle-blower give details of computer IP addresses hacked by NSA in HK and mainland.

But it does kind of make you say.. hmm.

by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 10:48am

Thanks for this, TMac. This is dangerous territory, and now probably makes him a traitor. His main gripe was domestic surveillance, as I understood it. Why on earth would he give China this kind of ammunition? And what else has he given Greenwald to use against us?

In the article he claims the NSA has hacked computers at Chinese University, but a spokesperson there said they haven't noticed any unusual activity. Either the NSA's spying methods are much more sophisticated than we can even imagine, or Snowden is blowing smoke.

Hmmm is right.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:15pm

Ramona, Greenwald is not using the information "against us" unless "us" means something other that the U.S, citizenry.

And, the hacking into a computer system and retrieving all its information but not doing any direct damage to the system while there would explain the spokesperson saying that they haven't noticed any unusual activity.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:36pm

Lulu, giving China our surveillance secrets is using the material "against us", IMO.

I didn't mean to suggest that Greenwald will use the rest of the information he has to try and hurt us, but I'm wary of Greenwald's motives and I find the notion of dangling more secrets over us, tantalizing us with what they might contain, a bit tacky and not at all serious.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:43pm

So far I do not see any evidence that he gave China or any other entity any secretes regarding our surveillance except the proof of the fact that our surveillance programs exist to spy on our own people. A small propaganda coup, ...maybe. As you have said elsewhere, this was no secret. All that China learned was all that we learned, proof that our leadership has been blatantly telling us and the world lies. No real damage is done by that to persons or methods any more than if China had been outed as telling us a lie that they did not spy on their citizens.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 1:00pm

You don't consider releasing specific IP addresses to a foreign press suspicious?

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:44pm

The government has "come to get us" in the sense of grabbing our phone records and e-mails(probably illegal), and instituting detention without trial(definitely illegal). Snowden did us a service by exposing the state's shenanigans.

by Aaron Carine on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 11:25am

New New York Times piece, For Snowden, a Life of Ambition, Despite the Drifting, which some will no doubt label a hit piece-maybe with some cause, might help focus your thoughts on this. It did mine: the problem is that there is an inherent conflict between libertarian Ron Paul-admiring geek culture and national security jobs:

[....] “Great minds do not need a university to make them any more credible: they get what they need and quietly blaze their trails into history,” he wrote online at age 20. Mr. Snowden, who has taken refuge in Hong Kong, has studied Mandarin, was deeply interested in martial arts, claimed Buddhism as his religion and once mused that “China is definitely a good option career wise.”

After handing over the documents, he told The Guardian of his admiration for both Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is now on trial for providing 700,000 confidential documents to WikiLeaks, and Daniel Ellsberg, who disclosed the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

“Manning was a classic whistle-blower,” Mr. Snowden, 29, said of Private Manning, 25. “He was inspired by the public good.”

For role models, Mr. Snowden, an introspective man who spent his formative years in the rebellious technogeek counterculture, could look not only to the young Army private, lionized by a global following, but also to dissenters at his own agencies.

From the N.S.A., Mr. Snowden’s most recent employer, there was Thomas A. Drake, who since his 2010 leak prosecution has denounced the agency as Big Brother on the lecture circuit. From the C.I.A., Mr. Snowden’s previous employer, there was John Kiriakou, who rallied supporters with his assertion that his prison term for leaking was payback for speaking out about waterboarding.

If Mr. Snowden wished to draw similar attention, he has succeeded. Along with denunciations in Congress as a traitor and a manhunt by the F.B.I., he has already won public acclaim from a diverse group of sympathizers, from the left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore to the right-wing television host Glenn Beck.

His disclosures have renewed a longstanding concern: that young Internet aficionados whose skills the agencies need for counterterrorism and cyberdefense sometimes bring an anti-authority spirit that does not fit the security bureaucracy.

“There were lots of discussions at N.S.A. and in the intelligence community in general about the acculturation process,” said Joel F. Brenner, a former inspector general of the agency. “They were aware that they were bringing in young people who had to adjust to the culture — and who would change the culture.”[....]

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:39pm

P.S. Struck me right away because last night I was looking for what oaths people take, if any, for CIA & NSA jobs, in comparison to to the military. Didn't really get much accomplished on that. Instead I got involved in looking at their recruitment pages and how they are actively trying to get more geeks who can work with all that data. One of them, I forget which, had this long explanation of how they will be putting you, desirable geek with the right mettle, in a years long program working with mentors, and sort of brainstorming together on what you could do with it all....

The problem: if your natural tendency is to not just be suspicious of federal government, but to want to drown much of it in a bathtub, why would you want to work for it except to stymie what it wants to do?

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 12:53pm

I can speak a little to oaths. My husband worked for the government through a civilian contractor. He had a high security clearance and it had to be renewed every couple of years. He also had to review and agree to his oath every six months.

Every couple of years the Men in Black descended on our neighbors and asked them questions about his character, our lifestyle, our finances, our marriage, and any other thing they might need to know in order to make sure my husband wouldn't likely be lured to the dark side and turn against his country.

Every couple of years he sat in a room with those guys as they reviewed the last couple of years. once I got a call from him while he was being interviewed. They wanted to know why I hadn't paid the last month's Hudson's bill! (A department store in the Detroit area)

It was not a hardship in the least. My husband was proud to be doing what he was doing. And I'll just say that very often, in the line of duty, he had to lie--even to me.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 2:57pm

As citizens, we're bound to the Constitution. All else is secondary - no oath trumps that.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 3:49am

Snowden promised to protect the constitution in his oath. He also promised to protect the country's secrets. There are ways to blow whistles without stealing the information he took an oath to protect.

by Ramona on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:29am

If you can manage to tell me 1 avenue to whistleblowing that still works, have at it.

Here's Brennan trying to promote the CIA agent who destroyed tapes demanded by Congress.

Here's the DoJ helping Scott Bloch to get out of his plea bargain for wiping computers and lying to Congress.

Clapper just lied to Congress 2-3 weeks ago about this very NSA programming, saying they didn't have access to any such info.

Manning apparently tried telling his superiors about the Iraq gunship attack on civilians, and got no support. Here's one of the soldiers on the ground trying to help a boy in this incident - notice the tender loving care he's dealt with.

Interviews with Ethan McCord

Ethan McCord, the soldier seen in the video carrying the injured boy, recalled in an interview on The Marc Steiner Show that on arrival at the scene, "The first thing I did was run up to the van...". After attending the girl's wounds and handing her to a medic, McCord was ordered to take position on the roof but he returned to the van to find the boy moving his hand. "I grabbed him and ran to the Bradley myself". McCord states he was yelled at for not "pulling security." "The first thing I thought of ... was my children at home". He later sought help for psychological trauma, but was ridiculed by his NCO and told that if he were to go to the mental health officer, "there would be repercussions".^[86]

McCord discussed his experience in the battle in an interview with the World Socialist Web Site on April 28th, 2010, stating, "What happened then was not an isolated incident. Stuff like that happens on a daily basis in Iraq."^[87] McCord also recalled being ordered to "kill every motherfucker on the street" in the event of an attack on their convoy. Describing doubts over his initial enthusiasm in Iraq, McCord said that "I didn’t understand why people were throwing rocks at us, why I was being shot at and why we’re being blown up, when I have it in my head that I was here to help these people... The first real serious doubt, where I could no longer justify to myself being in Iraq or serving in the Army, was on that day in July 2007."^[87] In this interview, McCord reports that repercussions for seeking mental health help could include being labeled as a "malingerer," a crime under U.S. military law.^[87]

McCord requested mental health assistance following his experiences in July 12, but was told by his superior officers to "get the sand out of [his] vagina" and to "suck it up and be a soldier."^[88]

When interviewed by Wired, McCord stated that he supported Wikileaks in releasing the video, with some qualifications: "When it was first released I don’t think it was done in the best manner that it could have been. They were stating that these people had no weapons whatsoever, that they were just carrying cameras. In the video, you can clearly see that they did have weapons … to the trained eye." McCord added, “I don’t say that Wikileaks did a bad thing, because they didn’t…. I think it is good that they’re putting this stuff out there. I don’t think that people really want to see this, though, because this is war…. It’s very disturbing."^[89]

James Spione has made a short documentary film about the airstrikes called Incident in New Baghdad, featuring a first-person account from Ethan McCord. It was nominated as a Documentary Short Subject for the 84th Academy Awards.^[90]

In an interview with Russia Today, McCord stated that he became suicidal after the incident, and attempted suicide on two occasions.^[91]

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 2:23pm

Also, Ramona, I would like to say that in your opinions and struggles with this, what I see is a consistency of ideology of being pro-big government, a true FDR liberal, one that is far from libertarian.

I see the flip side, a severe inconsistency, in lots of the opinions of lefties at places like FDL and Modern Monetary Theory people who are highly supportive of the job guarantee theories. In that they can never seem to find any examples of anything that our federal government (as well as most other federal governments!) has done that is any good, it has all been terrible, except for a few things that FDR did, and maybe Sweden (but oh no, even Sweden wants to persecute Saint Julian Assange!) And I always think: where the heck is this ideal federal government that they are dreaming of going to come from? It's like they are always saying the federal government is idiotic in a gazillion ways to Sunday, but then in the next breath they want it to have more power over the economy and our lives than it already does....

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 1:12pm

Yes, you've got me pegged. Or I've got me pegged, I don't know which! I confess I don't understand the FDL crowd at all. If I'm guilty of giving too much credit to our government, I see them as guilty of being just the opposite. I suppose somewhere in the middle is the right course, but not many of us actually know where the middle is.

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 3:09pm

I don't spend any time, really at FDL. Of course, I've been there and read some stuff, but it's been awhile. Unless things have changed, I'd say its only supposed sin is that people there are willing to criticize Obama from the left, and we do that at Dag all the time. The difference, best I can tell, is how the rhetoric is used. We're a smaller, more selective community. You can say what you want, but you have to be prepared to meet your opponents here. And there are a lot of folks here who can 9/10 tan some one's hide in an argument.

Which is to say... I think the "firebagger" complaint about FDL takes things too far. Even when I read your more measured critique I wonder, even if they can't tell you where their mythical ideal federal government is going to come from that their complaints about the federal governments out there aren't unjustified.

Though, you're right... given what he is accused of, the St. Julian Assange stuff is, at best, unhelpful. An accused rapist, even if innocent, who claims the defense of either consent or having been set up cannot, unless vindicated by facts, expect a supportive response from progressive feminists who have seen this defense work too often in implausible circumstances.

Still, the FDLish ideal doesn't seem so bad to me.

by Michael Maiello on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 6:29pm

A similar A.P. article draws a different picture of a far-from-arrogant geek, shy but nice, humble even, with his whole family in government work:

"I'm no different from anybody else," he said in a video interview with The Guardian, seated with his back to a mirror in what appears to be a Hong Kong hotel room, the tropical sunlight filtering through a curtained window. "I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes: This is not our place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong."

and

"He's very nice, shy, reserved," Jonathan Mills, the father of Snowden's longtime girlfriend, told The Associated Press outside his home in Laurel, Md. "He's always had strong convictions of right and wrong, and it kind of makes sense, but still, a shock."

and

His father, Lonnie, was a warrant officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, since retired. His mother, Elizabeth, who goes by Wendy, went to work for the U.S. District Court in Maryland in 1998 and is now its chief deputy of administration and information technology. An older sister, Jessica, is a lawyer working as a research associate for the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, according to LinkedIn.

and four years after he left high school in sophomore year, this quote of his mocked arrogant geek/Comicon loner types:

in a post Snowden wrote for the anime website jokingly explaining his irritation with cartoon convention volunteers, he wrote: "I really am a nice guy, though. You see, I act arrogant and cruel because I was not hugged enough as a child, and because the public education system turned its wretched, spiked back on me."

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 6:51pm

This human resources question is a big one. The supply of Mormons and Catholics with mad computer skills is not that extensive, as mitt Romney found out.

by Erica (not verified) on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 6:55pm

hah!

I can recommend checking out the recruiting sub-site:

http://www.nsa.gov/careers/

It was actually kind of fun, there's lots of now ironic come-ons...

like go to the "Cyber careers" tab

http://www.nsa.gov/careers/cyber/index.shtml

and check out the "Hot Jobs" menu at right.

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 7:36pm

Cyber is a team sport? That would be fine except that most of the cyber geeks I know are not big team sport people. Being picked last kinda sours a person on that stuff.

in all seriousness, the mismatch between the job requirements and the employee pool is striking.

by Erica (not verified) on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:00am

“There were lots of discussions at N.S.A. and in the intelligence community in general about the acculturation process,” said Joel F. Brenner, a former inspector general of the agency. “They were aware that they were bringing in young people who had to adjust to the culture — and who would change the culture.”[....]

I noted that the occupations of the fathers was interesting and wondered how much influence that had on the acceptance of their sons into the 'culture'. Snowden's was a Coast Guard officer; Manning's was an intelligence analyst and ex-Navy; Boyce's was an FBI agent.

by EmmaZahn on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 7:37pm

wow, I think you found a pattern there, Emma (better watch out, NSA wants people like you....)

by artappraiser on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 9:22pm

I was just curious about how a high-school drop out working for a federal agency for 3-months was able to get and get away with sensitive data. Who vetted him? Where were the internal controls?

I first checked for any indication of direct nepotism but doubt there was any. Snowden's father was probably the last person who would have given him that high level of clearance. Most likely he was just accepted as already being a member of the culture based on his family background and already knowing its mores.

ICYMI, Time has something on his vetting: Potential Blind Spots in Clearance Process that Gave Snowden Top-Secret Access | TIME.com

by EmmaZahn on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:01am

Interesting...

by Ramona on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 11:19pm

According to the WSJ, David Petraeus' affair with Paula Broadwell was exposed during evaluation of a stalking charge. Two men who robbed a Chevy Chase, Maryland jewelry store of watches worth over $100K were tracked by the FBI via data obtained from phone companies who could track cell phone locations and match them to a chase by police.

In the pre cell phone era, SCOTUS ruled in 1979 that consumers who turned over data to phone companies could not expect privacy protection. Do the above cases represent overreach by government agencies?

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 1:02pm

Maybe we should expand the TOS of many of these Social media channels to include NO STALKING ... by any entity. We The People in pursuit of our happiness declare, the Government cannot gather and keep information in a manner that might be construed as stalking. It should be just as against the law, as it is against a pedophile who maintains records for there nefarious activities. Don't we have stalking laws?

by Resistance on Sat, 06/15/2013 - 10:12pm

Per Reuters: NSA phone number search criteria.

by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:19pm

Obama addressed this rationale for supporting FISA. He also acknowledged that his stand on FISA would lose votes.

Regarding wire taps there was an article on CNET that stated that Rep. Nadler was told that individual monitors at NSA could unilaterally decide to monitor phone calls of any US citizen. According to the CNET article, no warrant was obtained. The CNET article was written without getting clarification from Nadler. A Buzzfeed reporter contacted Nadler and noted that Nadler does not believe that NSA is monitored individual US phone calls without a warrant.

The Obama administration reported on abuses of phone monitoring in 2009. I don't see evidence that the system is being abused. Metadata is not protected by the fourth Amendment. A discussion about whether there should be limits on NSA access to that data is warranted.

So far it seems that everything that was done was legal. If the laws need to be changed, then let the discussion. If you send an email via Google to arrange a golf game or a tennis game, it is likely that you will get emails about golf or tennis equipment from a third-party. We are being monitored by the companies.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:21pm

As I posted above:

.The Supreme Court explained its pen register vs. wiretap distinction in 1979 by calling on the "third-party doctrine." Americans lose their expectation of privacy, the court reasoned, whenever they voluntarily give information to a third party, such as a phone company....link NBC News

by NCD on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:28pm

Because law enforcement was able to get the call data of one suspect of a criminal investigation without a warrant does not mean they can get the call data of every single US citizen and store it on some centralized government server, the vast majority who are not suspects of a criminal investigation. This was a 5-3 decision so its possible that such broad scope surveillance would be found unconstitutional. Since the WH has successfully stonewalled the Supreme Court that issue has never been determined.

Here is the actually case you're referring to.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630900/posts

This case presents the question whether the installation and use of a pen register 1 constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, 2 made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). [442 U.S. 735, 737]

I On March 5, 1976, in Baltimore, Md., Patricia McDonough was robbed. She gave the police a description of the robber and of a 1975 Monte Carlo automobile she had observed near the scene of the crime. Tr. 66-68. After the robbery, McDonough began receiving threatening and obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber. On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch; she did so, and saw the 1975 Monte Carlo she had earlier described to police moving slowly past her home. Id., at 70. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonough's description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. Id., at 71-72. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner, Michael Lee Smith. Id., at 72.

The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Id., at 73, 75. The police did not get a warrant or court order before having the pen register installed. The register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioner's home to McDonough's phone. Id., at 74. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioner's residence. Id., at 75. The search revealed that a page in petitioner's phone book was turned down to the name and number of Patricia McDonough; the phone book was seized. Ibid. Petitioner was arrested, and a six-man lineup was held on March 19. McDonough identified petitioner as the man who had robbed her. Id., at 70-71.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 2:32pm

This is pretty old school.

New school says you grab everyone's metadata, and if you think something looks suspicious, you just note it looked funny & start tapping the number.

Besides, who's going to question you since it's all secret anyway? Anyone who'd question it is on the same team.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 3:10pm

Yeah, but google isn't going to go through your address book and send ads for golf clubs to everyone you've ever e-mailed.

People can claim its legal but the White House has successfully stopped the Supreme Court from ever making that determination.

There's been to much abuse of the surveillance state over the years for me to feel comfortable with this level of surveillance even if the current program hasn't been abused yet.

The question I want answered is how necessary is this program. If we're going to give this much power to a secret government bureaucracy there should be overwhelming evidence of its efficacy. There's much controversy over that question. Senators Wyden and Udall released this joint statement:

“We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence. Gen. Alexander’s testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program helped thwart ‘dozens’ of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods. The public deserves a clear explanation.”

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:50pm

From a practical standpoint, unless there is evidence of abuse, there won't be a large pushback from the public. After the Boston bombing, public cameras were used to aid identification of the suspects. If we were still searching for the suspects, Homeland Security and local law enforcement would be called the Keystone Cops. Public videos do mean that we give up privacy.

The scandal in the Boston bombing was that Occupy Wall Street and not the Tsarnaev's were being tracked. This is identical to the missed warning given by an FBI agent and the Bin Laden threat prior to 911.

It seems to me that by reporting abuses to the Court, the administration was not trying to monitor individuals. The information obtain that focuses on suspected individuals requires warrants. Metadata is not covered by current law. A preemptive strike can e made about use of drones to track citizens.

Regarding the legal actions of the administration, if you are sued and believe that you have a legal standing for your actions, wouldn't you want your lawyer to try to get the case dismissed? Are you really saying that a sane lawyer would willingly go to court as the first resort?

I find that fact that corporations take my information as their own to be the core of the problem. Banks and corporations get hacked and lose customer data. These companies may or may not tell you about the breach. The government gets your data from Zuckerberg Zuckerberg considers us suckers because we don't challenge his overreach in accessing our data.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 5:20pm

Given tea party control of the house and a president and a significant number of democrats that don't share my views on many issues, from a practical standpoint I know I'm going to lose most of the battles. I don't see that as sufficient reason to stop fighting.

The fact that so many people, probably most people, willing give up their privacy to corporations is also not a good reason for me to stop trying to stop government privacy violations. I don't understand why so many blithely give up so much information to corporations. That's their choice, I've made different choices.

I know you will vehemently disagree with this, but this issue is so important to me that I would vote for the idiot Rand Paul over Feinstein if that was the choice I faced.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 7:07pm

I doubt that Diane Feinstein will be running for President. Rand Paul may self-destruct before 2016. I find a vote for Rand Paul as nauseating as you find a vote for Feinstein. I can predict that I won't be calling the person I choose to elect an idiot.

The ACLU has launched a suit. Others will follow. If there have been abuses, hopefully an investigation will bring them to light. The suits will travel their course.

I think the public knows that it's personal data is constantly under attack. There is less outrage over phone records and metadata because corporations set the tone for surveillance.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 7:37pm

It looks like the UK spied on foreign leaders at the G20 summit in London in 2009. I think we are in a new era.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:19pm

I hope Snowden, Poitras and Greenwald bought shares in Orville Redenbacher last week, because popcorn sales worldwide are about to go through the roof.

by erica20 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:40pm

I guess I'm cynical enough to believe that everyone is spying on everyone elese. Wasn't the Assange platform that there were no secrets?

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 8:55pm

How fortunate for you that you get to choose a person to elect. I've always been faced with the unpleasant decision between the lesser of two evils. I had to vote for that jerk Obama last time because that asshole Romney was even worse.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:36pm

You choose the best option. You examine whether most decisions fall into line with yours.When the politician's view differ from yours, you listen to the explanations. If the explanation doesn't pass muster, you may decide to move on. You may look at the alternatives and may decide to continue supporting the best option.

Do I go to Walmart for best prices but low wages or do I go to Costco which pays workers a live able wage? We choose the best option. We decide what is our individual best option.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/16/2013 - 9:37pm

The Swiss are not buying into Snowden's account of his exploits in Sweden.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 12:42am

Switzerland. Assange was the one with personal "exploits" in Sweden.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 12:52am

Wow, it was later than I thought. Well one is separated from Russia by Eastern Europe and the other by Finland. Obvious lapse in geography and ethnic ID.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 6:41am

Ah, in that case just look at the negatives - it'll become clearer.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 8:58am

Don't get the reference

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 9:47am

.....unless you are making a phallic reference

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:10am

You noted ethnic ID issues - with the negative, albino turns black, Nordic becomes equatorial, all those Swedes/Swiss become Zambian/Zimbabwean.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:14am

I was thinking more along the lines of chocolates and clocks versus Volvo and perhaps vodka.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:28am

I think you got it pegged, though make that "definitely vodka"

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 3:15pm

Call mining is so common that we can learn that cursi ng during calls to businesses is more common in Ohio. They don't list individual names but they do collect numbers. It is possible that the business does track individual names.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 7:09am

Janet Gunn, a young British intelligence officer released NSA documents that detailed efforts of the agency to get UN diplomats to vote in favor invading Iraq.Gunn leaked the details and was arrested. but in the end the. UK never pressed charges. Gunn has had difficulty finding work since she leaked the information. I doubt that the people setting up the program to pressure the. Diplomats faced any penalties.

I have a feeling Congress has been MIA in much of NSA oversight.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:51am

That's the downside to it: Intelligence officers who leak information will probably always have a hard time convincing a potential employer they're trustworthy. It would take a lot of convincing. . .

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:55am

Snowden is answering questions live online right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whi...

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 12:15pm

Question: What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties?

Answer:

This country is worth dying for.

by Donal on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 12:40pm

Snowden also noted that business, universities, etc. we're not legitimate military targets. He noted that these targets were off limits since we were not at war with China. I wonder where the attacks on US businesses from China fits into the not at war scenario. We do need a discussion about what the NSA does. I'm not willing to say that Snowden's alerting the Chinese fully serves the US interests that he says he cares about.

Snowden talks about being at risk of being killed if he stayed in the US. Given the history of MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, etc.who stayed in the US despite high risk of death The fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Medgar Evers just passed and this summer will be the same marker for the four little girls who died in a Birminham bombing. All I see being down for Snowden is the DOJ gearing up to extradite him back to the US.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 3:08pm

Wow, zing. Snowden is no MLK. Hey, you know who else stuck around and got killed? Jesus! Jesus didn't run to China. He was crucified. Snowden is no Jesus Christ. Yup, I made that very important comparison between Jesus Christ and Snowden and Snowden is not the son of god.

Snowden is totally discredited now. End of story.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 3:41pm

I said that I don't trust Snowden to be the arbiter of what a valid target might be. Are the universities or businesses doing military work? I suspect the Chinese and other countries are targeting the US in a similar manner.

I think that when Presidents are elected an informed in detail on perceived threats to the US and tools to combat them, they reassess what they thought prior to detailed briefings it then comes down to how far do I need to go to protect the US.

If China is attempting to access data from computers in the US, should I use only diplomatic resources, or should I respond in kind? Do I commit human forces to take out a combatant or use a drone? If the troops are compromised, we lose lives. If the drone is shot down, we lose technology. We run the risk of targeting the wrong person whether we use troops or drones. Dead is dead.

Would Rand Paul really not use metadata? Would he explain to the public why he didn't act when data was readily available warning of an attack? I raise this because in the case of both 911 and the Boston bombing there was readily available information that served as warnings. Should the warning system be tweaked so the Tssarnaev's are higher priority than Occupy Wall Street or do we chuck the entire system?

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:11pm

I said that I don't trust Snowden to be the arbiter of what a valid target might be

To be fair to him, I just read the Guardian chat, and I believe he's basically saying the exact same thing, that we shouldn't be allowing people like him to decide what a valid target should be.

by artappraiser on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:21pm

Was he an IT guy who accessed info or the person who chose targets?

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:36pm

He is saying it's a mess and basically that that distinction is not clear. And it sounds like the examples he chose are to be illustrations of that, they are not about policy preferences. This is not about ideology, he's not making policy prescriptions. Almost the opposite, he is complaining that you can't base this on policy because policy changes all the time, it's about protecting basic rights.

by artappraiser on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:50pm

P.S. Granted, he clearly personally supports more transparency as a solution, you can see that in his statements of support for Manning and Wikileaks. But anyone can take his main complaints and use them in support of strong tightening of who has security clearances for what, i.e., no more Bradley Mannings. And he continues to state that his only impulse was that in a democracy, the people should be making this decision, and they weren't even aware of the facts of what is going on. Even if you take "the people"in the representative sense, so far it does seem true that Congress isn't truly aware and understanding of what was going on.

by artappraiser on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:39pm

It is hard to argue that something is secret if possible 1 million people have security clearances at different levels.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:12pm

There are actually more than 4 million people with security clearances but the key is "different levels". Most clearances are "need to know" clearances, where the people with them only know what they need to know in order to do their jobs on a single project. Most don't have a clue about the overall project, or what other people are doing on it.

What's surprising in this study is that more than a million people hold top secret clearances. It would be almost impossible to monitor that many people, as we're learning now with the Snowden case.

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:35pm

It is especially crazy that data on citizens is parceled out to private companies.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:44pm

The contractor my husband worked for is a civilian non-profit. Sometimes they're chosen because there aren't enough government groups with their particular expertise, so they have to go outside. They aren't all Blackwaters or Halliburtons.

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 7:28pm

You are correct. We need to keep the pull out the weeds and keep the roses.

The underlying problem is not simply President specific, although I do worry less about Obama than I did Bush. Bush acted without warrants. I am sure that President elects are briefed on dangers and techniques available to thwart threats. No President wants to be the guy who let the guard down. The idea that the public would praise saving public freedom after an attack that could have been prevented by a program like PRISM is naive.

The current system needs to be modified and criteria for what is secret and not secret needs to be revamped. I think Snowden is a loose cannon who may be exaggerating his capabilities.i don't have a problem with exposing the scope of the program. Congress spent more time in attempts revoking Obamacare than on national security.

If China, Russia, Israel, etc are launching cyber-attacks, should have a similar program. I do not trust a person who decided what information he was free to pass on to another nation.

The intelligence program should be more transparent, Congress needs to asset itself in intelligence oversight, if abuses occurred in the surveillance program, they should be prosecuted. If there were outright abuses, Snowden should cut to the chase and point them out. Where individual citizens tracked illegally? If so, there a entire group of intelligence leaders who have lied.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 8:54pm

The bottom line is the House of Representatives allocates the NSA money. Our Representatives in Congress are responsible for how that money is spent.

Instead of getting in front of determining how the program is run and demanding accountability for it, they endlessly investigate Benghazi because that is where the dead bodies are, while the administration does all it can to prevent more dead bodies here in America by continuing the data mining started after 9/11. It is partisan politics and no way to run an efficient, effective government.

by NCD on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 9:21pm

What troubles me is that so few of the one million plus top security people in our spying apparatus have actually exposed wrongdoing. We may need to hire the old E Germans to monitor our growing spy pool.

I do understand the terror that some feel when an individual breaks the trust of his betters and exposes them to public scrutiny. This is very threatening to those who bow to authority and it undermines a worldview based on, Father Knows Best.

by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 7:44pm

I think that's pretty unfair. You're assuming there's wholesale wrong-doing just waiting to be exposed by patriotic thieves with a mission. I think the fairer take on this is Hendrik Hertzberg's in next week's New Yorker.

See what you think.

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 8:27pm

Yes there is plenty of corruption to be exposed and i think the coming revelations will show that fact.

Your calling whistle blowers thieves is telling, it shows your animus to transparency and freedom from government intrusion, Kill The Messenger.

I know many people want to believe we and our Imperial Regime are exceptional and anyone who challenges that myth must be silenced but the truth will set you free.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:01pm

My calling a thief a thief has nothing to do with how I feel about transparency. Or government intrusion. Snowden stole documents that didn't belong to him. What does that make him?

I can expect more transparency that we're getting now. I can also understand why not every move the government makes can be transparent. I don't know what that has to do with my feelings about Snowden. Because I don't see his actions the way you do doesn't mean I am a cheerleader for this government or that I'm somehow naive about what they're capable of doing.

I've lived through multiple administrations and I've been politically active most of my adult life. I don't know all the answers but I do know that this new trend of cheering on the stealing of government documents scares the hell out of me.

As nervous as you might be about big government coming to get you--I'm that nervous about uninformed cowboys getting into our records and spreading them far and wide.

by Ramona on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 10:43pm

I think this is were our communication and understanding breaks down. You seem to see the rule against theft as such a high order moral principle as to be virtually absolute. I don't. I see many other moral principles that can outweigh it depending on the situation. The fact that the documents were stolen means absolutely nothing to me.

I think you're coming from stage 4 in Kolhberg's theory of moral development and I simply can't relate to that.

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg%27s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%2...

by ocean-kat on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 1:35am

I think you did not read my comment before you answered it. You're putting something on me that isn't there.

by Ramona on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:15am

*NOT* end of story. Who stuck around St. Petersburg when he saw it was time for a change? Killed the Czars and his Ministers, while Anastasia screamed in vain?

There are other roles to be played, other followings to be had, presciently, the Falcon and the Snowden?

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:14pm

You have a point. This discussion of whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor is far too narrow. The real question is if he's the son of god or the devil.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:50pm

If you really were a news junkie like you have been known to claim, you'd know that currently Kanye West is the son of god and Don Draper is the son of the devil.

by artappraiser on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 4:56pm

I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't been following the very important news on the HuffingtonPost recently. I thought we all agreed after the Taylor Swift debacle that Kayne West was the devil. I guess he must have had a born again experience.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:50pm

Actually, I made the Jesus comparison. See above.

by Erica (not verified) on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:07pm

Really? I thought I was the first. I was about to say great minds think alike but I've been told I have a weird sense of humor and I don't want to tar you with that.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 5:46pm

Ocean-kat, I'd be proud to be a great mind along with you!

by Erica (not verified) on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 6:34pm

Ocean-kat, I'd be proud to be a great mind along with you!

by Erica (not verified) on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 6:36pm

Mr. Snowden looks to be a walking illustration of why the Fifth Amendment's right to remain silent is so important. I'm being sarcastic, and I'm doing so because the guy has now expanded into dimensions beyond the leak of documents relating to domestic telephone calls. Never mind the laws and oaths he may or may not have broken, I submit that Snowden is going to have a difficult time winning over hearts and minds with revelations about American spying activities in China.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 9:43pm

I suspect he's had a difficult time winning over hearts and minds his entire life.

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 9:50pm

Mmm, I don't know about that. Playwright Sam Shephard was once described as "the thinking woman's beefcake" and I think Snowden has a little of that going on.

http://asecretshop.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html

by erica20 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:54am

Well, he's bringing up an interesting point - defending our privacy but asserting the US has the right to spy on Chinese or Swedish high school students is quite perverse.

The lazy superior Americans have now accepted that we as the world's policeman can snoop on everyone but ourselves. The only reason this is unacceptable to us is there's now vast domestic snooping going on under the auspices of a foreign snooping program.

When you sponsor a gang of thugs, you're on shaky ground just because they started acting thuggish to you.

BTW, while you still have the right to remain silent, it can and will be used against you in a court of law. Welcome to 2013.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 1:00am

British authorities are scrambling to justify how they – while hosting a global economic summit in 2009 – spied on their guests with help from America’s National Security Agency. Some UK media outlets seem a little spooked themselves in getting commentary on the incident, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern writes.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/17/uk-grapples-with-spying-disclosure/

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:28pm

I just can’t accept the argument that it’s okay to leak classified information simply because the leaker thinks it’s justified, especially when he’s being set up as some kind of role model for future national security whistleblowers. You’d better have a darn good reason if you’re going to leak national security secrets, and break some major laws, while running the risk of endangering our national security.

And at this point, with these new revelations, it’s no longer clear what is motivating Edward Snowden, other than animus. And that’s not good enough to justify the actions of a man who’s starting to look less and less like Daniel Ellsberg with each new revelation.

http://americablog.com/2013/06/generation-wikileaks-why-im-losing-faith-in-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden.html

by Ramona on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:57pm

Why do you like Daniel Ellsberg? He did everything you're against.

He was just an analyst with a top secret clearance who released details of military decision making in violation of his terms of employment. That hurt our security in running the war - maybe it led to our eventual defeat and withdrawal.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 1:00am

There's a vast difference between what Daniel Ellsberg did and what Manning and Snowden have done. Ellsberg clearly agonized about certain aspects of the war in Viet Nam. He based his choices on the documents he would expose on the impact they would make on public opinion about the war. He didn't grab a bunch of other stuff to use against the government just because he could.

If Manning had stuck with the videos exposing wartime atrocities, I would have been first in line thanking him for it. But he didn't. He shipped off anywhere from 400,000 to 700,000 pieces of government material to Wikileaks without knowing what was in them or what Julian Assange would do with them.

Snowden simply wanted to bring down the NSA because he doesn't believe in surveillance or secrecy.

Big difference.

by Ramona on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 8:49am

Ramona, you nailed it.Snowden appears to operate under the idea that the US is spying in China but ignores that China is spying on us. The US should disarm. Snowden has made a point that Congressional oversight has failed. Court cases will decide how much intrusion is within the bounds of the intelligence community. He still wants to inflict more harm.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:11am

I would think most Americans would be terrified that someone like Snowden has access to these kinds of materials. He boasts that he could now reveal anything about any of us at any time. And that seems to be okay with the very same people who decry the government's supposed ability to do the same.

He does want to inflict harm and he makes no bones about it. He is in China and he has given our secret documents to members of the Chinese government. It doesn't even matter what was in them. The fact that an American citizen has given the Chinese our secret documents should send cold shivers down the spine of everyone in this country.

by Ramona on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:41am

We are in agreement. We can argue that General Alexander has too much control. We can argue that Clapper lied to Congress and should be reprimanded or fired. Congress can make Clapper an issue, but they won't We can argue that if Snowden can get security clearance, Congressional staffers with tech backgrounds can get clearance to aid their less knowledgeable Congressmen and Senators on the proper questioning of those appearing before oversight committees. That being said, we have to admit that Snowden wants to inflict harm on the NSA and does not care what the American public thinks.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 9:51am

That seems to be about it.

by Ramona on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 10:24am

You've swallowed the security bait hook, line & sinker.

5 million people have security clearances, 1/4 greater than confidential. Too many.

Much of our classified material is over-classified. And classified to save officials' embarrassment or cover up impropriety, not to serve the nation's interest. The government even treats some public information as "secret" - "don't read this or discuss this". Absurd.

Congress is supposed to have oversight, but if you listen to their statements, it's obvious most in Congress don't know the mechanices or the scale of what's going on, and even what's out now isn't the whole story to our internal tracking, surveillance & interception.

There's a huge difference between Hong Kong and "China", as Hong Kong is a relatively free world financial and business center and has a proper legal system with recourse to courts. APT/malware attacks are not coming from Hong Kong. Perhaps Snowden should be less flippant with records, but the US should be less flippant about hacking democratic countries' universities. In any case, Snowden showed IPs of machines we hacked - the same kind of "metadata" you say is so harmless when collected with Americans.

I'm sure it was those Iraqi civilians we killed in cold blood in Iraq that were to blame for being shot on - like living in the wrong country - but we took an oath to withhold any mention of our atrocities, and it only helps the enemy if someone leaks them. But you can go through proper channels to see if they can be fixed, but you'll be sent to a psychiatrist and discharged if you do try, and definitely lose your clearance.

It's amazing you can write all you write without ever worrying about the constitution and the rights of people, only the rights of government (supposedly our "public servants", but in your world, our privileged benefactors).

You know, terrorists were capable of flying planes into buildings and making IEDs in the 1950's. It's amazing we survived this long without having timestamps for every citizen's movements. We must be much safer in 2013 than we were then.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 11:43am

Your concerns are valid and should be addressed. Congress should take a stronger role. Lawsuits should be filed to fight FISA and the industrial-security complex. Or.we can wait for another Hong Kong drip, drip, drip data dump to punish the NSA.

As pathetic as Congressional hearings are, they may get some changes initiated.Lawsuits may force change. The American public is given a chance to voice his opinion.

If the majority of the American public disagrees with current policy, they do have options. If the American public disagrees with Snowden's actions, they have no voice in the matter.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 11:59am

If the government lies to the public, the public has no real voice in the matter. If the government lies to Congress with impunity, Congress can't do real oversight. Snowden's main accomplishment was exposing the lies and how big the program actually is. Now government is lying more to deny what's been divulged, but it's more obvious these are lies.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:14pm

So just forget any legal solution and just filter out information to further embarrass the NSA, the US, Obama, Bush? What is the endpoint? To me legal maneuvers make the most sense.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:29pm

One would hope that Congress would try to start doing its job, and maybe a twinge of shame & guilt would pass through the judicial branch for its crappy decisions of late, and maybe oh maybe the Executive Branch will get the idea that the more outrageous their secreting torture / eavesdropping / denial of habeas corpus / other acts against the Constitution, the more likely it is to be leaked. And maybe Americans will vote some of these bastards out of office.

Has there been a leak yet that wasn't regarding an outrageous worrisome violation of the Constitution or government / military acts that harmed our foreign policy?

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:58pm

As I said, legal action is the most logical option.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 2:16pm

Yeah, and I would have thought after the financial meltdown that thieves would have gone to jail. Sometimes logic fails.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 3:15pm

The country was attacked.Defenses were erected. A threat of attack remains. No President is going to reduce protection. Congress is not going to decrease protection. An attempt to close Guantanamo failed. There is no way Congress will cripple PRISM. The only option now is lawsuits to determine if the metadata searches and phones searches are truly legal. Everything else is theater.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 3:30pm

NSA veterans say NSA officials should face proseution.

http://warincontext.org/2013/06/17/nsa-veterans-say-nsa-leaders-should-f....

g public?

William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn’t get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general’s office didn’t pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand.

Q: So Snowden did the right thing?

Binney: Yes, I think he did.

Q: You three wouldn’t criticize him for going public from the start?

J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct.

Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making.

Wiebe: We failed, yes.

Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. … The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle.

- See more at: http://warincontext.org/2013/06/17/nsa-veterans-say-nsa-leaders-should-f...

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:10pm

Sorry, bad link. Here is the original.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistlebl...

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:19pm

Whats next? Imbed a small chip in all newborns, since births are usually a public record. If the child never does anything wrong, ever in their lives; they shouldn't fear the painless intrusion, the Nation could be convinced; it's their public and civic duty to have the chip implanted on everyone....... Maybe this could/should be in the immigration bill? .... They could track everyone's whereabouts and when a crime is committed the spy satellite could tell which individuals were at the scene of the crime and could be used to exonerate suspected criminals. No need for suspect line ups, no wrongful incarceration. All in the name of public safety and crime prevention........ Maybe we should ask Snowden, whether this technology has already been implemented? Would he be a hero or just a fly in the ointment?

by Resistance on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:42pm

Is Snowden a hero or villain, I hate that discussion. The media and many people want to paint in black and white and I just don't live in that world. I think generally Snowden has done a good thing and I respect him for it. But as I considered whether to call him a hero I realized I don't have any heroes.

Bob Schieffer on TV and rmrd here want us to know that Snowden is not MLK. And I agree. But they say it as if setting up some sort of hierarchy has some sort of meaning or value in this conversation. I don't think it does. Snowden is not Gandhi either. Gandhi and Martin Luther King jr are two men I have great respect for. They may be heroes to you but much as I respect them I can't call them heroes.

Every time I spend some time reading about some "hero" eventually, as I get deep enough, I get to the point where I know too much about the shitty things they've done to feel comfortable calling them a hero. Even MLK and Gandhi. Eventually they all look to some degree like this guy.

Too many people want to live in a world that's larger than life. They want their heroes without the flaws. I live in a world that's too complex and too full of human frailties for heroes. So I respect MLK and Gandhi for the good they've done and forgive them for their weakness and mistakes. When I weigh it their good far outweighs their bad.

Snowden has done some good imo. He's made some mistakes as I have acknowledged in previous comment. Hopefully he'll learn from them. I have little doubt he'll make some more. Hopefully they'll be minor. Hopefully in the end the good he's done will out weigh the bad.

So far, as I weigh it, his good outweighs his bad.

Full disclosure: ocean-kat is not MLK and ocean-kat is not Gandhi. In fact ocean-kat is not even that lesser man, Edward Snowden.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:48pm

I think we knew that last part, OK, but thanks for clarifying. lol.

We will differ here, too. I do think MLK and Gandhi were heroes. They were men of great courage and commitment who understood the workings of passive resistance in order to make positive, permanent change. They altered history and made government officials bow to their demands. If they did anything illegal, it usually involved nothing more than trespassing. They admonished their followers to do no harm.

But they were no saints, as we all know. News flash: There ARE no saints. Every man, woman and child has feet of clay and skeletons in the closet. We all do dumb things--things we're not proud of--but most of us, including MLK and Gandhi, stop short of stealing their country's secrets.

Can you imagine either one of them condoning what Manning and Snowden have done? I can't.

by Ramona on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:10am

And that Erin Brockovich, she pulled down a perfectly good company that gave people jobs.

And those guys who reported on Enron broke an oath to protect company information.

Question: did you vote for this government to spy on you and everyone you know? I didn't, and I thought it wasn't part of the Constitution, so I'm astounded that it gets through the courts.

Though some upper level judge the other day noted that she would never make it on those secret courts - they hand pick the most bitter conservative hard-nosed judges they can find to make sure everything is rubber stamped. Another reason why "judicial review" in this arena is flawed - it's picking the guy who thinks exactly like you to review your work.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:44am

I can't imagine why people so often put words in the month of dead people when there's no credible evidence to back it up. I think they're just projecting their own feelings onto people they respect. I can't imagine why they think it bolsters their argument.

As for MLK and Gandhi's view of Snowden and Manning. Why I'm absolutely sure that they would see it exactly as I do. Obviously they would condemn Manning and defend Snowden.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:54am

Uh, Mahatma Gandhi left the mother of his 4 children to live with a gay German body builder. He was a bastard to his family, as his letters attest. Nevertheless he did something useful for his country (even though he didn't invent the Free India Movement or Indian National Congress, and gets more credit than he deserves for the political protests). Additionally, the British had a highly evolved network of spies in India - I'm not sure Gandhi would condemn some British clerk outing details of this immoral escapade to keep the Indian people churning out 4 million pound sterling a day for Her Majesty's coffers. Would Gandhi have wanted to cover up this spy?

As for MLK, he knew how to multitask, so supported striking garbage workers and opposed our incursions in Vietnam. Do you really think he would have supported the US government in spying on the Civil Rights movement, or opposed a 1960's Snowden following his conscience to reveal how overblown J Edgar Hoover's spying operation had become? Think he would object to Snowden pointing out that this trusted friend was spying on him?

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 1:50am

According to Julian Bond the FBI's surveillance of the Civil a rights movement was taken as a given and was often the source of jokes. Hoover spent time trying to suppress Civil Rights. NSA watched Occupy Wall Street rather than the Tsarnaev's. The question becomes whether the techniques can be turned from attacking citizen protests to tracking potential threats to the US.

The FBI did finally provide aid in bringing the killers of the Chaney, Werner and Schwerner the killer of Medgar Eveirs to light. Hopefully, we an tighten the focus of NSA. The fact that the FBI had a plant in the midst of the nonviolent Civil Rights movement is texactly the point. Is the NSA gathering specific data on US citizens. The FBI plant was obviously reporting on direct conversations.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 7:10am

It's no secret that MLK was being watched by the FBI. He knew it then. But you'll never convince me that MLK would have been okay with someone like Snowden stealing government secrets. Show me something in his speeches and writings that would cause you to believe Martin Luther King would go to those lengths. He hated many things about the government and agonized over the slowness of equality but he was not a man to do anything that might smack of treachery.

by Ramona on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 7:44am

The Bush administration participated in warrant less wiretaps. The Obama DOJ reported abuses of monitoring to FISA in 2009. I see large differences between the two. MLK was dealing with an actual threat. Snowden seems to be focusing on a theoretical threat. Everything being done seems to be legal. The ACLU and others are challenging the legality in court. We shall see how the courts view the surveillance programs.

When anyone is faced with a lawsuit, a defense lawyer will think about how to get the charges dropped.The government agencies will argue to have the ACLU suit dropped. The ACLU lawyers will defend their suit. That is how the legal system works.

NSA had data before 911 that might have protected the attack. The information was not shared with other agencies. No country is going to give up surveillance. The question is what form it should take. Congress could have been more forceful in getting answers about intelligence programs, the truth is that as a group, they really didn't want to know. If we want change, pressure is going to have to be placed on individual Senators and Representatives, or a search for viable alternate political alternatives will have to be sought.

We are not in a totalitarian state. There are courts and there are elections.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 8:27am

"Everything being done seems to be legal." Oh for fuck's sakes, shoving Rosa Parks to the back of the bus was legal too, at least until they fought it through the courts after her act of civil disobedience and ensuing massive transportation strikes.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:04am

I mention MLK because he was addressing a real threat, not a theoretical threat. Rosa Parks was physically assaulted by police. Bull Connor used dogs and water hoses. Hoover used recording devices. Nixon burglarized Democratic HQ. Do we have evidence that citizens are being listened to? Do we have evidence that people are being coerced by the NSA? You see no difference between Snowden's allegations and Rosa Parks. I see a vast difference.

Nixon didn't need the Internet. Hoover didn't need the Internet. Criminals will be criminals. We do need to discuss what the limits should be but so far, we are talking about Snowden's imagination and Rosa Parks' reality. Two different things.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:25am

Ron Paul sees Obama launching a cruise missile in Hong Kong to get Snowden. Rand Paul sees Obama launching a drone attack at a San Francisco Starbucks. I see a DOJ getting ready to extradite Snowden and bring him to trial.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:30am

I'm beginning to better understand your POV and why you and others are so intent on deflecting the discussion away from the real story. As long as the target of whistleblowers was the ,Other Side, is was good and honorable but when the revelations cast clouds over our Great Leader it must be countered.

Your statement about the courts and elections is truly pathetic, I think you have been around long enough to know what a ludicrous statement that is.

What is most interesting about this bombshell leak is how so many pundits have shown their Quisling tendencies by adopting the Party Line. I guess this event has caused, what the spying programs were actually designed to accomplish, the maintenance of fear as the most powerful emotion in play.

by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:51pm

The courts are going to be the only way to find a solution to the problems. Your outrage alone is going to accomplish nothing. Congress will remain on the sidelines

What is your great solution besides name calling?

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 1:56pm

Let me walk you through the bombshell. The NSA is paying on grand scale.The NSA was created to spy on a grand scale. Most people do not believe their Internet data insecure because many people know that business where they have personally purchased items have been hacked with compromise of name, phone number and possibly credit data.

People are not shocked that the US is hacking sites.People are not shocked that China, Iran , Russia, etc. are hacking US sites. US universities help write policy for legislators US universities do military and industrial reads each. US citizens believe that US universities and corporations are getting hacked by foreign countries.US citizens are not shocked that the is hacking foreign universities.

Most US citizens think Snowden should be prosecuted. It is likely that most US citizens would want PRISM to continue if put to a vote. Where do you disagree?

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 3:03pm

I don't know what reality you inhabit Anon but where i exist we have a very corrupt legal system where money and power trump justice most of the time.

Those who are shooting at the messenger and ignoring the message are the ones using name calling, thief, traitor and narcissist are examples.

There is only one solution, Revolution!

by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 4:30pm

All righty then.

Have a nice day.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 4:55pm

Yeah, MLK was a law 'n order kind of guy - would have never condoned breaking the law, like resisting local transportation statutes, or marching to Selma without a permit (a week before a judge ruled in their favor), or supporting an illegal garbage strike in Memphis, or get arrested through demonstrations. I'm sure he was fully behind keeping secret southern government & police cooperation with the KKK and other hate groups. That would be "treachery". Nope, he recognized the slowness of equality, and respected that separate but equal lines must be drawn until we get there.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:15am

Off topic. The question is whether the MLK who kept Bayard Rustin in the shadows support releasing secret documents? Rustin had Communist/ Socialist ties and at the time of the March on Washington didn't want Rustin as a "distraction". In addition Rustin was Gay, another" distraction". Ramona's point about MLK not supporting release of secret documents is logical.

Whether the MLK who delivered the Riverside Church speech would have agreed with the release is another matter. Given his personal experience MLK may not be shocked to learn the level of surveillance. He lived with high scrutiny everyday.on the other hand, he may have been as outraged as Snowden. That does not mean that King would have approved of Snowden's flight to China and release of documents.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 9:55am

I didn't say MLK was a law and order kind of guy. I said he wouldn't have condoned what either Manning or Snowden did. When MLK decided to follow the path of passive resistance he knew he would be breaking laws. But he wasn't working against the government as a whole, he was working against unjust laws and policies.

He may have been guilty of many things, but I doubt he ever gave a second's thought to trying to take down the government. He would have hated that.

by Ramona on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 10:56pm

Snowden's trying to take down the government, or return it to being Constitutional?

Some people thought MLK was trying to destroy the country and was a Communist traitor.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 1:21pm

Snowden's trying to return the government to its constitutional origins by stealing government documents? That's incredible logic. Snowden is in China poring through the things he stole, getting ready to pass some more along, in case we didn't get the message that he is now ALL POWERFUL and we are in his control. I can see where we're much safer now, and much closer to where the founders wanted us to be.

Comparing that to nutty MLK accusations. . .I just don't know what to say. I'll pass.

by Ramona on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 8:52am

Snowden has to kill the patient to save the patient

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 10:44am

It's quite entertaining watching the hysteria displayed by some people who fear the truth. The most nefarious thing anyone can do apparently is to disrupt the Corporate News Cycle.

I imagine we will be told soon that Snowden is wearing a Mao jacket and leading an army of hackers, leakers and thieves down from the mountains marching on Washington.

I see you've discovered that the oath he took was to the constitution and not to the corporation or gov.

Since your Oath ploy fell apart now we have to accept that only the chosen elites have the right to challenge our regime and only by means approved by you.

by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 12:05pm

Snowden supplied IP addresses that he considered inappropriate targets to the Chines press. Snowden says he had high level security access. Was he aware of the level of cyber-attacks of China on the US? Are the reports of Chinese cyber-attacks fiction created by US intelligence? If the Chinese attacks are real, are the Chinese at war with us? Is the Us conducting unilateral attacks on China.

Snowden did not provide information to Ron Paul or Wyden. Snowden made his own determination of what was a valid target. He went to Hong Kong to fight extra diction. He was so afraid for his life that he checked into a Hong Kong hotel under his own name. I don't trust Snowden.

Snowden didn't trust Ron Paul enough to trust him to do the right thing with the NSA information. I don't trust Ron Paul either. Dr. Paul is part of a party actively trying to suppress votes. Before the end of the month it is likely that SCOTUS will vote 5-4 to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Once the VRA is gone, the GOP will increase its assault on minority voters. Dr Ron Paul will not lift a finger to prevent this assault, just as he has been mute during the recent Presidential election.

We still have the ability to vote the scoundrels out. If joyous believe Ron Paul is your privacy rights hero, vote for him. Dr Paul and his party want to prevent me from voting so that they can sty in power. If I can't vote, I have lost a significant part of my ability to get rid of the scoundrels. Dr Paul does not want me voting against him and will either remain silent or work with folks trying to suppress votes.

I know that you won't understand this. I don't trust Snowden. I don't trust Paul. We can have a discussion of cyber-security. I don't really expect Snowden or Paul to be major players in the discussion. This is good, because, as I said I don't trust either one. You don't understand.

this was a reply to ocean-kat

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:59am

Don't be silly. Of course I don't trust Snowden. I don't trust any politician either. I don't even trust you. I don't know Snowden. I don't know you. He's just some stranger in the news. You're just some stranger I dialog with occasionally here. I only trust people who I've had enough face to face interaction with so that they have earned my trust.

All I can do with people in the news is attempt to analyze their actions and decide if I think its in the public interest or not. If they're politicians I then vote based on that analysis.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 1:20am

I don't find Ron Paul to be in the public interest, but again I doubt that he would make it through a GOP primary system.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 1:30am

SpongeBob Snowden

by Donal on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 11:10am

Snowden is reporting that the NSA,a spy organization is actually spying. Snowden notes that the NSA is spying on China and considers it an act of war. The spying on foreign countries is legal. We are led to believe that foreign countries are spying on us and taking data from government and private industry. What limits should there be on spying on foreign identities.

Snowden says that NSA can spy on any citizen at will. He says that he had the ability to spy on any US citizen including the President. Did Snowden actually witness a security breach where a US citizen ew as unlawfully tracked? Did Snowden perform any illegal searches?

So far I have seen Snowden reveal foreign targets. We're there US targets? So far Snowden is the only one who seems to ave done something illegal based on a fear in his head.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 12:01pm

When did Snowden say that spying on China is an act of war?

I have to admit I'm surprised at the vitriol here. Others have tried and failed to address overreach in the system and requested logical technical changes that would help. See discussion in USA Today with 3 previous whistleblowers, who pretty much agree that in-system methods of complaining had failed.

I don't think it matters that much whether Snowden HAS done illegal searches, etc. His overall point there, is that there are a lot of guys just like him who COULD do the searches and since the data is raw rather than encrypted it would be easy.

Look, the guy is a sysadmin. System administrators (my guy is one) have access to everything in a system and could go get data at any time. They don't bother to snoop, because they have other things to do and they don't want to lose their jobs. (It's much like why hotel staff don't steal from customer rooms and people who work in jewelry stores don't replace the diamonds in your $500 ring with fake ones. It's not worth the effort.)

In the case of the NSA data, though, maybe it would be worth the effort--so better technical security would be a good idea!

by erica20 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 11:04am

One of the NSA whistle blowers, William Binney, thinks that Snowden has crossed the line from whistle-blower to traitor.

Snowden did point out problems. Clapper goes before Congress and lies, so he could face chargers if Congress stops focusing on masturbating fetuses. The Lawsuits have been filed which can hopefully get to the question of legality of NSA operations. The public has at least some options on the NSA.What options exist if the public decides, like William Binney, that Snowden has crossed the line and should not release more information?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 11:46am

That is true, Binney did say that. The other two disagreed, or felt that the options were so limited as to force the kind of whistleblowing that Snowden chose.

All of them pointed out that lack of confirmation/standing issues had made the progress of the lawsuits incredibly slow, which limited the options available to the public. For better or worse, Snowden has confirmed or forced officials to confirm the existence of the programs, thereby moving the whole discussion forward by leaps and bounds. The public does have more options than they did 2 weeks ago.

No matter how I squint, I can't get as excercised over the issue of the supposed revelation of US Govt hacking of Chinese systems as you and Ramona are. Every system administrator in the US has to deal every day with Chinese and Russian hacking, some of which is widely suspected of coming from "official" sources. It does level the playing field to have confirmation that the US does it too.

In any case, I think the China revelation was a kiester-saver on Snowden's part. No matter what, he's not going back to the US. He knows about China's human rights record--how could he not? So I doubt he wants to end up in China long-term. But practically speaking, he's gotta play ball with the guys who are willing to play ball with him. One already-known "revelation" helps him navigate the complex reality of the diplomatic tensions between Hong Kong, China, the US and whatever country (probably Iceland) that he wants to end up in eventually.

by erica20 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:04pm

The US & Israel created the Stuxnet virus, which launched a whole new phase of cyberwar. But that was against Iranian nuclear sites, not a college in what was a British colony until 16 years ago.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:12pm

Do you think that foreign countries are not attempting to hack US universities that harbor some of the best research minds in the world? In other words is the US the only culprit?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:23pm

Do you have any core values or is yours all "me too" or "they started it first"?

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:29pm

One core value is that if a foreign country plans to spy on US citizens, then the US should attempt to find out the goal of said country. That seems rational to me. There have been suspicions that Chinese universities are the sources for hacks in the US. In the case of foreign hacking what would be your response?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:42pm

First would be to distinguish between China & Hong Kong. If we can't get that far, the rest'll be a mess.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 3:27pm

So you are Ok with the US hacking a computer at a Chinese university?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 4:24pm

I think that any nation state (and probably some non-nation-state groups who have the finances to do so) has an interest in hacking anyone who has knowledge that they don't have. It's pretty widely understood that Russia and China do it. So confirming that the US does it too, really just fills in the dotted lines on a picture that existed already.

Also, a minor point is that Snowden didn't give or sell this secret to the Chinese exactly, he told it to everyone. (It's a little different from traditional "spying" imho.)

by erica20 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 1:56pm

Also, a minor point is that Snowden didn't give or sell this secret to the Chinese exactly, he told it to everyone. (It's a little different from traditional "spying" imho.)

I would differ with you: that is not a minor point. It may be the main point. Both "he's a hero" and "he's a criminal" people are making it, i.e., "transparency, not spying is what we need," and "what the hell did he think the job he was taking was about? it's a spying organization"

by artappraiser on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 2:14pm

Well, it's minor to me....grump grump hmph.

:^)

by erica20 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 3:05pm

He says that he had the ability to spy on any US citizen including the President. Did Snowden actually witness a security breach where a US citizen ew as unlawfully tracked?

Whether he actually witnessed it or not there's certainly credible evidence that he and others had the ability. In 2009 an NSA intelligence analyst was reading Bill Clinton's e-mails that were in the massive data base NSA collected.

Your answer always seems to be, Bush was a bastard but he's gone and you trust that Obama has fixed all the problems and there are no more abuses. given the high level of secrecy I don't trust that all the abuses were uncovered. I don't trust that all the problems have been fixed and I don't trust that there are no more abuses happening now.

Fine if you want to trust but I don't think I have to trust. I've yet to see any credible evidence that the gathering of this massive amount of data has been instrumental in stopping "dozens" of terrorist attacks, or even one.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/opinion/bergen-nsa-spying/index.html?hpt=o...

Indeed, a survey of court documents and media accounts of all the jihadist terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 by the New America Foundation shows that traditional law enforcement methods have overwhelmingly played the most significant role in foiling terrorist attacks.

Informants have played a critical role in preventing more than half of the plots by homegrown jihadist extremists since the 9/11 attacks, according to New America Foundation data. For instance, a group of Muslims from the Balkans living in southern New Jersey who were virulently opposed to the Iraq War told a government informant in 2007 they were plotting to kill soldiers stationed at the nearby Fort Dix army base.

Other investigations have relied on tips to law enforcement. Saudi student Khalid Aldawsari's plot to attack a variety of targets in Texas in 2011, including President George W. Bush's home in Dallas, was foiled when a company reported his attempt to buy chemicals suitable for making explosives.

Standard police work has also stopped plots. Kevin Lamar James, a convert to Islam, formed a group dedicated to holy war while he was jailed in California's Folsom Prison during the late 1990s. James' crew planned to attack a U.S. military recruiting station in Los Angeles on the fourth anniversary of 9/11 as well as a synagogue a month later.

Members of James' group financed their activities by sticking up gas stations, and their plans only came to light during the course of a routine investigation of a gas station robbery by local police in Torrance, California, who found documents that laid out the group's plans for mayhem.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 3:12pm

So I take it that you believe the issue needs to be taken to court? Fine with me.

I think I mentioned Bush after you listed a series of abuses that occurred during the Bush era.If the question is do I trust Obama and Holder more than Bush and Gonzales, then yes I do. I also trusted the legal decisions of Thurgood Marshall more than I do those of Clarence Thomas.

There will have to be shoe leather applied to ferreting out terrorists, but that does not mean that clues cannot be found in electronic data. In addition, the existence of foreign government based cyber- attacks means that we need a program of our own.

Technology moves on. Police on horse back were able to look over the heads of crowds and get a better view of what the crowd was doing. Are horses a violation of privacy? Video recordings allowed 24-7 views of what was going on in certain areas. Are video cameras a violation of privacy? Police have cameras at stop lights and surveillance towers of cameras watching over cities like NYC and Baltimore. Helicopters aid in monitoring traffic and chasing criminals, drones are proposed as the next level of surveillance. At which point did the line of privacy get crossed? Where do you want the line to be?

Should good shoe leather be the standard for how intelligence is gathered? Is there any level of electronic surveillance that is acceptable?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 3:39pm

You're favorite way to argue is to make up fake questions to fight that strawman instead of addressing the points people actually make. The question is not who do you trust more.

I don't think trust is part of the discussion at all. I think all this talk about trust is nonsense. I ignored it as long as I could until you threw it up in my face in a long post to me. If I trusted I'd trust Obama more than Bush but I don't trust any politician. But I do trust Peter down the street. Still, while he has my e-mail address I didn't give him the password to my account.

Yeah the NSA is not the only abuse going on in America. Its not the only problem we face. Yes police have stop light cameras. There is a lot of controversy over those cameras.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-to-rein-in-red-light-camera-abus...

If this is such an important issue to you maybe you should write a blog on it. I might even respond to a blog on that subject.

But this blog is about Snowden and the massive data collection of the NSA. This is about collecting all the metadata of every American's phone calls forever. This is about massive amounts of internet traffic of Americans being collected and stored including but not limited to Bill Clinton's e-mails which an intelligence analyst read.

That's what I'm interested in discussing in this thread. As much as you would like to turn it into a discussion of other issues like stop light cameras or stop and frisk or DWB, I'm not interested in discussing them here.

As you might have noticed from the long discussion about who Gandhi or MLK might have agreed with in the Snowden case. I'm not interested in discussing that either. But here's a thought. Maybe in your blog about stop light cameras you can tell us how Gandhi or MLK would have felt about them

by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 4:35pm

It seems to me that asking where you want to set limits is a major part of a discussion on how far privacy invasion should go. I don't see a strawman argument.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 4:38pm

The Bill Clinton email event occurred in 2005.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 5:42pm

OMG, ancient history. Something that happened at the NSA way back in 2005 has absolutely no relevance to the NSA in 2013. Might just as well talk about Matthew Lyon, sentenced to 4 months in prison under the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.

Please people, keep this discussion relevant to today. If it didn't happen 6 months ago its just not relevant. Make that 6 weeks..... better yet 6 days.

Martin Luther King wrote "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now." He didn't just focus on "now" he was "fierce" about it, so clearly he wouldn't approve of using any example from "ancient" history in this discussion of the NSA.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 6:22pm

If I point out that something happened under a prior President you dismiss it.

If I ask what limits should be set today, you say that it is off topic.

If I mention that police use video recordings of cameras outside of stores, mount cameras at traffic lights and other structures to monitor places like Manhattan and Baltimore and ask what limits their should be and how helicopter monitoring differs from drones, you say that it is off topic.

I think that there is a huge difference between the ability of a helicopter to monitor an area and a drone. I could see cases arising from actors and the paparazzi under stalking laws before the general public complains. I'm trying to get an idea of where you see the limits needing to be set.

How should we stature what the NSA gets to do online and with video monitoring? What are your limits?

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 6:38pm

Yo, ocean-kat, not much interested in your comment about the NSA, please tell me your views on how helicopter monitoring differs from drones.

And could you explain your views on stop light cameras instead of talking about the massive data collection of all American's phone call data forever?

Yes yes, I know, the NSA, but ocean-kat please take some time to address stalking laws arising from actors and paparazzi. The deeply important problem of actors and paparazzi is what you should be writing about ocean-kat.

Not interested, not now. I think I'll stick to talking about the NSA. But if the stalking laws arising from actors and paparazzi is so interesting to you, instead of asking me to write about it, write a blog yourself.

Tthe paparazzi? Really? Now I'm done with explaining how I see through your attempt to divert this discussion away from the NSA into what ever and where ever you can. Its just another side issue I don't have time to waste on. So you can have the last word.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 7:38pm

The conversation is about privacy. The NSA does data mining.What should be the limits? The FBI just admitted to the use of drones. It seemed logical that that was also part of the discussion.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/20/2013 - 9:50pm

<i>At the end of the process, every employee awarded a high security clearance signs an oath and is warned that a security breach is against the law. They will be prosecuted. </i>

Not, not per se.

"Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to pass a law that generally outlaws disclosing classified information'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

by jollyroger on Sun, 06/23/2013 - 5:45pm

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, why we have security clearances at all? What a waste of time and effort. If classified documents are fair game and can't or won't be prosecuted, why have anything classified?

Open those windows wide! Breathe that fresh air! Let it all hang out!

by Ramona on Mon, 06/24/2013 - 10:52am

Well, if you give 5 million of your most trusted acquaintances a security clearance, yes, you might expect a few gaps. Why not give all school kids one, and if they act up, we can charge them with treason, the treacherous little beasties.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/24/2013 - 11:20am

you typify the reason why without wikileaks this country is lost.

concerning Snowden, have you given any thought to why the gov't gave him the clearance? i'll give you the bottom line and let you figure out the rest. (a) the gov't is forced to hire a modicum of intellectually creative people in order to get its work done. (b) creative intellectual work requires self-respect. (c) put only ass-licking dummies at the work, and the country's security will be in danger far greater than any Snowden has caused.

the govt is no longer legal and no longer has moral authority. let the u.s. ruling class fix that, and the Snowden's will go away.

by tom arnall (not verified) on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 6:35pm

First time I've seen him comment on the oath thing (from LA Times, March 10, 2014):

"Would I do it again? Absolutely," Snowden said into the camera, in response to one of several questions submitted to him via Twitter (#AskSnowden) and screened backstage at the South by Southwest Interactive conference. "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And I saw the Constitution was being violated on a massive scale."

He warned, "If we allow the NSA to continue unrestrained, every other government will accept that as a green light to do the same."

by artappraiser on Tue, 03/11/2014 - 2:12am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 8 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 9 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 10 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 10 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 11 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day