CNN.com: NSA leaker fears for democracy

[SnyderShrugged]

 

 

 

That summary is incorrect in so many different details it's funny.

I'm curious.   would you mind listing them out in detail?

No, I will not. But go read the leaked material for yourself. It is plainly obvious that several points are so wrong it seems the author did so on purpose.

I see,   interesting that you wont detail it if it was "incorrect in so many ways its funny"

So it's interesting that I, a random poster on a message board, won't detail the obvious inaccuracies in an article? But it apparently isn't interesting that a professional writer got so many details wrong that you won't go read for yourself?

 

Here is a hint: the first bullet has at least 3 blatant inaccuracies.

Maybe some of us dont see with such absolute clarity as you on this.  Illuminate me.

[Larry]

So it's interesting that I, a random poster on a message board, won't detail the obvious inaccuracies in an article? But it apparently isn't interesting that a professional writer got so many details wrong that you won't go read for yourself?

Here is a hint: the first bullet has at least 3 blatant inaccuracies.

I'll play.

Looks, to me, like the first point is completely accurate, and that every one of its points are supported by the handy links which they provided. (Including some points of which I was unaware.)

(It's funny, how actually stating points, and supporting them, makes one appear so much more credible than, say, not even making actual claims, but instead, simply announcing that one HAS points, but will not condescend to actually make them).

Only nit I can see somebody picking is the article saying that the warrant was "on behalf of the NSA", when it might be more accurate to say "the FBI filled out the paperwork, asking for the information to be given to the NSA".

[Popeman38]

So it's interesting that I, a random poster on a message board, won't detail the obvious inaccuracies in an article? But it apparently isn't interesting that a professional writer got so many details wrong that you won't go read for yourself?

Here is a hint: the first bullet has at least 3 blatant inaccuracies.

I'll play.

Looks, to me, like the first point is completely accurate, and that every one of its points are supported by the handy links which they provided. (Including some points of which I was unaware.)

(It's funny, how actually stating points, and supporting them, makes one appear so much more credible than, say, not even making actual claims, but instead, simply announcing that one HAS points, but will not condescend to actually make them).

Only nit I can see somebody picking is the article saying that the warrant was "on behalf of the NSA", when it might be more accurate to say "the FBI filled out the paperwork, asking for the information to be given to the NSA".

Really? Completely accurate? Based on what? Your analysis of the actual leaked document? If you had read the documents and the original Greenwald article, the errors in the first bullet should be glaring.

[Larry]

Really? Completely accurate? Based on what? Your analysis of the actual leaked document? If you had read the documents and the original Greenwald article, the errors in the first bullet should be glaring.

Yeah, I read the document.

It was in those convenient links that the article had, to support the points that they actually made.

How about climbing down off that high horse, making a point, and defending it?

[Popeman38]

It was in those convenient links that the article had, to support the points that they actually made.

How about climbing down off that high horse, making a point, and defending it?

If you read what you claimed to have read, these are blaring inaccuracies. Some of them are straight conjecture of the writer(s) of different articles not supported by the documentation itself.

[Larry]

Cell phone records? Subscribers? Specifically requested? Disregarding?

Point? Sentence? Noun? Verb?

[Popeman38]

Point? Sentence? Noun? Verb?

I pointed out the errors. Like you wanted. If you read the documents, those are glaring inaccuracies. That is all I am saying.

[SnyderShrugged]

 

Cell phone records? Subscribers? Specifically requested? Disregarding?

Point? Sentence? Noun? Verb?

I pointed out the errors. Like you wanted. If you read the documents, those are glaring inaccuracies. That is all I am saying.

for something thats supposedly "glaring" it sure seems awfully dim.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Pope, from someone who is trying to understand both sides, is there a reason you are being so coy about just describing what you believe you see as inaccuracies?

[Popeman38]

Pope, from someone who is trying to understand both sides, is there a reason you are being so coy about just describing what you believe you see as inaccuracies?

Coy? I am not going to post a copy of the leaked documents. All you have to do is read them. If you read them, I think one can clearly understand how this summary is wrong. I pointed out the inaccuracies. If people want to claim my points are wrong, that's fine. What I said is all I am saying on the matter.

 

 

Cell phone records? Subscribers? Specifically requested? Disregarding?

Point? Sentence? Noun? Verb?

I pointed out the errors. Like you wanted. If you read the documents, those are glaring inaccuracies. That is all I am saying.

for something thats supposedly "glaring" it sure seems awfully dim.

You are too smart to not spot the inaccuracies if you read the leaked documents and the Greenwald story. They are obvious.

[SnyderShrugged]

Pope, from someone who is trying to understand both sides, is there a reason you are being so coy about just describing what you believe you see as inaccuracies?

Coy? I am not going to post a copy of the leaked documents. All you have to do is read them. If you read them, I think one can clearly understand how this summary is wrong. I pointed out the inaccuracies. If people want to claim my points are wrong, that's fine. What I said is all I am saying on the matter.

> 

 

 

Cell phone records? Subscribers? Specifically requested? Disregarding?

Point? Sentence? Noun? Verb?

I pointed out the errors. Like you wanted. If you read the documents, those are glaring inaccuracies. That is all I am saying.

for something thats supposedly "glaring" it sure seems awfully dim.

You are too smart to not spot the inaccuracies if you read the leaked documents and the Greenwald story. They are obvious.

 

I must not be that smart because I'm honestly having trouble seeing the glaring and obvious inaccuracies.   I read all the links and havent seen where anything was off thus far, but maybe I am seeing it wrong.  

 

 Help a guy out here and please detail the specifics (and maybe include a link that provides better clarity) that you are referring to.

[mistertim]

Interesting...

 

WaPo: Snowden voiced contempt for leakers in newly disclosed chat logs from 2009

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/snowden-voiced-contempt-for-leakers-in-newly-disclosed-chat-logs-from-2009/2013/06/26/e88f7412-de8e-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story_1.html

 

When he was working in the intelligence community in 2009, Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who passed top-secret documents to journalists, appears to have had nothing but disdain for those who leaked classified information, the newspapers that printed their revelations, and his current ally, the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, according to newly disclosed chat logs.

 

Snowden, who used the online handle “TheTrueHOOHA,” was particularly upset about a January 2009 New York Times article that reported on a covert program to subvert Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, according to the logs, which were published Wednesday by Ars Technica, a technology news Web site.

 

“They’re reporting classified [expletive],” Snowden wrote. “You don’t put that [expletive] in the NEWSPAPER.”

 

At the time of the posting, in January 2009, Snowden was 25 years old and stationed in Geneva by the CIA.

 

“Are they TRYING to start a war?” he asked of the New York Times. “Jesus christ they’re like wikileaks.”

 

Snowden’s libertarian and dogmatic online persona adds to the emerging portrait of a shape-shifting young man whose motivations and decision-making remain in flux.

 

Of course, not that this invalidates anything he disclosed. But it is interesting because I'm still trying to figure out what his deal is...lots of contradictions in his actions, words, and past it seems.

 

 

Found this part...uh...interesting...

 Snowden’s postings offer some glimpses into his political opinions. He admired Rep. Ron Paul — calling him “dreamy” 

 

 

:paranoid:  

 

 

[Larry]

Of course, not that this invalidates anything he disclosed. But it is interesting because I'm still trying to figure out what his deal is...lots of contradictions in his actions, words, and past it seems.

 

Well, from my knowledge of intelligence operations (I've read several Tom Clancey books), I recall reading that, supposedly, the motives for someone becoming an intel source are MICE

Money

Ideology

Conscience

E . . . h, I forget.

[visionary]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/ecuador-us-trade-pact-edward-snowden

Ecuador breaks US trade pact to thwart 'blackmail' over Snowden asylum

 

Ecuador has ramped up its defiance of the US over Edward Snowden by waiving preferential trade rights with Washington even as the whistleblower's prospect of reaching Quito dimmed.

 

President Rafael Correa's government said on Thursday it was renouncing the Andean Trade Preference Act to thwart US "blackmail" of Ecuador in the former NSA contractor's asylum request.

 

Officials, speaking at an early morning press conference, also offered a $23m donation for human rights training in the US, a brash riposte to recent US criticism of Ecuador's own human rights record.

 

Betty Tola, the minister of political coordination, said the asylum request had not been processed because Snowden, who is believed to be at Moscow airport, was neither in Ecuador nor at an Ecuadorean embassy or consulate. "The petitioner is not in Ecuadorean territory as the law requires."

 

Tola also said Ecuador had not supplied any travel document or diplomatic letter to Snowden, who is reportedly marooned in Moscow airport's transit lounge because his US passport has been invalidated.

 

[visionary]

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19174350-ex-pentagon-general-target-of-leak-investigation-sources-say?lite

Ex-Pentagon general target of leak investigation, sources say

 

Legal sources tell NBC News that the former second-highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military is now the target of a Justice Department investigation into an alleged leak of classified information about a covert U.S. cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program.

 

According to legal sources, retired Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been notified that he’s under investigation for allegedly leaking information about a massive attack using a computer virus named Stuxnet on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gen. Cartwright, 63, becomes the latest alleged leaker targeted by the Obama administration, which has already prosecuted or charged eight individuals under the Espionage Act.

 

Last year, the New York Times reported that Cartwright, a four-star general who was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 2007 to 2011, conceived and ran the cyber operation, called Olympic Games, under President Bush. President Obama ordered the cyberattacks sped up, and in 2010 an attack using the Stuxnet worm temporarily disabled 1,000 centrifuges that the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

 

The Times story included details of the Olympic Games operation, including the cooperation of Israeli intelligence. The story said that President Barack Obama had ordered the attacks, which began during the Bush administration, to continue even after Stuxnet “escaped” from the Natanz nuclear plant in Iran and began to spread via the Internet. The virus was first publicly identified by a computer security company in June 2010.

 

 

 

[Larry]

Well, at least it looks like they aren't just going after leakers who embarrass the administration. 

 

Looks like the CnC actually takes classified information seriously. 

 

(Although, I'd really prefer if these investigations weren't public, for lots of reasons.  Just as a general rule, I tend to think that people like the FBI should say absolutely nothing about investigations, until they publicly change somebody with something.  For one thing, to avoid stigmatizing people who they investigate, but don't find anything dirty against.) 

[visionary]

Well, at least it looks like they aren't just going after leakers who embarrass the administration. 

 

Looks like the CnC actually takes classified information seriously. 

 

(Although, I'd really prefer if these investigations weren't public, for lots of reasons.  Just as a general rule, I tend to think that people like the FBI should say absolutely nothing about investigations, until they publicly change somebody with something.  For one thing, to avoid stigmatizing people who they investigate, but don't find anything dirty against.) 

 

It seems like there's an awful lot of leaks going on lately though, or maybe we just usually don't hear about them or people being investigated for them.

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/company-allegedly-misled-government-about-security-clearance-checks/2013/06/27/dfb7ee04-df5c-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

Company allegedly misled government about security clearance checks

 

Federal investigators have told lawmakers they have evidence that USIS, the contractor that screened Edward Snowden for his top-secret clearance, repeatedly misled the government about the thoroughness of its background checks, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

The alleged transgressions are so serious that a federal watchdog indicated he plans to recommend that the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees most background checks, end ties with USIS unless it can show it is performing responsibly, the people said.

 

Cutting off USIS could present a major logistical quagmire for the nation’s already-jammed security clearance process. The federal government relies heavily on contractors to approve workers for some of its most sensitive jobs in defense and intelligence. Falls Church-based USIS is the largest single private provider for government background checks.

 

[Passepartout]

NSA leaker wants to hide in Ecuador on the condition of asylum. But he is now the FBI's most wanted man in the world! A country would be crazy to give him immunity.

[visionary]

NSA leaker wants to hide in Ecuador on the condition of asylum. But he is now the FBI's most wanted man in the world! A country would be crazy to give him immunity.

Why would they have to be crazy? 

No one seems too worried other than us.

Internationally he's viewed as a hero.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

The Criminal N.S.A.

 

THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”

 

t didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have called the surveillance legal. So have liberal-leaning commentators like Hendrik Hertzberg and David Ignatius.

 

This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.

 

-----

Jennifer Stisa Granick is the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Christopher Jon Sprigman is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

[mistertim]

NSA leaker wants to hide in Ecuador on the condition of asylum. But he is now the FBI's most wanted man in the world! A country would be crazy to give him immunity.

Plenty of countries would love the chance to essentially stick their finger in our eye and laugh when we can't do anything about it. What are we going to do, start bombing a country because they have one of our fugitives and are giving him asylum? Ground invasion? Hell, even any kind of sanctions for something like that would make us look petty and stupid on the world stage. We're left with "strongly worded statements of disapproval about the level of cooperation" and other diplo-speak. 

 

And it figures that the countries who seem ok with the possibility of covering for him are ones that tend have pretty crappy records on either human rights and/or freedom/civil liberties. China, Russia, Equador; none of them are what I'd call exemplars of freedom. But they get to look the part and denounce the US for this program...pretty much works all in their favor.

[SkinsHokieFan]

ols at USIS

 

They are located here in Tysons and just a POS company in general and treat the investigators like garbage (terrible pay, ridiculous deadlines, etc)

 

About time that company is put to rest

[fansince62]

 

 

It may or may not.  However, generally you expect less loyalty from mercenaries than lifers.

Like Jonathan Pollard? Aldrich Ames? Robert Hannsen? Bradley Manning?

Fair enough, but I put a bunch of qualifiers in my sentence.  You would hope for more loyalty from a Marine, for example, than an ordinary citizen.  It may not be the case, but I think it would be the general assumption.  Sort of like you expect more emotional maturity from a Redskins' fan than from an Eagles' fan.  There are exceptions, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.

 

Absolutely not. The average government employee has not had the training of a Marine. Using the example of Snowden to point the finger at contractors is a slur promoted by government unions and their shills.

 

It's a ludicrous assumption that two people with the same background (SNowden was a government employee until very recently) have different trustworthiness simply because of the tradeoff they have chosen in terms of employment stability, retirements benefits and their remuneration structure.

agree. more directly, in theory, they go through the same vetting process. and security training.

NSA leaker wants to hide in Ecuador on the condition of asylum. But he is now the FBI's most wanted man in the world! A country would be crazy to give him immunity.

Plenty of countries would love the chance to essentially stick their finger in our eye and laugh when we can't do anything about it. What are we going to do, start bombing a country because they have one of our fugitives and are giving him asylum? Ground invasion? Hell, even any kind of sanctions for something like that would make us look petty and stupid on the world stage. We're left with "strongly worded statements of disapproval about the level of cooperation" and other diplo-speak. 

 

And it figures that the countries who seem ok with the possibility of covering for him are ones that tend have pretty crappy records on either human rights and/or freedom/civil liberties. China, Russia, Equador; none of them are what I'd call exemplars of freedom. But they get to look the part and denounce the US for this program...pretty much works all in their favor.

and the flip side: we have amateurs at the helm who 1) have ceded power; 2) don't know how to exercise power.

NSA leaker wants to hide in Ecuador on the condition of asylum. But he is now the FBI's most wanted man in the world! A country would be crazy to give him immunity.

Why would they have to be crazy? 

No one seems too worried other than us.

Internationally he's viewed as a hero.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

> 

The Criminal N.S.A.

 

THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”

 

t didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have called the surveillance legal. So have liberal-leaning commentators like Hendrik Hertzberg and David Ignatius.

 

This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.

 

-----

Jennifer Stisa Granick is the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Christopher Jon Sprigman is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

 

what specific technologies have been employed and how are they being used?

[skinsmarydu]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/29/19189848-tgi-fridays-irish-pubs-and-free-wi-fi-welcome-to-edward-snowdens-airport-hideaway?lite

 

Update.

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/us/snowden-lawyer-offer/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

Father proposes deal for Snowden's voluntary return

 

The father of Edward J. Snowden has offered federal authorities a deal that he says would likely lead the accused leaker to return voluntarily to the United States to face espionage charges.

 

The proposal was laid out in a letter, dated Thursday and obtained Friday by CNN's "Amanpour," addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder and written by Bruce Fein, a Washington-based lawyer for Snowden's father, Lonnie G. Snowden.

 

It demands that the former National Security Agency computer contractor who exposed details about U.S. surveillance programs remain free prior to trial; not be subject to a gag order; and be tried in a place of his choosing.

 

It further demands that, if any of those promises is broken, the prosecution would be dismissed.

LOL, this has no chance of happening. 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/29/us-usa-security-ecuador-idUSBRE95S0CC20130629

Biden asked Ecuador not to give Snowden asylum: Correa

 

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa on Saturday said the United States asked him not to grant asylum for former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden in a "cordial" telephone conversation he held with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

 

Correa said he vowed to respect Washington's opinion in evaluating the request. The Andean nation says it cannot begin processing Snowden's request unless he reaches Ecuador or one of its embassies.

 

Snowden, who is wanted by the United States for leaking details about U.S. communications surveillance programs, is believed to still be in the Moscow international airport after leaving Hong Kong.

 

"He communicated a very courteous request from the United States that we reject the (asylum) request," Correa said during his weekly television broadcast, praising Biden's good manners in contrast to "brats" in Congress who had threatened to cut trade benefits over the Snowden issue.

 

Biden initiated the phone call, Correa said.

 

"When he (Snowden) arrives on Ecuadorean soil, if he arrives ... of course the first opinions we will seek are those of the United States," Correa said.