May be of interest to some here: http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277.html
Still a douchebag.
Nope, I don't have time for that.
I'm not really interested in hearing his attempts to make himself look principled and justified in order to hide the fact that he just wanted to be famous.
It was an interesting interview, but I think it avoided some of the tougher questions, and let him get away with stating the most positive case for himself. For example, some of Snowden's revelations concerned spying on potential enemy nations. His off-hand statement that his revelations didn't hurt our national security are hard to believe, and impossible to confirm in such a short period of time anyway.
Especially given that just tonight some documents have gone round the internet that were redacted but could be copy-and-pasted to reveal the names of NSA and GCHQ employees. Basically exactly what Snowden and Greenwald have said they were always careful to avoid.
Transcript of interview:
"I'm cold,' Snowden said softly, 'I'm cold.'
'You're going to be all right, kid,' Yossarian reassured him with a grin. 'You're going to be all right.'
'I'm cold,' Snowden said again in a frail, childlike voice. 'I'm cold.'
'There, there,' Yossarian said, because he did not know what else to say. 'There, there.'
'I'm cold,' Snowden whimpered. 'I'm cold.'
'There, there. There, there.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2014, 09:10:59 PM
It was an interesting interview, but I think it avoided some of the tougher questions, and let him get away with stating the most positive case for himself. For example, some of Snowden's revelations concerned spying on potential enemy nations. His off-hand statement that his revelations didn't hurt our national security are hard to believe, and impossible to confirm in such a short period of time anyway.
Yeah, I feel now that his motives were as much or more to sabotage US intel gathering and give the info to US opponents, rather than any grand interest in exposing wrong doing by NSA. He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices. He may have exposed workings that go too far domestically but he did irreparable damage to US intel gathering vs terrorists, and nations not so friendly to US interests.
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2014, 11:34:34 AM
He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices.
To be fair, what choice did he have? The enemies of US are your only potential allies when US decides you are its enemy, and Snowden would've been the enemy of the state even if his disclosure were 100% perfectly surgical in blowing the whistle on the bad stuff.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2014, 11:34:34 AM
He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices.
To be fair, what choice did he have? The enemies of US are your only potential allies when US decides you are its enemy, and Snowden would've been the enemy of the state even if his disclosure were 100% perfectly surgical in blowing the whistle on the bad stuff.
Look up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.
Edward Snowden still thinks very well of Edward Snowden.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2014, 11:34:34 AM
He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices.
To be fair, what choice did he have? The enemies of US are your only potential allies when US decides you are its enemy, and Snowden would've been the enemy of the state even if his disclosure were 100% perfectly surgical in blowing the whistle on the bad stuff.
If he had to go outside the US, then of course he went to opponents, or those nations who were less likely to turn him over to the US. But if he was all about the domestic privacy then I have to think that he had other alternatives within the US justice department or what ever is in place for whistle blower protection. But he also turned over so much other sensitive intel data, beyond domestic privacy, for the world to see.
At least Snowden gets called to interviews.
Thanks interview's interesting, though not as tough as I'd like (also where did the guy get the idea the British government can't spy on Brits: MI5? :blink:). I totally agree with Snowden here though 'In general, I would say it highlights the dangers of privatising government functions' :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 02:45:24 PM
Thanks interview's interesting, though not as tough as I'd like (also where did the guy get the idea the British government can't spy on Brits: MI5? :blink:). I totally agree with Snowden here though 'In general, I would say it highlights the dangers of privatising government functions' :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 28, 2014, 01:34:22 PM
At least Snowden gets called to interviews.
:lol: Long term unemployed nutpuncher.
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2014, 11:34:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2014, 09:10:59 PM
It was an interesting interview, but I think it avoided some of the tougher questions, and let him get away with stating the most positive case for himself. For example, some of Snowden's revelations concerned spying on potential enemy nations. His off-hand statement that his revelations didn't hurt our national security are hard to believe, and impossible to confirm in such a short period of time anyway.
Yeah, I feel now that his motives were as much or more to sabotage US intel gathering and give the info to US opponents, rather than any grand interest in exposing wrong doing by NSA. He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices. He may have exposed workings that go too far domestically but he did irreparable damage to US intel gathering vs terrorists, and nations not so friendly to US interests.
Still waiting for all the dead people and huge harm the wikileaks thing caused. Probably be waiting around for this one to. Oh all the irreparable harm! The chicken-little act is getting a bit old.
Meanwhile we finally get information disclosed the goverment should have disclosed anyway. Maybe they should be forthwright about their policies that abuse their own citizens and fewer things like this might happen?
QuoteLook up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.
Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit. Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.
The Wikileaks stuff was low grade stuff--diplomatic dirty laundry.
How exactly would we go about determining which terrorist attacks would have been prevented if they had not known about NSA surveillance of their calls and emails? An anonymous phone survey of terrorists?
Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2014, 10:11:15 PM
Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit. Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.
No kidding.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 10:29:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2014, 10:11:15 PM
Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit. Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.
No kidding.
How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2014, 10:11:15 PM
Still waiting for all the dead people and huge harm the wikileaks thing caused. Probably be waiting around for this one to. Oh all the irreparable harm! The chicken-little act is getting a bit old.
Meanwhile we finally get information disclosed the goverment should have disclosed anyway. Maybe they should be forthwright about their policies that abuse their own citizens and fewer things like this might happen?
QuoteLook up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.
Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit. Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.
http://www.newsweek.com/taliban-seeks-vengeance-wake-wikileaks-71659 Here's a dead guy.
Quotefter WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to "punish" any Afghan listed as having "collaborated" with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province's embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:31:26 PM
How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?
9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 10:39:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:31:26 PM
How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?
9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.
In retrospect aka today (when such policies that V is concerned about are in place) we know which one was more deadly.
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:42:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 10:39:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:31:26 PM
How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?
9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.
In retrospect aka today (when such policies that V is concerned about are in place) we know which one was more deadly.
What are you suggesting?
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.
he has a tendency to distrust the government, so it makes sense
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2014, 11:37:47 PM
What are you suggesting?
I think it isn't surprising (or necessarily problematic) that the gov't would adopt more heavy handed measures in the face of a threat that actually saw several thousand people die on American soil vs. a threat that never actually materialized.
Also, I'd guess that it is easier these days to do said spying given how we are all freely putting said information out there.
That's not to say that we shouldn't have discussions about what is reasonable and allowable for our gov't to do but the Cold War comparison seems to me...off key.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 28, 2014, 11:45:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.
he has a tendency to distrust the government, so it makes sense
I would think I've demonstrated that tendency as well.
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2014, 11:37:47 PM
What are you suggesting?
I think it isn't surprising (or necessarily problematic) that the gov't would adopt more heavy handed measures in the face of a threat that actually saw several thousand people die on American soil vs. a threat that never actually materialized.
Also, I'd guess that it is easier these days to do said spying given how we are all freely putting said information out there.
That's not to say that we shouldn't have discussions about what is reasonable and allowable for our gov't to do but the Cold War comparison seems to me...off key.
I think it is just kind of apples and oranges. The Cold War threat was a existential threat from an outside nation state with well understood means of executing that threat, if necessary. You did not need added domestic surveillance or additional and questionable "shadow war" powers to combat that threat, but to the extent that those thing WERE needed at times, note that the US did in fact engage in them to the extent of our capability.
The idea that the reaction to 9/11 from an intelligence standpoint is somehow some kind of fundamental evidence that US intelligence services all went crazy or irrationally hysterical is just plain stupid.
They will take as much power as we are willing to give them to do their jobs. In the service of the Cold War, they did shit all the time that was probably illegal, or of at least very questionable legality. I don't know what rose colored glasses Seedy and the like are wearing when they think of Cold War era intelligence and counter intelligence. After all, it was Cold War intel that decided the US needed to dump a million men into Vietnam.
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 12:04:48 AMI would think I've demonstrated that tendency as well.
iirc you tend to be a bit more rational, though
Well terrorism and nuclear war can be somewhat analogous to house fires and a nuclear meltdown. There has been a great deal of concern over nuclear meltdown in this country despite it never happening and very low chance of it actually happening. If one occurs it would be catastrophic. On the other hand house fires are fairly common, and have claimed quite a few lives, but are in potential less catastrophic. Terrorism attacks have occurred, and will occur in the future. You can't prevent all of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 12:54:00 AM
Well terrorism and nuclear war can be somewhat analogous to house fires and a nuclear meltdown. There has been a great deal of concern over nuclear meltdown in this country despite it never happening and very low chance of it actually happening. If one occurs it would be catastrophic. On the other hand house fires are fairly common, and have claimed quite a few lives, but are in potential less catastrophic. Terrorism attacks have occurred, and will occur in the future. You can't prevent all of them.
True. 9/11 was a house fire.
The only thing I'm interested in is whether Mr Snowden has any opinion on the hospitality, acommodations and food of Hong Kong.
If garbon was shot at while walking home, but wasn't hit, and then got a paper cut once home, he would obviously be more worried about the danger paper brings.
Love seeing the trivialization of deaths going on. 9/11 is now a paper cut?
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 09:07:02 AM
Love seeing the trivialization of deaths going on. 9/11 is now a paper cut?
Compared to the scale of destruction that the war brings, yes. Or compared to the scale of destruction that an over-reaction to 9/11 brought just to ourselves, for that matter.
The scale of destruction from domestic surveillance?
The counter-productive over-reaction to 9/11 wasn't limited to domestic surveillance, unfortunately.
I agree with this Edward Lucas piece:
QuoteSnow Job
It's time to blow the whistle on Edward Snowden.
By EDWARD LUCAS January 28, 2014
LONDON
Anyone who has seen the Bourne Identity, or scores of similar Hollywood films, finds Edward Snowden a familiar character. The fugitive insider is the star. The rogue agency is the villain in pursuit. By the closing credits, the hero will be vindicated, thanks to media coverage and belated congressional scrutiny. He gets the girl. Generals James Clapper and Keith Alexander—or their screen counterparts—take a perp walk.
It is easy to go along with that narrative, particularly if you are a journalist. Our trade instinctively sides with David, not Goliath. We thrill to the idea of disclosing secrets. We flinch at any constraint on press freedom. The thought of British spooks attacking a Guardian computer with an angle-grinder in the name of safeguarding secrets that have already been copied and stashed elsewhere seems as grotesque as it is pointless.
But I disagree. The theft and publication of secret documents, as my new book, The Snowden Operation, argues, is not a heroic campaign but reckless self-indulgence, with disastrous consequences. Snowden and his accomplices deserve censure, not applause.
Snowden claims the moral high ground. In a recent softball interview with German television, he claimed that the National Security Agency was involved in scandalous industrial espionage. In a live Q&A on his supporters' website, he decried "unaccountable senior officials authorizing these unconstitutional programs." His revelations continue, most recently via NBC and the Guardian, claiming among other things that the NSA uses the "Angry Birds" video game to track its targets (though closer scrutiny of the material suggested a different story).
The furor is misleading, though. In judging the action of whistle-blowers, three criteria apply. They must have clear and convincing evidence of abuse. Publishing the information must not pose a disproportionate threat to public safety. And the leak must be as limited in scope and scale as possible. Snowden failed all three of these tests.
The documents published thus far do not depict a rogue agency. They indicate—with partial, out-of-date and ambiguous evidence, mostly consisting of out-of-context presentation slides—that the NSA has plenty of flaws. How could it not? Like other government agencies and bureaucracies, it pushes the limits of its regulatory, political and judicial constraints. That is not surprising. Like people everywhere, NSA officials brag. They make mistakes (and get disciplined for them). Again, not too surprising.
To justify even a limited breach of secrecy, Snowden would need to prove something far more: evidence of systematic, gross wrongdoing, based on wilful contempt for judicial, legislative and political oversight. In such circumstances, the actions of a Daniel Ellsberg can be justified.
But nothing published by Snowden shows that. The NSA revealed in these documents looks nothing like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. And Barack Obama, for all his faults, is not Richard Nixon, using the power of the state to go after his domestic enemies. On the contrary: The United States has put the most elusive and lawless part of government—intelligence—into the strongest system of legislative and judicial control anywhere in the world. Some want it still stronger (I think it's too cumbersome and intrusive). But such questions are for the political process to settle. They do not justify catastrophic and destructive leaking.
The Snowdenistas' second line of defense is that they have at least sparked a debate. But a public discussion, and limited reforms, on issues such as the use of National Security Letters (secret FBI orders to force people and businesses to cooperate with law enforcement), the privacy risks of warehousing metadata and whether "zero-day" exploits (vulnerabilities in computer hardware and software) should be instantly patched or exploited for espionage—are limited benefits, not overwhelming ones. They do not justify catastrophic damage either. The question of whether we house telephone metadata at the NSA or house it at tech companies is not exactly the difference between tyranny and freedom.
Nor does impact alone justify the actions of the Snowdenistas' media accomplices. Journalism operates in a moral framework. Every potential story has a source and an effect. A responsible editor considers both—and not just the sizzle of the material itself. Simply arguing that a story will interest the public betrays the media's claim to be taken seriously. The defense that there is no point turning down a scoop because another outlet will publish it is even more fatuous.
The Snowdenistas have not only failed to prove that the NSA is out of control, or that it intrudes on Americans' personal privacy. They have also published material that has nothing to do with these issues. Why is it in the public interest to reveal how honest, law-governed countries spy on corrupt, authoritarian ones? The Snowden revelations about Norwegian and Swedish intelligence cooperation with the NSA against Russia, published by the Dagbladet newspaper in Oslo and Swedish television, respectively, are the most glaring example of the thoughtlessness of the Snowden approach. These countries have every reason to be worried about Russia. Their agencies operate under democratic control – and with strong public support. But for the Snowdenistas, the only thing that matters is that they cooperate with the NSA, the Great Satan of the intelligence world. It is worth noting that America is at the heart of the world's only successful no-spy agreements, with its close allies – notably Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. A list of countries that would trust Germany or France not to spy on them would be rather shorter.
Other disclosures are similarly hard to justify. Why is it in the public interest to reveal how the NSA intercepts e-mails, phone calls and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan, as the Washington Post did, or to show that the agency is intensifying scrutiny on the security of that country's nuclear weapons? Snowden even revealed details of how the NSA hacks into computers and mobile phones in China and Hong Kong—hardly whistleblowing stuff.
It is fatuous for Snowden's allies to say that they are keeping the stolen material safe from hostile intelligence agencies. Few outsiders would suggest they have the skills or knowledge necessary to do so. With equal fatuity, they assert that they redact the published material so as not to breach security. How can they possibly know what will be damaging and what may be harmless? In any case, their technical ability seems not to extend even to deleting an agent's name from an Adobe Acrobat file.
Snowden's leaks have weakened Western security relationships, corroded public trust, undermined the West's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and paralyzed our intelligence agencies. The Snowdenistas seem oblivious to this. Like the anti-nuclear campaigners of the 1980s, or the anti-capitalist protestors of more recent years, they see Western faults with blinding clarity, but forget that we have enemies and competitors. When we stumble—or are tripped—they advance.
All this neatly and suspiciously fits the interests of one country, Russia—which just happens to be where Snowden arrived in such curious circumstances, and now lives in such strange secrecy. Based on 30 years of experience dealing with friendly and hostile intelligence in the Cold War and afterwards, I am stunned that colleagues who are so extraordinarily paranoid about the actions of their own governments are so trusting when it comes to the aims and capabilities of the Russian authorities. (Scanty clues, which I detail in the book, suggest that Snowden lives either in or near the Russian foreign intelligence headquarters in Yasenevo in southern Moscow.)
The political agendas of the most ardent Snowdenistas—people such as the bombastic Brazil-based blogger Glenn Greenwald, the hysterical hacktivist Jacob Appelbaum and the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange—cloak extreme and muddled beliefs in the language of privacy rights, civil liberties and digital freedoms—a naive and one-sided attitude exemplified by the Norwegian Socialist Left Party's nomination of Snowden for the Nobel Peace prize. To expose and attack the security and intelligence services of democracies, while sheltering in the capital of a country that habitually menaces its neighbours, is an odd way of promoting world peace. A political party based on these quasi-anarchist, nihilist ideas would get nowhere. Yet they are bringing about the greatest peacetime defeat in the history of the West.
My argument does not rest on whispers from the shadows: It is based on publicly available facts, plain for everyone to see. Snowden and the Snowdenistas are not on noble crusade; they at best "useful idiots," at worst engaged in sabotage and treason. Someone should make a Hollywood film about it.
Edward Lucas is senior editor at the Economist. He tweets as @edwardlucas. His new book, the Snowden Operation, is available at amazon.com.
I also thought this piece on the politics of Snowden, Greenwald and Assange quite interesting:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
I am continually amazed at the Wests ability to hamstring itself time and again. You see it with Snowden, you see it with how the liberal world looks at American military power, etc., etc.
Thanks for posting that Jake. Interesting read. I wish the interviewer had acting more like an interviewer and less like a soft ball pitcher lobing slow ones for Snowden to hit out of the park.
As just one example.
QuoteAt the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.
The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed
.
Why the passive voice question? He should have asked Snowden directly "did you give the Russians classified material in exchange for asylum?" It is interesting that even with the way this question was worded, Snowden didnt answer it. He talked about how he obtained the information. He didnt answer the underlying question of whether he cut a deal with the Russians. He did do a good job of simply repeating the narrative of the little guy fighting the big bad for the good of all and the interviewer let him do it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2014, 10:39:36 AM
Thanks for posting that Jake. Interesting read. I wish the interviewer had acting more like an interviewer and less like a soft ball pitcher lobing slow ones for Snowden to hit out of the park.
As just one example.
QuoteAt the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.
The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed
.
Why the passive voice question? He should have asked Snowden directly "did you give the Russians classified material in exchange for asylum?" It is interesting that even with the way this question was worded, Snowden didnt answer it. He talked about how he obtained the information. He didnt answer the underlying question of whether he cut a deal with the Russians. He did do a good job of simply repeating the narrative of the little guy fighting the big bad for the good of all and the interviewer let him do it.
What is worse is that he makes zero allowance for the fact that he was able to do what he did only because he was an employee of the intelligence services. He took a job and was paid money in return for agreeing to a certain set of standards and rules about how he would treat the information that job gave him access to. He isn't a journalist, or some private citizen who stumbled upon some critical information, he is a straight up traitor, liar, and thief who used his position and trust to sell out to China and Russia.
If he thought that what he found out AFTER accepting the job was such an egregious violation of the public trust that it had to be exposed, there are many ways that could be done within the bounds of US law. The US is not some totalitarian state run outside the rule of law, such that there are no legitimate means of redress. The idea that he needs "asylum" in nations like China and Russia is simply Orwellian in its doublespeak.
He is a traitor, through and through.
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
They missed some outtakes.
Mr. Snowden, how does it feel to be standing up for truth and justice? Does that provide you with consolation
It does - it is what heeps me going. It's difficult being so far from home having to eat caviar and drink fine wines every night at KGB Headq . . . I mean my hotel. And it is hard to be the most important and influential critic of governmental abuse on the planet, especially with President Obama making me public enemy number 1 and sending his trained assassin Matt Damon after me. But then I remember how important I am and feel better. I know that I am all that stands between the peoples of the free world and the evil NSA goons in their underground lair.
Many have observed that you are quite attractive. Would you agree you have dreamy eyes?
That's very nice of you to say. But I wouldn't want my physical attractiveness to distract people from the real message - that I am a courageous and daring crusader for righteousness.
Is there anything else that ordinary Germans have to be concerned about?
Yes its is important to realize that the NSA microwave technology records in real time every single thing every person in the world is thinking. Then, using the zxPerfectMalarkey! protocol, the NSA and its associated agencies have the ability to run a search on any individual in the world that currently exists or might exist in the future and know everything they have done or will do. Of course, I can't provide you with the secret documents that prove the existence of those capabilities, that would be irresponsible. It is up to responsible media outlets to decide what is safe to release. And by responsible media outlets I mean some unhinged ex-blogger hanging out in Brazil.
Do you think you will win the Nobel Peace prize unanimously or will some members of the jury be intimidated by the NSA into voting against you?
I hope they will do the right thing. But really it doesn't matter. It's not about me. It's about putting an end to government abuses by virtue of my bravery, skill and persistance.
Pretty rich for America to talk about traitors.
Nah, the South has pretty much been reconciled for some time now.
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 12:54:00 AM
Well terrorism and nuclear war can be somewhat analogous to house fires and a nuclear meltdown. There has been a great deal of concern over nuclear meltdown in this country despite it never happening and very low chance of it actually happening. If one occurs it would be catastrophic. On the other hand house fires are fairly common, and have claimed quite a few lives, but are in potential less catastrophic. Terrorism attacks have occurred, and will occur in the future. You can't prevent all of them.
True. 9/11 was a house fire.
They didn't teach you what the word "analogous", meant at Stanford? Talk about overrated.
He's the Frank B. Kellogg of his generation:
QuoteSnowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Two Norwegian lawmakers say they have nominated former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.
Socialist lawmakers Baard Vegard Solhjell, a former environment minister, and Snorre Valen said Wednesday the public debate and policy changes "in the wake of Snowden's whistleblowing has contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order."
Snowden fled to Russia, where he has requested temporary asylum after leaking classified security documents detailing widespread phone and email surveillance by the National Security Agency. In some cases, the agency shared the data with British, French and other countries' intelligence units. The files also showed the agency spied on international heads of state, spurring a fierce debate on privacy, sovereignty and security issues.
Snowden has repeatedly asked governing powers to reconsider the balance between privacy and security, and he has demanded that protections for whistleblowers such as himself be put in place before he might return to the United States.
President Barack Obama on Jan. 17 called on the government to reduce its collection of phone data from millions of Americans. He ordered intelligence agencies to obtain permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing such records.
Obama had previously defended surveillance programs as necessary tools in the fight against terrorism. But recently he has attempted to straddle the line between intelligence gathering agencies and privacy advocates.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Wednesday that countries who spy on their allies risk destroying trust, resulting in less rather than more security. Merkel used her inaugural address to Parliament after her re-election to slam the United States and Britain over their spy programs.
"Actions where the ends justify the means, where everything that is technically possible is done, harms trust," Merkel said. "It sows distrust. In the end there will be less, not more, security."
Snowden will be one of scores of names that the Nobel committee will consider for the prestigious award.
The five-member panel won't confirm who's been nominated, but those who submit nominations sometimes make them public.
Nominators, including members of national parliaments and governments, university professors and previous laureates, must enter their submissions by Feb. 1. Prize committee members can add their own candidates at their first meeting after that deadline.
I'm shocked that the leader of Germany has something to hide.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2014, 12:14:40 AM
They will take as much power as we are willing to give them to do their jobs. In the service of the Cold War, they did shit all the time that was probably illegal, or of at least very questionable legality. I don't know what rose colored glasses Seedy and the like are wearing when they think of Cold War era intelligence and counter intelligence. After all, it was Cold War intel that decided the US needed to dump a million men into Vietnam.
I don't recall wearing any rose colored glasses re: the Cold War, but feel free to make landfall and talk out of your twat, Typhoon Berkut.
The government took extensive advantage of its powers throughout the Red Scare of the '50s, the Cuban issue of the late '50s and early '60s, to the counter-culture threat of the late '60s and the left-wing threats of the '70s. The government will always abuse its powers in times of crisis, real or imagined, if nobody is there to stop it.
You can learn more about the Church Committee at your local library.
[/the more you know, bitch]
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2014, 12:09:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2014, 11:34:34 AM
He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices.
To be fair, what choice did he have? The enemies of US are your only potential allies when US decides you are its enemy, and Snowden would've been the enemy of the state even if his disclosure were 100% perfectly surgical in blowing the whistle on the bad stuff.
Look up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.
I assume you mean Daniel Ellsberg. Who wrote this editorial (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america) in support of Snowden's actions.
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 09:07:02 AM
Love seeing the trivialization of deaths going on. 9/11 is now a paper cut?
The response to 9/11, from the creation of the DHS to reshuffling of the Federal government's law enforcement, intelligence and warfighting capabilities to the Iraq War to an unhealthy reliance on the present bloated and out-of-control private sector Security-Industrial Complex that has spawned the likes of Snowden, has been a bit out of proportion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2014, 09:06:39 PM
I don't recall wearing any rose colored glasses re: the Cold War, but feel free to make landfall and talk out of your twat, Typhoon Berkut.
The government took extensive advantage of its powers throughout the Red Scare of the '50s, the Cuban issue of the late '50s and early '60s, to the counter-culture threat of the late '60s and the left-wing threats of the '70s. The government will always abuse its powers in times of crisis, real or imagined, if nobody is there to stop it.
You can learn more about the Church Committee at your local library.
[/the more you know, bitch]
Why stop at the '70s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#1981.E2.80.931989_Ronald_Reagan_Administration
Because the Reagan Administration was infallible.
Quote from: Lucas on January 29, 2014, 09:26:48 AM
Snowden's leaks have weakened Western security relationships, corroded public trust, undermined the West's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and paralyzed our intelligence agencies.
I love it. It's not that we spy everyone that has folks pissed, it's that they now know about it. What a fucking moron. :lmfao:
Quote from: Iormlund on January 30, 2014, 12:37:42 AMI love it. It's not that we spy everyone that has folks pissed, it's that they now know about it. What a fucking moron. :lmfao:
More or less. Bernard Kouchner's right, 'the magnitude of the eavesdropping is what shocked us. Let's be honest, we eavesdrop too. Everyone is listening to everyone else. We don't have the same means as the United States — which makes us jealous.'
Everything else is synthetic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2014, 09:06:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2014, 12:14:40 AM
They will take as much power as we are willing to give them to do their jobs. In the service of the Cold War, they did shit all the time that was probably illegal, or of at least very questionable legality. I don't know what rose colored glasses Seedy and the like are wearing when they think of Cold War era intelligence and counter intelligence. After all, it was Cold War intel that decided the US needed to dump a million men into Vietnam.
I don't recall wearing any rose colored glasses re: the Cold War, but feel free to make landfall and talk out of your twat, Typhoon Berkut.
The government took extensive advantage of its powers throughout the Red Scare of the '50s, the Cuban issue of the late '50s and early '60s, to the counter-culture threat of the late '60s and the left-wing threats of the '70s. The government will always abuse its powers in times of crisis, real or imagined, if nobody is there to stop it.
You can learn more about the Church Committee at your local library.
[/the more you know, bitch]
Thanks for arguing my point for me.
So today is not some ultra special unusual situation where the state is ZOMG STOMPING ON LIBERTY EVEN MORE THAN IN THE COLD WAR!!!
If anything, it was a lot worse in the Cold War, not better.
Appreciate the concession, no matter how bitterly given.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 30, 2014, 12:37:42 AM
Quote from: Lucas on January 29, 2014, 09:26:48 AM
Snowden's leaks have weakened Western security relationships, corroded public trust, undermined the West's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and paralyzed our intelligence agencies.
I love it. It's not that we spy everyone that has folks pissed, it's that they now know about it. What a fucking moron. :lmfao:
That isn't moronic at all. That is how intelligence services has worked 98% of the time that there has been intelligence services, the only exception being those rare countries that make active agreements NOT to spy on one another.
"The World" is mad because they aren't, by and large, as good at it as the US is, and it pisses them off. Given that it is 100% predictable that this WILL piss people off, even if their petulance is obviously irrational, it is in fact an act of treachery to expose the operations of our intelligence community to the world at large, especially by someone employed in that very position.
Before wikileaks, or Snowden, did anyone really think that the all these countries were not spying on one another in all kinds of ways? Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, he just exposed the scale and effectiveness.
The only people who have a rational right to be pissed off are Americans, because the only thing revealed through all this that is possibly illegal and potentially unknown was the means by which the US is spying on it's own citizens, and said citizens do in fact have certain rights to not be spied upon. The Germans can bitch and moan, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that says "Thou shalt not spy on the Germans".
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2014, 09:37:03 AM
Appreciate the concession, no matter how bitterly given.
Eat me, shitburger. Show me where I was wearing rose-colored glasses over the Cold War.
So I read Edward Lucas's e-book on Snowden. Very good for only 99p or $1.69:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Snowden-Operation-Greatest-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B00I0W61OY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392451395&sr=8-1&keywords=edward+lucas
I think it's worth reading if you've taken an interest in the story, regardless of which side you've been on in the arguments.
The latest news out on Snowden is that he accessed some of information that he wasn't allowed to by getting a coworker to log in to his computer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
The latest news out on Snowden is that he accessed some of information that he wasn't allowed to by getting a coworker to log in to his computer.
:blink: Isn't that illegal?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 28, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
Edward Snowden still thinks very well of Edward Snowden.
QuoteSnowden on Cyber Warfare: "We Really Started This Trend"
January 8, 2015, 11:33 am ET by Sarah Childress
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.
"The public still isn't aware of the frequency of these cyber attacks are being used by governments around the world," he said, adding that the U.S. "really started this trend in many ways."
Snowden spoke to journalist James Bamford in June for an upcoming NOVA film on cyber warfare. The whistleblower compared U.S. investment in online espionage to Jurassic Park — something we've built that could ultimately come back to bite us.
Classified documents obtained by Snowden showed that U.S. agencies have found and even created technical vulnerabilities that allow American agents to gather intelligence from phone calls, emails and other communications both in the U.S. and around the world.
But in making it easier for its agents to spy, Snowden says, the U.S. also makes American companies, and its citizens, more vulnerable to hacks. It sets a dangerous precedent for other governments to launch such attacks, he said. And the U.S. has much more to lose — in research, intelligence, and infrastructure — than other nations.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/snowden-on-cyber-warfare-we-really-started-this-trend/
This guy is really not that bright. I'm not an IT person but I do have some managerial responsibility over IT procurement and I don't really think Snowden has the background to really be taken serious on this kind of thing. He was a sys admin (a job any monkey with basic training can do) who at best put together a few scripts to download a bunch of files off the NSA network to facilitate faster theft of information. He's not a hacker, programmer, or anyone with any specialized IT knowledge. When you have legitimate access to a system through your job, downloading a bunch of files is something I could show my mom how to do, and some simple windows script to automate it is maybe a few hours of training for a literate person.
Cyber attacks were guaranteed the moment software systems were attached to important infrastructure. The benefits of doing that make it worthwhile, but actual hackers had been conducting profit or mayhem inspired attacks since the beginning of the Internet. The United States didn't invent the concept of doing it on a state scale anymore than it invented computers or electricity. If anything the U.S. has been significantly slower than the Chinese in developing a robust cyber attack capability. But because of inherent flaws in the security regime in all modern operating systems and software that relatively inexperienced kids in Eastern Europe can exploit this stuff is going to keep happening.
I don't know enough about the tech but I don't see that changing unless some paradigm-shifting technology comes out that significantly changes the stakes of the attacks. It's like check fraud, that's something that is inherent to using checks, and the only reason it decreased is because most people quit using checks for day to day purchases. Such frauds were essentially inherent to the paper check system and only moving to something entirely new could stop it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 11, 2015, 10:43:28 AM
It's like check fraud, that's something that is inherent to using checks, and the only reason it decreased is because most people quit using checks for day to day purchases. Such frauds were essentially inherent to the paper check system and only moving to something entirely new could stop it.
Yeah, but you gotta be careful what you wish for. Debit card fraud is probably a worse problem than check fraud.
In theory true debit cards are one of the safer methods out there. Meaning ones that can only function for debit transactions but not credit transactions, you don't see them nearly as much now (I know my bank if you push them enough they'll give you one, but they really want you to take their Visa branded card instead), but since they cannot be used for card not present credit transactions the only way to get money out of one is to have the physical card and the PIN code. The "Check Card" is a lot less protected since it can be used for card-not-present transactions, all someone needs is the base information on the card (which they can intercept in various physical and software means) and they can use it to buy stuff.
I think the consumer protections for both checks and debit cards is pretty robust, so for the end consumer it's almost a push really. For merchants though the cost of check fraud is a lot higher than debit. Checks tend to be used fraudulently for much larger amounts, the average check fraud is for >$1000 versus around $100 for debit fraud.
Most debit cards are pay pass these days and these do not require a PIN code for smaller amounts.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2015, 04:09:23 PM
Most debit cards are pay pass these days and these do not require a PIN code for smaller amounts.
In the U.S. if you run it as a debit transaction you have to use a PIN, it goes through the ATM network and simply won't work without one. If you run a credit transaction, or "signature debit", it's processed through a credit payment network (Visa/Mastercard, I don't believe Discover or Amex operate bank debit cards but could be wrong), but if it's a pure debit card it doesn't have access to those networks so cannot be ran as credit.
QuoteFormer NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.
And all without bombers. Truly, this is the future. :(
I've been told that there are Discover debit cards, but I kind of doubt the accuracy of that, because I've never seen one.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 11, 2015, 06:14:50 PM
QuoteFormer NSA contractor Edward Snowden said that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent by creating the capability to launch damaging cyber attacks against other countries. Such attacks wouldn't just embarrass major movie studio executives and scuttle movie release plans, they could cut power to hospitals or damage power plants or other key infrastructure.
And all without bombers. Truly, this is the future. :(
Coffee tins, silver dollars, a spade and plenty of toilet paper. :)