Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files To Russia

Soulskill posted 1 year,4 days | from the but-he-stores-all-his-ebooks-on-microfiche dept.

The Media 220

mspohr writes "There's an interesting interview with Edward Snowden in the NY Times. He talks freely about his decision to start collecting documents. His experience in reporting problems and abuse convinced him he would be discredited. He also states he didn't take any of the documents to Russia and that the Chinese don't have them either. 'What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of the materials onward? There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists. He also corrects last week's NY Times story about the derogatory comment in his personnel file; it was due to him discovering and trying to report a vulnerability in the CIA's internal software."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only moose and squirrel have them (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163483)

Once again our heroic leakers foil the bumbling Russkies!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163747)

If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163779)

You know what the British DON'T believe in? Toothpaste!

Thank you folks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to try out our delicious Potato Bar.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164201)

I can't enjoy your delicious Potato Bar due to poor dental hygiene, I'm British, you insensitive clod!

(Actually, it's dentists we don't believe in, having never been able to find one -- whereas by comparison toothpaste is readily available)

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163857)

If only there were proof that they did have the documents. Better to spread FUD no matter the case, right?

"Land of the free, home of the brave". Biggest joke of all time. Osama may be dead but he won the war with such success far beyond his wildest dreams.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164043)

Oh we know they have at least some of the documents, they can read US and UK TOP SECRET documents in the newspapers just like anybody else. They can then use those for their intelligence analysis, or to fill in missing pieces. Before they would have had to get an infiltrator to obtain them, now they can just go to the Guardian. And that's assuming that they haven't managed to obtain either voluntary or clandestine copies of documents from the Guardian or other papers with the documents. Do you recall that Mr. Greenwald's lover was carrying electronic copies of many documents with him, as well as a scribbled note with the password? Funny how we never seem to get releases of Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean or other documents.

Bin Laden wants the West to turn to Islam. He failed. But it probably doesn't matter much in the long term since much of the West is heading towards a demographic death spiral [nytimes.com] . The future belongs to those who show up.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164173)

Oh we know they have at least some of the documents, they can read US and UK TOP SECRET documents in the newspapers just like anybody else

Which is not what you were talking about. Lame equivocation is lame. You said:

At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

From your lame backpedaling answer it can only be assumed you have no evidence of your previous claim.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164503)

Sorry about your cornflakes.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (5, Insightful)

darien.train (1752510) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164291)

Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?

His goal was to destroy Wall St and the US/Saudi economy (He was mad at his rich family and their rich US friends - Like the Bush's and Clintons!). Hence crashing planes into our primary economic hub. Remember that part? Makes much more sense as a tactic for financial ruin opposed to a recruiting strategy wouldn't you say? [forbes.com]

In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (2)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164463)

Cold a quick data dump form the US NSA is of little use to the Russians or China. Now Snowden has left, the NSA can work back over what given free to the press.
Russia would have wanted him to stay on as they tried to do with their long term gov assets in the GCHQ or NSA. Get the real gov job and move up to planning and policy, the gems of the NSA, well beyond basic contracting admin work. That would take years of effort and more education, clearances. Russia could have seen great results in 10-20 years.
China has a lot of students in the US - they learn as US academics discover - what the US knows, China knows by default.
Long term "Intelligence analysis, or to fill in missing pieces" is gifted/sold via people on much higher pay grades than a walk in admin: the Russians actually build trust with their spies.
A big dump of data for "free" might be a CIA/MI6 trap ....
As for releases of Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean - MI6 and the CIA often get huge amounts of data for the gift of cash and a new life.
With Russia they know not to allow too many people to have to much real data anymore.
China hides its data from its own people and fills in with stats that looks great to any reader - all junk.
Cuba Iran and NK have learned from Russia after years of CIA and MI6 attempts - keep it all hidden, mixed up and in small parts.
Sort of what the NSA did for many years but then forgot when it hired contractors ~ 10 years ago :)
The final aspect is just understanding docs from Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iran or North Korean - is it a person seeking a new life, a trap, junk or real.
A person telling the CIA or MI6 all about bunkers, factories, generals, exports, imports and then waits for a new house, car and identity.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164719)

Do you recall that Mr. Greenwald's lover was carrying electronic copies of many documents with him, as well as a scribbled note with the password?

Yes, I also seem to recall the UK government "probed" Mr Greenwald's lover for 8-9 hour before letting him thru the border. Pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they had found a "spy". What Snowden did was most certainly illegal. I'm not so sure it was "wrong", but I'm sure as hell that baying for his crucifixion based on what been reported so far is immoral. .

Having said that I think there' more than political "coincidence" to the timing. Just prior to it hitting the news Obama was loudly beating his chest telling the world he was "not going to put up with cyber spying from China". The meeting was supposed to be a big deal, Obama was going to get tough with "cyber-spies", the meeting was blown off the front pages by the Snowden story. Talk about "egg meets face", the US tried to claim the moral high ground by loudly proclaiming it was China who was spying on everyone, it's my contention the Chinese responded by pulling Uncle Sam's pants down in front of the whole world (politically speaking).

When you look at the political powerhouses on the planet, Russia, US, EU and China, it's China (a federation of ancient empires) that shows the most unity at the top and given it's miraculous economic rise from famines to fortunes over the last 40yrs they have very strong support amongst the people. "Good", "evil", "apathetic", doesn't matter what kind of empire/republic it is, unity will win the day when push turns to shove..

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164059)

Obama by his actions (or inactions) becomes a proxy of Osama.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163983)

I have a feeling that if one, or both, nations had received the documents we would know about it by now. Not directly of course but there would have been some kind of communication or statement made somewhere that made it obvious that they know more than has been revealed. It's almost a certainty that they have managed to get their hands on even more sensitive information than the whistle-blowing that Snowden has done, it's an inevitability in a connected world and they don't need him for that.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163997)

But there doesn't need to be proof. Simply making assertions that they do is enough to get the character assassination of the whistleblower under way. And the good "patriots" like cold fjord will eat it up without ever asking for any real evidence to back up the claims.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164001)

Prove that they *don't* have something? Yeah.. that'll work.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164063)

That's right. And there is equal proof that Snowden didn't make them available in some fashion.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (1)

Sique (173459) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164179)

And there is equal proof that cold fjord didn't make them available in some fashion.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (2)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164187)

So there's no proof but yet you keep spreading the claim as if it were true. Almost as if your whole point was the spread FUD instead of truth.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164267)

Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.

One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164345)

Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.

One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.

The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.

I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.

Crazy idea, I know.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (-1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164597)

The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions. But Snowden isn't innocent anyway - he has admitted to taking the documents and fleeing with them. The only question is who exactly was on his distribution list. Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. If he is, it would be the first time in a long time after lying about so many things to get access to the documents, and then having so many lies about his flight to Russia. And the FSB has apparently been involved with him since at least Hong Kong, if not before. At least one former Soviet bloc intelligence general believe that Snowden is a Russian agent. It may be years before we determine the truth, if ever. It was years after the Chinese stole the design data for the most advanced US nuclear warhead, the W88, before someone walked into the embassy with proof. You're free to believe what you want. I'll probably believe something different based on the evidence.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (3, Insightful)

Faluzeer (583626) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164045)

If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Hmmm

Who believes that? The security services or the Politicians? I cannot help but remember that prior to the Iraq war the UK's security services produced reports on WMD in Iraq that were full of cautions about the evidence, these cautions were subsequently removed as the report was doctored, or "firmed up" as it was referred to, when the Politicians and their advisor's got involved when trying to make a case for war,

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them (1)

pla (258480) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164171)

At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Considering that Snowden shared those files with journalists on both sides of the pond, I see no reason to doubt that belief - Nor do I consider it particularly meaningful.

The British might as well believe that the Chinese and Russians have copies of NyanCat, for all it matters.

Tap the Guardian? Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164175)

So, if they do have them they got them from the Guardian?

Re: Only moose and squirrel have them (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164491)

Oh they probably have a copy, not from Snowden though since they probably obtained them years ago.

Zero Percent Chance? (5, Insightful)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163487)

There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists.

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163517)

God forbid anyone send them by email. They might fall into the hands of the NSA!

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163555)

God forbid anyone send them by email. They might fall into the hands of the NSA!

Or the Chinese or Russians, Iranians, Israelis . . .

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163841)

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying so that he could get access to the documents [cnn.com] . Lies about his adventure continued when the Russians said they didn't know he was coming when he in fact had a birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong [businessinsider.com] prior to his departure, and made arrangements there. When he got to Russia, an FSB spokesman was speaking for him [businessinsider.com] . Then there is this gem: "(On June 23 Izvestia, a [formerly] state-owned Russian newspaper, wrote that the Kremlin and its intelligence services collaborated with Wikileaks to help Snowden escape from Hong Kong.) [businessinsider.com] " ... It looks to me that there is far more going on than most people want to believe.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163873)

So how much do you get paid being a bootlicking shill of the US government? A traitor to the people masquerading as "patriot". How pathetic this country has become.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164613)

So how much do you get paid being a bootlicking shill of the US government? A traitor to the people masquerading as "patriot". How pathetic this country has become.

So he's completely wrong and a "bootlicking shill" because he disagrees with you and has actual citations to support his position.

I understand. I wish you had a newsletter.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (2)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163889)

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying so that he could get access to the documents.

So no different to how the NSA uses the same tactic to get their people into companies to act as spies and to insert backdoors into said company's software and systems?

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163931)

Being criticized by cold fjord is a compliment. Look at his past posts [slashdot.org] for an understanding of his moral alignment.

cold fjord, you have no standing on anything of moral consequence to the US or to the world. You support every government abuse against human rights that has occurred in the last 12 years. Go away, you are a bad person.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164289)

He also seriously believes that Obamacare and taxes are a worse tyranny than having to explain yourself to a bunch of thugs because you chose the wrong brand of cereal. He's a true neo-conservative. His reward is that if they ever choose to start lining people up along walls and shooting them, he'll be granted the right to be the last one to die.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163939)

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying

Well, I prefer people lying in order to uphold their oath and duty to the constitution over crime lords lying in order to hide that they are breaking their oath to the constitution in order to create a police and surveillance state with taxpayers' money but outside of any democratic oversight.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (1)

Sique (173459) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164221)

Cold fjord is in reality Edward Snowden in disguise, trying to make it look as if the U.S. government uses paid shills for character assassination to make the U.S. look more bad and let him shine more brightly in contrast. Cold fjord: Prove that you are not Edward Snowden or shut up forever!

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164511)

Cold has commented on other topics here. Edward Snowden seems smarter.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (4, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164575)

Speaking of lying, I'm more concerned about how radically the Obama administration changed its stories after Snowden's revelations. Basically, a bunch of officials were caught lying and only changed their story due to Snowden. It sure looks to me also like there is far more going on than most people want to believe.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163863)

There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,'

Obviously he's ignoring the Russian and Chinese agents planted inside the NSA. Look at how easy it was for Snowden; now imagine what that means for actual professionals.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163943)

It's a closely guarded secret between Snowden and the entire western mass-media. The russkies will never get their hands on our seekrits!

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164015)

Don't worry. The Russians and Chinese don't have the internet so won't be able to read what the journalists publish.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164071)

Why would they need to read it in the newspaper when they could just as easily break into the system steal the first-hand data for themselves.

Hopefully you are right (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164025)

I hope you are right, I hope there is more details that MI5 and GCHQ are so afraid of. Because I want to hear as much detail of what my government (UK) has been doing against British wishes. To me it's every simple, Russia is a nothing threat, Al Qaida is a minor threat (and CIA trained one at that), Iran is a minor threat and potential co-operative supplied of oil, in fact the biggest threat to democracy in the UK now is the NSA & CIA.

So I want to know what causes Andrew Parker to attack the free press, reporting facts. As though facts can only be reported if he approves of them. [To put it more bluntly who does the little sh*t think he is?? Who put him in charge of what can and cannot be reported, it wasn't Parliament and there's no legal power above them so he should f**ing resign, who dare he attack the press for reporting the truth about major crimes committed by him and his office!].

I also like that Snowden told me about GCHQ. Parliament would never grant GCHQ the right to spy for the Americans against the British, so I'm very grateful to Snowden for revealing how far off the rails they got. More than that, I see comments from shocked Lords and MPs who are on the committees that monitor GCHQ and were never told about Tempora. So I realize how close we are to dictatorship by a foreign power. We're like a year away from NSA via MI5 and GCHQ taking over.

And he warned us, and I'm grateful. And no "red menace" 50's propaganda will remove that gratitude.

I think the balance to "collect it all" is "reveal it all".

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164061)

I believe the implication is that if the Russians or Chinese had the documents, they'd have taken some action that'd reveal that, and the NSA would be "pounding on the table" about how Snowden had hurt the United States. Since that hasn't happened, he's concluded they don't have the documents.

Re:Zero Percent Chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164303)

Well, I have them.

Trust (-1, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163529)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted.

Re:Trust (5, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163563)

Stabbing who in the back, exactly?

Re:Trust (2)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163569)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted.

If he would have gone to Cuba he could get a tan working in the sugar cane fields.

Re:Trust (5, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163585)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Precisely. Nonsensical things such as freedom and the constitution are overshadowed by the threat of the bogeymen who are out to get us.

Re:Trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163823)

Yeah I don't get this. The NSA has broken some of the most basic principals as outlined in the constitution. 10's of thousands of Americans going against the entire spirit of our constitution as their daily job, and Snowden is the traitor? I don't think so.

Re:Trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164035)

This is gonna sound like a troll but I'm genuinely curious since your constitution is not my constitution and I'm not well versed in US jurisprudence.

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken? What would the NSA reply if they were confronted with these claims? Cynicism aside, why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

My point is, if these illegal acts are so manifestly illegal... why is no-one prosecuting? We prosecute our own secret services from time to time where I live. They even lose some times as well.

Re:Trust (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164239)

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken? What would the NSA reply if they were confronted with these claims? Cynicism aside, why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

I can only hope this is supposed to be a parody post. Otherwise one can only assume you're being intentionally dense and naïve.

Re:Trust (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164373)

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken?

Fourth, Tenth, Fourteenth Amendments.

My point is, if these illegal acts are so manifestly illegal... why is no-one prosecuting?

"Treason doth never prosper: whatâ(TM)s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Re:Trust (1)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164627)

The US constitution is sort of the top law of the land. No other orders, laws, letters, findings, color of laws, the allies asked us, a thinktank said it was ok, the bad guys.... just obeying orders.. can escape the US constitution.
The US constitution does not like the gov looking into domestic papers without a real US court been involved. One gov letter to make it legal for the entire nation is good enough. All staff know this.
The press around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake [wikipedia.org] was really the first good hint: Trailblazer, ThinThread in 2000.

Re:Trust (-1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163859)

I'm pretty sure "bogeymen" don't have body counts from massacres, or a record of arrests and convictions for plotted massacres.

Re:Trust (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163953)

And how large are those "body counts"? Are we to ignore that more people in the US die from falling in their homes than have been killed by terrorists? Just so you know, 21000 adults died in 2010 of unintentional falls. That's 7 times the amount of people who died in 9/11. Sorry, but the "dirty Mooslems" hiding behind every corner trying to "kill us for our freedoms" just don't rate as much of a threat.

Re:Trust (2)

Bucc5062 (856482) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164313)

Yes, but they didn't fall all at the same time, thus not a threat . In one sense we are paying not for the lose of 3000+ people, but for the towers. The spectacle of the towers coming down is what is sealed in peoples minds. That made the event larger then it really was and shaped our actions since.

I think it is the "Mass" in mass hysteria that drives the security machine and the spending of Billions on a very low probability act. More people die from shootings in this country then 9/11 and again, in such small numbers, spread out that the attitude is, wont happen to me. People don't like random acts of violence that they can't control, so they turn to the Government and say, control it please. Government does not do small thus the TSA and HLS when all we really needed was just better communication. Until I fall, I believe I am safe in my house. Walking down a street in I have no control over what will happen. Personally, I don't care or I just adjust where I go, but most people....they accept the false security of Government oversight and die any way (Boston).

Re: Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164655)

So what about Hurricane Katrina. It's not like that was a one time occurance.

Re:Trust (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164391)

Heard it before. Terrorists are largely little more than bogeymen as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163619)

Yes, fuck the people, the government agencies illegally spying on them are all that count.

Re:Trust (4, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163641)

1. He has done the US a great service in the long run.

2. He is personally more trustworthy than the people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying already.

My 2 cents.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163659)

Let's rewind 30 years or so to put it into perspective.

"He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Americans have taken in traitors/defectors from the Soviet; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted."

Re:Trust (5, Interesting)

ClassicASP (1791116) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163665)

I dunno....I'd say he stabbed his country's _government_ in the back. I wouldn't say he stabbed his country in the back though. So far I haven't heard anything that would indicate that Snowden hates America.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163667)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Well, while I do think that anyone working for the NSA is a backstabber and possibly a traitor to the country I would say that Snowden have made up for his past mistakes and clearly shown that he is willing to go to great lengths to protect the country, even from a corrupt government.

Re:Trust (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163737)

He's only "stabbed you in the back" if you're a bootlicker. Not all of us piss ourselves over "teh terrists" and need Big Brother to monitor our lives 24/7 "for our safety". He's no more stabbed anyone in the back than the persons who leaked the Pentagon Papers and the information on the Watergate scandal. Stop being a compliant ninny.

Re:Trust (5, Interesting)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163751)

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Because he's been telling the truth and the NSA definitely haven't?

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163801)

Yes, but only traitors and "terrists" tell the truth, Citizen. Telling the truth about our deeds only seeks to help Eurasia who we have always been at war with. Now please return to watching American Idol before you must face punishment.

Re:Trust (0, Flamebait)

phayes (202222) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164287)

Ah, so now he's George Washington and cannot tell a lie?

Much like Assange, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, Churchill & everyone else, Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts. Pretending otherwise just exposes you as a zealot.

Re:Trust (4, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164465)

The Obama administration and the NSA chief have already radically changed the stories they were telling because of Snowden.

Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts

That's why we look at evidence and not just make up shit. The Obama administration has vast resources at its disposal with which to disprove Snowden assertions. It hasn't chosen to do so for some reason. I wager it is because Snowden's assertions and accompanying evidence are close enough to truth.

Re:Trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164595)

Ah, so now he's George Washington and cannot tell a lie?

Much like Assange, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, Churchill & everyone else, Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts. Pretending otherwise just exposes you as a zealot.

Prove it. That is the thing. What he has said has been repeatedly verifiable and not one thing yet has been proven false. Those that chose to discredit him have been proven to be liars with verifiable facts over and over again. Just because many people lie does not mean we should assume everyone is lying about everything all the time lest we become 'zealots'.

Given the choice between known repeated unabashed liars and someone that has yet to be proven wrong and often has objective proof of his honesty I will chose the latter.

Re:Trust (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164343)

Chandra :HAL was told to lie... by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid.

Dr. Heywood Floyd : Those sons of bitches. I didn't know. I didn't know!

Re:Trust (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163799)

He's at least as trustworthy as the agencies for whom he has done work.

Re:Trust (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163871)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

The government and the NSA are NOT the Country. The PEOPLE are the Country.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Wrong question.
The correct question is- WHO should we believe MORE, Snowden or the NSA? We know Snowden scooped up docs and turned them over to journalists in a responsible fashion. We also know the NSA has been lying to Congress and the Courts as well as the American People, violating their own policies and violating Court orders.
Given their respective track records, only a complete fool would take the side of the NSA in this.

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West;

He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector. He has made absolutely no efforts or claims to renounce his citizenship, he has not taken up arms or given aid or succor to an Enemy of the State. Thus, he is also not a Traitor.
If you have evidence otherwise, I'm sure the NSA in particular would love to hear about it.

Re:Trust (1)

fredrated (639554) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163929)

Thanks for verifying the statement "some nerds are idiots", though I already knew it was true.

Re:Trust (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163959)

Funny, as one of his countrymen, I don't feel stabbed in the back at all, at least, not by him. I feel more like....I thought there was a knife in myback, I wasn't sure exactly how big or how far it was in, or what it looked like, but I felt it was likely there.

What I see him having done is tell me about that knife, exactly whose hand was on it, and how deep it was into my back.

Re:Trust (1)

helobugz (2849599) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164117)

That's pushing it a bit far, because I think he left me wondering how much further the knife would be pressed in, in coming years...

NOTHING that Snowden revealed was a "secret." His revelations are simply not confined to the realm of conspiracy theory, anymore.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164441)

By that logic we can eliminate all secrets by simply employing an infinate amount of typewriting monkeys...

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164311)

When you claim the US should operate more like Russia, and claim the constitution should be ignored, and when you claim torture and murder are perfectly OK as long as the public doesn't get to know about it - You have lost all rights to talk about being stabbed in the back, you traitor.

If you really believe what you say, then come here and let us all murder you. I promise to not tell anyone, just like you want!

If you want to live in that world so much, just MOVE to fucking Russia dumbass! Stop trying to change other countries into the fucked up hell you desire so badly.

Re:Trust (2)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164485)

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Trust that we see was poorly placed in the federal government.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163553)

I call BULL SHIT!

He'd better have something..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163623)

He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.

Re:He'd better have something..... (5, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163673)

He does not need to remain relevant. I think he just wants a boring life now, possibly including some potatoes. He already knows that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. And as long as he remains in a country that is willing to stick up a finger to the USA, he is probably safe.

Re:He'd better have something..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163755)

Could be more simple, like he prefers Russian strippers over Hawaiian strippers?

Re:He'd better have something..... (2)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163711)

He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.

Maybe Putin is starting a US expatriates of conscience theme park, like Houari Boumediene did for the Black Panthers and others [roadsandkingdoms.com] ?

Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163657)

The important thing to remember is that if it was so easy for him to get these documents, then that also means that there are about a million other people with the same clearance level as him who would find it equally easy. What's the betting that none of those are Chinese agents? Especially given how many Russian agents we've learned were working for the NSA and CIA during the cold war.

People focus on Snowden's disclosure as if it's possibly giving information to America's enemies (or, at least, not-so-friendly friends), but any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released. It was only secret from the people to whom these agencies should be accountable.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164053)

We require you to have American citizenship to get a clearance so we know none of our cleared people are Russian or Chinese!

The system totally works.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (1)

phayes (202222) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164347)

So the NSA employs "a million" sysadmins who steal their colleagues & bosses credentials so that they can gan access to files they normally wouldn't be able to see? So glad nobody on Snowden's side is using hyperbole...

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164501)

GP said "who would find it", not "who do find it", or who do what you are saying. That's a large pool of people to stick a mole into. It's much different than say "there are 10 people who could have done this" - that's a much easier group to validate. You should pause a bit and maybe read a post another time or two before responding when you're feeling so reactive.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164693)

There are currently a million people who have Top Secret or above security clearance. That means, one million people who may be sharing secrets with a foreign power if they are bribed or blackmailed into doing so. Do you really trust the vetting to have managed to find a million incorruptible people in the USA?

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164723)

So the NSA employs "a million" sysadmins who steal their colleagues & bosses credentials so that they can gan access to files they normally wouldn't be able to see? So glad nobody on Snowden's side is using hyperbole...

I would bet that at least an admin password to a sensitive system is contained in a document put on a system available to thousand of people working at the NSA.

Some accused him of giving the files to Russia (5, Interesting)

thue (121682) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163681)

There has been various accusations that Snowden leaked the documents to Russia, willingly or unwillingly. This should (in a perfect world) make those accusations less valid. Also, this shows against that Snowden is damn brave and clever - it must have been very tempting to hold on to the documents, which he paid so dearly for.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174983/did-russia-china-harvest-snowdens-secrets# [thenation.com]

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia (-1, Flamebait)

phayes (202222) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164397)

There has been various accusations that Snowden leaked the documents to Russia, willingly or unwillingly. This should (in a perfect world) make those accusations less valid.

How so? Because Snowden purportedly says so?

Well then, that's clear, then isn't it. Absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that anything Snowden says could be anything but the gospel as Snowden is the only true prophet & can tell no lies...

snowdens got balls (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163843)

snowdens got balls man, i dont even have the courage to stand up and ask why we use "apollo vcl" at work

From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is prob (1)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163867)

“So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision”

He's basically claiming that the problem with all this spying isn't so much it's going on, but that it's going on in secret, without oversight. Fascinating, and it makes sense: take CCTV in the UK--far reaching, nearly ubiquitous, yet everyone knows it's there, and while there are privacy hawks who are against it, there's not nearly the level of outrage as there has been in the US over NSA's spying.

Re:From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is p (-1, Troll)

kwbauer (1677400) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164129)

"not nearly the level of outrage" That is because you long ago accepted the fact that the government is your mommy and should have complete control over your lives. You never gave up the monarchy and simply transferred some of the power into a group of people that are not the monarch.

In contrast, the US gave up the monarchy and lived for a while under the premise that the government is not our mommy. The people started getting this feeling that it would be better if the government were our mommy and we are desperately trying to "catch up." Some of us still don't want to "catch up." That is what all the commotion is about.

Re:From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is p (1)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164281)

I never said I was British (I'm American, like you, actually). Nor did I say whether I agree with Snowden's argument. But getting past all your Brit-hate and vitriol, your core argument that it's cultural differences, not levels of secrecy, that color the two countries' responses to ubiquitous surveillance, seems a good one.

everything snowden had... (1)

johnjones (14274) | 1 year,4 days | (#45163909)

everyone else has...

if you where to think otherwise would be a strategic error...
huawei own too much of the interconnect to not have the majority of the same information as NSA...
signing authorities are compromised...

move on and self sign

thanks

John Jones

 

meaningless phrase (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45163973)

It is just like Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman". We all know what turned out to mean.

Damn, I have become a cynic. I sea new-speak everywhere. I wonder why.

NSA & CIA Security Clearance process mgmt soft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45164023)

...is ImageNow from Perceptive Software, a document, content, and workflow management system built in Kansas City.

ImageNow is also now integrated with Lexmark printers (sniffing & OCR'ing print jobs), and it is used to spy on federal workers to confirm that they are not leaking classified information via MFPs/MFDs. The project was code-named Discovery Vault, and it was prototyped for the Turkish secret police before the NSA became interested. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ycQQSt6mX0 [youtube.com] .

1 year temp visa (0)

SiggyRadiation (628651) | 1 year,4 days | (#45164493)

Wait until the Russians tell him his Visa will expire and they're planning to send him off back to his old friends at the CIA. He'll give them his dropbox address in an instant. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?