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!

NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure

samzenpus posted about two weeks ago | from the for-our-eyes-only dept.

United States 231

AHuxley (892839) writes "The Desk reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden" and the NSA's refusal to release all documents. "The National Security Agency has acknowledged it retains a record of e-mail communications from former contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden, but says those records are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act. In a letter responding to a June 27 FOIA request from The Desk, the NSA’s chief FOIA officer Pamela Phillips wrote that while the agency has retained records related to Snowden’s employment as a contractor, they are being withheld from public examination because, among other things, releasing the records 'could interfere with law enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures.' Other records are being withheld because those documents were 'also found to be currently and properly classifiedand remains classified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL.' The letter marks the first time the NSA has publicly acknowledged retaining communication and employment records related to Snowden’s time as a contractor."

cancel ×

231 comments

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

"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (5, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about two weeks ago | (#47443551)

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

The Existence of a "United States of America" (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about two weeks ago | (#47443673)

No longer inhabits the constitutional legal framework of its purpose or foundation.

It is an illegal institution, with no basis for either loyalty or obedience.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about two weeks ago | (#47443789)

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | about two weeks ago | (#47443837)

Are there any Indians left you could mooch from during these two winters?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about two weeks ago | (#47443905)

Who said anything about "revolution"? That just brings you trouble, and causes more harm to innocents.

Just don't lay any special claim by "citizenship" - that is a parlour trick to keep you in harness, to keep you a "house negro".

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (3, Insightful)

Imrik (148191) | about two weeks ago | (#47443955)

Revolution can come in many forms, a widespread change in voter behavior could be described as a revolution.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444367)

The powers that be would never allow that...
We'll make voting illegal so only criminals would want to vote.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about two weeks ago | (#47444197)

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

And yet, in Thomas Jefferson's view, would be well worth the cost, and is far more than an order of magnitude (in years) overdue.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about two weeks ago | (#47444493)

I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (5, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about two weeks ago | (#47444529)

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444605)

No, they care more about their children's survival than about your delusions about the end of freedom. Huge difference, you god damn idiot. Delusional asshats like you are the real problem.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (5, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about two weeks ago | (#47444633)

Delusional? The NSA is violating people's rights and the highest law of the land, and it's happening right this instant. Are you saying that it is not happening? If not, then how is he delusional? If you allow it to happen, and they continue doing it, then you don't really have those freedoms, now do you?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about two weeks ago | (#47444631)

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

You could happily sit in the company of many of history's great men. The too were willing to sacrifice countless lives for some lofty goal.

Is there any benefit too small, in your mind, for my kids to die supporting it?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444583)

No, in a nutjob's view, Thomas Jefferson would support their insane desire to cause mass deaths.

It's sad that you're calling for the destruction of America, and mass starvation of Americans, based on disinformation from scoundrels like Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. You should be ashamed of yourself, but loons like you have no shame.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about two weeks ago | (#47444207)

A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters

Why, would the failing government interdict traffic? That wouldn't be the revolution causing freezing or starvation.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443685)

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about two weeks ago | (#47443749)

No need to tell them, they saw that, too.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (2)

xfizik (3491039) | about two weeks ago | (#47443689)

I don't think they care about violating rights of the U.S. citizens. And they care even less about those outside the U.S. It's too bad that the American allies don't care about their citizens' privacy either.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (-1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47443993)

The governments of America's allies probably care about their citizens being killed in attacks as has happened before:

Madrid train attacks [bbc.co.uk]
Bali death toll set at 202 [bbc.co.uk]
7 July London attacks [theguardian.com]

And attempts to repeat that sort of thing continue:

09 Jul 2014 - Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police [telegraph.co.uk]

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444047)

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

Indeed it is. That's why government's shouldn't engage in mass murder.

Oh, wait. You're trying to say we should sacrifice freedom and the constitution to stop entities unrelated to the government of the country where people are being killed to stop people from being killed. I expect our government to be better than mere criminals or terrorists, which is why I will not condone sacrificing freedom and the constitution for safety.

As usual, I'm going to recommend you move to North Korea.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444087)

You've gone off the rails. Freedom and the Constitution aren't being sacrificed. If you really think so, please describe how.

As usual you stoop to nonsense.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444165)

It has already been explained to you in dozens articles how the NSA's activities violate the spirit of the constitution and how they violates people's privacy. You just hand wave it all away and appeal to the authority of judges, completely ignoring the intent of the founders (the courts are not the be-all end-all of the constitution) and ignoring the fact that the courts can be wrong.

Numerous people have debunked your garbage time and time again. What's the point? The only point in responding to you is to let other people know using logic against you is pointless, because you're an authoritarian to the core.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444233)

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy? (Without resorting to the "penumbras" the judges relied upon.)

It isn't so much that I have been debunked as mod bombed. It isn't that I'm an authoritarian, it is that you misunderstand the Constitution, the law, and the views of the Founders. You are apparently a part of the "Americans must die bravely from terrorist bombings in shopping malls or we aren't free" crowd. Like many on Slashdot you probably confuse liberty with license, a topic you should probably look into as it was understood by the Founders.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444389)

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy?

If the constitution does not say that the government has the power to do something, then it doesn't. Furthermore, the 4th amendment places limitations upon the government that may have been necessary due to earlier sections of the constitution. The limitations placed on the government's powers enable a greater degree of privacy to exist. The right to privacy is the default, and it is also implicit.

General warrants are unconstitutional. Further, it's plainly obvious that this practice would have been explicitly forbidden had it been used against the founders, similar to how practices were. There's no way this *is not* unconstitutional in a place that's often called "the land of the free." You disagree with me because, deep in your heart, you'd rather be living in North Korea. Why not just admit it and try to move there?

You are apparently a part of the "Americans must die bravely from terrorist bombings in shopping malls or we aren't free" crowd.

A more accurate phrasing of that would be, "Americans, between risking death and losing fundamental freedoms, should do the former." You disagree. You are an authoritarian scumbag. Why not just admit what everyone already knows?

Like many on Slashdot you probably confuse liberty with license

Like all of your kind, you confuse license with liberty.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444639)

Of course you're not an authoritarian. You're dealing with people who have lost their minds, and are posting their paranoid delusions to the Internet while smarter, better adjusted people are out having fun with their friends and families. As long as you don't get modded to 0, the idiots with mod points will be reversed when normal people show up.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444623)

Sadly most of Slashdot has gone off the rails. There are very few users left who aren't completely deranged by their hatred of the United States government, and paranoid delusions about oppression. At this point Slashdot as a whole needs psychological help. Let's just hope that none of these drooling idiots kills a cop in their attempt to start their fantasy revolution like this couple. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting-couple/

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about two weeks ago | (#47444657)

The NSA is, at this very moment, violating the constitution and people's rights by conducting mass surveillance on almost everyone. In what way is pointing this out and saying it is a bad thing in any way silly?

We're supposed to be 'the land of the free.' Our constitution only gives the government limited powers. Why is that? Because governments can't be trusted, and authority will be abused. We have to be cautious of the powers the government actually does have, let alone the ones that it just takes for itself. Distrust of government is a very important principle of this country, and it's also completely rational considering the hundreds of millions of people abused and/or killed by governments throughout history. I have to point this out so many times because you people are ignorant and believe the government is full of perfect little angels who could never abuse their powers or make mistakes, which ignores history entirely.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about two weeks ago | (#47444157)

09 Jul 2014 - Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police [telegraph.co.uk]

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

except that most "rights" only apply to government actions, not private party actions.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444203)

So you are suggesting that mass murder doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as it is done by terrorists, and not the government?

Terrorist mass murder = no harm, not foul, from a civil rights perspective? You might not have that correct.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about two weeks ago | (#47444559)

in the US, people's rights are generally specific to government interferenceor actions. frinstance govt can't curtail freedom of speech, but private entities are free to do so on their properties, radio waves, etc.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about two weeks ago | (#47443781)

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -Aesop.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about two weeks ago | (#47444083)

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

Irony: Only by becoming a terrorist by the government's standards does one gain acknowledgement of their right to privacy from it.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about two weeks ago | (#47444159)

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

Don't even make an argument. They are liars, and criminals. Why are we even listing to them talk? To hell with the NSA, they can talk in court.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444411)

Nothing to hide , nothing to fear!

Snowden's copies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443561)

I presume that Snowden has his own copies of the emails in question. Couldn't he release those himself?

Re:Snowden's copies? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443679)

He's already released a few, didn't he? The result was NSA-apologists calling him a liar and saying he made it all up.

Re:Snowden's copies? (5, Informative)

jopsen (885607) | about two weeks ago | (#47443777)

Yeah, this smells like NSA trying to hide that Snowden did in fact try to bring up the issue through official channels, before he leaked documents to the public.

Re:Snowden's copies? (2, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444071)

Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels? Now I wonder why that might be?

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

Re:Snowden's copies? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444331)

That's the impression I get, and his association with the anti-American blogger Glenn Greenwald, who writes misleading articles and often behaves like a child on Twitter, does not lend to his credibility. I used to be a Greenwald fan, but I've seen enough of what he is to be embarrassed to ever have supported him.

The NSA says that none of these undisclosed emails have to do with Snowden raising concerns, and since Snowden doesn't seem to have been able to keep copies of his own emails as he stole all those documents, it makes me think he's a liar in addition to being a thief.

Add to that the fact that Snowden was covered by the Whistleblowers act, and instead ran to Russia, and this whole thing stinks of anti-American propaganda. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43590_Was_Edward_Snowden_Covered_by_the_IC_Whistleblowers_Act_Yes_He_Was.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444339)

Boot lickers like yourself would just claim he made them up afterwards to put himself in a better light.

Re:Snowden's copies? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444381)

No. He already said why. He didn't take anything with him beyond Hong Kong and there is no reason tothink he could have had the foresight to take the emails at the time he took the other documents. The fact we're attacking him over what is trivial compared to the crimes he's brought us should send up a red flag. They are distracting us and the administration, prior administration, and at least some of those in congress amongst others should be charged with treason and in prison. Unfortunately our system doesn't work in such a way that true justice can be realized. Those accused tend to be those who are the enemy of the state (people in power) or simply being taken advantage of for poitical gain (Aaron Swartz, Bernie S, etc).

Re:Snowden's copies? (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about two weeks ago | (#47444391)

Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels?

a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.

b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?

The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.

If you really beleive what you wrote, why do think the NSA is refusing to release them?

And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444459)

a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.

And yet it occurred to him to steal documents on intelligence operations by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Sweden, and other places? All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.

If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?

Maybe because they don't exist? Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?

The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.

Which "general consensus" is that? The one on Slashdot? Do you really need me to answer that for you?

Re:Snowden's copies? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444561)

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

Except the NSA just released one of Snowden's emails questioning the legality of things one or two months ago. They then claimed that was the "only" email they had from him. Now they are saying they have lots but can't release them for some reason. So, the NSA has been caught lying to you yet again and you continue to look the other way. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about two weeks ago | (#47444537)

No, but it is odd that you continue to post on Slashdot with the apparent belief that everyone doesn't already know what an NSA apologist douchebag you are.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444113)

Yeah, this smells like NSA trying to hide that Snowden did in fact try to bring up the issue through official channels, before he leaked documents to the public.

When will Snowden leak his emails? He's already leaked the documents on the programs he supposedly complained about.

How did he not manage to get his emails when he stole 1.7 million documents?

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444305)

Wouldn't make sense to release those himself. The USG would say they were fake and say they have no record of those emails. It's best for the USG to release them to prove his case. The fact that they keep lying about the emails works toward Snowden's favor.

Re:Snowden's copies? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444313)

Nice try.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444353)

You're one of very few people on Slashdot that hasn't lost their mind Fjord. The paranoid delusions here are as bad as those in the comments at any wingnut site. It's sad to watch people who think they're smart be this stupid.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444541)

Any guesses on the likelihood that Cold Fjord just followed up his own post with an AC one? I'd give it about 100%.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444255)

Maybe off topic but how many freedom of information requests that are granted end up full of redacted statements, names, places, ect?

So while you have a legit point, I seriously doubt the NSA's higher ups weren't the only ones he complained to. And even if he did they could still release the e-mails and redact any if not the entire email, other then commons wording or sentences you'd find in an e-mail. I loved the "law enforcement" excuse, most people know it when comes to "muslim" terrorists, or traitors, law enforcement is at no point involved, its all secret courts and prisons.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444653)

That'd be MY take on that.

Re:Snowden's copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444271)

> I presume that Snowden has his own copies of the emails in question.

I would not expect him too. The idea that he would get in a public "he-said, she-said" pissing match with the NSA probably never occurred to him before he left. His goal was to release proof of the NSA's wrong-doing, not provide a paper-trail of his own actions.

It's time for a revolution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443577)

LET'S DO THIS!!!

Re:It's time for a revolution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444237)

Posting that as AC kind of took the umph out of it...

of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443609)

Otherwise how could they keep justifying their argument of "he should have used the internal means of reporting the wrongdoings".

techniques and procedures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443621)

"would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures" aka lying.

Snowden / Binney 2016 (5, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about two weeks ago | (#47443637)

Snowden / Binney 2016! [traxel.com]

That image is my original artwork (with friendly tips from Slashdot user Indigo), copyright 2014 Robert Bushman, licensed under CC by-nc-sa. It is properly sized for a 2.75" by 5" sticker with .125" bleed at 300 dpi. I'm getting them printed at psprint.com (I recommend doing a search for "vinyl bumper stickers", since they often have a coupon running on Duck Duck Go). I haven't seen my physical proofs yet, but the on-screen color conversion looked good to me. Please feel free to print a stack and spread them far and wide.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about two weeks ago | (#47443663)

Looks like ".Snowden" at first glance. Reduce the space between the i and the dot.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about two weeks ago | (#47443717)

Looks like ".Snowden" at first glance. Reduce the space between the i and the dot.

Thanks for the tip. Done. Same url [traxel.com] .

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about two weeks ago | (#47443771)

Yeah, I think that helps. Thanks. I will be printing a few.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444147)

Except Snowden is 31 and you must be 35 to meet the candidacy requirement for POTUS.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about two weeks ago | (#47444163)

who is binney

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about two weeks ago | (#47444225)

who is binney

That's a big part of the reason I went with Binney instead of Doctorow (my original choice); to make you, and others like you, wonder, "Who is Binney?" Hopefully most of the rest will realize they can type "binney" into a search engine. :)

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444273)

Gee, If only there was a way to find out [google.com] ...

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (5, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | about two weeks ago | (#47444297)

who is binney

But, maybe my previous response was too snarky...

Sometimes people say, of Snowden, "He should have gone through official channels."

In 2001, William Binney did exactly that. Ever since then, Binney had been harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and marginalized and ignored by the media -- until Snowden embarrassed the major media with the help of Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian. Binney (and Drake before him) is why Snowden was right not to go through official channels; that method had been tested and found to fail.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | about two weeks ago | (#47444405)

Sorry, I only support candidates who can provide me with vector-based artwork.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016 (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about two weeks ago | (#47444651)

Sorry, I only support candidates who can provide me with vector-based artwork.

Here you go: LibreOffice Draw format [traxel.com] .

Low Level Analyst? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443675)

Why are emails from a 'low level analyst' classified as TOP SECRET?

Re:Low Level Analyst? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443811)

Because he was discussing Top Secret programs or information?

Discovery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443693)

Simple, if Snowden is really a white knight, he files for their production.

No, Snowden is still NSA, this is just how it is piecemealed to the public that they've been raped over the barrel since 9/11.

Since 9/11....

Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance (5, Insightful)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about two weeks ago | (#47443709)

At this point, there are numerous things happening such as laws, inquiries, public debate, and policy changes that are all due to Snowden's release of information. I feel that he has brought to the forefront an important issue and revealed things that the public needed to know. I can understand to some degree that people don't like how he did it, but given the machine that is the government, I don't doubt that this was the only way to bring about such changes (or at least debate and knowledge).

After a bit of a cool down period, I don't hear nearly as much hate for Snowden. Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and all other flavors should want a more open government. The government does also need to keep some things secret. This gives them a reason, the means, and a public grant of power to keep things from public knowledge. Some times the only way to circumvent that power is through a leak/whistle blower.

As far as this story, the public needs to pressure the government to keep no more secrets about Snowden. The cover of endangering certain sources or resources is no longer being accepted as we have seen little damage and much good from the release. It's time the US Government come clean and it's time we tell them that we demand it.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance (5, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about two weeks ago | (#47444117)

It has been my observation that the people who have blistering hatred for Snowden, are the kinds of people who totally embrace jingoism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

They see any kind of "restriction" on government's ability to secure "advantage" and "interest" as allowing "The terrorists to win" (or whatever is the current buzz phrase), As such, they view actions like snowden's as being completely un-american, because he undermined the interests of an american intelligence agency, who was collecting abhorrent amounts of information about everyone and everything--presumably to secure american interests, over foriegn interests. These are the same kinds of people that would support creation of a literal planet-killing super weapon, just to secure american military dominance, and would think nothing of it.

People that chug the jingo-laid come in all colors, all races, all creeds, and all genders: Liberal, Libertarian, Fiscal conservative, raging pinko, and gun toting whacko alike. The unifying feature is that they have bought into the "America is NUMBER ONE!!!!eleveltyone!" mantra.

Seeing that supporting "American interests" without question or hesitation is leading to somethig that is not the america they were promised, with real proof, and real scnadals, with real consequences (FOR THEM), is about the only way to get through to them, short of having them experience the stazi first hand, up close and brutal.

The bullshit needs to stop, and an anti-jingoism movement needs to sweep this country.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444289)

After reading this too
http://soylentnews.org/article... [soylentnews.org]

I would say for a fact there is nothing this admin can do at this point that is not simply criminal in nature. They are straight up covering it up as best they can and destroying evidence. They just handed this man a get out of jail free card. For what could be argued as treason.

Obama could straight up make this mess right in under a week. But instead he sits by and lets it happen. Cabinet members are doing the work at this point. You do not go much higher than Obama himself.

When you make this man look sane by repeated lies you have went the wrong way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

I was making fun of my family for their Obama hatred. I now am beginning to understand what he is doing is undermining everything our for-fathers built. They will no longer need lies to tell each other they will have truth and its much worse.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444501)

That's because every poor Fox News viewer has seen the NSA lie, get caught, lie again, get caught again, etc. about the whole mess.

*Snowden* is under ridiculous levels of governmental pressure, enough to crack a lot of less brave people. He stole, but as a whistleblower to reveal criminal abuse of the entire world's rights, treaties, and laws. Too bad Aaron Swartz couldn't have found something equally noteworthy to steal and publish, instead of material that was already available to subscribers and, usually, free at a public library. Then he'd have had a real excuse for chickening out of life.

Ask Snowden! (4, Interesting)

jargonburn (1950578) | about two weeks ago | (#47443765)

Perhaps they should try and contact Edward Snowden and see if he has copies of those email messages that'd he'd care to release.

Re:Ask Snowden! (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about two weeks ago | (#47444393)

That wouldn't matter. The government would simply claim any messages they don't like the content of were falsified. We could ask them to release their copies then, but they could similarly release doctored emails. The end result would be a classic case of he said/she said.

Misuse of FOIA (-1, Troll)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about two weeks ago | (#47443793)

First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure. It is not designed to request all the emails of a certain employee, nor should it. The FOIA is designed for targeted requests for specific information, not blanket demands so conspiracy theorists can try to dig for "evidence." The NSA should have ignored this FOIA act or pointed that out.

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it, the fake story Greenwald and Matthew Keys are trying to push is that the NSA is somehow hiding it, the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

Re: Misuse of FOIA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443849)

The NSA has already admitted to one email to the NSA Office of Counsel. They previously denied that one existed.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47443891)

Because the NSA never lies about what they know?

Re:Misuse of FOIA (5, Informative)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about two weeks ago | (#47443901)

God damn you are either incredibly dumb, or an NSA shill.....

First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure. It is not designed to request all the emails of a certain employee, nor should it. The FOIA is designed for targeted requests for specific information, not blanket demands so conspiracy theorists can try to dig for "evidence." The NSA should have ignored this FOIA act or pointed that out.

http://www.foia.gov/how-to.htm... [foia.gov]

What can I ask for under the FOIA?

A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. You can also specify the format in which you wish to receive the records. You should be aware that the FOIA does not require agencies to do research for you, to analyze data, to answer written questions, or to create records in response to a request.

Furthermore, captain fuckface, let me explain how this shit works....

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it, the fake story Greenwald and Matthew Keys are trying to push is that the NSA is somehow hiding it, the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

An FOIA request is made which would either prove, or disprove something in question. In this case they were trying to prove Snowden had attempted to run these abuses up the chain. NSA challenges the FOIA request, and will not produce evidence that they have stated they are in possession of. Remember, if the NSA had done no wrong, the e-mails would prove this.

Now please go fuck yourself straight to the fiery gates of hell. The US and the rest of the civilized world would do wonders without spineless cowards and traitors of your ilk. You are useful for nothing more than pig food.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (1)

Guy From V (1453391) | about two weeks ago | (#47444105)

I'd mod this up purely for "captain fuckface" if I had any left.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about two weeks ago | (#47444187)

Since you are so well informed (and well mannered), I have a question for you.

If Edward Snowden could steal 1.7 million documents and sneak them out of the NSA, why couldn't he manage to steal copies of his emails showing that he raised the issues that he claims? If he had, then people wouldn't have to engage in these sort of fishing expeditions. But for some reason it appears it either wasn't able to do that, or the emails don't exist.

Since he has already leaked documents on the programs he objected to you would think he could also release the emails showing that he objected to them ... if those emails actually existed ... and he had them.

He has tens or hundreds of thousands of documents on the intelligence programs of America's allies, a million and a half on America's intelligence programs and technology, but not a couple of emails that he himself wrote. Quite odd.

Any thoughts on that?

By the way, you should probably leave the word "civilized" out of your reply, I'm not sure you're qualified to use it.

Re: Misuse of FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444307)

Fuck off NSA shill. You ard atraitor to country

Re:Misuse of FOIA (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about two weeks ago | (#47444189)

A FOIA request can be made for any agency record...

An FOIA request is made which would either prove, or disprove something in question.

I always pronounced it FOIA, like rhymes with Goya. So it would be a FOIA. But is it pronounced F-O-I-A?

Re:Misuse of FOIA (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about two weeks ago | (#47443933)

You are absolutely correct but they know perfectly well it would just be followed up with the obvious and very specific request for "All e-mails from Edward Snowden with subject matter relating to the legality of the internet monitoring and cellular meta data gathering activities conducted by the NSA".

And then they'd be right back here were they are now. Having to make the same excuse, which might have some legitimacy as those mails probably are evidence in an on going criminal investigation of Snowden; all though we all know he isn't returning to the States without some kind of immunity agreement so its rather hollow sounding. Think how hollow it would sound if it was a second excuse given.

The reality is Snowden's story about having attempted to raise the issues thru the proper channels is likely truthful and would just expose more NSA and State Department lies. The would rather just look like dicks and someone felt just shutting down the FOIA avenue would look less Dickish than being evasive.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (5, Insightful)

ddt (14627) | about two weeks ago | (#47443947)

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA. They could be lying outright, or they could be doing it the DC way, which is telling the truth in a misleading way, by overlooking the fact that he approached them in person about it instead of in written form, which I certainly would have, as I'd be nervous as shit about writing an email like that.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii. There's nothing cowardly about all that.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about two weeks ago | (#47443957)

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

Revealing the government's evil and unconstitutional activities makes you a cowardly little shit? I suppose, in your mind, mindlessly obeying the government is a good example of a patriot in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'? He sure did a hell of a lot more than you, you authoritarian imbecile.

I personally really advise people to *not* try to go through the internal channels. That alerts them that you're trying to stop what they're doing, and they could put an end to you right there, which decreases the chances that the American people will ever know. The first people to know should be The People. Going through the 'proper channels' is just foolish and unnecessary.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (5, Interesting)

James McGuigan (852772) | about two weeks ago | (#47443961)

Edward Snowdon understood what would happen if he where to seriously try and push the issue internally.

The global surveillance network was a core NSA policy authorized at the highest levels. This was not simply some rouge agent or rouge department. Previous individuals have attempted to raise concerns internally and failed to achieve any change underlying policy. The NSA has even deliberately lied to congress on the matter.

As a contractor, he has no employment rights. Making noise would likely get his security clearance revoked and his employer finding someone else who doesn't have a moral problem with surveillance. It would also likely get himself added to the NSA watchlist.

As a pragmatist, his decision to publicly release records has successfully created enough political pressure for congress to at least review the NSA's policies. A cowardly little shit who was willing to risk everything on a high risk venture, with a very strong possibility of getting caught, that takes some major balls from someone who knows exactly what the NSA is capable of.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (1)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about two weeks ago | (#47444025)

I see your point that FOIA was designed for specific requests. But in this case the question is if he ever reported this to superiors. It could have been in person, but he probably would have covered himself and sent it in email. The only way to see if he ever sent emails reporting the issues is to see all emails. That request would mean a full release of his emails.

Of course, the reality is that this would have been one or two carefully crated emails. Taking 2-4 emails out of an archive with a daily average of 50 for a tech worker (pulled out my ass), would be unnoticeable. So the whole thing is pointless unless Snowden himself can show undeniable proof of these emails, and for bonus points a response.

Re: Misuse of FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444089)

NSA troll needs more work.

Re:Misuse of FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444319)

> First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure.

Hey, congrats on reading littlegreenfootballs!

Looks like you've got the blend of self-righteous nit-picking down

Can I get a dudebro!?

Re:Misuse of FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444373)

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it,

You are right, that quote is the real story here. The FOIA request said nothing about what reporter expect to find - it just listed a range of dates and snowden's email address.

It is really odd that the NSA's response included that unprompted explanation. I wonder why they did that?

Re:Misuse of FOIA (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about two weeks ago | (#47444419)

... the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He did something he knew would raise the ire of the government to the point they would want to capture him and torture him, dooming himself to a life on the run for the rest of his days. Yeah, he's a real yellow-belly.

IRS Email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47444447)

Congress has been attempting to get Lois Learner's emails for over a year and a half at this point. Only recently were they finally told that they had been destroyed accidently. It took the IRS over a year to inform Congress of this.

However, Judicial Watch has an FOIA request that is requiring an IRS official, in writing, under threat of purgury if they lie, to explain exatly how the emails were destroyed, by who and so on. This is something Congress has not been able to do themselves over a year and a half.

If the administration is not answerable to Congress, then they better be anserable to FOIA requests. If not they are not legimitate and I guess we have no more reason to listen to any part of the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

I'd bet.... (3)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about two weeks ago | (#47443859)

...Snowden would waive his right to privacy, but the NSA's answer would no doubt be the same.

"could interfere with law enforcement" (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about two weeks ago | (#47443977)

Like ... how? Tip off Snowden that he's wanted?

"law enforcement" (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about two weeks ago | (#47444435)

A grand meme.

Really? (3, Insightful)

Dega704 (1454673) | about two weeks ago | (#47444523)

Well the government has made one thing very clear. They believe that they are the only beings on earth that are entitled to privacy or secrecy, and they are entitled to ALL of it while simultaneously violating everyone else's eight ways till friday.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>