NSA Staffer: Snowden Didn't Dupe Coworkers Out of Passwords

[Hissyspit]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa-coworker-remembers-the-real-edward-snowden-a-genius-among-geniuses

Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff
Covering the worlds of data security, privacy and hacker culture.

SECURITY | 12/16/2013 @ 8:30AM |3,015 views
An NSA Coworker Remembers The Real Edward Snowden: 'A Genius Among Geniuses'

Perhaps Edward Snowden’s hoodie should have raised suspicions.

The black sweatshirt sold by the civil libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation featured a parody of the National Security Agency’s logo, with the traditional key in an eagle’s claws replaced by a collection of AT&T cables, and eavesdropping headphones covering the menacing bird’s ears. Snowden wore it regularly to stay warm despite the air conditioning in the underground NSA Hawaii Kunia facility known as “the tunnel.”

His coworkers assumed it was meant ironically. And a geek as gifted as Snowden could get away with a few irregularities.

Months after Snowden leaked tens of thousands of the NSA’s most highly classified documents to the media, the former intelligence contractor has stayed out of the limelight, rarely granting interviews or sharing personal details. A 60 Minutes episode Sunday night, meanwhile, aired NSA’s officials descriptions of Snowden as a malicious hacker who cheated on an NSA entrance exam and whose work computers had to be destroyed after his departure for fear he had infected them with malware.

But an NSA staffer who contacted me last month and asked not to be identified–and whose claims we checked with Snowden himself via his ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner—offered me a very different, firsthand portrait of how Snowden was seen by his colleagues in the agency’s Hawaii office: A principled and ultra-competent, if somewhat eccentric employee, and one who earned the access used to pull off his leak by impressing superiors with sheer talent.

The anonymous NSA staffer’s priority in contacting me, in fact, was to refute stories that have surfaced as the NSA and the media attempt to explain how a contractor was able to obtain and leak the tens of thousands of highly classified documents that have become the biggest public disclosure of NSA secrets in history. According to the source, Snowden didn’t dupe coworkers into handing over their passwords, as one report has claimed. Nor did Snowden fabricate SSH keys to gain unauthorized access, he or she says.

Instead, there’s little mystery as to how Snowden gained his access: It was given to him.

“That kid was a genius among geniuses,” says the NSA staffer. “NSA is full of smart people, but anybody who sat in a meeting with Ed will tell you he was in a class of his own…I’ve never seen anything like it.”

MORE AT LINK

[hootinholler]

1. K&R n/t

[Autumn]

2. Recommended and bookmarked.

Thanks for posting this.

[billhicks76]

142. Wow

Looks like they don't want us to know what a bright, up and coming genius he is. Probaby because we would then believe him when he says how evil that agency has become.

[sabrina 1]

3. Sounds like he wasn't the only one concerned about what was going on. But he was one ready to take

the risk to inform the public.

[idwiyo]

4. K&R

[jsr]

5. "60 Minutes" was a hit job.

[randome]

6. Yet he didn't understand what a secure FTP server was.

This anonymous source doesn't jibe with that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

7. Who didn't?

[DesMoinesDem]

9. Why bother with that NSA appologist that repeats the same laughable things over and over?

[randome]

11. Snowden didn't.

He thought PRISM was a means for the NSA to basically download the Internet on a daily basis when it was actually secure FTP servers at Google, Facebook, etc. for those companies to place information they were legally required to furnish.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

13. I'm not sure that's actually been proven.

Just claimed.

[randome]

15. Greenwald sure thought he had the NSA by the short hairs when he trumpeted 'direct access'.

He never said what 'direct access' meant, I believe, but he sure implied it was something nefarious. Which leads to the inference that both he and Snowden didn't know it really referred to secure FTP servers.

But you're right, we don't actually know much of anything about this entire affair.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

102. Snowden's claims of "Direct Access" have been proven over the last 6 months.

That was a popular avenue of attack in the early days of the Snowden revelations'
buttressed by the NSA and White House claims of No Spying on Americans.

Since those days, it has been revealed that the NSA has so much direct access to EVERY-FUCKING-THING that they even use NSA resources spy on their girlfriend's phone calls and E-Mails in Real Time.

[randome]

104. I doubt that 'they' spy on their ex-lover's phone calls and emails.

You're talking about a handful of cases of employees who got caught doing that and were disciplined. The same abuse of responsibility occurs in every law enforcement agency across the planet. And when it's found out, it's stopped. Hopefully those abusers lost their jobs.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

107. So you admit that this happened.

In order for this to happen,
the NSA would have to have Direct Access.
The fact that documented cases of abuses of this Direct Access to phone calls and electronic media have been revealed
shoots down the claim you made in the previews post ridiculing Snowden for saying that the NSA routinely has and uses "direct access".

I know that this exceeds your ability to connect the dots,
and your will post some diversionary Red Herrings to try and marginalize this DOCUMENTED PROOF OF DIRECT ACCESS,
but other readers of this thread will not be so impaired,
and that is to whom I am posting this rebuttal of your claims.

BTW: Using that old, worn out, discredited, debunked manufactured tempest about Snowden using the phrase "direct access",
and trying to use THAT to discredit the whole of Snowden's revelations is soooooo
last Winter.
You guys really need to come up with something new.

[randome]

113. The abusive employees did not use the PRISM program for this purpose.

You hear Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. all saying the same thing: the servers used for the NSA do not allow real-time monitoring. You can choose to believe they are all in on the conspiracy, too, but there are too many people involved for that.

Whatever methods used by the (hopefully ex-) employees more likely involved filling out paperwork to query the metadata or something like that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

117. I DID predict a diversionary dodge.

Since the "direct access" talking point has been so thoroughly debunked,
you NOW want to switch off to,
Its ONLY the Metadata (which has been debunked also).
(You guys really need to get some new talking points.
Dredging up all this old, debunked BS is really embarrassing.)


You know what Joe Biden says about collecting the Metadata?

I agree with THAT Joe Biden, the 2006 version,
but, of course,
Its ALL just PEACHY because NOW its the Democrats doing it.

Have you no shame?

[Enthusiast]

161. A huge plus one! nt

[JDPriestly]

120. Did you ever work for a phone company back in the old days when the lines were physically

hooked into the system?

If you had you would understand that the NSA has to have direct access. They are not just asking the electronic communications companies to hand them printed or even electronic phone bills.

The internet works very much like the old "central" telephone offices that my great-aunt worked at and like the telephone company I used to work for except that the systems are huge in comparison and the wiring is electronic and not physically wired up.

Did you ever talk on a party line?

The German government commentators apparently suggested that the NSA intercepts communications in the international cables. Certainly our satellites can probably intercept things. The capacity of our satellites is incredible. These facts are commonly known and within the personal experience of many Americans. The technical aspects that make electronic communications unique don't change the fundamental organization of the kind of system that links one party, one household, to a larger system and then individually to other parties or households on the system.

Good grief! Charlie Brown! Nothing new under the sun.

[randome]

132. So the NSA is blackmailing every employee of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc?

All of whom say they do not give 'direct access' to the NSA.

How do you think they would transmit data to the NSA if not via computer? By FedEx?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

138. I am not saying that they do blackmail anyone.

I am saying that the point in collecting all that metadata and other information may well be to have the information needed to blackmail people.

That is how totalitarian governments and their intelligence arms work.

Many Americans are so inexperienced and so ignorant of history that they naively trust the government and its agents to be trustworthy in all cases. Again, it is simply naive to trust any government that much. It is especially naive to trust a government that has had to admit to hiding facts, lying and keeping secrets concerning the collection of data on you. Just naive.

Whether the surveillance program is necessary or justified depends on weighing its benefits against not the damage it has been proved to have inflicted already but against the potential damages.

What are the potential benefits if any?

What are the potential risks if any?

In my view, the potential risks far outweigh the potential benefits. That is where I disagree with the apologists for the program.

As I have said so many times before, based on my knowledge of history and my experience living in Europe and talking to many survivors of WWII and Communism in various countries, I think that we should not take the risk of entrusting our intelligence apparatus to have so much information about our personal lives. It is unnecessary, and the risk that the information will be used wrongly, possibly even be used to destroy what is left of democracy and free enterprise in our country, is far greater than any gain it could provide.

[reACTIONary]

147. the point in collecting all that metadata...

...is perfectly well known. It is to "connect the dots" on the numbers called by foreign suspects in the United States. That's all.

Of course the government keeps secretes. All governments keep secretes. They do so to protect their citizens and to give them an advantage in their interactions with other countries - and, in this case, an advantage over non-state terrorist organizations.

What exactly is so personal about "this number called that number"? Why are you worried about the government having this information when the phone company has it and it can be subpoenaed by normal law enforcement, or even by your spouse during a divorce trial?

[JDPriestly]

154. What exactly is so personal about "this number called that number"?

I can't believe that anyone could ask that question.

The phone company cannot arrest me, and because the phone company is trying to make money, it is not going to spend its potential profits on trying to analyze where I go, with whom I meet, with whom I speak, to whom I write e-mails. what I post on DU, and if they did, they would just try to make more profit from the information.

The government is supposed to keep its nose out of the personal business of those who elect it.

The NSA is completely out of order on this excessive surveillance. As I have posted so many times, I lived in Europe, I knew and know survivors from WWII. Some of them I know very well. While I was living in Europe, I met people who were visiting or had escaped from Communist countries including one friend who had escaped from a country whose previous job had been to censor foreign news.

Why would the NSA want to have my phone records? For the same reason that the East German or Polish or Soviet governments wanted the phone records of their citizens -- to keep an eye on their communications, to know who talks to people in foreign countries and who doesn't. Well, that is no excuse for violating my Fourth Amendment rights. What is so dangerous about talking to people in foreign countries?

The number of terrorists in the US is not so large that the NSA would have to spend a lot of time getting court orders, subpoenas or warrants to obtain their records.

The collection of metadata is extremely dangerous. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment when abused to the point that the NSA is abusing it. I strongly oppose it, and everyone would if they had the experiences in life that I have had.

[reACTIONary]

180. FYI, We do not live in a communist country...

... so concerns about what communist countries did or do to their quote-citizens-unquote aren't relevant.

The government is supposed to keep its nose out of the personal business of those who elect it enforce the law of the land. In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement's collection of telephone numbers called from a particular telephone line was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus no warrant was required.

NSA and the 4th Amendment

The NSA does not want your phone records and does not want to know who you are and are not talking to - they want to know who suspected foreign terrorists are talking to. Your phone records are incidental to this goal and are not further interrogated unless they are specifically relevant to this purpose.

What the East German, Polish and Soviet governments were up to (I use the past tense, because, in case you have not noticed, they DO NOT EVEN EXIST any longer) is not relevant to what the government of the United States of America is up to.

You seem to believe that we should not have effective measures for the enforcement of just laws in the here-and-now because in some imaginary, dystopian future the same measures might be used to enforce unjust laws. I think the problem is laws that are unjust , not effective law enforcement. I believe in just laws, the rule of law and effective law enforcement.

[JDPriestly]

184. If this is true--

"the NSA does not want your phone records and does not want to know who you are and are not talking to - they want to know who suspected foreign terrorists are talking to," then the NSA does not need to and should not be collecting my metadata. I don't want them to, and I think I have a Fourth Amendment right to ask that, as in Smith v. Maryland, they collect it only if they suspect me of a crime or need my information in order to investigate a specific crime.

Famous last words:

"What the East German, Polish and Soviet governments were up to (I use the past tense, because, in case you have not noticed, they DO NOT EVEN EXIST any longer) is not relevant to what the government of the United States of America is up to." The NAZIs, the East Germans, the Polish and Soviet government abuses of personal information and of their internal intelligence gathering systems is extremely relevant to what our NSA is now doing.

After WWII, we hired Reinhard Gehlen and used information from that NAZI's spy organization in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Why? Because we had very little information about what was going on in Eastern Europe and he had a network of spies there.

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

Further, Americans (including me) know very little about how the STASI worked in East Germany. It was apparently not nearly as effective in spying on every communication and anyone it wanted to spy on as our NSA is. Of course, that is, in part because the internet and the capacity we have today to use algorithms to analyze the metadata did not exist.

We would all like to believe that we will never have and never know the widespread oppression that terrorized people in Germany during the NAZI era or in Eastern Europe and China during the Communist era (the oppression that still exists today to some extent in those countries).

But, let's remember, we have imprisoned a larger percentage of our population than any country on earth at this time.

This chart shows that we are number 1 in the percentage of citizens in prison:

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

Keeping these facts in mind, the examples of Eastern Europe and of NAZI Germany are quite relevant to a discussion of the excessive surveillance in the US today.

Of course, the NSA surveillance is providing a lot of make-work, useless jobs to computer nerds. I realize that. But maybe we could provide more useful, more socially productive work for the talented people caught in the horrible, demeaning business of spying on their fellow countrymen.

And why were we spying on Angela Merkel? Do we also spy on the Pope? How about the British Prime Minister? What hubris.

Read your friends' diaries without their permission and you are likely to lose their friendship. That's not a hard one to figure out.

I predict (based on my past experience) that there will be some sort of scandal that awakens Americans to the excesses of the NSA unless the NSA curbs its enthusiasm for spying on innocent people.

Smith v. Maryland is very familiar to me. The facts were totally different from the current NSA spying program. This spying program's collection of metadata is not even based on reasonable suspicion. It isn't even random. It is, as I understand it, a broad sweep of data.

At the very least, the NSA should be far more honest and open about the circumstances under which it decides to place someone under surveillance. It can't expect citizens to trust it or suspect it of the worse if it does not tell us the parameters of its collection -- honestly tell us the parameters. It is inexcusable that the NSA "inadvertently" or "unintentionally" gathers our data and does not inform us and apologize to us when it does.

The NSA seems to think it is above the law. I strongly disagree.

[reACTIONary]

195. All of those citizens in prison...

are convicted criminals who plead guilty or were publically tried and found guilty based on legally collected evidence. That has nothing to do with ex NAZIS, the STASI or the NSA.

"The NSA seems to think it is above the law. I strongly disagree."

The NSA can point to the law that authorizes them to access the phone records. The other day I was at a town meeting held by Ben Cardin. He was asked about the NSA and the phone records. He stated unequivocally that the NSA program was authorized by law. Being a legislator, he ought to know.

"Smith v. Maryland is very familiar to me. The facts were totally different from the current NSA spying program."

This is currently the most widely cited precedent. While the facts may not be "totally different", it seems that it will be argued before the SCOTUS. Until then, Smith v. Maryland and a law that explicitly authorizes the NSA is what we've got.

[JDPriestly]

196. It will most likely be argued before the Supreme Court.

Hard to say how they will decide. Roberts and Kagan worked in the Bush and Obama administrations respectively and may be somewhat biased in favor of the NSA. But Scalia and some of the others are fairly strong on human rights. So we shall see.

I suspect that, as with racial integration, it will take a number of years before the Court recognizes that the NSA is violating our constitutional rights.

The crime in this instance, in my opinion, was perpetrated by the NSA. That is my opinion and my view of the law.

During the NAZI and Communist regimes, many people were punished for political crimes. That could well happen here. The definition of "terrorism," "terrorist acts," and other language defining the conduct targeted by the Patriot Act is very vague and overbroad in my opinion. So far it has been applied in a narrow sense, but the potential for abuse is very great.

Just why certain attacks such as the attack on Gabby Giffords were not considered to be acts of terror while others were is very unclear. Whether the Patriot Act is applied in a certain factual situation seems to be rather an arbitrary decision on the part of law enforcement. That brings us closer to the criminalization of political activities that was prevalent under the NAZIs and Communists. That is because we haven't really clearly defined terrorism as actions as opposed to simply supporting people who without your assistance perform violent acts. That part of the Patriot Act is vague and could be interpreted to permit sentencing people for participating in groups that are associated indirectly with people who commit actual acts of terror. That is one of the ways that political repression was imposed in the NAZI, fascist and Communist totalitarian regimes. You are a "pinko" because you have a friend who is a Communist. Therefore we can imprison you. That is political repression in full form.

Could it happen here? We came close in the McCarthy era. I remember coming home from school and seeing segments of the McCarthy hearings on TV. Even as a child, I was completely appalled. And I didn't and couldn't have understood much about what was going on. I did not have the historical context or knowledge. I just knew that people were verbally beating up on someone with no ability to respond as he would have liked to.

[reACTIONary]

199. You are etitled to your opinion, and...

...the surveillance may eventually be declared unconstitutional, but having been authorized by law, having received appropriations from congress to pay for it, and having reported regularly to the congressional oversight committee, I don't understand how the program could be considered a "crime" that was "perpetrated" by the NSA.

Of course, discretion and judgment and are required in any criminal justice matter - that's why we have "judges". Nonetheless, it seems to me that terrorism occupies a fairly well defined place in the justice system.

Terrorism is a public attack that is meant to instill fear in a populace for political or ideological reasons. It has been used in that sense since the late 1800's when bombing attacks by "anarchists" first became prevalent. The KKK's attacks on the black population are another early example.

Characterizing the attack on Gabby Giffords as terrorism doesn't seem appropriate to me. I don't think the motive (if a schizophrenic can even be considered to having a motive) fits with the idea of advancing a political cause or ideology.

The public, indiscriminate nature of the attack and, in particular, the motivation is what differentiates terrorism from other similar crimes. That seems to be a reasonable differentiator to me.

[JDPriestly]

200. A public attack, indiscriminate in nature against a political figure?

Seems to me that describes the attack on Gabby Giffords. Schizophrenic? Aren't most terrorists schizophrenic?

Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.[1] Common symptoms include delusions, such as paranoid beliefs; hallucinations; disorganized thinking; and negative symptoms, such as blunted affect and avolition. Schizophrenia causes significant social and vocational dysfunction.

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

The attacker in the Giffords case was not disorganized enough in his thinking to be unable to organize the attack quite well. Aren't many people who would be identified as "terrorists" just as "schizophrenic" as he was? He organized the attack very well.

Do you consider the guy who did the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing to have been a terrorist? What made him different from the man in the Giffords case? Aren't most people who ascribe to extremist political ideologies pretty "schizophrenic"? or at least on the border of it?

Besides, isn't the schizophrenia a defense and a reason to be declared unfit for trial? It doesn't determine the nature of the charges faced does it? The prosecution does not decide that the attacker was schizophrenic and therefore not a terrorist? The prosecution decides the charge based on the facts of the act. And that is the problem with the Patriot Act's definition of an act of terror. It doesn't really distinguish the act of terror from acts like the attack on Gabby Gifford (if there is a difference to distinguish).

If the Gifford attacker's motive was apolitical, why did he pick on Gabby Gifford?

What was it about her and the situation that drew his attention and caused him to attack? Let's assume he was insane. He was not too insane to pick a target. Why Gabby Gifford? He did not know her.

[reACTIONary]

201. my thoughts...

* Aren't most terrorists schizophrenic? Aren't many people who would be identified as "terrorists" just as "schizophrenic" as he was?

No, I don't believe so. Schizophrenia is a diagnosable medical condition that has well understood and well diferentiated symptomology. If most terrorists were schizophrenic this would be pretty easy to established. I don't know of any studies or other expert opinion that claims that this condition is common amongst those who have been deemed terrorists. The article you provided about schizophrenia did not mention a link to terrorism. If you know of any such studies, let me know, I'd be interested.


* Do you consider the guy who did the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing to have been a terrorist?

Yes, of course. He was different from Gilfords attacker in that he was a right wing ideologue who was attempting to further his political goals and influence public policy by perpetuating a public act of mass death and destruction. "McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer... sought revenge against the federal government for their handling of the Waco Siege... as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident... McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government."

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


* Aren't most people who ascribe to extremist political ideologies pretty "schizophrenic"? or at least on the border of it?

No, of course not. Once again, Schizophrenia is a diagnosable medical condition that has well understood symptomology. Holding extreme political or religious beliefs does not make one schizophrenic. Extreme political ideologies is not mentioned in the article you provided.


* The attacker in the Giffords case was not disorganized enough in his thinking to be unable to organize the attack quite well.

Are you contending that it isn't possible for schizophrenics to carry out acts of mass violence at public events or in schools and malls? In the case of the Giffords attack the perpetrator was most certainly schizophrenic. Obviously, then, at least one schizophrenic was capable of enough organization and planning to perpetuate such a crime. That may not be typical, but it certainly is possible.


* The prosecution does not decide that the attacker was schizophrenic and therefore not a terrorist?

A prosecutor has to determine the motive of an attacker in order to decide if the attack was an act of terrorism or not. From what I know about schizophrenia it's my speculation that it is unlikely that a schizophrenic is going to be politically or ideologically motivated to the extent that the violence would be characterized as terrorism. News stories about schizophrenics who perpetuate public acts of violence seem to support my speculation. However, this is my own speculation, and it certainly possible that I am wrong about that. I would not contend that it is impossible, I just think it unlikely.


* If the Gifford attacker's motive was apolitical, why did he pick on Gabby Gifford?

Don't know. It was a public event that would draw a crowd. He could have picked a school or a shopping mall. Any one of those targets would have been equally compatible with an act of terrorism or a mass killing driven by mental illness. By itself, it doesn't mean a thing.


According to the ACLU, this is the definition of terrorism within the context of the "patriot act":

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

In my opinion, this is a pretty good definition of terrorism and does not seem to be overly broad - although the ACLU seems to think it is, and gives some pretty weak examples of how they think the definition could be abused. Although they can't give an example of a case where it actually WAS abused.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

Here are a few other definitions:

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx

[bvar22]

171. Joe Biden sure disagrees with you.

Of course, that was the 2006 version of Joe Biden.
The BEFORE Joe Biden.
Its all peachy now that the Democrats are doing it.

[randome]

172. The metadata being collected was fine with everyone until Snowden yelled 'Fire!'

It started in 2006 and no one gave a damn.

Maybe you're right, it's only because Obama is President that this suddenly has the 'hair on fire' brigade running about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

173. Speak for yourself.

Your claim the "nobody gave a damn" reflects only your personal little fantasy world.
Many Gave a Damn, including Joe Biden & myself.

[reACTIONary]

181. Let's just say that...

...it didn't sell any newspapers way back in 2006 before Obama was prez. That isn't a fantasy, that's a fact.

[bvar22]

186. That is invalid reasonng, and historical revisionism.

Just because you say this wasn't a major issue in 2006
means we shouldn't be upset about it today?

Wrong is wrong,
whether is started in 2006.... or yesterday.

Government Overreach,
the burgeoning growth of our Homeland Security Agencies,
the chipping away of our Constitutional Civil Liberties ( esp. 1st & 4th Amendment),
the expansion of the supra-constitutional powers of the "Unitary Executive",
and the bogus Perpetual State of War on Terror,
have been BIG issues here and with most Americans since 9-11.
The recent revelations form Snowden and others has simply refocused the spotlight,



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[reACTIONary]

192. If you were to provide some sort of objective, measurable metric...

... for what constitutes "big issues" for "most Americans" and show that any of those concerns rang the bell before 2008 I would appreciate it.

I lean a bit towards the speculation that the belief that we have a "foreign born, Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist" in the white house that is driving a lot of the animus against the government across the board is part of the hyper histrionics over the NSA.

You, of course, may be upset about any issue you deem to be important, regardless of what other Americans do or don't or did or will think about it.

[reACTIONary]

179. So? nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. I have seen state level employees do the same thing....

everybody uses their access for that kinda stuff..ask cops!

[hueymahl]

123. Just curious . . .

Does the NSA pay you by the post or by the day?

[Mnpaul]

152. Do you know how to tap into a fiber optic cable?

It can be done with a prism/beam splitter

Similar techniques can surreptitiously tap fibre for surveillance, although this is rarely done where electronic equipment used in telecommunication is required to allow access to any phone line for tapping by legal authorization. Tapping the fibre means that all signals from every communications source being routed through the fibre are presented and must be sorted for relevant data, an immense task when thousands of sources of data or voice may be present.

According to reports, tapping fibre was used by the US government for surveillance following the September 11, 2001 attacks and a nuclear submarine, the Jimmy Carter, was modified to allow tapping undersea cables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_tapping

Gee, I wonder why they called the program Prism?

[randome]

170. And I wonder why a prism is called a prism?

You either accept the idea that PRISM is a secure FTP server or you accept the idea that every employee of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. is being blackmailed by the NSA to keep quiet about it.

It really is that simple.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Mnpaul]

198. I don't have to accept either

How would employees know about a beam splitter installed between their data farms. We can tap into fiber cables on the ocean floor. Above ground would be a piece of cake.

The Internet companies’ data centers are locked down with full-time security and state-of-the-art surveillance, including heat sensors and iris scanners. But between the data centers — on Level 3’s fiber-optic cables that connected those massive computer farms — information was unencrypted and an easier target for government intercept efforts, according to three people with knowledge of Google’s and Yahoo’s systems who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

It is impossible to say for certain how the N.S.A. managed to get Google and Yahoo’s data without the companies’ knowledge. But both companies, in response to concerns over those vulnerabilities, recently said they were now encrypting data that runs on the cables between their data centers. Microsoft is considering a similar move.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/technology/a-peephole-for-the-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

[reACTIONary]

182. NSA would never, ever, give a program a name...

... that hinted at or revealed its purpose or the techniques used. They use a random name generator. This is how they came up with the name "Egotistical Giraffe" for their TOR attack strategy.

[Mnpaul]

185. Its funny that their random name generator came up with...

The Terrorist Surveillance Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Surveillance_Program

never say never

[bvar22]

187. Oh My.

THAT will leave a mark.
So much for that poster's credibility.

Well Done.

[Mnpaul]

191. They want me to believe

how careful the NSA is about exposing info after a contractor walked out the door with millions of classified documents.

Sorry, not buying it. We have known since the Bush admin. that intelligence agencies have been lapping into fiber optic cables in the U.S.

[reACTIONary]

194. Please see post #193...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024183858#post193

[reACTIONary]

193. After the fact, post hoc spin....

"The program was named the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the George W. Bush administration... It is unknown if this is the original name of the program; the term was first used publicly by President Bush in a speech on January 23, 2006."

There are "random name generators" and then there are "PR spin generators".

[Mnpaul]

197. Did Bush pick "Traffic Thief" too?

They even have a cute little prism at the top with two beams emanating from it.

[reACTIONary]

202. The REAL secret meaning! You have to play it backward...

... or in this case flip it upside down... to reveal the SECRET!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/12/nsa_logo_scandal/

(The name PRISM just doesn't mean or reveal anything. The NSA doesn't do that.)

[ProSense]

10. But he's a "genius among geniuses" who

didn't know that the US could revoke his passport, leaving him stranded in Russia.

This part of the article is interesting:

•Snowden’s former colleague says that he or she has slowly come to understand Snowden’s decision to leak the NSA’s files. “I was shocked and betrayed when I first learned the news, but as more time passes I’m inclined to believe he really is trying to do the right thing and it’s not out of character for him. I don’t agree with his methods, but I understand why he did it,” he or she says. “I won’t call him a hero, but he’s sure as hell no traitor.”

[randome]

12. I agree he's no traitor, just a confused loner who has now painted himself into a corner.

In Russia, of all places.

There is a reason Wikileaks, after interviewing him, wanted nothing to do with him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

14. The comment I cited

calls into question the OP title.

If they willing gave him their passwords, why would they be "shocked and betrayed"?

They may have given the passwords willing, but the duped part is likely why they would react in such a way.

[Hissyspit]

16. Nonsense.

[ProSense]

17. No, it isn't. n/t

[Hissyspit]

20. Just the fact that admin at NSA leaked files would be enough to produce an initial sense of betrayal

Why does it have to have anything to do with the passwords?

[ProSense]

24. They felt "shocked and betrayed" by his actions.

It also states that they still "don’t agree with his methods."

[Luminous Animal]

30. And?

[ProSense]

32. LOL!

[Hissyspit]

33. Falling back on that, hunh?

"Methods" could refer to any number of aspects of the leaks.

[Enthusiast]

162. Yes, it is.

[DesMoinesDem]

21. Maybe if you read the excerpt you cited a few more times you will understand it.

Hint: it has nothing at all to do with passwords. It doesn't say AT ALL what you think it says.

[Luminous Animal]

23. The article is clear. He was given access by his supwriors

No need to dupe his coworkers.

[niyad]

47. . this. .

A principled and ultra-competent, if somewhat eccentric employee, and one who earned the access used to pull off his leak by impressing superiors with sheer talent.

[ljm2002]

50. There was no indication in the article...

...that "they willing(ly) gave him their passwords".

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. If so, you might consider going back and re-reading the article. It is quite clear on how he got access.

Perhaps you don't understand what it means to have full access to a machine as the system administrator.

Perhaps you should find out, lest you (continue to) look like a fool.

Hint: if you are not using encryption software for your email messages, then system administrators on EVERY system where your email lands as it hops over to its final destination, can read your messages. No password required.

Similarly, if his superiors granted him sysadmin access, then he did not need to know anyone's password to access the data stored on those systems. And apparently, a lot of that highly classified data was stored in un-encrypted format. Oops! Also, the NSA apparently did not have even rudimentary auditing in place to record what he was accessing. Double Oops!!

It reminds me of Stratfor, whose CEO could not be bothered to secure his own account with a strong password. His company advised others on best practices, but he was above all that. Too damn much trouble, apparently. That's the thing about computer security, it's certainly inconvenient when done right. But not nearly as inconvenient as when you get f***ed up because you didn't do it right.

[ProSense]

54. Actually,

There was no indication in the article...

...that "they willing(ly) gave him their passwords".

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. If so, you might consider going back and re-reading the article. It is quite clear on how he got access.

...it's you who seems to have a "reading comprehension problem."

I said they "may" have given him their passwords willingly. They meaning anyone at the NSA.

The fact remains that they felt "shocked and betrayed" and still "don’t agree with his methods."

Similarly, if his superiors granted him sysadmin access, then he did not need to know anyone's password to access the data stored on those systems. And apparently, a lot of that highly classified data was stored in un-encrypted format. Oops! Also, the NSA apparently did not have even rudimentary auditing in place to record what he was accessing. Double Oops!!

You can parse it anyway you want to, the initial reaction was betrayal, and that likely included the supervisors who he impressed to gain access.

[ljm2002]

57. "You can parse it anyway you want to"...

...indeed. Here is what YOU said in YOUR post that I am responding to:

The comment I cited

calls into question the OP title.

If they willing gave him their passwords, why would they be "shocked and betrayed"?

They may have given the passwords willing, but the duped part is likely why they would react in such a way.

(emphasis mine)

The article is based on one NSA employee who spoke to the author of the piece. YOUR own words imply that various people ("they&quot gave him their passwords. But that is not what the article says, not at all. You are the one who is parsing here, trying to squirm out of your own misreading, or misunderstanding, or deliberate misstating of what the article said.

Feel free to parse away. Your meaning was quite clear to anyone who can read.

[ProSense]

59. Nonsense,

The article is based on one NSA employee who spoke to the author of the piece. YOUR own words imply that various people ("they&quot gave him their passwords. But that is not what the article says, not at all. You are the one who is parsing here, trying to squirm out of your own misreading, or misunderstanding, or deliberate misstating of what the article said.

Feel free to parse away. Your meaning was quite clear to anyone who can read.

...the point is that even if he was willingly given access by one or more persons, the anonymous source felt "shocked and betrayed," and still doesn't "approve of his methods."

Do you think that those who gave him access are delighted?

"... As his coworker tells it, he was given full administrator privileges, with virtually unlimited access to NSA data. “Big mistake in hindsight,” says Snowden’s former colleague. “But if you had a guy who could do things nobody else could, and the only problem was that his badge was green instead of blue, what would you do?”

[ljm2002]

63. Slither away, ProSense...

...and try and change the subject. No one said that those who gave him access "are delighted". Those are your words, calculated to deflect from your OBVIOUS misstating of what the article said.

TTFN

[ProSense]

64. No, and my point stands.

You simply are having trouble accepting that the anonymous source is offering information that also portrays Snowden in a negative light, still disapproving of the way he went about it and stating that it was wrong to give him access in hindsight.

Maybe take your own advice: "Slither away," and deal with that reality.

[ProSense]

84. "She has all day to post. It is her job. Just ignore her."

Idiotic, and still doesn't make Snowden a hero. He's still stuck in Russia.

[ljm2002]

92. I am well acquainted with PS...

...and although I generally do ignore her, once in awhile I feel it is important to challenge her, especially on this topic. I will note, she does not spew mis- / dis-information on every topic; I even agree with her on a lot of things. However, on this particular subject she is drearily predictable and wrong-headed. Since her post claims she has refuted the OP's subject line (she has not, of course), and since some people may not read the (very short) article in question, I decided this one ought to be challenged.

As for PS always needing to have the last word, that is indeed part of her posting pattern. It is an effective tactic for those whose goal is to control the conversation, and it also allows them to maintain the illusion that they "won" the argument. It is very transparent.

[ProSense]

94. LOL!

"However, on this particular subject she is drearily predictable and wrong-headed. "

No, you're the "wrong-headed" one. I'm right. Snowden is not a hero, and he is in fact stuck in Russia. LOL!

[hueymahl]

158. Trying to get the last word again?

[tblue37]

148. He didn't need their passwords, according to the article.

He was given full access by his supervisors because he was useful and totally trusted, so they wanted him to have full access.

[Luminous Animal]

26. This is absolute bullshit. Wikileaks worked to maintain his freedom.

This is undisputed.

[randome]

28. Sarah Harrison may have been captivated by Snowden but little else came of it.

Snowden's father said he thought Wikileaks was trying to dupe his son but that may have been paternal angst at the time.

Still, after their initial interview with Snowden, the Wikileaks team packed up and left with the exception of Harrison.

Unless I've missed something, we don't hear them advocating for Snowden in anything but a perfunctory way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

38. WikiLeaks Twitter account has continually praised Harrison.

I think WikiLeaks main problem with Snowden is that he did not come to them initially, and/or did not "dump" all his documents. What proof of your "reason" do you have?

[randome]

40. I have proof of nothing in this life.

A Twitter account praising Harrison doesn't sound like it does much for Snowden.

The entire reason Wikileaks sprang into existence is the same as why the NSA has over-reached -the Information Age makes data ridiculously easy to copy and disseminate.

And that's where we are in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

67. It is funny watching people play mental gymnastics over some dude they

say over and over care nothing about and he was just a loner/loser type!

I've never seen people so pissed off about, supposedly nothing according to them!

Make for great entertainment!

[bvar22]

103. It spotlights the Big Lie.

If they didn't care
they wouldn't show up in every single thread
re-posting their same old debunked claims and rationalizations.
time,
after time,
after time.

Snowden is living in a lot of heads rent free.
The same heads that OWS lives in Rent Free too.

Did you hear that Snowden had Boxes in his garage,
and somebody said that he wasn't a good neighbor !!!???

[MADem]

48. When he left that high end hotel in HK, he went to the Russian consulate.

To me, that seems odd.

To put it mildly.

[randome]

66. Everything about Snowden seems odd.

Loner. College drop-out. Tossed out of the military. (Did we ever hear any more about that rumor that he broke both legs? Or was that a ruse?) Abandoned his fiance. Says he 'saw things' but won't say what that means.

It's nice to root for the shy, diminutive loner type but his 'revelations' have not been worth all this trouble.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

68. I think he's been a Russian asset for years.

I also think Pootie and crew know a LOT more than they're letting on.

I assume that he gave Pootie -- and maybe the Chinese -- the "keys to the kingdom."

If he really gave a shit about this, he'd have taken it to the Senate, not to the Russians.

[randome]

69. What about that claim that he broke both legs in the military?

I don't recall if that was an actual claim or some sort of rumor.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

78. Supposedly that happened on an obstacle course.

Of course, his brief, aborted military career enabled him to have a National Agency Check on the books (very helpful, he's in the system), before he started lying about his qualifications.

I think he was turned while he was working in Japan, when he was visiting HK as a tourist, not as a teen or very young adult. If he was one of these "kids" then his father should be sweating the load....I'm thinking he's more of a Falcon/Snowman type.

If this seems like a stretch, it's because I find it amazing that a guy under stress, fleeing America, saying stupid shit like he wants to go to Iceland (when US relations with Iceland had shifted to a more favorable relationship, which anyone with Google would know), handing off info to "counterculture journalists," could beat feet to the RUSSIAN Consulate in HK so quickly and easily. Too stupid to google US-Icelandic relations, but quick to ask the RUSSIANS for help? And then, boomshakalaka, he's in Moscow! Hiding out in the airport, only NOBODY sees him...in a country where bribery is an art form? You'd think at least one maid or cleaner or room service rep would find a way to take a furtive pic or at least tell enterprising reporters (for a fee, of course) what room he was supposedly in?

I wouldn't be surprised if he was whisked off to a safe house and debriefed ahead of that little mini-presser ("No pictures, please!&quot before he was hustled out to his new life.

Either that, or Assange sold him to the Russians. He funneled the guy to them in exchange for cash for his projects and to maintain his lifestyle while trapped in that Knightsbridge flat. "Hey Eddie, let me send my 'best gal' to you--she's a great organizer and a fixer, and she'll take real good care of you! She'll help you navigate your way to (fill in South American countries that made weak invitations and then put limits on their invitations). "

What he did was profoundly stupid for such a supposedly "smart" guy. There's just something fishy about his behavior, the timeline, his planning--or lack of same--that suggests that we don't have the whole picture. He may have believed that his cover was about to be blown--or maybe that's what he was told, to get him to run, to create an imbrolgio that Pootie could capitalize upon.

Eventually it will all come out, and it will be put in a movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Eddie! With any luck it will do better than the other film he recently starred in...!

If he's such a smart guy, he'll have the Russian language mastered in no time, and fit right into his new home.

[jmowreader]

108. I can believe the broken legs claim

He somehow got into Special Forces Assessment and Selection - how a high school dropout got into a school that won't talk to you without a diploma (GED doesn't count here) is another issue. Stress fractures in both legs are very common there; you make forced marches with 50-pound backpacks very frequently in addition to all the runs and jumping you do.

[randome]

114. Okay, then, thanks for the info. Maybe that's exactly what happened to him, then.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[jmowreader]

124. Other things happen to you at SFAS

One of our platoon sergeants in Berlin had the lifelong dream to become a Green Beret, and when he found out his Spanish and Russian language skills made him valuable to the SF community he put in his packet (back then you had to be in the Army for several years before you could go to SF school, unlike today where you can enlist for it) and got accepted. When he put in the packet he immediately started walking to work - approximately 10 miles one way, with a huge hill at the end - and home carrying 70 pounds in a rucksack. By the time he left for SFAS he could make the trip in two hours, which is plenty good. (The standard is 12 miles in three hours.) He could do 110 pushups in two minutes and run two miles in nine minutes. The guy was 40. He was a fucking MASTER of physical fitness. Charles Atlas in a green suit. And he was a prick, so no one was sad to see him leave.

The first day of SFAS they have a Physical Training test and a swim test. He did great on the PT test and drowned during the swim test. Fortunately for him (but unfortunately for us because we got him back) he didn't drown permanently; they were able to revive him.

[MADem]

126. So can I. I think he broke the legs on the regular obstacle course, though, not "Special Forces."

Everything I have read suggests he didn't get to the point where he did any Special Forces training. He was simply "accepted into the program" as a reservist.


I can guess how he got into the Army. He probably aced the ASVAB, went in as a CAT I (smartest group) and it's entirely possible that his recruiter forged his High School diploma, particularly if they were limiting the number of NHSG (non high school grads) to be accessed. Anyone looking at a packet from an enlistee of any branch of service who is a CAT 1 or 2 won't even suspect a rat, they'll assume the diploma is valid--they only will get suspicious or even go out of their way to check if the recruit is a CAT IV. When they do an ENTNAC, they are looking for criminal conduct, not specifics that are recorded in an enlistment application, and he jumped through that hoop without issue.

This guy obviously wasn't stupid, and the ASVAB is not that difficult a test, anyway.

[grasswire]

73. oh brother

Time to stop reading the spook novels.

[Rex]

75. Maybe he was hiding behind the grassy knoll!

Funny how some CTs are okay.

[MADem]

83. He WAS hiding in the Russian consulate. That's not a CT, that's fact.

Unless those CT freaks at the Washington Post are making shit up.....

[Rex]

86. Well I got YELLED AT for calling him a possible Chinese spy

in the beginning of this Hootenanny. SO I could be a little bitter about this entire thing and apologize.

[MADem]

95. Well, you didn't hear ME doing any yelling!

He did give an interview to a Chinese newspaper, so it's entirely possible that they wanted a cut of the take in exchange for letting Russia clean up the mess in HK that was Eddie....

Before leaving for Moscow, Snowden revealed to the Post that computer systems in both Hong Kong and the mainland had been extensively monitored and compromised by NSA operations. He shared a number of classified NSA documents with the Post.

That's the South China Morning Post....

[Rex]

97. No impossible...he stayed in HONG KONG!

Get it!?!? That magically implies he is "A number one" with justice and freedum. He stayed in the capitalist den and thumbed his nose at those evil commies (nevermind the fact that HK has been part of China now for quite a while).

I gave up all talk of CTs about him after that, now I believe he might be a dbl agent for Russia and China...but hey that is CT talk. I'm sure a mediocre hack from a shady company like Booze-Allen is on the up and up. No doubt a total freedum lover.

[MADem]

100. The source in the article is unnamed, so there's no way "he or she" can be challenged.

It does make it easy to draw a line under the conversation that way!

[ljm2002]

118. You do understand how investigative journalism works, right?

Sources are often unnamed. Forbes is a respected journal, although they are not usually associated with this type of story. What is your complaint again? You expect them to name the source? Really? You can always challenge the reporter, of course. Or just choose not to believe them. That is certainly an option.

[MADem]

122. Yes, I do. Usually a reporter--an investigative one, adhering to standard 'journalistic' practices--

will get a number of corroborative sources, not rely on a single "unnamed" "he or she" who spins a story that is rich in color and short on substance.

Forbes is a right wing load of poop, most days. You do know it is named after that geek who ran for President, ya? On the GOP ticket?

It's a Journal for the One Percent. Here's a sample from that "respected" journal:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2013/11/11/obamacare-will-be-repealed-well-in-advance-of-the-2014-elections/

Any time I see those tools shopping ANYTHING, I gotta ask myself, Cui Bono?

They don't have the best interests of Democrats or Progressives at heart.

[ljm2002]

125. Ah, I see...

...this is an issue about Democrats and "Progressives". Not about NSA spying. Got it.

[MADem]

163. If you believe that Forbes is a neutral arbiter of events of the day, I have a bridge to sell you,

cheap!

If you've never really perused the mag, you can be forgiven.

If you HAVE perused it and you can still suggest some sort of "unfair" partisanship is at play here, well, you're flying a flag you just might not want to hoist.

Forbes slants stories to suit a rightwing agenda--all you have to do is look at their table of contents, and you'll have an understanding of that.

[ljm2002]

166. Again:

This story is at its base about NSA spying, not about liberal vs conservative philosophies.

There are very few news sources that do not have an agenda these days. Forbes, being a business-oriented publication, is not surprisingly of a conservative bent. That in itself does not make their report in this case wrong.

Granted, since there is only one source quoted, we should take the report with the proverbial grain of salt vis a vis Snowden's abilities. But I will point out that, given the nature of this story: i.e., given that the NSA routinely spies on Americans as well as foreigners, and given that this is the biggest leak in NSA history, and given that anyone who works for the NSA can be forgiven for worrying that THEY might be spied on -- given all of that, it is not surprising that only a single anonymous NSA employee came forward with further information about Snowden when he worked for the agency.

So I may not be ready to deem Snowden a "genius", a term that is over-used. But it seems clear to me that he is a very smart and capable computer geek. People and publications with agendas have been smearing him from day one, trying to pooh-pooh his capabilities, so if one publication with an agenda says otherwise -- and uses an internal NSA employee to do so -- well, it's always good to even things out a bit. Snowden the individual is up against some very scary PTB.

TTFN

[MADem]

174. No, the story is an anecdote by an unnamed person. A single, solitary unnamed person, gossiping

About Eddie. You'd think a few more people would want to come forward and chat "off the record" about what went on.

I'd take it with a chunk, not a grain, of salt. Anyone who knew this guy even slightly, and worked where he worked, could insist that he had qualities that placed him head and shoulders above his peers, or conversely, that he was a noxious shit who stole lunches from the community fridge--there's just no way to prove or disprove this kind of thing, and when there's only a single source, it's just one person's opinion, and it could be a person who had a personal relationship with old Ed, and has reasons for talking him up.

I agree with you that he wasn't stupid in terms of his tech skills --he wouldn't have been hired at Dell and Booz and other places if he couldn't do the job. That said , I think the "Real Hoo Ha" stuff published at Ars Technica probably tells us a lot about his character, too, and that stuff doesn't recommend him overmuch. You can be smart and stupid at the same time. Certainly, he could have grown as a person over the years, but the only way we'll know that for sure is if he starts talking. And he's pretty much been incommunicado, at least as far as those of us not working for Putin are concerned.

I think he's got issues. There was a better way to "sound the alarm" than by giving classified material to China and Russia. And that is what he did. Which makes me wonder if he hasn't been a Russian asset since he worked in Japan, at least, and first visited Hong Kong.

[MADem]

80. I don't demand your fealty to my opinion.

If you steal classified data, and you want to "tell the world" about it, the first place you go is the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong...in a convoluted bid to get to "Iceland" or "South America."

Yeah, that makes complete sense.

[Mojorabbit]

31. I think it is common that a person can be a genius in his field and not so

adept at everyday things. Think Einstein.

[Springslips]

42. Yes

Genius doesn't mean knows, can do well, or is good at everything.

[ProSense]

55. "Think Einstein"

Yeah, Snowden = Einstein.

Following your premise, it's likely the only thing he has in common with Einstein is being "not so adept at everyday things."

LOL!

[Mojorabbit]

109. Come again? Perhaps I am dense today but I don't understand your post. nt

[uponit7771]

19. +1

[niyad]

8. k and r

[KurtNYC]

45. Kicking (above the thread-jack)

Lots of weird stuff gets said in these articles -- for example here is another instance where they claim that agencies in charge of IT security and the like "destroy" computers to get rid of malware (?)

>>whose work computers had to be destroyed after his departure for fear he had infected them with malware.<<

Why not just reformat the drives? Why fear; why not know what is there? And if it was some kind of firmware then you would definitely want to look at that and who made it. Doesn't make sense to destroy things if you think a crime was committed or security was breached. Why not analyze and find out?

Same for destroying the actual servers at the Guardian -- obviously anything on there is just a copy.

We also heard repeatedly how 'Snowden has 4 laptops of information' but later it was explained that the laptops were used to air gap, encrypt and transmit.

[niyad]

49. one would think that would be the sensible thing to do.

[uponit7771]

18. "But an NSA staffer"... lol... SnowGlen fans are stretching.................again

[Hissyspit]

22. Hunh?

[uponit7771]

25. which part is unclear? That people are supposed to believe ONE " anonymous" source or that

... or that the guy who put agents lives in danger, according to Der Spiegel, is a jerk and people who are cheering him are are looking desperate in their support?

tia

[Luminous Animal]

27. Spiegel never made that claim.

The claim was... That the files that they had access to were redacted in order to protect people. All parties involved with publishing the docs have admitted this. All parties involved have withheld info that would put lives in danger.

[uponit7771]

34. FALSE Der Spiegel didn't GOT files from space aliens they got them from Snow Glen and specifically

... said they were passed info that could put agents lives in danger.

Later on SnowGlen et al admits given data to the Chinese...

Either way, Der Spiegal was passed info from the SnowGlen that could put folks lives in danger and that in and of itself is the suck.

I agree that something HAD to be done I don't agree with the people doing it or lionizing them in any way

[Hissyspit]

29. You don't have to believe one anonymous source.

Andy Greenberg has done some very good reporting. It was anonymous source who originally claimed Snowden duped to get the passwords.

That last stuff could just as easily describe you, if flipped around. Do you have anything of substance?

[uponit7771]

35. You're right, I wont believe ONE anonymous source but Der Spiegel is good enough for me to

... know that doing a very very wrong thing that puts peoples lives in danger isn't worth the speculation that trying something the right way isn't worth it.

regards

[Hissyspit]

36. Lots of people like civil liberties whistleblowers.

"Could" put people in danger. Who?

And that SnowGlen thing is pretty silly.

[uponit7771]

110. I disagree, you can whistle blow to authorities and not state sponsored news sources like Chinas

[NuclearDem]

51. Fine, the leaks COULD put lives in danger.

But you know whose fault that is? It's not the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Snowden, or Greenwald's.

Compared to the very few lives these leaks could put in danger, how many do you think the MIC and the NSA already does put in danger through their reckless adventurism, fomenting terrorism and anti-American/Western sentiment abroad? Even if these leaks endangered agents, it would pale in comparison to the number of lives not only endangered but ended or ruined by the blowback to these agencies' operations.

If NSA agents or intelligence personnel get put in danger, it'll be the intelligence community's own damned fault for fostering an environment that doesn't encourage reporting wrongdoing or overreach and the failures of the inept and corrupt politicians on the intelligence and oversight committees who sweep these complaints under the rug at the behest of their donors.

The newspapers are doing their best to protect lives, but at this point, the intelligence community and the MIC has created a monster, and if the only channel to expose it costs people their lives, then serious changes need to be made to make whistleblowing actually mean something internally.

[grasswire]

76. ^^^

excellent

[Rex]

87. ^^^

just what you said and people that ignore the facts of that reply do so at all our peril.

[uponit7771]

111. You're CORRECT, I agree not their fault but that's not RIGHT and that's were I draw the line...

... it would be CORRECT to whistle blow .. it would not be RIGHT to whistle blow and get people killed for lack of due dilligence.

In this case, there was lack of due diligence because the right channels weren't even tried!!!

The Freakin idiots went to der spiegel and der spiegel said DERP ! You guys are passing out data that could get people killed.

Then the idiots went to China media and then had the nerve to claim that they weren't passing data off to the Chinese government!!!

No... they MIGHT have done the "correct" thing but they didn't do the "RIGHT" thing

[bvar22]

188. Please cite the sources for your claim...

..that Snowden has endangered people's lives.

Making things up and posting them at DU
is frowned upon.

Thanks.

[Enthusiast]

164. I like this post! +1!

[pscot]

37. You guy who consistently attack Snowden

are the one's sounding desperate.

[riderinthestorm]

46. Can you link to the exact part of any article where Der Spiegel says Snowden

endangered lives?

Thanks.

[ProSense]

58. "SPIEGEL has decided not to publish details it has seen...that could endanger the lives of NSA worke

From a July 1 piece by Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL has decided not to publish details it has seen about secret operations that could endanger the lives of NSA workers. Nor is it publishing the related internal code words. However, this does not apply to information about the general surveillance of communications. They don't endanger any human lives -- they simply describe a system whose dimensions go beyond the imaginable. This kind of global debate is actually precisely what Snowden intended and what motivated his breach of secrecy. "The public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong," he says.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-documents-nsa-targeted-germany-and-eu-buildings-a-908609.html

He turned over information that could "endanger" lives.

[riderinthestorm]

93. So you only have a hypothetical, nothing more. That's not any evidence at all. nt

[ProSense]

96. ?

It's not a "hypothetical" that he took and disseminated the information.

[riderinthestorm]

99. The hypothetical is that he endangered anyone with what's been leaked

[randome]

106. An agent's life is endangered when his/her identity has been compromised.

'Compromised' means that their agency -in this case, the NSA- can no longer be certain if the agent's identity is known or not.

The documents Snowden has distributed across the planet now reside on corporate servers and flash drives owned by media organizations.

If the NSA was negligent with security -and I would say that's putting it mildly- how much easier will it be for hackers or employees of those news organizations to gain access to those same documents and do whatever they wish with them?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

155. So you have absolutely no evidence, just your own speculation

Got it

[MADem]

176. You do realize that a German publication was quoted, there? Not "opinion"--fact. nt

[MADem]

175. Amazing how this shit mattered when it was Valerie Plame getting screwed by the Bush crew.

Now that Dreamy Eddie is doing the screwing, though, it's all good...?

Situational reality....

[randome]

178. 'Dreamy Eddie' and 'The Kenyan'.

I sometimes think it's a combination of those that brings out the 'Keep your damned hands off my metadata!' cries.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

101. Notice that someone who works there

Is believable if they say the right thing

[uponit7771]

112. +1....Right, and the "someone" is just that.. someone... no position etc

[Hissyspit]

145. What was the position of the person who made the initial claim

that Snowden duped people out if the passwords?

[uponit7771]

168. ..that's true, you have a point... that guy couldah been Donald Duck too... I don't trust this

...whole thing...

Now there's word he sent memo to Brazil saying that he'd help them.

I've always been taught to keep the house mess.... in house... and don't let the neighbors see....

Just the way I was raised ... I still don't see anything wrong in it

[Hissyspit]

143. Like certain people automatically believed he duped people out of passwords,

although that came from anonymous source/s in NSA.

[DevonRex]

183. Anon staffer verified by....SNOWDEN!!!! LOL hilarious. nt

[KentuckyWoman]

39. Yeah well he managed to get himself stuck in Russia......

Whether or not the guy is a traitor or a hero I don't feel like I have enough info to say. The guy can't be the genius of all geniuses if he played this in a way that got him stuck in Russia. Unless of course that was planned.

[Hissyspit]

41. Actually the reported quote is "genius among geniuses,"

Clearly referring to his activity at the NSA.

[Th1onein]

53. And he had boxes in his garage!

And his girlfriend was a pole dancer.

Whatever he is, he managed to outsmart the NSA, and he's still free to go about his business.

[Rex]

65. And THAT is really pissing off a lot of people!

He got everything he wanted, without needing to force anyone to give him anything! How totally fucking embarrassing it has to be for the NSA! Schooled by a nobody!

[klook]

72. Ha, no shit

If he's a lame-o as some here proclaim, what does this say about the Brainiacs who hired him and managed him?

What worries me the most is the combination of ineptitude (Really? You have to gather and sift through *everything about everybody* to find the salient information you seek?) and ruthlessness. The movie Brazil may have more relevance than we'd like to admit.

[Rex]

74. The vacillation between him being 'traitor, loser, loner, genius, brilliant, hero'

Is amazing to watch. I totally agree with you...the actual dangerous and scary part of all this is the total incompetence the NSA shows by hiring this 'loser/hero/loner/genius' person that he is! Makes me totally believe WE are no safer than before 9/11. They seem like a bunch of bumbling idiots that hired a hacker without checking out his background first or keeping an eye on him.

FUNNY...they don't have a problem violating every amendment of the Constitution, but cannot police their own. Makes one feel really insecure as toward nation security.

What is the biggest security breach of this century? The NSA. Way to go guys! You let a ZERO become a hero! I'd have more faith in a group of 5 year olds running the NSA then the generals and brassy brass there now.

[grasswire]

79. true, true

They appear to be warped by their own bubble. I don't think Hollywood could have written the bizarro scenario that Supreme Leader Alexander and his merry band have been shown to have created.

[Rex]

85. And it is far from being over imo.

If some 'low-level hack' from Booze-Allen could achieve such global cred...well imo that just sent a message to every mediocre hacker that exists in the world, 'easy pay and easy access to all the worlds information 'join' the NSA'.

He is an inspiration to all that work at 4chan, alt-net, the pirates bay and beyond.

ALL because One Congress critter threw an audible to a general...you're right, Hollywood could NEVER be this creative!

AND I got snarked at for calling Congress Kabuki Theater in the beginning of this movie!

Those snarkers have fallen mysteriously silent.

[QC]

88. Those boxes are filled with the broken hearts of ballerinas!

[Rex]

89. I heard they were filled with stripper polls and encryption keys.

[rhett o rick]

43. See compilation of NSA stories in the Progressive Group

www.democraticunderground.com/126917

Thanks for posting this.

[jsr]

44. Thanks!

[bvar22]

52. It is enlightening to watch the tools "Out" Themselves...

..in any thread involving Snowden and the NSA.

Thank GAWD for the Whistle Blowers.
They are the protectors of our Democracy.


I pray I would have the courage of Snowden or Manning in the same situation.
It is much easier to just Stay in Line,
Keep your mouth shut,
Don't ask questions,
Do what you're told,
Collect the fat paycheck,
Take the weekend off,
and think Well, its not MY problem.

That is the "Good American" way,
and our 1% OverLords and their Mouth Pieces in Washington are betting that YOU are a "Good American".


Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can NOT Co-Exist.
Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can NOT Co-Exist.

[font size=3]The Protectors of our Democracy:[/font]

[ProSense]

56. Calling people "tools" because they're critical of Snowden

is what's "enlightening."

[bvar22]

105. Nobody here thinks that YOU are a "tool", Pro.

... and I am the last person who would use innuendo to suggest that.
We all love you, Pro.
And I am crushed that you would mistake my post as being about you.

In fact, as far as I can tell, your position on Government Spying is indistinguishable from Joe Biden's:

[Rex]

60. Dunno about 'tools'...maybe I would say 'sheeple unknowingly helping support Big Brother.'

Since I only believe a total worthless asshole/shitbag would be working on the NSA payroll (and posting here) and I see none here even remotely qualified for that position. Just a lot of hot air generals that live in a fantasy world that they created. A shared illusion among the totally disillusioned.

[Enthusiast]

167. Tools

[HangOnKids]

61. It is AMAZING isn't it? The constant clanging for obedience to the rules that the 1% have created

Clanging for authority that has been proven to be so very detrimental and DEADLY to the health/wealth/happiness of so many. I guess blind loyal obedience soothes them into believing this ensures them a place at the table. George Carlin nailed it with this quip..."IT IS A BIG CLUB AND YOU AND I ARE NOT IN IT."

I used to pity these people, as I felt they were very lost. I no longer feel that way, I consider them as dangerous as, and possibly more so as the fucking overlords.

[Matariki]

81. Predictable as pudding.

[Enthusiast]

165. A huge plus one! nt

[Rex]

62. But but but...the Usual Suspects 'Nancy Graced' me that he was a mad

man that stole his co-workers soda and lunch money!

No doubt they will call this article a fabrication, since it helps destroys their tiny little world of Spy vs Spy!

[Aviation Pro]

70. So...

...an anonymous NSA "staffer" contacts a Forbes writer and tells him that Snowden was a fucking genius.

Really? A low-level Booz-Allen employee is a genius.

Next thing you know a story will come out that Snowden was DIRNSA's BFF.

[Rex]

77. Makes one wonder what kind of internal security the NSA had?

Sounds like none.

[ronnie624]

90. Actually,

according to multiple reports, just about everyone who has spoken with Snowden and commented about it, has said that he is extremely intelligent.

There is always a conspicuous absence of facts and sound reasoning in the presence of partisan politics and irrational fear of things like terrorism, hence the grasping nature of the personal attacks against Snowden.

[2banon]

71. Good Work, Hissyspit, thank you.

and to all you pro-authoritarians.... well.. let's just say you're on the wrong side of the Bill of Rights, to put simply.. and it's a crying shame you don't recognize it. it's as plain as day.

[Demeter]

91. And now, this genius with ethics is working for someone else

Way to go, NSA, USA!

[Rex]

98. Just their traditional enemies...but who could have thought that a mediocre

hack from a shady company like Booze-Allen would have a wavering view on ethics? I believe this gif summaries the NSA;


THIS is why Bill Gates unleashed Win8 on the masses!

[dregstudios]

115. Living in a Society of Fear

Snowden is a hero and a patriot in my book. We live in an age where the civil liberties our forefathers fought so hard for are being eroded by the day. Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are mere ghostly images of their original intent. We’ve woken up to an Orwellian Society of Fear where anyone is at the mercy of being labeled a terrorist for standing up for rights we took for granted just over a decade ago. Read about how we’re waging war against ourselves at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html

[Whisp]

116. this 'genious' thinks Russia is king of human rights.

so much for that fleeting thought.

[Maedhros]

119. Do you do anything other than shill for the NSA?[n/t]

[Whisp]

121. no

it pays pretty good and gets people all riled up.

Snowden a genius of geniuses - yah sure.


do you do anything other than adore russian spies?

[Ash_F]

127. What do you think Warren thinks about the whole NSA thing?

http://boldprogressives.org/2013/07/elizabeth-warren-25-other-senators-call-out-nsa-for-misleading-the-public-demand-answers/

[Whisp]

128. her and I can disagree but I still admire and respect her

and not one bit less because we may see things differently on some topics.

I think that is how it should be, no? You wanted me to swear at Warren, or what?
silly.

[Ash_F]

131. I don't think you actually admire nor respect her.

It doesn't sound like you understand what she stands for.

[Whisp]

135. o really.

I'll check in on you every so often so you can let me know what I think.

[Ash_F]

146. That last comment wasn't really for your consumption. /nt

[Whisp]

130. lol

Troll Judging by Noobs.

Opening soon at a theatre near you.

[Hissyspit]

141. No one has provided ANY credible evidence that Snowden has given any info

to the Russians.

And a rolling laughing smiley doesn't make it any more proven. It remains the defamation talking point that it has always been.

[Whisp]

150. I wouldn't use 'credible' and 'Snowden' in one sentence. n/t

[LittleBlue]

136. Do you have a cite for that?

Or (as usual) are you just deflecting from the real story?

[Whisp]

137. oh, you didn't hear?

I'm sure you can find it on the google.

he was lauding the great Russian rights - you should ask some Russian gay people how humany rightie Russia is in that regard.

anyway, it's all out there.

[Hissyspit]

139. You are taking him out of context, of course:

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

[Hissyspit]

140. Snowden was referring to specific human rights:

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

[Whisp]

149. you mean only for specific humans?

I didn't read that wiki, I know all I want to from your excuse of what he really meant.

interesting.

[Hissyspit]

153. What a fallacious response.

You took him out of context to attack him, couldn't defend your attack, so attacked me with a false implication.

[blackspade]

133. This is how I know that the NSA puff piece is full of shit:

A 60 Minutes episode Sunday night, meanwhile, aired NSA’s officials descriptions of Snowden as a malicious hacker who cheated on an NSA entrance exam and whose work computers had to be destroyed after his departure for fear he had infected them with malware.

How exactly did he cheat? Evidence?
And they had to destroy his work computers? What a crock of shit. Even I know that that was not remotely necessary. This is just a play on the fear that the non-computer literate have about malware in general. Also, there is no way that the government destroyed evidence that they could use at trial.

Like I said, the whole 60 min story is a load of crap.

[SpcMnky]

134. Got Root

Snowden did, it was part of his job.

[another_liberal]

144. Snowden is all of that . . .

. . . and a genuine American hero as well.

Someday he will be recognized as the self-sacrificing patriot he clearly is.

[avaistheone1]

156. K&R

[madrchsod]

157. he was given the keys to the kingdom?

he is the smartest person on earth in that field. why was`t he given the directors job?

[GoneFishin]

159. "Obviously facing a dead-end career. Attention seeking media whore." SARCASM.

“That kid was a genius among geniuses,” says the NSA staffer. “NSA is full of smart people, but anybody who sat in a meeting with Ed will tell you he was in a class of his own…I’ve never seen anything like it.”


He obviously could have been very cozy and well rewarded if he had just followed orders and kept his mouth shut. But he chose the more difficult path.

[Enthusiast]

160. K&R! Are you going to believe the 60 Minute's explanation?

I didn't think so.

60 Minutes now has ZERO credibility.

Pass it around folks. Never turn your channel selector to CBS lying TV network. They aren't much more than a secret propaganda version of Fox "News".

CBS took a viable cutting edge TV investigative program in 60 Minutes and made it a laughing stock. They did this all in the interest of pushing right wing misinformation.

Since the Benghazi and the disability segments, 60 Minute's market share has dropped by a staggering 63%.

I made the last part up out of whole cloth. How does it feel, CBS?

[ohheckyeah]

169. The guy who walked out with

thousands of documents had to coerce people to give him passwords? LOL That's just silly. And the NSA destroying computers because they might have malware is incompetence at a level that is staggering.

So, Snowden was so smart he could put malware on computers that the NSA couldn't detect or get rid of it, but not smart enough to hack passwords? Rather contradictory.

The NSA spin is pathetic.

[Hekate]

177. Well well. This is new. Someone is finding a different string to pull to unravel the official story.

This and the federal judge's decision. There will be more.

Thanks for the link, Hissy.

[Blue_Tires]

189. "genius among geniuses?"

No way in hell -- Nothing about the haphazard way Snowden has handled this from day one indicates "genius", unless they mean he's one of those savants who can recite an entire white pages from memory, but can't tell you which day of the week it is...

Of course, if he *IS* a genius among geniuses, then there is NO WAY whatsoever he could have been 'shocked' to find what he did on the servers, which lends credence to the theory that he got in at the CIA/BAH with the sole, express purpose of bringing them down...

So which story is the true one?

[stevenleser]

190. He duped them. Pwds were not given to him to steal the data. He lied and duped them.

You can try to parse it anyway you want.

If I ask you for the keys to your house to watch your house while you are gone, but then I have a big destructive party in your house, or steal your furniture, I've duped you.