Cryptomes searing critique of Snowden Inc.
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc. http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
Me would prefer Snowden to release the whole cache too. On the other hand, I partially understand him. He applied for asylum in about 20 countries and all but except lastly the russians ditched him. If he released all the cache, he wouldn't have anything to trade for asylum (this raises many other questions). As an earth human, he wasn't bold and/or crazy enough to get back to hamerica by releasing the cache. AFAICT Cryptome doesn't criticize him for false docs, right? In addition, both of us might be wrong and a conspiracy theory to explain things better. Say, the oligarchs of the world to just make a show/psyop for the sheeple ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/14/2016 07:17 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-0 6
Me would prefer Snowden to release the whole cache too.
On the other hand, I partially understand him.
He applied for asylum in about 20 countries and all but except lastly the russians ditched him.
If he released all the cache, he wouldn't have anything to trade for asylum (this raises many other questions).
Accoring to Snowden, Greenwald, et al, Snowden has nothing to trade for asylum: Everyone in a position to know says that he gave the whole works to Greenwald & co., to use as he sees fit. That does not make their assertion true, but as far as I know, no evidence contradicts it.
As an earth human, he wasn't bold and/or crazy enough to get back to hamerica by releasing the cache.
AFAICT Cryptome doesn't criticize him for false docs, right?
Other than Cryptome's blanket warning that /all/ leaked documents should be treated as disinformation, limited hangouts, etc. until or unless proven otherwise.
In addition, both of us might be wrong and a conspiracy theory to explain things better.
Say, the oligarchs of the world to just make a show/psyop for the sheeple ;)
Whether Snowden intended to do that, or was conned into doing so by his press contacts, remains an open question. Calling evidence based analysis of the Snowden Affair "conspiracy theory" does not make it go away. Least of all, when the audience understands that propagandists created the Conspiracy Theory meme for 'name calling' purposes, to stain inconvenient information as delusional nonsense. Greenwald converted the Snowden documents from State secrets owned by the U.S. government, to commercial trade secrets owned by billionaire Pierre Omidyar. Their new owners have published a fraction of those documents for financial profit and, of course, political propaganda. I do not expect anything in those documents that would have an unfavorable impact on billionaires in general or Omidyar in particular to be published. When is a leak not a leak? I'm not sure, but the Snowden Affair looks like an example. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWwHtiAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0L1zIQAJqpRcX2iEu77hv9Nznp0GGL jFZX2J3U4iZ8s3AKvXcO9F7vbTYadGkQ/gYeHuwJehw/H0G4PEkjDta4nSmk3WRs WRhyFLKsx1BUQGOQ3A/k4LzNUaJNz1sAPasqWS40MYQ3IUylG5sk7RgpYtwDvVGk oetS5204oEGaBpJY3dYZfwq07so12qSNxI+bTuJmF9T88srJIq95FcaO4TIyemTT BNo2kDSgoz4kvwASku37N4XE+nc2nJeY+odWQnE48Q7f2x4F5Y30swiKspaFUIyx O69l7Vonk+281C9C7rUZjpigtyifI2JMp/xYo5o5+bEg/09hsZHByJ2gJyrFTNdO /LenkjdTAEO5feoO3Ohhx0tpD6QGoE4oAmmPK1hyuUdREsNV5S5RYSiGRd5nO8rf HIg3AEn6BL8DjDj+mfDAZYlXUlaJ/qFTcHb1tEbmgefzQvqN19gPYoWD/0pk8tvx em57ozPmnnfGq+QdTkU/nxoXWjuT0IM6Sciz9uFQnRldbUTZSzaxHaAQnaOz0JHs U4qnLjdBOlniykKGhpA65vNjLEXiJV9I/FN7qDvRCTLmVWsdcHB0+Nv4+v+wqpoa q6Uedg3IW+1aTM6lGyftJgowAkf2k5kNRqzLsuIZu6UQHPy0xeRypj0y4mZ+2rrv XddxihHJqrttPatDvAML =kCVh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 08:04:35AM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
Accoring to Snowden, Greenwald, et al, Snowden has nothing to trade for asylum: Everyone in a position to know says that he gave the whole works to Greenwald & co., to use as he sees fit. That does not make their assertion true, but as far as I know, no evidence contradicts it.
DISCLAIMER: I don't follow the Snowden affair. I don't believe your claim. Why Merica wants Snowden if he can't hurt them? Greenwald, et al appear to be on Merica's soil, so it is O(1) the cops to silence them. Merica wants no leaks, not a particular individual. So Snowden went to Russia empty handed and Russia took him? Appears to me Snowden still personally leaks enough from Russia to give merica troubles, no?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/14/2016 09:20 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 08:04:35AM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
Accoring to Snowden, Greenwald, et al, Snowden has nothing to trade for asylum: Everyone in a position to know says that he gave the whole works to Greenwald & co., to use as he sees fit. That does not make their assertion true, but as far as I know, no evidence contradicts it.
DISCLAIMER: I don't follow the Snowden affair.
At one time I did follow it very closely, so I am sure you will find plenty to disagree with here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surro und-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity/5338673
I don't believe your claim.
Neither do I. Beliefs prejudice perception and judgement.
Why Merica wants Snowden if he can't hurt them?
Because his example has already been followed by others, and more will follow. In politics one calls revenge "deterrence," but by any name the U.S. government wants revenge in this matter.
Greenwald, et al appear to be on Merica's soil, so it is O(1) the cops to silence them.
Greenwald currently resides in Brazil. Apparently he likes the climate there better than in the U.S.
Merica wants no leaks, not a particular individual.
So Snowden went to Russia empty handed and Russia took him?
Not empty handed, he brought propaganda value with him: A no-risk, no-cost chance for Russia to both deprive the U.S. of a military objective (Snowden's capture) and to play the champion of justice and fair play on the world stage. They also obtained an extended opportunity to determine whether Snowden did have anything of intelligence value to offer.
Appears to me Snowden still personally leaks enough from Russia to give merica troubles, no?
Snowden personally leaks nothing; never did, most likely never will. By the accounts of all involved parties, Snowden handed off all copies of all them documents to Greenwald. Greenwald then sold the rights to them to Omidyar. The staff at The Intercept occasionally take out their eyedropper and deliver one or two of these documents, along with articles explaining what say and what they mean to the great unwashed publick. A bit more background in case anyone wants more info... http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12/08/checkbook-journalism-leak ing-to-the-highest-bidders/ :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWwJ0/AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LnVgQALzc7UsvNhMZSI3Wmv5WYlSe YU4hLkmCK72j72S7xn4Vy9OeMDXeQpHcT7Q7SoEdbhYFvaE59cR7Lw93FquFFEz1 6iuzQBj/Ftbt7JDJgDfiZPZHibyQWeaF7EiABp6RSgLMh9RG7SfabmoCyuJ36OqY KyFXUEr7fygJKTH0kj4lji9ocXhzCgaybKbYA8iC6NkLBNGMZnRxIGc3n/9d9ev0 Zeo5m+fjtEkpoNJlY4hLyWDFXMiw6KVFwlfsKCZSGzui9PT09sB49IQq01s9Sd6N 5wpFWUGxfK4GbuuK7A5lm6p1lP9jMwrvaGT+tNgbV/+iVN209K4/uH+MJOyeTN45 QWViETnaMvlj5xEu0JB3Z7kYxedlwRsVIB9Ad43AEF4Iu5tR91Sd+QbDoyePcPD6 qzGYQ7tuTbX2EuR68sfAk0cTbgoXBnzG9XLPja1XJYVgo9heCC4oe0L69lGWZk1e HbZ693R+DluZCS4p+SRL/VBvAaJAtGdK+zdjZWL9dqUIYMDRd/snwBPQrrRjMqnn QFGAv8Cmw4FR5vrIuBlkTrX0OVX/aKqIONU1rfLwloi0vXtJAnTCXLNTlBHb/KHK ouRgjxXSsmPUFHFG6tEUPX6VfZREg5Crhm15Ht53olrJjafAwtLEc54SYO54gG5o RZT71aftA5xdlpFHr9sQ =3wPx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:20:50 +0200 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Why Merica wants Snowden if he can't hurt them?
That one is easy. American Justice will lynch people for smoking pot or not mowing their lanws. Given that petty 'criminals' in The Land of Free are severely punished, how can they let an arch-traitor like snowden go? Plus snowden has made them look like incompetent assholes, 'security' wise.
Greenwald, et al appear to be on Merica's soil, so it is O(1) the cops to silence them.
Merica wants no leaks, not a particular individual.
So Snowden went to Russia empty handed and Russia took him?
Why not? The blow against the anglo-americunts and their propaganda is pretty clear. EVEN russia has more respect for civil rights than they have. I'm sure very few leaders of the free world are missing this point.
Appears to me Snowden still personally leaks enough from Russia to give merica troubles, no?
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 08:04:35 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Greenwald converted the Snowden documents from State secrets owned by the U.S. government, to commercial trade secrets owned by billionaire Pierre Omidyar. Their new owners have published a fraction of those documents for financial profit and, of course, political propaganda.
I don't think the commercial-and-for-profit part of the story makes much sense. Omidyar doesn't need more money, but if he like any other greedy retard wanted more money, then he surely could expand his current business, which are 'legal', 'low risk' and profitable, relatively speaking. How much money does the intercept make? I suspect a better question is "how much money does the intercept lose"? Easiest explanation is that greenwald and co. are not publishing anything really important for the simple reason that they don't want to have their balls cut by the leaders of the free democratic world. Or, perhaps, they are accomplices of the anglo-american government. Snowden surely is no anarchist, but the kind of political illiterate person who believes in 'democracy' and 'good' government.
I do not expect anything in those documents that would have an unfavorable impact on billionaires in general or Omidyar in particular to be published.
When is a leak not a leak? I'm not sure, but the Snowden Affair looks like an example.
:o/
John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
Tim Shorrock's a nasty piece of "Vanguard Marxist" shit... -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket. -- Eric Hoffer
dan@geer.org wrote:
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket. -- Eric Hoffer
I'm going to spell it out... PLUS ONE. I guess someone's always going to stick around and sell the newspapers, buttons and ballcaps almost 50 years later. I've gotten to thinking it's better that way because they'd just be in the way of (snigger) progress. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_ What would you do?
Snowden did the right thing, as he said, released the whole wad to the public. Just released it to the wrong few people with no technical capabilities but with desire for personal recognition and profit-taking. Heading to Hong Kong "Greenwald and Poitras danced in the aircraft's aisle upon reading sample documents," according to one account by Luke Harding (Greenwald denied this). Both full release and profit-taking could have been done, and maybe both were done, that is, the full release has been placed where more technically capable persons have access. A few technical persons have had limited access according to news reports, to advise the cache withholders, but not many which is highly regrettable. As we said in the interview there are a host of parties with greater skills and experience publishing classified documents, National Security Archive and Federation of American Scientists, among them. Granted that these orgs are quite cautious about publishing unauthorized disclosures due to their boards having close ties to authorities and dutiful legal obedience. No question the methodology employed by favored journalists has been effective for engaging (entertaining) the public. The comsec and credibility problem is that the small number of documents released (~11%) and large number of narratives (>100/1 of document pages) has skewed and dramatized the disclosures such that it is impossible to know how accurate the fragments are without access to the full wad. Now there are rumors that the bulk of the documents may be returned for Snowden's exculpation, which would be a great loss for the public but swell for Snowden and his PR team. Short shrifting the public by the media where leaks are concerned has become, maybe always was, the norm. Direct to the public disclosure, un-mediated, is what is needed, no secretmaking privilege to anyone. Journalists bristle at this, claim the public must be told what to think, and in this journalists are just like govs. Moreover, that Snowden allegedly requires the cache holders to check with USG before release is pernicious, maybe false. Quite a few of Snowden's comments appear to be scripted by those who have him over a barrel. At 04:48 AM 2/22/2016, you wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06
Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_
What would you do?
Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06 Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_
What would you do?
Separating the feds from the anarchists eh Georgi? My answer is ALWAYS: "Break the motherfucker". I suppose that's "A." As in Anarchy. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
The long-game economics of Snowden's disclosures "Financial Analyst" @Rolandclements https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb013BZUUAA1CUY.jpg:large https://twitter.com/Rolandclements/status/701776342220574724 Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-06 Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_
What would you do?
-- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/22/2016 04:48 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:48:14AM -0500, John Young wrote:
Cryptome's searing critique of Snowden Inc.
http://timshorrock.com/?p=2354 https://soundcloud.com/rebootfm/interview-with-cryptome-2016-02-0 6
Suppose in the past you have the power to decide A. Snowden doing what he did B. Snowden not leaking _anything_
What would you do?
I would have to ask, why the either/or proposition? Given Snowden's technical background and his enterprise in obtaining a bunch of interesting documents, his range of options was a bit wider than that. Counting the ways, and the parties to whom the documents could be disclosed, is left as an exercise... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWy14nAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LseYP/1pZ6eG9r8LPuB3d1AbtI4/6 1UOVPHDle9CIt2liaUd3kC8h6JL2kfybL6y/flLGSwE+7f/ZCh3X6quEshzU4jFr Su4cGI3lv8xjbYepg1PWUIKy87ipDxFHozqOxSgjLl+kYyVsyskHsJnM5xHsW7a0 NhIGRFROC3wqWVTM1MdIkXnlDRYhjvL6dPAlaXh18yq4GawukCOUfakJWCNesE3F uoYw7e8u9UwFWcNb5VOgPed+WBCsNIlAn735BiVzRYZZwv6jeRSZeseqgRMX/Oqj HMmAf2KcOp4M6XikLJ7ItwoHdXjxFP0ehqatiSO6QBqcWV8SR7EOWoHLVlnAa9vO CRWnHubLrphv70dYZDGbMmhTo6ll2d84WAKPxABZUfynrWTJeMd5PISLdciYfQ4K GwMLz9DDnf6GIckIVTA4jXAe2sOxSgBrvwsYulaPLi9E474fFwzq5X/Vegn6nvBR mI7ebP4xMJ+9/NKYaf7f46wXXwDKSBZ6FJO+XdZcKHWKQelr1LKWhqsLwtiXEira wwq3A9ydk7xG3zYZkEjfbJm4ZelSlEQcmdsWFQ60NU0Qk0ZkpFG1/maL1do6j63S jfrGJEnyuJX6CyaFnhoLKEbI2hCNsnoJ/tNGdFf9fgsZiv82KRy1XkNOngcTtYpk c32eJzdiYScCoaFsvlnz =HDNi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (6)
-
dan＠geer.org -
Georgi Guninski -
John Young -
juan -
Rayzer -
Steve Kinney