Meeting Snowden in Princeton

[Mirimir]

On 05/03/2015 08:09 PM, Juan wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:36:12 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/03/2015 04:58 PM, Juan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600
>>> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a
>>>> matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because
>>>> he saw from the other side that it worked."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that
>>> you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random
>>> 	blog. 
>>
>> He initially reached out to Glenn and Laura via Tor (Tails, as I
>> recall reading). 
>> If the NSA has totally pwned Tor, they would
>> arguably have detected that. 
> 
> 
> 	For starters when he contacted Poitras he was still working for
> 	the american nazi government. He wasn't in any 'watch
> 	list' (rather he was the one making such lists) - His actions
> 	were not 'detected' because nobody was interested in 'detecting'
> 	them.
> 
> 	So, there goes your theory...

Well, if I were running the fucking NSA, I'd make sure that all staff
and consultants were on high-priority watch lists. Snowden wasn't the
first, you know. He was one of few idealists, though. Most of the rest
were just in it for the money.

>> We know that they focus on encrypted
>> stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and
>> consultants.
> 
> 	I don't think so. Snowden was 'one of them'. 

>From what I've read in Bamford's books, it doesn't work like that. Being
"one of them" puts you under more scrutiny, not less.

>> But then, maybe it's all bullshit. I certainly have no inside info.
> 
> 
> 	Also, Snowden didn't plan to remain anonymous and didn't remain
> 	anonymous except for a few days. So, there isn't any evidence
> 	of tor working, except for a few days, at best. Although even
> 	that is unwarranted. 

I think that it was more than a few days. It took a while for Glenn to
get up to speed with encryption, as I recall.

> 	Bottom line, this "trusted his life to Tor"  is just cheap
> 	rhetoric. 

That's arguable, I admit. Would they have actually killed him? Probably
not, at least at first. But I still like it, cheap rhetoric or not :)

>>>> I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a
>>>> double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite?
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's
>>> a big red flag. 
>>
>> He's clearly an American nationalist. He's said repeatedly that he
>> released stuff through reporters, rather than directly, in order to
>> reduce the risk of hurting US interests. 
>> Is that a "red flag"? I would
>> have rather seen it all, but de gustibus non est disputandem ;)
> 
> 
> 	Yes, I think it's a red flag. I'm guessing you disagree(?) but
> 	I don't know exactly how to read your remark about different
> 	people and different tastes...

Yes, I was disagreeing. But even if it were a "red flag", what would
that signify? Don't the documents speak for themselves? Why do we care
about his politics, philosophy, etc?