juan.g71 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 20:40:43 PST 2018
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:37:59 -0500
Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:
> If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already
> caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback
> if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases"
> provides a pretty good answer: Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and
> Internet traffic.
bulk surveillance of internet traffic wasn't news
as to phones...
"The FBI has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device"
that's from 2007...
this is before snowden too
"The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)"
so, arguably, snowden's 'revelations' didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known or trivially suspected...
> Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge.
more like, they had been public knowledge for years...
> During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the
> intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what
> laws, when, etc. without consequences.
yes, but that's not "because of snowden" is it? I mean, not meaning to sound like a broken record but the US is a fascist cesspool and has always been. "COINTELPRO"
the 'intelligence community' which is obviously just an arm of the United Rogue States gets to do whatever they want because that's what being the state means - unrestrained power.
> The Snowden Affair removed many
> potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this,
> that and the other thing."
I don't see the causal link there. There were the leaks, and then the govt kept doing whatever the fuck they want. The events may be 'correlated' but that can be all.
> >> I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to
> >> play along once he became an object of property physically passed around
> >> between ruling class factions.
> > Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'.
> Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to
> numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely
> senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling
> classified communications and databases.
That's a possibility. Snowden on the other hand says he was a 'senior analyst' or something like that.
> Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy
> with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted
> for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training
> - which does not happen. He then supposedly received a medical
> discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again
> does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.
I remembered only one broken leg =P - Regardless, I don't think the story is too implausible. And if it's made up, I'm not sure for what purpose?
> That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than
> any other title: Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of
> that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence
> officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.
But that means snowden is still 'assigned'?
> Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald
> to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist?
greenawald IS a journo =P
> Why not contact
> John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg -
not sure if choosing greenwald was particularly bad (at least without hindsight). Then again, snowden could and should have simply dumped everything so...
> or ANYONE
> with applicable knowledge and experience? Did he fail to look into the
> history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues
> for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and
> handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?
> I doubt that we will never know.
> >> "By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing
> >> with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled
> >> and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance
> >> process."
> > Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world safe for goldman sachs and raytheon.
> Snowden said:
> “When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you
> recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you
> talk about them in a place like this, were this is the normal state of
> business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from
> them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and
> you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the
> more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem...”
well, that suggests he wasn't suspected, simply ignored. It doesn't sound unlikely.
> > You say they have 'insider threat' programs but who knows how they actually run them. Although in 1984 world it seemed as if anybody could be suspected, in reality the party members mostly have to 'cooperate' and 'trust' each other.
> Security axiom: "A trusted party is one who can break your security
Agreed =) - But the fact remains - the only reason 'the state' has power is because it's the biggest group of self-organized psychos. The state is based on cooperation and 'trust' between criminals. So, there can be unsuspected 'traitors' and snowden can be one in principle.
> The covert services consider "trust" a valuable and dangerous commodity,
> and ration it with exceptional care. Snowden apparently had
> exceptionally broad access to classified documents stored on computer
> systems, so whatever his job description it would qualify him for
> additional scrutiny
> compared to those who are permitted only to see
> information directly related to their specific assignments.
> The Presidential directive establishing the Insider Threat Program,
> nearly two years before the Snowden Affair:
yes, the programs exist on paper but I'd argue they are as effective as 'good' cops investigating 'corrupt' 'bad' cops.
Anyway, I don't dismiss the possibility of there being a few fishy aspects to the snowden affair.
> >>> Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
> >> To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere. Considering
> >> their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them,
> >> that seems very unlikely if any did exist.
> > I assume the documents were given to a few selected 'organizations' which are as corrupt as greenwald. Like the graudian and der spiegel. But I need to look into that again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.
> Somebody gave Spiegel some very interesting docs, including materials
> apparently dating after Snowden's releases and exile. As a night vs.
> day difference, the docs published by Spiegel included materials
> describing NSA tools in considerable detail, and information exposing
> U.S. surveillance of the Chancellor's phones.
OK here we go :
"Research by Spiegel reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. "
So according to the spiegel themselves they did get information from snowden docs.
"...The blockbuster Der Spiegel article widens the small circle of news outlets known to have reviewed documents obtained by Snowden."
that bit is what I remembered about journos apart from greenwald having access to snowden docs, though granted it's not clear to how many docs, etc.
> Clueless mainstream journalists and the public at large have "assumed"
> that these documents somehow came from Ed Snowden.
and that's more or less the spiegel says too.
> Spook watchers know
> better: These docs alerted the world to previously unknown "hacking"
> techniques used by NSA and its government customers, and they did
> significant damage to U.S. political and influence operations in progress.
More information about the cypherpunks