Verizon Customer?

[Hornsby]

Please, everyone stop posting pictures and cartoons...it's just ridiculously insulting to the intelligence.

If you have a point to make, think it out and put it in your own words...not some righty/lefty meme that's almost always photoshopped.

[The Feral Slasher]

Documentation he revealed to Greenwald was timestamped with April 2013 dates, while he was in employment with the contractor.

I'm not following your point. We know he released classified info. What do you see as the significance of when he decided to do so or where he worked ?

[johnnya24]

Courage? He took the job after started his conversations with Greenwald in February. Assuming he did this out of pure goodwill for his fellow patriots takes a bit of a leap of faith.

I still don't get your point. He obviously carefully planned to out this information. What difference does it make who he worked for when he did it? NSA, CIA, Booz. That probably has as much to do with the continual privitization of US defense and security. His job had been to access and deal with this information for over years.

He was earning 200K a year and living the high life in Hawaii. He had just got a cushy new high paid position in paradise. Now he's on the run, and having seen the disgusting way the US authorities treated Bradley Manning, what possible other reason do you think he could have had for doing what he did? If he isn't returned to the USA and sent to your gulags, he will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.

I don't get your overall point, and I don't get the reasoning you are reaching at for why you think he did it.

You've made your mind up, and you seem to be reaching hard for something to fill in the narrative you want to see.

[GTAXI]

meanwhile, the polling is in.

GOP went from 75/23 approve/disapprove of this under Bush to 52/47 under Obama while Dems go from 37/61 to 64/34



more data - http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/...terror-tactic/

With all due respect. This shouldn't matter right now. I am sure this will be the meme from MSNBC, but I would like to think that more people are more concerns that their liberties are being violated, than some stupid poll.

[nots]

meanwhile, the polling is in.

GOP went from 75/23 approve/disapprove of this under Bush to 52/47 under Obama while Dems go from 37/61 to 64/34




more data - http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/...terror-tactic/

Not sure what's sadder--people are ok losing their freedoms if their team is the one taking them or that this is becoming more acceptable than it was 7 years ago.
We get what we deserve.

[johnnya24]

meanwhile, the polling is in.

GOP went from 75/23 approve/disapprove of this under Bush to 52/47 under Obama while Dems go from 37/61 to 64/34



more data - http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/...terror-tactic/

Further evidence that the nature of modern Party Politics is one the greatest threats to Liberal Democracy in the media age. We no longer have any electoral choice, just the appearance of choice and the elevation of peripheral issues to create division ... just look at the nonsense issues that passed for meaningful debate at the last election. All the while the real power continues unabated. These revelations are an attack on the shady power behind our "democracies" - the institutions of control and the status quo of the power elite they are protecting and relying on for their survival. If you attack the politicians, that's fine because they are replaceable ... but woe betide anyone who attacks the real power ... just ask Bradley Manning.

Bush ~ Obama
Democrats ~ Republicans
Blair ~ Cameron
Labour ~ Conservatives
Blair~ Bush
Labour ~ Republicans

They are all the same. They just take turns to steer the ship ... problem is that the ship's an oil tanker, and the rudder's a matchstick.

[johnnya24]

Courage? He took the job after started his conversations with Greenwald in February. Assuming he did this out of pure goodwill for his fellow patriots takes a bit of a leap of faith.

How we broke the NSA story: Interview with Laura Poitrias.

Since he contacted you before he started working at Booz Allen, the implication people were drawing was that he went to Booz Allen with the express intention of leaking this.

That’s completely absurd. I had no dialogue about what the information was — there were claims, that’s all I received.

So the implication that you sent him into Booz Allen to spy was incorrect.

Are you kidding? I didn’t know where he worked, I didn’t know he was NSA, I didn’t know how — nothing. There was no like, ‘Oh do you think you…’, no nudging. It’s like the crazy correlations that the NSA does. There’s no connection here. We were contacted, we didn’t know what he was up to, and at some point he came forward with documents.

[Moonlight J]

Not sure what's sadder--people are ok losing their freedoms if their team is the one taking them or that this is becoming more acceptable than it was 7 years ago.
We get what we deserve.

Fear factor bigger now than it was 7 years ago in light of recent events?

As someone who lives on social media with my real name and makes money with it, I've given up some of my freedoms willingly. I've already had people publish pictures of my house when they didn't like how I managed things on another blog.

[Moonlight J]

How we broke the NSA story: Interview with Laura Poitrias.

so they were in dialogue with a guy without knowing his resume? Result based analysis worked out for them this time

[johnnya24]

so they were in dialogue with a guy without knowing his resume? Result based analysis worked out for them this time

Now I feel like I'm getting trolled

I'm sure that Edward Snowden chose his contacts very carefully given the sensitivity of the information. And I'm sure The Guardian took every measure to make sure it was (a) genuine and (b) authentic.

I don't really think that's a point of any contention.

[Fresno Bob]

I fully support my government overlords (in case this is getting scanned)

[The Feral Slasher]

Now I feel like I'm getting trolled
I'm sure that Edward Snowden chose his contacts very carefully given the sensitivity of the information. And I'm sure The Guardian took every measure to make sure it was (a) genuine and (b) authentic.

I don't really think that's a point of any contention.

I think so. All we have is incoherent inferences and a theory that he left his $200,000 job in Hawaii because he wanted a movie written after him. No response to requests to clarify or explain the supposed significance of the timeline.

[JudeBaldo]

1. Edit: I don't really care if the NSA have gaps in their databanks ... they don't not have the right to any of my personal data without my permission (or just cause).

2. Nothing to add.

3. Again you aren't really differentiating between the surface surveillance and the decidedly unconstitutional methods involved in these practices. What you post on RJ is your choice to post ... same with Facebook, G+, Twitter etc. If the authorities are hovering up this data, data you are freely putting out there, that is one thing. It's still a very grey area, because I do not believe that ethically they should be gathering any data about me when I have done nothing wrong. But going into the servers, scooping up my private data without my permission and then storing it to potentially use against me in the future (what other reason are they keeping it for?) is a clearly breach of my rights as a free and independent citizen.

... and just to further show how illegal and disgusting this is, The Guardian also revealed that the UK government, knowing how illegal this was, got the NSA to do their dirty work for them ... thus being able to claim that they weren't doing it themselves. They even went as far as creating procedural formalities in order to have some kind of legal recourse if they were caught ... the NSA "offered" the data, rather than the UK requesting it. Requesting the data would be clearly illegal. With PRISM the NSA go a step further, they don't even bother requesting it ... they just take it.

William Hague (the UK Foreign Secretary) today called the allegations "baseless" i.e. you don't have enough evidence to prove them, as opposed to "untrue". We're in the land of spin and political semantics now. They are being super careful not to say anything that will incriminate them more should more evidence emerge. On the other hand, the Obama crew are still trying to defend it.

1. And that's fine. I wasn't trying to convince one way or the other. I was merely elucidating the purpose of ECHELON and PRISM.
2. So we return to fundamental question I was concerned with, that being the expectation of privacy. Personally, I have always treated all of my online activity as akin to having done it in a public square. But that could just be me.

[PaleoMan]

Further evidence that the nature of modern Party Politics is one the greatest threats to Liberal Democracy in the media age. We no longer have any electoral choice, just the appearance of choice and the elevation of peripheral issues to create division ... just look at the nonsense issues that passed for meaningful debate at the last election. All the while the real power continues unabated. These revelations are an attack on the shady power behind our "democracies" - the institutions of control and the status quo of the power elite they are protecting and relying on for their survival. If you attack the politicians, that's fine because they are replaceable ... but woe betide anyone who attacks the real power ... just ask Bradley Manning.

Bush ~ Obama
Democrats ~ Republicans
Blair ~ Cameron
Labour ~ Conservatives
Blair~ Bush
Labour ~ Republicans

They are all the same. They just take turns to steer the ship ... problem is that the ship's an oil tanker, and the rudder's a matchstick.

It's essentially a carousel of select special interests furiously fighting over the ring of power. That's American politics in a nutshell. Take for example this 1 trillion dollar farm bill coming up though committee. I guarantee the Republican majority massage this monstrousity through, despite it being a betrayal of their alleged principles.

[PaleoMan]

Mike Church interview with Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/interview-with-glenn-greenwald/