Snowden and Greenwald Beginning to Self-Destruct; ‘The Nation’ and ‘Mother Jones’ Raise Questions

[flamingdem]

By Bob Cesca · June 14,2013

It’s now been more than a week since Glenn Greenwald reported that the National Security Agency attained “direct access” to servers owned by the various tech giants, Google, Facebook, Apple and so forth.
And it’s been almost a week since other sites, now including Mother Jones, The Nation and Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish, began to notice significant issues with his reporting about PRISM.

I should underscore once again how consequential the “direct access” line happens to be. The implication of “direct access” is clearly that, unbeknownst to the public, the NSA and, apparently, low level IT subcontractors, enjoyed back door access to proprietary server data, horked it at will and, according to Greenwald, did so potentially without a warrant. Rick Perlstein, in a post for The Nation, quoted Mark Jaquith of WordPress who observed that the “direct access” line is “the difference between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.” (I’m sure Perlstein and Jaquith have been inundated with “Obamabot apologist!” accusations for daring to aim an incredulous post in Greenwald’s direction.)

On his Wednesday podcast, Sam Seder said in support of Greenwald and Snowden, “That guy [Snowden] revealed all of this to us.” But in terms of new news, the “direct access” description is arguably the only aspect of the PRISM item, other than the PRISM PowerPoint and the story of a guy named Edward Snowden who leaked it, that was unknown prior to last week’s reporting. And it’s not holding water under scrutiny. Furthermore, we’ve been aware of the NSA’s eavesdropping efforts, including email, for many years now. In fact, the Obama administration, only three months into its first term weeded out several instances of unwarranted NSA eavesdropping. Kurt Eichenwald covered the NSA’s counter-terrorism efforts in his bestselling book, 500 Days. But this was somehow flushed down the memory hole in lieu of hyperbole and kneejerk mass hysteria over Greenwald and others shouting “fire!” (or “Worse than Bush!”) in a virtual crowded theater.

Indeed, Greenwald continues to shout “fire!” in the face of mounting concern (see my previous posts) over the veracity of his central scoop. Perlstein also quoted open-source expert Ken Fogel who referred to the use of “direct access” as an “epic botch.” Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum wrote yesterday, “…the ‘direct access’ claim puzzled me from the start. Even with my modest technical background, I understood immediately that it didn’t make sense.” Wednesday night on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show, Greenwald weaseled around the questions, saying essentially the same thing he’s said all week: that he summarized the line from the PRISM PowerPoint slide and therefore he’s didn’t botch the story.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/

[MotherPetrie]

1. The bottom line, to me, is that there is no doub that NSA not only has access to,

it HAS, every piece of electronic communication created in the U.S. since 9/11, if not before, in readily accessible storage. It has also done its best to cover up that it has this information.

How it got that info is pretty much irrelevant, because if it wants that information, and it does, it will get it. However, I am not willing to give the telecoms any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. They are as full of shit as the NSA.

Fuck them all and stop trying to protect their lying asses.

[brush]

12. The information has not been covered up

People have know about this for years. Greenwald ressurected this six-year-old story to bash Obama. Snowden, who it seems he used, is begining to look like a somewhat naive defector to China, or maybe worse.

[Th1onein]

53. Bullshit.

If that were true, they wouldn't be after Snowden as a leaker.

[leftynyc]

63. He leaked classified documents

Which has nothing to do with the fact this is old news. If you didn't know the government had the authority to do this, you weren't paying attention. His passing on classified documents to a foreign government is also against the law (duh) - why shouldn't they go after him for breaking the law?

[Laelth]

81. Sorry. Mis-post. n/t

-Laelth

[Th1onein]

94. They've been after him since the first story, which held nothing classified but that they were

spying on us. Pay attention.

[leftynyc]

97. LOL - oh, a lecture

I'm paying very close attention to this non-story. And I'll comment on whatever part of this "scandal" I wish to - he deserves to be charged with espionage and will unless he decides to defect (which he may have to as nobody seems to want to accept somebody so untrustworthy) - your hero. You don't have a problem with him sharing his classified info with a foreign reporter and a foreign government - that says a lot about you.

[Th1onein]

182. Make up your mind: Are we talking about me or about Snowden?

Because if we're talking about me, you're lowering yourself to ad hominem attacks. I'm not going to waste my time on that.

[Abukhatar]

179. Snowden got snowjobbed by Greenwald

Looking like he was a useful patsy setup/taken advantaged of by Greenwald

[JackRiddler]

194. On evidence more effort went into that dud of a pun...

Than in actually learning anything about this case.

Devastating! You got'em, Abu!

[JackRiddler]

191. Oh golly, the government's been violating the constitution for years!

Old news! Forget about it!

[pnwmom]

32. I don't know what you mean by "every piece of electronic communication." They only

have lists of phone numbers and number of minutes.

The PRISM program hasn't been targeting US citizens -- it's a program that affects terror investigations in OTHER countries.

[Laelth]

82. Just for clarification, Snowden leaked evidence about two NSA programs.

Here's a useful summary of what has been leaked so far.

News reports this week revealed the existence of two secret surveillance programs by the U.S. National Security Agency. The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported on one court order, in which the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowed the NSA to access all of Verizon’s phone records, domestic and international, on a daily basis for a three-month period, including information on the phone numbers of both parties, call time and duration, and unique identifiers. The second program, uncovered by The Washington Post, allowed the NSA and FBI to tap into the servers of nine U.S. Internet companies, extracting information including audio and video, e-mails, documents and connection logs.

The first program, PRISM, looks for patterns in all the phone meta-data. It's the second program that records all electronic data (e-mail, texts, etc.).

Just fyi.

-Laelth

[geek tragedy]

96. "tap into the servers of nine US Internet comparies, extracting . . ."

This is the claim that's been debunked.

[questionseverything]

116. it has not been debunked

the only question is if the gov't(military) has direct access (as the nsa said in it's presentation) or if it uses a private contractor as the middle man

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10054

and there were 3 articles

1.phone call records

2.access to all electronic communications thru 9(?) big servers

3.a classified 18-page Presidential Policy Directive issued by President Obama last October detailing "Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO)" which "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging".

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10052

[geek tragedy]

119. The difference goes well beyond that.

The difference is between the government getting what the companies actively deliver to them, and the government have unfettered access to take whatever they damn well please.

"Tapping into the servers" supports the latter claim.

[questionseverything]

127. booz allen is the middle man doing the access for the gov't

The majority shareholder in Booz Allen is The Carlyle Group, the massive global asset management firm whose defense industry contracts raised questions of a conflict of interest during the George W. Bush administration in light of the direct financial ties and active rolls in Carlyle maintained by Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, his Sec. of State, James Baker, III, Ronald Reagan's Defense Sec. Frank Carlucci and even Shafiq Bin Laden (Osama's brother).

[geek tragedy]

131. The question is whether anyone other than Apple has direct

access to Apple's data, or whether the government/Booz Allen only gets what Apple actively makes available to them.

[pnwmom]

126. Yes, it has. It only applies to specific targets OUTSIDE the U.S.

And the NSA did not say "main server" in its presentation; it said "server." Which turns out to be the lockboxes through which specific requested data on NON-U.S. targets is transmitted.

[pnwmom]

124. Actually,this is outdated information.

The "second program," which is named PRISM, only applies to investigations of targets OUTSIDE the US, and it does NOT give the government access into the main servers of the Internet -- only into lockboxes through which specific requested data is transferred.

[gcomeau]

34. Not only is there "doubt" of that...

...the claim is patently untrue to the point of being completely fucking insane.

[intaglio]

58. Quite true and that information is held on computers owned by

Google, Verizon, Apple, Microsoft and other big player computer companies. Most, if not all, of the metadata is also held by companies involved in antivirus and anti-spambot software.

But this is not the scandal ...

In all of these cases these companies cannot function without this information and, guess what? Many governments have access to such data.

But this is not the scandal ...

There is an exact parallel with metadata in the maintenance of records regarding telephone numbers, utility meters and even your address. These too are all records that can be accessed by the companies and the Federal Government. These records can also be used to look for evidence of criminal or even anti-government activity.

But this is not the scandal ...

The real scandal is not even that for 50 years, that's correct 50 f'n years, first the overseas phone calls, then the faxes and later the data communications of all natures sent by US and persons of other nationalities have been analyzed and, in many cases recorded. This is done by the security services in the UK, Australia, Japan and, probably, Spain. This has been largely funded by the US without Congressional oversight. Of course if incriminating information about certain US citizens activities is passed to US authorities who can then use this "actionable intelligence".

The real scandal is that despite the open secrets of all of the above the mainstream media is reporting this as a scandal to damage an effective US President who happens to be from the Democratic party.

The real scandal is that you and other kneejerk revolutionaries are being played like a violin by those who are seeking to damage your President.

The real scandal is the ignorance of the mechanisms of modern technology which enable everyone to use modern phone networks and the internet.

The real scandal is you and others like you who stalk off and to play with your marbles elsewhere.

[The Magistrate]

73. Hear Hear, Sir

This is not a reasoned or disinterested dispute over proper extent or exercise of government power.

It is a political fight, in which one side aims to discredit the other, to hamstring and hobble it in the period before the next election, and to shift the focus from its own lacks and discredits. In this particular fight, one side is composed of tea-bagging traitors, the most un-American bunch to infest our political life since the confederacy, and their Birchite corporate pay-masters; the other side is President Obama and his Administration. I am on one side of this, the only side a person who opposes the most reactionary elements of our political culture can be on in the present situation.

I support President Obama.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

78. OMG! Sanity!!! +1 n/t

[Champion Jack]

85. +1000000

[flamingdem]

111. hear, hear!

Well done Magistrate

[redqueen]

141. The reactionary left are played like fucking fiddles on a regular basis

all over the world. It's exasperating, disheartening, and so very obviously counterproductive.

[Surya Gayatri]

149. That's what 'reactionaries' do, react--by foaming at the mouth

like programmed Pavlovian test subjects when their particular bell is 'rung'.

You can count on them to begin growling and salivating before any 'meat' (the potential scandal) is even fully 'revealed'.

[tiny elvis]

190. misuse of the word 'reactionary' can confuse

reactionary and left are contradictory

if you are a poet or chemist describing levorotatories, i defer

[Surya Gayatri]

148. I think I love you, oh great Magistrate!

[Ikonoklast]

196. Are you accusing some here of being duped by a former Cato Institute and Koch Brothers employee

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald, and are being played harder by him than a dime-store fiddle?

You just might be absolutely correct.

[SidDithers]

83. Really well said...

The real scandal is that you and other kneejerk revolutionaries are being played like a violin by those who are seeking to damage your President.

Sid

[MotherPetrie]

92. the kneejerking is done by Obama fans who give him a pass because he's supposedly a Dem instead

Of holding him to the same standards they held Bush to.

The hypocrisy is shameless and stunning. Perfectly Freeperlike.

If this were 5 years ago there would be pages and pages pages praising and defending Greenwald.

Now he's public enemy number one in some quarters because he isn't bamboozled by Obama's transparency lies.

[Old and In the Way]

145. "Obama fans"

That's the kind of simplistic insult that I gather from your attempts to support the anti-Obama argument here on DU.

[intaglio]

162. Sorry, but recognising reality is what you need to display

It is ignorance that drives you and others like you to denigrate a centrist President.

You ignore the fact that the most eggregious efforts of the NSA were shut down by the Obama administration.

You ignore the fact that Greenwood completely misinterpreted a Powerpoint slide to manufacture your outrage.

You ignore the failures of a man who persons like yourself have decided is a "hero," and the very dubious motivations behind his deception.

One final word, accusing DUers of being "freepers" or being like "freepers" has long been seen as motivation to report a post. I have not done so because, as far as I can see, you did so out of ignorance.

[Skraxx]

99. Well Done, Sir, Well Done!

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. Greenwald thought he saw a sore spot in the Liberal Left and he is trying to

exploit it and for "divide and conquer" methods..

what he wanted was to bring down Obama's positive polling...

[flamingdem]

113. Yes, he poured iodine into that spot

sat back and watched the screams!

I'm looking forward to Glenn Greenwald being taken to task

[Bobbie Jo]

120. +1000

Nailed it.

[CakeGrrl]

125. Thank you - this is the crux of the issue

And despite the namecalling (Obama apologists / sycophants, blah blah blah), it's those who are dying to stick it to the President who are hoping Greenwald's charges stick.

And they're not.

But people fell hard for it and are trying to paint Snowden as an exiled martyr, and it's easy to see why.

[Surya Gayatri]

146. You are now the unsung hero of this thread, intaglio...

"The real scandal is the ignorance of the mechanisms of modern technology which enable everyone to use modern phone networks and the internet."

And there it is...in one succinct sentence--the reality of modern technology. A potential blessing or curse, but available for the taking.

[Surya Gayatri]

147. Self Delete - dupe

[Vinnie From Indy]

158. Well here is a fucking good idea!

Let's just take your OP and start printing it on all copies of The Constitution where the 4th Amendnment used to be. We can have the Bill of Rights posted in schools, libraries and courtrooms across this great nation so all freedom loving Americans can see and celebrate the massive contribution your OP has given to this country and to the eternal struggle for human rights and individual liberty.

I find it extremely odd that many here on DU seem oblivious or willfully ignorant to the call from this very President to hold him accountable and to make our voices heard to effect change. He never qualified that effort. He never said raise your voices only when it is convenient, comfortable or self-interested.

No, I reject these sentiments of willfull ignorance and equivocation by the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots among us here on DU.

I am not distracted at all.

Cheers!

[intaglio]

171. The issue of collection of metadata has, I believe, been tested, in court,

and found to be constitutional.

Why? because that metadata is distributed internet wide and that distribution is essential to the functioning of the internet. Similar data is generated by digital phone services eg cellphone services. Lots of people collect this meta and more use it such as service providers, advertisers and software companies. Do you object to them "spying" on you? Well you had best not else things like search engines and server farms would rapidly loose the capacity to function. Stopping this would, to an extent, be like saying the Post Office could not look at the envelope of a letter and could not store data about that envelope and its location in the postal network.

In no way is there any monitoring of the content of the call or the communication just the data associated with its source, destination, format and routing. What is more the big scary government that you want to stop monitoring this data has no direct access to it (despite the falsehood in Greenwald's original article).

So the operation is getting your undergarments in a bunch is one that has been in operation for a long time, has been reported on prior to this time, does not monitor content and has passed legal tests of its Constitutionality. the only change in circumstance is the involvement of the M$M and their sensationalist reporting of this.

Congratulations on becoming a dupe of the Capitalist machine.

[Vinnie From Indy]

173. Speaking of dupes

I find it quite astonishing that you can write about such issues with such certainty and willful ignorance. That astonishment is even heightened in light of the very recent comments by members of Congress. It appears many on both sides of the aisle are stunned by some of the revelations they have been given in the most recent intelligence briefings. One member has said what we know now is "only the tip of the iceberg".

I would offer to you that you rethink your omniscience in this matter.


Cheers!

[intaglio]

174. I have not claimed omniscience

I have offered observation. Information about metadata and its uses can be found all over the internet.

In respect of Members of Congress, I take it you are talking about the same group of individuals who recently had the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule with an all-male panel. Paint me as underwhelmed by the competence of such a group.

In respect of PRISM, I believe it has been running for some time and has attracted reports before now; all that is different is that M$M has taken note (for whatever reason). Part of that maybe because of Snowden refused the newspapers the chance to fact check his claims insisting he would take the story elsewhere (I believe the Daily Mail, a paper famously ignorant in technical matters, was mentioned). It was then the bandwagon began to roll probably assisted by certain news organisations wanting dirt on your President.

In a way you are correct it is the tip of the iceberg, except it is an iceberg that has been tracked and traced over more than 25 years, ever since the report in 1988 about RAF Menwith Hill.

Here's a link to my post about that little piece of America in my country
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989911

[Vinnie From Indy]

175. One might ask at what point will your sensibilities be aroused?

You claim that what we know now is old news and that these revelations are merely a coordinated attack on our President. To put a finer point on the discussion, one might ask precisely at what point will this cease to be "old" news to you. Is there a line in your mind where further revelations cross the line of what has been previously reported. I ask, because it is important to get on record where that line may be so that your future commentary on this issue can be held in line with your current offerings. It would certainly be apparent to all fair minded readers if you are engaged in a constant "move the goalposts" strategy as some here on DU routinely deploy.

In short, I encourage you to go on record with what you believe to be old news in this affair and we shall very shortly see if you have a good bead on reality.

Cheers!

[intaglio]

193. My sensibilities were aroused about 42 years ago

When Margaret Thatcher first began her attacks on the education system in the UK. I have been a union member for most of that time and I have supported causes that were deeply unpopular with the governing clique including from nuclear disarmament through to NHS cuts and amendments.

Now, please do not put words into my mouth. At not point did I say it is

...merely a coordinated attack on our President.

That is another despicable tactic and one that is typical of extremists on both sides of the political fence.

Yes, it is an attack on your President but not necessarily coordinated, at least at first.

Yes, it is old news about a program that has been in place for several years. It is also a program that does not monitor the communications themselves but the data around the communications. Additionally there are more outrageous programs monitoring the communications of US citizens and others. All are legal and all lack effective oversight.

Where you fail is in surrendering to reflex outrage at a monitoring program and in targeting your anger at the President. Doing so strengthens the hand of of those who wish a real right wing President in place in three and a half years.

First; monitoring of metadata is not the problem, that is a routine business practice and essential to the proper functioning of much of the mechanisms of modern communications. If you succeeded in closing down the government side of this monitoring then you would still have to allow businesses to have access to that data.

Second; despite Greenwald's claims, the US government did not have 24/7 direct access to the data but instead direct access to the companies that held the data to allow data collection in certain specific cases. I stress that data about your communications is not, legally, spying on the content of the communication but is more in the nature of examining the envelope of a letter.

Third; the target should be Congress and US electors to ensure proper oversight of other programmes such as Echelon where vast quantities of US money are being spent to enable your allies to monitor communications without US agencies breeching the requirements of the Constitution.

[Vinnie From Indy]

195. I apologize for putting words in your mouth

Thanks for your reply!

Cheers!

[intaglio]

197. No problem

I do understand where you are coming from and - years ago - would have felt the same.

[Phillip McCleod]

181. + 2.73eBazillion

that's one of the things i've always loved about Obama. he gets what LBJ got, too.

let's remember that Our Prez called on us to hold his feet to the fire.

hell, i wouldn't be surprised if he's happy as a clam that Snowden decided to pull this stunt, and call attention *back* to this still lingering cancer growing in the body democratic.

i know some would like to blame Obama, but i for one blame the Cheney/Rummy bureaucracy and general post-911 militarization.

to me, this seems like a good thing for him to spend some political capital on, while there's still time. fresh lights are being shown in dark places. how is that bad?

[redqueen]

164. Thank you for spelling it out. nt

[aquart]

180. Precisely.

[Number23]

185. Amazing post. Amazing

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. It doesn't "have" it...

it has access to it..big distinction...

[Zorra]

107. Yep. Here's the dirty little secret of any justice system: If you give the cops

a tool that they can use to break the law and get away with it, making their their job easier for them, they will use the tool 100% of the time. This is why we have had restrictions on police power at one time.

There is a very old saying that is attributed to Juvenal, but which probably pre-dates Juvenal by thousands of years:

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Which means "Who will guard the guards?"

Seems to me we need to start regulating and watch-dogging the justice industry big time.

There is another old saying: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

One more relevant quote:

Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.
~ Robin Morgan

[flamingdem]

118. Do you have an example of where the technology being discussed

has done grievous wrong to an innocent?

[Corruption Inc]

172. You're deciding who's an "innocent" now?

Not surprising at all.

[Skittles]

184. they have no clue, do they?

[OilemFirchen]

144. "the justice industry"

[backwoodsbob]

2. lets just kill them and get it over with

that's what the apologists want

[Cha]

5. you know nothing about it.

[backwoodsbob]

6. if you say so

glad to see mindreader is among your many talents

[Bodhi BloodWave]

70. just as it seems to be yours i believe

after all, the post Cha replied to seems to have you know how others think as well yes?

[madokie]

3. Greenwald took a lot of liberties with the truth it seems

His true colors are showing and they happen to be he's simply a republicon hack. Nothing more or nothing less. Fuck him

[flamingdem]

4. I wonder if he is as dumb as it seems not to understand

the technical information he put forth.

Smart or dumb. Time will tell. Also, whose side he's on and who he works for, if anyone.

[Cha]

7. This isn't the first time. You'd think

he would learn though. guess not.

[flamingdem]

9. So Greenwald has used a technical blurry area to push his articles before?

It works very, very well!

[Whisp]

13. hmm, USB thumb or 4 laptops? both?

First, the LA Times learned yesterday that Snowden’s claim that he absconded off with four Booz Allen laptops containing the documents appears to be untrue. In fact, Snowden reportedly transported the documents on a USB thumb drive. Unless the investigators mentioned in the LA Times article are trying to spread misinformation about Snowden, this brings up yet another bizarre gap in Snowden’s story as well as The Guardian‘s reporting of it.

==

But this cuts more deeply than any healthy skepticism some of us might possess. Greenwald’s stubbornness and Snowden’s foolishness are actually self-destructive to what they’re attempting to achieve. As I’ve written from day one, credibility will make or break not only this story, but anyone who chooses to blindly latch their own credibility to it. If Greenwald was truly interested in the endurance of this story, he would’ve stowed his ego and done whatever was necessary to preserve its integrity as well as his own reputation; because as long as “direct access” continues to disintegrate, so goes the believability of everything else he’s reported. Instead, the widening holes in this story could indicate Peak Greenwald.

[flamingdem]

14. The Guardian may end up looking very bad as well

Let's hope they take some responsibility for this if it's such a total fail.

[dmr]

41. Rupert Murdoch

Remember how The Guardian exposed Rupert Murdoch's media empire crimes - including wiretapping?

[flamingdem]

115. I used to work for the Guardian in the USA

So I don't need a lesson about who they are especially.

They do need to rethink the people they hire now and then, especially right now.

[dmr]

166. Lesson?

Where did you get that from my post?

I was just making a comment about Murdoch because I can imagine he'd love to see The Guardian discredited. Maybe even involving his long tentacles in some fashion. How? I don't know, but it did cross my mind. That's all.

[flamingdem]

167. Oh, okay, I'm seeing most posts as an attack apparently!

Very good point about Murdoch. I'd want to defend the Guardian but I'm hoping they can be objective about Greenwald even though he's now one of theirs.

[dmr]

168. Then we're on the same page.

[flamingdem]

169. whew!

[reusrename]

43. Help me out here. Didn't Feinstein just say the same thing as Snowden?

Feinstein added that it's her "understanding" that an individual NSA query of the phone records metadata database does not require a court order.

Thus, as Ackerman reports, "seemingly according to this description of her understanding, NSA can search through phone records unilaterally."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/13-9

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I really don't know what it is.

Help me out.

[madokie]

60. This?

“To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.”

Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html#ixzz2WAFcJFjC

[Monkie]

75. Spy Nation: bloomberg.com seems to think otherwise

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023013551

in that topic you can hear crickets chirping, funny that, where are all the apologists?

[madokie]

76. I've said before and I'll say again

I don't need someone telling me what or how to think. I do a pretty good job of that on my own, thank you.

[flamingdem]

8. How long was he going to keep up this charade

*** that secure FTP access is the same as "accessing your files willy nilly"? and it's true every five minutes there's another mention of ALL the other goodies they'll release... yeah right

Tenacious, to put it mildly. To suggest that the problem is merely that the tech giants contradicted the PRISM slide represents a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the volumes of contravening information that’s been released, including from his own publication. No, Greenwald couldn’t possibly have gotten it wrong, it must be that someone else is lying about it — and who are you going to trust? Greenwald or a big bad tech company? It’s a clever dance around the growing reality that “direct access” to servers was actually about secure FTP access, a process that’s commonplace on the internet and doesn’t allow full and direct access to anything other than files posted for download.

[Major Hogwash]

10. " . . .Greenwald weaseled around the questions . . ."

He sure as hell did.

I saw that part of Chris Hayes' program last night, and Chris didn't interrupt Glenn one single time.
So, Glenn had the mike and it was Glenn's time to explain his actions, and he weaseled around the questions like he had never said anything wrong.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. It's not about them. It's about a rubber stamp court that permits the government to

ignore the 4th Amendment.

[villager]

15. You want there to still be a 4th Amendment!? Why, you pearl-clutching unicorn-herder!

You must want Sarah Palin to be President!

[flamingdem]

16. We may benefit from a review of what's going on

but we may also be terribly hurt.

Time will tell.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. that's a bit obvious. There's a million may or may nots in this life. A million what ifs.

What if we repeal the Patriot Act and then get hit by a terrorist attack? What if we don't repeal the Patriot Act and our freedom keep eroding until the point where they are unrecognizable and we live in an authoritarian state? Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure, the Constitution says we should not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. That we do know.

[flamingdem]

19. But that story broke years ago

There was supposed to be something truly outrageous in Snowden's info but it's fizzling.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. I don't care when it broke. We need to put pressure on our government to stop spying on citizens.

[flamingdem]

25. But that's all of the time and as we know

time will tell.

In the meantime we need to know what is really being said by Greenwald

[liberal_at_heart]

30. I don't give a s**t what Greenwald said.

[Abq_Sarah]

27. Oh, I don't know

If we all supposedly "knew" about this years and years ago, it's amazing how many members of congress are expressing concern over the program.

I pay pretty close attention to current events and I don't recall the government getting in a tizzy over anyone leaking information confirming that every American has been data-mined illegally by the US of A.

I'm really kind of disgusted by this "old news" meme... particularly since it's not true.

[MADem]

55. Always ask the CUI BONO questions.

Who has benefitted from this story?

The Chinese.

They came to Sunnyland to get an asschewing on cybertheft and theft of US intellectual property....

....but what's everyone talking about now? Not that!

Who's under the gun?

Obama.

Who might like that set of circumstances? Inquiring minds want to know!

[stevenleser]

93. The Chinese AND the GOP have benefitted.

They've benefitted immensely by Greenwald and Snowden playing a gullible and uninformed segment of progressives like a fiddle. Or perhaps that segment wanted to be played?

[flamingdem]

123. Yes it's more of a symphony than a barn dance

but it stinks like a barn!

[MADem]

157. Precisely--and the timing of the release of info (which Snowden insisted upon) had to be precise.

This "revelation" did a superb job of painting over China's shenanigans re: cyberskullduggery and intellectual property theft. Obama's Sunnyland agenda on that score was completely blown out of the water by this "Just In Time" move. I thought Ju-Jitsu was Japanese, but I have to say the Chinese aren't unskilled.

Also, the ardent "lefties" on this board (many of whom seemed to be in deep hibernation before this incident) who continue to insist that only "bad" Democrats or -- gasp -- Republicans are questioning Saint Edward of Snowden would probably do well to take a hard stare at where people are lining up--the CATO Institute is full-bore behind Greenwald and Snowden (not surprising, given their history of association w/Greenwald) and even some of the FauxSnooze crew are playing the hero card, while card carrying die-hard progressive people like Al Franken (who actually took the intel briefing) aren't members of the hair on fire crowd.

[redqueen]

161. "many of whom seemed to be in deep hibernation before this incident"

Yeah, I've noticed that seems to be a pattern with some.

And the fact that this guy got a top secret clearance somehow despite being so mendacious?

Japan has jiu jitsu, but China has kung fu.

[flamingdem]

163. If China (via their reps in Hong Kong) doesn't put him on a plane back..

Then perhaps we can conclude China had a heads up and was in some way involved in revealing the news about the US hacking Chinese computers.

Otherwise I can't see them wanting him around.

I don't know much about Hong Kong and autonomy, guess we're going to learn about that soon

[MADem]

165. Hong Kong's autonomy has been eroding as time passes.

They have an English system of governance overlaid by a Beijing mindset.

That Hong Kong lawmaker--Ms. Ip--who told "Ed" to pound sand and hit the road is a fan of Beijing. That's one way that Beijing will telegraph their supposed POV, by having a surrogate do their talking for them.

Another pro-Beijing feller is the owner of the SCMP (a Malay tycoon who likes China's business approach), where "Ed" gave his second interview. Oddly enough (or maybe not), that tycoon bought his shares in the SCMP from a guy who still holds a minority interest in the paper--Rupert Murdoch.

Once Ed's usefulness, like fresh milk, has expired, they're going to want to give him the toss. He'll just stink up the room, otherwise.

I have to surmise, if Ed is stil sitting in Hong Kong with a "red hood" over his head reading the news of America, that Ed is probably realizing that he's jumping the shark already. The arc of his story has revealed him to be a prevaricator about small things, and if he lied about the unimportant shit, why wouldn't one assume that he'd lie about the big stuff, too?

I wonder if he's thinking he miscalculated?

[Surya Gayatri]

156. ^^^This!^^^

[redqueen]

160. Precisely. nt

[Cha]

192. The Chinese and

Glenn Greenwald(for now).

[DevonRex]

18. No. The FISA Court even denied a warrant on Tamerlan Tsarnaev,

who only had a Green Card rather than citizenship.

"There’s a lot of information there that will get sorted through, like the indication of databases kept by the government for the purposes of data mining green-card holders (and American citizens?). But the ultimate fight between the Hill and the FBI, or perhaps the GOP and the White House, will hinge on how and why the FBI decided to conclude from their searches that Tamerlan wasn’t connected to international terrorism.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Patriot Act, in order to unlock powerful surveillance and investigative tools the FBI must show probable cause that an individual is engaged in international terrorist acts on behalf of a terrorist group. The foreign government seemed to believe that Tamerlan was. Did they supply sufficient evidence for the FBI to meet a FISA court judge’s standard of probable cause? Was the FBI going the extra mile to meet the probable-cause test? Initially it doesn’t look good for the FBI. The definition under FISA of international terrorist acts is that they must:

… transcend national boundaries, in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the person they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The classic example, experts say, of operating internationally is training in an al-Qaeda camp in the Pakistani hinterlands. To be sure, to get a FISA warrant the standard is higher for American citizens and green-card holders (like Tamerlan) — the FBI has to show the suspect is knowingly engaging in international terrorism or preparing for it on behalf of a terrorist group. If the suspect isn’t a citizen or green-card holder, then you just have to show the suspect is a member of terrorist group.

But FISA court judges don’t often reject warrant requests. And if the foreign government thought or knew that Tamerlan was traveling abroad to associate with “underground groups,” that could have been enough. Which raises the question how hard, if at all, the FBI and prosecutors in Boston tried to get a FISA warrant."

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/20/why-the-fbi-white-house-will-face-hard-questions-about-their-boston-bombing-interviews/#ixzz2W95mM4jB

[liberal_at_heart]

26. but they're willing to approve collecting phone data on millions ordinary average American

citizens? I have to agree with the question in that last paragraph. Did they really try to get a FISA warrant on Tsarnaev? because if they had they probably would have gotten one.

[DevonRex]

40. Of course they did. They didn't have the evidence without Russian

cooperation. All the Russians did was say he'd become radicalized. They provided nothing further. So what if he posted videos on You Tube? Not a crime. He said some words on the phone to his mother, but nothing about plans. Just religious fervor. Not a crime.

Our agents can't operate freely in Russia or Chechnya or Dagestan. As for getting the warrant, it's more difficult for citizens and green card holders. The threshold is much higher. That should make you feel better, unless you're just determined to hold onto your notions despite evidence to the contrary.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. They have data on telephone numbers made by ordinary citizens with no probable cause.

That is unconstitutional.

[frazzled]

20. Consensus is growing around fact Greenwald/Snowden wrong on "direct access"

See also this article from Wonkbook earlier today (crux of issue regarding misinterpretation of "direct access" appears about 1/3 of the way into the article, just before and after the slide graphic):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/

[flamingdem]

22. Thanks. It's crazy it got so far without this detail being explored

but today we're seeing what this is really about.

[flamingdem]

23. data is transmitted using the companies servers with FTP access - not accessing !

The Times says that major tech companies have systems that “involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.”
Data is “shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk,” the Times reports. The scheme is “a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.”

A source told CNet’s Declan McCullagh that PRISM is “a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do.” A source — perhaps the same one — says that “you can’t say everyone in Pakistan who searched for ‘X’ … It still has to be particularized.”

[frazzled]

29. Yeah, I'm a total tech dummy and I understand the difference

and the process as it is being explained.

Well, I'm not totally dumb. I just found out how to get our Brother laser printer to stop thinking it's out of toner and refusing to print. With a simple Philips screwdriver and a twist of a gear 180 degrees, it's back to printing beautifully again. Was Mr. Frazzled ever impressed. Yay me. Just saved us $70 for a new toner cartridge.

[SidDithers]

84. Hey. That's useful info...

What gear do I need to twist?

Sid

[frazzled]

98. Here's a thread with clues

The video is awful, but after reading the thread and watching it, you'll easily see which gear to turn.

http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/forums/printer/70186

This sub-post and this other video will help, after you've watched the main one. You don't need to refill the toner; just remove the two screws and rotate the large gear with the S-shaped ridge on it. It worked for me!

This video shows you how to resent the toner cartridge so that your printer thinks its a new one:

All you do is unscrew this plastic thing and turn another plastic thing 180 degrees. Then you rescrew the plastic thing back on.

You can also manually refill it when it ACTUALLY runs out, but for now you should be fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. You need to explain to us how you're sure that this is about FTP

and then, you need to explain to us how you know about the FTP set-up on the companies' computers, and the access granted to the IDs the NSA uses, so that you know that "FTP access" is "not accessing".

Of course, you won't be able to explain that, because you'd need to be an employee of every company to have those details. Or a guy from the NSA.

But you could at least try to justify your stance that, because you think they're using FTP, then somehow this restricts the data they can get to.,

[reusrename]

47. I don't really understand this. Here is what Feinstein just said after the secret briefing:

Feinstein added that it's her "understanding" that an individual NSA query of the phone records metadata database does not require a court order.

Thus, as Ackerman reports, "seemingly according to this description of her understanding, NSA can search through phone records unilaterally."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/13-9

Isn't she saying the same thing as Snowden about this?

[frazzled]

103. Phone records aren't the issue here

We're talking about the supposed revelation that NSA has direct access to email and other Internet communications of supposedly every American. That's apparently wrong.

As for the phone records ... that is "meta-data," not listening in on phone calls. Just records of origins, destinations, and times of phone calls; millions of phone calls.

[reusrename]

106. Isn't it well documented that they have both?

You know, room 461A, yottabytes, and all that?

[MADem]

56. Unfortunately, the Hair on Fire crowd have already put on a helluva light show,

and the Chinese really enjoyed the performance.

[OilemFirchen]

138. They must enjoy the smell.

If you offer them a bucket of water, they demand to know who bought the bucket, who gave you the authority to wield the bucket, why they should believe it's water in the bucket, and fuck off, it's none of your business anyway.

[randome]

139. LOL! And are 'you' really who you claim to be?

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

[Whisp]

140. haha! n/t

[ProSense]

24. You have people

trying to dismiss the relevance of this aspect of the story that has now been exposed as inaccurate when in fact, this was the alleged bombshell that exploded the story and caused many to overlook that the appropriate steps were taken, warrants and the FISA court.

In the frenzy that followed, people began pushing science fiction (literally) as fact. Everyone knew about the NSA program, and the secrecy of the FISA court is not breaking news, unless this is 1980.

The aspect of the information that fell apart is the difference “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

There is another aspect of this leak that is still suspect: the China/Hong Kong connection. One has to wonder about the original motive.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. I don't care when the news broke. I don't care that it is legal. It is unconstitutional and therefor

we should demand they stop.

[ProSense]

31. Can you

"I don't care when the news broke. I don't care that it is legal. It is unconstitutional and therefor we should demand they stop."

...provide a link to the decision that determined that these activities are "unconstitutional"?

Seems to me that there are people challenging this law and there is an ongoing debate, but no determination has been made.

Here's a little history lesson for you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023013882

[liberal_at_heart]

36. They can get phone numbers I have called from the phone companies when they have no

probable cause that I have done anything wrong. That is unconstitional. I can't believe there are democrats that think this is constitutional. Wow. Just wow. The current democratic party astonishes me. More and more with each passing day I start to believe I may no longer be a democrat.

[Abq_Sarah]

38. Not everyone is down with this

Not every person is trying to pretend this is old news. Not every person decided the constitution was now unimportant once we got shrub out of the picture.

[MADem]

159. If you're "no longer a democrat" then you haven't been one since the late seventies.

Phone records are fair game--the Supremes said so--WAY back then.

Why weren't you upset and screaming about 'constitutionality' last year? Ten years ago? Twenty five years ago? In the late seventies?

It's been OK since 1979, but NOW, all of a sudden, you have a problem with it?

Forgive me if I find your suddenly-discovered outrage curious.

[JDPriestly]

37. Smith v. Maryland was decided in 1979

and did not concern the facts we have now -- computers with enormous, massive, unimaginable capacity and social networking online. Smith was about a pen register that was pretty simple.

And there was no ability on the parts of phone companies to save the content of all electronic transmissions including speech and e-mails. In fact, e-mails did not exist.

The court order that I saw required Verizon to maintain a database of incredible amounts of information to make available to the government. Just having a list of the phone numbers that Scalia and his clerks call and from which they receive calls would reveal a great deal about their lifestyles, tastes, friends, partners, business interest, brokers, banks, hairdressers or barbers, doctors, psychiatrists . . . . You get the message.

That's way overbroad.

That kind of way overbroad court order or request for subpoena based upon which the order was issued will chill speech, association and all kinds of fundamental rights.

This could easily be deemed to be unconstitutional or be constitutional only if each request for subpoena is very specific and based on probably cause.

We shall find out who is assessing the programs correctly. But a person who repaired computers and could access central programs or whatever back-up system the private company that is processing the information has could key into a very broad and massive amount of data it would seem to me.

I think this is a huge story. The fact that so many of the seemingly professional Obama apologists on DU are fighting this story makes me think that the situation is really bad.

In addition, the testimony before Congress of the officers involved in administering this program suggests to me that the program is shockingly intrusive. There is a lot of lying going on.

I don't think that the NSA has been honest with Congress or fully informed them. Loretta Sanchez' comments are worth watching if you haven't already seen them.

[marions ghost]

189. Good points

Crazy to me that you have to inform people who obviously lived through the last 3 decades that technology has taken a few leaps lately. The argument that "they've always collected our phone records, nothing new" is (at best) hopelessly naive.

Yes, people underestimate the "chill" --the self censorship and paranoia--that occurs when you have such massive surveillance without oversight we can really trust. And I won't list the reasons why we don't have that trust--it's been well covered here.

Yep, big story. Whole lotta lying going on. Whole lotta spin. The situation is bad and we should be taking it very seriously. We are at a dangerous crossroads.

[G_j]

49. here,

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html

[aquart]

35. Sensible, indeed.

[Hissyspit]

52. Actually, the Verizon story came first, got a big reaction, is a big deal. The PRISM story came

next. The Verizon Guardian story was well written. The PRISM reporting was more troublesome because of the interpretation of the slides, but made it clear that they were reporting what the slide said (which everyone of course fails to mention. The really bad article was The Post. The third article was the Boundless article which was also well done.

The truth is that if Greenwald hadn't worked with The Guardian to report this leak, someone else would have. Cesca's headline pretty blatantly wants to tie Greenwald and Snowden together as co-conspirators when there is no evidence of that.

[railsback]

33. There was quite a knee-jerk reaction here

and many are still refusing to face the reality of it all, maybe out of shear embarrassment. The sensationalism of it all when the story first came out raised red flags for me. Exposing himself and then fleeing to China raised more. And then there's Greenwald, obviously aware of his errors, but then doubling down, calling detractors 'cronies'.

I have two possible theories about what's going on now, since those promised 'bombshells' have never materialized: One, Snowden completely misunderstood the context of what he was 'blowing' and thought he could avoid prosecution in HK, or he got his hands on some highly sensitive material for extortion. I'm leaning towards the former, he fucked up and has nothing, China will send him back so he can sit in a cell for years, and Greenwald, having used Snowden to line his own pockets, will fade into obscurity with a smile on his face.

[flamingdem]

133. Sounds likely! nt

[OilemFirchen]

143. Greenwald, unfortunately, will suffer no indignities.

His fan base is very tenacious. Every criticism of his work product is ad hominum and, conversely, every critic is a member of the borg.

[octoberlib]

39. This was in the Atlantic today

But the notion that they are a "rubber stamp" is overblown. While they operate in secrecy, making monitoring their activities next to impossible for those of us outside the system, the court is comprised of 11 U.S. District Court judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court for seven-year terms. They're real Article III judges, not cronies of the administration or the intelligence services.

The ACLU's Timothy Edgar argues that it's the professionalism of the requests that accounts for the high approval rate. The Justice Department lawyers who draft the requests are "very reluctant to get a denial" and therefore essentially act as in-house judges, seeing themselves "not as government advocates so much as neutral arbiters of the law between the executive branch and the courts" and therefore "getting the order approved by the Justice Department lawyers is perhaps the biggest hurdle to approval." Additionally, while the FISA judges almost never reject these requests, they do occasionally modify them.

It's worth noting, too, that the version of this program that started under the Bush Administration was done without bothering to consult the FISA Court, under the theory that the Patriot Act authorized the president to make the call unilaterally. And that Congress enthusiastically backed that move years after the fact once the news came out.

Then again, the law itself makes approval of these massive requests pretty easy. The metadata in question in this program does not require a high bar at all because our regular courts decades ago ruled that there was a very low expectation of privacy to the fact of conversations, even in ordinary criminal matters; it's only the content of the conversations that requires a high burden of proof.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/why-should-congress-and-the-courts-care-about-snooping-if-citizens-dont/276826/

[liberal_at_heart]

45. Then they should never have approved letting the government collect phone data on

ordinary citizens without probable cause. Sounds like rubber stamping to me. Also sounds unconstitutional.

[octoberlib]

48. Oh,I don't like it either.

I don't trust the private security contractors at all.

[DallasNE]

42. Glenn Greenwald, Meet Jonathan Karl

Karl didn't botch his story either according to him.

What I have been saying for about 3 days now is show me an example of accesses to data not covered by a court order. Show us where he was able to breach security and get live data independent from a court order. Perhaps he could show us data gotten from PRISM using one of his email accounts. Right now the only access he has shown was to the PC network that contained the PowerPoint presentation. That's it.

[loyalsister]

46. I'm glad to see that there are credible journalists covering this

I'm beginning to have some hope that congress can review the practices, review patriot act, FISA, and all that comes with it.

I was not impressed by the hyperbole coming from Snowden and Greewald, but maybe it woke a sleeping giant just enough to explore the situation rationally and professionally.

[PSPS]

50. LOL. I'll file this under the "Greenwald is a hack" category.

Although there is some "this is old news" as well as a hint of "Obama is better than Christie/Bush/Cheney/Hitler" in there too.

[delrem]

51. hoo boy! you guys don't just want to throw him under the bus.

You want to kill him first.

You're really going all out.
Hey! What's that happening in Syria??

Now that inspires a lot of right-wing juices!

[cantbeserious]

54. Direct Access Is The One Thing That The Surveillance State Would Most Want To Bury

eom

[ucrdem]

57. Greenwald has been shouting "fire!" since January 20, 2009.

So far it's done wonders for his career. Now he's the king of all RW pundits.

[Fumesucker]

61. Eh, I was reading Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory before he went to Salon

That was a long time before 2009, it was before Obama ever emerged on the national stage as a potential Presidential candidate and Glenn was "shouting fire" about Smirk and Sneer.

Greenwald may be a lot of things but right wing isn't really one of them, he scorched Dubya and the Prince of Darkness plenty of times on basically the same issues he goes after Obama for.

I crossed keyboards with Glenn a couple of times in his comments section at Salon, he's aggressive to a fault and never lets up but he can be reasoned with. He's one of the few writers I've seen directly engage critics in his own comments section, I don't know if he does that anymore but he did at one time.

[ucrdem]

62. Let's put it this way, did he vote for Kerry in '04? Or any Democrat ever?

Case closed.


p.s. I know that's snarky and snide but being an assholish Libertarian doesn't count for a damn thing.

[Fumesucker]

64. I have no idea who he voted for

We have long term posters right on this board who have never voted for a Democrat and never will.

[ucrdem]

65. Ah yes well . . .

that's a horse of a different color

[Fumesucker]

66. Not horse, woodchuck

[ucrdem]

68. I feel their pain

[ucrdem]

67. oops

wrong place

[Enrique]

80. he sold more books during the Bush years

including one specifically about the Republican Party published in the 2008 election year.

Greenwald's first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, was published by Working Assets in 2006. It was a New York Times bestseller,[58] and ranked #1 on Amazon.com both before its publication (due to pre-orders based on attention from 'UT' readers and other bloggers) and for several days after its release, ending its first week at #293.[59]

A Tragic Legacy, his second book, examines the presidency of George W. Bush "with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)."[60] Published in hardback by Crown (a division of Random House) on June 26, 2007 and reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it too was a New York Times Best Seller, also ranking #1 for a day on Amazon.com's Non-Fiction Best Seller List and #2 the next day (also due to heavy "discussions and promotions by blogs—a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]", according to Greenwald).[61]

His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.[62][63]

His fourth book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, was released by Metropolitan Books (of Henry Holt and Company) in October 2011.

[ljm2002]

112. Thanks for that list...

...I am bookmarking this thread just to save this information. There are so many posters here who wail that Greenwald is nothing but an Obama-hatin' Libertarian so therefore anything he has to say on the surveillance state is therefore untrue. It's good to have factual information at hand in these cases.

[ucrdem]

176. Thanks Enrique. Some discussion of the early ouvre here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3005105

I'm not dismissing or condemning it, just pointing out that in my view it's not inconsistent with the mischief he's neck deep in now, and certainly not exculpatory.

[Ford_Prefect]

59. "Move along. Nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain."

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 06:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[randome]

69. More like, 'Stop living in a Harry Potter fantasy and look at the real world's problems.'

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

[Ford_Prefect]

72. I thought the sarcasm was implied pretty clearly.

If Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) are concerned that NSA is operating well outside legal boundaries, why are so many who ought to equally concerned about it going so far out of their way to discredit Snowden and Greenwald?

If there are genuine content issues in Snowden's claims does that mean the essential message is also false?

He has said he's not a hero. I am not in the hero worship business. I am wondering how much of the energy going into the personality cult bash is really worth the ink its printed with?

[randome]

74. No evidence to back up his claims. I think that's pretty simple.

The phone number metadata? Encrypted. No names. Can only be accessed with a legal warrant for specific information.

So no 'direct access', a bunch of encrypted numbers and legal warrant required.

What were we supposed to be outraged about?

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

[Ford_Prefect]

77. And you believe all that at face value?

If you believe in the benign mission of the NSA good for you. If you trust that the NSA plays by the rules I imagine you sleep well.

I'm not so persuaded.

[randome]

86. I don't believe anything someone says at face value.

Including Snowden and including Greenwald. If someone shows me evidence, I'll believe just about anything. But so far, Snowden and Greenwald have shown us none.

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

[KoKo]

87. Amazing...it's your second Harry Potter post of the morning....

Are you just copying and pasting a Talking Point of the day? Or perhaps you are into Harry Potter for your Summer reading and just are compelled to see posters here through the eyes of that entertaining fantasy series.

[randome]

101. I'm fucking magical, aren't I?

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

[KoKo]

110. And...and "Energizer Bunny" for your cause...

[Laelth]

79. Companies that protest that the NSA does not have access to their data are lying.

And, of course they are. They want to make their customers and subscribers feel safe.

After reading the following article, you'd have to be really naive to suggest that the NSA can't find and examine whatever they want.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[Coyotl]

88. “direct access” description … only aspect … that was unknown prior = DU's instant reaction

So, it is a cover-up story, a false flag to imprint a scenario hiding the real story, the real facts?

[KoKo]

89. This focus on Snowden and Greenwald takes away from the REAL Revelation...

Private Contractors have access to our information which they can use in any way they choose for profit and private gain.

If Snowden had access to information that has our Government so upset they are tracking him down then how many other "Private Contractors" are out there downloading on Thumb Drives information which they can sell to highest bidder, or use for blackmail or other purposes for their individual profit.

[randome]

91. If Snowden had the access he claims, why not show us evidence?

It seems like the only thing he copied to his thumb drive was internal NSA documents. So far, there is exactly zero evidence that any NSA employee can spy on anyone in the world as Snowden claimed.

Anyone with the right 'authorities', he said. Apparently even he didn't have the 'authorities'.

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

[KoKo]

95. You might want to read this for background about Private Contractors...

"America's OUTSOURCED Spy Force, by the Numbers" -- The Atlantic
America's Outsourced Spy Force, by the Numbers

Philip Bump 861 Views 9:25 AM ET

Edward Snowden wasn't your traditional spy. He was, however, a very modern one, a guy who worked from a computer terminal in an office, similar to how a modern bomber pilot might control his drone. The weekend's big revelations about the NSA's biggest revealer prompt a natural question: How many Snowden-type spies with top secret security clearance are there?

There's another way in which Snowden was a modern spy. He didn't work for the government, but for a government contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden's emergence has drawn a great deal of attention to the company, about which it is almost certainly not excited. Both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have stories detailing the growth of contractor dependency in the federal government, looking at Booz in particular. As does our sister publication National Journal, which quotes former NSA head Michael Hayden: "There isn't a phone or computer at that the government owns."

That's primarily because of shifts in how the government operates. Right now, federal employees make up less than one percent of the American population.

Since 2000, the number of people employed by the federal government has stayed generally flat.

As the Journal notes in its article, that number is dwarfed by those holding security clearance.

As of last October, nearly five million people held government security clearances. Of that, 1.4 million held top-secret clearances. More than a third of those with top-secret clearances are contractors, which would appear to include Mr. Snowden.


Or:

The number of people holding security clearance is equal to about 1.6 percent of the population of the country.


One does not have to be an American citizen to hold clearance, however. The State Department explains the process for receiving such clearance, which comes in three types: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, the highest level. To receive clearance, one must fill out Standard Form 86, which includes questions for those who are not citizens.

That means that there are an estimated 450,000 people beyond those that work for Booz who have top secret clearance. Again, the Times:

“The national security apparatus has been more and more privatized and turned over to contractors,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that studies federal government contracting. “This is something the public is largely unaware of, how more than a million private contractors are cleared to handle highly sensitive matters.”


MORE AT:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/contract-security-clearance-charts/66059/

[randome]

100. 'Fuck privization!' seems to be the appropriate response.

I have absolutely no problem with reigning that in. Federal jobs are not the 'evil' that Republicans paint them out to be.

I worked for 5 years for the Social Security Administration. Federal employees are the same people as those they serve.

And as for the idiotic mantra that there is less bureaucracy in private enterprise, that's always a talking point from someone who has never worked in a corporate environment.

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

[KoKo]

117. Jane Harman on Bloomberg Business this a.m. said:

"I'd like to see all our Private Contractors in Security brought back under the Federal Government umbrella." (not word for word quote...but pretty much accurate) She felt there was too little control over them and their collection of info and what they were doing with it.

I applaud her for suggesting it. And, without Greenwald and Snowdon's revelations there wouldn't even be a discussion going on. And....there is quite a discussion if one reads broader than the "usual" warring pundits in the MSM.

Of course Jane Harman has some baggage considering this:

---------
http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/
Stein adds today that Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Stein’s scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman — even though DOJ lawyers had concluded that she committed crimes — because top Bush officials wanted Harman’s credibility to be preserved so that she could publicly defend the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless eavesdropping program:

[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. . . .

Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said. . . .

Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application. . . . Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman’s rank as the panel’s top Democrat.

But that’s when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.

According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program

[randome]

122. But that would require...{shudder}...SPENDING MONEY!

When is this terribly destructive logjam known as the Republican party going to break?

The 'revelations' Greenwald & Snowden brought to light don't quite measure up, IMO, but you're right, we would not even be looking at the problem without them.

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

[DCBob]

90. Its becoming clear the Snowden "bombshell" is quickly becoming a dud.

Clearly much of what he claimed is untrue or exaggerated.

[Monkie]

105. house democrat Sanchez says otherwise after secret briefings

"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."
...
"I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg," she said.

but you dont see the cheerleaders for limitless spying discussing in that thread for some strange reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002263

[randome]

108. "What we learned" and then "I believe it's the tip of the iceberg".

Sounds like he isn't too sure himself of what's going on.

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

[Monkie]

109. she! LOL! proven that you DID not even read the article or watch the video, that scared i see

are you that scared that you cant even look at a video of one of your democratic representatives discussing what went on in a secret briefing.
rep. Sanchez is a female.
this is just amazing really, this just shows the level of fear and delusion that is gripping some people.
watch the video if you are not a coward, discuss it on the related thread if you believe in democracy.
if you and other cheerleaders can only crow in threads that seem to show snowden is lying, but refuse to discuss what your own politicians are telling you then that just shows up the bancruptcy of your position.

[randome]

121. She says she learned significantly more. So what? That by itself means nothing.

She also said everything was legal. I'm still not sure what I should be outraged about. Did she attend any of the previous briefings? Maybe that's why she wasn't "in the know" before this latest one.

There isn't much to go on there, just that she learned some things, the NSA's activities are broader than the public realizes, what Greenwald may have she believes "is the tip of the iceberg."

But all legal.

I still don't see anything worth getting frightened about.

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

[Monkie]

129. correct me if i am wrong, but you were the `body language` person?

yes she said everything was legal, and i think that was her point, did you not watch the video hear her tone? how she hesitated at points, the difference in how she discussed this and the clear and calm way in which snowden talked.

and im not scared, im mad as hell.
my point is, and hers too if you watch the video, is that there is much much more than the leaks from snowden via greenwald, and it is not the case, as some are trying to assert, that snowden is making a mountain out of a molehill, it is the tip of the iceberg.
when people use the term, tip of the iceberg, it seldom means your getting ice cream, it means your are sunk like the titanic?

[randome]

134. Did you see the Lawerence O'Donnell interview with Snowden's friend?

She paused, hesitated and qualified just about everything she said. I don't see that as indicating anything nefarious floating around in either of their minds but more like being careful about what they said for fear of tripping up and saying something that's truly classified.

Sure, there may be something 'bad' to be revealed about the NSA. But as for Greenwald and Snowden, their big 'reveals' appear to be a collective yawn.

I'm sure we will all hear more in the days and weeks to come.

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

[Monkie]

136. its one thing a private person having to be careful, but a representative?

you are right they both did seem fearful, and that does not worry you?
that in a `free` society people, your government representatives, have to tread with such care, speak with such care, for fear of breaking the law?
you dont notice the contradictions here, that snowden spoke freely, with conviction, without fear, but these people cant or wont?
have you ever seen or heard a democratic representative of government speak in the way sanchez did? while saying what she said?
if that does not concern you, i guess nothing will...

[flamingdem]

135. Loretta is not the brightest bulb

and certainly not a tech expert

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Senator Tester says otherwise

So does Congresswoman Sanchez. And the body language on Monday from the former weaker of the house says otherwise.

[ljm2002]

114. A ridiculous headline...

...so two publications "raise questions" and that translates to "Snowden and Greenwald beginning to self-destruct".

Right.

Please see this link for Greenwald's latest response to critics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. No they are not

The nation it's doing it's job to kill the messenger though.

Here, some long reading. I suggest not reading if you opt for the blue pill though.

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13410

Yes, I also posted here, but that is immaterial.

[Quantess]

130. Shabbily written.

The National Enquirer writes better stories.

[redqueen]

137. K&R... did you see the WSWS thread with the assertion that we MUST support Snowden, Assange, etc?

If not you HAVE TO... the dramatic pic of Snowden... PMSL




Oh sorry, it wasn't that we must, it is "our solemn duty"

People actually buy this cult of personality bullshit... amazing...

[MADem]

150. I've actually seen people -- who don't know him, I am sure -- calling him "Ed."

"Ed" believes this, and "Ed" said that, and how could you possibly relate to what "Ed" is going through right now? Ah yes, ED...the good pal, the truth-teller, who LIED on his resume, and not just a little bit--a LOT.

I'll tell ya, I'm starting to think that "Ed" is either mentally unwell or mendacious. Maybe both.

[redqueen]

152. Ok that's just weird.

He's definitely mendacious, no question of that.

His decision to start trying to sell China on a diplomatic row with the US over hacking are probably evidence of a simple failure to fully appreciate the nuances of global politics ... but there could also be some delusional aspect to it as well, who knows

[johnp3907]

186. Do these people wear "Free Judy!" t-shirts?

[flamingdem]

153. A mass movement of geek imposters

who think technology is cool without quite understanding the difference between access - getting in and reading Obama's emails and ftp access - a tech term that is fairly meaningless

[redqueen]

155. A mass movement of easily-led, cult of personality-worshipping reactionaries. nt

[JI7]

183. you mean that wasn't satire

all the exaggerations, dramatics, hahahhaha

[redqueen]

198. I wish it was... it would be better if it was intentional.

Sadly, though, it is for real.

Our solemn duty ...

[riqster]

142. Something that sounds too good to be true usually is. nt

[MjolnirTime]

151. Greenwald has finally been hoisted on his own petard.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[flamingdem]

154. Too true

In the meantime he's probably made enough $ off this to afford quite the lifestyle in Rio!

[Corruption Inc]

170. Another day, another McCarthy-like "hit piece"

It's good that DU doesn't delete these, free speech allows people to see what other people really think.

[ucrdem]

177. That remark can be interpreted two ways, can't it?

In view Greenwald's activities in HK look very much like McCarthyism, with much the same goal: cowing politicians into going along with a RW agenda, in this case bombing Syria.

[carolinayellowdog]

178. most disgusting thread I've seen in 11 years on DU

the self-congratulatory circle jerk has been a sight to behold

[RobinA]

187. It Would Be Funny

If it weren't so sickening.

[gulliver]

188. Greenwald should talk to Paul Ryan

They both have a cynical disregard for the truth and impress dopes. Greenwald's "direct access" and "eavesdropping" refrains show that he's a scoundrel with no scruples when it comes to the facts.