Edward Snowden -Encrypted computer files seized

[Quantum Windbag]

Damn they're good. They knew what Greenwald's boyfriend was smuggling.

Yes, they pointlessly took Miranda's potential copies of these files, just like they pointlessly destroyed the copies of the files in the Guardian's offices in London. Greenwald still has his copies in Brazil and the Guardian has copies in New York. The purpose of the detention was not to stop Miranda from "smuggling" this information, unless they're really really dense, but to try to intimidate Greenwald.

This will not end as the statists might have hoped when they started down this path.

Obama has already given Snowden the best possible defense if they try to charge him with espionage by calling for a reform in the way the NSA does things.

 

[asterism]

And Snowden, God bless him, still has it all.

Selling to the highest bidder no doubt.

He's a CIA sysadmin, he could have easily leaked these documents to Wikileaks anonymously. Why didn't he just do that?

Maybe he didn't want people accusing him, like they accused Manning, of just "dumping" this information. So instead he went to Greenwald and the Guardian and told them to go through the information and report only on what could safely be reported on. A bit naive since the people who complain about Manning "dumping" the information are the same people who complain about what Snowden did. They just don't like whistleblowers period.

Except that's not what Snowden did. He demanded that the entire power point be published and got denied.

I have no problem with whistleblowers, but there was nothing to blow the whistle on with the cyberwar with China and the G-20 surveillance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Selling to the highest bidder no doubt.

He's a CIA sysadmin, he could have easily leaked these documents to Wikileaks anonymously. Why didn't he just do that?

Maybe he didn't want people accusing him, like they accused Manning, of just "dumping" this information. So instead he went to Greenwald and the Guardian and told them to go through the information and report only on what could safely be reported on. A bit naive since the people who complain about Manning "dumping" the information are the same people who complain about what Snowden did. They just don't like whistleblowers period.

Except that's not what Snowden did. He demanded that the entire power point be published and got denied.

I have no problem with whistleblowers, but there was nothing to blow the whistle on with the cyberwar with China and the G-20 surveillance.

Except Glenn Greenwald has stated that's exactly what Snowden did.

He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.

On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, they pointlessly took Miranda's potential copies of these files, just like they pointlessly destroyed the copies of the files in the Guardian's offices in London. Greenwald still has his copies in Brazil and the Guardian has copies in New York. The purpose of the detention was not to stop Miranda from "smuggling" this information, unless they're really really dense, but to try to intimidate Greenwald.

And Snowden, God bless him, still has it all.

Selling to the highest bidder no doubt.

He's a CIA sysadmin, he could have easily leaked these documents to Wikileaks anonymously. Why didn't he just do that?

Fame and fortune.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And Snowden, God bless him, still has it all.

Selling to the highest bidder no doubt.

He's a CIA sysadmin, he could have easily leaked these documents to Wikileaks anonymously. Why didn't he just do that?

Fame and fortune.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

The Guardian and Washington Post are not the highest bidders, obviously, and you have no evidence to suggest that he's sold anything.

Furthermore, no lives have been put at risk.

 

[asterism]

Maybe he didn't want people accusing him, like they accused Manning, of just "dumping" this information. So instead he went to Greenwald and the Guardian and told them to go through the information and report only on what could safely be reported on. A bit naive since the people who complain about Manning "dumping" the information are the same people who complain about what Snowden did. They just don't like whistleblowers period.

Except that's not what Snowden did. He demanded that the entire power point be published and got denied.

I have no problem with whistleblowers, but there was nothing to blow the whistle on with the cyberwar with China and the G-20 surveillance.

Except Glenn Greenwald has stated that's exactly what Snowden did.

He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.

On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Before Greenwald:

To effect his plan, Snowden asked for a guarantee that The Washington Post would publish — within 72 hours — the full text of a PowerPoint presentation describing PRISM, a top-secret surveillance program that gathered intelligence from Microsoft, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley giants. He also asked that The Post publish online a cryptographic key that he could use to prove to a foreign embassy that he was the document’s source.

I told him we would not make any guarantee about what we published or when. (The Post broke the story two weeks later, on Thursday. The Post sought the views of government officials about the potential harm to national security prior to publication and decided to reproduce only four of the 41 slides.)

Snowden replied succinctly, “I regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral.” Shortly afterward he made contact with Glenn Greenwald of the British newspaper the Guardian.

Code name ?Verax?: Snowden, in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks - The Washington Post

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that's not what Snowden did. He demanded that the entire power point be published and got denied.

I have no problem with whistleblowers, but there was nothing to blow the whistle on with the cyberwar with China and the G-20 surveillance.

Except Glenn Greenwald has stated that's exactly what Snowden did.



On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Before Greenwald:

To effect his plan, Snowden asked for a guarantee that The Washington Post would publish — within 72 hours — the full text of a PowerPoint presentation describing PRISM, a top-secret surveillance program that gathered intelligence from Microsoft, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley giants. He also asked that The Post publish online a cryptographic key that he could use to prove to a foreign embassy that he was the document’s source.

I told him we would not make any guarantee about what we published or when. (The Post broke the story two weeks later, on Thursday. The Post sought the views of government officials about the potential harm to national security prior to publication and decided to reproduce only four of the 41 slides.)

Snowden replied succinctly, “I regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral.” Shortly afterward he made contact with Glenn Greenwald of the British newspaper the Guardian.

Code name ?Verax?: Snowden, in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks - The Washington Post

I read that as well, but it would seem he had a change of heart when it came to the Guardian, because the Guardian did not publish the full contents of PRISM either. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether they published all of PRISM or not, because it would have nothing to do with your original claim that he's in it for his fifteen minutes. Furthermore, if he had remained anonymous the same people criticizing him now would be talking about what a coward he is for not being willing to show his face.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Selling to the highest bidder no doubt.

He's a CIA sysadmin, he could have easily leaked these documents to Wikileaks anonymously. Why didn't he just do that?

Fame and fortune.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

The Guardian and Washington Post are not the highest bidders, obviously, and you have no evidence to suggest that he's sold anything.

Furthermore, no lives have been put at risk.

You have no idea what lives have been put at risk. He's walking around with a pile of secret information and we know he has no problem revealing it so, other than what he has revealed to the public, you have no fucking clue what he's revealed to whom and who is at risk because of it. We may never know the full extent to which this little shit has damaged the U.S. national security apparatus, but everyday he remains outside of U.S. custody is another day he can harm you and me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fame and fortune.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

The Guardian and Washington Post are not the highest bidders, obviously, and you have no evidence to suggest that he's sold anything.

Furthermore, no lives have been put at risk.

You have no idea what lives have been put at risk. He's walking around with a pile of secret information and we know he has no problem revealing it so, other than what he has revealed to the public, you have no fucking clue what he's revealed to whom and who is at risk because of it. We may never know the full extent to which this little shit has damaged the U.S. national security apparatus, but everyday he remains outside of U.S. custody is another day he can harm you and me.

We know he revealed it to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman. You have no idea that he has revealed anything to anybody else, or that he's put lives at risk, but because you automatically don't like him you assume that he has and then parrot that around as fact. You're merely speculating without one shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. You have no idea that he has revealed anything to anybody else, or that he's put lives at risk, but because you automatically don't like him you assume that he has and then parrot that around as fact.

He's violated his security agreement multiple times in public - and you're telling me it is unreasonable to assume he would violate it in private? Can you tell me that with a straight face, really? Come on! Get serious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

. You have no idea that he has revealed anything to anybody else, or that he's put lives at risk, but because you automatically don't like him you assume that he has and then parrot that around as fact.

He's violated his security agreement multiple times in public - and you're telling me it is unreasonable to assume he would violate it in private? Can you tell me that with a straight face, really? Come on! Get serious.

It's unreasonable to make stuff up and then pass it off as fact. I'll repeat it for you: You have no evidence that he has given any information to anybody. If you did, you'd have supplied it by now rather than trying to justify your nonsense by talking about what it's reasonable to assume.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. You have no idea that he has revealed anything to anybody else, or that he's put lives at risk, but because you automatically don't like him you assume that he has and then parrot that around as fact.

He's violated his security agreement multiple times in public - and you're telling me it is unreasonable to assume he would violate it in private? Can you tell me that with a straight face, really? Come on! Get serious.

It's unreasonable to make stuff up and then pass it off as fact.

I did nothing of the fucking sort.

I'll repeat it for you: You have no evidence that he has given any information to anybody.

Wow. So now he hasn't released any secret information at all. You're willing to stretch the truth to no end.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's violated his security agreement multiple times in public - and you're telling me it is unreasonable to assume he would violate it in private? Can you tell me that with a straight face, really? Come on! Get serious.

It's unreasonable to make stuff up and then pass it off as fact.

I did nothing of the fucking sort.

I'll repeat it for you: You have no evidence that he has given any information to anybody.

Wow. So now he hasn't released any secret information at all. You're willing to stretch the truth to no end.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

So prove it if you didn't just make it up.

You also made up this nonsense about me saying he hasn't released any secret information.

We know he revealed it to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman.

 

[asterism]

Except Glenn Greenwald has stated that's exactly what Snowden did.



On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Before Greenwald:

To effect his plan, Snowden asked for a guarantee that The Washington Post would publish — within 72 hours — the full text of a PowerPoint presentation describing PRISM, a top-secret surveillance program that gathered intelligence from Microsoft, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley giants. He also asked that The Post publish online a cryptographic key that he could use to prove to a foreign embassy that he was the document’s source.

I told him we would not make any guarantee about what we published or when. (The Post broke the story two weeks later, on Thursday. The Post sought the views of government officials about the potential harm to national security prior to publication and decided to reproduce only four of the 41 slides.)

Snowden replied succinctly, “I regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral.” Shortly afterward he made contact with Glenn Greenwald of the British newspaper the Guardian.

Code name ?Verax?: Snowden, in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks - The Washington Post

I read that as well, but it would seem he had a change of heart when it came to the Guardian, because the Guardian did not publish the full contents of PRISM either. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether they published all of PRISM or not, because it would have nothing to do with your original claim that he's in it for his fifteen minutes. Furthermore, if he had remained anonymous the same people criticizing him now would be talking about what a coward he is for not being willing to show his face.

Not me. I was familiar with Bill Binney long before he outed himself to be a whistleblower and I have great respect for him.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's unreasonable to make stuff up and then pass it off as fact.

I did nothing of the fucking sort.



Wow. So now he hasn't released any secret information at all. You're willing to stretch the truth to no end.

He's willing to put every American life at risk to get what he wants.

So prove it if you didn't just make it up.

You also made up this nonsense about me saying he hasn't released any secret information.

We know he revealed it to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman.

Prove what? I've nothing that requires proof, as you agree with me. If you were able to read English sentences, you would know that I am saying the same thing you are - WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION SNOWDEN HAS RELEASED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RELEASES. Do you disagree with that statement? If not - stop your fucking badgering.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I did nothing of the fucking sort.



Wow. So now he hasn't released any secret information at all. You're willing to stretch the truth to no end.

So prove it if you didn't just make it up.

You also made up this nonsense about me saying he hasn't released any secret information.

We know he revealed it to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman.

Prove what? I've nothing that requires proof, as you agree with me. If you were able to read English sentences, you would know that I am saying the same thing you are - WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION SNOWDEN HAS RELEASED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RELEASES. Do you disagree with that statement? If not - stop your fucking badgering.

Prove that he's put lives at risk as you claimed, obviously.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So prove it if you didn't just make it up.

You also made up this nonsense about me saying he hasn't released any secret information.

Prove what? I've nothing that requires proof, as you agree with me. If you were able to read English sentences, you would know that I am saying the same thing you are - WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION SNOWDEN HAS RELEASED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RELEASES. Do you disagree with that statement? If not - stop your fucking badgering.

Prove that he's put lives at risk as you claimed, obviously.

If you don't believe U.S. lives are put at risk when China, Russia, and god knows who, all get turns accessing the laptops in Snowden's possession, then I'd say we should just end this conversation here as I don't find you to be a reasonable person.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It should be pointed out that Miranda was detained under a terrorism statute and was only questioned regarding Greenwald's journalism which is obviously not terrorism.

It should be pointed out that had Miranda been allowed to pass unhindered into Britain with the U.S. national security secrets he held in his possession, every foreign nation from Russian to China to Iran to to North Korea to fricken Venezuela would have been trying to hack into his computer and/or steal the files from him. Do you naive children honestly think the Russian or Chinese spy agencies do not have the capability to hack into a fucking journalist's computer? We may have won the cold war but our frenemies to the east aren't total morons.

You fail to consider the full realm of possibilities when secret data is held in the wrong hands. Would Miranda have release information on that disc that would put U.S. lives directly at risk, such as the identities of secret agents? I doubt it! What you folks need to worry about is the information that is stolen off those discs by foreign governments!


I can guarantee you the intelligence agencies in Russia and China are laughing their assess off at how naive the American public is about what is to them - a bonanza of U.S. secrets for the taking.

 

[Indofred]

Do you naive children honestly think the Russian or Chinese spy agencies do not have the capability to hack into a fucking journalist's computer? We may have won the cold war but our frenemies to the east aren't total morons.

They are not but at least some posters are.
The Chinese and Russians would have no need to hack anything as Snowden very probably only got out of China by letting them have a copy and how do you think he got his Russian asylum?
I'll give you a clue; he didn't suck Putin's cock.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Prove what? I've nothing that requires proof, as you agree with me. If you were able to read English sentences, you would know that I am saying the same thing you are - WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION SNOWDEN HAS RELEASED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RELEASES. Do you disagree with that statement? If not - stop your fucking badgering.

Prove that he's put lives at risk as you claimed, obviously.

If you don't believe U.S. lives are put at risk when China, Russia, and god knows who, all get turns accessing the laptops in Snowden's possession, then I'd say we should just end this conversation here as I don't find you to be a reasonable person.

And there you have it, more made up nonsense. You have no evidence China or Russia accessed Snowden's laptops.