No, Snowden’s Leaks Didn’t Help The Terrorists

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA surveillance compromise the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist groups? Contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of the subject says no. As reported by NBC:

“.…Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups….. It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013.”

The report itself goes on to make the point that, “Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them.” This point would seem obvious in light of the fact that terrorist groups have been employing tactics to evade digital surveillance for years. Indeed, such concerns about their use of sophisticated encryption technology predate even 9/11. Contrary to claims that such groups have fundamentally altered their practices due to information gleaned from these revelations, the report concludes. “The underlying public encryption methods employed by online jihadists do not appear to have significantly changed since the emergence of Edward Snowden.”

No Snowden s Leaks Didn t Help The Terrorists - The Intercept

Will this stop people from uncritically repeating unproven claims from government officials that the leaks have caused harm? Doubt it.

 

[Godboy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA surveillance compromise the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist groups? Contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of the subject says no. As reported by NBC:

“.…Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups….. It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013.”

The report itself goes on to make the point that, “Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them.” This point would seem obvious in light of the fact that terrorist groups have been employing tactics to evade digital surveillance for years. Indeed, such concerns about their use of sophisticated encryption technology predate even 9/11. Contrary to claims that such groups have fundamentally altered their practices due to information gleaned from these revelations, the report concludes. “The underlying public encryption methods employed by online jihadists do not appear to have significantly changed since the emergence of Edward Snowden.”

No Snowden s Leaks Didn t Help The Terrorists - The Intercept

Will this stop people from uncritically repeating unproven claims from government officials that the leaks have caused harm? Doubt it.

None of which mitigates the fact that Snowden allegedly violated Federal law, is justifiably and appropriately a criminal suspect, and should be subject to criminal prosecution accordingly.


Disclosing classified information was not Snowden's decision to make, he did not have that right, regardless how much Snowden and his supporters try to ignore this fact.

 

[Godboy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I promise this is hilarious:

Edward Snowden - Encyclopedia Dramatica

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Snowden...Snowden...oh yea! That's that super patriot who's so committed to the righteousness of his treason that he's hiding under Putin's skirt at the Kremlin, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The mistake that Snowden's supporters make, a consequence of their anti-government zealotry, is to undermine the rule of law.


Whatever their contempt for government, it can't be coupled with contempt for the rule of law, which is what they're doing by supporting Snowden, whether they're aware of it or not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA surveillance compromise the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist groups? Contrary to lurid claims made by U.S. officials, a new independent analysis of the subject says no. As reported by NBC:

“.…Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups….. It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013.”

The report itself goes on to make the point that, “Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them.” This point would seem obvious in light of the fact that terrorist groups have been employing tactics to evade digital surveillance for years. Indeed, such concerns about their use of sophisticated encryption technology predate even 9/11. Contrary to claims that such groups have fundamentally altered their practices due to information gleaned from these revelations, the report concludes. “The underlying public encryption methods employed by online jihadists do not appear to have significantly changed since the emergence of Edward Snowden.”

No Snowden s Leaks Didn t Help The Terrorists - The Intercept

Will this stop people from uncritically repeating unproven claims from government officials that the leaks have caused harm? Doubt it.

None of which mitigates the fact that Snowden allegedly violated Federal law, is justifiably and appropriately a criminal suspect, and should be subject to criminal prosecution accordingly.


Disclosing classified information was not Snowden's decision to make, he did not have that right, regardless how much Snowden and his supporters try to ignore this fact.

Of course you're forgetting the part where governments, including the United States, illegally spied on their own citizens and foreign citizens and corporations, and then overclassified this information so that even the rest of their own governments had no idea what they were up to let alone the people from whom they allegedly derive their power in the first place. In going after Snowden for revealing their abuses, the U.S. has shown itself to be a rogue state in the same manner China has shown itself to be a rogue state by having gone after Chen Guangchen or other dissidents.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Snowden...Snowden...oh yea! That's that super patriot who's so committed to the righteousness of his treason that he's hiding under Putin's skirt at the Kremlin, right?

Much like Chen Guangchen was hiding under Hillary's skirt?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The mistake that Snowden's supporters make, a consequence of their anti-government zealotry, is to undermine the rule of law.


Whatever their contempt for government, it can't be coupled with contempt for the rule of law, which is what they're doing by supporting Snowden, whether they're aware of it or not.

And what of the contempt for the rule of law and the privacy rights of the people that was displayed by the governments that have been outed by Snowden's revelations? That's where the real abuses are happening, and it's only because of Snowden that we're able to hold them responsible for their actions.

 

[Godboy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

That's why the word argument was surrounded by quotation marks. You made a statement, but one that was completely contradicted by an empirical study.

 

[Godboy]

They stopped using email once they found out that the NSA was reading them. Snowden helped terrorists around the globe immensly. Im sure they are all quite pleased by his actions.

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

That's why the word argument was surrounded by quotation marks. You made a statement, but one that was completely contradicted by an empirical study.

No one is moved by that absurd study performed by incomeptent fools. Got anything else?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Uh huh.

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

That's why the word argument was surrounded by quotation marks. You made a statement, but one that was completely contradicted by an empirical study.

No one is moved by that absurd study performed by incomeptent fools. Got anything else?

The likelihood that you even clicked the link, let alone looked into the actual study itself or who even put the study out, is hovering somewhere around "Not a chance."

 

[Godboy]

Either you and i are in complete agreement, or you just made the worst argument in the history of arguments.

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

That's why the word argument was surrounded by quotation marks. You made a statement, but one that was completely contradicted by an empirical study.

No one is moved by that absurd study performed by incomeptent fools. Got anything else?

The likelihood that you even clicked the link, let alone looked into the actual study itself or who even put the study out, is hovering somewhere around "Not a chance."

Why would i need to read that when Mike Baker confirms what ive been saying? I think he knows more about it than you, me and any of the idiots who performed that study.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What argument? Your "argument" could be boiled down to "Nuh uh," so I responded appropriately.

I never made an argument, i merely stated a fact, then you said "nuh uh".

That's why the word argument was surrounded by quotation marks. You made a statement, but one that was completely contradicted by an empirical study.

No one is moved by that absurd study performed by incomeptent fools. Got anything else?

The likelihood that you even clicked the link, let alone looked into the actual study itself or who even put the study out, is hovering somewhere around "Not a chance."

Why would i need to read that when Mike Baker confirms what ive been saying? I think he knows more about it than you, me and any of the idiots who performed that study.

In other words, you have no idea who performed the study, their methodology, or anything else. Noted.

 

[whitehall]

It's absurd that the US supports about a dozen (competing?) "intelligence networks" with secret budgets but there are no secrets. A half dozen traitors have given up every military and strategic secret and the left wing administrations have telegraphed the rest. What's the point? Hunker down and try to prevent maniacs from committing 9-11 attacks? With the gigantic bureaucracy of Homeland, the CIA and the FBI they couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB sent their freaking addresses.

 

[Old Rocks]

Had Snowden been a patriot, he would have made his revelations, then accepted the punishment here in the US. He ran off to China and Russia, and we have no idea of what he has given them. No way can he be anything but a coward and treasonous little weasel.