Choice of sources, all of which link to the video I think.
see also Bradley Manning
Manning = fool without getting dragged into an abyss of an argument not directly related to thread subject? right, I'll get my coat.
Why d'you think he's a fool?
they key difference, is that Manning didn't leak selectively, so any good that came out of it was accidental, he potentially, or actually, put people's lives in danger in very violent places around the world, and if lots of people haven't got killed or tortured because of the leaks, that was just dumb luck. I could refer you to my previous Assange/Manning argument if I could be bothered.
let's talk about Snowden instead,
Manning didn't dump info, wikileaks didn't dump info - it was selectively released and targeted
Bradley Manning has served 3 years in solitary confinement awaiting trial for making public the irrefutable evidence that the US Armed Forces were involved in both the killing of civilians, journalists & children AND the covering up/denial/making false statements about those killings
and he did all of these things surely knowing the risks involved to himself personally and to his family
Out of the 850,000 odd US citizens who have security clearance up to his level only he stood up and said 'this shit is fucked up, people have to know'
if that doesn't make him a hero I don't know what would
and now Snowden has done the same
the facts I have read so far, do not mention Manning checking or redacting the material prior to passing it on (Am I correct?), and do mention he did not know Assange or his cohorts at all, or at least very well, and this may amount to him dumping info to some bloke he met on the internet.
And apparently Wikileaks releases are vetted by five people, so I take back the comment about them dumping it as a process that not include any steps to check it first, but I could argue they dumped info, by not having a good enough vetting system or understanding of the implications of what they were doing.
he's still a hero
I wonder what sort of future he will face?
him being bumped off almost immediately, balls of fucking steel either way
which cause security issues within the USA and the world more widely. As they are unforeseen, it is impossible to say with any accuracy what the ultimate implications of his actions may be. I'm not being negative - I'm just being cautious. It seems a bit too easy, in my view, to have an autopilot reaction of "bloke revealing secrets of US intelligence services = an inherently good thing".
It'll take 10+ years to analyse the impact of his actions, if any, accurately. From where I'm standing now, however, it seems that his actions are incredibly brave and I commend him greatly for what he's done. He's done a seemingly decent thing with decent motives. Hats off to him.
Which I, for once, agree with and it explains what I mean better than what I've posted.
He can still surprise you.
(as in locking him up rather than torture or assassination but even that is worth consideration) they'll drag his name through the mud. Like Assange. Or er, Dave Courtney.
I'm unsure if this in itself makes him a hero. Such is the nature of the beast, we'll never really know how 'dangerous' the opening up of some of this information is or what the real ramifications are (though he seems to have been very careful about what he's released, rather than blanket releasing *everything* a la Wikileaks).
He seems like a good chap, even if I don't personally share his concerns. It depends on what he does now. If he turns into self-aggrandising dick like Assange it could well undermine his message. But if he continues to express himself with the clarity and even-handedness we've seen so far he could well become a generational spokesman for the new breed of internet freedom fighter.
I need a wash after saying that ;o)
but yeah, how articulate and measured he is is something that really struck me.
the object of his whistleblowing is the architecture of mass surveillance and the extralegal actions of those who maintain and build the architecture and collude with others to keep it secret
I mean someone that fights for internet freedom, rather than a nerd that uses the internet as his tool (like a 'keyboard warrior'). Given that it is clear from here on in (if not already), most surveillance will be web-based, it makes sense that this is where he should target his concerns.
But as I say, I don't really share his concerns, so can do little more than offer him the best of luck. I hope he just doesn't try to martyr himself.
this is about mass surveillance, privacy, democracy, manipulation, secrecy and authoritarianism
perhaps you don't share his concerns because you don't understand them ?
to just not care about them.
would not be concerned
unless they were naïve enough to fully trust all organisations (public & private and of any political stripe) to marshall data effectively and efficiently and without any possible breach of security
in which case you might have to question their intelligence
Where do we share most of our personal information these days? On the internet. Whether through facebook/twitter, forums like this one, online banking, paying bills online etc etc. Surveillance through physical means (going through someone's bins) is increasingly a thing of the past.
It is also through the internet that we are likely to see any 'manipulation' and 'authoritarianism'. The police and others tracking everything and everyone from harmless protesters to full-on terrorists. 'Big Brother' is no longer the CCTV camera on the high street, it's now online and far more powerful. To this end, the internet is the key battleground as almost everything we do is bound up in it.
I don't share his concerns to the same extent because I believe other areas to be of greater/more immediate importance, and because i'm happy to relinquish some level of 'freedom' to feel 'safe'.
and how our digital lives are not meaningfully separate in any way shape or form any more from our physical lives
or rather, you seem to understand it but don't have any grasp of the depth of it
as Snowden points out, everything is recorded which means that, should an agent privy to this technology so wish, a background of factual statements, documents and information about you can be edited together deep into your past in order to represent you in a way that whatever authority sees fit to serve their purpose can decide
does this make you 'feel safe?'
wouldn't it make you feel safer to have public oversight wherever this level of surveillance was concerned? Wouldn't that add an extra protection from corruptive influence?
And given that, by Snowden's testimony, this technology was in place and operable throughout the timespan including the 7/7 bombings and more recently the Boston bomb and the beheading of Lee Rigby wouldn't you say that a greater oversight on its effectiveness might also make you feel safer?
but it doesn't overly concern me (yet).
Yeah, it means that at some point maybe a government agent could do all the things you say and present me negatively - but I don't ever plan to do anything that would make them waste their time doing so. In short, I fall into the "if you done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" category. If, as a result of the blanket approach to data capture, it's possible to stop acts of terrorism and as a side product some of my information also gets captured (and ignored), then so be it. To me that's a tolerable trade off.
It's not that i'm not concerned by it at all, it's more that I've taken a judgement that there are more immediate/important issues that already are, or will in the future, negatively affect my life and the lives of others.
If you concern yourself too much with Big Brother when Big Brother has no interest in your unimportant life (this isn't directed at you, it's a general point), it's likely to send you crazy worrying about something that's never going to happen.
...if I'm ever in charge, you already have
so tell me, under this proviso, why are these programs Top Secret ? Why are these decisions made in private, in secret, away from the scrutiny of democracy ?
Is your attitude really 'Well the CIA's secret rendering and torture of people from foreign countries is OK because they're only keeping me safe' ?
can't you see that this is precisely the form of hi-tech imperialism that BREEDS terrorism rather than preventing it?
of course what the masses have not considered is not just 'the here and now'
but imagine what ifs, for the future, what if a totalitarian government (of either hue) gained power in a democracy, communist or facist or religeous dictatorship....they would then possibly have access to your records.....remember the US might be snooping into you......what if you were up for some sort of election in this country, but the US did not like the smell of you.....they might let leak any personal details you've ever talked or hinted at on the net.
How about simply suing a defence contractor and them being able to rifle through every scrap of info on all the witnesses, jurors, solicitors, judge etc.
this secret PRISM network and whatever else it is connected to is a vast framework of tyranny - whether you believe that tyranny is on your side or not
journalists who might be chasing a story
is either dangerously ignorant, or... well... that's it actually.
You're not thick enough to be considered as such, so everything else you've said and will say on the matter counts for nothing more than hurp a durp, spaceman.
for the benefit of an inconsequential message board.
It's a valid position to hold.
but they just havnt properly considered it, e.g. what if sharia law is applied here in the future? (or something that is sort of equivalent). What if the current liberalism of disers is an offence to a future regime which might outlaw tolerance of that which it might crusade against?
what difference do you think it makes whether or not the tools of the regime are public knowledge?
however if the tools of previous regimes are made public knowledge then it gives societies the opportunity to debate and legislate and potentially limit the amount of individual information that will be available to future regimes.
It is not WHAT snowden has revealed that is important, it is what (if any) legislation/actions are now taken now that the majority are aware of this, it would seem that the majority of people were ignorant to the concept of government intelligence agencies spying on the people.
Although there may be some platitudes thrown out there.
I also actually expected that they did do that anyway.
mainly that wikileaks didn't "blanket release *everything*" as pointed out elsewhere in the thread
to Guantanemo with him, lads.
let's just temper that with
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of.
there are surely better ways of combatting terrorism than through terrorising your citizens through deceitful, dangerous means
"everything is recorded which means that, should an agent privy to this technology so wish, a background of factual statements, documents and information about you can be edited together deep into your past in order to represent you in a way that whatever authority sees fit to serve their purpose can decide
And given that, by Snowden's testimony, this technology was in place and operable throughout the timespan including the 7/7 bombings and more recently the Boston bomb and the beheading of Lee Rigby wouldn't you say that a greater oversight on its effectiveness might also make you feel safer?"
"...naïve enough to fully trust all organisations (public & private and of any political stripe) to marshall data effectively and efficiently and without any possible breach of security
in which case you might have to question their intelligence"
you are clearly here
Not sure why you've descended into bullying. Everyone else has had a pretty civil conversation in this thread.
called the wahmbulance guys
CG's wet the bed again
This scuttling around the world looking for a bolt-hole is not becoming of a freedom fighter.
mostly because of the altitude and temperature. Seems like a good a place as any
^This is what I said originally in this thread, and it looks like this is what's happening now.
then not getting on it - leaving a plane load of journalists on a pointless ten hour flight!
hes been misleading everyone to where he's going to end up for a while now
if you wanted to
I'm havana ball'
What's he said that's put your back up so, since last week?
I'm probably a bit thick though.
and generally getting upset about not being able to exercise absolute power everywhere and acting like they feel really betrayed by Russia and would never do anything similar to them.
I suspect much bigger revelations to come out, but not now. Something feels completely askew.
I reckon it's pretty complete. Senior Analyst gets to see massive monitoring of innocent civilians, comes out to Guardian after hunting for appropriate journalist / leaker, runs around the globe trying to hide as he knows he's toast if he's caught.
But like I said above, I'm sure they'll begin to smear his reputation pretty soon.
Russia would be a stupid place to go if you wanna go to Cuba. The plane would pass through US airspace and no doubt there'd be a note in the toilet threatening to set the plane on fire requiring an emergency landing. (Hypothetical situation Mr NSA Sir - not a threat!)
He'll like it there. It's really beautiful.
I know his dad is a dickhead, though.
Guess it shouldn't be surprising, considering how in bed with the US John Key really is.
''This is not a debate about whether a particular New Zealander will have intelligence gathered about them and about their activities. That will happen. The question is whether SIS do it or GCSB do it under a warrant provided by SIS as an assisting agent.''
This will happen whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately the people of this country are typically blasé about this kind of thing and won't do anything about it until it effects them.
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in this country before.
Apparently Snowden sought the job at Booz Allen with the express purpose to gather intelligence on NSA spy programs. If true, might explain why US have charged him under the espionage act
Notable mainly for this hilariously on-the-nose sign off from the top commenter which manages to embody everything about that most self indulgent generation, the baby boomers, in one garbled, Grandpa Simpson sentence:
"As for Snowden I am sure he will be judged but I remember Ginsberg and Vietnam and photocopiers."
-Odusseas, 1 day ago
I find it ironic that the US dollar bill has a prism with seeing eye in the middle and rays of light emanating from it. I know it's original symbolism but symbols may have a double meaning.
The Medes and then the Persians under Cyrus had a secret service called the Eye of the King as described by Herodotus in his Histories so this idea is older than the Mazzini Affair or the Prism.
However the worrying thing is that we are all under surveillance by Big Brother. This is not the USSR or Germany under Hitler. They are reading this and doing a search to see I am not a threat rather than just a law abiding patriot.
We are now on Reality TV with you and me the players.
The Greek comedian playwright knew about this as he wrote in his play The Archanians where one of his characters was a big eye; The king's eye.
It can only get worse as the drones fly over our neighbourhood and lasers from space can liquidate us at a whim or error.
We have entered Animal Farm and Lord of the flies with a touch of Brave new world. The war of terror has become its own terror and we know about the reign of terror.
As for Snowden I am sure he will be judged but I remember Ginsberg and Vietnam and photocopiers.
Report this thread