Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

[cptau 169]

Now we know. The guy was a $200,000 government contractor working in Hawaii who was a high school drop out that started working as a guard at the NSA. He is now in Hong Kong and leaked the information to the Guardian newspaper while there.

It is very troubling that he is that close to being in Red China with what he knows. Basically he outed the government's surveillance capabilities..... How much harm he has done is the question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box:Position1

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I was wondering how long it would be before the Red Scare set in.

This is a man who has admitted that he will likely never see his country again and did what he did because he felt it was wrong. In this instance I agree with him. Either way it takes balls and determination.

[shabby 1,960]

I was wondering how long it would be before the Red Scare set in.

This is a man who has admitted that he will likely never see his country again and did what he did because he felt it was wrong. In this instance I agree with him. Either way it takes balls and determination.

Well that's certainly one way to describe someone who betrayed his / our country

[japantiger 4,077]

He should be given a medal. What the government is doing is way beyond anything remotely acceptable from the government.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Shabby is ok with it, but he wasn't in 2002.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Who knows what is motivation was at this point? Maybe we never will.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

He says what his motivation is.

[DKW 86 7,726]

This guy would be an Internet sensation and the subject of cult worship if this had happened during Bush43 regime. Hell, he would have a movie made about him starring Matt Damon or Sean Penn. But as it is, he will be hounded to death by the govt and smeared mercilessly by the Left. His family will be ruined. His friends embarassed and persecuted.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Who knows what is motivation was at this point? Maybe we never will.

We should KNOW and we SHOULD want to know......

[RunInRed 16,992]

I know this debate is ongoing across multiple threads but here's my couple of pennies ...

Honestly, I'm a bit torn on this issue ...

On one hand, Ben Franklin's famous quote [Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one] seems to be applicable and make a lot of sense to me. However, I also realize Franklin didn't live in (nor could possibly foresee) the interconnected, threat-filled cyber world that we live in today.

On the other, I want my government to 'protect and defend' ... and if these are tools they need to 'connect the dots' and keep us safe, I also tend to give them the benefit of the doubt (regardless of which administration is in power).

...

I was reading through some articles and catching up on the news from the weekend last night when I came across the statement President Obama made on this topic:

"I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment, and my team's assessment, was that they helped us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and without looking at content — that on net, was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that.

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy, and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society. What I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”

I don't know ... again, on one hand I don't like it, on the other it seems pretty logical to keeping us safe. Worthy of debate ...

[TexasTiger 13,556]

He says what his motivation is.

People often say what their motivation is. They usually say something noble.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

This guy would be an Internet sensation and the subject of cult worship if this had happened during Bush43 regime. Hell, he would have a movie made about him starring Matt Damon or Sean Penn. But as it is, he will be hounded to death by the govt and smeared mercilessly by the Left. His family will be ruined. His friends embarassed and persecuted.

Most of the far Left are embracing him. The Left and libertarian Right are largely aligned on this.

[cptau 169]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

I don't think you can make the statement that he'd have no reason to have the court orders. It's not that cut and dried as to who has the proper clearance and "need to know" within an organization. Some contractors may be deeply involved enough in such an initiative that they actually would have access to the order so that they know the exact scope and limitations of what they can do with the data or how they are to collect the data in question.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

One thing that Snowden points out bears particular notice. It's why people are trying to explain to us that this data collection is not innocuous for the average person:

Glenn Greenwald asks Snowden why anyone who isn’t up to no good should worry about this. Snowden says because even if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you are being recorded — and every year, the ability of the government to store information grows massively. If, in the future, they suspect you of something, they can go back through all the information they have stored about you, pull out conversations you’ve had with friends, anything they want, to create a portrait of you that suits their ends.

Pair that with the other powers the Patriot Act and NDAA give our government such as detaining a person indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, without formal charges being brought and without any opportunity to argue your case in a real court with a real judge and this is just far too dangerous a power and ability to grant to ANYONE. In such a situation, you have no counsel, they have no obligation to grant you the full breadth of all the data they have on you so you can point out context or exonerating info. You're defending yourself blindly against someone who has everything on you and can selectively connect dots in any way that helps them do what they need to do.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I know this debate is ongoing across multiple threads but here's my couple of pennies ...

Honestly, I'm a bit torn on this issue ...

On one hand, Ben Franklin's famous quote [Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one] seems to be applicable and make a lot of sense to me. However, I also realize Franklin didn't live in (nor could possibly foresee) the interconnected, threat-filled cyber world that we live in today.

On the other, I want my government to 'protect and defend' ... and if these are tools they need to 'connect the dots' and keep us safe, I also tend to give them the benefit of the doubt (regardless of which administration is in power).

...

I was reading through some articles and catching up on the news from the weekend last night when I came across the statement President Obama made on this topic:

"I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment, and my team's assessment, was that they helped us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and without looking at content — that on net, was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that.

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy, and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society. What I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”

I don't know ... again, on one hand I don't like it, on the other it seems pretty logical to keeping us safe. Worthy of debate ...

Great post, RIR! I can understand and to some degree relate, but I am worried we have crossed the threshold of doing what's best in the interest of protecting the homeland. I fear this data gathering was used for more than protection. I think it was used for various reasons.....including the use of the information to formulate strategies for elections. A barrier has been crossed (my opinion at this point, so Texas...keep you link request out of this one...LOL :)/> ) and the end result is the destruction of individual liberty.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

Could be both. Either way I commend him if it bears out the truth.

[cptau 169]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

I don't think you can make the statement that he'd have no reason to have the court orders. It's not that cut and dried as to who has the proper clearance and "need to know" within an organization. Some contractors may be deeply involved enough in such an initiative that they actually would have access to the order so that they know the exact scope and limitations of what they can do with the data or how they are to collect the data in question.

Unless this guy is much higher up in the organization, he would have no need to know or see the actual court order. Just be aware that it exists. At $200,000 a year he may be a higher up, but a contractor with zero benefits living it Hawaii might be paid that much for a top secret technical geek job. If he was just a technical geek hacker that researches data he does not need to see the actual court order. Putting people in strict roles helps prevents these types of incidents. He appears to have had enormous access to the collected data and even the legal order authorizing the collection of the data.

The Manning case in the Army is similar, he had enormous access to look through data, but he could also copy data out of the system due to a lack of supervision.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Listen, this guy may turn out to be working for China. It could all be a huge blow to the US national security infrastructure. He would be one of the most disgusting spies in ages if that was the case. I would want him tracked down and arrested as much as anyone if that was the case.

But as of now, we know what? He has released info on a legitimately gray area program being kept secret by the US government that probably more than half the country agrees may be overstepping their bounds. Am I willing to convict this man in the court of public opinion before we're even told anything; especially by those in the government who want the full weight of the US thrown at him? Hell no.

I am not a terrorist sympathizer, I am a man who wants liberty to remain and supports law and justice.

Regardless, the US Government has done plenty in the last few years to give even me a very healthy skepticism of how much they're actually doing just to fight terrorists and how much they're doing to protect themselves long into the future. Obama's own words in the last few days have such a paternalistic, almost Orwellian feel to them that it makes me cringe. Everything is alright, we know what we're doing, you should just be quiet and trust us to protect you.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

I don't think you can make the statement that he'd have no reason to have the court orders. It's not that cut and dried as to who has the proper clearance and "need to know" within an organization. Some contractors may be deeply involved enough in such an initiative that they actually would have access to the order so that they know the exact scope and limitations of what they can do with the data or how they are to collect the data in question.

Unless this guy is much higher up in the organization, he would have no need to know or see the actual court order.

I'm just telling you that it is well within the realm of realistic possibility that he could have legitimate access to that court order. Things just aren't as cut and dried as you're presenting here.

At $200,000 a year he may be a higher up, but a contractor with zero benefits living it Hawaii might be paid that much for a top secret technical geek job.

Contractors working for the government aren't generally free lancers that are self employed. And neither is this guy. He's working for a defense contractor (like General Dynamics or Northrup Grumman for instance). He has benefits. And while they pay well for places like Hawaii vs a state like say, Nebraska...they don't pay that much better unless you're quite a ways up the chain from the regulars.

If he was just a technical geek hacker that researches data he does not need to see the actual court order. Putting people in strict roles helps prevents these types of incidents. He appears to have had enormous access to the collected data and even the legal order authorizing the collection of the data.

I don't believe there's anything in his account that leads me to believe he's just some techy hacker dude. He appears to be an actual implementer of these kinds of things, not just some analyst.

[cptau 169]

I find it interesting that this leaker had a copy of the actual court order that he leaked. He had no reason as a contractor to the CIA/NSA to see or have the court orders. Which leads to the conclusions that process control and security is weak or that he has someone helping him get that court order.

I don't think you can make the statement that he'd have no reason to have the court orders. It's not that cut and dried as to who has the proper clearance and "need to know" within an organization. Some contractors may be deeply involved enough in such an initiative that they actually would have access to the order so that they know the exact scope and limitations of what they can do with the data or how they are to collect the data in question.

Unless this guy is much higher up in the organization, he would have no need to know or see the actual court order.

I'm just telling you that it is well within the realm of realistic possibility that he could have legitimate access to that court order. Things just aren't as cut and dried as you're presenting here.

At $200,000 a year he may be a higher up, but a contractor with zero benefits living it Hawaii might be paid that much for a top secret technical geek job.

Contractors working for the government aren't generally free lancers that are self employed. And neither is this guy. He's working for a defense contractor (like General Dynamics or Northrup Grumman for instance). He has benefits. And while they pay well for places like Hawaii vs a state like say, Nebraska...they don't pay that much better unless you're quite a ways up the chain from the regulars.

If he was just a technical geek hacker that researches data he does not need to see the actual court order. Putting people in strict roles helps prevents these types of incidents. He appears to have had enormous access to the collected data and even the legal order authorizing the collection of the data.

I don't believe there's anything in his account that leads me to believe he's just some techy hacker dude. He appears to be an actual implementer of these kinds of things, not just some analyst.

We'll find more about his actual postion in the contracting company. I looked at the the contracting company and they do advertise extensive benefits. Even in Hawaii at $200,000 he was well paid. The government has been looking for this guy for several weeks.

If the CIA/NSA have outsourced extensive amounts or areas of process work to be managed by the contracting company, then heads maybe rolling both in the government agencies and in the contracting company. It's not unusually for that type of outsourcing to take place in corporate environments, but this is national security......

[homersapien 11,812]

I know this debate is ongoing across multiple threads but here's my couple of pennies ...

Honestly, I'm a bit torn on this issue ...

On one hand, Ben Franklin's famous quote [Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one] seems to be applicable and make a lot of sense to me. However, I also realize Franklin didn't live in (nor could possibly foresee) the interconnected, threat-filled cyber world that we live in today.

On the other, I want my government to 'protect and defend' ... and if these are tools they need to 'connect the dots' and keep us safe, I also tend to give them the benefit of the doubt (regardless of which administration is in power).

...

I was reading through some articles and catching up on the news from the weekend last night when I came across the statement President Obama made on this topic:

"I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment, and my team's assessment, was that they helped us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and without looking at content — that on net, was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that.

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy, and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society. What I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”

I don't know ... again, on one hand I don't like it, on the other it seems pretty logical to keeping us safe. Worthy of debate ...

Great post, RIR! I can understand and to some degree relate, but I am worried we have crossed the threshold of doing what's best in the interest of protecting the homeland. I fear this data gathering was used for more than protection. I think it was used for various reasons.....including the use of the information to formulate strategies for elections. A barrier has been crossed (my opinion at this point, so Texas...keep you link request out of this one...LOL :)/> ) and the end result is the destruction of individual liberty.

Well, if you have that much distrust of our government, would you eliminate the NSA altogether? How about the CIA, the FBI?

I think there has been a major overreaction to this program. As far as I know (so far), everything has been done with an appropriate amount of checks and balances and within our legal system as determined by the Constitution.

I have seen the term "blase' used about this. IMO, this overreaction shows a casual disregard for the sort of threat terrorism represents. It's hard for me to understand, especially considering North Korea possesses nuclear weapons.

Obama got it right. There will always be trade offs between security and privacy. That is why process is so important. And if that process is violated, there should be serious repercussions.

But doing away completely with this sort of program, no matter the civil safeguards, in the name of privacy is a very poor trade off IMO.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Who said we should do away with NSA, CIA, or the FBI? Is that what you assume every time a government agency oversteps their mission? Why do you people always pull this crap out of thin air and then rail others for the exact same thing about other issues?????

[homersapien 11,812]

Who said we should do away with NSA, CIA, or the FBI? Is that what you assume every time a government agency oversteps their mission? Why do you people always pull this crap out of thin air and then rail others for the exact same thing about other issues?????

No one.

Please go back and re-read my post. I asked if you would do so, based on your suspicions of what government is doing, might be doing or might do in the future.

And speaking of "pulling crap out of thin air", please tell us more about how you think this phone data has been used to strategize election campaigns

[autigeremt 6,970]

Who said we should do away with NSA, CIA, or the FBI? Is that what you assume every time a government agency oversteps their mission? Why do you people always pull this crap out of thin air and then rail others for the exact same thing about other issues?????

No one.

Please go back and re-read my post. I asked if you would do so, based on your suspicions of what government is doing, might be doing or might do in the future.

And speaking of "pulling crap out of thin air", please tell us more about how you think this phone data has been used to strategize election campaigns

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ the link shows how back in December data mining was talked about in regards to the Obama re-election campaign. Here's another one: http://gawker.com/5961202/how-the-obama-campaigns-data+miners-knew-what-you-were-watching-on-tv and then the whole 47% issue http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/03/very-creepy-details-of-obama-campaigns-voter-data-mining-effort/