No matter where you fall on the whole spectrum of “Edward Snowden is a Hero/Traitor/Floor Wax/Desert Topping,” can we all agree that this is a bad idea: For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency's secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
I've been travelling (still am), so I haven't kept up very well with the non-existent Wonkete comment stream. But I have to say that a lot of you guys are jumping on Snowden for stupid reasons.
He should have revealed the info more cleverly. Greenwald is an asshole. He shouldn’t have revealed anything because classification. He seems to be a bit of a jerk. We already sort of knew all about this anyway.
Excuse me, but fuck this shit. I don’t care about his motivations. He has made available for public discussion certain behaviors of OUR FUCKING GOVERNMENT, that some of us are unhappy about.
Discussing Snowden’s motivation is simply reinforcing the MSM’s effort to make this whole thing about the guy, and not about the information. Please stop doing this.
And this is why the budget of DHS is $100 billion, and the hiring ballooned so vastly that they had to hire whomever came in the door with the requisite skills. It's not the cute little Good Ol Boys club the CIA was. It's a humongous behemoth flailing around collecting private information for someone to use later, at will. Experience teaches us that the info will be used for purposes other than to stop foreign terrorists; let's see, who did J. Edgar target? Oh yeah, anyone he wanted.
And as for the NSA budget and staffing, the agency is all black budget, so who the hell even knows.
I like to think so. I fear the complacency of the post 9/11 generation--not because they are lazy, but because of the New Normal surveillance state. Cf. Slithytoves' comment downthread re college students.
So you agree that Ecuador is not currently a "dictator run third world country".
BTW, the last successful coup in Ecuador was against a President whose approval rating had sunk to 6% and ultimately resulted in the military giving the Vice President a promotion. Not great from a procedural perspective, but not exactly horrible from a will-of-the-people perspective.
He's the story because he's there. The media doesn't have the rest of the story, the selected materials he chose to give them have already been published.
Oh also, some of the stuff he&#039;s said doesn&#039;t add up. For example, I consider it extremely unlikely that what seems to be the largest intelligence database in the US would lack need-to-know checks in violation of <a href="http:\/\/it.ouhsc.edu\/policies\/documents\/infosecurity\/DOD_5220.22-Mcp8.pdf" target="_blank">DoD regulations</a> (nobody could say with a straight face that every person with direct access to the system, plus every person in a position to receive output produced by the system without formal human review, has a need to know every piece of information in the system, so I find it inconceivable that it&#039;s running in &quot;dedicated security mode&quot;; if it is, <em>that</em> should be a major scandal generating multiple Congressional hearings with hostile questioning of those responsible).
The Daniel Ellsberg model? He should have talked to the Guardian but made them promise not to expose him, and then let the media and the govt go into a frenzy looking for him and the Guardian make a stand for protecting its sources and get threatened with the Official Secrets Act, and then eventually get found, and then face trial like a man. It&#039;s not that I dislike that scenario, but with today&#039;s laws it&#039;s probably not the most effective.
Item 3 ... I just don&#039;t see why that&#039;s bad. On the contrary. I know we love the narrative of the innocent naif who just one day wakes up and finds righteousness, but it&#039;s mostly romance. If people knew that Rosa Parks wasn&#039;t just some tired lady who got mad one day, but a longtime activist who volunteered to launch the Montgomery bus boycott by deliberately getting arrested, she probably wouldn&#039;t be the heroine she is.
Sorry, I&#039;m being unfunny and longwinded. I&#039;m just mystified by the ire on this one.
<a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=HdCfYHNctsc" target="_blank">Puzzlin evidence</a>
I&#039;ve been travelling (still am), so I haven&#039;t kept up very well with the non-existent Wonkete comment stream. But I have to say that a lot of you guys are jumping on Snowden for stupid reasons.
He should have revealed the info more cleverly. Greenwald is an asshole. He shouldn&rsquo;t have revealed anything because classification. He seems to be a bit of a jerk. We already sort of knew all about this anyway.
Excuse me, but fuck this shit. I don&rsquo;t care about his motivations. He has made available for public discussion certain behaviors of OUR FUCKING GOVERNMENT, that some of us are unhappy about.
Discussing Snowden&rsquo;s motivation is simply reinforcing the MSM&rsquo;s effort to make this whole thing about the guy, and not about the information. Please stop doing this.
This is an excellent point.
In our brave new world, though, &quot;intent&quot; has been warped into whatever the so-called lawmakers want it to be.
USIS
wasn&#039;t there talk of snowdon being a paultard? or did i dream that up in an alcohol haze?
could explain some of the &#039;not really getting the reality of the situation&#039; parts of reality.
dude! we LOVE assholes! we love to follow and watch assholes. we have entire tv networks devoted to assholes.
and heidi klum.
me personally, i am bored with this whole circus. plus, you know, HAWKS WIN.
this.
you KNOW you&#039;re in trouble when <i>the germans</i> are calling you to account for bad behavior.
this is really funny.
cheers.
i&#039;m guessing &#039;stuck in the moscow airport transit zone&#039; isn&#039;t the endgame here?
And this is why the budget of DHS is $100 billion, and the hiring ballooned so vastly that they had to hire whomever came in the door with the requisite skills. It&#039;s not the cute little Good Ol Boys club the CIA was. It&#039;s a humongous behemoth flailing around collecting private information for someone to use later, at will. Experience teaches us that the info will be used for purposes other than to stop foreign terrorists; let&#039;s see, who did J. Edgar target? Oh yeah, anyone he wanted.
And as for the NSA budget and staffing, the agency is all black budget, so who the hell even knows.
I like to think so. I fear the complacency of the post 9/11 generation--not because they are lazy, but because of the New Normal surveillance state. Cf. Slithytoves&#039; comment downthread re college students.
Not the shiniest missile loaded on the drone ain&rsquo;t he?
So you agree that Ecuador is not currently a &quot;dictator run third world country&quot;.
BTW, the last successful coup in Ecuador was against a President whose approval rating had sunk to 6% and ultimately resulted in the military giving the Vice President a promotion. Not great from a procedural perspective, but not exactly horrible from a will-of-the-people perspective.
He&#039;s the story because he&#039;s there. The media doesn&#039;t have the rest of the story, the selected materials he chose to give them have already been published.
Oh also, some of the stuff he&#039;s said doesn&#039;t add up. For example, I consider it extremely unlikely that what seems to be the largest intelligence database in the US would lack need-to-know checks in violation of <a href="http:\/\/it.ouhsc.edu\/policies\/documents\/infosecurity\/DOD_5220.22-Mcp8.pdf" target="_blank">DoD regulations</a> (nobody could say with a straight face that every person with direct access to the system, plus every person in a position to receive output produced by the system without formal human review, has a need to know every piece of information in the system, so I find it inconceivable that it&#039;s running in &quot;dedicated security mode&quot;; if it is, <em>that</em> should be a major scandal generating multiple Congressional hearings with hostile questioning of those responsible).
Nice screening job, guys. Booz Allen Hamilton? More like BOOZE Allen Hamilton! Amiright? thisguyknowswhatimtalkinbout!
(And government contractors used to have such a reputation for honesty and thoroughness.HAHAHAHAHAHA.)
The Daniel Ellsberg model? He should have talked to the Guardian but made them promise not to expose him, and then let the media and the govt go into a frenzy looking for him and the Guardian make a stand for protecting its sources and get threatened with the Official Secrets Act, and then eventually get found, and then face trial like a man. It&#039;s not that I dislike that scenario, but with today&#039;s laws it&#039;s probably not the most effective.
Item 3 ... I just don&#039;t see why that&#039;s bad. On the contrary. I know we love the narrative of the innocent naif who just one day wakes up and finds righteousness, but it&#039;s mostly romance. If people knew that Rosa Parks wasn&#039;t just some tired lady who got mad one day, but a longtime activist who volunteered to launch the Montgomery bus boycott by deliberately getting arrested, she probably wouldn&#039;t be the heroine she is.
Sorry, I&#039;m being unfunny and longwinded. I&#039;m just mystified by the ire on this one.