Greenwald has "highly detailed technical NSA materials on how they eavesdrop"
twitter.com
twitter.com
If he can come up with 1-2 further "big facts" (e.g. clearly demonstrating that ale the Tech CEOs have been lying about their involvement) this story gets much more attention than just dumping it all on one day.
If anything the govt. has proven that it can fuck up someone's life if they really want to regardless of what the books say. Yes in the end you might even be exonerated but by then you have been laid off, divorced, financially drained from attorney fees, your health, time and nerves are shut.
For example, they could hassle everyone you've talked to on your Verizon phone.
1) They are being responsible and trying to redact stuff that could get people killed or seriously damage US interests
2) They don't have a smoking gun, and are afraid to release the rest, since it's much ado about nothing.
3) Variation of #2, except Greenwald is trying to forge some slides, editing the content to back up his original story. Just a few words changed in a PPT could make all the difference.
#1 Doesn't wash with me, because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests. He may care about being arrested by the US government, or having to live in a foreign embassy if he releases something that would enrage the spooks.
#2 Seems plausible. Let's say the full PRISM slide set is just as vague as the 5 slides shown so far and doesn't actually talk about technical implementation at the premises on participants. Then the whole affair becomes somewhat embarrassing given the bombastic overreaction. Leading to fears that they would be temped to hack the PRISM slides.
Lets hope #3 is barred because WashingtonPost has a separate copy.
Why is this again? Have you read any of, or even heard of, his books or his articles?
Before you answer, be sure not to fall into the trap so common as to be a cliche for him [1] of accusing him of having no skin in the game. I've watched him be accused of that and the rest of the things listed there and he's used to it. It doesn't phase him, he'll go right on doing what he's doing and that sucks for them.
[1] http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li... item five
Your theories seem to start from the premise that Greenwald is anti-US and just wants to watch the world burn. Or is stupid enough to take the risk of forging documents that would prove the US President to be a liar about violating the constitutional rights of nearly every citizen. I find that starting point very dubious.
On the other hand, blanket access to the email contents of every American on domestic soil, for the NSA to just go run a search on at any time, without a court order, would almost certainly be completely illegal.
It is very very doubtful this is going on. Tech companies responding to FISA requests and sending a mirror of an individual target's account data, that is totally unsurprising. We know they respond to such requests, they've never denied it, and so the way the data is delivered is really just an implementation detail.
What Greenwald is alleging flies in the face of 9 major tech companies full of thousands of engineers who tend to side with civil libertarians, and these companies are under threat of hack all the time and conduct extensive audits of who is accessing who's data internally. It's just unbelievable that the kind of access alleged is actually occurring with active knowledge.
So, whose's to say that these slides aren't being misinterpreted as to the actual details of the program, or that the source may have obtained a copy of the PPT, but is actually not privy to the actual implementation details of the compartmentalized information. Just because someone works at the NSA means they are privy to everything. For example, analysts in WW2 often dealt with intelligence reports from Ultra, unaware of what Ultra was or how they obtained information. I want to see a slide that says "NSA box installed in Datacenter 12, with credentials for direct access to datastore"
From my watching Greenwald on talk shows, he comes across to me as someone who oversteps the bounds of calm rational analysis, and ventures forth into media whorism. I'd rather just have the slides, I don't need him to trickle them out with his interpretation. Dump the slides and dump the transcripts and notes he took from his source. Let us judge and discuss.
Lately it's emerging that the Guardian released their story pretty soon after Snowden contacted them. I had assumed this was the kind of story that they would slowly confirm over months, but maybe not.
I agree that whatever our judgments of the character of the people involved, it would be better to have the data.
But even then, he probably cares about people being killed.
I also found another tweet by him that says (in reply to someone) " There are all sorts of secrets I have I'm not publishing - it's public interest v. harm analysis at the heart of journalism."
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v
[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v
I hope he's making a good judgement call on not releasing the technical information. A lot of people are already writing this presentation off as fake and meaningless.
And how would divulging the NSA's program not harm their collection, but divulging the details would? If I'm the Germans and using Enigma, knowing that it was cracked, but not how it was cracked, would still get me to change my behavior.
If I'm Bin Laden, I don't have to know the technical details of how my satellite phone was tracked, just that they were doing it.
The harm has already been done, and now the harm to these tech companies is being continued with daily innuendo and no hard evidence. How much longer can this go on? Can the Guardian just keep going on for months making allegations without hard evidence?
In this case, allegedly would be if this was hearsay, or rumor, or according to a source, but no, he is flatly stating it as a fact about himself, and is generally considered honest. If we want a qualifier, you can attribute the fact to him (GG says he has) but allegedly is too weak.
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_...;
Did you even read that list? Those include actual proper uses of "allegation". If you actually look at the definition of "allegation", it is a claim of fact, which is the most you can say about charges that may be brought against a defendant pre-trial. Or are you not at all aware of judicial proceedings in which facts are shown later to be incorrect?
That English words have concrete meanings doesn't prevent misuse. On the contrary, specialty words with specialized meanings are misused most often by laymen. The misuse is just more recognizable when you're familiar with the area.