Officials Say U.S. May Never Know Extent of Snowden’s Leaks
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Not that anyone in D.C. is holding the accountable, but if someone hypothetically did want to hold them accountable, how high would their threshold for failure have to be for outcomes like this?
> Mr. Snowden’s disclosures set off a national debate about the expansion of the N.S.A.’s powers to spy both at home and abroad, and have left the Obama administration trying frantically to mend relations with allies after his revelations about American eavesdropping on foreign leaders.
Mending relations is probably hard to do while continuing the programs and their secrecy. It probably wouldn't be that hard to mend them if they shut down the program.
It would save money and stop breaking the Constitution too.
Would you rather these agencies be truly competent and efficient that their activities would never come to light?
If you create a department that knows everything about everyone then it creates such a big single point of failure that it will be attacked continuously. This is on top of the general human error leading to data dumps being left on public transport etc.
A honest and competent version of the NSA would acknowledge that leaks would be going to occur (malicious or accidental) and that it would need to be very careful about what it collects in case it could be used against it when it leaks. Once more government secrecy is actually just a way of hiding incompetence.
I am also wondering, is it smart for an intelligence agency to tell the truth when they say "We don't know how much was leaked"? Or is this a large lie in order to lower, I don't know, someone's guard. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me.
And the NSA wasn't the only intelligence agency that vetted and hired him.
By this I mean, It was unfortunate to see Snowden's punch dissipate with headlines that focussed on his safety and whereabouts, instead of keeping focus on the crimes committed by the US government.
Did anyone else notice that?
Assange was into monetizing leaks and being in control of what was leaked, to whom and when.
Snowden went out of his way to not be 'in charge' of what was leaked, to whom and to when. He put trust in Greenwald and co. to do that. Snowden has not been paid, there is no ban on Paypal et al. accepting funds for him because, unlike Assange, he is not soliciting funds. He found himself employment in Russia to pay his way in the world.
Clearly Snowden's work was wasted on you, just hope you have nothing to hide!
I find it worrying. I don't follow closely what happens in the US, but my overall feeling is that on many important issues, there is very little opposition or at least questioning to what the US government is doing. People seem more concerned with taxes and immigration reform.
It also struck me during the presidential debates. Both candidates pretty much agreed that the "bad guys" should be caught, but it didn't really go much deeper than that! It seems voters have basically not the slightest control on what their leaders are doing. Depressing...
Anecdotally, that view does seem to be the minority in the US. Increasingly so as time goes on and more is understood. That was a gut reaction by many conservatives initially, but I think most understand by now that him going to Russia is irrelevant, even if they do disagree with the act of disclosing.
Polls seem to back this up: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/uk-usa-security-pol...
I'm not trying to raise the conspiracy flag or show off my tin foil hat, I just hope to see a resolution despite it all.
On its face, this sounds unethical for someone who made his decision on morality. Has anything more been published about this aspect anywhere (rationales, details, etc.)?
Are you saying there's inherently something "immoral" about covering your tracks, using other passwords, or hacking firewalls? On what basis?
If the guy is already copying documents he's not allowed to have access to, what difference does it make using passwords he's not allowed to have access to?
"Snowden persuaded other NSA workers to give up passwords - sources"
So if the intelligence community is lying about how he got access, it is an extremely stupid lie that makes them look like idiots. If they're telling the truth, then it clearly makes the case that their operation is a humongous liability and should be shut down. Either way that explanation/story is bad for the NSA.
His actions probably put those people under investigation.
Meanwhile, on their face, comments by anonymous "officials" who depend on the intelligence communities for their livelihood are to be taken seriously? I mean really.
I'd be pretty dubious about taking amnesty if I were him, too. Contracts under duress aren't legitimate. Chances are decent they'd get him here, claim duress, and throw him in Guantanamo.
The US lawyers argued "Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country... And while the Constitution generally requires judicial process before the government may kill an American, the Supreme Court has held that in some contexts — like when the police, in order to protect innocent bystanders, ram a car to stop a high-speed chase — no prior permission from a judge is necessary; the lawyers concluded that the wartime threat posed by Mr. Awlaki qualified as such a context, and so his constitutional rights did not bar the government from killing him without a trial. ... it is not unlawful “murder” when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense [so] the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike" [NYT, March 9, 2013].
greenyoda wrote: "He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process."
It therefore comes down to what you mean by "due process." I hold with greenyoda that the circumstances around Awlaki's deliberate killing were insufficient as to allow the exception to the judicial process, and that he therefore did not receive due process owed him by birthright.
You may think otherwise, but even in that case the situation as described is very close to to what greenyoda wrote. Why do you think it's "not at all" as described?
Should we be surprised that they are ignoring the real problems? Neither Snowden, nor the lack of surveillance is the issue. What the documents revealed about the NSAs Unconstitutional programs is what should be alarming.
It's interesting the last line of the article says State often described it as "business as usual," an idiom sometimes used in reference to activities of the CIA (AKA "The Company").