4 ms·

How is Bill Binney still walking around a free man? Surely he had security clearances and made an oath not to break them. Is it just that he's riding a fine l

How is Bill Binney still walking around a free man? Surely he had security clearances and made an oath not to break them. Is it just that he's riding a fine line and not disclosing classified information?

jameskegel 9y ago
If you silence him then it gives credence to what he's saying.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I don't think that stops them.
- coldtea 9y ago
  If the people don't care anyway, and can't see beyond pro/anti-Trump and pro/anti-SJW BS (at their most "political") and the latest pop/tv BS (for the typical apolitical masses), then it doesn't matter if it gets credence for some small minority that cares.
_joel 9y ago
As a counter-point (regardless of the legalities) if there are, as he conjectures, 1.2 million people on a drone kill-list (with seemingly no-oversight), is it not in the public interest that these things are highlighted by whistle blowers?
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I didn't really make a point, so I don't know what you think you're countering. I just asked a question, and apparently the answer is that he doesn't disclose classified information.
  - _joel 9y ago
    > Surely he had security clearances and made an oath not to break them This is what I'm countering, perhaps something like this needs to be discussed as it's in the public interest.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      I don't think OP was addressing morality, though, just raising the practical question of "isn't this a jailable action?"
      - Simon_says 9y ago
        That's exactly what I was asking.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  This 1.2 million number sounds like his zettabyte number. Nobody could possibly take him seriously, and that's probably why he doesn't get into any trouble — it's not a crime to talk about aliens in Roswell or zettabyte capacity datacenters because those things obviously don't exist.
bitexploder 9y ago
This is all publicly available information. You don't give up your right to free speech when you gain access to sensitive information. He probably vetted this content very carefully and had several friends within the intelligence community review it for him to ensure he wasn't revealing anything undisclosed to the public already.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  He's been termed as an NSA whistleblower though. How can one be a whistleblower on publicly available information?
  - bitexploder 9y ago
    He did it internally. He didn't leak very much publicly other than broad strokes about what was happening. He 'leaked' internally to the DoD IG. The response from the FBI/NSA was essentially to punish them and what amounts to a public witch hunt at the hands of the FBI. This response was what started the trend of much more public whistle blowing because it became clear if you went through the official routes you would be persecuted and your life made miserable, even if they could not land you in jail. All of this under the banner of state secrets justifying these actions. Whereas in any corporation or visible branch of government the waste would have been a scandal. In the NSA the use of state secrets means power concentrates and individual employees have little recourse (Snowden, etc.).
1001101 9y ago
Could be a limited hangout.
FlashGit 9y ago
I didn't watch the whole thing just jumped around but he has included slides that are marked 'SECRET//NOFORN' so if that material is accurately classified at that level (and its disclosure was not authorized), well he probably shouldn't be presenting to that. Of course whether those slides would cause 'serious damage' to national security is a whole other matter or maybe it was 'authorized'.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  Perhaps they were previously leaked through Snowden or others and he's only included them in his slides? Then he's not disclosing anything. He hasn't worked at NSA for a loooong time.
  - FlashGit 9y ago
    I'm no expert, and you are right he did leave sometime ago, perhaps there were changes with regards to protecting classified information after he left. Classified information does not become unclassified just because it is publicly available if I remember correctly. Either way, I can't comment on whether including them in his slides is disclosing/divulging or not.
- zeep 9y ago
  Around 7:30 he says that he is using some documents that were leaked by Snowden.. maybe that's them.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  All classified slides shown were from Snowden. One unclassified (but marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive") slide is from elsewhere.
Woofles 9y ago
He actually sort of answers this in the last question they ask at the end. He says that because he's made it so obvious that they're his enemy it's impossible for them to do anything about him in the public light except possibly have him killed which would obviously be incredibly suspicious. As far as the actual legality of the things he does, it seems like pretty much everything in the talk I had heard before, mostly through the Snowden files.
JohnStrange 9y ago
> Is it just that he's riding a fine line and not disclosing classified information Yes, at least in this talk he's very careful only to disclose what can be inferred from already public information (e.g. Snowden leaks). People from his former line of work are kind of used to this, I guess, as they probably cannot even discuss every detail of what they're doing with all of their own colleagues during lunch breaks.

jameskegel 9y ago

If you silence him then it gives credence to what he's saying.

Simon_says 9y ago
I don't think that stops them.
coldtea 9y ago
If the people don't care anyway, and can't see beyond pro/anti-Trump and pro/anti-SJW BS (at their most "political") and the latest pop/tv BS (for the typical apolitical masses), then it doesn't matter if it gets credence for some small minority that cares.

_joel 9y ago

As a counter-point (regardless of the legalities) if there are, as he conjectures, 1.2 million people on a drone kill-list (with seemingly no-oversight), is it not in the public interest that these things are highlighted by whistle blowers?

Simon_says 9y ago
I didn't really make a point, so I don't know what you think you're countering. I just asked a question, and apparently the answer is that he doesn't disclose classified information.
- _joel 9y ago
  > Surely he had security clearances and made an oath not to break them This is what I'm countering, perhaps something like this needs to be discussed as it's in the public interest.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    I don't think OP was addressing morality, though, just raising the practical question of "isn't this a jailable action?"
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      That's exactly what I was asking.
lern_too_spel 9y ago
This 1.2 million number sounds like his zettabyte number. Nobody could possibly take him seriously, and that's probably why he doesn't get into any trouble — it's not a crime to talk about aliens in Roswell or zettabyte capacity datacenters because those things obviously don't exist.

bitexploder 9y ago

This is all publicly available information. You don't give up your right to free speech when you gain access to sensitive information. He probably vetted this content very carefully and had several friends within the intelligence community review it for him to ensure he wasn't revealing anything undisclosed to the public already.

Dirlewanger 9y ago
He's been termed as an NSA whistleblower though. How can one be a whistleblower on publicly available information?
- bitexploder 9y ago
  He did it internally. He didn't leak very much publicly other than broad strokes about what was happening. He 'leaked' internally to the DoD IG. The response from the FBI/NSA was essentially to punish them and what amounts to a public witch hunt at the hands of the FBI. This response was what started the trend of much more public whistle blowing because it became clear if you went through the official routes you would be persecuted and your life made miserable, even if they could not land you in jail. All of this under the banner of state secrets justifying these actions. Whereas in any corporation or visible branch of government the waste would have been a scandal. In the NSA the use of state secrets means power concentrates and individual employees have little recourse (Snowden, etc.).

1001101 9y ago

Could be a limited hangout.

FlashGit 9y ago

I didn't watch the whole thing just jumped around but he has included slides that are marked 'SECRET//NOFORN' so if that material is accurately classified at that level (and its disclosure was not authorized), well he probably shouldn't be presenting to that. Of course whether those slides would cause 'serious damage' to national security is a whole other matter or maybe it was 'authorized'.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
Perhaps they were previously leaked through Snowden or others and he's only included them in his slides? Then he's not disclosing anything. He hasn't worked at NSA for a loooong time.
- FlashGit 9y ago
  I'm no expert, and you are right he did leave sometime ago, perhaps there were changes with regards to protecting classified information after he left. Classified information does not become unclassified just because it is publicly available if I remember correctly. Either way, I can't comment on whether including them in his slides is disclosing/divulging or not.
zeep 9y ago
Around 7:30 he says that he is using some documents that were leaked by Snowden.. maybe that's them.
willstrafach 9y ago
All classified slides shown were from Snowden. One unclassified (but marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive") slide is from elsewhere.

Woofles 9y ago

He actually sort of answers this in the last question they ask at the end. He says that because he's made it so obvious that they're his enemy it's impossible for them to do anything about him in the public light except possibly have him killed which would obviously be incredibly suspicious. As far as the actual legality of the things he does, it seems like pretty much everything in the talk I had heard before, mostly through the Snowden files.

JohnStrange 9y ago

> Is it just that he's riding a fine line and not disclosing classified information Yes, at least in this talk he's very careful only to disclose what can be inferred from already public information (e.g. Snowden leaks). People from his former line of work are kind of used to this, I guess, as they probably cannot even discuss every detail of what they're doing with all of their own colleagues during lunch breaks.