6 ms·

Greenwald has "highly detailed technical NSA materials on how they eavesdrop"

71 points by eightyone 13y ago

eightyone 13y ago
Obviously, he allegedly has this material. I tried to put that in the title, but I hit the character limit.
- Terretta 13y ago
  Allegedly is an overused weasel word in today's news media. They'll show you a video of someone knifing someone else and then call them the alleged perp, or say they allegedly stabbed the victim. No, they did it, they stabbed them. They can still plead not guilty by reason of whatever, but the word allegedly isn't needed. 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_overused_word_allegedly&#x2F http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_...; http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It can still be only alleged that the person you're speaking of is the actual person shown in the video.
  - waterphone 13y ago
    No, allegedly is a good word to used in criminal cases and reporting about them. Among other things, it helps to remind people that innocent until proven guilty remains the case (most of the time) in the United States, and that's a good thing.
  - danso 13y ago
    Well, I was going to disagree with you, because "allegation" is actually an English word with concrete meaning, whether or not it fits your personal preference on language, but you really convinced me with that comprehensive list from the reputable NOOZHAWK, which is literally the result of "a quick Google search". 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?
    - Terretta 13y ago
      Speaking to awareness, I studied and worked in journalism and a lifetime close friend is a criminal defense attorney / public defender. 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.
- detcader 13y ago
  "Allegedly" is a word needed only by people unfamiliar with his body of work. He seemingly spends literally all day every day doing one thing: criticizing the US government's expansion of authoritarian power. Judging from the length and meticulous citation of every single one of his articles, his speaking tour history and the videos [1] of him speaking, you either have a truly honest person on your hands or you have a psychopathic method-actor super-human capable of feats never seen or at least recorded before. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj7SmjSsGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj7SmjSsGw
coldcode 13y ago
Then show them to us, or someone. Secrets don't like the light, like cockroaches.
hondje 13y ago
So lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I know a whole lot about how prism works, and have some slides and what not and that I trust GG with them. Let's further suppose that I am unaffiliated with Facebook, unemployed by the USG, no clearance etc. Just Joe Coder the contractor who loves Freedom. Why can't I just send them to him, what do I care if the FBI knows since I'm not under an NDA or a govt employee?
- danenania 13y ago
  The simple answer is that the US national security apparatus doesn't follow the law. They will harass you at borders, put you on 'terrorist' lists, and otherwise attempt to intimidate and sabotage you if you are perceived as a nuisance to them. It doesn't matter whether what you do is actually illegal.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  You wouldn't know anything about the program unless you had a security clearance.
  - davidmr 13y ago
    Just like Mark Klein knew nothing about the NSA room in the AT&T building? People without clearances come across classified information.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Looks good on paper. Yes you can do whatever you want with it. But unfortunately you might find yourself on some black list. Be unable to fly. Your tax records might be meticulously inspected. Your workplace might be called and secret service might want to "chat" with your co-workers and bosses about you. FBI might visit you at home just to chat and take notes. 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.
  - 13y ago
cromwellian 13y ago
Three theories why it's taking so long: 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.
- detcader 13y ago
  >because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests 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-lies-ftls.html http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li... item five
- neilk 13y ago
  You're acting like this stuff isn't confirmed. Political leaders (both supporting and condemning) have come right out and said this stuff is genuine and even routine. 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.
lizzard 13y ago
I can't wait to see this.
stfu 13y ago
He is doing the only smart thing to do and that is milking the story. We always complain that people are not paying enough attention to privacy and he is trying to assure that the story stays in the news for a while. 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.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I'm hoping for indisputable proof of misuse, such as eavesdropping on politicians, activists, judges and corporate espionage. It needs to be something so damning, that no one, not even the most diehard supporters, can legitimately defend the program any longer.
kintamanimatt 13y ago
What compelling reason could there be to withhold this information?

71 points by eightyone 13y ago

eightyone 13y ago

Obviously, he allegedly has this material. I tried to put that in the title, but I hit the character limit.

Terretta 13y ago
Allegedly is an overused weasel word in today's news media. They'll show you a video of someone knifing someone else and then call them the alleged perp, or say they allegedly stabbed the victim. No, they did it, they stabbed them. They can still plead not guilty by reason of whatever, but the word allegedly isn't needed. 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_overused_word_allegedly&#x2F http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_...; http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It can still be only alleged that the person you're speaking of is the actual person shown in the video.
- waterphone 13y ago
  No, allegedly is a good word to used in criminal cases and reporting about them. Among other things, it helps to remind people that innocent until proven guilty remains the case (most of the time) in the United States, and that's a good thing.
- danso 13y ago
  Well, I was going to disagree with you, because "allegation" is actually an English word with concrete meaning, whether or not it fits your personal preference on language, but you really convinced me with that comprehensive list from the reputable NOOZHAWK, which is literally the result of "a quick Google search". 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?
  - Terretta 13y ago
    Speaking to awareness, I studied and worked in journalism and a lifetime close friend is a criminal defense attorney / public defender. 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.
detcader 13y ago
"Allegedly" is a word needed only by people unfamiliar with his body of work. He seemingly spends literally all day every day doing one thing: criticizing the US government's expansion of authoritarian power. Judging from the length and meticulous citation of every single one of his articles, his speaking tour history and the videos [1] of him speaking, you either have a truly honest person on your hands or you have a psychopathic method-actor super-human capable of feats never seen or at least recorded before. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj7SmjSsGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj7SmjSsGw

coldcode 13y ago

Then show them to us, or someone. Secrets don't like the light, like cockroaches.

hondje 13y ago

So lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I know a whole lot about how prism works, and have some slides and what not and that I trust GG with them. Let's further suppose that I am unaffiliated with Facebook, unemployed by the USG, no clearance etc. Just Joe Coder the contractor who loves Freedom. Why can't I just send them to him, what do I care if the FBI knows since I'm not under an NDA or a govt employee?

danenania 13y ago
The simple answer is that the US national security apparatus doesn't follow the law. They will harass you at borders, put you on 'terrorist' lists, and otherwise attempt to intimidate and sabotage you if you are perceived as a nuisance to them. It doesn't matter whether what you do is actually illegal.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
You wouldn't know anything about the program unless you had a security clearance.
- davidmr 13y ago
  Just like Mark Klein knew nothing about the NSA room in the AT&T building? People without clearances come across classified information.
rdtsc 13y ago
Looks good on paper. Yes you can do whatever you want with it. But unfortunately you might find yourself on some black list. Be unable to fly. Your tax records might be meticulously inspected. Your workplace might be called and secret service might want to "chat" with your co-workers and bosses about you. FBI might visit you at home just to chat and take notes. 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.
- 13y ago

cromwellian 13y ago

Three theories why it's taking so long: 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.

detcader 13y ago
>because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests 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-lies-ftls.html http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li... item five
neilk 13y ago
You're acting like this stuff isn't confirmed. Political leaders (both supporting and condemning) have come right out and said this stuff is genuine and even routine. 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.

lizzard 13y ago

I can't wait to see this.

stfu 13y ago

He is doing the only smart thing to do and that is milking the story. We always complain that people are not paying enough attention to privacy and he is trying to assure that the story stays in the news for a while. 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.

malandrew 13y ago
I'm hoping for indisputable proof of misuse, such as eavesdropping on politicians, activists, judges and corporate espionage. It needs to be something so damning, that no one, not even the most diehard supporters, can legitimately defend the program any longer.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

What compelling reason could there be to withhold this information?