3 ms·

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

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.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  But what exactly has been "confirmed"? There are no details. What is being alleged is broad, unrestricted access by the NSA to all user account data, not specific targeted individuals. While the Verizon metadata case is disconcerting, there is legal precedent for pen register/trap-and-trace going back decades. It's on shaky legal footing, but not obscenely illegal. 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.
  - neilk 13y ago
    Greenwald may be out of his depth in interpreting what the documents mean. But that's not the same thing as saying the story is completely bogus. 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.
jabbernotty 13y ago
Maybe you are right, and he doesn't care about US interests. But even then, he probably cares about people being killed.
Torn 13y ago
The Guardian did a pretty good job at redacting the wikileaks stuff; I think they're trying to be responsible with the information.
- eightyone 13y ago
  I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did." 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 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v [2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v 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.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Right, so now there's no way to verify his claims. Accuse the Tech companies of not being truthful when they say that don't allow the NSA arbitrary access, but then offer no details that would actually substantiate the interpretation you made of the slides. How very convenient. 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?

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.

cromwellian 13y ago
But what exactly has been "confirmed"? There are no details. What is being alleged is broad, unrestricted access by the NSA to all user account data, not specific targeted individuals. While the Verizon metadata case is disconcerting, there is legal precedent for pen register/trap-and-trace going back decades. It's on shaky legal footing, but not obscenely illegal. 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.
- neilk 13y ago
  Greenwald may be out of his depth in interpreting what the documents mean. But that's not the same thing as saying the story is completely bogus. 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.

jabbernotty 13y ago

Maybe you are right, and he doesn't care about US interests. But even then, he probably cares about people being killed.

Torn 13y ago

The Guardian did a pretty good job at redacting the wikileaks stuff; I think they're trying to be responsible with the information.

eightyone 13y ago
I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did." 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 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v [2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v 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.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Right, so now there's no way to verify his claims. Accuse the Tech companies of not being truthful when they say that don't allow the NSA arbitrary access, but then offer no details that would actually substantiate the interpretation you made of the slides. How very convenient. 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?