9 ms·

Why the Story on Snowden and the NSA Doesn't Add Up

115 points by Libertatea 13y ago

jgrahamc 13y ago
This whole affair gives me an odd vibe. For reasons I can't figure out, I feel like everyone is holding back information. Obviously the government is, but it sure seems as if the journalists reporting this story have also declined to tell us everything they know. Maybe there's good reason for this. But I wish I knew what it was. Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to themselves.
- eightyone 13y ago
  You obviously aren't familiar with Glenn Greenwald. He's been extremely critical of the Obama administration on a variety of issues. What your claiming makes zero sense. There is a reason why Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald.
  - jgrahamc 13y ago
    That's true. Could you elaborate? PS I think you are reading something I didn't write. I'm claiming that it makes sense for The Guardian/Greenwald to hold back because they can drip feed information that creates a long running 'scandal'. That has two effects: it keeps The Guardian itself in the news and it prolongs the story. Perhaps you think that I am equating Obama as a "Democrat" and The Guardian's notion of "Left Wing" as the same thing. I am not. For example, The Daily Telegraph did a similar thing with revelations about MP's expenses in the UK. They had all the information but over a period of days let out different bits of information. This is the sort of thing newspapers will do, and, for The Guardian, Snowden's leaks are a massive story. They'll milk it as much as they can.
    - TheAnimus 13y ago
      The problem for me isn't the left or right wing nature of the Guardian, just that they, like many papers, don't have a good history when it comes to accuracy and morality. In the UK there was a scandal when a low end tabloid 'hacked' in to the voice mail of a raped + murdered school girl. They were looking for some story no doubt hoping to hear that she had gone to meet someone. This was a scandal that ultimately would lead to the closing of the tabloid. It was a shame though, because the Guardian made a claim too many, they asserted that the tabloid journos deleted voice mail messages, as the mailbox was full, and they wanted to hear more gossip. According to them at the time this lead to the family being given false hope about their daughter been alive. Now, when you consider the questionable value that this untruth added to the story (it is frankly immoral and shocking enough that the tabloid hacked the phone) and ask how was it acquired? Why was no standards of integrity followed, but mostly, why did they not think of the effect it would have on the friends and family of the murdered school girl. I mean come on, is it helping things to print such speculation? Anyway, the retraction: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/correction... This is the most shocking example I can think of, and why I always take that news outlet with a grain of salt, expecting them to be full of hypocrisy (See auto trader sale and tax campaigning).
      - walshemj 13y ago
        Well the courts could not "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the NI employees deleted the VM - they got off that one on a technicality and the fact that the police did not investigate at the time. The vast majority of the UK public believe this to be the case.
      - andyjohnson0 13y ago
        I consider that the Guardian performed a great public service in relation to the phone hacking investigation. Without it, the illegal activity at NI and associated corruption in the police and prison service would not have been revealed. Multiple people are in prison right now because of this. The prime minister's former press secretary and the former ceo of nI in the UK are about to stand trial. This is a big deal and good journalism. The Guardian retracted the claim about NI deleting the messages because it could not be proved, not because it was shown to be false. The police's opinion as given in the Leveson Inquiry report was that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2]. The Guardian team originally believed, based on police sources, that messages had been deleted. When it couldn't be proved they retracted the claim. How is this not "moral"? Did it really shock you so much? [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deletion-messages http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deleti... [2] http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/...
  - walshemj 13y ago
    That's what I thought why not talk to a more experienced Journalist such as Duncan Campbell that covers the security area. Does sound like Snowden was shopping for a journalist who "wanted to believe" to borrow a line.
    - jgrahamc 13y ago
      To be fair to Snowden, he may not have been aware of Duncan Campbell who is well known in the UK and Greenwald being a US citizen who is very critical of the US administration probably looked like a good choice.
      - walshemj 13y ago
        If Snowden was a "patriot" who wanted to expose wrong doing surly a more experianced neutral journalist would be better. Greenwald has only worked as a Journalist for a couple of years.
        eightyone 13y ago
        Greenwald has written for years about abusive government by both the Republicans and Democrats. He was the best person to pick, in my opinion. Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents. So perhaps Snowden did contact other journalists and they weren't interested or just strung him along.
        mpyne 13y ago
        > Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents I think 72 hours is hardly a reasonable deadline demand for fact-checking from a reputable publication.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        Is the 72 hours counted from when Snowden submitted material, or from when The Guardian published? Anyway, it's fairly common for WP to publish articles describing events of the last several hours. Presumably a shorter fact-checking interim is required in such cases.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  I didn't downvote you but I'm not sure how the "editorial slant" of the Guardian is significant. Would you be happier if the revelations had come from a right-wing newspaper with a libertarian opposition to government surveillance? Or a 100% non-slanted media outlet? What difference would this make? And since you used the word, what do you think the Guardian's "agenda" is?
- DanBC 13y ago
  I didn't downvote you. > Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to themselves. You say that this paragraph means "The Grauniad has some juicy information. They drip this out, because that keeps people buying their paper. It keeps the story alive." I agree with that. But reading the paragraph quoted it starts "the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes." - which makes it sound like the paper is drip-feeding the information to push a left-wing agenda, not to increase sales.
- davidw 13y ago
  Speaking of slants and agendas, motherjones.com has all the subtlety of mises.org in theirs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can pretty much guess either one's opinion on any given topic without having to bother reading the actual article. I'd prefer to see neither one here, but I suppose that ship has sailed - and the site holed below the waterline with all the politics and 'outrage stories' we're seeing lately.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  The joys of information asymmetry. I have a feeling that Glenn is playing a long game here. Also with Snowden in Limbo I suppose he just sits and waits for a good timing.
Zirro 13y ago
"Profiles describe him as secretive, fascinated with computers, and with knowledge of things like Tor (a peer-to-peer network for maintaining anonymity for computer communications)." Doesn't that describe most of us on HN? ;-)
- hnha 13y ago
  and that's a great example why data retention is bad.
swombat 13y ago
Money quotes: an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world. Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the computers’ hard drives or shut down the phone system. So basically he was a professional hacker. That takes a fair bit of intelligence, knowledge and experience, and is a fair bit beyond the job of a sysadmin, which is what everyone was assuming based on the title. I guess it made sense. Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something neutral like "Situation Specialists"...
- walshemj 13y ago
  No if you where a TLA why would you use job titles that gave anything away about what the persons job was. And how does one go from "Infrastructure Analyst" to being a government hacker looking at job postings for Infrastructure Analysts seems to indicate that it is a posh word for systems administrator.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    No one hires hackers using normal job postings and titles. They show up at DefCon and Black Hat Briefings and then schmooze in t-shirts and blue jeans. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM
- greyman 13y ago
  Yes I see it the same way. Still, I don't understand what the article wants to deduce or imply from that.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something neutral like "Situation Specialists"... Private Security Contractors.
nodata 13y ago
I find it very interesting that there is only one photo of Snowden, and that nobody has seen him.
- panacea 13y ago
  That photo is a still from a video interview he had with The Guardian.
  - nodata 13y ago
    But always _that_ photo. Never a different photo. Seems odd to me.
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      It's simply become memetic. Why bother combing through the video for a different still when you can use the same one everyone else is?
      - heyitsnick 13y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being ironic because you answer your own question. A newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors. It takes little effort to "comb through the video" to grab another screenshot. I also find it odd that everyone is using the same still.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        A newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors. Except in this case the Snowden image is not "content". It is an icon: visual shorthand that catches the eye and identifies the topic. In a story about a corporation, they would use that corporation's standard logo rather than a unique picture of the generic corporate campus. All of the pictures of Snowden's girlfriend in various poses and states of undress? Now that's content.
      - ibisum 13y ago
mtgx 13y ago
It was the right "strategy". If they would've released everything in one day, we'd probably already be on to the next thing by now, and the whole scandal would've lasted a week. They've done you a favor doing it like this.
- quackerhacker 13y ago
  I agree mtgx. Snowden has stated before that he's wanted to keep the focus on PRISM and not himself, although I'm sure the media has a hand in focusing on him, and not on what he has risked his life and livelihood to reveal.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Is it the responsibility of a newspaper to create a long-running scandal, or to report on the news/truth? I'm confused by people that say the motives of someone like Snowden or an institution like The Guardian are irrelevant yet then laud The Guardian for having a clear motive.
JunkDNA 13y ago
I have to admit I've been increasingly concerned that something about this is not adding up as well. I can't precisely put my finger on it. The link to wikileaks gives me pause and the more recent stuff about foreign spying which, while politically incorrect, is kind of the NSA's primary sigint job. The most recent PRISM slide release also seems to suggest a narrower and more targeted US role than was let on initially.
- mr_spothawk 13y ago
  I speculate that the reason his Ecuador papers were revoked has more to do with Ecuador's dirty laundry than Snowden's. It's my view that this is the largest existential threat to the US Security Apparatus (e.g. Booz, et al. ) that has ever existed. Under that level, I could imagine they are pulling out all their stops.
grey-area 13y ago
The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I'd certainly like to know more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Frankly, I don't think any of these questions matter, and the speculation without evidence is not useful. We should be discussing the leaks, not Snowden's motivation in leaking, his background, his girlfriend, how much he understands of what he leaked etc. The motivation of a source in journalism is not really important, what is important is discovering the truth about what is happening in the world and our true relations with our government. What's more, Snowden apparently thought the entire set of slides should be revealed to the world. I'd like to know what changed his mind. Snowden gave the documents to journalists so that they could fact-check, start asking questions, and release what they thought was appropriate. According to Greenwald he specifically mentioned that he didn't want to dump all this data, and I can see good reasons why he wouldn't want to - there are probably things in the documents that would be very damaging (and not just to reputations) if released, some documents have been redacted before release, and they require explanation and context - none of that comes with a simple dump of the documents. There are also sound tactical reasons for allowing the administration to tangle itself in its own lies, and to prevent the story simply being buried so I completely understand why they do this. Of course the newspapers and journalists involved have their own opinions, but trying to reduce those opinions to left wing or libertarian or whatever other labels you care to apply does nothing to elucidate how they have affected the presentation of the information. On the contrary, it just allows people to dismiss the information without bothering to address its implications. Greenwald for example has been labelled extreme left-wing, libertarian, extreme right-wing and everything in between, but I think he's really interested in privacy and surveillance, not joining the left-wing or right-wing club and hating the other side. The Guardian has not pursued an agenda here that I can discern aside from trying to sell more newspapers or get more hits - they've printed stories from all over the political spectrum, and they are not the only newspaper releasing stories - the most important recent leak of 4 slides was from the Washington Post, which is also in possession of this material, papers in Hong Kong and Germany have also been given some information. Snowden was also interviewed in Hong Kong by veteran diplomatic reporter Ewan MacAskill[1] who seemed impressed with his credentials and honesty so he's not completely opaque. I'd recommend any who haven't to watch this interview with the Guardian editors explaining the process in a bit more detail[2]. I find the disturbing allegations of unregulated, widespread, and deep surveillance used for economic and political ends far more important than Snowden's role in all of this, and I think he'd agree with that. While it's tempting to get obsessed with Snowden, his character, his job, why he leaked etc, and create grand conspiracy theories surrounding it, it's more healthy to discuss the facts we do know and their implications for how we use the internet. More information will come to light in time, and the information we do know raises serious questions about just how far state surveillance should be allowed to go. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz...
DanBC 13y ago
> What was Edward Snowden's job when he worked for Booz Hamilton as a contractor to the NSA? We don't know. That's the nature of jobs with security clearances doing work for Secret Government Spy Agencies. > The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I'd certainly like to know more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Did he actively search out vulnerabilities in other networks that NSA could exploit? Did he do this only at Booz Hamilton, or did he have basically the same job previously when he worked directly for the NSA? Exactly how much does he know about the NSA programs he's been revealing to the world? There are two issues here. 1) How can we organize effective oversight of secret spy agencies? 2) How can we trust whistleblowers? How knowledgeable are those whistleblowers? For 1) we have to create strong law. We then give a small independant group oversight powers. We then have to trust the spies, and the people overseeing them, to obey the law. We have to be careful about crafting the laws, because these people want to push the boundaries of what they can do. For 2) I guess we just have to accept that people tend not to whistleblow unless they feel strongly about something. He's been called a traitor for revealing this much. Imagine what happens if he reveals even more. > Or, at the very least, I'd like to know why I can't know. There are several guesses we can make here. i: The slides reveal information that put people's lives at risk. ii: The slides reveal information that give too much information to the enemy; or cut off information to the US. iii: The slides are not particularly relevant to the prism story. iv: The slides contradict the prism story, and giving the whole context ruins the story, and the journalists are sensationalising scumbags. v:etc.
HarrietJones 13y ago
The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand that governments may have shadowy departments doing illegal things we don't know about, but the whole scope of Prism seems to be too wide. When people talk about it, they describe computer systems I couldn't even begin to imagine, let alone design. Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible. Add to this the emphasis by all parties on Snowden and his shenanigans, and I'm just left confused.
- Amadou 13y ago
  > Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible. That's because it is not possible. The $20M/year number is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg for one little program that seems to be more like the GUI on top of the data from all the other programs. The NSA alone has a budget on the order of $10B/year - the entire (american) "intelligence-industrial complex" is estimated to be around $50B/year.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. PRISM is nowhere near 'spying on all traffic', which is how NSA was able to do it for $20M a year.
brown9-2 13y ago
I do find it baffling that Greenwald hasn't written an article detailing his relationship with Snowden, the timeline of when they began communicating and when Snowden started at BAH, if they are in contact still, etc., at least to dispel any questions people would raise about it. I suspect Greenwald would say he hasn't done this because he thinks that Snowden isn't important to "the story", yet he still happily tweets snarky things about Snowden and what other journalists write/think: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464
joshdance 13y ago
Snowden is the red herring. It is more interesting for news cycles to talk about a person. What he does, what he likes. It is hard to talk about "the government". There is no one person to interview, we can't find out what food "the government" likes etc. We should be focusing on the leaks and the systems that allowed the surveillance to happen.
informatic001 13y ago
What other stuff also didn't add up is this: Let’s see. NSA is the most awesome spying agency ever devised in this world. If you cross the street in Podunk, Anywhere, USA, to buy an ice cream soda, on a Tuesday afternoon in July, they know. They know if you sit at the counter and drink that soda or take it and move to the only table in the store. They know if you lick the foam from the top of the glass with your tongue or pick the foam with your straw and then lick it. They know if you keep the receipt for the soda or leave it on the counter. They know whether you’re wearing shoes or sneakers. They know the brand of your underwear. They know your shaving cream, and precisely which container it came out of. But this agency, with all its vast power and its dollars… Can’t track one of its own, a man who came to work every day, a man who made up a story about needing treatment in Hong Kong for epilepsy and then skipped the country. Just can’t find him. Ed Snowden, NSA, and fairy tales a child could see through... https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/ed-snowden-nsa-and-fairy-tales-a-child-could-see-through/ https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/ed-snowden-nsa...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

115 points by Libertatea 13y ago

This whole affair gives me an odd vibe. For reasons I can't figure out, I feel like everyone is holding back information. Obviously the government is, but it sure seems as if the journalists reporting this story have also declined to tell us everything they know. Maybe there's good reason for this. But I wish I knew what it was. Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to themselves.

eightyone 13y ago
You obviously aren't familiar with Glenn Greenwald. He's been extremely critical of the Obama administration on a variety of issues. What your claiming makes zero sense. There is a reason why Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald.
- jgrahamc 13y ago
  That's true. Could you elaborate? PS I think you are reading something I didn't write. I'm claiming that it makes sense for The Guardian/Greenwald to hold back because they can drip feed information that creates a long running 'scandal'. That has two effects: it keeps The Guardian itself in the news and it prolongs the story. Perhaps you think that I am equating Obama as a "Democrat" and The Guardian's notion of "Left Wing" as the same thing. I am not. For example, The Daily Telegraph did a similar thing with revelations about MP's expenses in the UK. They had all the information but over a period of days let out different bits of information. This is the sort of thing newspapers will do, and, for The Guardian, Snowden's leaks are a massive story. They'll milk it as much as they can.
  - TheAnimus 13y ago
    The problem for me isn't the left or right wing nature of the Guardian, just that they, like many papers, don't have a good history when it comes to accuracy and morality. In the UK there was a scandal when a low end tabloid 'hacked' in to the voice mail of a raped + murdered school girl. They were looking for some story no doubt hoping to hear that she had gone to meet someone. This was a scandal that ultimately would lead to the closing of the tabloid. It was a shame though, because the Guardian made a claim too many, they asserted that the tabloid journos deleted voice mail messages, as the mailbox was full, and they wanted to hear more gossip. According to them at the time this lead to the family being given false hope about their daughter been alive. Now, when you consider the questionable value that this untruth added to the story (it is frankly immoral and shocking enough that the tabloid hacked the phone) and ask how was it acquired? Why was no standards of integrity followed, but mostly, why did they not think of the effect it would have on the friends and family of the murdered school girl. I mean come on, is it helping things to print such speculation? Anyway, the retraction: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/correction... This is the most shocking example I can think of, and why I always take that news outlet with a grain of salt, expecting them to be full of hypocrisy (See auto trader sale and tax campaigning).
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Well the courts could not "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the NI employees deleted the VM - they got off that one on a technicality and the fact that the police did not investigate at the time. The vast majority of the UK public believe this to be the case.
    - andyjohnson0 13y ago
      I consider that the Guardian performed a great public service in relation to the phone hacking investigation. Without it, the illegal activity at NI and associated corruption in the police and prison service would not have been revealed. Multiple people are in prison right now because of this. The prime minister's former press secretary and the former ceo of nI in the UK are about to stand trial. This is a big deal and good journalism. The Guardian retracted the claim about NI deleting the messages because it could not be proved, not because it was shown to be false. The police's opinion as given in the Leveson Inquiry report was that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2]. The Guardian team originally believed, based on police sources, that messages had been deleted. When it couldn't be proved they retracted the claim. How is this not "moral"? Did it really shock you so much? [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deletion-messages http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deleti... [2] http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/...
- walshemj 13y ago
  That's what I thought why not talk to a more experienced Journalist such as Duncan Campbell that covers the security area. Does sound like Snowden was shopping for a journalist who "wanted to believe" to borrow a line.
  - jgrahamc 13y ago
    To be fair to Snowden, he may not have been aware of Duncan Campbell who is well known in the UK and Greenwald being a US citizen who is very critical of the US administration probably looked like a good choice.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      If Snowden was a "patriot" who wanted to expose wrong doing surly a more experianced neutral journalist would be better. Greenwald has only worked as a Journalist for a couple of years.
      - eightyone 13y ago
        Greenwald has written for years about abusive government by both the Republicans and Democrats. He was the best person to pick, in my opinion. Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents. So perhaps Snowden did contact other journalists and they weren't interested or just strung him along.
        mpyne 13y ago
        > Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents I think 72 hours is hardly a reasonable deadline demand for fact-checking from a reputable publication.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        Is the 72 hours counted from when Snowden submitted material, or from when The Guardian published? Anyway, it's fairly common for WP to publish articles describing events of the last several hours. Presumably a shorter fact-checking interim is required in such cases.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
I didn't downvote you but I'm not sure how the "editorial slant" of the Guardian is significant. Would you be happier if the revelations had come from a right-wing newspaper with a libertarian opposition to government surveillance? Or a 100% non-slanted media outlet? What difference would this make? And since you used the word, what do you think the Guardian's "agenda" is?
DanBC 13y ago
I didn't downvote you. > Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to themselves. You say that this paragraph means "The Grauniad has some juicy information. They drip this out, because that keeps people buying their paper. It keeps the story alive." I agree with that. But reading the paragraph quoted it starts "the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes." - which makes it sound like the paper is drip-feeding the information to push a left-wing agenda, not to increase sales.
davidw 13y ago
Speaking of slants and agendas, motherjones.com has all the subtlety of mises.org in theirs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can pretty much guess either one's opinion on any given topic without having to bother reading the actual article. I'd prefer to see neither one here, but I suppose that ship has sailed - and the site holed below the waterline with all the politics and 'outrage stories' we're seeing lately.
venomsnake 13y ago
The joys of information asymmetry. I have a feeling that Glenn is playing a long game here. Also with Snowden in Limbo I suppose he just sits and waits for a good timing.

Zirro 13y ago

"Profiles describe him as secretive, fascinated with computers, and with knowledge of things like Tor (a peer-to-peer network for maintaining anonymity for computer communications)." Doesn't that describe most of us on HN? ;-)

hnha 13y ago
and that's a great example why data retention is bad.

swombat 13y ago

Money quotes: an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world. Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the computers’ hard drives or shut down the phone system. So basically he was a professional hacker. That takes a fair bit of intelligence, knowledge and experience, and is a fair bit beyond the job of a sysadmin, which is what everyone was assuming based on the title. I guess it made sense. Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something neutral like "Situation Specialists"...

walshemj 13y ago
No if you where a TLA why would you use job titles that gave anything away about what the persons job was. And how does one go from "Infrastructure Analyst" to being a government hacker looking at job postings for Infrastructure Analysts seems to indicate that it is a posh word for systems administrator.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  No one hires hackers using normal job postings and titles. They show up at DefCon and Black Hat Briefings and then schmooze in t-shirts and blue jeans. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM
greyman 13y ago
Yes I see it the same way. Still, I don't understand what the article wants to deduce or imply from that.
tripzilch 13y ago
> Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something neutral like "Situation Specialists"... Private Security Contractors.

nodata 13y ago

I find it very interesting that there is only one photo of Snowden, and that nobody has seen him.

panacea 13y ago
That photo is a still from a video interview he had with The Guardian.
- nodata 13y ago
  But always _that_ photo. Never a different photo. Seems odd to me.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    It's simply become memetic. Why bother combing through the video for a different still when you can use the same one everyone else is?
    - heyitsnick 13y ago
      I'm not sure if you're being ironic because you answer your own question. A newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors. It takes little effort to "comb through the video" to grab another screenshot. I also find it odd that everyone is using the same still.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        A newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors. Except in this case the Snowden image is not "content". It is an icon: visual shorthand that catches the eye and identifies the topic. In a story about a corporation, they would use that corporation's standard logo rather than a unique picture of the generic corporate campus. All of the pictures of Snowden's girlfriend in various poses and states of undress? Now that's content.
    - ibisum 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

It was the right "strategy". If they would've released everything in one day, we'd probably already be on to the next thing by now, and the whole scandal would've lasted a week. They've done you a favor doing it like this.

quackerhacker 13y ago
I agree mtgx. Snowden has stated before that he's wanted to keep the focus on PRISM and not himself, although I'm sure the media has a hand in focusing on him, and not on what he has risked his life and livelihood to reveal.
brown9-2 13y ago
Is it the responsibility of a newspaper to create a long-running scandal, or to report on the news/truth? I'm confused by people that say the motives of someone like Snowden or an institution like The Guardian are irrelevant yet then laud The Guardian for having a clear motive.

JunkDNA 13y ago

I have to admit I've been increasingly concerned that something about this is not adding up as well. I can't precisely put my finger on it. The link to wikileaks gives me pause and the more recent stuff about foreign spying which, while politically incorrect, is kind of the NSA's primary sigint job. The most recent PRISM slide release also seems to suggest a narrower and more targeted US role than was let on initially.

mr_spothawk 13y ago
I speculate that the reason his Ecuador papers were revoked has more to do with Ecuador's dirty laundry than Snowden's. It's my view that this is the largest existential threat to the US Security Apparatus (e.g. Booz, et al. ) that has ever existed. Under that level, I could imagine they are pulling out all their stops.

grey-area 13y ago

The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I'd certainly like to know more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Frankly, I don't think any of these questions matter, and the speculation without evidence is not useful. We should be discussing the leaks, not Snowden's motivation in leaking, his background, his girlfriend, how much he understands of what he leaked etc. The motivation of a source in journalism is not really important, what is important is discovering the truth about what is happening in the world and our true relations with our government. What's more, Snowden apparently thought the entire set of slides should be revealed to the world. I'd like to know what changed his mind. Snowden gave the documents to journalists so that they could fact-check, start asking questions, and release what they thought was appropriate. According to Greenwald he specifically mentioned that he didn't want to dump all this data, and I can see good reasons why he wouldn't want to - there are probably things in the documents that would be very damaging (and not just to reputations) if released, some documents have been redacted before release, and they require explanation and context - none of that comes with a simple dump of the documents. There are also sound tactical reasons for allowing the administration to tangle itself in its own lies, and to prevent the story simply being buried so I completely understand why they do this. Of course the newspapers and journalists involved have their own opinions, but trying to reduce those opinions to left wing or libertarian or whatever other labels you care to apply does nothing to elucidate how they have affected the presentation of the information. On the contrary, it just allows people to dismiss the information without bothering to address its implications. Greenwald for example has been labelled extreme left-wing, libertarian, extreme right-wing and everything in between, but I think he's really interested in privacy and surveillance, not joining the left-wing or right-wing club and hating the other side. The Guardian has not pursued an agenda here that I can discern aside from trying to sell more newspapers or get more hits - they've printed stories from all over the political spectrum, and they are not the only newspaper releasing stories - the most important recent leak of 4 slides was from the Washington Post, which is also in possession of this material, papers in Hong Kong and Germany have also been given some information. Snowden was also interviewed in Hong Kong by veteran diplomatic reporter Ewan MacAskill[1] who seemed impressed with his credentials and honesty so he's not completely opaque. I'd recommend any who haven't to watch this interview with the Guardian editors explaining the process in a bit more detail[2]. I find the disturbing allegations of unregulated, widespread, and deep surveillance used for economic and political ends far more important than Snowden's role in all of this, and I think he'd agree with that. While it's tempting to get obsessed with Snowden, his character, his job, why he leaked etc, and create grand conspiracy theories surrounding it, it's more healthy to discuss the facts we do know and their implications for how we use the internet. More information will come to light in time, and the information we do know raises serious questions about just how far state surveillance should be allowed to go. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz...

DanBC 13y ago

> What was Edward Snowden's job when he worked for Booz Hamilton as a contractor to the NSA? We don't know. That's the nature of jobs with security clearances doing work for Secret Government Spy Agencies. > The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I'd certainly like to know more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Did he actively search out vulnerabilities in other networks that NSA could exploit? Did he do this only at Booz Hamilton, or did he have basically the same job previously when he worked directly for the NSA? Exactly how much does he know about the NSA programs he's been revealing to the world? There are two issues here. 1) How can we organize effective oversight of secret spy agencies? 2) How can we trust whistleblowers? How knowledgeable are those whistleblowers? For 1) we have to create strong law. We then give a small independant group oversight powers. We then have to trust the spies, and the people overseeing them, to obey the law. We have to be careful about crafting the laws, because these people want to push the boundaries of what they can do. For 2) I guess we just have to accept that people tend not to whistleblow unless they feel strongly about something. He's been called a traitor for revealing this much. Imagine what happens if he reveals even more. > Or, at the very least, I'd like to know why I can't know. There are several guesses we can make here. i: The slides reveal information that put people's lives at risk. ii: The slides reveal information that give too much information to the enemy; or cut off information to the US. iii: The slides are not particularly relevant to the prism story. iv: The slides contradict the prism story, and giving the whole context ruins the story, and the journalists are sensationalising scumbags. v:etc.

HarrietJones 13y ago

The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand that governments may have shadowy departments doing illegal things we don't know about, but the whole scope of Prism seems to be too wide. When people talk about it, they describe computer systems I couldn't even begin to imagine, let alone design. Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible. Add to this the emphasis by all parties on Snowden and his shenanigans, and I'm just left confused.

Amadou 13y ago
> Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible. That's because it is not possible. The $20M/year number is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg for one little program that seems to be more like the GUI on top of the data from all the other programs. The NSA alone has a budget on the order of $10B/year - the entire (american) "intelligence-industrial complex" is estimated to be around $50B/year.
mpyne 13y ago
> Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. PRISM is nowhere near 'spying on all traffic', which is how NSA was able to do it for $20M a year.

brown9-2 13y ago

I do find it baffling that Greenwald hasn't written an article detailing his relationship with Snowden, the timeline of when they began communicating and when Snowden started at BAH, if they are in contact still, etc., at least to dispel any questions people would raise about it. I suspect Greenwald would say he hasn't done this because he thinks that Snowden isn't important to "the story", yet he still happily tweets snarky things about Snowden and what other journalists write/think: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464

joshdance 13y ago

Snowden is the red herring. It is more interesting for news cycles to talk about a person. What he does, what he likes. It is hard to talk about "the government". There is no one person to interview, we can't find out what food "the government" likes etc. We should be focusing on the leaks and the systems that allowed the surveillance to happen.

informatic001 13y ago

What other stuff also didn't add up is this: Let’s see. NSA is the most awesome spying agency ever devised in this world. If you cross the street in Podunk, Anywhere, USA, to buy an ice cream soda, on a Tuesday afternoon in July, they know. They know if you sit at the counter and drink that soda or take it and move to the only table in the store. They know if you lick the foam from the top of the glass with your tongue or pick the foam with your straw and then lick it. They know if you keep the receipt for the soda or leave it on the counter. They know whether you’re wearing shoes or sneakers. They know the brand of your underwear. They know your shaving cream, and precisely which container it came out of. But this agency, with all its vast power and its dollars… Can’t track one of its own, a man who came to work every day, a man who made up a story about needing treatment in Hong Kong for epilepsy and then skipped the country. Just can’t find him. Ed Snowden, NSA, and fairy tales a child could see through... https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/ed-snowden-nsa-and-fairy-tales-a-child-could-see-through/ https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/ed-snowden-nsa...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]