7 ms·
Edward Snowden: 'The US government will say I aided our enemies' [video]
- pvnick 13y agoNice! This just made my day. I must have listened to part 1 dozens of times to try and extract every bit of information, and I admit I enjoy hearing his voice. Notice this is still from the June 6th interview; Snowden's proved to be so prescient, especially with regards to the response by the US government. Also, the planning on the Guardian's part is quite commendable.
- doe88 13y agoOf course you meant June
- pvnick 13y agoYou're right, thank you. Edited.
- lordCarbonFiber 13y agoJust a minor note, Snowden has been in no way prescient. Everyone that works with confidential information has to be briefed on export control and the associated consequences for security violations. I know he's pretty popular around here, but the fact of the matter is he would be facing most (if not all) of the charges just for leaving the country with top secret data even without adding any penalty for releasing some subset of said data to the public.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kyle_martin1 13y agoSo this interview was released today but it was recorded on the same day as the previous interview?
- mpyne 13y agoSo if someone predicts the actions of some other party, does that in itself make that other party's actions invalid? I'll try, then: "The US government will conduct a census in 2020". Or on a more humorous vein, the normal joke about the car driver who convinced the cop who pulled him over to call for backup, and later mentioned to the supervisor "I'll bet that asshole told you I was speeding, too".
- grey-area 13y agoSo if someone predicts the actions of some other party, does that in itself make that other party's actions invalid? Where was that claim made in this video?
- yebyen 13y agoUpvote, that's a funny joke. I hadn't heard it. As for your first sentence, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Should we disbelieve when the US government says Snowden aided the enemy, just because he predicted it? I had to really struggle to get that interpretation out of what you said.
- mpyne 13y ago> Should we disbelieve when the US government says Snowden aided the enemy, just because he predicted it? I had to really struggle to get that interpretation out of what you said. To be more clear (as I had very little time when I was writing the original), the title of the article implies that Snowden is prophesying; that he is predicting some future event based on something that he, and those of us waiting on his every word, alone are able to foresee. This is a fairly normal propaganda ploy to build up our heroes: We see that future! He saw it too! My hero, thank $DEITY he too can unmask the Man Behind the Curtain! Instead I'm saying that what he really predicted is of the same degree of difficulty as predicting the sun will rise tomorrow (especially given that he knew before the government what he would be leaking). Even Miss Cleo's antics are more impressive than that. Unfortunately I never did get to see the video in the time I had thanks to the 'third world' Internet that my branch of the government gets to work with, so it's possible Snowden himself was insightful and prescient. But the title wasn't, IMHO.
- grey-area 13y agoIt'll be interesting to see this Laura Poitras film when it comes out with a full set of interviews. According to this tweet by Greenwald [1] she has hundreds of hours of footage which she's no doubt in the process of editing. I hadn't seen this video before either by Poitras about Binney, done for the NYT, he gives a nice explanation of the way this sort of multi-domain surveillance is more intrusive than what came before. [2] [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/354275009826533377 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/354275009826533377 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-agencys-domestic-spying-program.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-secur...
- tptacek 13y agoThe US government will say that Snowden's actions harmed the US, and because the harm pertains to national security, America's enemies will be part of the discussion. What's missing from this point is intent. If the USG believed that Snowden had set out to aid America's enemies, he'd have been charged with treason.
- jacquesm 13y agoThere is a fair chance they're holding off on any charges that potentially carry the death penalty (which as far as I know still holds true for treason in the USA) as long as there is a chance of getting Snowden extradited. No country in Europe for instance would extradite if a death penalty worthy charge was made beforehand.
- tptacek 13y agoThey've charged him with offenses sufficient to incarcerate him for life. If their plan was a bait and switch, they'd have charged him with a parking violation. This thought also ignores the fact that the USG does not in fact wield the charge of treason casually. John Walker Lindh, for instance, wasn't charged with treason, despite being charged with deliberately planning and conspiring to murder American troops.
- jacquesm 13y agoTrue, there have been calls from very senior USG officials to do just that though. Still the chance of that happening near 0 (but not exactly 0) especially given the frequency with which that particular charge is mode.
- tptacek 13y agoWhat senior USG official called for Snowden to be charged with treason? Remember, in our system of government, individual congresscritters aren't officials; they have extremely limited authority to do anything but contribute to the lawmaking process. Remember, many of the noisest and most obnoxious people in Congress were elected by mere thousands of voters from American backwaters.
- WestCoastJustin 13y agoAround 3:50 mark -- Snowden talks about NSA PRISM access and US tech giants. This might have been the underpinning of the "direct access" quotes made by The Guardian and The Washington Post in the past. Also, Glenn Greenwald is a great story teller. He releases documents, lets the public digest and understand them, and then he releases a second video, which builds on our existing understanding.
- Sven7 13y agoI think there are good odds we will see privacy related whistleblowing happening at US tech giants in the coming years.
- Asparagirl 13y ago"From your mouth to God's ears" as my grandmother would say.
- pvnick 13y agoNo, the underpinning is the slide [1] which explicitly states "collection directly from the servers" [1]: http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/r/story/70/00/016565/new-prism-slide-001-460x345.jpg?hash=AGqvBTR4Lw&upscale=1 http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/r/story/70/00/016565/new-prism...
- spoiledtechie 13y agoWhat I believe is truly interesting is the plain fact that: We have heard many companies, politicians and even directors of three letter orgs specifically say things that contrast this video. Direct back end access to corporations data without their knowledge. I love the fact that we are hearing these things in parts. Because after the first video we heard plenty of things from those mentioned above, but then Snowden comes out in part 2 and says those things they have said in the past month, that are directly contradicting and therefore lying.
- kurd_debuggr 13y agoPart 2 people, the Guardian should get a Golden Globe for this highly organized (and entertaining) delivery of the news.
- trendoid 13y agoso this undermines the statement made by Larry or has he been kept in the dark ? "First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."
- gdonelli 13y agoAny idea why they delayed the release of this second video?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- scrrr 13y agoI think it's just good journalism. The story needs to stay popular for as long as possible. They are storing and reading all our private communication, for crying out loud.
- jayfuerstenberg 13y agoI love that this video was recorded in advance of the US government actually saying all the thing he predicted. It deflates the whole argument that Snowden "aided the enemy" in a way that would not work if he responded to the accusation after the fact.