4 ms·
Your statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those cla
by pvnick 13y ago
Your statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those claims. Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks, and your comment comes off as very head-stuck-in-the-sand-y.
- Kylekramer 13y agoWe have primary documents supporting a very small subset of what he says. Most of the claims, including the more extraordinary ones such as he can wiretap anyone in the world including Barack Obama's personal email from his desk, remain undocumented.
- mwerd 13y agoSnowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
- twoodfin 13y agoYou're missing the point: Nobody's denying that with the right internal authorization, the NSA can tap any phone line they like. What's up for debate (since Snowden has provided no evidence) is the claim that Snowden could do it all by his lonesome, with no oversight or approval.
- mwerd 13y agoWhile I disagree with your point as well, I don't think it's at all the point to which I was responding. The question was about the credibility of his claims. I have not heard any other NSA whistleblower doubting his claims, and in fact they all seem to corroborate them. Snowden directly addresses your point in his live chat: "More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...
- anigbrowl 13y agoGreenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks You seem like the sort of fellow who ought to own a bridge.
- Natsu 13y agoIf you wish to dispute the GP comment, it would be more productive to pick a specific item you believe to be inaccurate and give your reasons for believing it to be inaccurate.
- declan 13y agoI'm not aware of any false statements that Snowden made, or any doctoring of the NSA documents he provided. (Senators and other officials have confirmed the legitimacy of at least some, as has a federal indictment.) But journalists can and do make mistakes interpreting the documents. Here's one example of a report trying to set the record straight: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...