4 ms·

My thoughts exactly, they are setting him up for CFAA charges either to pile up on him or so they can drop espionage taking away the reasons for Russia's asylum

My thoughts exactly, they are setting him up for CFAA charges either to pile up on him or so they can drop espionage taking away the reasons for Russia's asylum.

samstave 13y ago
I edited my post to add some stuff.... But, yes - it is pretty clear that they have the MSM on their freaking sqwak-box right now against Snowden. Funny how it was also revealed that they (the UK) were lying about being "leaked" info from Snowden to the "Independent" -- where Snowden came out and said he never communicated to them anything, and the "leak" was a lie and information that Snowden was specifically avoiding getting out because it was too pointed at actual personnel... This info needs to KEEP COMING -- as we need to get to a tipping point where change is a reality.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  The "budget PDF" referenced "media exploitation" and my first thought was manipulating the mainstream media into basically reporting what they wanted and if some of the taxpayer funds given to the NSA goes into the pockets of various reporters and journalists. Maybe the "media exploitation" is what you mentioned in your original post; in effect, "NSA officials", "sources inside the NSA", etc. all "anonymously" making off-the-record comments to journalists.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Yes. One way to look at it is this: If the biggest story in the history of the NSA is that some college drop-out "genius" was able to exfiltrate 20,000 docs from the NSA - and the biggest key argument they have against the guy, to prove that he were some "hacker" who was impersonating people to gain access to said files -- how is it that "NBC" is revealing this with "sources say" "an official" etc... Don't you think that the most critical point to the credibility of the NSA is to come out and state via an official means - that they have electronic logs of this activity? Digital forensics are binary: Either you have a digital trace of actions taken, or you do not. Period. Either they can determine 100% that Snowden logged into station X as person Y to grab file Z -- or they do not. THe language used in this article is textbook MISO/Psyop PR. "Oh, an official source with knowledge of the incident has said.." -- cool, I guess they have it figured out then, huh! I shouldn't dare question that. But if I do: "We can't comment" "we cannot reveal the details of an ongoing investigation" etc... Utter crap.

My thoughts exactly, they are setting him up for CFAA charges either to pile up on him or so they can drop espionage taking away the reasons for Russia's asylum.

samstave 13y ago

I edited my post to add some stuff.... But, yes - it is pretty clear that they have the MSM on their freaking sqwak-box right now against Snowden. Funny how it was also revealed that they (the UK) were lying about being "leaked" info from Snowden to the "Independent" -- where Snowden came out and said he never communicated to them anything, and the "leak" was a lie and information that Snowden was specifically avoiding getting out because it was too pointed at actual personnel... This info needs to KEEP COMING -- as we need to get to a tipping point where change is a reality.

jlgaddis 13y ago
The "budget PDF" referenced "media exploitation" and my first thought was manipulating the mainstream media into basically reporting what they wanted and if some of the taxpayer funds given to the NSA goes into the pockets of various reporters and journalists. Maybe the "media exploitation" is what you mentioned in your original post; in effect, "NSA officials", "sources inside the NSA", etc. all "anonymously" making off-the-record comments to journalists.
- samstave 13y ago
  Yes. One way to look at it is this: If the biggest story in the history of the NSA is that some college drop-out "genius" was able to exfiltrate 20,000 docs from the NSA - and the biggest key argument they have against the guy, to prove that he were some "hacker" who was impersonating people to gain access to said files -- how is it that "NBC" is revealing this with "sources say" "an official" etc... Don't you think that the most critical point to the credibility of the NSA is to come out and state via an official means - that they have electronic logs of this activity? Digital forensics are binary: Either you have a digital trace of actions taken, or you do not. Period. Either they can determine 100% that Snowden logged into station X as person Y to grab file Z -- or they do not. THe language used in this article is textbook MISO/Psyop PR. "Oh, an official source with knowledge of the incident has said.." -- cool, I guess they have it figured out then, huh! I shouldn't dare question that. But if I do: "We can't comment" "we cannot reveal the details of an ongoing investigation" etc... Utter crap.