11 ms·

Of course, we will not be informed, as it is Secret, with a big S. But, after Snowden, we are somewhat better informed than we were. And this is good. We should

Of course, we will not be informed, as it is Secret, with a big S. But, after Snowden, we are somewhat better informed than we were. And this is good. We should be even better informed and this should be about how we want to structure our society in the future. But that doesn't fit the current political climate and possibly will not, for quite a while.

irishcoffee 12y ago
N, that is my whole point. People are very much misinformed. Horribly misinformed. Ill try and dig up the link(s) but snowden had a history of grandstanding that dates back to highschool. He was not a noble whistleblower, he wanted attention. edit: typo
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Time for one of your friends to step forward and correct the record then. You know, for the 'greater good'.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Fantastic, but that amounts to an ad-hominem attack on Snowden that doesn't reduce, in the least, the impact and validity of the data he released. We could do with more "attention seekers" willing to blow the whistle on illegal activity.
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    An unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack. As long as he promises "Ill try and dig up the link(s) but" and never gets around to it, he can accuse Snowden of anything he wants to make up that fits his narrative. If he had any proof that countered the message he's trying to divert attention away from, he'd provide links to that, instead of just promising and failing to provide links that supported his unsubstantiated attack on the messenger. It's ironic how irishcoffee wants to divert attention away from the facts and instead towards Snowden himself, much more than Snowden himself wants the attention. It's a textbook example of "narcissism by proxy". Snowden isn't a narcissist just because irishcoffee wants him to be the center of attention. Ill try and dig up the link(s) but I'm not full of shit so here it is: http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130609-edward-snowden-an-nsa-contractor-employee-says-he-is-the-source-of-nsa-leaks http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130609-edward-sn... Snowden also told the Guardian that he does not want his personal story to divert attention from the larger story revealed by his disclosures. “I know the media likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me.” “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
    - irishcoffee 12y ago
      I'm a single dad working full time. Time is hard to come by, I'll post the damn link when I have time to find it.
      - DonHopkins 12y ago
        You said people were misinformed, then you changed the topic to Snowden's personality and high school record. Just what misinformation are you referring to, and can you provide some non-anecdotal evidence to correct the misinformation? Are you saying that it's Snowden's personality and high school record that people are misinformed about, or the NSA? Who was misinformed and who was spreading misinformation when Clapper directly lied under oath when he was testifying in front of congress? How about focusing attention on the content of the leaks, and the misinformation the NSA itself is spreading, instead of Snowden's personality? I'm more interested to know how your DoD friends think about what was leaked, and what Clapper lied about, than who leaked it.
        irishcoffee 12y ago
        I said "dates back to high school." The 'dates back to' phrase, in general English, is a phrase that serves to establish the start of a time-lined pattern of behavior. I don't think you're doing it intentionally, and I may have poorly phrased my quick response, but I feel like you took my response quite a bit out of context. Everyone was trying to figure themselves out back in high school. I'm not judging that at all. I can't speak to Clapper, only he can. I don't think its a far stretch of the imagination to say that there are far, far bigger things at play than his testimony. Have you ever visited the NSA museum? It's open to the public. The US actually intercepted the message the night before the Pearl Harbor attack happened, but didn't have the resources to decode it in time. (https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/museum/virtual_tour/museum_tour_text.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/museum/virtua... ctrl+f 'harbor' should be the 3rd/last result). The point being, perhaps there are bigger things at play. I can't speak for my 'DoD friends' as you ask, mostly because they don't talk about the specifics of their work. I asked a buddy once if they monitor US citizens. He said something to the effect of: "we don't need to monitor people, they monitor themselves via facebook, twitter, and instagram. How hard do you think it is to find publicly available information?" After I was 'enlightened' to that, it made sense. People literally put what they cooked for dinner on the internet. Finding out information about someone is not hard, because the information is volunteered. No laws are broken, no rights are violated. If you care about your privacy, get off social media. Also, as much as this may annoy you, NSA (as is my understanding) doesn't care about domestic information at all. That is the jurisdiction of the FBI. This is one of the things my friends find so amusing, people seem to not understand this. That being said, if a packet goes from DC to GA to CN to CA tp US, the foreign hop means: its not domestic traffic. As we have very recently seen, CN has very little issue mucking with traffic that crosses their direct sphere of influence. Perhaps its much harder to tell what kind of foreign traffic should be inspected, and maybe the initial location of origin was spoofed, and its not that easy to figure all this stuff out. Perhaps the smartest people employed by the DoD aren't any smarter than the people that frequent this site, and there are insanely large-scale peoples to be solved, and their fucking hard to solve? I don't think you're going to like anything I've just said, but just think about it. Do you really believe that the DoD cares about people that are not a direct threat to national security? Do you really think the DoD has the resources to actually monitor, in real time, the general US population? Perhaps, unless you get a satellite phone call from Pakistan, you're not even interesting enough to get your area code noticed? The government can hardly pass a damn budget. They're not that organized. How many people lie on their tax returns every year and get away with it? If the government can't effectively audit the almighty dollar, do you really think they're Big Brother? Edit: I can't edit my parent response, this is the best I can do. I am looking for a specific article that detailed Snowden from highschool up to his current life. I really will try my best to find this article, and will update as soon as I can find it. My 1 y/o daughter just went to bed, and I will quickly be following suit. I would honesly be willing to do some sort of silly HN-style AMA if people are interested. I'm not some internet troll. I went to Chesapeake High school, which is in the same athletic district as Arundel High school, Where Snowden went. I have no desire or reason to grandstand about anything.
- dubbel 12y ago
  He could generate a lot more attention for him as a person if he wanted. Instead he let the world largely focus on the material he could extract. Which is good, because this shouldn't be about him: If it was the media and government would try even harder to find irksome material about him as a person (Bullshit like "his girlfriend was a stripper, and this is why we should not trust the material"). Or do you actually think the material is forged?
  - LLWM 12y ago
    It is, by his own admission, heavily curated. Both in what he exfiltrated and what selections from that have actually been published.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Because if it had not been then the long knives would have been out for such irresponsible wholesale disclosure.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        What's the difference? He fled the country anyway.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      It is, but I don't see how any material that hasn't been disclosed yet could somehow offset the revelations offered by what has been.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        That's shockingly uncreative of you. You don't even need to come up with your own ideas if that's too hard for you, just watch some dumb 90s scifi.
- JackC 12y ago
  This kind of thing is a great example of why Snowden had to release a large trove of documents to reporters. Earlier whistleblowers were easily dismissed this way, but now the personal attacks are basically irrelevant -- we have the documents and can make our own judgments about who's horribly misinforming us.
- researcher88 12y ago
  And my friends would be amused by your friends. I know a few DoD-type guys who operate in these informal government contractor circles. I have seen some wild stuff involving private companies, NASA and intel agencies. Lot of these CIA things are being outsourced to contractors. Similar to the private intel network of Sid Blumenthal providing info to Hillary Clinton, from an easily hacked AOL email no less. The power and influence, along with whims of eccentric players, in these contractor groups is really getting out of hand. And we all want attention in some way, including you for posting your comments and me for mine. It could be both a noble thing Snowden did and something he wants some recognition for doing. Basing your analysis on whatever he did in high school is quite silly. Most everybody was looking for some attention then and likely going about it the wrong way.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  This kind of unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack only proves Snowden's point and bolsters his credibility. You're not a whistleblower either: you just want to DIVERT attention from the FACTS Snowden revealed that you can't refute. "I'll try and dig up the link(s) but ..." is in the same league with "I'm not racist but ..." and "some of my best friends are black".
milspec 12y ago
I could inform you about non-secret stuff like culture, but you wouldn't believe me. You want to believe that these are horrible small-minded people who don't think twice about violating your rights. The reality is they are anything but that.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  At a guess they are ordinary people thinking they are doing something good and working hard for the cause, be it a love for their country or genuine sense of protecting their own or some concept ('freedom'). On average they'll be very intelligent and working harder than their counterparts in industry for less money. True believers with good intentions.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    At a guess you believe they're not actually doing something good even though you are, on average, less informed about their mission and activities, less intelligent, and lazier.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > At a guess you believe they're not actually doing something good Correct, and the evidence available so far strengthens that belief. > even though you are, on average, less informed about their mission and activities, That's not my fault though, I'd love to be more informed, but hey, secrets! > less intelligent, Quite probably. > and lazier. That's very well possible but I actually highly doubt it. So, why the insults? Did you feel somehow implicated?
      - LLWM 12y ago
        It's not meant as an insult. I'm just riffing off of your own comment that >On average they'll be very intelligent and working harder than their counterparts in industry for less money.
    - Cyther606 12y ago

irishcoffee 12y ago

N, that is my whole point. People are very much misinformed. Horribly misinformed. Ill try and dig up the link(s) but snowden had a history of grandstanding that dates back to highschool. He was not a noble whistleblower, he wanted attention. edit: typo

jacquesm 12y ago
Time for one of your friends to step forward and correct the record then. You know, for the 'greater good'.
Karunamon 12y ago
Fantastic, but that amounts to an ad-hominem attack on Snowden that doesn't reduce, in the least, the impact and validity of the data he released. We could do with more "attention seekers" willing to blow the whistle on illegal activity.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  An unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack. As long as he promises "Ill try and dig up the link(s) but" and never gets around to it, he can accuse Snowden of anything he wants to make up that fits his narrative. If he had any proof that countered the message he's trying to divert attention away from, he'd provide links to that, instead of just promising and failing to provide links that supported his unsubstantiated attack on the messenger. It's ironic how irishcoffee wants to divert attention away from the facts and instead towards Snowden himself, much more than Snowden himself wants the attention. It's a textbook example of "narcissism by proxy". Snowden isn't a narcissist just because irishcoffee wants him to be the center of attention. Ill try and dig up the link(s) but I'm not full of shit so here it is: http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130609-edward-snowden-an-nsa-contractor-employee-says-he-is-the-source-of-nsa-leaks http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130609-edward-sn... Snowden also told the Guardian that he does not want his personal story to divert attention from the larger story revealed by his disclosures. “I know the media likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me.” “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
  - irishcoffee 12y ago
    I'm a single dad working full time. Time is hard to come by, I'll post the damn link when I have time to find it.
    - DonHopkins 12y ago
      You said people were misinformed, then you changed the topic to Snowden's personality and high school record. Just what misinformation are you referring to, and can you provide some non-anecdotal evidence to correct the misinformation? Are you saying that it's Snowden's personality and high school record that people are misinformed about, or the NSA? Who was misinformed and who was spreading misinformation when Clapper directly lied under oath when he was testifying in front of congress? How about focusing attention on the content of the leaks, and the misinformation the NSA itself is spreading, instead of Snowden's personality? I'm more interested to know how your DoD friends think about what was leaked, and what Clapper lied about, than who leaked it.
      - irishcoffee 12y ago
        I said "dates back to high school." The 'dates back to' phrase, in general English, is a phrase that serves to establish the start of a time-lined pattern of behavior. I don't think you're doing it intentionally, and I may have poorly phrased my quick response, but I feel like you took my response quite a bit out of context. Everyone was trying to figure themselves out back in high school. I'm not judging that at all. I can't speak to Clapper, only he can. I don't think its a far stretch of the imagination to say that there are far, far bigger things at play than his testimony. Have you ever visited the NSA museum? It's open to the public. The US actually intercepted the message the night before the Pearl Harbor attack happened, but didn't have the resources to decode it in time. (https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/museum/virtual_tour/museum_tour_text.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/museum/virtua... ctrl+f 'harbor' should be the 3rd/last result). The point being, perhaps there are bigger things at play. I can't speak for my 'DoD friends' as you ask, mostly because they don't talk about the specifics of their work. I asked a buddy once if they monitor US citizens. He said something to the effect of: "we don't need to monitor people, they monitor themselves via facebook, twitter, and instagram. How hard do you think it is to find publicly available information?" After I was 'enlightened' to that, it made sense. People literally put what they cooked for dinner on the internet. Finding out information about someone is not hard, because the information is volunteered. No laws are broken, no rights are violated. If you care about your privacy, get off social media. Also, as much as this may annoy you, NSA (as is my understanding) doesn't care about domestic information at all. That is the jurisdiction of the FBI. This is one of the things my friends find so amusing, people seem to not understand this. That being said, if a packet goes from DC to GA to CN to CA tp US, the foreign hop means: its not domestic traffic. As we have very recently seen, CN has very little issue mucking with traffic that crosses their direct sphere of influence. Perhaps its much harder to tell what kind of foreign traffic should be inspected, and maybe the initial location of origin was spoofed, and its not that easy to figure all this stuff out. Perhaps the smartest people employed by the DoD aren't any smarter than the people that frequent this site, and there are insanely large-scale peoples to be solved, and their fucking hard to solve? I don't think you're going to like anything I've just said, but just think about it. Do you really believe that the DoD cares about people that are not a direct threat to national security? Do you really think the DoD has the resources to actually monitor, in real time, the general US population? Perhaps, unless you get a satellite phone call from Pakistan, you're not even interesting enough to get your area code noticed? The government can hardly pass a damn budget. They're not that organized. How many people lie on their tax returns every year and get away with it? If the government can't effectively audit the almighty dollar, do you really think they're Big Brother? Edit: I can't edit my parent response, this is the best I can do. I am looking for a specific article that detailed Snowden from highschool up to his current life. I really will try my best to find this article, and will update as soon as I can find it. My 1 y/o daughter just went to bed, and I will quickly be following suit. I would honesly be willing to do some sort of silly HN-style AMA if people are interested. I'm not some internet troll. I went to Chesapeake High school, which is in the same athletic district as Arundel High school, Where Snowden went. I have no desire or reason to grandstand about anything.
dubbel 12y ago
He could generate a lot more attention for him as a person if he wanted. Instead he let the world largely focus on the material he could extract. Which is good, because this shouldn't be about him: If it was the media and government would try even harder to find irksome material about him as a person (Bullshit like "his girlfriend was a stripper, and this is why we should not trust the material"). Or do you actually think the material is forged?
- LLWM 12y ago
  It is, by his own admission, heavily curated. Both in what he exfiltrated and what selections from that have actually been published.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Because if it had not been then the long knives would have been out for such irresponsible wholesale disclosure.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      What's the difference? He fled the country anyway.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    It is, but I don't see how any material that hasn't been disclosed yet could somehow offset the revelations offered by what has been.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      That's shockingly uncreative of you. You don't even need to come up with your own ideas if that's too hard for you, just watch some dumb 90s scifi.
JackC 12y ago
This kind of thing is a great example of why Snowden had to release a large trove of documents to reporters. Earlier whistleblowers were easily dismissed this way, but now the personal attacks are basically irrelevant -- we have the documents and can make our own judgments about who's horribly misinforming us.
researcher88 12y ago
And my friends would be amused by your friends. I know a few DoD-type guys who operate in these informal government contractor circles. I have seen some wild stuff involving private companies, NASA and intel agencies. Lot of these CIA things are being outsourced to contractors. Similar to the private intel network of Sid Blumenthal providing info to Hillary Clinton, from an easily hacked AOL email no less. The power and influence, along with whims of eccentric players, in these contractor groups is really getting out of hand. And we all want attention in some way, including you for posting your comments and me for mine. It could be both a noble thing Snowden did and something he wants some recognition for doing. Basing your analysis on whatever he did in high school is quite silly. Most everybody was looking for some attention then and likely going about it the wrong way.
DonHopkins 12y ago
This kind of unsubstantiated ad-hominem attack only proves Snowden's point and bolsters his credibility. You're not a whistleblower either: you just want to DIVERT attention from the FACTS Snowden revealed that you can't refute. "I'll try and dig up the link(s) but ..." is in the same league with "I'm not racist but ..." and "some of my best friends are black".

milspec 12y ago

I could inform you about non-secret stuff like culture, but you wouldn't believe me. You want to believe that these are horrible small-minded people who don't think twice about violating your rights. The reality is they are anything but that.

jacquesm 12y ago
At a guess they are ordinary people thinking they are doing something good and working hard for the cause, be it a love for their country or genuine sense of protecting their own or some concept ('freedom'). On average they'll be very intelligent and working harder than their counterparts in industry for less money. True believers with good intentions.
- LLWM 12y ago
  At a guess you believe they're not actually doing something good even though you are, on average, less informed about their mission and activities, less intelligent, and lazier.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > At a guess you believe they're not actually doing something good Correct, and the evidence available so far strengthens that belief. > even though you are, on average, less informed about their mission and activities, That's not my fault though, I'd love to be more informed, but hey, secrets! > less intelligent, Quite probably. > and lazier. That's very well possible but I actually highly doubt it. So, why the insults? Did you feel somehow implicated?
    - LLWM 12y ago
      It's not meant as an insult. I'm just riffing off of your own comment that >On average they'll be very intelligent and working harder than their counterparts in industry for less money.
  - Cyther606 12y ago