Edward Snowden Q&A: NSA whistleblower answers your questions

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If I'd been going after Rifleman or Artilleryman type MOS's, I might agree with you...but I've always had a natural interest in pursuing knowledge either hard to get or hard to make sense of on first glance. So, when they saw my GQ score and said I could be anything but a Pilot? I took them at their word and chose the most extreme for my interests. I'm personally going to assume the recruiter was correct in what he told me, given a T.S. would have been a part of my process before completing AIT, if not before even getting that far.

Like the OP points out...Honesty would seem to be the best policy when you're applying to work among those whose entire job and mission in life is to know more than any average person does about whatever they care to know about. .......besides, a T.S. clearance, I was assured and have since confirmed, would have meant talking to my friends, neighbors, grade school teachers and every cop who ever so much as considered me for a 'disturbing the peace' call.

Kinda hard to expect to hide things with that, eh?

reply to post by HumanPLC

Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

I like this!

A lot!

I like that he says more detail is coming

1) 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.

Q) You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private...

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?


A) No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.


Q)Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)


A) I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.


Q)Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?

A) Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.


Q)Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means and Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

A) 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.

NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

source

Thanks, I asked my question.

Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.

I might be being a bit thick here but when he says "deceitfully engineering a conflict" is he referring to 9/11 or the whole misleading the public about WMD's thing? or both?

#snowden is blocked from FB right now

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
#snowden is blocked from FB right now

Thanks for that.
I am sure there will be more attempts at shutting him down.

Go Snowden!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I guess I forgot to mention I got a 99 on the ASVAB and also had free pick of any military profession. Now while I didn't choose MI as a career, I certainly wouldn't have worried about my past experiences with illicit narcotics to impede my entry into the US military even if I did. I also know how a T.S. clearance works. Try getting a T.S. with poly, that's even less fun.

"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American" - Edward Snowden

I find this whole turn of events fascinating beyond words.. Where and how will this story end??? *grabs popcorn*

reply to post by HumanPLC


Keep up the flow of info Human please!

reply to post by CALGARIAN


FB looking pretty sketch for that move.... Trying to shut us up!


"America is worth dying for" - Ed

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I appreciate the reply... Your first one had baffled me, frankly. I'd never heard anyone approach the topic quite that casually... but the insight is helpful for your comments. I'll pass on any more polygraphs in my life. The 2 I've had were 2 more than I'd wanted.

Grats on the 99 GQ (I assume that's the score you're referring to). That is astounding. I thought I'd been doing pretty well at 89, given how everyone with me scored in the end.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by HumanPLC

 

Personally i dont think we are going to see any major disclosures come from it as im sure the guardian would want first dibbs on any new revelations; however i do think it will be interesting to follow.

Personally I don't think we are going to see any major disclosures as we have no way of knowing this is really Edward Snowden and not some NSA intern.....while the real Ed is feeding the worms. Assuming the face that has been attached to the name is genuine, I doubt we'll see him in a public appearance again. Maybe still in the next week or so, but that's probably about it..... No way are they going to let this guy live...he's too big of a liability to just have hanging out there.

You can easily silence or assassinate the character of someone who's alive. Kill them and suddenly they're a martyr.

For many faceless victims of ill thought out plans to defect, whistleblow, or generally fly the coup so-to-speak, they are killed in sometimes questionable, or sometimes relatively benign circumstances, once they go fully public though, the puppet masters are screwed.

If you look at Assange and the kid in the army, they wanted to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to set an example. Both were pretty public.

Assange's publicity probably saved him. The Bradley Manning case though, it was someone in their command. So it was an obvious prosecution.

Personally, in the OP case, I think he's to public to suicide himself.

Publicity no doubt saved Assange, but also Assange hasn't broken any laws. Not only is he a journalist and subject to those protections but he's not an American citizen and hasn't stepped foot on US soil, therefore he's not required to uphold our laws with regards to keeping classified documents classified.

Snowden on the other hand, like Manning is an American citizen so what they did is illegal, although right.

reply to post by HumanPLC



In my opinion, the man is, unquestionably, a patriot who has pointed out the illegal activities of a rogue and uncontrolled government. One which is no longer a govt "of the people, by the people, for the people". It has not been so for many long years, but it comes clearer as each year passes that we, the people, must do something to overturn the direction of our country.

Personally I would start by cleaning house. Vote out every single encumbent. That, in itself, would make a statement... We should insist on laws that control rogue politicians and assure that outside interests cannot gain a foothold. Every aspect of their finances should be examined. Donations to campaigns should be funneled through an organization that assures the anonymity of said donations in order to prevent special interests from exerting their influence.

Lastly, there should be a total elimination of lobby efforts and organizations.

Not to mention the total elimination of organizations that campaign on behalf of a candidate, whose actions often resemble those of a hit man. The only one who should be able to campaign is the candidate....

So... he wasn't missing after checking out of his hotel then huh? I'm tired of this dude already, let the NSA have him.

reply to post by Aazadan

Publicity no doubt saved Assange, but also Assange hasn't broken any laws. Not only is he a journalist and subject to those protections but he's not an American citizen and hasn't stepped foot on US soil, therefore he's not required to uphold our laws with regards to keeping classified documents classified.

Hence why he is wanted in Sweden for "Rape"...

Or "Oops the condom fell off with the female CIA asset."

reply to post by HumanPLC

My question for Edward Snowden is.......How did you manage to get the job everybody else wishes they had? Did your mom or dad pull strings? Did the right guy come over at the invitation of your parents for dinner? Did you meet your future employer at the park, or on a subway? How did you land a great paying job, and a top security clearance with a major contractor? What kind of hoops did you have to jump through to get your security clearance? Did you have to pass any tests (oral, written, psychological)? Did you have to prove expertise in any field? Who interviewed you? In your opinion, will this government be here in 5 years? Do you expect to be employed in the next 5 years, and if so, where on Earth do you hope to land a job? Did you honestly think that anyone besides illiterates have the delusion that the internet is not carefully monitored? I have always assumed that all phones are tapped, it just makes life easier, and encourages me to be more polite on the phone. Most big companies tap their own phones....Don't they? I have heard many times "This call may be monitored to assure quality assistance." Even if I don't hear that recording, I assume that supervisors, and people trying to protect themselves from law suits tap their own phones. Jealous lovers also tap their loved ones phones. Overprotective fathers have been known to tap their children's phones. The press has a long history of tapping phones. I don't run into too many people in this day and age that don't assume that all phones are tapped, therefore I am surprised that Mr. Snowden thinks this is a startling revelation. Spiders catch insects in a WEB. Fishermen catch fish in a NET. Has anyone in the last 50 years had the delusion that anything they do is private?