whistleblowers: wikileaks, snowden i...

[Indy]

Mozda ne moze da bude anoniman (on ipak radi za njih).

[noskich]

Mozda je bezbedniji da ga ne ubiju, ali ga to ne abolira od dozivotne robije ala Manning.

Edited June 11, 2013 by noskich

[Eraserhead]

Nasta god da je mislio, ovo je dobro znati (premda i ovde pametnjakovici tvrde kako se to "sve ionako zna", itd. - ista prica kao i posle Wikileaksa).

Ja bih se iznenadio da je drugacije, ali svakako da je za dobrobit covecanstva potrebno ostati na pozicijama da je ovako nesto nedopustivo i nastaviti sa pritiskom protiv ovoga.

[Indy]

Ne moze jasnije, od onog koji se razume u "leak"-ove:

Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of AmericaDaniel EllsbergIn my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.So we have fallen into Senator Church's abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect.

[Budja]

A u medjuvremenu, 1 konsensus u Senatu i Kongresu.

In the US, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said US authorities were "aggressively" pursuing him.The California Democrat also accused the 29-year-old of "an act of treason".The top Republican in the US House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner, labelled Mr Snowden a "traitor"."The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk," he told ABC News on Tuesday morning. "And it's a giant violation of the law."

[Prospero]

sabornost establišmenta cveta, ovaj bi hteo i smrtnu kaznu, ako može.

[wall]

Neke stvari nisu predmet diskusije i "nesabornosti".Bufalo - sabornost.

Edited June 11, 2013 by wall

[Prospero]

Monday, Jun 10, 2013 11:20 PM +0200How we broke the NSA storyExclusive: Laura Poitras tells Salon about getting contacted by Edward Snowden, and reveals more footage is comingBy Irin CarmonShortly after Salon’s biographical sketch on Laura Poitras went live, the award-winning documentary filmmaker agreed to a phone interview, her first since she helped reveal the scope of the National Security Agency’s digital surveillance. “I feel a certain need to be cautious about not wanting to do the work for the government,” she told Salon, but agreed to clarify some parts of her role in the story.Poitras is still in Hong Kong, where she is filming the story behind the story — including her co-author on the Guardian story and former Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald — for her forthcoming documentary on whistle-blowers and leaks. In a wide-ranging interview, she explained how she first made contact with Snowden, her reaction to the possible future investigation into his leaks, and why Snowden didn’t go to the New York Times. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.So how did this all begin?I was originally contacted in January, anonymously.By Edward Snowden?Well, I didn’t know who it was.What was the format?Via email. It said, I want to get your encryption key and let’s get on a secure channel.And he didn’t say what it was about?He just said — that was the first, and the second was, I have some information in the intelligence community, and it won’t be a waste of your time.Do you get a lot of those kinds of requests?No, I don’t.Did you immediately know what was the best, most secure protocol to go about it?I actually did. I have a lot of experience because I’ve been working with — as you note in your thing, I’ve done filming with WikiLeaks, I know Jacob Appelbaum. I already had encryption keys but what he was asking for was beyond what I was using in terms of security and anonymity.How did it proceed from there?So that’s where I’m not going into a lot of details, but sort of ongoing correspondence. I didn’t know, I didn’t have any biographical details or where he worked, had no idea. He made claims and said he had documentation. At that point it was all completely theoretical, but I had a feeling it was legit.Why do you think he contacted you? Were you the first person he contacted?I can’t speak for him. Glenn and I just touched base about, what was your story, because we connected later in the spring. He, I think, got an email in February. But I didn’t know he’d gotten an email.He told me he’d contacted me because my border harassment meant that I’d been a person who had been selected. To be selected –and he went through a whole litany of things — means that everything you do, every friend you have, every purchase you make, every street you cross means you’re being watched. “You probably don’t like how this system works, I think you can tell the story.” … Of course I was suspicious, I worried that it was entrapment, it’s crazy, all the normal responses you have to someone reaching out making, claims. He said he’d seen a piece that I’d done on Bill Binney in the Times.I can say from conversations I had with him after that, I think he had a suspicion of mainstream media. And particularly what happened with the New York Times and the warrantless wiretapping story, which as we know was shelved for a year. So he expressed that to me but I think also in his choices of who he contacted. I didn’t know he was reaching out to Glenn at that point.And you and Glenn were already colleagues, right, you sit on a board together?At that point the foundation had just opened. So we knew each other and we were colleagues and friends.How did it get to the point where you knew it was going to be a story, and how did you decide where it was going to be published?Those are the details I’m not going to go into. What I can say is that once I had a few pieces of correspondence, I said, let me ask a couple of people about this, people who have experience, and I sat down with a couple of people, one of whom was Bart Gellman … and he said, it looks like this person could be legit. And that was probably February.These disputes that have been played out on the internet about who got in touch with whom and who needed assurances –In a situation like this, this is a confidential source and has been until very, very recently, actually has been a person whose identity I did not know. To actually go on the record and talk about — it seems to be a violation of a lot of relationships with someone who’s trusted you. There’s partly that, so I’ve been hesitant. I’ve asked, you know, like, Bart, don’t go try and tell my story. I’ll tell my story, you know, about my reporting. I don’t need reporters reporting on my reporting. So maybe that stuff contributed to different timelines. But that seems now — I’m not quite sure, what makes the most sense. Because I don’t want to tell the whole story now, I don’t think it’s the right time. And I want to tell it in my own words. I’m a storyteller. I’ll tell it when I’m ready to tell it, in detail.But it makes sense to go on the record to explain why I was attached to both of those stories.So you ended up getting in touch with Bart and Glenn because you wanted their help to vet the claims in documents?There weren’t documents yet … I wanted to know if this correspondent — it was possible something else would be entrapment or just crazy, that’s always an option. I had an instinct that it was legit. I wanted to talk to people who knew.So then they said, my paper would be happy to publish it?No, it was just colleagues saying, this was happening, what do you think. There was nothing to — it was just somebody wanting to start a conversation and claiming to have information … There was no material at that point.So how did it then become two separate stories in the Washington Post and the Guardian?The source also has a relationship with Glenn. Which I can’t speak to.I know that Glenn said he had more stories to come. Do you have more footage you’re planning on using in your documentary?Of course. I’m here working.Are you still in touch with him?I’m not going to comment on that.Do you know where he is?Not going to comment.Are you going to be working on more stories in print before your documentary comes out?I really can’t predict.Are you going to be sticking around Hong Kong for awhile or do you think you’ll come to the U.S.?I haven’t decided. I’m trying to figure that out right now. But I’m actually based right now outside the U.S.Are you worried about retaliation in any investigation that goes forward?You know what? I’m not. I’ve been harassed for a long time, I wouldn’t be surprised if that continues. Being here and seeing the kind of — actually, Glenn was really inspiring. Really incredible courage in journalism and just saying, we need to talk to him about these things. It’s not OK that we have a secret court that has secret interpretations of secret laws; what kind of democracy is that? I felt like, this is a fight worth having. If there’s fallout, if there’s blowback, I would absolutely do it again, because I think this information should be public. Whatever part I had in helping to do that I think is a service.People take risks. And I’m not the one who’s taking the most in this case.And you feel like the person who is taking the most risk — meaning Snowden — is aware of all the possible ramifications of it?You can see it in the video, right? I think he is. I think he wanted to reveal his identity because he didn’t want to create a situation where he was anonymous and everyone would have been investigated. In these investigation cases, there are repercussions for many, many people. I think he wanted to take responsibility.Did he always plan to reveal his identity?I don’t know. At some point I became aware of that but I don’t know what his intention was.It’s this complicated situation because we have a source who decided to reveal himself. I still feel like I have journalistic obligations to the source even though they’ve made that choice … There’s something that Glenn said that I actually want to contradict. He said we began “working with” him. There was no working with. We were contacted. It was totally cold contact.Since he contacted you before he started working at Booz Allen, the implication people were drawing was that he went to Booz Allen with the express intention of leaking this.That’s completely absurd. I had no dialogue about what the information was — there were claims, that’s all I received.So the implication that you sent him into Booz Allen to spy was incorrect.Are you kidding? I didn’t know where he worked, I didn’t know he was NSA, I didn’t know how — nothing. There was no like, Oh do you think you …, no nudging. It’s like the crazy correlations that the NSA does. There’s no connection here. We were contacted, we didn’t know what he was up to, and at some point he came forward with documents.

[Zaz_pi]

Neće Rusi da imaju posla sa njim, pošto i oni imaju sistem za praćenje interneta i telefonskog saobraćaja, SORM-2 ^_^

Ne, nece Edward Snowden: Russia offers to consider asylum requestNaravno, ovo su uradili samo da bi se malko pos*ali po Amerima, sto se moze videti i u ostatku teksta:

Alexey Pushkov, head of the Duma's international affairs committee and a vocal US critic, said on Twitter: "By promising asylum to Snowden, Moscow has taken upon itself the protection of those persecuted for political reasons. There will be hysterics in the US. They only recognise this right for themselves."

:lol:edit: Ne bi trebao da ovo uradi jer ce ga odmah oznaciti kao izdajnika, mada je vec oznacen . Hong Kong je dobra destinacija ali vidim da Kinezi nesto mute i spremni su za dogovor sa Amerima. Elem, samo u slucaju da bas zna da mu se sprema ubistvo trebao bi da razmisli o arhi-neprijatelju tj. Rusiji. Edited June 11, 2013 by Zaz_pi

[Prospero]

evo i zašto curi:

The number of individuals with a security clearance is currently collected biannually fromagencies. A process has now been developed for agencies to report quarterly to the Office ofthe Director National Intelligence (ODNI) the total number of clearances categorized byemployee type and clearance level so that the data requested under the Act may be provided infuture reports with the required fidelity.(A) Number of government employees who --(i) held a security clearance at such level as of October 1, 201 0;• Confidential/Secret: 2,166,679• Top Secret (collateral and TS/SCI): 666,008(ii) were approved for a security clearance at such level during the preceding fiscalyear.• Confidential/Secret: 512,076*• Top Secret (collateral and TS/SCI): 130,755*(B) Number of contractors who --(i) held a security clearance at such level as of October 1, 201 0;• Confidential/Secret: 541 ,097• Top Secret (collateral and TS/SCI): 524,990(ii) were approved for a security clearance at such level during the preceding fiscalyear.• Confidential/Secret: 512,076*• Top Secret (collateral and TS/SCI): 130,755*

skoro 1.200.000 ima top secret clearance

[Zaz_pi]

:lolol:Facebook je jos jednom potvrdio da saradjuje sa NSA "samo" posrednoFACEBOOK: DON'T WORK DIRECTLY W/NSA TO PROACTIVELY GIVE DATA ;)Verujem da americke kompanije dobijaju odredjene analize i informacije od NSA kao povratnu spregu. Primera radi, NSA sa svojim super racunarima i analiticarima moze raditi vrlo dobre analize ponasanje velikih grupa ljudi na internetu.

[Takeshi]

tako znaci, momak se zaposlio u booz allenu i najavio novinarima da bi mozda imao nesto zanimljivo za njih.tu se sa novih tehnologija vracamo na klasicne obavestajne akcije. (neka se spreme dzordz kluni i bred pit za filmsku verziju)a prelep je taj momemat u zapadnim demokratijama, kada drzava unajmljuje privatne firme za obavljanje prljavih poslova, pod verovatno maglovitim zakonskim pravilima. sada ce da izadje obama i kaze, prekidamo saradnju i unajmljujemo novu firmu, koja ce postovati ljudska prava pri prisluskivanju i ubijanju na daljinu. -_-

[Anonymous]

Gugl insistira da je s vladom SAD sarađivao veoma ograničeno.

:lol:Sad me mrzi da pejstujem njihovu garanciju o privatnosti.Simpatični, otkačeni tipovi, koji nam sve daju džabe.

[noskich]

Nejasan je. Kaze nada se da ce ga Island primiti, a otisao u Hong Kong jer ima `snaznu tradiciju slobodne stampe`. Hong Kong ciji dobar deo uprave se cak uopste ne bira na izborima.

[dragance]

Hong Kong je poseban slucaj, veoma pravilno i pametno odredjena lokacija (vise kao odbrana da je "izdajnik"), "samo" je komplikovano sto imaju extradition treaty sa USA (kojeg, usput, Kinezi sa Mainlanda mogu stopirati iz "visih razloga").