Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ashotep

Edward Snowden NSA whistleblower

325 posts in this topic

Still a possibility that Snowden was blackmailed by the Chinese.

In that case he might be a red pawn instead of a black or white knight, chess analogy and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gromdor

What Snowden has done is take a conscientious stand. NYT writes today that according to one woman who knew him, he underwent a 'crisis of conscience' several years ago. That was after he had already worked within the system and saw how wrong it was. He saw something, and he said something, in the very highest and most noble way.

What he's done is interrupt in some strange way, a very big driver in the GWOT, and the GWOT is a fraud of epic proportions.

I disagree on the treason point, as I'm sure you've guessed. :tu:

The Chinese government already knew how to spy on its people--nothing we could show them.

I see him as the Daniel Ellsberg of this generation, him and Bradley both.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Project Echelon was already in place and we already knew about it

*snip*

There are two major problems with Snowden's plan.

One is small. One is big.

The small problem with Snowden's plan is that the information contained in his documents appears to be false or incomplete. They said that PRISM gave the NSA direct access to the servers of companies like Google and Facebook. That's not true.

The big problem with Snowden's plan to shock the American public into an anti-surveillance revolution is that the documents he leaked contained only old news.

There is a report out today from the AP saying that it has been "known for years," that there is a program which "copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis."

In fact, the American public has known that the NSA has extensive Internet-spying programs since 2000.

That's when "60 Minutes" reported: "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency."

The "60 Minutes" report exposed the existence of a program called Echelon, through which the governments of Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand worked in coordination to spy on each other's citizens on the Internet.

If you read the transcript from that "60 Minutes" episode, Echelon sounds like a more invasive program than PRISM.

"60 Minutes" is a massively popular news program. Ten million, sometimes 20 million people, watch it every Sunday. Even more watched it back in 2000.

And yet, the American public reacted to "60 Minutes'" expose with a yawn.

Since Snowden's leaks, many people have passed around an old quote from Benjamin Franklin.

It reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It turns out the American public disagrees with Benjamin Franklin on this count.

We are willing to trade a little online liberty for a little offline security.

This is not irrational. We do not live in the world as described by George Orwell's book, "1984." In "1984" the government uses a fake war as an excuse to spy on its people. In our world, the war is real. It kills people at marathons, in office buildings, and on bases in Texas.

The point is this.

If any report on the NSA's Internet-spying powers was going to shock the American public into action, it was that "60 Minutes" report 13 years ago.

It did not.

Neither did a 2005 report from The New York Times about how the NSA monitors the Internet's fiber optic cables.

Nor did former AT&T technician Mark Klein's 2006 revelation that the NSA installed a computer at a San Francisco switching center.

And so, the sad, final truth is this.

If, back before he dropped out of high school, 16-year-old Edward Snowden had just managed to see that "60 Minutes" report and witness the collective yawn that followed, he might have, 13 years later, decided that the American public would never share his fear of surveillance.

*snip*

If Edward Snowden Had Watched '60 Minutes' In High School He Could Still Be Living In Hawaii With His Beautiful Girlfriend

Indeed, Project Echelon was already in place and we already knew about it. Even before Snowden we would joke in the U-M chat room after saying certain words, in innocuous way, that those words might get red flagged by Project Echelon and the familiar knock of government agents was sure to ensue.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Snowden is considered a hero by Hong Kong. Some are attending rallies in favor of Snowden and calls to "arrest Obama". One sign had a picture of Snowden claiming he was "in" and another picture of Jackie Chan labeling him as "out".

The Chinese government meanwhile might want to keep Snowden to "interrogate" him. Will they do it nicely? Set him up in a state mansion in cushy luxury in exchange for his patronage? Or will they hold him in a small cramped cell and torture secrets out of him?

Also is the Chinese government allowing the citizens of Hong Kong to publicly gather and demonstrate as a distraction? Allow them to focus on Snowden and the US spying "on them" as a way to ramp up their own Chinese domestic efforts to expand their own spy-on-their-own-citizen programs? As a way to secretly continue their crackdown in liberties in Hong Kong?

So my questions is this: Does China usually allow citizens of Hong Kong to protest in such a fashion? If this was a protest against their own government instead of ours, a foreign power, would it be allowed? Does the Chinese government have any reservations now about the anti-US demonstrations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Snowden is considered a hero by Hong Kong. Some are attending rallies in favor of Snowden and calls to "arrest Obama". One sign had a picture of Snowden claiming he was "in" and another picture of Jackie Chan labeling him as "out".

The Chinese government meanwhile might want to keep Snowden to "interrogate" him. Will they do it nicely? Set him up in a state mansion in cushy luxury in exchange for his patronage? Or will they hold him in a small cramped cell and torture secrets out of him?

Also is the Chinese government allowing the citizens of Hong Kong to publicly gather and demonstrate as a distraction? Allow them to focus on Snowden and the US spying "on them" as a way to ramp up their own Chinese domestic efforts to expand their own spy-on-their-own-citizen programs? As a way to secretly continue their crackdown in liberties in Hong Kong?

So my questions is this: Does China usually allow citizens of Hong Kong to protest in such a fashion? If this was a protest against their own government instead of ours, a foreign power, would it be allowed? Does the Chinese government have any reservations now about the anti-US demonstrations?

Sounds to me like the Chinese people care more about our constitutional rights than we do, which is really ******* pathetic. (Excuse my French, but sometimes a cussword is appropriate in certain situations) Really though, it is. Pathetic and sad.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone relax with the whole he is a Chinese spy stuff. The chinese have no reason to overthrow us, sure they probably spy on us just like we spy on them.

We are the two biggest trade partners in the world.

He went to hong kong because it is the safest place for him. China tends to not listen to U.S demands as much as the rest of the world.

Plus hong kong is part of china but it is way diffrent. It is kinda like its own country, or at least it use to be. its complicated.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Snowden is considered a hero by Hong Kong. Some are attending rallies in favor of Snowden and calls to "arrest Obama". One sign had a picture of Snowden claiming he was "in" and another picture of Jackie Chan labeling him as "out".

The Chinese government meanwhile might want to keep Snowden to "interrogate" him. Will they do it nicely? Set him up in a state mansion in cushy luxury in exchange for his patronage? Or will they hold him in a small cramped cell and torture secrets out of him?

Also is the Chinese government allowing the citizens of Hong Kong to publicly gather and demonstrate as a distraction? Allow them to focus on Snowden and the US spying "on them" as a way to ramp up their own Chinese domestic efforts to expand their own spy-on-their-own-citizen programs? As a way to secretly continue their crackdown in liberties in Hong Kong?

So my questions is this: Does China usually allow citizens of Hong Kong to protest in such a fashion? If this was a protest against their own government instead of ours, a foreign power, would it be allowed? Does the Chinese government have any reservations now about the anti-US demonstrations?

Hong Kong is alot diffrent then main land china.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hong Kong is alot diffrent then main land china.

While that is fairly obvious what is not is how exactly are they different and what if anything is changing regarding such differences.

Care to elucidate in how exactly you believe they are different in the present and any changes you forsee?

Below are a couple of comments from Hongkongers themselves.

"It's quite ironic," Mo told the crowd of several hundred in a rainy plaza Saturday, "that Mr. Snowden thought Hong Kong is truly free and we have impeccable rule of law in this city. Those who are longtime residents here know that our freedoms are being stifled almost on a daily basis on every front, and our rule of law is facing all kinds of political challenges."

Notching up the wryness in her voice, she added: "So good luck to Mr. Snowden."

The former National Security Agency contractor and self-confessed secrets leaker might have been even more worried if he had read a recent op-ed by Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor.

"Since 1997, when the British government returned Hong Kong to China after getting assurances that this former colony's traditions of rule of law and individual freedom would be respected, the political, legal and human rights landscape here has become ever less conducive to the protection of civil liberties," he wrote. "Mr. Snowden's positive view of Hong Kong no longer matches the reality."

Snowden may not have realized it, but he has sought shelter in this city of 10 million at a particularly fraught time. A sizable contingent of residents here are fed up with their local government, which they regard as too beholden to officials in Beijing. They are chafing at what they see as mainland authorities' interference in areas such as education policy. Complaints are growing about harassment of journalists, attempts to control the media and a trend toward press self-censorship.

*snip*

But others note that the Snowden case could be a boon for the powers that be.

"Surely Snowden's praise for our city's freedoms can be turned into a slap in our pan-democrats' face if the Beijing loyalists play their cards right," commentator Michael Chugani wrote in the South China Morning Post.

"The democrats have long labeled Hong Kong as a society of shrinking freedoms under Chinese rule, hence the 'Occupy Central' movement for true democracy. But now an ex-CIA spy says we're freer than the U.S. Let's see how the loyalists are going to milk this."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hong-kong-snowden-20130616,0,1337287.story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

While that is fairly obvious what is not is how exactly are they different and what if anything is changing regarding such differences.

Care to elucidate in how exactly you believe they are different in the present and any changes you forsee?

Below are a couple of comments from Hongkongers themselves.

http://www.latimes.c...0,1337287.story

As much as i trust the Los angeles times lol( sarcasm), I have to disagree. Yes they have been having goverment enroachment problems. But much in the same way that the U.S has been.

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative District When the british let china have hong kong sometime in the 1990's the chinese took it over but made it this special administrative district, basically letting them rule themselves the way they want. Hence how the communist chinese got most of their money. Hong Kong is one of the most capitilast places in the world. China makes money off that, lots of it.

In the past years the chinese goverment has been takeing more and more power yes. But as you can see in Hong Kong they can still protest out on the street, cause they have that freedom. Unlike in maineland china.

Or you can listen to the U.S news that wants to make him look like a traitor for telling us that out goverment is spying on us :whistle:

http://wiki.answers...._Kong_and_China

http://www.businessw...hina-leung-says

My first source just sums it up and the second source is some current hong kong news which will give a glimpse of how there" two system one country" thing works.

Edited by spartan max2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said that he didn't do it for others, he did it for himself. He doesn't want to live in the world we're finding ourselves in and sacrificed his career, and possibly freedom, to try and change it.

And that is what I suspect too, the problem is that once you blew the whistle on some organizations you have no chance but to have a few aces up your sleeve, in this case it was the spying methods used on the Chinese. In the US nobody would have moved a finger to stop him from being thrown into the deepest hole in Leavenworth.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowingly divulging "state secrets" is a treasonable crime in many(if not all) countries.

Penalties can range from many years or life in prison, to even death, depending on assessed damage and country national security violation penalties.

What IS clear is that he committed a treasonous act under US law. That is not EVEN in question within the bi-partisan Select Committee on Intelligence.

He is a total dipweed, and I hope he stands trial.

In the "old days", given his confession and abundant evidence of guilt, he would not even make it to trial in many countries.

Oh, and besides being a traitor, he is also a coward, because he ran instead of "lawyering-up" and standing his ground in the US.

What a dipweed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I asked you before Palladin, and didn't get an answer: what part of "no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause" do you not understand?

In which reality is it a crime to reveal government crimes? :innocent:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Knowingly divulging "state secrets" is a treasonable crime in many(if not all) countries.

Penalties can range from many years or life in prison, to even death, depending on assessed damage and country national security violation penalties.

What IS clear is that he committed a treasonous act under US law. That is not EVEN in question within the bi-partisan Select Committee on Intelligence.

He is a total dipweed, and I hope he stands trial.

In the "old days", given his confession and abundant evidence of guilt, he would not even make it to trial in many countries.

Oh, and besides being a traitor, he is also a coward, because he ran instead of "lawyering-up" and standing his ground in the US.

What a dipweed.

Ignoring and violating the Constitution is an act of treason under US law. The People are the nation, not the "government".

Edited by Glorfindel
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think Hong Kong will be turning him over. The people of Hong Kong took to the streets in support of him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57589508/hong-kong-edward-snowdens-welcoming-refuge/

So you believe China listens to what its people want?

Besides being a special administrative region (like Macau) we all know Beijing is going to decide either way. If they want to deal with us and return him they will. If they want to bargain with us for him they will. If they want to keep him they can either say, "no, we won't return him, he is ours," or they could "pretend" to allow the Hongkongese courts decide (as a way to slow it down or deny our extradition request) but in the end it will be Beijing's decision. That is my view.

Do you believe Hong Kong and their courts will actually have the final say?

Because we are eventually going to ask for him back...

Keep in mind if he already is a Chinese spy they (Beijing) could just get rid of him (already having juiced him) and make it look "suspicious" and claim we sent in our own agents to off him "on their land" and then act all like the innocent victims who had no part in any of it other than to say, "wtf America spies on us then sends in agents to assassinate someone on our land."

They also want Taiwan back.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think I asked you before Palladin, and didn't get an answer: what part of "no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause" do you not understand?

In which reality is it a crime to reveal government crimes? :innocent:

You call it a "government crime", whereas the facts simply do not support that notion, as the program was reviewed for Bill of Rights violations prior to inception, and none was found, then subsequently approved by the bi-partisan Select Commitee's on Intelligence(House and Senate)

However, I know you're not a big fan of any government, so that was for other's whom recognize the importance.

In any event, the collection of Meta-data is not new.The Census, insurance companies questionaires, etc are examples, and is not illegal.

What's done with Meta-data is the question.

With the secret programs at issue here, a judicial warrant IS REQUIRED to go further with Meta-data analysis, and probable cause IS REQUIRED, so that completely knocks-out your first insinuation that this amounts to a warrantless search.

I know that these TRUTHS do not satify you, but oh well.

EDIT: Oh yeah... NO, it is not a crime to reveal government crimes(in the US) , but the accuser MUST TAKE STEPS TO PROVE that a crime was commited, otherwise it's just speculative "hot air"

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this seem insincere?

Isn't that what is being done here?

Instead of commenting on the information presented regarding Snowden a couple few just want to focus on our fellow poster...

Keep in mind this thread is about Snowden himself. Discussing him seems in order. Do you have another view of Snowden himself than what is being presented?

What it looks like is a smear compaign to make Snowden look like an antisocial freak rather than looking at the good he did. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would question who you worked for.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hong Kong is one of the freest and happiest places on earth. Far different lifestyle than mainland China, although China is learning and progressing towards a freer and freer society while America is going the other way.

I'll let Ron Paul say it all about Snowden!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call it a "government crime", whereas the facts simply do not support that notion, as the program was reviewed for Bill of Rights violations prior to inception, and none was found, then subsequently approved by the bi-partisan Select Commitee's on Intelligence(House and Senate)

However, I know you're not a big fan of any government, so that was for other's whom recognize the importance.

In any event, the collection of Meta-data is not new.The Census, insurance companies questionaires, etc are examples, and is not illegal.

What's done with Meta-data is the question.

With the secret programs at issue here, a judicial warrant IS REQUIRED to go further with Meta-data analysis, and probable cause IS REQUIRED, so that completely knocks-out your first insinuation that this amounts to a warrantless search.

I know that these TRUTHS do not satify you, but oh well.

EDIT: Oh yeah... NO, it is not a crime to reveal government crimes(in the US) , but the accuser MUST TAKE STEPS TO PROVE that a crime was commited, otherwise it's just speculative "hot air"

No Pallidin, there ARE NOT warrants under PRISM. There is NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

As you are asserting that there is either, please provide proof.

It's quite clear that this megadata is gathered on everybody and anybody, without a warrant and with no probable cause.

You can fool yourself into thinking there is, but I'm perhaps paying closer attention than you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Snowden is now turning toward telling how the UK spied on all the other countries who visited the 2009 G20 meeting in London, England.

So, how would he even have this information? Seems a bit far-fetched from a low level private contractor analyst and this could disrupt global affairs as well as hurt our allies.

This is revealed right as a G8 meeting begins, also in the UK, this time in Northern Ireland. His "America spies on China" leak also had suspicious timing around the Sunnylands meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping.

Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

This included:

• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;

• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

•  Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

*snip*

GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits / Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowden is now turning toward telling how the UK spied on all the other countries who visited the 2009 G20 meeting in London, England.

So, how would he even have this information? Seems a bit far-fetched from a low level private contractor analyst and this could disrupt global affairs as well as hurt our allies.

This is revealed right as a G8 meeting begins, also in the UK, this time in Northern Ireland. His "America spies on China" leak also had suspicious timing around the Sunnylands meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping.

GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits / Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009

Like you find out all secrets if you work for an agency, you rummage here, you rummage there, you look in the paper basket for thrown away papers that should not have been thrown away... just like anybody else does it... just some will talk others keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Like you find out all secrets if you work for an agency, you rummage here, you rummage there, you look in the paper basket for thrown away papers that should not have been thrown away... just like anybody else does it... just some will talk others keep quiet.

That is not really how a SCIF works...

Information is compartmentalized between departments so one does not know what the other is doing. Secrets are not just tossed in the trash in any case.

Besides that is all old school. Supposedly Snowden has all this information on four laptops. Not exactly secrets collected from a rubbish bin or just lying around, which would not happen anyways, nothing is just lying around anymore if the operator is not directly working with it, or walks away, it will be secured in some form.

Of course electronic spying is a new frontier. Was he hacking while on the job? No way one low level employee was entrusted with all this information. Did another, greater entity (China!!!) mine it, and are now using him to disseminate it?

Whoever has the most to gain by all these revelations is most likely behind it. It is like Wiki Leaks all over again except most likely it is not an organization with the same type of mission as Wiki Leaks. Either a corporation or state is behind Snowden is my guess.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No Pallidin, there ARE NOT warrants under PRISM. There is NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

As you are asserting that there is either, please provide proof.

It's quite clear that this megadata is gathered on everybody and anybody, without a warrant and with no probable cause.

You can fool yourself into thinking there is, but I'm perhaps paying closer attention than you are.

Courts have the final decision on what is legal or constitutional. Sometimes the decision a court makes is not well-liked by me but it is still respected. That is why we have the judicial branch.

Neither me, you, Snowden, libertarian politicans, talk show hosts, or some random person on the forum can tell us what is legal or constitutional. PRISM will be taken to court most likely, it already has by Yahoo in 2008, and it will likely be heard in higher more open courts as well, but in either case the courts decide.


Here is another non-judicial opinion so take it for what it's worth. It is worth about as much as our opinions but might be a bit more informed:

From the point of view of any non-resident alien who has US cloud data, this is a very ponderable answer. We know what the Fourth Amendment says. The problem is that apparently (IANAL!) the US courts are upholding the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the US-based cloud data of non-US-resident non-US-citizens. I've heard a couple of people suggesting that this interpretation is based on the idea of border search, but that's neither here nor there: the upshot is that, unlike for example the US property of non-US-resident non-US-citizens, which is protected by the Takings Clause, the US cloud data of non-resident aliens seems to have no Constitutional protection. This seems to be the Constitutional foundation of FISA http://www.gpo.gov/f...UTE-92-Pg178... 702 http://www.govtrack....110/hr6304/text , the law which allows the NSA to get Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Orders against non-resident aliens. Absolutely the only thing the government has to prove to the FISC court to get one of these orders is that the targets are (more likely than not!) non-resident aliens. No probable cause, no standard of suspicion for anything: the government doesn't even have to state its motivation. And the "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" language in 702 seems to sweep away any other statute law you (or Rackspace etc.) might want to use against the order. (Again IANAL.)

*snip*

https://news.ycombin...item?id=5859307

Keep in mind (IANL = I am not a lawyer) and neither are you.

In other words the mantra of "it is not constitutional" adds nothing new to the conversation or changes the final outcome. Whether our courts finally decide it is, or what elements of these programs are legal or not, it won't be decided here on this forum.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not really how a SCIF works...

Information is compartmentalized between departments so one does not know what the other is doing. Secrets are not just tossed in the trash in any case.

Besides that is all old school. Supposedly Snowden has all this information on four laptops. Not exactly secrets collected from a rubbish bin or just lying around, which would not happen anyways, nothing is just lying around anymore if the operator is not directly working with it, or walks away, it will be secured in some form.

Of course electronic spying is a new frontier. Was he hacking while on the job? No way one low level employee was entrusted with all this information. Did another, greater entity (China!!!) mine it, and are now using him to disseminate it?

Whoever has the most to gain by all these revelations is most likely behind it. It is like Wiki Leaks all over again except most likely it is not an organization with the same type of mission as Wiki Leaks. Either a corporation or state is behind Snowden is my guess.

Hey I worked for the government in a secret installation for almost a decade, don't tell me how it works...I know. There is this theoretical "need to know" doctrine that is translated in practice to "you only don't know if you don't care a sh!t".

And, at the beginning there was no need for any state to be behind Snowden, but once you blow the whistle you better have, either your own or a foreign one cause else you end up in a very deep hole and the key gets thrown away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey I worked for the government in a secret installation for almost a decade, don't tell me how it works...I know. There is this theoretical "need to know" doctrine that is translated in practice to "you only don't know if you don't care a sh!t".

And, at the beginning there was no need for any state to be behind Snowden, but once you blow the whistle you better have, either your own or a foreign one cause else you end up in a very deep hole and the key gets thrown away.

Not going to ask how long ago that was or why someone would even admit they worked in any "secret installation".

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.