|
Post by hitman on Mar 12, 2014 8:16:18 GMT -5
ALL those countries were not just involved in "monitoring" themselves but being "monitored" also. the metadata was shared when needed but knowing the NSA they weren't given everything.
Germany, The UK, France, Italy, Brazil and Australia were all involved in monitoring cell and Internet meta-data. I think their disgust was when they found out the US was also monitoring their metadata as well.
But like we said if the Data was available for public viewing via the FOIA for a fee. The crime was accessing it without proper process. If all it was was making that info known there was no need for Snowden to run he would have been a hero and would be living here happily.
So the question is why did he run?
The answer is he was a thief working with an international Identity theft ring that was based out of Russia. He may not have been a spy but now he makes himself look like one.
|
|
|
Post by redeyed on Mar 12, 2014 10:34:45 GMT -5
I just find it hard to believe everything he has leaked is all public info on request. Some of the powerpoint slides etc. are all internal training material. Surely not everything would have been available. Also why would he contact The Guardian to help release if he was planning on going straight to Russia? Wouldn't a spy be better off spying surreptitiously than leaking it to the masses. Or I suppose that could also stir up foreign relations/public opinions etc.
But any crime Snowden may be guilty of is for me irrelevant. As I said before, its the nature and content of the leaks that should be given the most attention.
Is their anything you can show me or direct me to that shows all of the info was available on request? Not trying to sound confrontational or anything im just interested thanks!
|
|
|
Post by jennyfromtheblock on Mar 12, 2014 10:47:37 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden was a spy for Russia. It's well known that the US and Russia aren't exactly the best of friends both in the present and historically and domestic terrorists like Snowden are likely to cash-in on releasing top secret information. If Snowden's agenda was in the public interest by his own admission, he surely would have stopped leaking information when the uproar over what the governments in the UK and US were doing first occurred. By releasing further information he is presenting a serious security risk to both the UK and the US.
|
|
|
Post by hitman on Mar 12, 2014 11:04:46 GMT -5
so your saying he was a dreinie?
|
|
|
Post by ispyi on Mar 12, 2014 15:04:05 GMT -5
maybe his crimes to you are irrelevant but it is not to the millions of people who have lost millions of dollars to these Identity theft rings.
Giving it to the MSM assured biased anti-american bits of the released data that would draw attention to his criminal activities.
When the NSA and FBI are asked specifically about other crimes Snowden may have committed they say they can't comment do to an ongoing investigation. Of which Snowden had help by the Gaurdian in destroying the most important piece of evidence that could have helped in that investigation, the laptop computer he gave them. Accomplices after the fact in the willful destruction of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by poisonivy on Mar 26, 2014 9:46:44 GMT -5
are you saying a character plying a game?
What use of the word dreinie are you alluding too?
|
|
|
Post by sexykillergirl on Mar 31, 2014 16:47:18 GMT -5
You'd think, with all it's high tech wizardry, the NSA would be able to shut down all these cyber criminals... wouldn't you? The problem is, they are the ones who for years have been strong-arming software and hardware companies to build in these back doors in the first place, which the cyber criminals can find and exploit too. Not to mention, of course, the likelihood that NSA and others are also involved in criminal activity using information taken from illegal monitoring for personal gain. Also, do you really think that the destruction of the laptop given to the Guardian stopped anything? All data on that would have been copied of in multiples as soon as it was received, and spread far and wide for safe keeping. It was also the UK security state that had the laptop and other devices destroyed and was not undertaken without protest. The agents were even there watching the destruction! If it was indeed "evidence", why would they want it destroyed? Simply answer is that the information was potentially explosive and likely to cause a bit of a stink!
|
|