Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims [View all]
Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims
by Reggid
By now, we are all familiar with the big splash which resulted and continues to ripple from the fantastical claims made by Edward Snowden and his mouthpiece, Glenn Greenwald, about the ease with which the NSA's surveillance programs can be and are abused in order to eavesdrop on all of us, all the time, without a warrant, without authorization, and without consequence.
Despite these astonishing claims, Snowden and Greenwald have yet to provide any evidence of any actual, current abuses or illegalities, much less any abuses that are as easy and common as they suggested.
Now, a new report on the NSA programs casts doubt on the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's claims. Indeed, the report suggests that their claims are completely false -- that in fact, Snowden did not ever and would not ever have had either the authority for or access to the NSA database at all, much less to eavesdrop, as Snowden and Greenwald claimed.
In a report addressing the NSAs surveillance programs, Dana Priest of the Washington Post tries to cut through the confusion, conflation, and hyperbole surrounding the programs, and in so doing, ends up piercing the central claim made by Geenwald and Snowden. (emphasis mine) :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html
So, contrary to the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's central claims, Snowden was not authorized to do what he claimed, and never would have been.
Further, even if he had been eligible for such authorization, he still could not have accessed the database without:
Note also, from the report, that in ALL OF 2012, there were a TOTAL of only 300 such database queries -- LESS THAN ONE PER DAY.
It is no wonder, then, that Snowden and Greenwald have never been able simply to provide any evidence that Snowden actually did, or could actually do, what they claimed he could, much less to provide any evidence of current wrongdoing/illegalities that are as easy, common, and sanctioned as they claimed. Based on the foregoing, it is now apparent that they have not been able to provide any such evidence of their central claims, because their central claims -- the claims that started and still spur this whole debacle -- are complete, total bullshit. Snowden never could do what he and Greenwald claimed, and would have been caught if he tried.
Coupled with all of the other hyperbole, conflation, gross exaggeration, and outright dishonesty through omission of critical, material facts and context in his reports and comments on these programs and the administration's conduct, it has now become apparent, based on the actual procedure for obtaining authority to access the NSA's databases, that Greenwald's reporting is not only completely slanted and unreliable, it is also based on an entirely false premise. Based on the foregoing report, the fantastical claims of Snowden and Greenwald are simply not possible. In other words, the entire basis of this story -- hell, the only reason there ever WAS a story in the first place -- just blew up their faces. Sadly, their bullshit-based claims have already caused overwrought rhetoric and over-reaction in almost all corners. But that's what happens when hysteria-and-agenda-driven narrative trumps completeness and accuracy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims
by Reggid
By now, we are all familiar with the big splash which resulted and continues to ripple from the fantastical claims made by Edward Snowden and his mouthpiece, Glenn Greenwald, about the ease with which the NSA's surveillance programs can be and are abused in order to eavesdrop on all of us, all the time, without a warrant, without authorization, and without consequence.
I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.
All they have to do is enter an e-mail address or an IP address, and it does two things, searches the database and lets them listen to the calls or read the e-mails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories and Google search terms.
Its done with no need to go to court, no need to get approval . . . But it allows them to listen to whatever e-mails they want, telephone calls, browsing history, Microsoft Word documents.
Despite these astonishing claims, Snowden and Greenwald have yet to provide any evidence of any actual, current abuses or illegalities, much less any abuses that are as easy and common as they suggested.
Now, a new report on the NSA programs casts doubt on the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's claims. Indeed, the report suggests that their claims are completely false -- that in fact, Snowden did not ever and would not ever have had either the authority for or access to the NSA database at all, much less to eavesdrop, as Snowden and Greenwald claimed.
In a report addressing the NSAs surveillance programs, Dana Priest of the Washington Post tries to cut through the confusion, conflation, and hyperbole surrounding the programs, and in so doing, ends up piercing the central claim made by Geenwald and Snowden. (emphasis mine) :
(T)o begin a particular search, analysts must submit a request to their superiors showing why there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number belongs to a member of a recognized terrorist organization.
*
The analysts (Section) 215 requests go to one of the 22 people at the NSA who are permitted to approve them the chief or the deputy chief of the Homeland Security Analysis Center or one of 20 authorized Homeland Security mission coordinators within the Signals Intelligence directorates analysis and production directorate.
Once a request is approved, it is given to one of the Signal Intelligence directorates 33 counterterrorism analysts who are authorized to access the U.S. phone metadata collection.
When one of the analysts attempts to log into the database, the computer verifies whether the analyst has permission to do so. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who leaked details of the program, would not have had such authority.
Each NSA database search is audited afterward by compliance officials at the agency. How many phone numbers are searched is reported every 30 days to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Every 90 days, a small team from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence spends a day at NSA looking over (Section) 215 documents and questioning analysts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html
So, contrary to the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's central claims, Snowden was not authorized to do what he claimed, and never would have been.
Further, even if he had been eligible for such authorization, he still could not have accessed the database without:
- (a) demonstrating a specific reasonable, articulable suspicion that the target of the inquiry belongs to a member of a recognized terrorist organization;
(b) submitting a specific request to his superiors based on that demonstration;
(c) getting the specific approval of one of just 22 persons at NSA;
(d) being recognized and verified by the system as having such approval at the time of logging in; and
(e) being subjected to numerous, repeated audits and reviews of his activity by NSA compliance officers, by the DOJ, by the DNI, and by the FISC.
Note also, from the report, that in ALL OF 2012, there were a TOTAL of only 300 such database queries -- LESS THAN ONE PER DAY.
It is no wonder, then, that Snowden and Greenwald have never been able simply to provide any evidence that Snowden actually did, or could actually do, what they claimed he could, much less to provide any evidence of current wrongdoing/illegalities that are as easy, common, and sanctioned as they claimed. Based on the foregoing, it is now apparent that they have not been able to provide any such evidence of their central claims, because their central claims -- the claims that started and still spur this whole debacle -- are complete, total bullshit. Snowden never could do what he and Greenwald claimed, and would have been caught if he tried.
Coupled with all of the other hyperbole, conflation, gross exaggeration, and outright dishonesty through omission of critical, material facts and context in his reports and comments on these programs and the administration's conduct, it has now become apparent, based on the actual procedure for obtaining authority to access the NSA's databases, that Greenwald's reporting is not only completely slanted and unreliable, it is also based on an entirely false premise. Based on the foregoing report, the fantastical claims of Snowden and Greenwald are simply not possible. In other words, the entire basis of this story -- hell, the only reason there ever WAS a story in the first place -- just blew up their faces. Sadly, their bullshit-based claims have already caused overwrought rhetoric and over-reaction in almost all corners. But that's what happens when hysteria-and-agenda-driven narrative trumps completeness and accuracy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims
Note:
Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
269 replies, 34504 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (47)
ReplyReply to this post
269 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So you're using the claims of a team of admitted fantastical liars, who even lied to Congress,
MannyGoldstein
Aug 2013
#1
So you're dismissing what he promised to prove that he didn't make a false claim
ProSense
Aug 2013
#33
I am convinced I have described him accurately. I have nothing but my opinion on that.
randome
Aug 2013
#112
So that means you just believe anybody that says something disparaging against the NSA?
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2013
#50
'Direct access', while not a lie, was certainly a whopper of deliberate misdirection.
randome
Aug 2013
#56
Yes, it has become a major flaw here on DU -- people become unhinged and just make up facts.
DontTreadOnMe
Aug 2013
#45
Trust the govt agency that outsources to Carlyle Group-owned, PNAC-led, Booz Allen Hamilton instead.
OnyxCollie
Aug 2013
#21
Because Snowden's documents have forced the NSA to admit that they've lied, lied, lied
MannyGoldstein
Aug 2013
#30
what I don't believe is just about anything you have to say on the subject.
Warren Stupidity
Aug 2013
#32
Fine, and I didn't write the WaPo piece. Yet you're dismissing it and attempting to deflect. n/t
ProSense
Aug 2013
#39
Clearly, implying that someone is a paid shill is a good argument for Greenwald/Snowden fans, but
ProSense
Aug 2013
#58
He is getting paid, he is a Libertarian and agrees with Paul with many things, and he is anti-Obama.
Whisp
Aug 2013
#218
I think Skinner says it best when he refers to "This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt.."
Cha
Aug 2013
#258
If HTTP is not a plurality it is probably because FTP and TFTP outweigh it due to downloads
whttevrr
Aug 2013
#90
Hilarious how the "don't shoot the messenger" crowds first response to this OP is
JaneyVee
Aug 2013
#23
Yes, the NSA uses software in the course of their jobs. Who could have foreseen that?
randome
Aug 2013
#49
And with that software it takes almost no effort to see in real time what is passing through
whttevrr
Aug 2013
#61
Unless someone has evidence that software is used on domestic data, you are assuming too much.
randome
Aug 2013
#69
LOL, let me get this straight. So the NSA has stopped denying that they're conducting blanket
Marr
Aug 2013
#42
I don't think it is salary in a monetary sense. I think it is a salary of psyche.
whttevrr
Aug 2013
#103
Say... as of today, are Snowden's documents officially Old News™, Completely False™, or
Marr
Aug 2013
#57
I don't think you've done a thorough enough background check of this blogger.
AppleBottom
Aug 2013
#249
How much do you want to bet that Greenwald has documents that explain this very process...
randome
Aug 2013
#80
OMG you and the Kos poster are completely clueless about what Snowden means by "authorities".
dkf
Aug 2013
#96
Do you know what he means by "authorities" when it comes to computers? Obviously not.
dkf
Aug 2013
#113
So you are claiming that the NSA either has very lax security allowing "any" Super User
DontTreadOnMe
Aug 2013
#120
What a nonsensical response. He hacked the system is not "certainly had the authorities to wiretap"
ProSense
Aug 2013
#149
"Hair on Fire" = "Tornado Full of Sharks" lol.. I think we have a new label
DontTreadOnMe
Aug 2013
#214
It's not Kos, it's just a diary by one of thousands of DK members. Post has no particular
leveymg
Aug 2013
#122
+Infinity! I say we suspend all funding for the NSA in toto until it complies with your quite
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#143
"Dana Priest's 'report' quotes no sources and presents data that this totally unverified. "
ProSense
Aug 2013
#146
"If you want 'evidence' from Greenwald, maybe you should contact him and ask. "
ProSense
Aug 2013
#162
If the claims are untrue, why was Clapper willing to commit a felony and lie to the Senate?
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2013
#134
Ever More Character Assassination - Pro Active And Sensible - Government Approved - IMHO
cantbeserious
Aug 2013
#142
I approve of the dissemination & acceptance of the truth. As any reasonable, rational person should.
baldguy
Aug 2013
#254
If you are serious, post links to the "REAL evidence". "Dude, seriously". nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Aug 2013
#176
Anyone swayed from one side to the other by this latest attempt? Hands? nt
Union Scribe
Aug 2013
#224
Cool blog post dude,.. nice you found another partisan over democracy hack,.
Civilization2
Aug 2013
#227
lolz,. right on point! endless delusional posts and non-responses is all ps offers,.
Civilization2
Aug 2013
#255