At the bottom of page 2 of the document, where it incorrectly refers to "memorandums of understanding" (should be memoranda), the submitted, redacted documents contain two crossed out fields. Unfortunately, the contents of those fields are readily discernible, and so I expect the Defense 'Intelligence' Agency will conduct an investigation into who leaked the following information:
Derived from: Multiple Sources Declassify on: 20381109 (the 3 may in fact be a 7, so this is not a complete leak).
This information is also contained on page 4, which APPEARS to state the declassification date as 20331107. Page 6 has a date that appears to be 20381024.
I encourage someone with better eyesight than I to have a closer look at this potentially life-risking information.
"I am writing to you in relation to local statutes regarding murder. It has come to this department's notice that your company's facilities have been used to manufacture a device that is used to 'kill' people and animals. I have enclosed photographs, along with details of several investigations into these activities, and seek your assistance in stopping this unlawful activity.
"My clients, the Attorneys-General of the states several and singular, seek your immediate removal of this capacity to create 'weapons' from your factories. This notice is a good-faith request, however my clients are looking very closely at your relationship with this 'murder' activity and will not hesitate to take further action if it is warranted by your response to this request.
"I recommend that you conduct yourself accordingly."
I've assumed all along that Techdirt is a "site of interest" to the FBI/NSA. People who post on this website clearly are much too interested in having personal freedoms, and therefore must be terrorists.
Wow. He believes the NSA when it says it doesn't use information for commercial purposes? There really are some morons in the media - you're supposed to question everything, not just assume that your buddies are telling you the absolute truth.
The Snowden leaks have actually been managed impeccably. They have been released gradually, allowing the media and the public time to analyse each new revelation. They have in some cases been timed to contradict something an official said days earlier. Basically, the leakers have control. That must frustrate the NSA and its friends no end.
They cannot just "publish the lot" though. First, I'd be surprised if they do really know everything that Mr Snowden took. Their claim to do so implies some sort of auditability that they have so far shown a total lack of.
Publishing everything brings another problem. If Edward Snowden is a traitor for leaking NSA records, then surely the agency would likewise be treacherous if it released/declassified what he has. Worse (from the NSA's perspective) - doing so may carry the implication that Snowden was right in releasing information, and destroy any criminal case against him.
So yes, revealing everything would be sensible as it would take control of the situation back. However, it carries with it significant pain and the NSA just won't accept that responsibility.
The IETF is clearly thinking about the right things and heading the right way. It appears to be intent on ensuring the Internet is available for people first.
I expect that in the next few years "safe" countries will emerge, that are happy to treat your private data as private. Those countries will end up housing a lot of data that to date, and through no ability for the user to choose, has been stored quite insecurely.
Government agencies, on the other hand, are going to find this new world quite frustrating. Swiss banks have in the last few decades finally allowed "law enforcement" agencies to see who owns deposits; I expect that trend to be reversed when it comes to data. Governments will find that companies are not always prepared to just hand over the keys to personal data - and I expect there will be court cases that punish companies for not protecting their customers. At the moment there is no incentive for companies to keep customer data private - but enforcement of existing laws in the EU and elsewhere are likely to create some very strong reasons for protection of personal details.
It will take time, but we are likely to end up not only with a more secure Internet but with more personal freedom and privacy as a result of the Snowden Affair (film rights currently being negotiated).
I love how the NSA now has its pawns hitting comment boards to say "everyone does this, so it can't be so bad". Seriously? The most powerful government in world history, with the world's most connected "information" agency, and the best you can come up with is "Mum, Jimmy's parents let him do it!" "So if Jimmy jumped off a cliff..."?
So what if "everyone does it"? You shouldn't. I don't want my government spying on other governments, and I don't want other governments spying on my government. It doesn't matter whether they're friends or enemies, it's just wrong. Rude. Impolite and impolitic. Whether or not you get busted is not relevant - you shouldn't do it.
Start talking, and stop relying on the fact that you've read the other guy's notes before the meeting.
I think government should be totally transparent. It is there for the citizens, and they need to know what is being done in their names. Without knowing what my government knows, how can I trust anyone, from politicians to the public servant who assesses my tax return?
In the digital, all-accessing age the default position should be "publish everything", with opportunity to argue for specific restrictions.
Sorry to have to break this to you, but the rest of the world had noticed US hypocrisy. We were just too polite to say anything until you announced it as a formal policy yourselves.
Close the service down, and move it and the company offshore to a country that values privacy.
Of course, that's basically what will happen over the next five to ten years - and hopefully countries will fall over themselves to show how conscious they are of the need for individual privacy protection.
Can't the army afford decent actors and editors (the first clip has an appalling splice), along with a script-writer who has a clue? I couldn't bear the awfulness of the second video for long enough to reach a Chelsea Manning reference.
So Techdirt is now preparing itself for an appearance before a British magistrate, having published these names while aware that they were the subject of a restraining order?
Presumably Techdirt's British representative, Emma Peel, will front court.
Where are the prosecutions? The resignations? The calls for a complete, open and (importantly) totally arms-length inquiry? Why are heads of departments not resigning/being sacked?
This whole episode is very ugly, and getting uglier by the day. Thank you for your bravery and honesty, Mr Snowden. Your country should be calling you a hero, and instead it continues to persecute you while protecting so many others.
They've leaked information here!
At the bottom of page 2 of the document, where it incorrectly refers to "memorandums of understanding" (should be memoranda), the submitted, redacted documents contain two crossed out fields. Unfortunately, the contents of those fields are readily discernible, and so I expect the Defense 'Intelligence' Agency will conduct an investigation into who leaked the following information:
Derived from: Multiple Sources
Declassify on: 20381109 (the 3 may in fact be a 7, so this is not a complete leak).
This information is also contained on page 4, which APPEARS to state the declassification date as 20331107. Page 6 has a date that appears to be 20381024.
I encourage someone with better eyesight than I to have a closer look at this potentially life-risking information.
What a very interesting precedent
"Dear Messrs Smith and Wesson,
"I am writing to you in relation to local statutes regarding murder. It has come to this department's notice that your company's facilities have been used to manufacture a device that is used to 'kill' people and animals. I have enclosed photographs, along with details of several investigations into these activities, and seek your assistance in stopping this unlawful activity.
"My clients, the Attorneys-General of the states several and singular, seek your immediate removal of this capacity to create 'weapons' from your factories. This notice is a good-faith request, however my clients are looking very closely at your relationship with this 'murder' activity and will not hesitate to take further action if it is warranted by your response to this request.
"I recommend that you conduct yourself accordingly."
We can't trust Techdirt
I've assumed all along that Techdirt is a "site of interest" to the FBI/NSA. People who post on this website clearly are much too interested in having personal freedoms, and therefore must be terrorists.
Good on him - hopefully everything he did fits within the law.
Wow. He believes the NSA when it says it doesn't use information for commercial purposes? There really are some morons in the media - you're supposed to question everything, not just assume that your buddies are telling you the absolute truth.
A good idea
The Snowden leaks have actually been managed impeccably. They have been released gradually, allowing the media and the public time to analyse each new revelation. They have in some cases been timed to contradict something an official said days earlier. Basically, the leakers have control. That must frustrate the NSA and its friends no end.
They cannot just "publish the lot" though. First, I'd be surprised if they do really know everything that Mr Snowden took. Their claim to do so implies some sort of auditability that they have so far shown a total lack of.
Publishing everything brings another problem. If Edward Snowden is a traitor for leaking NSA records, then surely the agency would likewise be treacherous if it released/declassified what he has. Worse (from the NSA's perspective) - doing so may carry the implication that Snowden was right in releasing information, and destroy any criminal case against him.
So yes, revealing everything would be sensible as it would take control of the situation back. However, it carries with it significant pain and the NSA just won't accept that responsibility.
The right direction
The IETF is clearly thinking about the right things and heading the right way. It appears to be intent on ensuring the Internet is available for people first.
I expect that in the next few years "safe" countries will emerge, that are happy to treat your private data as private. Those countries will end up housing a lot of data that to date, and through no ability for the user to choose, has been stored quite insecurely.
Government agencies, on the other hand, are going to find this new world quite frustrating. Swiss banks have in the last few decades finally allowed "law enforcement" agencies to see who owns deposits; I expect that trend to be reversed when it comes to data. Governments will find that companies are not always prepared to just hand over the keys to personal data - and I expect there will be court cases that punish companies for not protecting their customers. At the moment there is no incentive for companies to keep customer data private - but enforcement of existing laws in the EU and elsewhere are likely to create some very strong reasons for protection of personal details.
It will take time, but we are likely to end up not only with a more secure Internet but with more personal freedom and privacy as a result of the Snowden Affair (film rights currently being negotiated).
Has anyone told Mike Rogers about the webcam installation above his shower?
Not that he needs to know, of course.
Everyone does it?
I love how the NSA now has its pawns hitting comment boards to say "everyone does this, so it can't be so bad". Seriously? The most powerful government in world history, with the world's most connected "information" agency, and the best you can come up with is "Mum, Jimmy's parents let him do it!" "So if Jimmy jumped off a cliff..."?
So what if "everyone does it"? You shouldn't. I don't want my government spying on other governments, and I don't want other governments spying on my government. It doesn't matter whether they're friends or enemies, it's just wrong. Rude. Impolite and impolitic. Whether or not you get busted is not relevant - you shouldn't do it.
Start talking, and stop relying on the fact that you've read the other guy's notes before the meeting.
It's great to see some cracks emerging in the to-date implacable solidarity. Hopefully this will lead to more truth.
What does "terrorism" mean?
Sounds to me like state-sponsored terrorism.
But... terrorism!
Scared yet?
What is wrong with total transparency?
I think government should be totally transparent. It is there for the citizens, and they need to know what is being done in their names. Without knowing what my government knows, how can I trust anyone, from politicians to the public servant who assesses my tax return?
In the digital, all-accessing age the default position should be "publish everything", with opportunity to argue for specific restrictions.
We knew
Sorry to have to break this to you, but the rest of the world had noticed US hypocrisy. We were just too polite to say anything until you announced it as a formal policy yourselves.
This is one of the guys who thought they had the brains to beat the legal system. Things can only go downhill.
Offshore it
Close the service down, and move it and the company offshore to a country that values privacy.
Of course, that's basically what will happen over the next five to ten years - and hopefully countries will fall over themselves to show how conscious they are of the need for individual privacy protection.
The NSA knows all
I'd like the NSA to do something useful for once, and tell me where my next job will be.
Can't the army afford decent actors and editors (the first clip has an appalling splice), along with a script-writer who has a clue? I couldn't bear the awfulness of the second video for long enough to reach a Chelsea Manning reference.
Maybe they should stick with their day jobs.
So Techdirt is now preparing itself for an appearance before a British magistrate, having published these names while aware that they were the subject of a restraining order?
Presumably Techdirt's British representative, Emma Peel, will front court.
Where are the prosecutions? The resignations? The calls for a complete, open and (importantly) totally arms-length inquiry? Why are heads of departments not resigning/being sacked?
This whole episode is very ugly, and getting uglier by the day. Thank you for your bravery and honesty, Mr Snowden. Your country should be calling you a hero, and instead it continues to persecute you while protecting so many others.