Sign in / up

back to article Ex-CIA techie Edward Snowden: I am the NSA PRISM deepthroat

A former CIA technician has broken cover to reveal himself as the mole who leaked information about PRISM - the US government's massive web surveillance programme. Edward Snowden, 29, outed himself as the source of revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has tapped up American internet giants for data on foreigners …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Bin Laden Athletic 4, USA 1

    Another own goal by the US team.

    This is not news to the so called "enemies of the US" - you'd have to be really stupid to have believed that the US wasn't monitoring all communications and Internet transmissions after the laws put in place after 9/11. So who's surprised and shocked by this "revelation" - yes, well that would be the average American who champions freedom and democracy throughout the world ... and is now finding out that they've lost it at home.

    The irony here is that the American Government policies like these have done more to harm the USA than anything that Osama Bin Laden could have possible imagined doing. What does this say about Americans? We're afraid now, we're scared ... and our own government has made us this way.

    13 2
    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Bin Laden Athletic 4, USA 1

      So who's surprised and shocked by this "revelation"

      I dunno. You *should* be surprised I guess. You can say *I always suspected this* of course. But suppose a close family member who has the habit of coming home late at night suddenly turns up in the latest hardcore skin flick you downloaded. That's good for some level of surprise at least.

      5 0
      1. Michael Hawkes
        Reply Icon
        Holmes

        Re: Bin Laden Athletic 4, USA 1

        If your family member was coming home late at night with people you suspect are pr0n stars, then you shouldn't be very surprised.

        1 0
    2. jason 7
      Reply Icon
      Unhappy

      Re: Bin Laden Athletic 4, USA 1

      I've always said terrorists have never taken away any of my freedoms, just my government.

      To be honest I reckon most of it is a smokescreen for building a huge monitoring network so the ruling corporations/financial institutions can do full profiling of us all to weed out those it wants to live/work/consume and those that can wither and die in the cold.

      9 3
      1. Tom 13
        Reply Icon

        Re: smokescreen for building a huge monitoring network so the ruling corporations/financial

        You really need to take off the tinfoil hat.

        Google have already done that, and you've freely given them your information.

        1 2
  2. ceesboog
    Headmaster

    War on Terror or war on us?

    War on terror: if terrorism is a form of warfare and war terrorizes then exactly what is a war on terror?

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66186/john-mueller-and-mark-g-stewart/hardly-existential

    Get real:

    State Department USA , vicitims 2003 Terrorism 625 people worldwide of which 35 Americans

    AIDS 3 million worldwide

    cars 43.200 USA alone

    So why some much $$^$^$^$ money on terror instead on car/road safety and AIDS??

    Why George W. Obama, tell me why ?

    21 3
    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: War on Terror or war on us?

      "....vicitims 2003 Terrorism 625 people worldwide of which 35 Americans...." Go check the numbers for 9/11, it seems to have skipped your blinkered and myopic notice that they were just a bit higher than 35.

      "....AIDS 3 million worldwide.....cars 43.200 USA alone...." Ignoring the billions spent annually all over the World on healthcare and car safety, the simple truth is society accepts a certain amount of accidental and medical deaths as inevitable, but does not accept that deaths due to terrorism are equally acceptable. And why should they? If you drive carefully then it massively reduces your risk of dying in a traffic accident. If you are careful about your sexual habits then it also massively reduces your chances of catching AIDS. But suicide bombers don't stop to ask their victims if they voted for Obama, are card-carrying members of the ACLU or even if they are good Muslims, they simply kill as many civilians as they can. In the case of suicide bombings in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan it is (and was) predominantly Muslim on Muslim killings and nothing to do with us in the West.

      5 20
      1. btrower
        Reply Icon

        Re: War on Terror or war on us?

        Re: predominantly Muslim on Muslim killings and nothing to do with us in the West

        Thinking like that is what got us into this mess. The mechanisms used to harm other people can also be turned against you. Even if they could not, some of us feel a sense of responsibility for the world beyond our doors.

        I have lived in the armed camps that are 'gated communities'. You may be safe inside, but once it gets to that point you are really just in a fancy prison. If it harms another, it harms thee and me.

        6 2
        1. ceesboog
          Reply Icon
          Happy

          Re: War on Terror or war on us?

          So you think Muslims are the only problem? Here the only solution, from a Muslim:

          http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/khudayr-taher-europe-and-america-should-deport-all-muslims-including-myself/ 2007 yeah I have my own *Prism*

          But I don't think Muslims are the only problem, do you?

          0 0
      2. Magister
        Reply Icon

        Re: War on Terror or war on us?

        >>Go check the numbers for 9/11, it seems to have skipped your blinkered and myopic notice that they were just a bit higher than 35<<

        The death figures quoted in the OP were for 2003; the attack on the WTC was in 2001. Perhaps it might have been appropriate to quote figures for several years; but even it had included those, the number of deaths by an act of terrorism are still proportionally lower than almost any other cause.

        It's worth noting that the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 resulted in the death of 227,000 people (according to official figures; it might have been higher). That is a shocking number; but what is astonishing is how short an amount of time it took for the human race to make up that loss of life. Based upon the population growth rate of the last decade, it would have taken a little over 26 hours.

        8 2
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: Magister Re: War on Terror or war on us?

          ".....It's worth noting that the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 resulted in the death of 227,000 people....." The tsunami was an act of nature (or "God", if you are that way inclined), and there was only so much that could be done to alleviate it. Whilst a terrible tragedy, lives were saved and deaths were prevented. What you lot are suggesting is tantamount to NOT taking any tsunami precautions and NOT allowing hospitals to treat the victims of a tsunami.

          Terror is not an act of nature or "God", but is often dressed up in an excuse of holy action. It is often preventable, so why should we accept even a single death due to terror? Are you saying that if you had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance you would have just shrugged and said "WTH, it will only be 3,000-odd dead, more than that die on the highways every month"? How about the Boston Marathon bombing? It "only" killed two people, are you saying we should just accept that because 227,000 died in a tsunami?

          3 15
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Magister War on Terror or war on us? @Matt Bryant

            " Are you saying that ...."

            Magister made a pertinent observation about the severity of newsworthy events in the grand scheme of things. To extend that into some strawman is pointless and inflammatory, albeit a familiar tactic of yours.

            8 3
            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Reply Icon
              FAIL

              Re: Magister War on Terror or war on us? @Matt Bryant

              "Magister made a pertinent observation....." He made an observation, I merely pointed out that his example was a natural disaster, and therefore unavoidable, whereas terrorism is very man-made and therefore very detectable and avoidable. Your failure to see that whilst bleating on about strawmen simply exposes the determination you have to keep wearing your blinkers.

              0 5
          2. ceesboog
            Reply Icon
            Meh

            Re: Magister War on Terror or war on us?

            >>>>Are you saying that if you had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance you would have just shrugged and said "WTH, it will only be 3,000-odd dead, more than that die on the highways every month"?<<<<

            That's just what George W. said...or I'm I being rude now?

            1 0
          3. Intractable Potsherd
            Reply Icon

            Re: "[T]he Boston Marathon bombing ... 'only' killed two people ...

            "... are you saying we should just accept that?"

            Well, yes, I do say that. It was nothing more than a domestic murder. It should not be treated any differently that the idiots that go out on shooting sprees. The fact that the reason they did it may have some Islamic aspects is utterly irrelevant. The same applies to the brutal little shits that killed the soldier here - murder, not terrorism. No special measures needed at all.

            2 0
      3. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: War on Terror or war on us?

        Ok then I'll bite.

        Do kids ask to be abducted and murdered by paedophile serial killers? Because if you live in the USA, that is more likely to happen than for your kids to be killed by islamic extremists. Or any other extremists, come to that.

        So the NSA are watching everything everyone does. And if some miscreant in Boston is planning to blow up a couple of pressure cookers and kill 3 people, there will be helicopters, fighter jets and half the police in the state there in no time.

        But if they notice some child porn fiend grooming some kid he's about to abduct, rape and murder, they won't use this information to collar him and save your kids, because he's American and has constitutional rights?

        For f*cks sake. If you're happy they are spying on you anyway, why not let them use what they find to foil any type of serious crime? Why the obsession with muslims and terrorists????

        The answer is because this is nothing to do with terrorism, it is everything to do with keeping the prols in line, just like any other mass surveillance - Stasi, Securitate, etc.

        5 1
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Facepalm

          Re: War on Terror or war on us?

          ".....For f*cks sake. If you're happy they are spying on you anyway, why not let them use what they find to foil any type of serious crime?....." Don't be silly, they already are. The US has used the NSA's listening tech to tap mobile calls between drug cartel members in South America for decades. In the UK, we have a sanctioned "cyber-unit" that does nothing other than track peados through their Internet activity, and shares it with other international forces including the FBI. Welcome to the party, pull up a chair, you've got a lot of catching up to do.

          1 2
      4. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: War on Terror or war on us?

        "....vicitims 2003 Terrorism 625 people worldwide of which 35 Americans...." Go check the numbers for 9/11, it seems to have skipped your blinkered and myopic notice that they were just a bit higher than 35.

        Any maybe you didn't notice that 9/11 happened in 2001, not 2003?

        The same is true of "The Troubles" in N. Ireland. In the 30 years from 1968 to 1998 there were ~ 3000 people killed in terrorist-related incidents, at least half of whom could not be described as "innocent civilians" since they chose to be involved, by joining a terrorist organisation, or the police/army, or other high-profile group.

        During those same 30 years ~3000 people died in car accidents in N. Ireland, which is around the UK per-capita rate, and less than half the French death rate for the same period. I never heard of anyone unwilling to visit NI (or France) through fear of being killed in a car crash.

        People die, every day. It isn't always their fault, and there is often nothing they can do about it.

        3 1
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: War on Terror or war on us?

          ".....Any maybe you didn't notice that 9/11 happened in 2001, not 2003?....." Which would imply the anti-terror measures brought in after 9/11 were very effective and that you are therefore endorsing such measures as PRISM? Thanks.

          "....People die, every day. It isn't always their fault, and there is often nothing they can do about it." That doesn't mean you should just accept all deaths as unavoidable, otherwise we wouldn't have any form of car safety.

          0 4
          1. ceesboog
            Reply Icon
            WTF?

            Re: War on Terror or war on us?

            And you think they didn't have such spy-progs before 2003?

            Why didn't those PREVENT 9/11? Or they just let it go?

            Creepy aint it?

            Didn't everyone in the world wonder why Superman, Bruce Willis (sorry Bruce), the X-men or another prevent it?

            Again WHY George W.

            2 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      All About MONEY

      * Money for the defense porkers (which Booze is one of). More terror, more war, more money.

      * Control of the populace to ensure they don't rebel against the money crimes of the 1%.

      Besides, who gains and who loses from these messages ? Cloud computing loses, M$ gains. Who gains from the Manning/Assange thing ? Well, the arab tyrants lost to some degree.

      Ever considered this being a big show for the plebs ? "Authenticated" by stories of "torture against an American soldier" ?

      Ever considered the Vanunu thing was a big show ? To "authenticate" them having nukular beans.

      First rule of message analysis: Use Brain.

      4 3
    3. Fat Northerner
      Reply Icon

      Re: War on Terror or war on us?

      You won't get an answer.

      Thankfully, neither of us are hypocrites.

      I support the oppression of foreigners to get oil, and have no problem therefore criticising the government if they don't secure it.

      I do however stand side by side with your stated intent to not hold it against the government, when your children and or mother dies for the lack of fuel for an ambulance. Your stance has principles I could only wish for.

      2 6
    4. jason 7
      Reply Icon

      Re: War on Terror or war on us?

      Malaria would decimate any on that list.

      2 0
  3. Cliff

    such shock and horror

    I really am surprised that this seems to be such a shock to everybody. Can you really imagine any organisation whose whole raison d'etre is to spot and gather information not spy and gather all the information it can in this cost effective and practical manner from servers in their own jurisdiction? Of course they do, in their place you would too. Getting caught was an error, but it's hardly shocking is it?

    8 1
    1. btrower
      Reply Icon

      Re: such shock and horror

      Re: in their place you would too

      Speak for yourself. I would not. I do not want to live in a police state; not even as one of the police.

      Eventually they will come for you, even if you are one of them.

      12 0
      1. Don Jefe
        Reply Icon
        Stop

        Re: such shock and horror

        Here the thing. The Constitution 'they' are currently using for toilet paper guarantees innocence until proven guilty. That concept is drilled into us from a young age (even through TV and movies). By and large I think most Americans behave with that concept in mind. While many of us had suspicions 'they' had us under surveillance there was no proof. Now we have proof and a plea of guilty from the perpetrators & it is perfectly within rights and expectations to expect the people to be angry and demand change.

        Everything is turned around and the people are paying more attention to the law than those who we elect to uphold it.

        5 1
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: Don Jefe Re: such shock and horror

          ".....guarantees innocence until proven guilty....." The presumption of innocence does not stop the police from investigating you as a suspect. What your paranoid delusions of grandeur are insisting on is the equivalent of saying the police have to walk around blindfolded and only take off their blindfolds when they are dealing with convicted criminals, otherwise they might see innocent people. You are not that important, get over yourself.

          0 12
          1. Sir Runcible Spoon
            Reply Icon

            Re: Don Jefe such shock and horror

            "innocence until proven guilty"

            I have a real problem with this phrase because it presumes you are guilty before you've even started.

            How about 'innocent unless proven guilty'

            6 0
    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Re: such shock and horror

      "Can you really imagine any organisation whose whole raison d'etre is to spot and gather information not spy and gather all the information it can"

      It turns out that in acceptable settings, there is something called "Law" and "Constitution".

      Thank you for phoning in from North Korea. HTH.

      5 4
  4. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Happy

    Guilt by association.

    "a known terrorist in Yemen calls someone in the U.S., why did he call them and what happened when the person in U.S. starts making calls elsewhere in the U.S.?" he asked. "On the surface it looks like the emergence of a terrorism cell." - NSA Spokesperson.

    So all the terrorists have to do now is start prank-calling folks in the US to bring down civilization?

    9 2
  5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Re: Version 1.0

    ".....So all the terrorists have to do now is start prank-calling folks in the US to bring down civilization?" They could try and dilute NSA activity by creating as many false positives as possible, yes. But, the scheme has a certain (smoking) hole in it - the caller has to give up there location, and once the NSA have investigated a few of the calls, spotted the hoax and realised there is no more value to listening to Mr Jihadi, that is when they start lining up a drone strike on him. I would therefore suggest the prank calls idea would not be very popular after a few smoking craters.

    0 9
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Version 1.0

      Drone use is hugely overrated & isn't quite as common as Call of Duty would have you believe so I don't think the "smoking craters" argument will hold much water....

      If he's in a tower block in the middle of a city, then I don't think they'll bother. Or he could just give a few "hot" phones to friends, runners etc & get them to sit in the local school, hospital, mosque, shopping centre etc. & dial out.

      Just think of the chaos & witch hunts they could cause by calling employees of the very agencies that are trying to monitor them!

      Paris because she likes "ickle planes" too.....

      7 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Version 1.0

      What a brilliant way out of the recession. I think this is an attempt to earn the us, massive international dialing charges.

      0 0
  6. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    WTF?

    LOL!

    This guy gave up what he claims was a $200k contracting role in Hawaii so he can go live in Iceland!?!? ROFLMAO!

    2 18
    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

      That's the difference between decent people and yourself, Matty.

      And it's Hong-Kong btw.

      11 4
      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Destroyed All Braincells Re: Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

        "That's the difference between decent people and yourself....." Decency is an opinion, and seeing as I hold your opinion in about as much esteem as a three-year-old's, I would have to suggest you mistook me for someone that was bothered.

        ".....And it's Hong-Kong btw." Proof that the sheeple just don't bother reading before they bleat! He has been discussing asylum with Iceland, it's all over the Web, maybe you should try reading for once instead of being spoonfed your ideas? Try here, they don't use too many long words that might trouble you:

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/09/edward-snowden-guardian-interview/2405873/

        2 18
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          "Decency is an opinion"?

          I happen to disagree. But if morality is relative, as you claim, why draw a distinction between the "evil Islamist terrorists" and "American freedom fighters"? Suicide bombers claim the moral high ground, after all. And the US has killed more innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in 9/11.

          3 1
          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Reply Icon
            Stop

            Re: AC Re: "Decency is an opinion"?

            "I happen to disagree....." Good for you! I would actually encourage your forming your own opinions as long as they are based on facts, not whimsy.

            ".....And the US has killed more innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in 9/11." And you have some collateral to back up that claim (and not the debunked Lancet articel, I hope)? They vast majority of civilian deaths in both countries were Muslim on Msulim violence. In Iraq, including the actual Invasion and going up to the withdrawl, Allied forces accounted for less than 20% - even during the open warfare stage - of all Iraqi civilian deaths, the rest were all Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence:

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-on-terrorism-al-qaida-kills-eight-times-more-muslims-than-non-muslims-a-660619.html

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/al-qaeda-hurts-muslims-most/

            http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-victims-of-terror-attack-remain-overwhelmingly-muslim/20120801.htm#1

            www.iraqbodycount.org/

            0 5
      2. Tom 13
        Reply Icon

        Re: And it's Hong-Kong btw.

        Looks like Matt read the article and you skipped it.

        Hiding out in Hong Kong while requesting diplomatic immunity from Iceland. So yes the alleged final destination is Iceland.

        3 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Choose Iceland over Hawaii

      well Iceland isn't full of Americans at least ...

      2 1
    3. Schultz
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Re: LOL!

      "This guy gave up what he claims was a $200k contracting role in Hawaii so he can go live in Iceland!?!? ROFLMAO!"

      Yea, it was the selfless and idealistic people like you, Matt, who built civilization, conquered tyranny, and founded the US.

      4 1
      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: Schutz Re: LOL!

        ".....Yea, it was the selfless and idealistic people like you, Matt, who built civilization, conquered tyranny, and founded the US." Oh puh-lease! Even from the very start, the States were built by rogues and entrepreneurs and some of the most rabid capitalists going! Thomas Jefferson wasn't some goodie-two-shoes type, he was a hard-nosed businessman with thousands of acres of slave-worked plantations. John Hancock was a merchant and one of the wealthiest men in the Colonies, coming from an elite Boston family. Even the much lauded JFK came from another elite Boston business family that made their money from saloons and politics. Sorry to burst your bubble but the States weren't built on love, understanding anbd sweet thoughts, there was always the firm hand of hard-nosed capitalism in the background, and often in the foreground.

        1 5
  7. 404

    The Experts

    Over the weekend were claiming 'he was just an IT Admin, had limited access".

    I about fell over - IT Admins access whatever they like on their networks, whenever they want to. So much ignorance out there.

    Now whether he's some kind of hero, I'd say yes, exposing the bastards for what they are is a good thing at any time. Obama will get him somehow, hard, just to scare anybody who might consider exposing the Feds in the future. Remember that guy that was fired at the EPA a few years back? He was fired for announcing methods - how the Romans would visit a troublesome town and crucify the first people they saw - it made other towns thoughtful.

    To think I was paranoid before...

    3 7
    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      @404

      If IT Admins can access whatever they want, it's a shit organisation.

      11 1
      1. 404
        Reply Icon
        Go

        Re: @JimmyPage

        I agree, the US Government is a shit organization.

        Cheers!

        ;)

        1 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The Experts

      Not necessarily, there are many types of admins in today's world ranging from help desk to security administration. At the NSA security compartmentalization is actually deployed, so it is possible that indeed Snowden did have limited access.

      We all knew that electronic communication was being tracked, many just never thought that their information was being captured and analyzed. In the US, many who would not normally object are still very angry about how the Obama administration abused IRS data to cripple/squelch its political opposition (illegal, and immoral). Obama himself has only paid lip service to the issues, he does not appear interested in really investigating or cleaning up, therefore he is minimally complicit if not involved. What has happened is beginning to look much worse than Watergate.

      3 0
      1. Tom 13
        Reply Icon

        Re: beginning to look much worse than Watergate.

        It looked worse than Watergate as soon as Benghazi ended. The stories about James Rosen and the AP spying are just the spark that lit the fuse on the IRS scandal.

        From where I'm sitting, it looks like all hell is about to break loose in our government. Not a pretty thought. When giants rumble, little people like me get trampled.

        1 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dead man walking

    That's what this guy is. Whether you think what he did was right or wrong (was he a patriot or traitor) he is now a dead man. The USA has no issue with kidnap, torture or murder.

    11 3
    1. Aldous
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Re: Dead man walking

      Why bother? The damage is done and if he wind's up dead all the loonies will spring forth going "CONSPIRACY!!!!11". If they wanted him dead they could get him extradited for treason and kill him legally.

      Much much easier to discredit someone or nab them on a legality (Assange) and a lot less attention grabbing. State sponsored assassination's tend to be done by Predators and not James Bond

      2 0
  9. JimmyPage Silver badge
    FAIL

    Six degrees of Kevin Bacon ...

    The more data that is hoovered up (strangely appropriate term, given the circumstances) then eventually *everybody* will be connected to *everybody else*.

    At which point it becomes pretty useless.

    2 2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like