The Snowden Effect: From Governmentalized to Privatized & Commoditized

How Safe is Our Information with Billionaire Corporatists & Dollar-Hungry Opportunist Individuals?

Please raise your hand if you are one of many concerned citizens when it comes to our government collecting and keeping your data without a warrant or any justification. Do you see my hand? I know I am a shorty, but it is up there; my hand. I assure you. In fact it has been there for a long time.

Now, please raise your hand if you are a citizen who is highly concerned about your data, personal and public, not only being taken and stored by our government, but also being accessed and stored by other private corporations, private individuals and their foreign lovers and contacts. Can you see my hand? I’m there- standing on my toes with my raised hand. How many other hands do you see; if any? Is yours up there?

Yes. I am livid. I am livid that our government is collecting our communications and information without any warrant or oversight. I am appalled by our government storing all our data in its massive database with zero oversight or accountability. It is frightening; truly. But let me tell you something: right now I am even more appalled and alarmed by individuals obtaining our data, commoditizing it, and handing it over to companies and individuals around the world.

Nine months ago I was one of many who thought we had a new whistleblower who had gone out on a limb to obtain a few documents in order to expose how our government has been violating our Constitution and rights with its illegal surveillance operations. Today, nine months after this individual came out publicly, sporting the title whistleblower, I am watching in horror a far more terrifying and outrageous plot unfolding before my own eyes.

When the story first broke I, among others, assumed that Edward Snowden had taken a few documents to illustrate the unconstitutional abuses and violations committed by the NSA.

Then, in July 2013, Greenwald told Der Spiegel he and Laura Poitras had each received a complete archive from Snowden which totaled 9,000-10,000 documents.

A few weeks later that same Glenn Greenwald told the Brazilian Senate that he possessed up to 20,000 documents.

Fast forward one month, and in its court statement over the temporary detention of David Miranda, the UK government said Miranda was carrying 58,000 documents which took up around 60 gigabytes of disk space.

And now, nine months later, we are told that Snowden is believed to have used web crawlers to access and obtain about 1.7 million documents.

First, the ever-changing story and document number establish Snowden and the involved so-called journalists as dishonest and liars. Oddly enough, no one in the mainstream media is calling them on the constantly changing and contradicting story line.

Second, it illustrates that there is no way these documents were obtained discreetly or with any due diligence. How could anyone suck up 1.7 million documents with a web crawler and claim that the act was performed ethically and with diligence? If the individual’s intention was to illustrate a case of clear and present unconstitutionality and criminality, why go suck up millions of documents indiscriminately? Why not care how many of those documents are on legitimate targets or investigations? Why not be wary of some of the documents containing private citizens’ private information?

Third, it shows a complete lack of responsibility for Snowden to carry with him around the world over one million indiscriminately obtained Top Secret documents. By his own admission Snowden used his own credit card and identity to travel to Hong Kong, and he remained there for almost three weeks while registered in a hotel under his own name, passport ID, and credit card number. What kind of individual would commit such an act while in possession of 1.7 million documents pertaining to Americans’ personal data, U.S. government intelligence, and even other nations’ proprietary information?

Fourth, much of the initial story was given glitzy attention based on the claim that Snowden had obtained these documents with one pure purpose: Making it all public for the public’s benefit and the people’s right to know. However, to date, after nine months into the story, the people have received less than 1% of the obtained documents. 

Now, let’s talk about the entities who have been given these documents (the entire cache):

We know that Glenn Greenwald has been given the entire cache by Snowden. He has shrewdly enriched himself with the cache: from a seven-figure book deal to a movie deal and a new cushy venture with a billionaire boss. To read more about this Click Here . As you can see, having access to documents that purportedly contain our information, other nations’ information, and much information related to many corporations, were commoditized and utilized to obtain financial and career gains.

We know that Glenn Greenwald’s Brazilian boyfriend was given access to the entire cache by Edward Snowden as well. To read more about this Click Here

We know that film-maker Laura Poitras was given the Snowden Cache. She too has been rewarded with high-sums and a billionaire-sponsored lucrative career deal for the documents.

We know that other publications such as Washington Post and Guardian have been given a large share of these documents. Speaking of the Washington Post, another billionaire seems to be getting his money’s worth in this deal as well: Amazon’s Jeff Bezos

Let’s recap it so far: Billionaire corporatists such as Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Bezos have access to Edward Snowden’s 1.7 million stolen documents. Several mainstream news corporations such as Guardian and the New York Times have their nice-size cache. A few ambitious and dollar-oriented American and foreign individuals have joint ownership of Edward Snowden’s stolen documents.

So let me ask you, it was horrible and scary enough to know that the United States Government was able to obtain and store our data. Please tell me how you feel about the fact that now, along with the U.S. government, billionaire corporatists such as PayPal’s Pierre Omidyar and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and dollar-hungry opportunist individuals such as Glenn Greenwald, Brazilian David Miranda and Laura Poitras, all have our data to do with as they wish?

Please don’t write off the value of Snowden’s cache to billionaire corporatists like Pierre Omidyar. Think about what he could do with all that info. Could he have an advantage over his competitors, considering that the NSA cache contains tons of documents on many major companies? You bet. Could he use some of the stolen data to blackmail his competitors here and abroad? Surely. Could he utilize Snowden’s stolen documents to blackmail and receive favors from the U.S. government? Of course. Now, do you see how $250 million may prove to be a small price to pay for what may gain billions for him? I am sure you do.

The lack of outrage and protest against the privatization and commoditization of the Snowden Cache may in fact pave the way for the government to do the exact same thing itself; directly- without middlemen such as Snowden and sleazy hungry journalists. Let me give you a few examples:

Texas DMV Sells Personal Information to Hundreds Of Companies; Drivers Not Allowed to Opt-Out

Legal Theft: Florida DMV Makes Millions Legally Selling Personal Information

DMV Wants to Market Drivers’ Records for Sale

That’s right. Let’s apply what opportunist journalists are doing here to our government. What if the government elects to sell a portion of its questionably obtained information from its citizens to major private corporations like Microsoft or PayPal or Amazon? Would you consider such an act outrageous and illegal? Okay. Then, why is it okay for a thief to obtain 1.7 million documents pertaining to our data, hand over that indiscriminately obtained data to a few greedy opportunists, and have those opportunists sell the data to mega corporations? Maybe this is what Snowden and his opportunist accomplices together with billionaire corporatist sugar daddies paved the way for: To kosher-ize privatization, commoditization and monetization of the people’s data by the government.

How is it that the majority of privacy activists are so alarmed and outraged at the idea of having our government collect and store our personal and business data, yet, these same individuals are not up-in-arms about that same data being commoditized and privatized and monetized by ruthless billionaires and greedy individuals? I don’t get it, do you? Is it a case of willful ignorance? Is it a case of blinded judgment brought on by glitzy publicity campaigns? Or is it a case of not seeing the forest for the trees? You tell me.

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is the Publisher & Editor of Boiling Frogs Post and the author of the Memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN Newman’s Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy” Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

Thank You NSA, Snowden & the Media for Showing our Super-Ness in Something!

The Entire Snowden NSA Cache Exposed Once and for All

Part II: David Miranda’s Detainment: The Calico Kitten in Wag-The-Dog?

Part I: The Doomsday Insurance Cache That Was, and Then Never Was

Dear Mr. Snowden, It’s Time to Come Out & Take a Stand Publicly as to Your Intentions

Establishment-Made Heroes, Blind Seekers of Saviors & Suckers

Green-Light for Greenwald: Government Duplicity or Government Duality?

Greenwald-Omidyar Venture: Blurring Lines Between Being A Source & Being A Journalist

Greenwald Goes on Record: “I Don’t Doubt PayPal Cooperates with NSA!”

BFP Report- Omidyar’s PayPal Corporation Said To Be Implicated in Withheld NSA Documents

Checkbook Journalism & Leaking to the Highest Bidder

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. avatar Joshua Roberts says:

    It is a clear case of the individuals in question being systematically demoralized (Bezmenov/Griffin Interview Excerpt: http://youtu.be/qlpODYhnPEo ). This is why they hijacked the newspapers back in the thirties and the problem persists today and has crystallized – to pass to the user-state of the individual a worldview that is appropriate to their enslavement. Thus, it is perfectly normal for the level of cognitive dissonance required to exists quite readily in the general population and even (perhaps especially) among privacy activists.

    Indeed, it is rather cult-like and like some kind of sacrament to not question the arbiters of truth such as Chomsky or Greenwald – this is the brutal reality of a control paradigm full of eloquent gatekeepers and their organizations (all funded ultimately by the NWO of course, but this is implicit so let’s not dwell on the macroscopic phenomenology, with which the BFP reader is likely already conversant only all-too-well). People’s sense of history comes to them from endless Hearst Media offshoots with a tiny handful of Soros/Murdoch et al. [NWO C3P0 superclass protocol droids] (ostensibly on opposite sides of a political paradigm of course, also designed to control and chill free thought/speech) types managing the D2D architectures – after generations of this the average privacy activist is really little more than a slave to some ideology or other which has been constructed for them, they are (sad) quite happy to simply play the role that has been cast for them and ineffectually vacillate between equally untenable vectors, thrashing against the system in a completely harmless manner. Do not expect political organization to result from any of this activity – that is the last thing on their minds, but they will raise a fuss before a hijacked media while attacking YOU, Sibel Edmonds, for attempting to extract them from the matrix :)

  2. It’s funny to watch interviews with GG. Lately he’s always asked when the next bit of info will be released. He’s been saying “within the next week or so” for a month and a half. The entirety of the Snowden revelations have been reduced to “metadata”. Even on their new website, GG is focusing on metadata only. It’s becoming sadly obvious what’s going on.

  3. kosher-ize – Nice!

    The big opening of the site has 1 (count um) One article and 3-4 shots
    of buildings. Now that’s a Cush Gig in anyone’s book. MSM follows right away with the single bullet point
    of the article and of course Amy is right there with a smile and tons of S/GG blabbing.

    My cell phone is being tracked – oh wait – enemy cell tracked & innocent people die when we blow it up.

    WoW, that is big news! ?? Just like Enemy Of The State. I get it ;)

  4. avatar Perry Watson says:

    Quite a sanguine analysis for a story that has gone from initially positive to one with far to many unanswered questions. Snowden has had multiple chances to address the journalists enriching themselves from his “sacrifice”, and he has said that it is “mission accomplished”. Shame.

  5. avatar donilo252525 says:

    Sibel,

    Your persistence to shine the light into this whole saga of darkness and confusion gives immense aid to unraveling manufactured and/or opportunistic webs of complexity. You are a constant inspiration for all of us. With your observations we gain options of understanding and also of ways to translate that understanding into future actions. Kudos to you!

    • What “future actions” if I may ask?

    • avatar donilo252525 says:

      netter,

      As we’re in a very fluid state, still formulating what is true and what might be manufactured in this saga, it’s too early to list specific actions. Nevertheless, Sibel’s viewpoint, and the viewpoint of others is vital in helping to ferret out what we might consider to be fact, and not fiction. She especially is in a unique position to have different perspectives given her history of experience and actions. It’s getting at the information that’s important, and she has very effective ways and thought processes that help a great deal in this respect.

      As we get this information actions will begin to emerge as appropriate to that information. Hope that answers your question.

      donilo

  6. Sibel,
    What makes you think any of OUR personal data is among the top secret documents? Thanks to Snowden and other whistleblowers (yes, he, too, is a whistleblower) we now know that government has access to trillions of bits of OUR data. Nobody is claiming they’ve classified it, they’re simply using it for whatever nefarious purposes that suit them.
    You’ve previously claimed that there is nothing new in the Snowden trove of documents and that WE have known all of this info already. Oh, really? Maybe you did because of your top secret clearance but most of us never have had or will have that kind of access so we’re dependent on people like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald to level the playing field for us.
    The article that Greenwald put out yesterday (“The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program”) based on interviews with, yet, more whistleblowers in concert with Snowden docs was new information that I believe we needed to know about. This whole automated assassination program reminds me of Skynet from The Terminator series.
    Greenwald may (or may not) be up to something sinister as you infer but if he keeps delivering shocking stuff like yesterday’s assassination expose I don’t really care. There are plenty of other sinister types out there with a lot more power than Greenwald yet are veiled in secrecy. They are the real threats. It seems to me that you, Greenwald, and Snowden are all on the same side, even though you may differ in your methods. Because of all of you the world is a better place. Keep the good stuff coming!

  7. Today from the SANS Institute:

    –NSA Collects Less Than 30 Percent of Phone Call Metadata
    (February 7, 2014)
    US officials say that the NSA collects less than 30 percent of
    Americans’ phone call metadata because burgeoning cell-phone use has
    outstripped their ability to capture and store what they need. The
    challenges include collecting cell phone metadata without including cell
    phone tower location, which they are not authorized to retain. One
    official said that in 2006, the NSA was able to collect nearly 100
    percent of phone records from certain companies, but that number has
    dropped to less than 30 percent as of summer 2013. The government is
    attempting to bring the data collection program up to its previous
    levels. Princeton University computer scientist Edward Felten said the
    new information “calls into question whether the rationale offered for
    the program is consistent with the way the program has been operating.”
    As Deputy Attorney General James Cole told legislators last summer, “If
    you’re looking for the needle in the haystack, you have to have the
    entire haystack.”

    This is being spun all over the MSM now, with the Washington Post claiming it’s more like 20%.

    We need to bring back the Granny from the old Wendy’s commercials from the 80′s. Where’s the beef? Where’s the content?

    late night rhyme
    ———————-
    mega-meta-stumbling blocks in crocks stacked miles high
    disseminated to dissonant dissidents’ minds, in due time
    drip, drop, and roll in the snow them pants are on fire
    now do a dance for courage, not fans; you’ll whistle on the wire

  8. avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

    Has Edward Snowden’s half hour German television interview been discussed here? Has Sibel or anybody else commented about this? Perhaps I missed it. I’m not asking a rhetorical question here, so I’m not going to drop it until I get some adequate responses. It seems to have gone largely under the radar. ROro’s the only person I’m aware of who’s brought this up here and I haven’t seen any responses, so I’m revisiting the issue because I think it’s important.

  9. still hating on Snowden; you are too close to this one to see how sloppy you are with your interpretations

  10. avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

    @empty:
    I’m not hating on you here, but the sloppy construct of your comment makes it hard to interpret… for me anyway.

    If you have something critical to say, by all means do so. But please take a moment for clarity’s sake. I think I understand what you’re getting at, but the yoda on opium phrasing’s not helping.
    No disrespect :-)

    • Yoda on opium!

      Now that I think of it, maybe that’s what all those references to “the force” were all about. Excuse me you must, she shakes I have and back to my Degoba poppy fields I must return.

      • Seen Marc Grossman, you have? Waiting on him, I am. Strong in The Force, he is.

        • avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

          9,000 documents? Hmm? 1.7 million, No?
          Hmph… many times has this number changed

          A true journalist challenges the system using the source
          from within the system he challenges it not

          • Yoda to Luke as Snowden:
            “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

            Yoda as Snowden to Luke as popular resistance:
            Luke: “I’m not afraid.”
            Yoda: “You will be. You will be.”

            Yoda as GG:
            Yoda: “Mine! Or I will help you not!”

          • avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

            Now you’re getting a bit abstract even for me to follow. I’m not going to get too geeky and suggest an alternative, however delegating GG to Yoda status, even in abstract fictitious realms, is an affront to my sensibilities ;-)

          • You’re right; I was trying too hard. I just need to relax and trust my feelings ;)

            I liked your original yoda on opium line though.

  11. avatar Mark Green says:

    I will begin and end my comments with an Ed Snowden quote that he made at the end of 2013 in an interview.

    “For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.”

    Snowden believes his mission has been accomplished. He is satisfied.

    For millennia, women around the world have been contending that size matters, and Sibel is no exception to this rule.

    There has been a bit of an obsession with the total number of documents that were taken by Snowden and handed over to various parties.

    Does it really matter whether the actual number of documents was 9,000 or 1.7 million?

    Snowden needed to take a cache of documents as a way of proving his story. He needed evidence and the cache was the best means possible.

    What did Snowden accuse the NSA of doing? He accused them of snooping on and amassing metadata of most Americans and citizens around the world, including high public officials.

    This included, but was not limited to, the collection of hundreds of millions of e-mail address books, hundreds of billions of cellphone location records and trillions of domestic call logs.

    We learned that the NSA had tapped the cellphones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff as well as Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism coordinator.

    Was it Snowden’s intention to reveal the contents of all the data he obsconded with?
    Certainly not!

    For had he done so, he would have betrayed everything he was fighting for; the right to privacy of individuals.
    This was the whole raison d’etre for his becoming a whistleblower.

    Snowden has accused the NSA of spying on and storing private individual’s metadata, indiscriminately, without valid warrants.

    Snowden obtained proof of this; that is what is in his cache.

    Do we really want him or Greenwald, or Poitras or Scahill et al to name names and phone records and e-mail addresses of innocent Americans?

    Maybe, just maybe the reason that Greenwald has been so slow to reveal more tidbits from the cache is because a) it is extremely time-consuming to peruse one million plus documents, b) the public would feel violated to have their private information made public and c) there really isn’t much new in them that we don’t already know about.

    If Snowden feels satisfied that his mission has already been accomplished why should we doubt him?
    He feels the ball is now in the public’s court.

    • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

      Nice copypasta, you should write for MSNBC

      • Are you accusing me of plagiarization Joshua?

        • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

          I’m accusing you of compiling the extant MSM and fake alt news programming and executing it, yes. This little blurb feels like it was written in Langley ffs – you managed to spin just about every meme running. It is a startling piece of apologetics that whitewashes Snowden’s increasingly inescapable complicity in all of this as well…

          You’ve constructed a handy narrative that explains away the controversy but it is as thin as rice paper to anyone who has been following the story… if this is not deliberate spin on your part you are naive, that is my contention.

    • Snowden believes his mission has been accomplished. He is satisfied.

      I’m not.

      For millennia, women around the world have been contending that size matters, and Sibel is no exception to this rule.

      Sure glad men don’t worry about it.

      There has been a bit of an obsession with the total number of documents that were taken by Snowden and handed over to various parties.

      Does it really matter whether the actual number of documents was 9,000 or 1.7 million?

      One thing that matters is that the story and facts keep changing. That’s a pattern we’ve seen before, isn’t it?

      Snowden needed to take a cache of documents as a way of proving his story. He needed evidence and the cache was the best means possible.

      To prove his story and accomplish his goals, he needed less than 1%, it sounds like.

      What did Snowden accuse the NSA of doing? He accused them of snooping on and amassing metadata of most Americans and citizens around the world, including high public officials.

      He is telling us lies by omission, when he has conversations with journalists, like the German one, and he and the interviewer maintain the false narrative that the NSA are only capturing metadata.

      This included, but was not limited to, the collection of hundreds of millions of e-mail address books, hundreds of billions of cellphone location records and trillions of domestic call logs.

      We learned that the NSA had tapped the cellphones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff as well as Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism coordinator.

      And CONTENT!!! Plus the targeting of the USA POTUS, SCOTUS, and high-ranking committee members in congress. This means inspection, not just recording. These additional facts portray a much more sinister narrative – one of probable blackmail and coercion of public officials, all the way to the top! If the public were being shown this narrative with as much fervor as they are pimping the metadata one, we’d have a much different situation, with likely criminal prosecution and actual clean up of corruption. What we will get now, from the metadata narrative, is empty promises and superficial fixes, with no real oversight to know if they are actually keeping their word.

      Was it Snowden’s intention to reveal the contents of all the data he obsconded with?

      Certainly not!

      For had he done so, he would have betrayed everything he was fighting for; the right to privacy of individuals.

      Then why did he take so much more than he needed?

      This was the whole raison d’etre for his becoming a whistleblower.

      Snowden has accused the NSA of spying on and storing private individual’s metadata, indiscriminately, without valid warrants.

      Snowden obtained proof of this; that is what is in his cache.

      Do we really want him or Greenwald, or Poitras or Scahill et al to name names and phone records and e-mail addresses of innocent Americans?

      Don’t these comments contradict themselves? You said what was in his cache was proof of the metadata, then ask if we really want him to reveal all this other stuff. So what did he take? What he needed?

      Maybe, just maybe the reason that Greenwald has been so slow to reveal more tidbits from the cache is because a) it is extremely time-consuming to peruse one million plus documents, b) the public would feel violated to have their private information made public and c) there really isn’t much new in them that we don’t already know about.

      With the evidence that we have already seen, people of the world, especially Americans, IMO, should demand the immediate release of everything. This is because we are dealing with ongoing serious crimes against us and we deserve to know what they are doing. Having been shown that this cache is related to the crimes, our right to know what’s in the rest of it should take priority. That is, if you think that what has been shown is criminal. I do.

      If Snowden feels satisfied that his mission has already been accomplished why should we doubt him?

      He feels the ball is now in the public’s court.

      I am disappointed in his lies by omission and am more concerned with seeing the evidence of the crimes, known and unknown, being committed against me. Aren’t you?

      • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

        this is what i wanted to do, i just dont have the time or energy to do it again and in this thread.
        thank you Xicha, not exactly the treatment i would have offered but pretty damn good, good enough for me to sign off on it.

      • avatar Mark Green says:

        “One thing that matters is that the story and facts keep changing. That’s a pattern we’ve seen before, isn’t it?”

        Yes we see this pattern in many news stories, indeed.

        “To prove his story and accomplish his goals, he needed less than 1%, it sounds like.”

        Yes, it does sound like it, doesn’t it?

        “And CONTENT!!! Plus the targeting of the USA POTUS, SCOTUS, and high-ranking committee members in congress. This means inspection, not just recording. These additional facts portray a much more sinister narrative – one of probable blackmail and coercion of public officials, all the way to the top! If the public were being shown this narrative with as much fervor as they are pimping the metadata one, we’d have a much different situation, with likely criminal prosecution and actual clean up of corruption.”

        Why don’t you write letters to the editors complaining of the poor coverage?
        Or better still, launch massive public events to publicize this if you are so upset about it?

        “Then why did he take so much more than he needed?”

        Probably because he is a bit of a computer nerd and simply had the ability to do it.

        “Don’t these comments contradict themselves? You said what was in his cache was proof of the metadata, then ask if we really want him to reveal all this other stuff. So what did he take? What he needed?”

        I don’t see them as contradictions.
        He has the proof if it is ever needed in the future.
        He does not need to, nor should wantonly reveal information of private individuals or corporations.

        “With the evidence that we have already seen, people of the world, especially Americans, IMO, should demand the immediate release of everything. This is because we are dealing with ongoing serious crimes against us and we deserve to know what they are doing. Having been shown that this cache is related to the crimes, our right to know what’s in the rest of it should take priority. That is, if you think that what has been shown is criminal. I do.”

        See above.

        “I am disappointed in his lies by omission and am more concerned with seeing the evidence of the crimes, known and unknown, being committed against me. Aren’t you?”

        You are just guessing now. Show us the proof that he has lied by omission.

        • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

          i think ill mine the commentary from mark for a video though – would take too long to type it all up.

        • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

          ” He has the proof if it is ever needed in the future.”
          Proof of programs and systems we already empirically knew existed you mean? Wantonly reveal information that is already being hoovered up and has been since 9/11? Which was a false flag operation designed for precisely this sort of mass surveillance justification you mean though, right chief?

          Yeah the mission of acclimating the slaves is accomplished alright, someone find me an aircraft carrier to land on – I mean I could go on for hours like this. The level of cognitive dissonance in your comments Mark is astounding – yet typical. Yes, astounding – yet typical. Why are we still surprised that it is possible to so fool and persuade so many so thoroughly? That is the interesting thing to me. How is it that given the summative, component architecture we know to exist from empirical data (and what can be measured and indicated through over-the-horizon projections on those data sets), we are still Tolerating this level of brazen, cult-like, seeming Inability to question or strive for real Synthesis? Is it that we cannot believe people could be so completely Consumed by the foreground analysis and their best intentions? We are naive as well I think – this is full spectrum cultural dominance on a level that Orwell never could have dreamt of.

        • ” He has the proof if it is ever needed in the future.”

          So, are you saying that we haven’t been shown the proof of the metadata story?

        • “To prove his story and accomplish his goals, he needed less than 1%, it sounds like.”

          Yes, it does sound like it, doesn’t it?

          and

          He has the proof if it is ever needed in the future.

          How are you reconciling these again?

        • You are just guessing now. Show us the proof that he has lied by omission.

          Other whistle blowers have told us they are collecting the content of all digital communications. I think Snowden knows and that the cache has evidence of content collection and targeting of US public officials at the highest level. Tice thinks so too. I’d call mine an educated guess – that the cache includes information about programs and technology used to collect all of these.

          You seem to be saying that you guess that the cache includes a bunch of demographic info of the victims of spying and that this is the proof of that which he is accusing the NSA of doing – collecting logs and address books only.

          Can you imagine the difference in the public outrage, if the press were reporting on recorded content and US government targeting? Can you imagine that it’s possible and/or likely that the cache has proof of these that is not victim’s personal data? If so, maybe you could then understand the omissions I mentioned and my dissatisfaction.

          It seems to me that many people want to defend Snowden and Greenwald from any criticism at all. Just a blanket defense mechanism, motivated by a desire to have their message get through unimpeded. I understand that motivation, but disagree with the approach, simply because what’s at stake is the difference between night and day, when it comes to the public reaction and eventual outcome of their response. Can you agree that this could be significant and worth pursuing, once you understand the merit of the facts and rationale involved in the questions?

          What’s worse, there is also the possibility that this whole story has been a psyop, with the intention of creating a widespread chilling effect, along with developing another institution of controlled opposition, for future news, and the handling of future whistle blowers and their information (honeypot). Maybe that’s too far for you to imagine. But if you can imagine it as a possibility, I think it would be prudent to join the chorus of those who are asking tough, valid questions to all the players involved.

          Hopefully, we’re all on the same team, when it comes to resisting tyranny. Thanks for considering my comments seriously.

          • avatar Mark Green says:

            Now we have something to sink our teeth into and agree on Xicha. :)

            “Other whistle blowers have told us they are collecting the content of all digital communications. I think Snowden knows and that the cache has evidence of content collection and targeting of US public officials at the highest level. Tice thinks so too. I’d call mine an educated guess – that the cache includes information about programs and technology used to collect all of these.”

            Could be, but again, at this point it is strictly conjecture.

            “You seem to be saying that you guess that the cache includes a bunch of demographic info of the victims of spying and that this is the proof of that which he is accusing the NSA of doing – collecting logs and address books only.
            Can you imagine the difference in the public outrage, if the press were reporting on recorded content and US government targeting? Can you imagine that it’s possible and/or likely that the cache has proof of these that is not victim’s personal data? If so, maybe you could then understand the omissions I mentioned and my dissatisfaction.”

            I was not saying what the extent of the cache includes, nor was I saying that metadata is the sole or main part of the cache.
            Would the public’s outrage be greater if it were reported that the NSA recorded content of US government official targets?
            Possibly, but it’s hard to say. How do we measure immediate or short-term public outrage? Would we see Kiev-like mass demonstrations? Probably not.
            I can understand your dissatisfaction, but once again, we simply don’t know what is in the remaining documents.
            Quite honestly, I don’t think even Snowden knows what’s in all of the remaining documents, if there are in fact 1.7 million of them.
            If he could read through 1000 documents a day, which would be a tall order indeed, he still would have only read less than 1/5 of the documents in the year leading up to their release.

            The fact that Snowden has expressed satisfaction with the way things stood in December of last year (“mission accomplished”), which at the time, included all of Greenwald’s disclosures and business dealings, must mean that he feels the message he was trying to get out has been delivered.

            “It seems to me that many people want to defend Snowden and Greenwald from any criticism at all. Just a blanket defense mechanism, motivated by a desire to have their message get through unimpeded. I understand that motivation, but disagree with the approach, simply because what’s at stake is the difference between night and day, when it comes to the public reaction and eventual outcome of their response.”

            I am not one of those who are giving Snowden and Greenwald carte blanche approval for their actions to date.
            Of the two however, it is Greenwald who I feel has been the less open and forthright about their motivations and goals with respect to the Snowden cache.

            “Can you agree that this could be significant and worth pursuing, once you understand the merit of the facts and rationale involved in the questions?”

            Basically you are assuming there is more damaging dirt in the remaining cache. There is nothing wrong with making that assumption.
            I prefer to wait to see what develops. If there is dirt and Greenwald has it, you can rest assured it will surface.

            “What’s worse, there is also the possibility that this whole story has been a psyop, with the intention of creating a widespread chilling effect, along with developing another institution of controlled opposition, for future news, and the handling of future whistle blowers and their information (honeypot). Maybe that’s too far for you to imagine. But if you can imagine it as a possibility, I think it would be prudent to join the chorus of those who are asking tough, valid questions to all the players involved.”

            This could also be possible, however personally, I wouldn’t bet on it. :)

            “Hopefully, we’re all on the same team, when it comes to resisting tyranny. Thanks for considering my comments seriously.”

            Yes, as surprising as it may sound, I am on the same team as you Xicha.

            I would like to make myself perfectly clear as to where my allegiance lies.
            I do not sympathize with nor condone the actions of the NSA with respect to this matter.
            I fully support whistleblowers in general and Snowden in this particular case.

            I don’t believe Snowden is an evil person nor do I believe he had an ulterior motive for blowing his whistle.
            Until such time as I am proven incorrect, I will continue to believe what Snowden has told the media concerning his outing.

            Regarding the financial angle to this story, this also remains largely conjectural at this point.
            We simply don’t know what deals, *if any*, Snowden cooked up with other parties with regard to his cache and its revealment.

          • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

            Snowden isnt like Greenwald, but they are both profiled and had their best intentions/weaknesses used against them in the execution of this acclimation psyop.

    • Mark, nice to hear another voice of reason here. Well put!

  12. avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

    The comment about size was more FOX News material, but I shamefully found myself laughing at it just the same. I bet a lot of people probably aren’t though. Mark, I don’t entirely agree with all of the criticism of Snowden either (I’ll come back to that eventually), but the apologetics in your comment are almost painfully generous and Joshua’s copy-paste comment sums up what it feels like read through it. I think you might have put your balls a bit too brazenly in the public court and, between Joshua and Xicha’s rebuttals all I think I can do is sympathetically offer you an ice pack.

    • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

      should take that post by Mark Green and do a Case Study, completely deconstruct it – it is like a Rosetta Stone of the enemy narrative

      • avatar Mark Green says:

        Didn’t Xicha just attempt to do that?

        • avatar Joshua Roberts says:

          Xicha took a commendable stab at it (not that you deserve such edification imo as you, frankly, seem to be damaged goods my friend – you must have Severely compiled massive amounts of the enemy programming to come here and say what you have, you need to run a completely heuristics diagnostic, maybe wipe the drive and reinitialize the system bro).

          I am sorry Mark, you obviously mean well, but I am not Sibel Edmonds and I am not anyone else – i am my own man and i call em as i see em – i am not putting a line through your name in the book of life here or anything bud, but Confucius say: cannot build wall from dung.

        • No, I was simply questioning your logic and informing you of my criticisms about your comments. I wasn’t evaluating your motivations or size, though I’m starting to see why it might be contentious to women. It takes a big man to accept criticism or concede a point in a discussion.

    • avatar Mark Green says:

      Thanks Benny, but I will not be needing that ice pack. :)
      I’m glad you have a sense of humor though (comment about size).

  13. “With the evidence that we have already seen, people of the world, especially Americans, IMO, should demand the immediate release of everything. This is because we are dealing with ongoing serious crimes against us and we deserve to know what they are doing. Having been shown that this cache is related to the crimes, our right to know what’s in the rest of it should take priority. That is, if you think that what has been shown is criminal. I do.”

    Just for the record. Please don’t count me among “the people of the world” and “especially Americans” demanding anything from Mr. Snowden. I don’t want to second guess the rest of mankind, but I honestly feel I have no right to demand from this young man anything. Moreover, I am grateful to and admire him for what he has already done.

    • Okay, netter. Please count me as someone who thinks that we should all demand it from whoever has it, including and especially the government, as well as the journos with the monetized goods.

  14. avatar Joshua Roberts says:

    the pretend reasoned arguments which appear to somehow attack the work that has been done on this site (and by cryptome etc.) are just shuffling around the foreground information, much like the case itself – while ignoring the incipient phenomenology utterly (as they must, else the construct they have lovingly constructed will dissolve).

  15. avatar Joshua Roberts says:

    let’s all pat each other on the back okay?
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR BRAVERY.
    Let’s have a drum circle, that will dismantle the global banking cartel lol.

  16. Mark Green said, in regards to metadata versus content, “Could be, but again, at this point it is strictly conjecture.”

    I would submit that it is rather a question of math. Each month my phone bill contains all the metadata for every phone call I’ve received or placed. If digitized and compressed, it would amount to a few thousand bytes at most. Very few thousand. That’s for an entire month. At that rate, I could store all the metadata on every phone call in the US in a few hard drives on my desktop, for the entire year. A 2 terabyte HDD is less than $150 these days. If the NSA was only storing metadata for every phone call and email on the planet, it would only need a modest server farm, far smaller than Google’s. At the very most.

    NSA is amassing yottabytes of storage. That we KNOW about. You bet your sweet bippy that is for content. They no doubt have algorithms churning away to index and cross-reference all that data, and decrypt whatever meets certain criteria in terms of context. No doubt there is some semblance of an internal firewall in place to restrict access to content, and it is probably as porous as Swiss cheese.

    Technologies associated with entangled quantum computing will eventually permit access to all information. Period. The cosmos is a computing machine and it is made of information, and every bit of information is entangled with every other bit. In this sense, entanglement can be seen as a form of indexing. Time and space are superficial constraints on our perception, but they are not fundamental to the body of information which comprises the cosmos. Privacy is another way of saying “making some information inaccessible” , which will be impossible in the relatively near future, if it isn’t already.

    I have tried to imagine what the world will be like when everything is knowable, free of any constraint in terms of space or time. I am unable. Thus I fear for our species. The biological human brain may have to be kept in a virtual box, with only information indexed by time and space fed to it. Otherwise we will lose our sanity and only our computing machines will be capable of functioning and evolving.

    Some think we are being conditioned for a future where no privacy is permitted, in the current revelations. But in fact, most technically savvy people already think in those terms. So the future shock we are being ever-so-gently introduced to may in fact the complete transcendence (or rather, obsolescence) of the most basic method we use to organize information in our brains, namely by time and place. The entire Snowden affair may be a presage to a transition from a linear, time-indexed world to ….something else.

  17. I truly appreciate this site because I’ve learned things here that I otherwise would not have known. Much like Zerohedge.com, however, I find myself going slightly crazy when I scroll down to the comments because the quality of the site often does not correlate with the quality of the comments / commentors.

    I’ve mentioned now in a number of places that I strongly disagree with Sibel’s views on Edward Snowden. That appears to be a minority opinion here, at least, with regard to those who comment.

    Today I read this letter from whistleblower, Mark Klein, to Sibel which says it all with much greater relevance than I could ever do so I invite you all to read it. Then I’d advise most of you to STFU!!!

    https://sites.google.com/site/markklein2009/Home/letter-to-sibel-edmonds

    • You like shutting people up, rxlist? I’d say you’re in the wrong arena.

    • You may have learned some facts here, but obviously not how to think for yourself.

    • Klein does not address much of Sibel’s central criticism of this whole affair. Specifically:

      - The comoditization and monitization of the information supposedly being part of a whistle blowing operation.
      - The creation and financial support of billionaire funded controlled opposition institutions, based on private access to this public information.
      - The limitations on the amount of information being released, creating a superficial narrative (metadata), which will ultimately limit the public response.

      The police state infrastructure Klein speaks of in his letter looks nothing of the sort in the public mind. He talks about media hype as a fact of life which should be tolerated, but doesn’t seem to realize that 99% of Americans will say, “It’s okay if they collect my call logs, if it helps them fight terrorism.”

      Klein apparently doesn’t not find it possible that this limited understanding and analysis of the situation is completely intentional, and could involve the journos, the billionaires, and possibly even the whistle blower.

      Stop whining when people ask valid questions. Or only consume media or read comments that are gentler on your understanding. But, telling us to STFU makes me want to say just GTFO.

      • Hey Klein, if you’re reading this, do you really think those splitters were installed inline to collect metadata? Pshh…

        You really think the storage you mention is so cheap, if we are talking metadata, requires a facility the size of Bluffdale? Another Pshh…

        You actually think Sibel is being “sour grapes”? If so, then you are ignorant. You know nothing of her character, do you. You speak as though all this is easy for her. That letter was a punk move. Get back on the band-wagon and play hard to the orchestra conductor as you roll on out of this town, cowboy. And take all fanboys with you.

    • avatar BennyB-DoubleD says:

      rxlist:
      I’ve suggested in previous comments that there are aspects of Sibel’s criticism of Edward Snowden which I either disagree with or I’m not comfortable with. I have yet to expand on these issues, certainly not because I don’t feel compelled to do so, but because I want to do so in a way that will contribute something valuable to the debate. Particularly when there have been some intense exchanges.

      You commended Mark Green earlier for being ‘another voice of reason’. Although I’ve pointed out in my response(s) to Mark places where I’ve disagreed and added to that the places where I agree more with Xicha and Joshua Roberts in their responses, I would agree with your assessment of Mark’s comments as being another “voice of reason”. The debate amongst us has been intense, maybe excessively at times, but if you bother to look carefully you’ll see that Mark defended his assertions forcefully, but respectfully.

      Posting the link to Mark Klein’s op-ed was a valuable contribution, even if; maybe especially, because it’s something noteworthy that people here are bound to react to. On the other hand, telling everybody here who doesn’t agree with your opinion as expressed in the aforementioned op-ed to “STFU” is a nonstarter which undermines the value of your “contribution”. I’ve definitely pulled some people’s cards here (see my comment above in response @empty), but I make an effort to keep it relatively specific and within certain boundaries.

      Maybe some of the specificity is lacking, but point it out to me if I’ve missed it: I don’t see other BFP members telling others to STFU. At the very least not in this post. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.

      As you stated, I also truly appreciate what BFP offers in terms of information which I wouldn’t find elsewhere. Even when I find myself at odds with many of the responses (at least the tone), I appreciate BFP because other members often have insightful contributions to the discussions in the comments section. I particularly appreciate the fact that there’s a basic level of civility within the discourse. Ironically, in your critique of ‘the quality of the comments / commentators’ you seem to have overstepped those boundaries.

      I’ll share a little anecdote that comes to mind…

      In my teenage years I spent a lot of time hanging out with friends at pizza shop which always had a few good arcade games. Among friends and “regulars” there were some interesting characters. Comically (and memorably) one day in the midst of a conversation, one of the regulars; Piedre, said: “I want me an intelligent bitch”.

      Lets just say this wasn’t the smoothest way of wooing any females…

      Hopefully the language here won’t offend anybody. The cussing isn’t directed at anybody here.

      PS- @Xicha, relax a bit, you’ll live longer ;-)

  18. avatar Bradley Fuller says:

    I believe the fix is in just as Ms. Edmonds writes. However,sanctioned files will continue to be released. The question is why they will continue to be released if the State doesn’t wish it so? The only answer that I have been able to come up with is for desensitizing the public to an open acceptance of surveillance from all who wish to monitor, corporate or state, and acceptance of the loss of civil liberties enshrined in the constitution with further losses to come.

    The power elites move on different but interconnected fronts simultaneously to advance their agenda. When the time is right they will collapse the economies of the democracy loving western populations and with the shredding of constitutional protections be able to shift the peoples to the desired paradigm, totalitarian capitalism as exemplified by China and of their construct. A new singular world currency for trade between what will basically be provinces will then be ushered in, backed by gold, which gives all it’s advantages to the uber wealthy. Be it called the Bank of International Settlements or the Peoples Bank of China it is all one world bank. They only have to control the conversation as the shifting is made, while silencing what few dissident voices may arise at it is done. The people will clamor to be saved from the depression and discard the centuries of struggle for democracy in the bargain.

Speak Your Mind