Dude, you keep arguing as if the Snowden leaks haven’t been scrutinized to hell and back. I need to only search once for the US reading the communication of americans and it brings up countless articles like this one making reference to the Snowden leaks. You keep dissing Snowden and Greenwald, as if those two were the only ones analyzing the files. In truth, entire teams of journalists from multiple outlets worked on different parts of those stories. Do I trust you, who can’t even provide a source, or hundreds of journalists and the obviously scummy and sometimes downright illegal behavior of the US government to shut those journalists down? And just because it isn’t “illegal”, because the government gave itself the right to fuck you over, doesn’t mean that it is morally permissible. You didn’t even address the fact that the US forced the plane of the president of Ecuador to land in Europe due to pressure from the US, because it flies in the face of your narrative that the US is a righteous place where you can trust the law, even when the government itself wants to silence you. You know how they got around not being able to spy on Americans? They got the brits and other countries to do it for them. That is what the Five-Eyes organization is all about. The Wikipedia article I linked detailing the Snowden leaks even break down in which direction the data transfer went between the different spy agencies.
Do not support Snowden’s claim that the NSA could read any American’s emails or listen to any American’s phone calls. Greenwald (through Snowden’s insistence) thought that DITU was an NSA computer inside American Internet companies. That’s the source of the misconception, which resulted in Greenwald’s sensational claim, “But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.”
The article itself is a misreporting of this WaPo article that said half of the communications contained references to American residents. This makes sense of course, because the foreign accounts being surveilled were thought to have national security importance for the U.S.
In truth, entire teams of journalists from multiple outlets worked on different parts of those stories
And the ones who knew what they were talking about disparaged Greenwald’s reporting that was based solely on Snowden’s ignorance. The first newspaper to get the story right was the New York Times. Then CNET’s Declan McCullough repeatedly called Greenwald out on his poor reporting. ZDNet quite reasonably asked why neither Greenwald nor his editor bothered to consult a subject matter expert. The techblogosphere ripped it apart at the time, to the point that Greenwald kept responding in an unhinged way to open source tech celebrities on Twitter. But you didn’t need to be in tech at the time to understand this. This got picked up in mainstream news summary sites like The Week.
You didn’t even address the fact that the US forced the plane of the president of Ecuador to land in Europe due to pressure from the US, because it flies in the face of your narrative that the US is a righteous place where you can trust the law
That’s because it was Bolivia, and each country has a right to police its own airspace. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can choose which planes they allow to fly over their countries, and that is their right under international law. The US didn’t unlawfully down a plane over a European country’s airspace.
You know how they got around not being able to spy on Americans? They got the brits and other countries to do it for them. That is what the Five-Eyes organization is all about
This is a conspiracy theory that isn’t supported by any documents at all, especially nothing in Snowden’s documents. This agreement started as BRUSA, which was a no-spy agreement, which Germany requested access to after the Germans and the Americans had been caught spying on each other in the early 2000s. This no-spy provision is alluded to in the WaPo article I linked to above: “At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.”
Dude, you keep arguing as if the Snowden leaks haven’t been scrutinized to hell and back. I need to only search once for the US reading the communication of americans and it brings up countless articles like this one making reference to the Snowden leaks. You keep dissing Snowden and Greenwald, as if those two were the only ones analyzing the files. In truth, entire teams of journalists from multiple outlets worked on different parts of those stories. Do I trust you, who can’t even provide a source, or hundreds of journalists and the obviously scummy and sometimes downright illegal behavior of the US government to shut those journalists down? And just because it isn’t “illegal”, because the government gave itself the right to fuck you over, doesn’t mean that it is morally permissible. You didn’t even address the fact that the US forced the plane of the president of Ecuador to land in Europe due to pressure from the US, because it flies in the face of your narrative that the US is a righteous place where you can trust the law, even when the government itself wants to silence you. You know how they got around not being able to spy on Americans? They got the brits and other countries to do it for them. That is what the Five-Eyes organization is all about. The Wikipedia article I linked detailing the Snowden leaks even break down in which direction the data transfer went between the different spy agencies.
Do not support Snowden’s claim that the NSA could read any American’s emails or listen to any American’s phone calls. Greenwald (through Snowden’s insistence) thought that DITU was an NSA computer inside American Internet companies. That’s the source of the misconception, which resulted in Greenwald’s sensational claim, “But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.”
The article itself is a misreporting of this WaPo article that said half of the communications contained references to American residents. This makes sense of course, because the foreign accounts being surveilled were thought to have national security importance for the U.S.
And the ones who knew what they were talking about disparaged Greenwald’s reporting that was based solely on Snowden’s ignorance. The first newspaper to get the story right was the New York Times. Then CNET’s Declan McCullough repeatedly called Greenwald out on his poor reporting. ZDNet quite reasonably asked why neither Greenwald nor his editor bothered to consult a subject matter expert. The tech blogosphere ripped it apart at the time, to the point that Greenwald kept responding in an unhinged way to open source tech celebrities on Twitter. But you didn’t need to be in tech at the time to understand this. This got picked up in mainstream news summary sites like The Week.
That’s because it was Bolivia, and each country has a right to police its own airspace. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can choose which planes they allow to fly over their countries, and that is their right under international law. The US didn’t unlawfully down a plane over a European country’s airspace.
This is a conspiracy theory that isn’t supported by any documents at all, especially nothing in Snowden’s documents. This agreement started as BRUSA, which was a no-spy agreement, which Germany requested access to after the Germans and the Americans had been caught spying on each other in the early 2000s. This no-spy provision is alluded to in the WaPo article I linked to above: “At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.”