>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:22 2024
X-Received: by 10.50.66.230 with SMTP id i6mr3551487igt.1.1370995857379;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.111.227 with SMTP id il3ls3323546igb.32.gmail; Tue, 11 Jun
2013 17:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.42.172.196 with SMTP id o4mr13717917icz.26.1370995842827;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.189.162 with SMTP id gj2msigc;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.66.122.200 with SMTP id lu8mr2424561pab.4.1370994365730;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jnfer..._at_gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ga4si3607787pac.1.2013.06.11.16.46.05
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jnfer..._at_gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.182;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of jnfer..._at_gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jnfer..._at_gmail.com;
dkim=pass head..._at_gmail.com
Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so3096363pdi.13
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=oB/TCCWLgmcBP6fdudLExNOOUEt392FffXxiGEs5tqE=;
b=VrBVRs9au6tHkr7Dm0QXkOTDif8mkgts+GXyjLX5FyKQvG359kdPyR+R/CbZ/6BsxS
ftlzJzj8aV+IXeTKHG+ab9nK1JQpWiJb8HSgkJxRgPObVXM/0yJ0dJhTN4ilMumj4h6W
ytfMrLZywBW5TDYP7a/3jWv/ydxK8gXyZkRNVA/4puc3gZ+P+Ou+QZ3NGtYJTysg2VpC
dAuIZuzafxW73D3qs7tAjiBAoJl1z4H/6ZTYJLKxnjzAXBUHi8K94f8BRkpiTbId3Frx
PucPRgsoP2uA/9Mf8o0TFFbAKX2vuhwg8bcVgmENaEEQOG2jxuXnw8OM206Dfhkx+bzF
bE/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.251.202 with SMTP id zm10mr21356175pac.53.1370994365614;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.69.197 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00b001ce66f9$c9185cf0$5b4916d0$_at_earthlink.net>
References: <036101ce665b$72dce7a0$5896b6e0$_at_earthlink.net>
<CDDC8836.17A8A%bts_at_charter.net>
<00b001ce66f9$c9185cf0$5b4916d0$_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CADCX+3XEULgretwqc_DcLfeT2kKXs8QAcZ9Jj_MoF--aoaz9KQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6425} Edward Snowden Video Interview
From: Justin Ferguson <jnfer..._at_gmail.com>
To: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> When I hear of people who decide by themselves that they have the right t=
o expose secrets, I think they
> should be investigated.
I'd mostly agree, with the caveat that they have to know their
knowingly disclosing classified information. Corporate disclosures
belong in civil court.
> Snowden and all the reporters who made the decision, should be prosecuted=
.
Snowden, definitely. Greenwald, maybe but only because he appears to
be dripping information slowly to induce hysteria, and in all earnest,
I'd call that yellow journalism more than I would criminal. I could be
understanding things slightly wrong here, but my understanding is that
the Post at least submitted documents to the USG for review and got
back that only 3 slides were printable and so they only printed the 3,
which the Guardian seems to have abided by as well, the verizon stuff
is unclear to me, but I'd generally go with the idea that prosecuting
the reporters is probably not the right answer, especially and doubly
if they did or attempted to do it in a responsible-ish manner..
> There are no names being recorded.
Seems sorta moot, I mean does it matter if you write my name, my
social or my phone number? They're all linked to me. That said, most
important to me is that nothing done here appears to be illegal. Maybe
one day SCOTUS will say the verizon stuff is not constitutional, but
they haven't yet and there's a signed warrant that complies with FISA
and EO 12333. That's legal, Snowden's not a whistle-blower, he's just
some guy that decided what he thought should be illegal trumped the
correct channels for complaint.
> In Prism, there isn=E2=80=99t even the conversation being recorded. Look=
at the
> header info on an email or the or the in and out listing on a phone bill,=
(not the names at the top), or the data > dump from a cell site. There ar=
e no names.
Prism is for foreign intelligence in the foreign national form of the
word. It doesn't warrant further consideration there, this is what the
IC does, you didn't need a leak to know that, you could've just read
wikipedia.
> Those who think that there should not be any secrets protected should pro=
bably not be in the business of
> protecting secrets.
What's probably the most important question is less that this guy
never appears to have had the proper credentials, we're america, we're
supposed to give everyone a shot-- but that it appears that he has a
significant (high-ranking) military ties in his family, which I
imagine made the waiver for his GED sans college credits easy, which
appears to have made the jump to the CIA easy, which appears to have
made the jump to the NSA easy, which appears to have given this guy
sysadmin level access to documents he probably really shouldn't have
had-- cascading failures. (FTR; UMD says he was a security guard at a
language arts building or similar, so he's not being honest there)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Roger at Bugsweeps
<bugs..._at_earthlink.net> wrote:
> The problem here is this is the next step, and the step after this will b=
e
> to record all communications on super computers and not open them up with=
out
> a court order, the frog is boiling slowly.
>
> So after this non-elected agency has the unlimited power of secret dossie=
rs
> on everyone, who will be running the government.
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> From: tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com [mailto:tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of bts
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:55 AM
> To: tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6424} Edward Snowden Video Interview
>
>
>
> When I hear of people who decide by themselves that they have the right t=
o
> expose secrets, I think they should be investigated.
>
> Snowden and all the reporters who made the decision, should be prosecuted=
.
>
> Going back to Chaney and others blowing the cover of an agent for persona=
l
> and political gain.
>
> No one is =E2=80=9Cmonitoring=E2=80=9D all communications. You would hav=
e to hire the same
> number of people having the conversation, to monitor the flow.
>
> There are no names being recorded. In Prism, there isn=E2=80=99t even th=
e
> conversation being recorded. Look at the header info on an email or the =
or
> the in and out listing on a phone bill, (not the names at the top), or th=
e
> data dump from a cell site. There are no names.
>
> It takes a second step of being part of something that floats to the top=
.
> then go to the user name or address cross reference to a name of the poi.
> That is the door that has to be opened by the courts.
>
> Can it be found without?..of course. But that would be an unauthorized
> expose=E2=80=99 of secrets and should be prosecuted.
>
> Those who think that there should not be any secrets protected should
> probably not be in the business of protecting secrets.
> --
> James Greenwold
> Bureau of Technical Services
> P.O. Box 191
> Chippewa Falls, WI54729
>
> 715-726-1400
> http://www.tacticalsurveillance.com
> b..._at_charter.net
>
>
> On 6/10/13 11:23 PM, "Roger at Bugsweeps" <bugs..._at_earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=3D9988C0C07C1CF71E9ADE598760F70DA2
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:22 CST