Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas…
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
I am not sure how this relates to Snowden or Greenwald. I'd think you were a fan since these accusations go beyond Snowden's revelations. Also, there is no reason to think Snowden had access to everything the NSA did.
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
"We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25205846
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
I am not sure how this relates to Snowden or Greenwald. I'd think you were a fan since these accusations go beyond Snowden's revelations. Also, there is no reason to think Snowden had access to everything the NSA did.