• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

One simply cannot make this stuff up!

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
SUPER FF Supporter
Experts withdraw from Internet Security Conference

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 2:29pm

Jack Gillum, Associated Press



Experts_withdraw_from_Internet_Security_Conference_ml.jpg
Experts withdraw from Internet Security Conference This June 9, 2013, photo shows National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, in Hong Kong. (AP Photo/The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras)WASHINGTON (AP) — At least eight researchers or policy experts have withdrawn from an Internet security conference after the sponsor reportedly used flawed encryption technology deliberately in commercial software to allow the National Security Agency to spy more easily on computer users.
RSA Security, owned by data storage giant EMC, has disputed claims it intentionally introduced the flawed encryption algorithm, but otherwise has declined to discuss what a published report last month described as a $10 million government contract.
The revelation supplemented documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showing that the NSA tried to weaken Internet encryption.
The pullouts from the highly regarded RSA Conference represent early blowback by technology researchers and policy experts who have complained that the government's surveillance efforts have, in some cases, weakened Internet security even for innocent users.
Some U.S. companies that have agreed or been compelled to turn over customer records to the government have complained that their business relationships with customers in Europe, Asia and elsewhere are increasingly becoming arduous.
It was not immediately clear whether any researchers who still intended to make presentations at the conference would discuss the subject. Hugh Thompson, a conference organizer who works for security firm Blue Coat Systems, said the event is "an open venue where people can talk openly about security."
The researchers and experts include Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer of Finland-based antivirus provider F-Secure, and Adam Langley and Chris Palmer, who work on security practices at Google.
Christopher Soghoian, a researcher with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Tuesday on Twitter that he withdrew from the conference after having "given up waiting for RSA to fess up to the truth" regarding its development of the Dual_EC_DRBG algorithm with the NSA.
RSA issued an advisory to its customers last summer urging them not to use the algorithm, following published reports of the software's potential weaknesses. But that wasn't enough for researchers who want answers about the government's contract with RSA, which thousands of businesses use to secure their data.
RSA said in a statement last month that as a security company, it "never divulges details of customer engagements, but we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA's products, or introducing potential 'backdoors' into our products for anyone's use."
The published report said RSA received the $10 million contract from the NSA to use the agency's preferred method of number generation. The report said such a flawed algorithm in RSA's Bsafe software tool generates random numbers in such a way that it creates "backdoors" into the company's encryption products.
Organizers said next month's conference in San Francisco will host 560 speakers, and they expect more participants than the 24,000 who showed up last year.
The NSA has a history in developing encryption algorithms, with documents showing decades-old criticisms among civilian government scientists about the agency's role in developing communication standards. That includes scientists' discomfort, as early as the 1980s, over the Digital Signature Standard, a way to electronically sign documents and guarantee their authenticity. That became a federal processing standard by 1994.
In September, documents leaked by Snowden showed that the agency more recently wanted to water down Internet encryption in an effort to gather and analyze digital intelligence. In turn, the federal National Institute of Standards and Technology tried to shore up confidence in the important behind-the-scenes role it plays in setting standards that are used by consumers to make purchases online, access their bank accounts or file their income taxes electronically.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that "it should hardly be surprising that our intelligence agencies seek ways to counteract our adversaries' use of encryption."
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Snowden is a hero. If it weren't for him and him alone, who knows what this government would be pulling on us "free" citizens of the USA.
 
Snowden is a hero. If it weren't for him and him alone, who knows what this government would be pulling on us "free" citizens of the USA.
Snowden is a whistle blower. But he is no hero.

Robert Gates is a whistle blower. Gates is a hero.

Both blew the whistle on Obama. One is a hero, the other is a traitor. Do you not know why?
 
Snowden is a whistle blower. But he is no hero.

Robert Gates is a whistle blower. Gates is a hero.

Both blew the whistle on Obama. One is a hero, the other is a traitor. Do you not know why?
(Scratches head, takes the bait and asks) Why?
 
(Scratches head, takes the bait and asks) Why?
Seriously?

Everybody is so thankful that a young upstart gets his hands on secret intel and spreads it to the world. WOW!

Both Snowden and Gates revealed sensitive information to the US population and the world. But the fact that the intel was pertinent and useful, in and of itself, does not make the actions of either of these two men particularly heroic.

One is a man with no career credibility who on the first time he gained access to sensitive government operations, took that to our enemies. And subsequently took refuge there. When did he ever do his duty to his contract, much less to country?

The other man is a credible career burocrat with a history of dutiful patriotic service who stands on US soil, and his principles, and defends his actions.

Snowden makes occasional press releases, mostly with threats to expose more embarrasing information. Gates dutifully explains and defends his remarks.

Snowden never had a career to risk. He saw an opportunity to grab an asset of value and parlay it into his new life as a celebrity.

Gates, on the other hand, has a life's work to now defend. A duty to perform for his country.
Again.


And he is here doing just that.
 
Last edited:
Snowden took more of a risk that6 you ever did or ever will. Also more than Gates.

He's a hero Frank.

Thank God for Snowden; who knows what these liberal controllers would be doing behind our backs right now if it were not form Snowden.
 
Snowden took more of a risk that6 you ever did or ever will. Also more than Gates.

He's a hero Frank.

Thank God for Snowden; who knows what these liberal controllers would be doing behind our backs right now if it were not form Snowden.


Because he took, in your opinion, more of a risk? An unusual ruler by which to measure:whistling:
Dillinger took big risks, more than most would, every time he stole stuff. Is he a hero?

Heroism isn't measured by relativeisms like more or less. Heroes don't steal and run away.

If someone had stolen nuclear secrets during WW II and given them to our allies the Russians wouldthey be a hero for alerting the American public to what our Government was doing? The very threat of nuclear fallout blanketing the globe? A chain reaction explosion that many experts at the time worried would destroy the entire planet?

BTW, It wasn't just liberals involved in the NSA spying here. Can you say congressman Peter King R of New York.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...cause-they-might-be-talking-to-al-qaeda.shtml
 
Last edited:
Because he took, in your opinion, more of a risk? An unusual ruler by which to measure:whistling:
Dillinger took big risks, more than most would, every time he stole stuff. Is he a hero?

Heroism isn't measured by relativeisms like more or less. Heroes don't steal and run away.

If someone had stolen nuclear secrets during WW II and given them to our allies the Russians wouldthey be a hero for alerting the American public to what our Government was doing? The very threat of nuclear fallout blanketing the globe? A chain reaction explosion that many experts at the time worried would destroy the entire planet?

BTW, It wasn't just liberals involved in the NSA spying here. Can you say congressman Peter King R of New York.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...cause-they-might-be-talking-to-al-qaeda.shtml
You've got it all wrong, Franc.

Bob Gates and Dillinger didn't risk getting "disappeared" when they stole and divulging state secrets. Our 1940's nuclear program was not in violation of our Constitution.

Eric Snowden may have gone about his subterfuge in the wrong manor, but what he did was in the best interest of the Amerikan people. It is every citizen 's obligation to be skeptical of its government, and without people like Snowden, where would it end?

Every now and then a free People needs a risk-taker willing to stand against the megolomatic power of government. Every now and then a free People yearns for its own Tianamen-Square-man. Our's has been young, naive Eric Snowden.
 
Last edited:
You've got it all wrong, Franc.

Bob Gates and Dillinger didn't risk getting "disappeared" when they stole and divulging state secrets. Our 1940's nuclear program was not in violation of our Constitution.

Eric Snowden may have gone about his subterfuge in the wrong manor, but what he did was in the best interest of the Amerikan people. It is every citizen 's obligation to be skeptical of its government, and without people like Snowden, where would it end?

Every now and then a free People need risk-takers willing to stand against the megolomatic power of government. Every now and then every nation yearns for it's own Tianamen-Square-man. Our's has been young, naive Eric Snowden.

I was completely unaware that Dilliger, stole State secrets. As i recall, he robbed banks. Bill Gates stole nothing.,

The guy at Tianamen-square stood on his native soil in defiance of government oppression. I would suggest a bad reference for your position,
But it supports my point.
Thanks.
 
I was completely unaware that Dilliger, stole State secrets. As i recall, he robbed banks. Bill Gates stole nothing.,

The guy at Tianamen-square stood on his native soil in defiance of government oppression. I would suggest a bad reference for your position,
But it supports my point.
Thanks.
Wandering, Franc. Wandering.

So, as you would have it, the Amerikan People would be better off without someone (anyone) ever exposing the reach of NSA?

Really?

EDIT: and if someone (anyone) was known as a threat to expose NSA they wouldn't somehow just 'disappear'?

Really?
 
Last edited:
Fact: A private Amerikan citizen (Eric Snowden) stumbled upon NSA's vast ability and willingness to spy on the Amerikan People, contrary to their Constitution.

Question: if Eric Snowden, on behalf of the Amerikan People, decided to expose NSA's nefarious doings via any channel of legitimate communication while on Amerikan soil (such as going before Congress), would we have ever heard of Eric Snowden?
 
Wandering, Franc. Wandering.

So, as you would have it, the Amerikan People would be better off without someone (anyone) ever exposing the reach of NSA?

Really?

EDIT: and if someone (anyone) was known as a threat to expose NSA they wouldn't somehow just 'disappear'?

Really?

I never said that. Meanwhile you have mixed metaphors and now just pettifogging.

Am I glad such info is out in the open, mostly. But why is it first disseminated to our enemies? Flap all you want, those wings will not fly that load off the ground.

As for dissapearance, our nation has many allies currently unhappy with our NSA program who would have been better refuges for a Snowden whistle blower.

Snowden got headlines and fame but he wasn't first at this. Can you say Thomas Edward Drake?
That man stood in front of the behemoth a paid for it. Tianamen style. But the media diverted your attention to the youngster Don Quixote who ran off to chum up with our enemies.
The media did that to the American public. Fooled 'em with the red herring trick.

Kane, I know you are better than that.
 
Last edited:
As for dissapearancee, our nation has many allies currently unhappy with our NSA program who would have been better refuges for a Snowden whistle blower.
Whistleblower? I thought you said he was a traitor?

Snowden, in his exile, has beseeched all nations of the globe to grant him entrance and asylum. At best, other than China and Russia, he might get Brazil to bite. His 'disseminations' where to a trusted western publisher, ONLY. No flapping necessary. Fame and headlines not required. No interviews on Oprah.

But you're right. His options were endless. :ermm: No chance of getting disappeared. Right.

Again, kindly address the position you seem to support:
So, as you would have it, the Amerikan People would be better off without someone (anyone) ever exposing the reach of NSA?

Really?
And if this is not your point, WTF are you going on and on about?
 
Last edited:
Whistleblower? I thought you said he was a traitor?

Again, kindly address the position you seem to support:

Now you are just being silly.

I never said he, Edward Snowden, didn't blow a whistle. I never said the information was irrelavnt or should have been kept from the public. I feel Snowden is a traitor because of how he did his act of espionage and to whom he took the information and sought refuge. Read any of my posts on this guy and find different. I will apologize.

Meanwhile, if I may make and observation. So many heard the story when it broke and made up their minds back then. Most won't change their posiion dispite the daily clearing of all the fog and hype around this guy. I would suggest this is not a good thing if we really want the truth ofthe matter.

The truth of the matter is that the NSA has likelly gone beyond the bounds as laid by the Constitution. But that is opinion for the moment, not fact. I would suggest one not base their position on it being fact.

The truth of the matter is that the current Administration is likely going beyond what is Constitutional with the NSA. But again, not fact.

Judge Napolitano, for whom I have great respect, has made his opinion well known here. But it is his opinion, not fact.

To my knowledge, Snowden ran from the country, not because he was being chased or under lethal threat because of something he discovered, but because he had something in his possession of which he was being trusted to hold and keep secure. A duty he did not perform. That we now know is fact.

And that action alone makes him a traitor. Perhaps, that will make him a hero to some, perhaps someday to all, but for now, we can only have an opinion about it. And miy opinion still ponders the fact, not that he left with the data, but that he went to our enemiy with it.

Under any definition of the word, that factualy makes him a traitor.
 
Now you are just being silly.

And my opinion still ponders the fact, not that he left with the data, but that he went to our enemy with it.

Under any definition of the word, that factually makes him a traitor.
Gosh Franc, I had no idea that The Guardian* and the Washington Post* are the enemy.
Snowden's release of classified material was called the most significant leak in US history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. A series of exposés beginning June 5, 2013 revealed Internet surveillance programs such as PRISM, XKeyscore and Tempora, as well as the interception of US and European telephone metadata. The reports were based on documents Snowden leaked to The Guardian and The Washington Post while employed by NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. By November 2013, The Guardian had published one percent of the documents, with "the worst yet to come".
Try again.

* - the only entities in direct receipt of Snowden dissemination, anywhere in the world.


and then Franc said,
To my knowledge, Snowden ran from the country, not because he was being chased or under lethal threat because of something he discovered, ...
After disclosing the copied documents, Snowden promised that nothing would stop subsequent disclosuress. In June 2013, he said, "All I can say right now is the US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."[95]

Try again, Franc.




There's a there there, after all. Silly me.
.
 
Last edited:
Some things you don't hear about in the MSM:

Recognition

Edward Snowden was voted as The Guardian's person of the year 2013, garnering four times the number of votes than any other candidate.[327]

The 2013 list of leading Global Thinkers,[328] published annually by Foreign Policy placed Snowden in first place due to the impact of his revelations. FP's "Global Conversation visualization"[329] showed that Snowden "occupied a role in 2013's global news media coverage just slightly less important than President Barack Obama himself".[330]
Snowden was named Time Person of the Year runner-up in 2013, behind Pope Francis.[331] TIME was criticized for not placing him in the top spot.[332][333][334]

Snowden headed the Ten Tech Heroes of 2013 at TechRepublic, the site of an on-line newsletter circulated among IT professionals. Editor Jack Wallen placed Snowden in the number one position of his list and wrote, "Ed Snowden was a whistle blower the likes of which the world has never seen. Many consider him a villain. I, on the other hand, hold him up in the hero category for one simple reason: His disclosure of classified documents unveiled the NSA's mass surveillance program. Snowden's goal was "...to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." Prior to this leak, the public was unaware of the depth of surveillance and the true nature of government secrecy. His disclosures have also had major implications for those in the technology field."[335]


German "Whistleblower Prize"

Edward Snowden was awarded the biennial German "whistleblower prize" in August 2013, in absentia, with an accompanying award equal to 3,000 euro. Established in 1999, the award is sponsored by the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and by the Association of German Scientists.[336] Organizers in Berlin said the prize was to acknowledge his "bold efforts to expose the massive and unsuspecting monitoring and storage of communication data, which cannot be accepted in democratic societies".[337] Snowden responded to the award, saying it was "a great honor to be recognized for the public good created by this act of whistleblowing", and that it was not he, but the public who effected "this powerful change to abrogation of basic constitutional rights by secret agencies".[338]


Sam Adams Award


Edward Snowden during the Sam Adams Award ceremony in Moscow, October 2013


The Sam Adams Award was presented to Snowden by a group of four American former intelligence officers and whistleblowers in October 2013. After two months as an asylee, Snowden made his first public appearance in Moscow to accept the award, a candlestick holder meant to symbolize "bringing light to dark corners".[260] One of the presenters, FBI whistleblower Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, told The Nation "We believe that Snowden exemplifies Sam Adams's courage, persistence and devotion to truth—no matter what the consequences. We wanted Snowden to know that, as opposed to the daily vitriol from the US government and mainstream media, 60 percent of the United States supports him, including thousands in the national security and intelligence agencies where we used to work."[339][340][341] Radack was joined by Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, ex-NSA executive Thomas Drake and former FBI agent Coleen Rowley.


Alternative Christmas Message

Snowden was chosen to give Britain's 2013 "Alternative Christmas Message", Channel 4's alternative to the Royal Christmas Message by Queen Elizabeth II.[342] It was his first television appearance since arriving in Russia. His focus was on the importance of privacy and the need for an end to government surveillance.[343] In the 1.5-minute segment[344] he said that the recently revealed "worldwide mass surveillance" system that governments have cooperated in creating is what George Orwell warned about in 1984, a novel about a society controlled by an ever-present Big Brother,[345] except that today's surveillance capabilities far surpass those Orwell described. "We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go," he said. "A child born today [will] never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, un-analyzed thought. That's a problem because privacy matters; [it] allows us to determine who we are, and who we want to be." On the debate initiated by his leaks, he stated:
"The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying."[346][347]
The piece was filmed, edited and produced by Laura Poitras.[348] Previous addresses have been given by non-establishment figures such as Ali G, Baroness Lawrence and Sharon Osborne.[349][350]
 
Gosh Franc, I had no idea that The Guardian* and the Washington Post* are the enemy.
Try again.

* - the only entities in direct receipt of Snowden dissemination, anywhere in the world.


After disclosing the copied documents, Snowden promised that nothing would stop subsequent disclosuress. In June 2013, he said, "All I can say right now is the US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."[95]

Try again, Franc.




There's a there there, after all.
.
If you cannot keep things in context, what is the point of answering.


Further, you actually believe Snowden had, and held secure, such "documents"as he traveled thru China and Rusia?

And somehow he still has them safely tucked in his pants to release at will?

I can name a dozen countries where he would have been safe from "being murdered" and still met his mission goals, his "bravery" unsoiled.
 
Some things you don't hear about in the MSM:

Recognition

Edward Snowden was voted as The Guardian's person of the year 2013, garnering four times the number of votes than any other candidate.[327]

The 2013 list of leading Global Thinkers,[328] published annually by Foreign Policy placed Snowden in first place due to the impact of his revelations. FP's "Global Conversation visualization"[329] showed that Snowden "occupied a role in 2013's global news media coverage just slightly less important than President Barack Obama himself".[330]
Snowden was named Time Person of the Year runner-up in 2013, behind Pope Francis.[331] TIME was criticized for not placing him in the top spot.[332][333][334]

Snowden headed the Ten Tech Heroes of 2013 at TechRepublic, the site of an on-line newsletter circulated among IT professionals. Editor Jack Wallen placed Snowden in the number one position of his list and wrote, "Ed Snowden was a whistle blower the likes of which the world has never seen. Many consider him a villain. I, on the other hand, hold him up in the hero category for one simple reason: His disclosure of classified documents unveiled the NSA's mass surveillance program. Snowden's goal was "...to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." Prior to this leak, the public was unaware of the depth of surveillance and the true nature of government secrecy. His disclosures have also had major implications for those in the technology field."[335]


German "Whistleblower Prize"

Edward Snowden was awarded the biennial German "whistleblower prize" in August 2013, in absentia, with an accompanying award equal to 3,000 euro. Established in 1999, the award is sponsored by the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and by the Association of German Scientists.[336] Organizers in Berlin said the prize was to acknowledge his "bold efforts to expose the massive and unsuspecting monitoring and storage of communication data, which cannot be accepted in democratic societies".[337] Snowden responded to the award, saying it was "a great honor to be recognized for the public good created by this act of whistleblowing", and that it was not he, but the public who effected "this powerful change to abrogation of basic constitutional rights by secret agencies".[338]


Sam Adams Award


Edward Snowden during the Sam Adams Award ceremony in Moscow, October 2013


The Sam Adams Award was presented to Snowden by a group of four American former intelligence officers and whistleblowers in October 2013. After two months as an asylee, Snowden made his first public appearance in Moscow to accept the award, a candlestick holder meant to symbolize "bringing light to dark corners".[260] One of the presenters, FBI whistleblower Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, told The Nation "We believe that Snowden exemplifies Sam Adams's courage, persistence and devotion to truth—no matter what the consequences. We wanted Snowden to know that, as opposed to the daily vitriol from the US government and mainstream media, 60 percent of the United States supports him, including thousands in the national security and intelligence agencies where we used to work."[339][340][341] Radack was joined by Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, ex-NSA executive Thomas Drake and former FBI agent Coleen Rowley.


Alternative Christmas Message

Snowden was chosen to give Britain's 2013 "Alternative Christmas Message", Channel 4's alternative to the Royal Christmas Message by Queen Elizabeth II.[342] It was his first television appearance since arriving in Russia. His focus was on the importance of privacy and the need for an end to government surveillance.[343] In the 1.5-minute segment[344] he said that the recently revealed "worldwide mass surveillance" system that governments have cooperated in creating is what George Orwell warned about in 1984, a novel about a society controlled by an ever-present Big Brother,[345] except that today's surveillance capabilities far surpass those Orwell described. "We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go," he said. "A child born today [will] never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, un-analyzed thought. That's a problem because privacy matters; [it] allows us to determine who we are, and who we want to be." On the debate initiated by his leaks, he stated:
"The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying."[346][347]

The piece was filmed, edited and produced by Laura Poitras.[348] Previous addresses have been given by non-establishment figures such as Ali G, Baroness Lawrence and Sharon Osborne.[349][350]

All of this is fine and dandy. None of it explains his current residence in Russia via Hong Kong. In fact, despite my repeated references to it, you have never addressed that.

Given what he had tooffer, the Germans would have taken Snowden in with less than a heartbeat of time. Perhaps Edward made a bad choice of safe harbor, perhaps he made a conscious one. Either way it makes the difference. At least to me.
 
We would never have learned about the section 215 order authorizing collection of telephone metadata related to its telephone numbers but for the unauthorized disclosures of Edward Snowden. Congress did not intend that targets of section 215 order would ever learn of them. And the statutory scheme also makes clear that congress intended to preclude suits by targets even if they discovered section 215 orders implicating them.

In a December 2013 interview, Snowden spoke to the question of 'who elected' him to expose the NSA surveillance programs:
" Dianne Feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions [in committee hearings]. Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs hidden. . . . The FISA court elected me when they decided to legislate from the bench on things that were far beyond the mandate of what that court was ever intended to do. The system failed comprehensively, and each level of oversight, each level of responsibility that should have addressed this, abdicated their responsibility.
It wasn't that they put it on me as an individual – that I'm uniquely qualified, an angel descending from the heavens – as that they put it on someone, somewhere ... You have the capability, and you realize every other [person] sitting around the table has the same capability but they don't do it. So somebody has to be the first.
I acted on my belief that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.

Although I am convicted of nothing, [the US government] has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel ... asking is always cheaper than spying."
 
All of this is fine and dandy. None of it explains his current residence in Russia via Hong Kong. In fact, despite my repeated references to it, you have never addressed that.
"Although I am convicted of nothing, [the US government] has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum." - Edward Snowden.

No other Nation State had the balls to have him. Not one (except maybe now Brazil, last I heard. Nice beaches, tho).
 
Reams of accolades willl not change the simple fact of where Snowden went. And anything he has said since going there is suspect as it may or may not be of his own authorship.
:beatdeadhorse5:
 
All of this is fine and dandy. None of it explains his current residence in Russia via Hong Kong. In fact, despite my repeated references to it, you have never addressed that.

Given what he had tooffer, the Germans would have taken Snowden in with less than a heartbeat of time. Perhaps Edward made a bad choice of safe harbor, perhaps he made a conscious one. Either way it makes the difference. At least to me.
since you refuse to accept my takeaway:

Snowden had applied for political asylum to 20 countries. [206] A statement attributed to Snowden also contended that the US administration, and specifically Vice President Joe Biden, had pressured the governments of these countries to refuse his petition for asylum.[207] In July 1 statement published by WikiLeaks, Snowden accused the US government of "using citizenship as a weapon" and using what he described as "old, bad tools of political aggression". Citing Obama's promise to not allow "wheeling and dealing" over the case, Snowden commented "This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile."[208]
 
Last edited:
One more time, it is where he went. Where, I ask you was that?
Swededn? Switzerland? Figi? The Caymans?
Hong Kong.
He asked the world for asylum from the airport in Hong kong. That is where he went.

From the begining I have held the same position on Edward Snowden. Not swayed by rhetoric or relativism.

trai·tor

noun \ˈtrā-tər\ .}: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy

Full Definition of TRAITOR

1
: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (factualy so)

2
: one who commits treason (which I do not yet believe is factually so)

By definition, he is a traitor. As to being a hero, the jury is still out for me on that. From my first post to today, I am still corraled in that opinion. The significance of the information exposed does little to change that.

And no facts have come forward to convince me that of all the places in the world,,,, Russia, via Hong Kong was his only option. That simply does not set right.

Again, nothing you have expressed addresses that or the potentials of his relationship to our enemies.

I am trying to hold a conversation here. And hold an open mind. You are bent on convincing me that I "am wrong." Your words.
I submit since you (or I) were not with Snowden in Hong Kong nor Russia, surmise what you want but all we really know is.... that is where he went. Neither nation is our friend.
Andre
Corection, It was Thomas Andrews Drake. My mistake.
 
Last edited:
One more time, it is where he went. Where, I ask you was that?
Swededn? Switzerland? Figi? The Caymans?
Hong Kong.
He asked the world for asylum from the airport in Hong kong. That is where he went.

From the begining I have held the same position on Edward Snowden. Not swayed by rhetoric or relativism.


And no facts have come forward to convince me that of all the places in the world,,,, Russia, via Hong Kong was his only option. That simply does not set right.

Again, nothing you have expressed addresses that or the potientials of his relationship to our enemies.

I am trying to hold a conversation here. And hold an open mind. You are bent on convincing me that I "am wrong." Your words.
I submit since you (or I) were not with Snowden in Hong Kong nor Russia, surmise what you want but all we really know is.... that is where he went. Neither nation is our friend.
(sigh) Franc, Franc, Franc, if this is your nagging sticking point, let ME try again.

Ed Snowden is no dummy. Naive, maybe, but no dummy. If fearing imprisonment or murder (his words) he would go to a country without extradition agreements with the US. Oddly, Hong Kong has extradition pacts with the US, but they have been effectually unenforceable ever since Britian ceded control of Hong Kong to China in 1996.

So if it were me, I would have gone to Hong Kong, too, because these would have been all of my other choices:

Bhutan
Botswana
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Comoros
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Indonesia
Iran
Ivory Coast
Jordan
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Madagascar
Mali
Maldives
Mauritania
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Niger
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Samoa
Sao Tome e Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Yemen
Yemen South
Zaire

Quite the list, don't you agree? I suspect that Snowden's buddy with the Guardian did best due diligence and suggested he go to Hong Kong. A place of refuge, beyond the stone age, with some cosmo appeal and still have access to the world media and politico. Makes perfect sense. The only sense.

Once in Hong Kong, Snowden's passport was revoked by Amerika, and it appears that Joe Biden made it politically impossible for him to find asylum in any other nation friendly to Amerika. Where else could he go? It should make sense to you, too, Franc, if you hadn't stuck to first impressions, unswayed by rhetoric and relativism. Or the facts.

So then on to International Airport Terminal in Russia. Political Siberia, so to speak. Sure, Putin enjoyed poking the stick in our eye, but what other choice did young Ed Snowden have? ... other than an untimely air disaster over the Black Sea?

Yikes. Then where would we be? Oh, that's right. Glen Greenwald, alone (and probably Lon Snowden, Ed's brother) have copies.

.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to nag but, with ALL of those choices I am absolutely forced to once again ask....

WHERE DID HE CHOSE TO GO?



With all due respect man

Give it a rest..
 
Sorry to nag but, with ALL of those choices I am absolutely forced to once again ask....

WHERE DID HE CHOSE TO GO?



With all due respect man

Give it a rest..
Franc, this is why your stance remains so puzzling. Hong Kong is not our enemy. She is our friend and remains a strong ally as evidenced by the US-HK Policy Act of 92 which stipulates the US treats HK apart from the Peoples Republic of China.

China ain't our friend. Hong Kong is, as evidenced with bilateral support on law enforcement, anti-terrorism, economic trade and other awesome stuff. Look it up for crissakes.

Sorry to nag on, but Hong Kong is our friend. Ed Snowden did not take flight to the enemy. At least get that much right.

From the list of shithole nations denying extradiction back to the US, which one would you have chosen as safe haven?
 
Last edited:
Franc, this is why your stance remains so puzzling. Hong Kong is not our enemy. She is our friend and remains a strong ally as evidenced by the US-HK Policy Act of 92 which stipulates the US treats HK apart from the Peoples Republic of China.

China ain't our friend. Hong Kong is, as evidenced with bilateral support on law enforcement, anti-terrorism, economic trade and other awesome stuff. Look it up for crissakes.

Sorry to nag on, but Hong Kong is our friend. Ed Snowden did not take flight to the enemy. At least get that much right.

From the list of shithole nations denying extradiction back to the US, which one would you have chosen as safe haven?

You just keep making your position worse man. With each post you solidify my point.

Where did Snowden end up?

As for me, I would not have left the country.
 
Top