What is Snowden actually claiming about the NSA and/or PRISM?

[Recursion]

This is still fuzzy to me.

That the NSA actively records all transmissions? The power consumption alone that would require is fantastic, let alone the problem of hiding either a separate physical network or tunneling a copy of all Internet traffic within the existing physical network.

That the NSA logs connection data about all (or many) transmissions? This is at least more plausible, though the only basis for it is by comparison with the FBI phone story.

That it has built the capacity to do one of those but is not doing so? This to me is the most basic reading of his claim that the NSA has "built this infrastructure" to do that, and that he "could" from his desk track anyone. I read at one point I think yesterday that Snowden claimed that he has seen the capability misused, but at least some of what I read seems to have fallen apart over the past 48 hours or so so I'm not sure whether that's still operative.

So what is the actual claim here? That the NSA snoops everything? Some things? Or has the capability to but isn't? Or is but is doing so beyond its authority? Is his claim actually related to the PRISM program? (He has leaked a PowerPoint about PRISM, but as far as I've seen he hasn't actually said PRISM is what they're using; we're just assuming that, and he says he has a lot more to leak.)

[Berlum]

1. That George AWOL Bush and his Republican cronies screwed America

and set up Obama to take the fall. That's just the way it is. Tuff noogies.

[jbond56]

26. Now Im mad at Dan Rather

All he had to do was release his awol story as a power point and things would have turned out different.

Then keep saying there is "way, way, more" of course.

[Chiquitita]

2. Listen to Snowden in this Guardian interview

He is rational, specific and lays it all out. This makes everything crystal clear and it is from the horse's mouth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

[Recursion]

5. How many times do I have to watch the video before I will see this secret explanation?

I've been pointed to this multiple times and the video still hasn't changed.

I see him claim "the NSA targets the communications of everyone" but I have no idea what that means. The literal sense is physically impossible.

"Where those intercepts will be picked up depends on the locations of those sensor networks."

Gee, thanks Ed. That's my question. How widely-spread and capable are those sensor networks? What is he saying the NSA is capable of doing? And of those capabilities, what is it actually doing? If you'll look upthread, that's my question.

If you're asking me to take him literally, I'm going to write him off as a nutjob, because there's just not a way to do that.

[Ligyron]

13. I don't know why you deleted your 1st post

but you were right about the ability to store and sort actual conversations, etc. I'll be amazed if someone could plausibly describe how on earth this could be done. Doesn't appear to me to be physically possible to do so, either in terms of

1. storage capacity or:

2. enough personnel to to sort thru that ongoing mess.

Voice recognition software and genius algorithm/magic non withstanding

[Recursion]

15. I can't even conceive of transmitting it to the storage center

I mean, if he's to be taken literally, he's claiming all Internet traffic is actually being transmitted twice, once to its intended destination, and once to NSA.

Either there's a second Internet's worth of traffic on the normal Internet that people magically aren't seeing, or there's a separate physical network from every graph edge to a storage location. Neither of those is plausible.

[rbixby]

30. It would seem plausible to me if it was just the transaction data

and not the actual data itself. If the transaction data (ie, from this ip address to this other ip address on x port) raises a red flag, then I imagine it goes for further scrutiny. Just doing that alone would require tons of computer power and storage. But I doubt we'll get a real explanation of the mechanics of it anytime soon. I just hope Snowden doesn't travel by small plane anywhere any time soon (and also gets the hell out of hong kong, because they'll extradite him with no question).

[Recursion]

31. That's a very different claim from what he's making. It's also not nearly as frightening

Analyzing patterns in communications traffic seems to be exactly what the NSA is chartered to do.

[rbixby]

52. It just makes sense that it would work that way, the volume of data moving through ISPs every day is

pretty ridiculous, because if you think about it, its not just data and web browsing and email, its streaming video, cable tv, online backups, everything, and something like 99.99999% of it is of no interest to anyone.

[DCBob]

54. Yes, I think thats what is happening.

I suspect its a copy of the IP traffic that is rerouted to NSA equipment which then sniffs it for key words, red flags, odd patterns, etc. When it finds something of interest then is captures the data and stores in a database. Its exaclty what they should be doing.

Agreed they cant possible store everything. The storage would be astronomical and even if possible you couldnt index it and search it effectively.

[Lithos]

55. There are two parts to what he is saying

1) They do collect usage patterns based on transaction histories. This gets stored in what is called a Big Data store where it is analyzed using one of several Learning/Predictor systems. For the Mathematically inclined - some Bayesian system, Markov, etc.

2) Based on this and/or Field (external) information, they then have the ability to open a wiretap which then launches what is termed interceptors to pull in the actual emails, voice calls, financial information, etc.

What, to me, is critical here is that the NSA/CIA has the ability to do Step 2 with minimal to no oversite or governance. Snowden stated he could even wiretap the President based on whatever criteria he came up with in step 1.

To be honest, Step 1 is scary enough as this is the type of technology which can predict whether someone is pregnant or not (ref: Target from about a year back) based purely on what would otherwise seem to be random events. However, there are enough false positives that innocent people are going to be swept up in this.

Step 2 is basically flagrant misuse of FISA and other controls, but seems to be implied by what is said in Step 1 (ie, you are implicated by some vague dragnet) which then justifies the invasion of your privacy.

L-

[JoePhilly]

6. If a guy on the street said he could wiretap the President ...

would you believe him?

We really know next to nothing about this guy. But some are very ready to believe anything he says.

[Chiquitita]

8. What motivation would he have?

Do you think he wants to be famous? Maybe start a great new life this way? Maybe he wants to discredit the U.S.? There's not much to gain for him except an ulcer and a ruined career. Someone here calls him a "nutjob" -- can I ask, is that a professional diagnosis?

[JoePhilly]

11. You can't think of a motive?

Side note, my PhD is in Psychology ... and its far to early for anyone to take a shot at providing a professional diagnosis on the limited info we have at this time.

Back to motives ... let's start with a set of negative motives ... reasons to lie or exagerate.

Maybe he just wanted to meet Glenn Greenwald. Maybe he's a libertarian and thinks the US government should have little to no involvement in foreign affairs. And this is his attempt to bring that about.

Maybe he THINKS he's doing something noble (which whether true or false, so long as he believes it, that's motive enough). Maybe he's got a personal grudge against some one and this is his way to act on that grudge.

He could be delusional. See patterns that aren't really there. (This would go in the "nutjob" category).

There could be any number of negative motives that would cause a person to lie or exaggerate events and their own importance with regard to those events.

Again, the bottom line is that we know almost nothing about this guy. Up until yesterday, no one had every heard of him.

Before flipping out, we might want to know just a little more.

[Chiquitita]

17. How are you going to find out about this guy?

Side note, my PhD is in Comparative Literature with a specialization in court and church politics of the Renaissance.

I agree we need to know more and should keep our heads, but what are our sources of information and how mediated are they? There is already a huge effort to discredit him. At the very least the NSA had a poor hiring committee if all of these things are even half true.

Watching him speak, his expression and tone of voice, sentence structure, vocabulary choices and body language indicate he has nothing to hide.

Meeting Glen Greenwald isn't worth the risks he's taking. Look at his dress, his glasses and his facial hair. He is no libertarian (or maybe he's in disguise as a slightly hipster techie).

The grudge thing would be cutting off his nose to spite his face. He seems intelligent, so I just doubt that.

He doesn't speak like a delusional person.

The fact that no one ever heard of him before is completely logical. He's the little guy.

[randome]

20. A 'little guy' who claims to have unfettered access to the world's communications.

I'm still curious about where his girlfriend is. We haven't heard anything about her other than her existence.

He could simply be unhappy for any number of reasons and he is searching for a way to justify that unhappiness. Of course all of this is speculation and none of us know much in the way of facts just yet.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chiquitita]

23. I guess we'll see

This dude seems legit to me. No, really.

[Whisp]

35. or someone could be paying him to do this act. n/t

[brush]

24. A little guy who wants his name out there, maybe?

And the money and fame that could come with it, you know, books deals, allegedly unpaid interviews, a TV movie, maybe even a real movie.

Just a thought.

[Chiquitita]

25. He already had a very lucrative job in Hawaii

So, you could be right, but it just doesn't ring that way. Especially if you see him talk. Plus there is so much risk -- this could end so badly for him.

[JoePhilly]

27. Clearly, I'm going to fly to Hong Kong and visit him.

No one could make a professional diagnosis without meeting him. And you'd need to do so more than once.

What you see on a single video is not sufficient. Its easy to hold it together for one video. If you've ever created a video, you'll find that its easy to determine exactly how you will come off, and then work to achieve that outcome. The hair and dress can be selected intentionally. Same with the sentence structure, body language, even the spontaneous laughs.

For some meeting Glenn might be a big thrill. As I write this, a guy on Stephanie Miller just described how Glenn transformed the liberal blogosphere. The description was positively glowing. For some, it would be enough.

As for a delusional person not speaking like one, that's not uncommon. You would be surprised to know how many "functional" delusional people there are out there. Like any mental illness, there are degrees. One can be delusional and yet maintain enough of a connection to the real world to function. The nature of the delusion may be more or less observable. Sometimes a delusional person can't function and they are obvious, others functional well and might even be called eccentric depending on the nature of their delusions.

You are correct, some will demonize him, which is neither here nor there with regard to his motives. His actions, and thus his motives existed before any effort to demonize him could occur.

And the homeless guy who thinks he is Jesus is also "the little guy" that no one has ever heard of before.

And if he makes a video, and seems reasonable, and claims to be Jesus, I'm no more likely to believe him, at least not immediately.

btw ... did you hear this guy donated to Ron Paul? If true, should we care?

[Chiquitita]

33. it's not a crime for people to donate to Ron Paul though

that's pretty transparent democratic process of choosing a candidate and supporting him. Can we put a nobody like Snowden on par with Libertarian types like the Koch brothers or something? I don't think so. There are a lot of idealist upper middle class people who don't like gov't surveillance, and that position overlaps with lefty democrats like me who don't like surveillance. We differ on economic regulation, but there is some common ground.

So, no, I don't think Snowden is in any way analogous to a homeless guy who thinks he's Jesus. I think he's an idealist 29 year old who is afraid that private corporations are encroaching on American Democracy and that cushy jobs and fear keep more people from blowing the whistle. He's trying to do what he thinks is right. So, he may be dramatic, but probably not a liar or a poser.

[JoePhilly]

34. Correct, not a crime ... but it certainly could be ...

part of an ulterior motive.

And yes, he could be an idealist. The question then will be whether his idealism clouded his thinking. Even the idealist has to live in reality. If he had the fear you suggest, was it really justified. And then if so, were his actions appropriate.

Recognize too that he took the job at Booz Allen knowing what kind of company they were. Its not like he suddenly found himself working for a defense contractor. Think about it. He could be angry at his manager for being passed over for a promotion, and so doing this is a way to hit back at that person. Who ever managed this guy, is now on a shit list, at Booz Allen.

And again, thinking you are right, and actually being right, are not always the same thing.

[Chiquitita]

36. that's a lot of what ifs.

You can start working for a Defense contractor and start getting disgusted by what you see once on the inside. Getting back at your boss by fleeing to Hong Kong and facing extradition isn't a great strategy.

[randome]

43. In less than 90 days, I find it hard to believe he gained the access he claims.

He contacted the Washington Post more than 2 weeks ago so it's more like 70-80 days on the job and he was able to make this kind of monumental decision?

Doesn't sound likely to me but we shall see.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chiquitita]

49. Guardian editorial writer has interesting perspective

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/10 the comments contrast interestingly to a thread like this one.

[msanthrope]

42. Two things I found of note...one, a professional filmaker was brought in to

stage manage this media production...she's sharing a byline with Greenwald. So I take your point regarding how someone can present well for at least one video...especially one that is professsionally produced.


Two, I understand that Mr. Snowden has adult-onset epilepsy. I think we are going to hear more about this in the coming weeks.

[randome]

44. Where did you see that, though, about the epilepsy?

I saw you make the claim earlier and I certainly don't doubt you.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[msanthrope]

48. It's been in several sources..it was the excuse he gave Booz Allen to take

time off....

He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[/div

I've had clients with this. I think people should wait a bit...maybe find the girlfriend and family.

[Recursion]

53. What motivation did Jesse MacBeth have?

I think I brought up "nutjob", just because, taken literally, his claims require Star Trek levels of technical capabilities; I was mostly just being snarky.

To clarify from my OP: Snowden has supplied a PowerPoint presentation and a whole lot of personal anecdotes. I'm trying to get a solid picture of what those anecdotes are actually claiming.

[krawhitham]

40. You want independent confirmation???

What is wrong with out, that is so old school

[JoePhilly]

4. From what I can tell ... the claim is AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

POLICE STATE!!!

HITLER, STALIN!!!!

That and ... a guy no one ever heard of until yesterday, is a HERO!!!!

As appears to be the new normal around here ... we're still in the FREAK OUT stage. Any attempt to discuss any of the details that do not support the bold words above, clearly only reflect the views of SYCOPHANTS.

It'll take a few days for discussion of the actual details to rise above the Hair-On-Fire noise and the throwing about of false or misleading "conclusions".

As an aside, the folks in the Gungeon should be cheering this battle. They should be able to use this discussion as a spring board to argue that the government should not be allowed to have their private info, like how many guns they own or when the purchased it. Similarly, isn't a background check an invasion of one's privacy.

[jbond56]

7. But he released a power point!

and and and Glenn say there is "way way more" trust me


Why wouldn't you start with your best evidence?

[JoePhilly]

12. I hide all my best secrets in power point.

[randome]

22. That's okay.

Because I'm 'sure' the NSA has a back door into all PowerPoint presentations.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JoePhilly]

29. I'm pretty sure Michelle Obama is listening in on my phone calls too.

I mean she got all up in that woman's face last week. Clearly, she's capable of it.

[randome]

21. You forgot George Orwell, the Founding Fathers and the Trashing Of Our Constitutional Rights!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[rickford66]

9. this has been going on for many years

I had a friend who was in Navy intelligence work in the 60's (64-68) and later worked as a civilian at NSA. He obviously couldn't give details but did say "You'd be surprised what the government knows.". He implied that then and now all phone calls and radio signals etc. are intercepted and studied for content. This is world-wide, not just here in the US. Now with the internet and high speed computers, it's easier to pick out particular specific information but this is balanced by the overwhelming amount of messages sent today. Does the government know too much or does it not know enough? I assume everything I say or do is detected by someone or something somewhere.

[rickford66]

10. I just wanted to add this

I have had several of my emails blocked by my ISP, probably because of the content of the subject line, not porn or profanity. They were about hydro-fracking. The word "fracking" wasn't even in the subject line but it was obviously about the natural gas drilling here in upstate NY. Rewriting the subject line a few different ways finally allowed those email to be sent. Co-incidence ? I think not.

[Ligyron]

14. Boy, that is scary.

[rickford66]

16. it happened a few times on different days.

The gas industry has its tentacles in lots of places.

[FarCenter]

37. People have probably been putting fracking emails into their spam folder

Many ISPs give mail readers the option of dropping unwanted emails into the spam folder. These get analysed and are used to train the spam detection and blocking programs.

So if enough mail readers dislike getting emails about fracking and drop them into their spam folders, such emails automatically start getting blocked.

No intervention by humans or nefarious gas companies is needed.

[rickford66]

39. could be but ...

None of the recipients had the same ISP as me. Each one was different. I doubt any of them contacted my ISP or any ISP to have them blocked. We share quite a lot of political/environmental emails. I get pro-gas drilling emails in my "INBOX" quite often. If my ISP was going to block my "fracking" outgoing emails, why don't they send my incoming pro-drilling emails into my spam folder? I'll admit what you say is believable, but what happened to me isn't consistent with what you propose.

[FarCenter]

41. ISPs block outgoing spam as well as incoming spam.

They do so to stay in the good graces of other ISPs.

It may also depend on the frequency of sends, number of recipients, etc.

[rickford66]

45. So .....

Why didn't my incoming gas related emails go into my spam folder? Why wasn't my ISP "protecting" me from other spamers?

[FarCenter]

46. Maybe not enough people have been putting them in their spam folders to train the spam filters.

[rickford66]

47. But ..

They were trained enough to block my outgoing emails ?? Bye

[Recursion]

51. I run email servers. The spam filters we use can have very odd results

If enough people mark emails about fracking as "spam", then some mail servers are configured to "learn" from that and start blocking things with similar subject lines.

Spam has a lot of collateral damage.

[reformist2]

18. They shouldn't even have a database like this.

It's evidence gathered without a warrant, or at least a valid constitutional warrant. It's the biggest violation of the 4th Amendment in the history of the United States.

[Recursion]

19. What is "like this"? That's what I'm asking. Is there a database, or the capability of making one...

... based on intercept target information?

[MineralMan]

28. It's doubtful that Snowden had as much access as he claims.

Highly doubtful. Incredible, even. I'd take anything he says about his own level of access with an entire mountain of salt.

[JoePhilly]

32. It does sound sketchy.

Like the sysadmin part.

Its not like every person with sysadmin authority has such authority on every system near them. Usually, there are layers and layers of sysadmins. DB admins, app server admins, application admins, net admins. And in the environments I've seen, they often don't trust each other. At least not enough to allow the other types of admins unfettered access to their systems.

If my system goes down, it does not matter is some other admin killed it. I'm responsible. And so, if some other admin needs/wants access to my systems, they go through ME. I make the changes for them.

And government, defense, and financial admins are the most paranoid about these things. In many cases their SOP is to DENY any request and force the entire request to be pushed UP and ACROSS the management stack, so that if something goes wrong, upper management can't scream because THEY approved directly.

It'll be interesting to follow this.

[FarCenter]

38. And when you let somone "break glass" in an emergency, every command and result is logged.

[DCBob]

50. not sure but it's really bad whatever it is.