
Greenwald has "highly detailed technical NSA materials on how they eavesdrop"  - eightyone
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016
======
stfu
He is doing the only smart thing to do and that is milking the story. We
always complain that people are not paying enough attention to privacy and he
is trying to assure that the story stays in the news for a while.

If he can come up with 1-2 further "big facts" (e.g. clearly demonstrating
that ale the Tech CEOs have been lying about their involvement) this story
gets much more attention than just dumping it all on one day.

~~~
malandrew
I'm hoping for indisputable proof of misuse, such as eavesdropping on
politicians, activists, judges and corporate espionage. It needs to be
something so damning, that no one, not even the most diehard supporters, can
legitimately defend the program any longer.

------
coldcode
Then show them to us, or someone. Secrets don't like the light, like
cockroaches.

------
hondje
So lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I know a whole lot about how prism
works, and have some slides and what not and that I trust GG with them. Let's
further suppose that I am unaffiliated with Facebook, unemployed by the USG,
no clearance etc. Just Joe Coder the contractor who loves Freedom. Why can't I
just send them to him, what do I care if the FBI knows since I'm not under an
NDA or a govt employee?

~~~
rdtsc
Looks good on paper. Yes you can do whatever you want with it. But
unfortunately you might find yourself on some black list. Be unable to fly.
Your tax records might be meticulously inspected. Your workplace might be
called and secret service might want to "chat" with your co-workers and bosses
about you. FBI might visit you at home just to chat and take notes.

If anything the govt. has proven that it can fuck up someone's life if they
really want to regardless of what the books say. Yes in the end you might even
be exonerated but by then you have been laid off, divorced, financially
drained from attorney fees, your health, time and nerves are shut.

~~~
tlrobinson
And broad surveillance makes it that much easier for them to harass their
political enemies.

For example, they could hassle everyone you've talked to on your Verizon
phone.

------
cromwellian
Three theories why it's taking so long:

1) They are being responsible and trying to redact stuff that could get people
killed or seriously damage US interests

2) They don't have a smoking gun, and are afraid to release the rest, since
it's much ado about nothing.

3) Variation of #2, except Greenwald is trying to forge some slides, editing
the content to back up his original story. Just a few words changed in a PPT
could make all the difference.

#1 Doesn't wash with me, because I don't think Greenwald cares about
protecting US interests. He may care about being arrested by the US
government, or having to live in a foreign embassy if he releases something
that would enrage the spooks.

#2 Seems plausible. Let's say the full PRISM slide set is just as vague as the
5 slides shown so far and doesn't actually talk about technical implementation
at the premises on participants. Then the whole affair becomes somewhat
embarrassing given the bombastic overreaction. Leading to fears that they
would be temped to hack the PRISM slides.

Lets hope #3 is barred because WashingtonPost has a separate copy.

~~~
neilk
You're acting like this stuff isn't confirmed. Political leaders (both
supporting and condemning) have come right out and said this stuff is genuine
and even routine.

Your theories seem to start from the premise that Greenwald is anti-US and
just wants to watch the world burn. Or is stupid enough to take the risk of
forging documents that would prove the US President to be a liar about
violating the constitutional rights of nearly every citizen. I find that
starting point very dubious.

~~~
cromwellian
But what exactly has been "confirmed"? There are no details. What is being
alleged is broad, unrestricted access by the NSA to all user account data, not
specific targeted individuals. While the Verizon metadata case is
disconcerting, there is legal precedent for pen register/trap-and-trace going
back decades. It's on shaky legal footing, but not obscenely illegal.

On the other hand, blanket access to the email contents of every American on
domestic soil, for the NSA to just go run a search on at any time, without a
court order, would almost certainly be completely illegal.

It is very very doubtful this is going on. Tech companies responding to FISA
requests and sending a mirror of an individual target's account data, that is
totally unsurprising. We know they respond to such requests, they've never
denied it, and so the way the data is delivered is really just an
implementation detail.

What Greenwald is alleging flies in the face of 9 major tech companies full of
thousands of engineers who tend to side with civil libertarians, and these
companies are under threat of hack all the time and conduct extensive audits
of who is accessing who's data internally. It's just unbelievable that the
kind of access alleged is actually occurring with active knowledge.

So, whose's to say that these slides aren't being misinterpreted as to the
actual details of the program, or that the source may have obtained a copy of
the PPT, but is actually not privy to the actual implementation details of the
compartmentalized information. Just because someone works at the NSA means
they are privy to everything. For example, analysts in WW2 often dealt with
intelligence reports from Ultra, unaware of what Ultra was or how they
obtained information. I want to see a slide that says "NSA box installed in
Datacenter 12, with credentials for direct access to datastore"

From my watching Greenwald on talk shows, he comes across to me as someone who
oversteps the bounds of calm rational analysis, and ventures forth into media
whorism. I'd rather just have the slides, I don't need him to trickle them out
with his interpretation. Dump the slides and dump the transcripts and notes he
took from his source. Let us judge and discuss.

~~~
neilk
Greenwald may be out of his depth in interpreting what the documents mean. But
that's not the same thing as saying the story is completely bogus.

Lately it's emerging that the Guardian released their story pretty soon after
Snowden contacted them. I had assumed this was the kind of story that they
would slowly confirm over months, but maybe not.

I agree that whatever our judgments of the character of the people involved,
it would be better to have the data.

------
eightyone
Obviously, he allegedly has this material. I tried to put that in the title,
but I hit the character limit.

~~~
Terretta
Allegedly is an overused weasel word in today's news media. They'll show you a
video of someone knifing someone else and then call them the alleged perp, or
say they allegedly stabbed the victim. No, they did it, they stabbed them.
They can still plead not guilty by reason of whatever, but the word allegedly
isn't needed.

In this case, allegedly would be if this was hearsay, or rumor, or according
to a source, but no, he is flatly stating it as a fact about himself, and is
generally considered honest. If we want a qualifier, you can attribute the
fact to him (GG says he has) but allegedly is too weak.

[http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_...](http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_overused_word_allegedly&#x2F);

[http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-
allegedly](http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly)

~~~
danso
Well, I was going to disagree with you, because "allegation" is actually an
English word with concrete meaning, whether or not it fits your personal
preference on language, but you really convinced me with that comprehensive
list from the reputable NOOZHAWK, which is literally the result of "a quick
Google search".

Did you even read that list? Those include actual proper uses of "allegation".
If you actually look at the definition of "allegation", it is a claim of fact,
which is the most you can say about charges that may be brought against a
defendant pre-trial. Or are you not at all aware of judicial proceedings in
which facts are shown later to be incorrect?

~~~
Terretta
Speaking to awareness, I studied and worked in journalism and a lifetime close
friend is a criminal defense attorney / public defender.

That English words have concrete meanings doesn't prevent misuse. On the
contrary, specialty words with specialized meanings are misused most often by
laymen. The misuse is just more recognizable when you're familiar with the
area.

------
kintamanimatt
What compelling reason could there be to withhold this information?

------
lizzard
I can't wait to see this.

