First Snowden Interview on US Television

[cosmic_surgeon]

Apologies for the quality, it seems the content is now unavailable on the NBC website (allowing a bit of audio desync this is still very watchable though).

Interesting interview, the stuff about phones was public domain before but not common knowledge by any means. Disturbing stuff.

[cosmic_surgeon]

​Only around a quarter of the recent NBC News interview with former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden made it to broadcast, but unaired excerpts now online show that the network neglected to air critical statements about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

http://rt.com/usa/162576-nbc-snowden-september-attack/

[nitz]

hold up - what's in doing in USA? How is it there? Is he not in russia?

oh he's still in russia my bad

[cosmic_surgeon]

Interview was conducted in Russia mate.

edit: aye, eye, I.

[nitz]

Good so far.

Put this is out - edward is a hero 100% and not just for USA. Without his leaks there would not be the heavy emphasis on privacy and security as there is at the moment.

What a guy! I have nothing bad to say about him. (altho there is always the conteragrument to say he will lives of under agents are risk ) The way he released the docs was very professional as well.

He's been saying there is much more to come as well, which is more profound than his current leaks.

I pray for his safely

I don't think he has sold out to russia.

[cosmic_surgeon]

I think the whole "he's a Russian spy" thing is just smoke and mirrors. What I've never seen anyone in the media consider is that even if Snowden had entered into a deal to give documents to the Ruskies, he will have done so only under pressure from the US government themselves. Their ironically Tsarist attitude to whistleblowers meant Snowden had to flee or face a lifetime of solitary confinement with no hope of a fair trial. Revoking his passport limits his options and if the only way a nation would grant him asylum is if he surrendered intelligence, what else is he supposed to do?

[nowaysj]

NBC is owned by the same people that employ the NSA. Think about it for a second.

[cyclopian]

^Nbc is trying to win us over on Snowden, then when it comes out that Snowden is up to some nefarious deed, the Govt can say "I told you so" ?

I think we should follow Shackleton and get a Tin Foil Sky going imo.

[nousd]

yeah, Snowden needs a better sponsor...

[nitz]

I think the whole "he's a Russian spy" thing is just smoke and mirrors. What I've never seen anyone in the media consider is that even if Snowden had entered into a deal to give documents to the Ruskies, he will have done so only under pressure from the US government themselves. Their ironically Tsarist attitude to whistleblowers meant Snowden had to flee or face a lifetime of solitary confinement with no hope of a fair trial. Revoking his passport limits his options and if the only way a nation would grant him asylum is if he surrendered intelligence, what else is he supposed to do?

Does not USA not have a similar legalisation as Article 6 (2) ECHR 1950? The act he states, if it was in the uk, it 99.9% breach article 6 (2) because of the burden proofs. Any reverse burden of proof on indictable offence will in most cases infringe article 6 (2). Plus, i think he also said, he himself cannot raise a defence wtf?

It is interesting to note his position in russia - if putin wanted to find Ed it would find him within a week. This is russia after all. Ed put a question to putin about whether he has simaril data collection programs as the USA on LIVE tv! So putin does know he's hiding in russia and he is a 'assert' and could there have been a possible agreement to allow him to stay there alive and withou being sent back - a fairly strong case i would say.

[kidshuffle]

NBC is owned by the same people that employ the NSA. Think about it for a second.

He also keeps saying he's still working for the government.

wtf was that drop about him watching The Wire too.

I honestly haven't paid too much attention to Snowden personally...but I'm thinking more and more that he is a plant or sacrifical lamb.

[cosmic_surgeon]

For what, though? I mean you're right to be suspicious of anybody who comes forward with information like this, and the last thing we want is a figurehead who people follow uncritically, but I just don't see the big scary agenda behind all this. These programs function better in the dark and he took that away from them.

[Harkat]

God that intro. Why do american news people have to make their presentation look like a fuckin action movie?

[nowaysj]

For what, though? I mean you're right to be suspicious of anybody who comes forward with information like this, and the last thing we want is a figurehead who people follow uncritically, but I just don't see the big scary agenda behind all this. These programs function better in the dark and he took that away from them.

People were already aware of these systems. Snowden popularized them.

[cosmic_surgeon]

For what, though? I mean you're right to be suspicious of anybody who comes forward with information like this, and the last thing we want is a figurehead who people follow uncritically, but I just don't see the big scary agenda behind all this. These programs function better in the dark and he took that away from them.

People were already aware of these systems. Snowden popularized them.

Sure, a limited amount of people had some idea that things like this were going on but no one had any idea of the scope and scale of the thing. Yet it doesn't make a difference if only a few people know - you can't have a public debate about something if the information is only available in a bits and pieces and in places where most folks don't care to look. Beforehand there was no investigation into the oversight and value of these systems like there has been since.

What are you suggesting by saying he "popularised" them though?

[nowaysj]

Well I knew about it, and I'm hardly part of some small cabal of information analysts, I'm just a nerd on the internet. A lot of people knew. Did house wives and mid level managers? Yeah no.

I was on the fence about Snowden. I'd heard some damning information about him, his pedigree. But I kept it in balance, and reserved judgement. But he said somethings in that interview that I know to be false, and that suggests strongly, convincingly to me that he is still operating.

As to what his/their goal is, I don't claim to know. One theory that is kind of taking the lead for me is the controlled information release.

Best described with a hypothetical scenario:

You're going out to a club, your girlfriend is sick, wants to stay home, but insists that you go out. You go out, get kind of drunk, and you run into your exgirlfriend. She is hotter than she was before, she shows you that she got a pentagram tattooed over each nipple. Your cock is rock hard, you stumble out into the alley next to the club and start to bareback the fuck out of her, when you look to your left, and you see your girlfriend's best friend staring at you. Quick, what do you do? You zip up and race home, your only chance is to get home and frame the information in the most favorable light before the friend talks to your girlfriend.

You are the NSA, your exgirlfriend is all the world's private/confidential information, your Girlfriend is the US/world population, your girlfriend's friend is some credible alt news that is uncontrollable, MAYBE wikileaks, something.

[rickyarbino]

God that intro. Why do american news people have to make their presentation look like a fuckin action movie?

American culture is all about adrenalin.

[cosmic_surgeon]

Well I knew about it, and I'm hardly part of some small cabal of information analysts, I'm just a nerd on the internet. A lot of people knew. Did house wives and mid level managers? Yeah no.

I was on the fence about Snowden. I'd heard some damning information about him, his pedigree. But I kept it in balance, and reserved judgement. But he said somethings in that interview that I know to be false, and that suggests strongly, convincingly to me that he is still operating.

As to what his/their goal is, I don't claim to know. One theory that is kind of taking the lead for me is the controlled information release.

Best described with a hypothetical scenario:

You're going out to a club, your girlfriend is sick, wants to stay home, but insists that you go out. You go out, get kind of drunk, and you run into your exgirlfriend. She is hotter than she was before, she shows you that she got a pentagram tattooed over each nipple. Your cock is rock hard, you stumble out into the alley next to the club and start to bareback the fuck out of her, when you look to your left, and you see your girlfriend's best friend staring at you. Quick, what do you do? You zip up and race home, your only chance is to get home and frame the information in the most favorable light before the friend talks to your girlfriend.

You are the NSA, your exgirlfriend is all the world's private/confidential information, your Girlfriend is the US/world population, your girlfriend's friend is some credible alt news that is uncontrollable, MAYBE wikileaks, something.

Aye I knew about it too (though no one could have anticipated the scope and scale, nor the specific infrastructure) perhaps I was unclear, I didn't mean to indicate that it was only analysts who knew. But you and I and all the others who take an active interest in these matters don't add up to much unfortunately.

What fake stuff did he mention in the interview, out of interest?

[nowaysj]

All of his comments regarding 911.

[cosmic_surgeon]

Intriguing. Do you have sources? I'd be very interested to follow this up.